No such luck with Vista or Windows 7 thanks to the extra DRM and my non-hdcp monitor.
That's funny. I watch Blu-Rays just fine on both my Vista and Windows 7 machines which only connect to my monitor via DVI. Or are you one of those idiots who actually uses crappy playback software like PowerDVD to play Blu-Rays?
And Sony will respond by banning these people from PSN for hacking the PS3. Or does this person really think that Sony won't be checking such a thing when you connect to PSN?
Except that the iPhone already supported multitasking and all of Apple's own apps were able to run in the background. The change is only for third-party apps.
Didn't all the Apple fanboys say that not having multitasking to eat out battery life was better?
In many cases, yes, it is better that third-party apps couldn't run in the background. Considering how poor of quality many third-party iPhone apps are, it's a great thing that they couldn't sit around in the background eating up battery.
And that it made things simpler?
How does it not make things simpler?
Revolutionary. My HTC phones have had such since like early 2000.
Because it's being marketed as being revolutionary? Oh wait....
the only reason ISPs have monopolies is because local governments GAVE them the monopoly. If local governments stopped handing-out these exclusive licenses, and allowed the free market to operate, then we'd have a dozen different companies serving our homes. Just imagine if your choices were:
And the only reason those monopolies stay in place is because those same companies you list collude together to lobby that they stay around. If you think any of those companies actually want to compete against each other you're living in a fantasy world.
Because these "open" standards aren't being predominately developed by multinational corporations that want to sell their own products? You must be profoundly ignorant of the real world if you think these supposed "open" standards aren't steered by and tainted by corporate greed as much as any "proprietary" standard.
The less "open standards" clusterfucks designed by committees of self-righteous idiots the better.
And how "open" is a standard really when the only people allowed in the committees are the representatives of multinational corporations? And let's not even get into the fact that if you want to get a copy of this "open" standard you usually have to pay hundreds of dollars.
Glyn Moody is well-known for posting articles that lack much or any substance and getting them posted here at Slashdot is just a way for him to easily drum up page hits.
That's clearly very positive about open standards and open source. And then, back in November of last year, a draft version of the revised EIF was leaked [.pdf]. It revealed a staggering re-definition of what openness meant by suggesting that “closed” was part of the “openness continuum”:
Except that your claimed new definition doesn't claim that proprietary software is considered "open" and actually spins proprietary software in a very bad light:
and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.
This definition is funny because one can come up with a number of examples of poor or non-existant documentation, NIH syndrome, a resistance to code reuse within OSS.
Then if you neither understand the code nor understand the effects your changes make to the code, you don't make the change. The fault squarely lies with the idiot monkeying around in places he shouldn't have.
Then you haven't actually read the charter of the FCC:
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio
But even disregarding that the scope and powers of the FCC has evolved over time as Congress has given it more authority. You seem to be the only one unaware that governmental agencies evolve over time.
No, but in contrast to a government operation there are a dozen other companies colluding with each other and trying to screw their consumers as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
No such luck with Vista or Windows 7 thanks to the extra DRM and my non-hdcp monitor.
That's funny. I watch Blu-Rays just fine on both my Vista and Windows 7 machines which only connect to my monitor via DVI. Or are you one of those idiots who actually uses crappy playback software like PowerDVD to play Blu-Rays?
but there's a lot of pissed off users now with torches just aching to start a blaze.
Which amount to what? 1% or less of the total PS3 owners?
And Sony will respond by banning these people from PSN for hacking the PS3. Or does this person really think that Sony won't be checking such a thing when you connect to PSN?
So by this logic one should just ignore any exploits in IE6 just cause most people are using IE7 or 8?
Perhaps he should have pointed a professional browser security evaluation site like Secunia.com
Okay. Here is the Secunia link about the same issue. That better for you?
Firefox 3.6.2 addresses critical vulnerability
Opera vunerability that the company denies is a vunerability
You're better off running Chrome.
This i sjust one more piece of how patents are a minefield for legitimate innovators.
How can you be an innovator if you're just implementing something that someone else has already done?
Oh it seems Apple finally got to 90's computing.
Except that the iPhone already supported multitasking and all of Apple's own apps were able to run in the background. The change is only for third-party apps.
Didn't all the Apple fanboys say that not having multitasking to eat out battery life was better?
In many cases, yes, it is better that third-party apps couldn't run in the background. Considering how poor of quality many third-party iPhone apps are, it's a great thing that they couldn't sit around in the background eating up battery.
And that it made things simpler?
How does it not make things simpler?
Revolutionary. My HTC phones have had such since like early 2000.
Because it's being marketed as being revolutionary? Oh wait....
That ignores the researchers who were paying patent royalties, which far exceed those receiving them.
[citation needed]
Oh, and please reference where their user guides explicitly said they indexed copyrighted/illegal material.
You mean other than when they had a category called "warez" which is a term for pirated software?
Ya know.....
the only reason ISPs have monopolies is because local governments GAVE them the monopoly. If local governments stopped handing-out these exclusive licenses, and allowed the free market to operate, then we'd have a dozen different companies serving our homes. Just imagine if your choices were:
And the only reason those monopolies stay in place is because those same companies you list collude together to lobby that they stay around. If you think any of those companies actually want to compete against each other you're living in a fantasy world.
This about me not having to pay rent to MS to interact with my government.
So instead you pay it to IBM? How exactly are you some how better off?
Since when did rape become a joke?
Because they want to make money just like the corporations who will sell the software based on those open standards?
Seems to me open standards would hinder a closed-sourced DRM scheme designed to limit communication.
Why? There's nothing stopping someone from taking any open standard format and slapping on a DRM scheme.
Because these "open" standards aren't being predominately developed by multinational corporations that want to sell their own products? You must be profoundly ignorant of the real world if you think these supposed "open" standards aren't steered by and tainted by corporate greed as much as any "proprietary" standard.
The less "open standards" clusterfucks designed by committees of self-righteous idiots the better.
And how "open" is a standard really when the only people allowed in the committees are the representatives of multinational corporations? And let's not even get into the fact that if you want to get a copy of this "open" standard you usually have to pay hundreds of dollars.
Glyn Moody is well-known for posting articles that lack much or any substance and getting them posted here at Slashdot is just a way for him to easily drum up page hits.
That's clearly very positive about open standards and open source. And then, back in November of last year, a draft version of the revised EIF was leaked [.pdf]. It revealed a staggering re-definition of what openness meant by suggesting that “closed” was part of the “openness continuum”:
Except that your claimed new definition doesn't claim that proprietary software is considered "open" and actually spins proprietary software in a very bad light:
and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.
This definition is funny because one can come up with a number of examples of poor or non-existant documentation, NIH syndrome, a resistance to code reuse within OSS.
Then if you neither understand the code nor understand the effects your changes make to the code, you don't make the change. The fault squarely lies with the idiot monkeying around in places he shouldn't have.
Or monkeying with the random number generator.
It doesn't matter. He said it lacked window scaling. This is false because you can enable it through the registry or tweak tools.
Then you haven't actually read the charter of the FCC:
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio
But even disregarding that the scope and powers of the FCC has evolved over time as Congress has given it more authority. You seem to be the only one unaware that governmental agencies evolve over time.
No, but in contrast to a government operation there are a dozen other companies colluding with each other and trying to screw their consumers as much as possible.
FTFY.
and a really bad one in my opinion, their website looks crazy from firefox
That's because it was created in FrontPage 5.0. It only barely renders properly in IE 7.