Another thing is that you are still usually leaking DNS queries to your ISP, which may even return false results if you're being censored in China or something and they still see what sites you're visiting.
I believe you don't leak DNS queries if you use tor like a SOCKS proxy (therefore proxying the DNS queries). Although the exit note could mess with your DNS queries if you do so (a hard security trade-off, to be sure).
Now if they promise not to 'include it' in future patches that would be swell. I might actually considering trying it.
Yeah, that really stopped people from buying World of Warcraft.
Notice that the WoW Warden is much less intrusive than GameGuard (it even allows for playing WoW on Linux using wine, which means it is very much standards compliant). Big difference here.
That's... pathetic. I have 50 megabit fiber (in Japan) and I've downloaded 5-gigabyte files in minutes before.
I don't have fiber - I have hybrid cable, but I can achieve the download speeds you mention. However, we are talking about uploads, and most ISPs prefer to sell grossly assymetric connections (don't know about Japan but where I live, although I can get 100Mbps download using fiber, it only achieves 10MBps upload on the more expensive option - and 2 MBps on the cheapest).
Umm, an hour of downtime doesn't mean your data is gone. I'll also echo earlier comments -- locally hosted email generally has more problems, as no company but the largest enterprise has the same magnitude of IT equipment and experience as Google.
I've never really understood why so many Slashdotters have this attitude about hosted services. Perhaps they are local IT folks for smaller companies, and fear for their jobs?
Could be in part that. Another explanation is that most that work as local IT folks (for any kind of business) know that when anything breaks, its always considered their fault (they are the people-facing shields, not the actual service providers elsewhere). And everything anything remote "breaks", or suffers any kind of troubles THEY will know it (because people will complain to them). Therefore, they both consider remote services less reliable than the average person (they know about more outages) as well as consider them less flexible (they can fix local problems, but are impotent to fix remote ones).
You know, after the Roman Republic turned into the Empire (with the attendant loss of freedoms), it survived for over 400 years. And we're nowhere near that point - no US presidents are ex-generals who conquered Washington, D.C. with their troops.
This is not the end.
Just a little history lesson... the loss of freedoms that happened in Rome happened in fact a little before the transition to Empire (Sulla, the civil wars, etc.) And in fact the plebe was just as oppressed before as after (only the aristocrats were really moved in the transition since the Roman Senate was never nowhere near democratic, not even by the poor Athenian standards)
What they want is for Google to boost their PageRank to where it would be with the Google linklove, without wanting Google's linklove. Which seems like a perfectly unreasonable demand to me.
Precisely. And that doesn't even assume that google probably trusts more the link data it gets from its own sites (which it controls) over the one from the public at large (therefore again boosting web search rank for the sites that are cited in google news or indeed, any google generated content...
They accuse Google of dropping them out of their search results (or at least lowering their pagerank) if they ask Google to remove their articles from Google News. So the accusation is abuse of a dominant position.
As far as the newspapers are concerned, news search and web search are separate business, but I doubt google should be forced to folllow the same definition. Abuse of dominant position requires one to have monopoly power (granted, google has it on web search and plausibly also on news search) but also deliberately using that power to somehow hinder competitors. I am not sure that google should be required to keep newspapers on one index while removing it from other or to prevent changes on one index to be reflected on another (why should a company be required to keep completed isolated indexes?).
I want to know where these "computer ID numbers" all of a sudden appeared from because if they are MAC or IP addresses, either can be spoofed easily.
Well, most computers have a CPUID nowadays. You remember, the ones that were supposed not to be used for identification against the user but to help e-commerce more secure. Yep. Of course, also not incredibaly hard to disable, at least on current motherboards.
The data would be anonymous, but serious repeat infringers would be tracked down through their computer ID numbers.
This must be some definition of the word 'anonymous' that I was not previously aware of.
The correct term would be pseudonymous, I guess. It is not directly personably identifiable information, but stands for it. Idealy it would not be reversible by itself, but could allow for identification upon further downloads. Think of a one-way hash.
>
As long as:
who cares what languages they learn? If they enjoy it and it allows them to learn how to program why should it matter what language they start out with?
Well, I do have some experience (more than 20 years, actually) in teaching programming. I would agree that ANY language can be used to teach programming, but it DOES MATTER which one is used. The reason is, people will go to (and only learn) what's easier to use on each language. On most (all?) languages, all the components are available for people to learn effective programming, but on some of them, the constructs people will use most are not enough to create a full understanding of programming. You create "paper programmers" that can solve (mostly by boilerplate copying) easy or familiar problems, but cannot think outside using those "pre-built" tools. Sure, you can ignore some constructs and just teach the basic components, but then, why are you using that particular language?
Another question to consider is the "initial steps" required to start doing something. On many languages (and mostly on "powerfull" programming languages), to be able to create something requires either the use of specialized IDEs that take you away from the actual code or lots and lots of complex syntax that is hard to explain to a neophyte other than saying "its required, you'll learn about it later". Neither is ideal.
Obviously this is to help locking the users since early on to MS services. Not evil in itself (and I suppose that either google has the same thing or is thinking in doing the same). But it mostly benefits MS, not Moodle.
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.
