Other than forcing it through regulation (Which I'm not for), what incentive is there for them to? It basically means they'll probably never sell another charger again, they probably can't add much value (price) to the phone through it, and 99% of people are not going to buy a phone because of it.
I've only ever seen two nokia charger types on phones made this century, and my new phone came with an adapter for the old charger, as well as a new charger, so I'm pretty pleased with them. But miniUSB would rock.
Well, if enough manufacturers start doing it, people will get pissed off when their standard charger doesn't work. So you don't need to force all manufacturers to do it, if you can convince a lot to do somehow.
The somehow, being the question.
Though I can't see it being a major choosing point in me buying a future phone, it'd definitely be a nice thing to have if it becomes common. And I'm all for it being mini-USB, since there are already cables abound for powering it from the wall, computers, batteries, and solar panels. (Not to mention it'd be pretty neat to standardise an accessory port. I'm currently considering paying 30 quid to nokia for a decent headphone adapter thing because I have to use the shitty pop-port on my n73. And that's on top of the 15 quid I'll be spending to actually get a decent set of headhones)
I love TPB as much as the next guy, but to be fair, they aren't just pointing out the location, they are to a large extend facilitating the infringement. To give a classic poor analogy, they aren't just telling you where the drug dealer lives, they are his PA. And, duly, they are getting boned for accessory to copyright infringement, which sounds about right (Though where you draw the line is debatable. By the same merit the people who invented the modern computer are accessories to copyright infringement).
I'm sorry, but it is possible to run windows without getting owned on the internet.
a) NAT with no incoming forwarding
b) No IE / outlook
c) Don't visit dodgy sites / open dodgy programs / open dodgy emails.
I've had one glimpse of a virus in the last 5 years or so, and that was the one time I disregarded the above and ran an untrusted program. And, incidentally, antivirus saved the day, no problem.
I don't really understand a lot of catchphrases like this. The fact that somebody said something that sounded wise and has a nice ring to it doesn't mean we all have to blindly live by it, or that it is "correct".
Using the whole "You were near a crime" argument against tracking is just stupid. If you want to argue against "guilty until proven innocent" or miscarriages of justice, do so, but the fact that tracking could possibly be an accessory to this is meaningless. In a similar way, tracking could save your arse by proving you weren't in the area if some other shakey evidence linked you to the crime.
If you're worried about an evil state/government, fair enough, but tracking / databases do not imply this. An evil government is bad with/without tracking and things, a good government is good with/without tracking and things.
I think a large problem is the amount of media with large knowledgeable governments who turn bad. This leads most people to assume that the two are linked. This isn't logical, and is plain bollocks. If the government want to shaft you, they will, if you're worried about that, do something about it instead of whining about cameras.
It's an odd territory to get into. If nearly everybody likes the way things are, what's wrong? It seems slightly counterintuitive to try and take down a system that everybody likes in the name of truth.
Rather like the matrix, infact. At first glance it seems "wrong" to enslave humans in this way, but thinking logically, surely most humans unaware of the system are happier than if they had to live in the ruins outside.
Well, that's my armchair philosophy, anyway.
Christ, if the government want to track your phone, I think the technology is already in place to do so. And we've seen that the govenernments don't have trouble getting their hands on this sort of information (Think wiretaps, etc.). Somehow, I can't see google doing this making the slightest difference. (If you want to start worrying about them selling your position for advertising or something, then fair enough, but to be honest, I really wouldn't give a damn about that, either. I don't find anything remotely scarey about customised minority report style ads. I might not want my friends/family knowing where I am every second of the day, but I'm really not too bothered about some giant faceless corporation.)
If you want something 1984 to worry about, I'd worry about all the new laws in the name of terrorism / national security. Not about google trying to sell you coke cola
I think what he's saying is, the half of the motherboard with the parallel port is fried, but you can plug in a USB printer and the computer will figure out a driver on it's own.
(The USB port being the chest muscles on the working side of the body/brain, and the parallel port being the dead side of the brain, and the printer being the still working fine muscles on teh dead side of the body.)
The 20 pound proposed tax in the UK was not a media tax designed to compensate the *AA or similar. It was to find an organization designed to file P2P lawsuits. It wasn't instead of the lawsuits, it was to encourage/fund them.
The whole security != obscurity thing is bollocks. Pretty much any "security" around today is basically obscurity. People say it's a bad idea to have a security system which relies on the process being unknown. It's comparable to having a system where the process is known but the password is unknown - the only difference being it's easier to change a password.
The same applies to more advanced stuff like keys or certificates - The process is known, but one of the parameters is unknown, i.e. the key. If you could create a process with a similar complexity to the key, and keep it unknown, then presumably it'd be about as secure.
The only sorts of security that aren't obscurity are the more brick-wall methods - e.g. unplug the network cable, don't allow access to anybody, even if they know the password. (I'm ignoring the more weird/bleeding edge stuff like quantum, because I don't have a clue about it.)
From what I've heard, QWERTY wasn't designed to slow typists down, but rather to try to stop commonly adjacent letters being adjacent on the keyboard. Keys jammed then adjacent keys were pressed at the same time, so you want this to happen infrequently.
Depending how urgent the need to brake is, that's what you're taught to do by reputable driving instructors, last time I checked.
Perhaps the system should activate/flash the braking lights or hazards when the obstacle is spotted, prior to braking.
This is an interesting issue - I develop an open source program, and it has the main features, is reasonably stable, and so in my mind is finished. There are other features I could add, but how useful they would actually be is debatable. I think this is somewhat similar to the state of openoffice, at the moment.
So, what does one do in this state?
(Admittedly, I have plenty of bugfixing and stuff to do, so I'm not out of work yet, but you get the idea)
It's very easy to suddenly whip out the discrimination card, but it's perfectly valid in this case to prefer older applicants who have more experience in the job. Obviously, if there is a preference for older applicants even if they don't have more experience, something is up, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. (The original poster wasn't entirely clear about this, I'll accept).
And if we're going to go for the whole moon-on-a-stick.
Unified bugs, donations, screenshots and installation/uninstallation of programs, all in one program, and the same frontend program available on all (well, most sane) distros, whichever backend package management they use.
Maybe add something to individual package files so that 3rd party packages can also use these features, by having the magic program connect to the 3rd party developer's website or server.
No idea about the practicality or implications of any of this, and it may well have been done before. I'm just having an "Ooh, shiny" moment.
For the love of god, I have read too many replies which suggest people think this is actually minority report style pre-crime.
I would presume they are going to use this device to decide who to investigate further, i.e. at airports, rather than inferior methods of picking people (I.e. race). If they then find evidence against you, hard luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Other than forcing it through regulation (Which I'm not for), what incentive is there for them to? It basically means they'll probably never sell another charger again, they probably can't add much value (price) to the phone through it, and 99% of people are not going to buy a phone because of it.
I've only ever seen two nokia charger types on phones made this century, and my new phone came with an adapter for the old charger, as well as a new charger, so I'm pretty pleased with them. But miniUSB would rock.
Well, if enough manufacturers start doing it, people will get pissed off when their standard charger doesn't work. So you don't need to force all manufacturers to do it, if you can convince a lot to do somehow. The somehow, being the question. Though I can't see it being a major choosing point in me buying a future phone, it'd definitely be a nice thing to have if it becomes common. And I'm all for it being mini-USB, since there are already cables abound for powering it from the wall, computers, batteries, and solar panels. (Not to mention it'd be pretty neat to standardise an accessory port. I'm currently considering paying 30 quid to nokia for a decent headphone adapter thing because I have to use the shitty pop-port on my n73. And that's on top of the 15 quid I'll be spending to actually get a decent set of headhones)
I love TPB as much as the next guy, but to be fair, they aren't just pointing out the location, they are to a large extend facilitating the infringement. To give a classic poor analogy, they aren't just telling you where the drug dealer lives, they are his PA. And, duly, they are getting boned for accessory to copyright infringement, which sounds about right (Though where you draw the line is debatable. By the same merit the people who invented the modern computer are accessories to copyright infringement).
I'm sorry, but it is possible to run windows without getting owned on the internet. a) NAT with no incoming forwarding b) No IE / outlook c) Don't visit dodgy sites / open dodgy programs / open dodgy emails. I've had one glimpse of a virus in the last 5 years or so, and that was the one time I disregarded the above and ran an untrusted program. And, incidentally, antivirus saved the day, no problem.
I don't really understand a lot of catchphrases like this. The fact that somebody said something that sounded wise and has a nice ring to it doesn't mean we all have to blindly live by it, or that it is "correct".
Using the whole "You were near a crime" argument against tracking is just stupid. If you want to argue against "guilty until proven innocent" or miscarriages of justice, do so, but the fact that tracking could possibly be an accessory to this is meaningless. In a similar way, tracking could save your arse by proving you weren't in the area if some other shakey evidence linked you to the crime. If you're worried about an evil state/government, fair enough, but tracking / databases do not imply this. An evil government is bad with/without tracking and things, a good government is good with/without tracking and things. I think a large problem is the amount of media with large knowledgeable governments who turn bad. This leads most people to assume that the two are linked. This isn't logical, and is plain bollocks. If the government want to shaft you, they will, if you're worried about that, do something about it instead of whining about cameras.
It's an odd territory to get into. If nearly everybody likes the way things are, what's wrong? It seems slightly counterintuitive to try and take down a system that everybody likes in the name of truth. Rather like the matrix, infact. At first glance it seems "wrong" to enslave humans in this way, but thinking logically, surely most humans unaware of the system are happier than if they had to live in the ruins outside. Well, that's my armchair philosophy, anyway.
Christ, if the government want to track your phone, I think the technology is already in place to do so. And we've seen that the govenernments don't have trouble getting their hands on this sort of information (Think wiretaps, etc.). Somehow, I can't see google doing this making the slightest difference. (If you want to start worrying about them selling your position for advertising or something, then fair enough, but to be honest, I really wouldn't give a damn about that, either. I don't find anything remotely scarey about customised minority report style ads. I might not want my friends/family knowing where I am every second of the day, but I'm really not too bothered about some giant faceless corporation.) If you want something 1984 to worry about, I'd worry about all the new laws in the name of terrorism / national security. Not about google trying to sell you coke cola
Er, no. At least, not with this system. Nice idea, though.
I think what he's saying is, the half of the motherboard with the parallel port is fried, but you can plug in a USB printer and the computer will figure out a driver on it's own. (The USB port being the chest muscles on the working side of the body/brain, and the parallel port being the dead side of the brain, and the printer being the still working fine muscles on teh dead side of the body.)
I don't know. If it has the force to pickup a hammer, I wouldn't trust that thing near my goolies.
The 20 pound proposed tax in the UK was not a media tax designed to compensate the *AA or similar. It was to find an organization designed to file P2P lawsuits. It wasn't instead of the lawsuits, it was to encourage/fund them.
The whole security != obscurity thing is bollocks. Pretty much any "security" around today is basically obscurity. People say it's a bad idea to have a security system which relies on the process being unknown. It's comparable to having a system where the process is known but the password is unknown - the only difference being it's easier to change a password. The same applies to more advanced stuff like keys or certificates - The process is known, but one of the parameters is unknown, i.e. the key. If you could create a process with a similar complexity to the key, and keep it unknown, then presumably it'd be about as secure. The only sorts of security that aren't obscurity are the more brick-wall methods - e.g. unplug the network cable, don't allow access to anybody, even if they know the password. (I'm ignoring the more weird/bleeding edge stuff like quantum, because I don't have a clue about it.)
From what I've heard, QWERTY wasn't designed to slow typists down, but rather to try to stop commonly adjacent letters being adjacent on the keyboard. Keys jammed then adjacent keys were pressed at the same time, so you want this to happen infrequently.
I believe malware/spyware vendors have tried things similar to this, and if I recall correctly, didn't get away with it.
Depending how urgent the need to brake is, that's what you're taught to do by reputable driving instructors, last time I checked. Perhaps the system should activate/flash the braking lights or hazards when the obstacle is spotted, prior to braking.
This is an interesting issue - I develop an open source program, and it has the main features, is reasonably stable, and so in my mind is finished. There are other features I could add, but how useful they would actually be is debatable. I think this is somewhat similar to the state of openoffice, at the moment. So, what does one do in this state? (Admittedly, I have plenty of bugfixing and stuff to do, so I'm not out of work yet, but you get the idea)
The charge is for replying, which is by no means necessary, and it goes to the mobile phone provider...
It's very easy to suddenly whip out the discrimination card, but it's perfectly valid in this case to prefer older applicants who have more experience in the job. Obviously, if there is a preference for older applicants even if they don't have more experience, something is up, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. (The original poster wasn't entirely clear about this, I'll accept).
And if we're going to go for the whole moon-on-a-stick. Unified bugs, donations, screenshots and installation/uninstallation of programs, all in one program, and the same frontend program available on all (well, most sane) distros, whichever backend package management they use. Maybe add something to individual package files so that 3rd party packages can also use these features, by having the magic program connect to the 3rd party developer's website or server. No idea about the practicality or implications of any of this, and it may well have been done before. I'm just having an "Ooh, shiny" moment.
I'm really not sure if you're joking or not...
For the love of god, I have read too many replies which suggest people think this is actually minority report style pre-crime. I would presume they are going to use this device to decide who to investigate further, i.e. at airports, rather than inferior methods of picking people (I.e. race). If they then find evidence against you, hard luck.
Yes! Yes yes yes! Screw the mod points - Yes!
Are we talking two polygons because of the backbuffer, or because they are tessalated? Or am I just being stupid?