I'm sure the person responsible for looking after my children while I'm working would be able to deal with the situation and get my attention as necessary.
I have no problem with Apple disabling Java. I would like them to provide some notice and I would like them to provide a way to whitelist trusted applications. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
I obtained a patch from my IT department that reversed the change. My understanding is that it modified a PLIST to change the minimum version of Java required.
Our VPN software uses Java, so it is a pain to not have it.
What is still annoying about it is that there is no way to selectively enable it. I understand that it is secure, that's fine. Consequently, I'd like to be able to whitelist Java applications that I trust (i.e. ones that come from corp) and not become vulnerable to ones that aren't trusted. Firefox has accomplished this by replacing the app with an 'Enable Javascript' button. With Safari you're either unable to work or you're letting it all hang out there.
For reference, Vancouver is a major Canadian city (3rd largest with about 2 million people in the metro area) that probably has more public transportation than most.
He might be talking about the Macbook Pro in response to the question 'Macs have fans?'. I know for me some operations feel like an airplane ride - when the task starts I can hear it starting to take off, it spends some time in the air as it does its work, and it lands and the engines shut off when its done. Colleagues say that the CD drive makes a loud noise as well, but I don't use it all that much.
Yes, and they did the right thing by allowing you to choose to still run Java. As opposed to Safari where it is blocked and they give you no indication as to how to go about reenabling it.
There are two things here that Firefox solves better: 1. They allow you to choose to override the denial so that you can opt to trust a particular applet. 2. They allow you to still use Java but you have to specifically enable/trust the applets that you need, rather than it being all or nothing.
But this isn't about crime. This is about a cell phone carrier selling a phone with certain contract conditions and one of those conditions is based on the cell carrier wanting the phone to be used only on their network.
I'm not arguing for or against the law with this argument - I'm merely providing a counter argument for why cell phone carriers may want to keep their customers' phones locked. If it were the case that there was no extra revenue potential for them by keeping the phone locked, then it seems harder to understand the *why* of the carriers wanting this law. If allowing people to use their phones under other deals that they can make with other carriers can reduce their potential revenue, it makes more sense, IMO.
If you could make a real, working (read: smell generating) fart app then you would have a perfect pair. One app to generate air pollution and one to detect it.
Think about it this way. It is not good for your company if your customers believe that customer support staff are sitting on the other end of the phone rolling their eyes, or worse.
According to http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ (for google): 13 million requests received in the last month to remove links from Google. That equates to over 430,000 in one day or roughly 150 requests every 30 seconds.
Youtube may not be on quite the same scale, but I would still be surprised if it took more than an hour to reach 150 requests.
So if I wrote code licensed under the GPL and posted it with a notice clearly indicating the license, you are suggested that I should have to relinquish copyrights and lose my right to enforce the GPL?
Sure, but even in that statement they aren't saying they bought a phone. They are saying they bought a contract and got a phone for free. I would be really interested to see evidence to the contrary but I'm pretty sure that people understand that the reason they are being offered the phone for free it because the carrier is making money off of the contract.
Well, in my case, here is what the decision is based upon, for when I travel to the US, which is every couple of months:
Voice Calls: $1.45 per minute (+ any long distance) Text Messages: $.75 per sent text (free to receive though) Data: $.01/KB
My carrier also has a plan that costs $15 a month which gives you the privilege of having the Voice call roaming rate reduced to $.35 a minute. For $10 a month you can have the data reduced to $1/MB. I also see that they have a text message travel pass that gets you unlimited text messages for $10/day
My solution was to get my phone unlocked and get a pay as you go plan from t-mobile. It costs me $2 for each day I use the phone in the US. I don't use the phone a lot, but I figure if I send three text messages in a day to coordinate dinner plans or something then I have come out saving money. I also can look things up on my phone, like directions to somewhere without having to pay a crazy amount for data, and if I want to make a call I can just do it. It doesn't allow me to call back home to Canada, but I have other means to do that so I don't find that to be a big deal.
Interesting. My experience has been (here in Canada) that in order to qualify for the hardware discounts you have to commit to a plan that costs around $30 a month for what they used to call a feature phone (maybe they still do, but they typically run Android these days), or $50 or $60 a month for a smart phone of some description (think newer Android devices, the iPhone, Blackberrys, etc).
Well, there actually *could* be potential harm if you consider loss of revenue to be harm. Why would anybody want to use a Canadian provider while in Canada? Presumably the same reason that I unlocked my phone to use a US provider when I travel to the US (from Canada). I don't want to pay the exorbitant roaming fees. The cell companies make good money off of people travelling and using their phones while roaming. Also, even though somebody might pay for a base plan the provider can still at times earn extra money if the subscriber goes over their minutes or data allotment or text allotment etc.
I don't think that is misrepresented. I think most people have a clear understanding that the phone is cheaper under a contract because the carrier is making the money back on service.
They don't just sell you the phone for $99. They sell you the phone for $99 under the conditions of the contract which include you either paying for the service every month or paying an early termination fee.
So for clarification, I think you missed the point of what the GP was trying to say. The statement in the summary as written suggests that highly specialized software solutions are commonly engineered for reuse.
Based on the context of the summary, it should probably say either: 1. These highly specialized software solutions are not engineered for reuse.
or
2. These highly specialized software solutions are rarely engineered for reuse.
Slashdot Mirror
So I wasn't clear... Linus is saying he is against merging the code into the kernel, right?
I'm sure the person responsible for looking after my children while I'm working would be able to deal with the situation and get my attention as necessary.
So by forced to change their name, what they really mean is they chose to change their name because people were mistaking them for the Apple Store?
Ah, yeah, typo sorry. I meant Java.
I have no problem with Apple disabling Java. I would like them to provide some notice and I would like them to provide a way to whitelist trusted applications. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
I obtained a patch from my IT department that reversed the change. My understanding is that it modified a PLIST to change the minimum version of Java required.
Our VPN software uses Java, so it is a pain to not have it.
What is still annoying about it is that there is no way to selectively enable it. I understand that it is secure, that's fine. Consequently, I'd like to be able to whitelist Java applications that I trust (i.e. ones that come from corp) and not become vulnerable to ones that aren't trusted. Firefox has accomplished this by replacing the app with an 'Enable Javascript' button. With Safari you're either unable to work or you're letting it all hang out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
For reference, Vancouver is a major Canadian city (3rd largest with about 2 million people in the metro area) that probably has more public transportation than most.
No.
He might be talking about the Macbook Pro in response to the question 'Macs have fans?'. I know for me some operations feel like an airplane ride - when the task starts I can hear it starting to take off, it spends some time in the air as it does its work, and it lands and the engines shut off when its done. Colleagues say that the CD drive makes a loud noise as well, but I don't use it all that much.
Yes, and they did the right thing by allowing you to choose to still run Java. As opposed to Safari where it is blocked and they give you no indication as to how to go about reenabling it.
There are two things here that Firefox solves better:
1. They allow you to choose to override the denial so that you can opt to trust a particular applet.
2. They allow you to still use Java but you have to specifically enable/trust the applets that you need, rather than it being all or nothing.
But this isn't about crime. This is about a cell phone carrier selling a phone with certain contract conditions and one of those conditions is based on the cell carrier wanting the phone to be used only on their network.
I'm not arguing for or against the law with this argument - I'm merely providing a counter argument for why cell phone carriers may want to keep their customers' phones locked. If it were the case that there was no extra revenue potential for them by keeping the phone locked, then it seems harder to understand the *why* of the carriers wanting this law. If allowing people to use their phones under other deals that they can make with other carriers can reduce their potential revenue, it makes more sense, IMO.
If you could make a real, working (read: smell generating) fart app then you would have a perfect pair. One app to generate air pollution and one to detect it.
It's also possible that just because a processor has more cores doesn't mean that it is faster.
Think about it this way. It is not good for your company if your customers believe that customer support staff are sitting on the other end of the phone rolling their eyes, or worse.
That is the image that this portrays.
According to http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ (for google):
13 million requests received in the last month to remove links from Google. That equates to over 430,000 in one day or roughly 150 requests every 30 seconds.
Youtube may not be on quite the same scale, but I would still be surprised if it took more than an hour to reach 150 requests.
I would be surprised if Youtube didn't recode your files at least somewhat, which would likely cause the loss of any encoded data.
So if I wrote code licensed under the GPL and posted it with a notice clearly indicating the license, you are suggested that I should have to relinquish copyrights and lose my right to enforce the GPL?
Sure, but even in that statement they aren't saying they bought a phone. They are saying they bought a contract and got a phone for free. I would be really interested to see evidence to the contrary but I'm pretty sure that people understand that the reason they are being offered the phone for free it because the carrier is making money off of the contract.
http://www.rogers.com/web/content/flextab?cm_mmc=Redirects-_-Consumer_Wireless_Eng-_-Devices-_-Flextab - that is a page from one of the Canadian carriers which I think spells things out pretty clearly.
Well, in my case, here is what the decision is based upon, for when I travel to the US, which is every couple of months:
Voice Calls: $1.45 per minute (+ any long distance)
Text Messages: $.75 per sent text (free to receive though)
Data: $.01/KB
My carrier also has a plan that costs $15 a month which gives you the privilege of having the Voice call roaming rate reduced to $.35 a minute. For $10 a month you can have the data reduced to $1/MB. I also see that they have a text message travel pass that gets you unlimited text messages for $10/day
My solution was to get my phone unlocked and get a pay as you go plan from t-mobile. It costs me $2 for each day I use the phone in the US. I don't use the phone a lot, but I figure if I send three text messages in a day to coordinate dinner plans or something then I have come out saving money. I also can look things up on my phone, like directions to somewhere without having to pay a crazy amount for data, and if I want to make a call I can just do it. It doesn't allow me to call back home to Canada, but I have other means to do that so I don't find that to be a big deal.
Interesting. My experience has been (here in Canada) that in order to qualify for the hardware discounts you have to commit to a plan that costs around $30 a month for what they used to call a feature phone (maybe they still do, but they typically run Android these days), or $50 or $60 a month for a smart phone of some description (think newer Android devices, the iPhone, Blackberrys, etc).
Well, there actually *could* be potential harm if you consider loss of revenue to be harm. Why would anybody want to use a Canadian provider while in Canada? Presumably the same reason that I unlocked my phone to use a US provider when I travel to the US (from Canada). I don't want to pay the exorbitant roaming fees. The cell companies make good money off of people travelling and using their phones while roaming. Also, even though somebody might pay for a base plan the provider can still at times earn extra money if the subscriber goes over their minutes or data allotment or text allotment etc.
I don't think that is misrepresented. I think most people have a clear understanding that the phone is cheaper under a contract because the carrier is making the money back on service.
They don't just sell you the phone for $99. They sell you the phone for $99 under the conditions of the contract which include you either paying for the service every month or paying an early termination fee.
So for clarification, I think you missed the point of what the GP was trying to say. The statement in the summary as written suggests that highly specialized software solutions are commonly engineered for reuse.
Based on the context of the summary, it should probably say either:
1. These highly specialized software solutions are not engineered for reuse.
or
2. These highly specialized software solutions are rarely engineered for reuse.
So a website can override a browser's security settings? Nifty.