It would be nice to see articles out from behind the IEEE and ACM paywalls, though.
Many articles available on ACM are actually availble elsewhere outside of the paywalls. Every publication I've ever made is on both ACM behind the paywall and my personal site and uni sites for free. I personally just google the name of what I want to read and it often turns up somewhere for free (legitimately). Not ideal though I know.
As mentioned by someone else, ACM has now started a linking service effectively allowing free publication through ACM. Haven't got round to sorting it for my stuff yet, but looks like it's what is wanted for people like me.
Google: We do search that gives better results based on what the person actually wants. It includes a calculator, knowledge engine, currency converter and many more little features you'll take for granted all in one.
Hotmail: we do online mail
Google: We do online mail with quite a nice interface that includes chat features integrated into it, along with a labs section to fiddle with stuff. We give a lot more space for free. We are even trying to innovate with the use of priority inbox's and other features that didn't exist before. You don't have to use them if you don't want to though.
Nokia: We do smartphones
Apple: we do too, and added touch and apps
Google: We do smartphones that are open and customisable. You have a variety of hardware to choose from that suits you, and pretty safe ecosystem if you want that and a way to install other stuff too. We introduced desktop widgets and a few other useful features, although we probably weren't the ones to do them first, people seem to like them none the less. All this and funky integration with our other services.
Sun: We do Java
Microsoft: We do Java too!!
Court + Sun: No you don't you do something different
Google: We do Android SDK that runs in a virtual machine using Dalvik bytecode. Oracle claims we violate their patents, which remains to be seen.
Everyone: We do instant messaging
Google: Me too! See email. Our chat happily and easily runs in browser and using a variety of clients, includes video and voice chat and phonecalls. Yeah others do it too, but are they as convenient if you're already using gmail?
Facebook: We do social
Google: We do social too. We've tried it before and fucked it up. That taught us to give people what they want instead, and make it easy for people to lock down their profile, send messages to only those they want and generally try to respect their privacy (from an outside perspective. We do use your data, but it's free and we're an advertising company so what do you expect? Do you think facebook doesn't?)
Sony/Apple: We do brand-specific shops
MS & now Google: me too!
You've got me on this one...
Wow this really makes me sound like a google lover, heck maybe I am. But don't criticise them for making services that in many ways appear to be better than the alternatives in some but not all ways. Remember, you don't have to use them..
It's a bad thing if teachers have a Facebook account they use to buddy with their students simply to share pictures, schmooze, gossip and otherwise engage in behavior that is unbecoming a teacher.
Ummm, why? There is nothing wrong with teachers being friends with their students and doing anything a normal human being would do (within the law and school policy obviously). If they abused it by taking advantage of their position of power, or something else then yeah, it's a bad thing, but I was friends with some of my teachers when I was younger. I did gossip with them, and sometimes see or show holiday pics and things, and these were the teachers I went to when I needed advice, for example when I couldn't ask my parents. Just because some fucker decides to abuse a system doesn't mean I should be punished for it.
It's going to take a long time before Apple realizes they can't win this legal battle and they should have just kept competing in the marketplace instead.
Apple have already won, that's why they do it. It won't be a long time before they realise they can't win, they know they can't win the lawsuit but in playing this game they're holding back everyone long enough so that they can make a tiny improvement and claim to have the latest and greatest. If they weren't able to hold everyone back like this people would progress and try to stay ahead of everyone else through actual improvement and innovation, but then they'd have to share a piece of the pie and actually innovate something.
Granted for most cases this is true, but there are some that cannot be taught in a standard school because of the rules that teachers and administration have to follow. It would be nice if they could get shipped off to military boarding school but people are unwilling to do that now.
Forgive my nitpicking, but would that not be the same as giving them the right support? Ok, so maybe expulsion and finding the right solution that works there is what is necessary, but this is not what the parent was advocating. There is no solution that will work for everyone, it's the job of parents and teachers to find what will work for each child, but expelling them and giving up on them is not going to help, which is what I took the initial poster to be saying.
You cannot teach someone when they are not willing to learn.
Bullshit. You just have to find the right way. Give them the right support.
If a child doesn't want to learn they should be expelled from school and given working papers.
Oh brilliant. Kids act out for a variety of reasons, none of which deserves to get them expelled. Expelling them shows them that you, and hence the world, has given up on them. You may as well just wait until they are old enough and their disruptions are bad enough that you can lock them up and throw away the key!
Why punish those that are there to learn with disruptive people?
Because they're kids. Everybody needs to learn how to deal with assholes. And assholes need to learn how to deal with people.
In Britain, (but not Scotland) there is a "right to ramble", to walk over undeveloped, uncultivated private land.
You make it sound as if Scotland does not have these rights, however this is not the case. Instead, here in Scotland we have a complete "right to roam", far less restrictive than that of England and Wales. I believe the main difference is we can be on any land for a variety of purposes instead of just certain types of land like moorland and coastal land.
I realise this does not necessarily affect the point you were making, I just thought it should be pointed out.
Sources: Me (An Englishman living in Scotland) and wikipedia
I realise this guy broke software licenses, but I bought these. Now that they're no longer available is Google going to hand out refunds to all those customers who have lost access to their software?
I'm actually not really bothered given I bought them ages ago, I just thought it was an interesting question of what happens when Google pulls something.
You DO NOT need to close applications in Android. It's handled automagically by the OS.
Unless the app crashes, locks up, goes into an infinite loop, decides to be designed badly so that the only way you can get back to a certain stage in the program is to fully restart it (not just go home and then back), etc, etc. Agreed though, Android does a really good job of removing the need to close applications and have task killers etc, but they cannot protect you from crappy programmers in general..
The point is that this is not true with this particular piece of malware.
FTFY
If you really think that there are no other exploits that can gain root access or other desired privileges then you are living in a dream world. Whether or not they have been discovered yet is irrelevant. And I can guarantee you that new ones will also be introduced at some point.
If you don't believe me just google "max exploit root" for proof that it has already happened at least once.
Any "idiot" that doesn't have a data plan yet still wants to use their phone in public places. Seriously, how is this different from using a laptop on public wifi. It comes with risks... And you can know what is being transmitted, just because you don't know how, again, same with laptops...
While Apple certainly deserves a lot of blame, so do all the people who purchased their products. It has been clear for ages that their model is one of lockdown and control. If you support that kind of thing financially, you bear some of the responsibility for the direction that our society seems to be going: erosion of personal ownership and transfer of control to multinational corporations.
Those purchasing deserve blame for what exactly. Yes they lock down their devices, so what. Some people want that, others don't which is why we have competition and alternatives like Android. When Apple crossed a line with personal privacy people stood up and complained and it was resolved. Yes there should be more protections in place to prevent this kind of incident, but those purchasing clearly didn't like what happened and Apple was put in its place. If they didn't,/then/ go ahead and transfer the blame, but until then all the consumers have done is purchase a device in a safe ecosystem that they can't break. If you don't like the restrictions then don't buy it..
Sony Corp (6758.T) blamed Internet vigilante group Anonymous for indirectly allowing a hacker to gain access to personal data of more than 100 million video game users.
That sounds to me like Sony blames them. They're saying it wasn't necessarily them that did it, but Sony are using them as an excuse for distracting them away from their security responsibilities. The title and summary are correct, although they are exaggerating some facts to make it sound more serious than it is. The accusation that is, not the breach itself.
On a side note, what kind of company has security set up such that because someone else is ddossing you, other people can get in. Pure bs and incompetence.
I use "free" streaming virtually all of the time where I am, but as odd as this may sound, I still pay for my content. Over here in the uk we have no hulu, we have no netflix, none of the streams coming from the other legitimate sites, all we have is iPlayer, which is a bit of a joke as far as most of its content is concerned. But that's never stopped me, plenty of less legitimate sites out there to give us what we should already have.
However, I don't think the content should be free, it should be available, how it is now illegally, for a reasonable fee (or at least ad supported). But no-one wants my money.. Here's the clincher though, in this country, if we watch anything that is being broadcast on a tv channel at the same time we have to pay a license fee to the government. Technically I don't need to pay it, but I do because it directly supports british content being created. Also, I have an internet connection, which we're pretty much forced to bundle with cable tv and a phone line. So, whilst I use the internet solely for my entertainment, I still indirectly pay what I consider reasonable(ish) for what I'm getting. It's kind of a guilt and responsibility thing.
Now, if the companies pulled their heads out of their asses and provided me with the streaming methods that are clearly feasible, preferably for a reasonable price, then they could drop out the middle men, I would drop the rest and they would get all the cash. But they're morons who would rather whine that they don't have my money rather than actually allow me to give them it. Go figure..
Brilliant for those who do not travel, but unfortunately that is largely useless to the rest of the world that uses gsm not cdma. Also, just for comparison, that's about $10 more than I spend a month for the same.
I meant for phone too. It's too expensive here, full stop. I don't think I will ever have a data plan here unless things change drastically.
I completely understand, but when you normally have a reasonable price for internet everywhere and your "never get lost again (tm)" device it suddenly becomes a shock when you're in an unfamiliar city without it... Crutch? Of course it is, but I don't care. Sometimes you have to go with the hand you're dealt.
This. If I lived in Europe, I'd want 3G. - In North America, fuck it. The price is just not justifiable.
Even in Europe the price is not justifiable. I'm already paying for 3g on my phone and it tethers without a hiccup, why would I let them double bill me?
I have an ARM based tablet running Android 2.3. Why would I want to use Android on x86? Is it really that much faster?
Most consumers don't give a diddle about arm vs x86, they just want a tablet that works. Intel wants in on some of the tablet money running around and this is their only way in. Meanwhile it'll also give the consumers more choice and nvidia/qualcomm/arm/whoever more competition keeping innovation running. Wins all round as far as I can see.
Honestly, if you're angry because RIM, or Google, or Microsoft, or whoever isn't trying to stick it to every dictatorship, you're an idiot. If the US government goes and tries to say a dictator is being too mean (perhaps by killing them), they're the terrible World Police. But if RIM refuses to do the same thing, you get angry. You're an angry, fickle group of people.
Mod down if you disagree.
I don't disagree, but the issue should be addressed. If he was asked a question like that there are much better responses, such as explaining the circumstances they are under, explaining that for whatever reason you are unable to comment on that issue at that time, whatever. Calling a reasonable and important question "unfair" is just silly and has lost even more of my respect for the company.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be nice to see articles out from behind the IEEE and ACM paywalls, though.
Many articles available on ACM are actually availble elsewhere outside of the paywalls. Every publication I've ever made is on both ACM behind the paywall and my personal site and uni sites for free. I personally just google the name of what I want to read and it often turns up somewhere for free (legitimately). Not ideal though I know.
As mentioned by someone else, ACM has now started a linking service effectively allowing free publication through ACM. Haven't got round to sorting it for my stuff yet, but looks like it's what is wanted for people like me.
AltaVista: we do search!
Google: We do search that gives better results based on what the person actually wants. It includes a calculator, knowledge engine, currency converter and many more little features you'll take for granted all in one.
Hotmail: we do online mail
Google: We do online mail with quite a nice interface that includes chat features integrated into it, along with a labs section to fiddle with stuff. We give a lot more space for free. We are even trying to innovate with the use of priority inbox's and other features that didn't exist before. You don't have to use them if you don't want to though.
Nokia: We do smartphones
Apple: we do too, and added touch and apps
Google: We do smartphones that are open and customisable. You have a variety of hardware to choose from that suits you, and pretty safe ecosystem if you want that and a way to install other stuff too. We introduced desktop widgets and a few other useful features, although we probably weren't the ones to do them first, people seem to like them none the less. All this and funky integration with our other services.
Sun: We do Java
Microsoft: We do Java too!!
Court + Sun: No you don't you do something different
Google: We do Android SDK that runs in a virtual machine using Dalvik bytecode. Oracle claims we violate their patents, which remains to be seen.
Everyone: We do instant messaging
Google: Me too! See email. Our chat happily and easily runs in browser and using a variety of clients, includes video and voice chat and phonecalls. Yeah others do it too, but are they as convenient if you're already using gmail?
Facebook: We do social
Google: We do social too. We've tried it before and fucked it up. That taught us to give people what they want instead, and make it easy for people to lock down their profile, send messages to only those they want and generally try to respect their privacy (from an outside perspective. We do use your data, but it's free and we're an advertising company so what do you expect? Do you think facebook doesn't?)
Sony/Apple: We do brand-specific shops
MS & now Google: me too!
You've got me on this one...
Wow this really makes me sound like a google lover, heck maybe I am. But don't criticise them for making services that in many ways appear to be better than the alternatives in some but not all ways. Remember, you don't have to use them..
But is your kid moody, impulsive, or are they unfriendly?
Seriously? Isn't this the definition of every single teenager that exists, has existed and will exist? Myself included back in the day of course.
It's a bad thing if teachers have a Facebook account they use to buddy with their students simply to share pictures, schmooze, gossip and otherwise engage in behavior that is unbecoming a teacher.
Ummm, why? There is nothing wrong with teachers being friends with their students and doing anything a normal human being would do (within the law and school policy obviously). If they abused it by taking advantage of their position of power, or something else then yeah, it's a bad thing, but I was friends with some of my teachers when I was younger. I did gossip with them, and sometimes see or show holiday pics and things, and these were the teachers I went to when I needed advice, for example when I couldn't ask my parents. Just because some fucker decides to abuse a system doesn't mean I should be punished for it.
It's going to take a long time before Apple realizes they can't win this legal battle and they should have just kept competing in the marketplace instead.
Apple have already won, that's why they do it. It won't be a long time before they realise they can't win, they know they can't win the lawsuit but in playing this game they're holding back everyone long enough so that they can make a tiny improvement and claim to have the latest and greatest. If they weren't able to hold everyone back like this people would progress and try to stay ahead of everyone else through actual improvement and innovation, but then they'd have to share a piece of the pie and actually innovate something.
Granted for most cases this is true, but there are some that cannot be taught in a standard school because of the rules that teachers and administration have to follow. It would be nice if they could get shipped off to military boarding school but people are unwilling to do that now.
Forgive my nitpicking, but would that not be the same as giving them the right support? Ok, so maybe expulsion and finding the right solution that works there is what is necessary, but this is not what the parent was advocating. There is no solution that will work for everyone, it's the job of parents and teachers to find what will work for each child, but expelling them and giving up on them is not going to help, which is what I took the initial poster to be saying.
You cannot teach someone when they are not willing to learn.
Bullshit. You just have to find the right way. Give them the right support.
If a child doesn't want to learn they should be expelled from school and given working papers.
Oh brilliant. Kids act out for a variety of reasons, none of which deserves to get them expelled. Expelling them shows them that you, and hence the world, has given up on them. You may as well just wait until they are old enough and their disruptions are bad enough that you can lock them up and throw away the key!
Why punish those that are there to learn with disruptive people?
Because they're kids. Everybody needs to learn how to deal with assholes. And assholes need to learn how to deal with people.
In Britain, (but not Scotland) there is a "right to ramble", to walk over undeveloped, uncultivated private land.
You make it sound as if Scotland does not have these rights, however this is not the case. Instead, here in Scotland we have a complete "right to roam", far less restrictive than that of England and Wales. I believe the main difference is we can be on any land for a variety of purposes instead of just certain types of land like moorland and coastal land.
I realise this does not necessarily affect the point you were making, I just thought it should be pointed out.
Sources: Me (An Englishman living in Scotland) and wikipedia
What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing?
The ones they'll decide they need to track down said phone-bomb organisations
Blackmailing filesharers didn't turn out to be the money-spinner he anticipated it to be...
I'm not sure I agree. From your link:
Andrew Crossley continued to reside in a £700,000 home with a Bentley in the driveway.
Just another slimy conman working the system.
I realise this guy broke software licenses, but I bought these. Now that they're no longer available is Google going to hand out refunds to all those customers who have lost access to their software?
I'm actually not really bothered given I bought them ages ago, I just thought it was an interesting question of what happens when Google pulls something.
You DO NOT need to close applications in Android. It's handled automagically by the OS.
Unless the app crashes, locks up, goes into an infinite loop, decides to be designed badly so that the only way you can get back to a certain stage in the program is to fully restart it (not just go home and then back), etc, etc. Agreed though, Android does a really good job of removing the need to close applications and have task killers etc, but they cannot protect you from crappy programmers in general..
The point is that this is not true with this particular piece of malware.
FTFY
If you really think that there are no other exploits that can gain root access or other desired privileges then you are living in a dream world. Whether or not they have been discovered yet is irrelevant. And I can guarantee you that new ones will also be introduced at some point.
If you don't believe me just google "max exploit root" for proof that it has already happened at least once.
Any "idiot" that doesn't have a data plan yet still wants to use their phone in public places. Seriously, how is this different from using a laptop on public wifi. It comes with risks... And you can know what is being transmitted, just because you don't know how, again, same with laptops...
While Apple certainly deserves a lot of blame, so do all the people who purchased their products. It has been clear for ages that their model is one of lockdown and control. If you support that kind of thing financially, you bear some of the responsibility for the direction that our society seems to be going: erosion of personal ownership and transfer of control to multinational corporations.
Those purchasing deserve blame for what exactly. Yes they lock down their devices, so what. Some people want that, others don't which is why we have competition and alternatives like Android. When Apple crossed a line with personal privacy people stood up and complained and it was resolved. Yes there should be more protections in place to prevent this kind of incident, but those purchasing clearly didn't like what happened and Apple was put in its place. If they didn't, /then/ go ahead and transfer the blame, but until then all the consumers have done is purchase a device in a safe ecosystem that they can't break. If you don't like the restrictions then don't buy it..
2011: The year of Duke Nukem Forever, GNOME 3, and an actually sensible Slashdot comments system? Am I dreaming? Somebody pinch me!
The mayans were pretty good, they just had an off by one error. It's the beginning of the end.
Sony Corp (6758.T) blamed Internet vigilante group Anonymous for indirectly allowing a hacker to gain access to personal data of more than 100 million video game users.
That sounds to me like Sony blames them. They're saying it wasn't necessarily them that did it, but Sony are using them as an excuse for distracting them away from their security responsibilities. The title and summary are correct, although they are exaggerating some facts to make it sound more serious than it is. The accusation that is, not the breach itself.
On a side note, what kind of company has security set up such that because someone else is ddossing you, other people can get in. Pure bs and incompetence.
Awesome thanks, I hadn't seen these guys anywhere. Step in the right direction..
I use "free" streaming virtually all of the time where I am, but as odd as this may sound, I still pay for my content. Over here in the uk we have no hulu, we have no netflix, none of the streams coming from the other legitimate sites, all we have is iPlayer, which is a bit of a joke as far as most of its content is concerned. But that's never stopped me, plenty of less legitimate sites out there to give us what we should already have.
However, I don't think the content should be free, it should be available, how it is now illegally, for a reasonable fee (or at least ad supported). But no-one wants my money.. Here's the clincher though, in this country, if we watch anything that is being broadcast on a tv channel at the same time we have to pay a license fee to the government. Technically I don't need to pay it, but I do because it directly supports british content being created. Also, I have an internet connection, which we're pretty much forced to bundle with cable tv and a phone line. So, whilst I use the internet solely for my entertainment, I still indirectly pay what I consider reasonable(ish) for what I'm getting. It's kind of a guilt and responsibility thing.
Now, if the companies pulled their heads out of their asses and provided me with the streaming methods that are clearly feasible, preferably for a reasonable price, then they could drop out the middle men, I would drop the rest and they would get all the cash. But they're morons who would rather whine that they don't have my money rather than actually allow me to give them it. Go figure..
Brilliant for those who do not travel, but unfortunately that is largely useless to the rest of the world that uses gsm not cdma. Also, just for comparison, that's about $10 more than I spend a month for the same.
I meant for phone too. It's too expensive here, full stop. I don't think I will ever have a data plan here unless things change drastically.
I completely understand, but when you normally have a reasonable price for internet everywhere and your "never get lost again (tm)" device it suddenly becomes a shock when you're in an unfamiliar city without it... Crutch? Of course it is, but I don't care. Sometimes you have to go with the hand you're dealt.
This. If I lived in Europe, I'd want 3G. - In North America, fuck it. The price is just not justifiable.
Even in Europe the price is not justifiable. I'm already paying for 3g on my phone and it tethers without a hiccup, why would I let them double bill me?
I have an ARM based tablet running Android 2.3. Why would I want to use Android on x86? Is it really that much faster?
Most consumers don't give a diddle about arm vs x86, they just want a tablet that works. Intel wants in on some of the tablet money running around and this is their only way in. Meanwhile it'll also give the consumers more choice and nvidia/qualcomm/arm/whoever more competition keeping innovation running. Wins all round as far as I can see.
Honestly, if you're angry because RIM, or Google, or Microsoft, or whoever isn't trying to stick it to every dictatorship, you're an idiot. If the US government goes and tries to say a dictator is being too mean (perhaps by killing them), they're the terrible World Police. But if RIM refuses to do the same thing, you get angry. You're an angry, fickle group of people. Mod down if you disagree.
I don't disagree, but the issue should be addressed. If he was asked a question like that there are much better responses, such as explaining the circumstances they are under, explaining that for whatever reason you are unable to comment on that issue at that time, whatever. Calling a reasonable and important question "unfair" is just silly and has lost even more of my respect for the company.
Offtopic but which adblock do you use? And how good is it?