Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, it's clear you're making it all up. Many tests show Firefox uses less memory than other browsers, and Firefox's usage has never significantly declined. Your post is purely fabrications.

Ok, have fun in fairy tale land... I'll stick with Chrome.

Sorry, it's clear you're making it all up. Many tests show Firefox uses less memory than other browsers, and Firefox's usage has never significantly declined. Your post is purely fabrications.

Nope. This is a proposal, not an actual change to the laws. The article on ArsTechnica makes that very explicit.

For those interested in reading the entire thing - it's available here.

None of the people who asked for the data were amateurs. But more importantly, the data that Jones was trying to hide had already been lost - by Jones.

From Ars

Data they were trying to hide

"In order to test the principal allegations of withholding data and making inappropriate adjustments, the Review undertook its own trial analysis of land station temperature data. The goal was to determine whether it is possible for an independent researcher to (a) obtain primary data and (b) to analyse it in order to produce independent temperature trend results. This study was intended only to test the feasibility of conducting such a process, and not to generate scientific conclusions." In other words, if we can do it, anyone can.

They found that the data was readily available at at least three different websites. They downloaded the data, selected every station that had an adequate amount of data and performed some smoothing and spatial averaging operations on them. In effect, they replicated the CRU's main research results, producing nearly identical instrumental temperature records, in very little time.

Broken FoIA system

The key findings here are pretty bleak. Basically, the UEA logged FoIA requests, but that was about it. After that, everything was down to the individual researchers figuring out if the data had to be, or, indeed, should be released, and then figuring out how to release it properly. Essentially, the entire system was dysfunctional, and the CRU made no attempt to make life easier for anyone.

In my opinion, it seems like bureaucratic incompetence rather than malice or ideology.

I have this Ars thread, BTW: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1113243

World of Goo

Same thing happened to Demigod. I remember Stardock stating that at time of release, they had about 20,000 legitimate customers to 100,000 illegal copies (Source). Of course my feelings about this go both ways. If both of these games hadn't been so easy to hack, would as many people put down the money and bought it? Would sales have been the same? Sometimes piracy does generate sales, and sometimes it hurts it. The major problem seems to be that with everything connected to a server now, having pirates overrun your server diminishes the experience for your paying customers as they experience lag, connection problems, overloaded servers, etc.

It's purely a software problem. You will trade these problems for a different known set of software problems under Windows, starting with the OS ;)

It's been a while, but as I recall the emulators would not show multiple HID's when multiple devices with identical USB hardware ID's were connected.
I think I mailed Richard Bannister about this at the time, but I may just have thought about it.
It should be an easy fix, but consistent identification of Player 1 and Player 2 will be down to chance.

I have a huge basket of controllers and adapters, but end up using the PS2 controllers most of the time.
The layout is ideal for NES, SNES, Master System and TG/PCE. It's not too bad for N64, Neo Geo, MD/Genesis, and obviously perfect for PSX.

This ars thread seems to suggest that the Bluetooth stack received the necessary overhaul in Snow Leopard for Sixaxis support.
Certainly, it was filed as a bug with Apple since a few years ago, and would have had more consequences than just the Sony compatibility.
I'm now motivated to check that out, as I think it's the neatest solution.

For computer gaming as opposed to console gaming, I still have my original Cruisers from the 80's, which says a lot about their build quality (2x neons and a translucent :)
I love the adjustable tension, and they're micro-switched as opposed to leaves.
I have a couple of Competition Pro's, but other people get more excited about them than I do, I think because so many people had them themselves. They're not bad.
Occasionally I'll dig out my Konix Speedking (the short stick is the best for "waggling"), and I have a soft spot for my QuickShot IX (the trackball that wasn't, and the only QuickShot product that wasn't absolute crap).

The beauty of all of these is that they use the Atari DB-9 standard. For legacy computer gaming, you just want a bunch of Atari adapters.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/municipal-fiber-needs-more-fdr-localism-fewer-state-bans.ars
Note the ban in some state for municipal fiber.
So TV franchise agreements might be illegal, but roll out laws seem very strict in some states.

Better advice: sue. The FCC is requiring cable providers to maintain analog cable until 2012 unless they provide converters for their customers. Unless I'm misunderstanding, charging their customers to rent the boxes was NOT one of their options.

Oooh. Oooh. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/07/silicon-semiconductor-able-to-occupy-new-quantum-states.ars

Of course, this is not exactly a "fundamental shift", but the timing is serendipitous.

Microsoft is getting that many licenses, yes. So many people are trying to say that that means the thing is popular. Vista licensed 10 Million units a month in the face of a global recession. What does this mean? That license figures have nothing to do with adoption rates for Windows versions, nor for popularity of the software. It's just a measure of how effectively the company has cowed the industry that enterprises automatically get a license seat of their latest software under Software Assurance and most OEMs purchase a license for every machine shipped whether the machine will even run the software or not, or even if the end-user gets that license. It's a measure of the pent-up demand in a market that avoided purchasing hardware to avoid Vista and just can't wait any more. It's also not new money: Microsoft would pretty much get that money even if W7 was a blank disc.

Where is W7 adoption at really? 13.7%. That's doing pretty well but 1/3 of that was taken from Vista - the widely reviled product people can't get off of fast enough. As a whole Windows share is off by 2% in the past year. That's not a free-fall, but it's not a move in Microsoft's favor either.

The article is about IE9. IE9 will not install on Windows XP. Enterprises looking to migrate to IE9 services and applications cannot do so until they migrate to Windows 7. Application developers can't target the market for services that leverage IE9 technologies until the market moves to a platform that supports IE9. It's a catch-22. It's a real problem and you shouldn't pooh-pooh it.

On the other hand, other standards based browsers use the latest technologies and run on whatever platform you're running, so they make the better target for the application developer.

Posting anon for obvious reasons, talking about internal policy is not allowed.

That sucks to the point that I had an entire thread talking about this mess: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1113243

It's anything but simple.

Well then the question I would think is "should they be" and considering they own more than 70% of the market and has used that power to stifle competition I would say when it comes to multimedia that would be a big YES!

Just because Apple makes pretty iStuff doesn't mean they should be allowed to lock down the market or threaten competition. And I would say that iPod pretty much owns the PMP market hands down, which gives iTunes considerable leverage. Frankly I'm just waiting for the inevitable antitrust suit.

Did you consider reading that article?
 
Amazon was offering to promote songs as a part of their "Daily Deal if the label cut them an exclusive window. Granted that window was just a day, but Amazon was trying to cut iTunes out of some sales by being first to the market. Apple retailed and said they wouldn't market songs that did take Amazon up on their offer to undercut iTunes.

Competition doesn't mean tie one hand behind your back and let someone else swing at you because you are ahead.

Uhhh...did you not read the stifle competition part? Here let me quote a bit in case you are one that refuses to RTFL "Apple has allegedly been pressuring music labels to ditch Amazon MP3's "Daily Deal" promotions, lest they be excluded from being promoted through the iTunes machine."

If this isn't an example of monopolistic behavior I don't know what is. Here is an easy way to tell: If MSFT did it, would people be having a shitfit? Of course they would, since they are trying to set the terms their competitors get by basically saying "You promote on Amazon and we'll bury your artists so far down nobody will ever see them". In fact this is already having a negative effect on the competition as according to the FL "labels representing Corinne Bailey Rae, Lady Antebellum, and Ke$ha have all reportedly pulled out of Daily Deals consideration in favor of staying on Apple's good side".

So I'm sorry, but frankly I don't give a damn if they are the leader through bribery, low prices or as you put it "because they have a 25 year track record of being the better multimedia-capable OS" the second they start using their position to dictate what terms the competitors get I have to scream antitrust. It is one thing to use what your competitors are getting to negotiate yourself a better deal and it is quite another to use your market power to make sure they get a worse one.

Well then the question I would think is "should they be" and considering they own more than 70% of the market and has used that power to stifle competition I would say when it comes to multimedia that would be a big YES!

Just because Apple makes pretty iStuff doesn't mean they should be allowed to lock down the market or threaten competition. And I would say that iPod pretty much owns the PMP market hands down, which gives iTunes considerable leverage. Frankly I'm just waiting for the inevitable antitrust suit.

For what it's worth, the Nexus One had similar problems... where's the lawsuit?

You merely assume that the problems are similar. Upon what are you basing the assumption?

Could you 'short' the antenna in the Nexus One merely by holding a phone in the 'wrong' way? No.
Did the Nexus One signal drop by 24 dBm when you held it in your hand? No.
Is the reception quantifyably worse than either the Nexus One or the previous generation iPhone? Yes.

A 10dBm drop compared to the iPhone 3GS is unacceptable when the primary function of the device is to serve as a wireless phone.

The lawyers suing Apple are not going to let it confuse the issue between absorptive signal loss due to coupling with a nearby hand, which indeed most phones are suspectible to, and antenna detuning due to galvanic conduction over an uncoated external antenna, which is a design decision worthy of a Gumby.

Ars has some good analysis. Seeing the games companies play with signal bars apples are oddly accurate... and logarithmic...

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/putting-hard-numbers-to-the-iphone-4-antenna-issue.ars

I don't know what % of iphone users use cases, but I'd imagine its a fairly high %.

"Just avoid holding it this way." -Steve Jobs

Is the video tag in HTML5 a kludge? Yes. Is it more an ideal than a practical implementation? Sure. Can it compete with a commercial product that has been an accepted part of the web for over 10 years now? Perhaps not. Is it poorly implemented in most modern browsers, with no agreed upon video codec common to any two of them? Yep. Would it be getting any attention at all if Steve Jobs hadn't used it as part of his cheap excuse to block free flash apps from his iControlU line of products? Not likely.

But all that's missing the point. The point is that it's *OPEN* and not under the control of any nasty for-profit corporation. And that makes it superior. Who *cares* if it doesn't work worth a damn in actual practice?

Clearly this is not true. Some phones have these issues. Some don't.

We know that all phones will have this issue to some extent--it is an inescapable consequence of the physics of RF and antennas. But it will not be a problem for some people, because it will also depend upon their individual electrical properties. Whether the frequency of such problems is any greater for the iPhone than for other phones remains to be seen. For example, Ars Technica reported "We were able to reproduce this problem consistently once we learned the proper technique for "cupping" the phone—before watching a video how to do this, several of us on staff were unable to just figure out on our own how to make this happen...During our testing, this did not seem to affect our actual phone calls outside of when we were explicitly trying to degrade the signal.".

what the hell are you talking about? You are off on all accounts.

Yes, intel has H264 hardware support. so does nvidia and AMD. Intel's support however, runs shitty and has horrible framerate. Integrated graphics from nvidia and amd run significantly better on all accounts.

Meanwhile, intel is not the only one to accounce support. They have the highest share, yes, but not by much anymore.

From that list I see:
Update: Industry support announced at I/O -- including Adobe, who'll be rolling VP8 support into Flash Player. Take note of the hardware partners, though: AMD, ARM, Broadcom, Freescale, NVIDIA, Qualcomm, and TI, among others. Missing in action? Intel.

notably intel joined later saying they might support it.. That's hardly intel announcing support.

actually, this is closer to the "truth" than you think. ArsTechnica had a review of the new Messenger and found that they had removed the ability to view webcams - you can now only do a 2-person "video call". Which in a healthy, moms-apple-pie society would be fine... but in the world we live in, its probably not the thing most users want, either the people with MSN or the girls offering to go to a private chat with you. Poor girls - now they get to watch too :)

Oh yeah, its also pants with the Windows 7 taskbar, why did they get rid of the ability to hide the damn thing to the notification area when there's nothing going on in the main window?

Well, the problem here is that physicists prefer to do what works and if adding in a new exotic ____ (fill in the blank) that is conveniently invisible but that we're surely going to find eventually fixes the problem, then the problem can be said to have gone away.

Er, it would be bad if they thought having a mere theoretical explanation meant the problem had 'gone away'. Instead, dark matter is one of the problems at the forefront of modern astrophysics and people are constantly trying to find ways to bring more experimental light to bear on it so we can actually figure out what is going on. People are actively looking for evidence.

In that sense it is quite inconvenient that the most likely dark matter candidates are invisible, because that makes it hard to find them and I assure you that physicists want to find them. It was hoped they'd turn out to be normal matter that was just hard to see (MACHOs), but extensive surveys of the galaxy with Hubble have put that out to pasture.

The sense of "convenient" you meant though, which is the same way it's "convenient" that a crazy guy from the future's time machine won't let him bring advanced technology through it to prove he's from the future, is completely off. Particles that have mass yet are invisible to light are already known to exist. Other theories predicted the existence of heavier versions of these particles before dark matter even entered the picture, and it's from that theory (supersymetry) that we "fill in the blank". A particle that doesn't interact electromagnetically is strongly suggested by the evidence, too, that clouds of dark matter appear to be able to pass through an entire galaxy unperturbed.

So it's hardly some "conveniently" unprovable postulate that science made up on the spot to avoid having to deal with the problem.

It's the most likely explanation for observation, and there are many people trying to find evidence for or against it. What exactly is the problem here again?

Does this all remind you of anything? Do Epicycles come to mind?

Not in the slightest, because Epicycles were a case of avoiding the simple explanation (planets travel in ellipses) because circles were more aesthetically or (weirdly) religiously pleasing, yet ended up as a complicated mess that to a modern eye is distinctly less pleasing than the simple math of Kepler's Laws.

Where is the simpler explanation that is being avoided, here? "Gravity is wrong" is not such an explanation, it's just a statement. Actually explaining what we observe without dark matter is going to result in a much more complicated theory of gravity to explain why it's seemingly coming from nowhere when it usually seems to require mass. It turns out it's rather hard to come up with an explanation that is simpler than "gravity works mostly like we think it does, and there are things that are like neutrinos but heavier".

Scientists are constantly looking for ways to simplify things, explain more with less, merge separate theories or forces into one, and so on. And they've had many successes at doing so -- electromagnetic theory, electroweak theory, and modern color theory. The latter seems complicated in that it introduces quarks in many combinations to make what were previously fundamental things like protons and neutrons. Isn't that what Occam warned us about: needlessly multiplying entities? But before quark theory, there were literally hundreds of particles known to exist and with no coherent theory to explain them. By explaining all those particles using only six sub-particles, we made a great stride.

Yet the end picture is still complex. There is a certain elegance to the laws as they exist today, even if understanding them all is tough. That elegance leads

Everyone is up-in-arms over the bizarre prediction by some third-party developers that Apple will move to an app-store model on OSX (and all the haters pre-condemn them for this "fact" despite Jobs refuting it), and then it's Microsoft that comes out and proposes to do it.

Adding a central repository of applications is no more "The App Store Model" than Ubuntu's central repository of applications. It's only "The App Store Model" if that becomes the ONLY way of putting applications on your device.

Everyone is up-in-arms over the bizarre prediction by some third-party developers that Apple will move to an app-store model on OSX (and all the haters pre-condemn them for this "fact" despite Jobs refuting it), and then it's Microsoft that comes out and proposes to do it.

Question: Since Apple was labelled "the new Microsoft" due to its supposed policies, does this make Microsoft - um - the new Microsoft, again ? [grin]

Simon

But the constitution as it stands, does not allow the authorities to compel a suspect to produce the files.

I'm not sure this is right. The state can compel you to provide physical evidence, just not testimonial evidence. Physical evidence is not protected by the 5th amendment. For example, you can be compelled to provide finger prints, body measurements, DNA and blood samples. The court forcing you to provide those is not a violation of your fifth amendment rights. Additionally, if you have paper files or a bloody knife in your house and the state requests the items with "reasonable particularity" then the production of those items is not protected by the 5th amendment. In other words, the state can't demand that you hand over all of your files or every knife in your house. But they can demand you hand over a particular file or knife that they know to exist. So if they know certain files reside on your encrypted drive, demanding you give access to the drive would not be a 5th amendment violation, unless it is ruled that providing the password is testimony. But if the request is simply a fishing expedition looking for incriminating evidence, you would have a 5th amendment right to refuse, regardless if providing a password is testimony or not.

Here's a memo on a recent case.

More importantly (at least according to Ars Technica) is that ICANN approved Chinese internationalized domain names in this same update notification. What's the big deal with the XXX domain? Okay so now I know that the porn site I'm going to is actually a porn site ... big deal. Ain't going to help filters all that much anyway unless it's required which would be really stupid and shortsighted. I think the changes for a billion Chinese speakers is bigger news.

Actually, this design flaw affects 100% of the phones. If you have an iPhone and hold it in your left hand, bridging the millimeter gap in the metal band that goes around the perimeter of the phone, then it will lose it's connection. 100% of the time this will happen.

That's not being universally reported. Did you read all of the articles? Read through the PCMag (second link) - that's not what is being reported there. Yes, the problem could be affecting all iPhone 4 handsets, but it's certainly not affecting all iPhone 4 users. Theories are flying around about hand sweat, local signal strength and even GSM bandwidth as contributing to the size of the problem.

All of the YouTube fault demonstrations I have seen have shown users holding the phone unusually firmly, with the ball of the hand coming right around to the front of the phone (even to the point of partially obstructing the screen). This isn't how most people hold their phone - although I accept that some might. Ars Technica http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/new-iphone-4-antenna-causing-potential-reception-issues.ars posted some preliminary investigation claiming no issues when holding the phone "normally", but proving the issue when dampening their hand and adopting the "death grip".

So yes, there is an issue, but your mileage may vary. It may not require the level of hysteria that has been reached in certain media outlets.

Interestingly, this may actually be a combination of issues as the same symptoms have been demonstrated on the 3G and 3GS in the "death grip" and neither has an external antenna. Similar issues have been reported on the Nexus 1 and Palm Pre - you can find some links off this article: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/jobs-on-iphone-4-antenna-avoid-holding-it-in-this-way.ars

I don't want to dismiss anyone's fears. I'm still uncertain as to whether I'll purchase an iPhone 4 myself, but I doubt the scenario that you describe is being experienced by the majority of IPhone 4 users.

Actually, this design flaw affects 100% of the phones. If you have an iPhone and hold it in your left hand, bridging the millimeter gap in the metal band that goes around the perimeter of the phone, then it will lose it's connection. 100% of the time this will happen.

That's not being universally reported. Did you read all of the articles? Read through the PCMag (second link) - that's not what is being reported there. Yes, the problem could be affecting all iPhone 4 handsets, but it's certainly not affecting all iPhone 4 users. Theories are flying around about hand sweat, local signal strength and even GSM bandwidth as contributing to the size of the problem.

All of the YouTube fault demonstrations I have seen have shown users holding the phone unusually firmly, with the ball of the hand coming right around to the front of the phone (even to the point of partially obstructing the screen). This isn't how most people hold their phone - although I accept that some might. Ars Technica http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/new-iphone-4-antenna-causing-potential-reception-issues.ars posted some preliminary investigation claiming no issues when holding the phone "normally", but proving the issue when dampening their hand and adopting the "death grip".

So yes, there is an issue, but your mileage may vary. It may not require the level of hysteria that has been reached in certain media outlets.

Interestingly, this may actually be a combination of issues as the same symptoms have been demonstrated on the 3G and 3GS in the "death grip" and neither has an external antenna. Similar issues have been reported on the Nexus 1 and Palm Pre - you can find some links off this article: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/jobs-on-iphone-4-antenna-avoid-holding-it-in-this-way.ars

I don't want to dismiss anyone's fears. I'm still uncertain as to whether I'll purchase an iPhone 4 myself, but I doubt the scenario that you describe is being experienced by the majority of IPhone 4 users.

...than there ever has been.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/file-sharing-has-weakened-copyrightand-helped-society.ars
---
Pluck the duck, who have we got to lose?

I have one, do you? Cause that antenna stuff sounds like FUD. I've seen the bar go down one when i hold it funny, but it's not bad, and i'm a lefty.

Considering your turtle-necked Lord has given advice on how to avoid the issue, I'd say it isn't FUD.

Taken directly from that link:

"Gripping any phone will result in some attenuation of its antenna performance, with certain places being worse than others depending on the placement of the antennas. This is a fact of life for every wireless phone," Jobs wrote. "If you ever experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply use one of many available cases."

I'd say Apple's response is where the FUD is.

"This should be easily handled with a browser plugin. - by rainmayun (842754) on Wednesday June 23, @08:44AM (#32663698)

Why stop there, @ using tools like browser addons/plugins, like AdBlock &/or NoScript (which only function for Firefox variants)? Go for "layered security"!

HOSTS FILES ARE ADBLOCK'S SUPERIOR ON SEVERAL GROUNDS (& in combination/together? Pretty much the best "browser level" security, in "layered security fashion" you can do currently)!

----

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, since it's NOT a program, only a filter... OR even less "buggy" than DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky's findings & Moxie Marlinspike's also), as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)

10.) HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

----

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example).

However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially mals

Regardless of my thoughts on Apple as a business, the new iPhone is an attractive bit of hardware. If only Jobs wasn't being such a bastard about the antenna problems...

"No. Thanks Adblock!" - by Stele (9443) on Monday June 14, @09:03AM (#32563768) Homepage

HOSTS FILES ARE ADBLOCK'S SUPERIOR ON SEVERAL GROUNDS (& in combination/together? Pretty much the best "browser level" security, in "layered security fashion" you can do currently)!

----

1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!

2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, since it's NOT a program, only a filter... OR even less "buggy" than DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky's findings & Moxie Marlinspike's also), as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too

8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOT just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)

10.) HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

----

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example).

However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

This is NOT possible for websites to pull on you, IF you use a HOSTS file (vs. other adblocki

1st Netflix makes an agreement with Warner Studio's to delay the rental release of New Titles http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/03/blockbuster-gets-deal-that-netflix-redbox-couldnt.ars now they want to save a few bucks and blame the USPS.

If the USPS has to cut a day of the week why not mid week (wed or thursday)?

People on /. think it is, but then I'm not convinced many people here have a good grip on copyright. A non-trivial number seem to think that any copyright is a bad thing, that it hurts the economy, etc. There is some pretty good evidence to indicate that's not the case, but they aren't interested. They have an all or nothing stance on it. As such, this treaty is automatically and "obviously" a bad thing to them, since it increases copyright.

There's plenty of evidence that contradicts the "all or nothing stance" that the copyright industry holds, claiming that more copyright is always a good thing.

Well, I'm going to go ahead and say they are perhaps not the best to make that call, due to their bias.

Huh? Did you seriously just use the bias argument to argue against people who are arguing against changes being lobbied for by industries with a direct financial stake in the outcome? Really? The opponents of ACTA are biased you say? Wow.

That doesn't mean I think they are wrong that the treaty is a bad thing, I think they are arriving at that conclusion incorrectly and that is why they might think it "obvious" when maybe it isn't.

So this is the kind of thing I like to see. Some real analysis to determine what benefits and costs it has (everything has benefits and costs) and if those result in a net benefit for the public. Looks like these experts say that no, it doesn't.

I think that is far more useful than just trying to claim "It is obvious!" When you think something is obvious, especially something complex (as any new law is) ask yourself: Is it really, truly obvious, which would mean that nearly everyone should see it, or do I think it is obvious because of my biases?

I think that the industry hasn't done a thing to prove that longer and more restrictive copyright serves the public interest, yet you, and the government, seem to accept their views as true until proven otherwise. Where's the skepticism for their claims?

Is Apple really eating MSFT's lunch? I don't mean to troll, I just haven't seen anything about Apple's laptops/desktops really hurting the PC market.

Now of course there's the largely failed attempts in the music device market, where they never had any marketshare, and the smartphone base, where no-doubt Apple is kicking them up the street, but my understanding was that MSFT lives on its OS and Office product sales. Those don't seem to be hurting in any way, from what I've seen.

This is what I could pull up quickly on google, and may be outdated a bit, but is 5% a huge step up?
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/windows-7-growing-faster-than-vista-overtakes-mac-os.ars

Just recently Adobe announced they would drop support for 64 bit Linux. What is wrong with these people? Is it really so difficult to put out a 64 bit version of software you already have running? Oh, but they promise they'll get it working someday. Thanks a lot, guys. It's a shame 64 bit computers are so damn new I have to use a wrapper to use your buggy, bloated, insecure, crap software.

The Administration believes that it is essential for the private sector, including content owners, Internet service providers, advertising brokers, payment processors and search engines, to work collaboratively, consistent with the antitrust laws, to address activity that has a negative economic impact and undermines US businesses, and to seek practical and efficient solutions to address infringement.

According to Ars, reaction to the report has been positive, even from Public Knowledge. You know, one a-them digital hippy organizations that campaign for peoples' rights. There won't be any gov't-sanctioned three-strikes or Internet filtering, and they're going to get the Department of Commerce to put together an ultimate report on financial harm from piracy (good luck with that, but A for effort since they mentioned that the media industries are basically making shit up). It really doesn't sound all that bad, and it could have been much worse.

And then we have this Slashdot summary, making it out to be all doom and gloom, as though the feds weren't even going to try to hide that they're in bed with Big Content. As the subject line says, am I missing something here?

but I did read the analysis of the plan on Ars (link) and their conclusions are far more favorable to consumers and less favorable to industry groups than the Slashdot summary suggests.

...considering who we have as a Vice President and who his friends are:

Biden to MPAA: you'll like Obama's pick for copyright czar
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/biden-to-mpaa-youll-like-obamas-copyright-pick.ars

The US should immediately withdraw from all copyright treaties, amend its copyright law to best serve the domestic interests of all Americans

Except, you forget that it's US politicians cramming these copyright laws down the rest of the world's collective throat, under the guise of protecting US interests. Heck, the *AA's help their equivalent group in various countries lobby the government to get your DMCA passed. So much so, that, they'll just re-use the document in another country.

TFA points out that Congress is acting under the belief that they are protecting US interests since more US property was being copied in foreign countries than the reverse. At least, according to data provided to them by the people who wanted the law.

Trust me, other countries aren't saying "oooh, we need a law like that". The US is saying in lightly veiled threats that if the other countries don't adopt the law, there might be some consequences. Sadly, the lobbying groups in the US are pushing very hard to use faulty 'reports' to get certain things deemed 'true' in the US, and then pushing the same crappy data abroad. Data they made up via arms length think-tanks which are basically paid shills to write position papers they need.

As long as your politicians give such weight to the testimony of the RIAA/MPAA, we're all getting shafted. But don't think for a minute that it's the rest of the world imposing these treaties and laws on the US. That's why the appeal court basically said that Congress could do this ... because they claim to be protecting US interests.

You can opt out for each specific App: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2010/06/ars-reviews-ios-4-whats-new-and-notable.ars/7

Wasn't that the point of this? http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/05/bittorrent-open-sources-new-protocol-implementation.ars

Flash is still multi-platform and web-delivered. It is much more pro-Web than proprietary binary apps on a closed system like Apple's iOS.

The iPad is so bad, its even worse than Windows! Imagine if people got their computers with a Windows OS that forced you to look at un-blockable ads, removed the ads from any web sites you visit, and forced you to get all your applications from Microsoft. Web sites become something that's only grudgingly accommodated in a system like Apple's latest:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/apples-evil-genius-plan-to-punk-the-web-and-gild-the-ipad.ars

The new iPhones/iPads are designed to kill off the mobile web and force users to invest in proprietary iApps instead.

Some of us live in India.

Okay, I'll be more specific, since this is 100% reproducible for me. It's not a ping time issue, or a networking issue - pages load at perceptibly the same speed for me (i.e. I'm not sure which loads/renders the page faster, but it doesn't seem like the difference is that big a deal on most pages). Firefox may be marginally faster in this area, but that could just be an HTTP pipelining setting or something like that.

What drives me bonkers with Chrome is the scrolling of pages. When I mousewheel-scroll, which is how I generally browse all pages, on some pages I see perceptible lags between the scroll event and the rendering in Chrome. In Firefox, this is perceptibly instantaneous. In fact, on some pages, if I mousewheel-scroll too fast, I occasionally will even see Chrome miss some scroll events.

For some evidence that I'm not crazy, take a look at the latest benchmarks over at Ars Technica. The Javascript benchmarks are of course dominated by Chrome. But the HTML5 flying windows benchmark, Chrome seems to pull a whopping 3 FPS, whereas Firefox scores a 12. I don't know if this is a related effect, but it's evidence that outside of amazing Javascript performance, there are certain types of page rendering that Chrome does relatively slowly.

In fact, that URL provides a great example. Scroll down to the bottom of that page in both Firefox and Chrome. Now scroll up and down 10-20 mousewheel ticks at a time. See the lag in Chrome?

Same effect is visible on quite a few Slashdot.org pages. Basically lots of pages on the sites I frequent most seem to have laggy scrolling issues in Chrome.

I do like the process isolation of Chrome, and the Javascript engine speed is nothing short of remarkable. But it doesn't make up for these basic usability issues for me.

Seriously. Steve Ballmer laughed at google on stage at D:8 for having both android and chrome OS and now microsoft has 3 current, all slightly different mobile operating systems. I mean come on.

Heres an Ars Technica link as I can't find the exact video on the all things d site.