Honestly, most of the "problems" with Android I actually consider to be strengths. Now the "fragmented" argument, yes, I can see where that can hurt in the long run, but then again, PC's are quite fragmented yet which has a larger hold after all these years, Apple or PC?
If you ever wondered why Microsoft's products like Windows and Office are so bloated and underwhelming, while Apple's are almost always wonderful experiences, this analysis will solve that mystery.
Again, too much credit is being given. Really, Anonymous is nothing more than a bunch of Forum Trolls that sit around and make fun of each other on 4chan. Every now and again, their collective "lulzing" will focus on a single target. Imagine if you will a bunch of 12 year old kids sitting in a room and each has a laser pointer. They will annoy each other all day long and eventually, a new target will present itself. They will switch to that new target and exhaust any entertainment value they can out of it. When that target is no longer entertaining they will find a new one or turn back on themselves. It's just immaturity and herd mentality.
Yeah, maybe charges will get pressed against one or more of the "anonymous" group. But you're missing my point. They don't care about Gene or his music. There was some sort of "call to arms" in the group and enough of them thought it would be entertaining to DDoS his sites, so it happened. That's it, end of story. Once it is no longer lulz worthy, they will move on.
Isn't that basically what I said? He wants money and fame? And how is it my fault? I don't even like the band, never purchased their music, never went to their shows, never bought any merchandise. Heck, I've never even downloaded one of their tracks.
I thought you were replying to someone else and clicked mine by mistake. But you quoted me.
Anonymous doesn't care. They are doing it for the lulz. To assume they have any agenda besides lulz gives them too much credit. Honestly, have you ever visited 4chan? Does that user base strike you as political or activist?
Frankly, spoofing wireless MAC addresses are easier than cracking WEP. Hell, one of the first steps in using backtrack, etc, is to spoof your mac before associating with the AP.
Honest question here. Say I wanted to setup and open a WiFi AP for neighbors to check email, etc, when their connection is down. How can I do that and not get screwed if they download kiddie porn or send a threatening letter to the white house? Yes, I'm in the US. I know I can use the TOR network, but frankly, I'd rather not. Is there any legal way I can share my network connection to those that need it without setting myself up for a world of hurt?
Again, I realize this is OT, but it's an honest question.
"In the majority opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that since Pineda-Moreno’s driveway wasn’t enclosed and was open to passersby like delivery men and neighborhood children, it didn’t pass the Dunn test for curtilage."
You might have noticed that the situation in which we're all discussing under (also known as the article) states:
"...comes in the wake of a recent ruling by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals saying it's legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect's car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private driveway."
If you have a warrant to enter the property as well and are following the laws regarding notifications required/not required for said warrant, fine! If I don't like it, there are avenues to attempt to change those laws. But if you only have a warrant to track my vehicle, then you do _not_ have a warrant to enter my property. If you have both, we're copacetic.
Oh that's fine. If it's standard hardware just let me know what it looks like and I'll purchase a similar sized roll of copper mesh. Or a hammer to beat it to death with.
If they want to come knock on the door and announce they have a warrant and thus demand access to my property, have at it. Law enforcement doesn't have access to your property without a warrant. There is a huge difference between accessing my property to walk up to my door with the intention to communicate with me versus walking onto my property to covertly plant devices on other property I own.
If the government has a warrant to track your vehicle with a GPS device, I'm fine with them tracking it.
Some caveats.
1) They should _not_ be allowed onto private property to install said devices. That's a slippery slope. If your property is not private, then what is? If I'm on my driveway, apparently it's fair game "because the UPS driver can walk on it". But what if you park in the yard because too many cars are in the driveway? What if you park around back? What if you park in a car port? What if it's in the garage but the door is open enough to get in? What if... No. Follow me and tag my car when it's in a public place, again, if you have a warrant to do so.
2) If I find a device on my car and I don't know you put it there. It's mine, period. Now, if you tell me its there and that's its government property and I'm legally obligated to leave it there, fine. I can rent a car (I guess that's why they don't tell you). But you can't expect me to just inherently know that the device isn't mine when I had no idea you put it there without my knowledge. For all I know it's a part of the car right out of the factory.
This BS with agents/contractors going onto private property installing devices and then threatening you when you find it... It has to stop.
The only point we're going to agree on seems to be more responsibility from the manufacturers. Personally, I'd like to see the radios turned off by default and you have to go through a little wizard to get them turned on. This would force those who purchase them to choose to offer it to the public, or to secure it. Because, really, you need to take responsibility for your own actions through what you do and what you setup in and around your residence. If you setup an AP that is wide open, well, frankly, in this world of "free wireless here!" you can't expect people to _not_ try to find free WiFi.
I see where you're going with that line of thinking and I agree to an extent. However, all of those analogies require you to physically go out and take/plug in/steal something that clearly isn't yours and shouldn't be.
Logging onto an unsecured WiFi connection can be done incredibly easy while I'm in my pajamas in the middle of a blizzard. It can also be done innocently and unknowingly. "Wait, there are 4 "linksys" networks, which was mine again?".
While I don't agree with torrenting or otherwise saturating someones connection, leaving it wide open and then being pissed when someone logs onto it is almost as ridiculous as yelling to your neighbor across the street and getting mad when another neighbors listens in and potentially adds their two cents. If you're not going to take the time to secure your broadcast transmissions, don't get pissed at those who listen/use it.
Would you prefer the alternative of just not releasing it as open source and letting it die quietly instead? But then people would say "why can't they just release the source code and let the community run with it?". Guess you just can't win...
It might be fun to say you would be a super villain, but I have a feeling most people aren't sociopaths. To do what it takes to punish people to further your agenda probably isn't in the cards for most people. Sure, you might not be the most stand up guy, given the powers, but you probably wouldn't be blowing up trains and taking school children hostage.
Don't blame the lawyers that there are people/companies looking to sue each other. That's a cultural problem, not one caused by lawyers. The patent system on the other hand, ya, that's broken.
What I find exciting is the prospect of a lot of young minds trying to figure out how to get a probe there with the capability of communicating back (within a reasonable time frame) what it finds. And then the science, if it is a habitable planet, of trying to visit it.
We need a new catalyst to spark imagination and an intense drive to succeed in the sciences.
Even if it is impossible to venture there, the discoveries and new technologies that we _do_ develop that doesn't quite reach the goal, but is above anything we currently have... Exciting!
I enjoyed it and considering the constraints, it was a very good short. Which one of us is right? That's right, neither of us and both of us. Subjective opinions aren't about right and wrong. The art and animation were very well done. Some sections felt very "clay" like and almost seemed to give a stop motion effect. That would be my only nitpick. Well, that and fluid animation wasn't really polished. Oh, and the snow didn't seem to stick to anything, at all. Given more time and maybe a little more work on the different effects would have cleaned all that up. How about objectively looking at the movie since this submission was more about everything _but_ the story?
Exactly how I see it. This is entirely on ESPN. They are simply billing the end user in such a way that removes the end user from the decision making process. Either the ISP antes up on behalf of the end user (and your monthly bill will probably reflect that), and you get the service, or they don't and you're S.O.L.
This is clearly not a net neutrality issue. The ISP isn't limiting or throttling you. The ISP isn't really deciding if you can or can't have the ESPN3 service. ESPN3 is deciding who can and can not access their services through a paywall that the ISP will be on the hook for if they decide to carry it.
Now, I can see this _enticing_ a net neutrality issue in the future however.
$ISP antes up and pays for ESPN3 access but explicitly blocks it to all users. Now $ISP charges its customers, who want the service, an extra $10 a month to have ESPN3 service _unblocked_. Now the ISP is choosing what to send to you by putting up ACL's, etc. That is a net neutrality issue.
Still don't think that's a net neutrality issue. That's just ESPN locking their site/services to those _providers_ willing to pay them. If this was an issue like MLB.tv where end users have to pay, it would be basically the same deal. The way I see it, this is just a different way for Disney/ESPN to bill. It's a crappy setup, but it's not a net neutrality issue.
As far as I understand it, this ESPN3 issue isn't a choice of MS nor ISPs. This is a choice of Disney/ESPN themselves charging for access to their services. Basically, providers have to pay ESPN for access. If they don't pay ESPN, no ESPN3. This has nothing to do with ISP's deciding what to and not to allow you to see.
It seems the average IQ of those we choose to be around are quite different. That being said, and this is meant as a joke, coming from someone with a UID of "Abcd1234", I'm not at all surprised!
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, most of the "problems" with Android I actually consider to be strengths. Now the "fragmented" argument, yes, I can see where that can hurt in the long run, but then again, PC's are quite fragmented yet which has a larger hold after all these years, Apple or PC?
If you ever wondered why Microsoft's products like Windows and Office are so bloated and underwhelming, while Apple's are almost always wonderful experiences, this analysis will solve that mystery.
No bias here..
Again, too much credit is being given. Really, Anonymous is nothing more than a bunch of Forum Trolls that sit around and make fun of each other on 4chan. Every now and again, their collective "lulzing" will focus on a single target. Imagine if you will a bunch of 12 year old kids sitting in a room and each has a laser pointer. They will annoy each other all day long and eventually, a new target will present itself. They will switch to that new target and exhaust any entertainment value they can out of it. When that target is no longer entertaining they will find a new one or turn back on themselves. It's just immaturity and herd mentality.
Yeah, maybe charges will get pressed against one or more of the "anonymous" group. But you're missing my point. They don't care about Gene or his music. There was some sort of "call to arms" in the group and enough of them thought it would be entertaining to DDoS his sites, so it happened. That's it, end of story. Once it is no longer lulz worthy, they will move on.
Isn't that basically what I said? He wants money and fame? And how is it my fault? I don't even like the band, never purchased their music, never went to their shows, never bought any merchandise. Heck, I've never even downloaded one of their tracks.
I thought you were replying to someone else and clicked mine by mistake. But you quoted me.
Anonymous doesn't care. They are doing it for the lulz. To assume they have any agenda besides lulz gives them too much credit. Honestly, have you ever visited 4chan? Does that user base strike you as political or activist?
Money, and the pursuit for more of it. Plus an inflated ego. Everyone must love Gene!
Frankly, spoofing wireless MAC addresses are easier than cracking WEP. Hell, one of the first steps in using backtrack, etc, is to spoof your mac before associating with the AP.
Honest question here. Say I wanted to setup and open a WiFi AP for neighbors to check email, etc, when their connection is down. How can I do that and not get screwed if they download kiddie porn or send a threatening letter to the white house? Yes, I'm in the US. I know I can use the TOR network, but frankly, I'd rather not. Is there any legal way I can share my network connection to those that need it without setting myself up for a world of hurt?
Again, I realize this is OT, but it's an honest question.
"In the majority opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that since Pineda-Moreno’s driveway wasn’t enclosed and was open to passersby like delivery men and neighborhood children, it didn’t pass the Dunn test for curtilage."
Source: http://www.executivegov.com/2010/08/ninth-circuit-court-secret-gps-tracking-is-legal/
You might have noticed that the situation in which we're all discussing under (also known as the article) states:
"...comes in the wake of a recent ruling by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals saying it's legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect's car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private driveway."
If you have a warrant to enter the property as well and are following the laws regarding notifications required/not required for said warrant, fine! If I don't like it, there are avenues to attempt to change those laws. But if you only have a warrant to track my vehicle, then you do _not_ have a warrant to enter my property. If you have both, we're copacetic.
Oh that's fine. If it's standard hardware just let me know what it looks like and I'll purchase a similar sized roll of copper mesh. Or a hammer to beat it to death with.
If they want to come knock on the door and announce they have a warrant and thus demand access to my property, have at it. Law enforcement doesn't have access to your property without a warrant. There is a huge difference between accessing my property to walk up to my door with the intention to communicate with me versus walking onto my property to covertly plant devices on other property I own.
If the government has a warrant to track your vehicle with a GPS device, I'm fine with them tracking it.
Some caveats.
1) They should _not_ be allowed onto private property to install said devices. That's a slippery slope. If your property is not private, then what is? If I'm on my driveway, apparently it's fair game "because the UPS driver can walk on it". But what if you park in the yard because too many cars are in the driveway? What if you park around back? What if you park in a car port? What if it's in the garage but the door is open enough to get in? What if... No. Follow me and tag my car when it's in a public place, again, if you have a warrant to do so.
2) If I find a device on my car and I don't know you put it there. It's mine, period. Now, if you tell me its there and that's its government property and I'm legally obligated to leave it there, fine. I can rent a car (I guess that's why they don't tell you). But you can't expect me to just inherently know that the device isn't mine when I had no idea you put it there without my knowledge. For all I know it's a part of the car right out of the factory.
This BS with agents/contractors going onto private property installing devices and then threatening you when you find it... It has to stop.
The only point we're going to agree on seems to be more responsibility from the manufacturers. Personally, I'd like to see the radios turned off by default and you have to go through a little wizard to get them turned on. This would force those who purchase them to choose to offer it to the public, or to secure it. Because, really, you need to take responsibility for your own actions through what you do and what you setup in and around your residence. If you setup an AP that is wide open, well, frankly, in this world of "free wireless here!" you can't expect people to _not_ try to find free WiFi.
I see where you're going with that line of thinking and I agree to an extent. However, all of those analogies require you to physically go out and take/plug in/steal something that clearly isn't yours and shouldn't be.
Logging onto an unsecured WiFi connection can be done incredibly easy while I'm in my pajamas in the middle of a blizzard. It can also be done innocently and unknowingly. "Wait, there are 4 "linksys" networks, which was mine again?".
While I don't agree with torrenting or otherwise saturating someones connection, leaving it wide open and then being pissed when someone logs onto it is almost as ridiculous as yelling to your neighbor across the street and getting mad when another neighbors listens in and potentially adds their two cents. If you're not going to take the time to secure your broadcast transmissions, don't get pissed at those who listen/use it.
Would you prefer the alternative of just not releasing it as open source and letting it die quietly instead? But then people would say "why can't they just release the source code and let the community run with it?". Guess you just can't win...
It might be fun to say you would be a super villain, but I have a feeling most people aren't sociopaths. To do what it takes to punish people to further your agenda probably isn't in the cards for most people. Sure, you might not be the most stand up guy, given the powers, but you probably wouldn't be blowing up trains and taking school children hostage.
Don't blame the lawyers that there are people/companies looking to sue each other. That's a cultural problem, not one caused by lawyers. The patent system on the other hand, ya, that's broken.
What I find exciting is the prospect of a lot of young minds trying to figure out how to get a probe there with the capability of communicating back (within a reasonable time frame) what it finds. And then the science, if it is a habitable planet, of trying to visit it.
We need a new catalyst to spark imagination and an intense drive to succeed in the sciences.
Even if it is impossible to venture there, the discoveries and new technologies that we _do_ develop that doesn't quite reach the goal, but is above anything we currently have... Exciting!
I enjoyed it and considering the constraints, it was a very good short. Which one of us is right? That's right, neither of us and both of us. Subjective opinions aren't about right and wrong. The art and animation were very well done. Some sections felt very "clay" like and almost seemed to give a stop motion effect. That would be my only nitpick. Well, that and fluid animation wasn't really polished. Oh, and the snow didn't seem to stick to anything, at all. Given more time and maybe a little more work on the different effects would have cleaned all that up. How about objectively looking at the movie since this submission was more about everything _but_ the story?
Exactly how I see it. This is entirely on ESPN. They are simply billing the end user in such a way that removes the end user from the decision making process. Either the ISP antes up on behalf of the end user (and your monthly bill will probably reflect that), and you get the service, or they don't and you're S.O.L.
This is clearly not a net neutrality issue. The ISP isn't limiting or throttling you. The ISP isn't really deciding if you can or can't have the ESPN3 service. ESPN3 is deciding who can and can not access their services through a paywall that the ISP will be on the hook for if they decide to carry it.
Now, I can see this _enticing_ a net neutrality issue in the future however.
$ISP antes up and pays for ESPN3 access but explicitly blocks it to all users. Now $ISP charges its customers, who want the service, an extra $10 a month to have ESPN3 service _unblocked_. Now the ISP is choosing what to send to you by putting up ACL's, etc. That is a net neutrality issue.
P.S., damn there is a mod who doesn't like me.
Still don't think that's a net neutrality issue. That's just ESPN locking their site/services to those _providers_ willing to pay them. If this was an issue like MLB.tv where end users have to pay, it would be basically the same deal. The way I see it, this is just a different way for Disney/ESPN to bill. It's a crappy setup, but it's not a net neutrality issue.
As far as I understand it, this ESPN3 issue isn't a choice of MS nor ISPs. This is a choice of Disney/ESPN themselves charging for access to their services. Basically, providers have to pay ESPN for access. If they don't pay ESPN, no ESPN3. This has nothing to do with ISP's deciding what to and not to allow you to see.
It seems the average IQ of those we choose to be around are quite different. That being said, and this is meant as a joke, coming from someone with a UID of "Abcd1234", I'm not at all surprised!