I had a domain registered to DynDNS for 10 years (5 at a time) because I was really happy with them, particularly back when they did free domains based off of subdomains on dyndns.org: that was a really helpful and useful feature so I supported them by actually paying for a domain long-term.
However the moment they were bought by Oracle I *IMMEDIATELY* put in a Transfer Request. The reason: Oracle I consider to be one of the world's most unethical companies, up there with Broadcom and Qualcom for various semi-illegal corporate practices and outright power-abuses. If you're not familiar with the stories behind OpenOffice, MySQL, VirtualBox (which forces people to sign over total rights and ownership of code contributions), and BerkeleyDB (change of license to an unacceptable one that's incompatible with Software Libre, forcing Debian to pull latest versions: many projects have converted to LMDB as a result) - the list goes on and on. If you're not familiar with these stories I recommend you *get* familiar, fast, and drop all dependency on Oracle as fast as you practically can. They poison every company they buy, including, sadly, Sun Microsystems.
i'm the creator and guardian of the EOMA68 standard, and someone just brought the intel compute card to my attention on the mailing list. the intel compute card is *exactly* the same size as EOMA68, which in turn is based on legacy PCMCIA casework and connector re-use: credit-card-sized at: 54 x 86 x 5mm. fortunately, from the BBC video, if you check 30 seconds in the connector is completely different (otherwise intel would have a Certification Mark infringment case on their hands): it looks like it's Mini-PCIe which, if that's true, would be a very sensible choice as it contains USB2, one PCIe lane, some GPIO and power.
i do wonder if my discussions with intel over the past couple of years, as well as the crowd-funding campaign which i'm here in taiwan presently to fulfil, have spurred them to go "i know! let's make our own computer card standard just like that guy did because he said "NO" when it came to having hardware-level spying capability in the BIOS through the Intel Management Engine, with the resultant *complete* meltdown from a security perspective as outlined here https://libreboot.org/faq/#int... "
i'll be watching this with interest, because standards, i've learned, live and die by whether the designers have enough foresight to design it with upgradeability in mind, as well as have the balls to say NO when it comes to "adding options" that are not backwards-compatible.
Given there's no such thing as an antiphoton
Of course there is, and it's called a photon. The photon is its own anti-particle. Just line the other force carriers.
Anyone with better physics knowledge can comment here? Why would you use lasers to measure differences between matter and anti-matter? As far as I know, the only difference between the two is supposed to involve the weak force rather than the electromagnetic force (on which light is based). Considering that these guys aren't idiots, I must be missing something. How are the lasers useful?
A site like Wikipedia will also need a bunch of lawyers to fight all sorts of trolls, from copyright trolls, to people who don't like what articles say about them.
Well tell the devs to ensure that anytime a web site initiates any kind of WebRTC traffic, the user is asked to okay this (with an option to remember).
This is exactly what's *already* supposed to happen. Otherwise any website could spy on anyone.
But maybe we should just stop trying to make a web browser do everything and be its own OS.
Browsers will keep doing more stuff because people want them to do more. The choice we have is between proprietary binary plugins or actual standards. I'd rather have html5 than flash.
Except that WebRTC is very useful, and (at least in principle) much more secure than most proprietary conferencing services. For example, it has (and mandates) end-to-end encryption, with perfect forward secrecy.
(disclaimer: I work for Mozilla)
okay, so this is about trademarks. canonical's trademark is being brought into disrepute by the irresponsible action of some cloud providers: it's perfectly reasonable for them to sort this out. now, here's where i have an issue with canonical: why do they think it's okay to have *canonical* not brought into disrepute, when they are themselves acting in a criminal capacity, bringing the *linux* trademark into disrepute by illegally distributing linux kernel source code after they lost their right to do so under the GPLv2, by including the (binary) incompatible ZFS kernel module?
i tried explaining the problem to the OSHWA group: they didn't get it. the problem with their Certification Programme is that there's nothing in their document which covers liability if a design causes injury or death (deliberate or accidental). the OSHWA group is therefore setting themselves up for a class action lawsuit where some incompetent person designs something extremely badly, slaps an OSHWA logo on it, then a chinese company goes and copies it (logo included... without bothering to find out what the logo's actually for), somebody dies in an electrical fire and the family gets an aggressive lawyer to sue and blame (rightly in this case) the people they deem to have been responsible.
what's particularly troublesome is that the OSHWA's Programme is "self-certifying" Certification Programmes *NEED* to actually have clout behind them, with money put aside to be able to take legal action against people who bring the Certificate into disrepute (using Trademark Law - not patents, not copyright), and there needs to be clauses and phrases that define and assign responsibility and liability. the OSHWA document has been written by well-meaning and unfortunately very naive people who cannot comprehend how much of a risk they are taking, who have not thought things through properly. they haven't taken legal advice, and they have no idea of the distinction between "Libre" and "Open".
what is useful however is that their mailing list is a focus for like-minded people to congregate and communicate.
1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.