"To build the Android files in a Mac OS environment, you need an Intel/x86 machine. The Android build system and tools do not support the obsolete PowerPC architecture."
There are some things that used to be architectural flaws with Windows services that caused security problems but they are supposed to be fixed in Vista now.
Crashes, I have seen a blue screen reference MS-provided code, but upon digging deeper i found conclusively that it was a third party driver responsible for the crash, and removing that driver fixed the problem.
Drivers on Linux i agree, the Linux driver model is flawed as you noted. The effects of this flawed plan are evident, some things work (months after the release of the hardware in many cases, if ever), some don't work at all, and some things sort of work but with caveats. Distros make up for some of the problems by including drivers ahead of their upstream scheduled inclusion, and including closed source drivers, though they get blasted for it by fanatics.
" But Apple wouldn't be Apple if it didn't move faster than any other computer company to kill technologies that may be past their prime. And history usually validates its decisions."
No shit, once a large OEM starts refusing to put something on their machines, it tends to have a negative effect on that things continued use in the computer world.
This isn't about bandwidth. There are other significant, still useless, users of bandwidth they could be blocking and aren't. This is about reducing the availability of porn to the public with the governments permission and blessing.
As i pointed out it isn't free either, if i'm going to be watching fucking ads to pay for it i better be able to use it for whatever i want. There is no reason to be blocking ONLY PORN.
The companys name, M2Z, is in the story and at the top of this page. Read M2Zs press releases and their website and those things are all present.
The plan here is to filter porn (ONLY porn) out of the "free" network, support it with ads by doing (i believe) location based targeting. They say they will offer non-filtered service for a price, but with all that crap setup to screw with users traffic and insert ads, no thanks.
There simply isn't any way to justify this porn filtering crap. If they want to protect children, there are more important things you could be filtering, like oh say, violence? If the goal is to keep unnecessary traffic off the network, perhaps they should be blocking youtube, or any number of other ways people like to waste time on the internet, porn is not the most significant bandwidth user or time waster. Taxpayers aren't funding this either, so the "taxpayers don't want to pay for porn" excuse is also bullshit.
What is left would be the obvious, that some special interest group pushed for porn to be filtered from this network or perhaps even pushed for this network to be created with the specific intent of reducing the overall availability of porn to the public.
In this case because of the censorship crap, the interests of free speech and the interests of the other commercial providers are aligned for the moment, so if they want to fight this I'm fine with it.
We're talking about a government approved wireless network they want to reach 95% of the country, while leaving one specific kind of content behind. This is more than just competition, this is a significant force in the market and quite frankly, a transparent attempt to reduce the availability of ONLY porn to a large percentage of the population.
It's also quite unconstitutional for the government to be granting one company the right to censor users while the government profits from that censorship. They want people to look the other way because "it's free", but it isn't free.
This is an ad-supported network, so it isn't free for users at all. I'm still paying for it by viewing those ads. And to accomplish this they are either doing DPI, or targeting by location to deliver ads by modifying traffic (even worse than censoring), or they will force users to install specific software on the machine to access the network.
None of this is acceptable, especially because of the involvement with the government.
If a judge cleared that warrant, isn't it invalid anyway? Essentially we are talking about a notification message in the computer in some cops cruiser, and nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
So why is there any reason to believe MS won't provide backward compatibility on their cloud stuff? That's what they do on the desktop....
No i didn't RTFA, its a tradition i didn't want to break with.
If you want to squirt your friends either get a Zune or buy a sex sling, but leave my Apple stuff alone.
With all the rental services around now, that's inexcusable.
*cough*jackass*cough*
"To build the Android files in a Mac OS environment, you need an Intel/x86 machine. The Android build system and tools do not support the obsolete PowerPC architecture."
quite the burn there
Apparently you missed the part where they are paying for it either way, by having part of their tuition go toward protecting the RIAA and MPAA.
I don't want goo on my server, i keep my porn elsewhere for a reason.
There are some things that used to be architectural flaws with Windows services that caused security problems but they are supposed to be fixed in Vista now.
Crashes, I have seen a blue screen reference MS-provided code, but upon digging deeper i found conclusively that it was a third party driver responsible for the crash, and removing that driver fixed the problem.
Drivers on Linux i agree, the Linux driver model is flawed as you noted. The effects of this flawed plan are evident, some things work (months after the release of the hardware in many cases, if ever), some don't work at all, and some things sort of work but with caveats. Distros make up for some of the problems by including drivers ahead of their upstream scheduled inclusion, and including closed source drivers, though they get blasted for it by fanatics.
" But Apple wouldn't be Apple if it didn't move faster than any other computer company to kill technologies that may be past their prime. And history usually validates its decisions."
No shit, once a large OEM starts refusing to put something on their machines, it tends to have a negative effect on that things continued use in the computer world.
But i don't even know your real name, how will i find you? Oh well...
This isn't about bandwidth. There are other significant, still useless, users of bandwidth they could be blocking and aren't. This is about reducing the availability of porn to the public with the governments permission and blessing.
As i pointed out it isn't free either, if i'm going to be watching fucking ads to pay for it i better be able to use it for whatever i want. There is no reason to be blocking ONLY PORN.
"So I think that the SAME rules that apply to meatspace should be applied to cyberspace."
Meatspace = cyberspace, haven't you ever seen goatse?
Penisbird sounds like a fun game, tell me do i get to use the touch screen?
The companys name, M2Z, is in the story and at the top of this page. Read M2Zs press releases and their website and those things are all present.
The plan here is to filter porn (ONLY porn) out of the "free" network, support it with ads by doing (i believe) location based targeting. They say they will offer non-filtered service for a price, but with all that crap setup to screw with users traffic and insert ads, no thanks.
There simply isn't any way to justify this porn filtering crap. If they want to protect children, there are more important things you could be filtering, like oh say, violence? If the goal is to keep unnecessary traffic off the network, perhaps they should be blocking youtube, or any number of other ways people like to waste time on the internet, porn is not the most significant bandwidth user or time waster. Taxpayers aren't funding this either, so the "taxpayers don't want to pay for porn" excuse is also bullshit.
What is left would be the obvious, that some special interest group pushed for porn to be filtered from this network or perhaps even pushed for this network to be created with the specific intent of reducing the overall availability of porn to the public.
In this case because of the censorship crap, the interests of free speech and the interests of the other commercial providers are aligned for the moment, so if they want to fight this I'm fine with it.
Can't hurt? Yes, it can.
We're talking about a government approved wireless network they want to reach 95% of the country, while leaving one specific kind of content behind. This is more than just competition, this is a significant force in the market and quite frankly, a transparent attempt to reduce the availability of ONLY porn to a large percentage of the population.
It's also quite unconstitutional for the government to be granting one company the right to censor users while the government profits from that censorship. They want people to look the other way because "it's free", but it isn't free.
This is an ad-supported network, so it isn't free for users at all. I'm still paying for it by viewing those ads. And to accomplish this they are either doing DPI, or targeting by location to deliver ads by modifying traffic (even worse than censoring), or they will force users to install specific software on the machine to access the network.
None of this is acceptable, especially because of the involvement with the government.
no that was religion class, in A/V we looked at porn
I went to high school with the RIAA, we were in A/V club together dammit
You didn't look close enough, there was a hidden volume inside!
Chinese proof-reading? Only if you want your documents in Engrish.
I am for erroneous data. Facts are overrated.
If a judge cleared that warrant, isn't it invalid anyway? Essentially we are talking about a notification message in the computer in some cops cruiser, and nothing more.
Yea, screw all of you...
Exactly.
Note that i agree with you, but they would probably like for people to use terms like shared source etc.