At the risk of confronting the No True Scotsman fallacy....
You already have a few others, why not add this one to the list!
You don't like the iPhone, and the restrictive terms that go with it? Then don't use one and don't develop for one. But don't bitch about those who choose to. Their choice to use/develop for iPhones neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
New Slashdot mantra: "All developers are equal, but some are more equal than others."
It's a start. In medicine nowadays, the "Big Name, Big Profit" companies pay for new techniques, and those techniques--eventually--filter down to the poor.
For decades, the Chinese have been probably the greatest competition the US has had as far as spying goes. Not only for military secrets, but, also commercial secrets.
I hate the "Fixed that for you" meme, but this time I couldn't resist.
The internet ceasing to be a content-agnostic delivery system for bits would be the real tragedy.
This is starting to wander off-topic, but the Internet has never been "content agnostic"--and the WWW is even less so. At least since the advent of the "commercial Internet," and even to some extent on the pre-commercial "academic internet," content (and locations) is vetted by the administrators of the various service providers. Back in the days of the academic Internet--your sysop doesn't like netnews? He can tell the college administrators "It's full of porn," block port 119, and there's not a damn thing most users could do about it. Worse yet--your sysop has a beef against Indiana State University? He can block the whole domain, and you have to go outside your school's network to get there.
Now in the days of the "Commercial Internet," it's even worse. Most providers treat it as a business instead of content-agnostic media--well, that's completely understandable, given that it is a business. And by treating the Internet as a business, blocking (or even simply refusing to support) things like Usenet actually saves them money, making them more profitable.
Now come the spammers, and how do the local ISPs react? Do they block the offending websites? If so, do they take the time to weed through and block the specific pages, or do they just do a quick-and-dirty block of the name or IP range? The second takes less time and effort--which means less expense.
I dunno. Maybe registrar is right, and I'm just doom-and-glooming. But I'm sick and tired of the "content-agnostic delivery system" being hijacked by the very people who I pay money each month to be able to use the damn thing.
Hackers (in the senses of "improvisational programmer" or "ethical student of security technology") often don't grasp this.
Actually, most (if not all) of them do, and take a perverse, quixotic joy in fighting against the majority usage. It's probably an issue of pride ("I'm a HACKER, not some scummy script-kiddie!"). I view it as about as "useful" as OS-flamewars, or endless arguments over editors.
And while we're talking about editors, don't get me started about emacs.;)
And now we have the latest malware wave, where 1000+ legitimate sites have been hacked to serve a fake Flash player. This is going to seriously hurt CNN's reputation (and ad revenue), as a lot of folks are going to set their mail servers to delete stuff that even mentions CNN. Worse yet, it's going to put a serious hurting on the 1000+ hacked sites: CNN has enough goodwill and trust built up that it will survive the onslaught, but the "other victims" may end up blacklisted by a lot of folks.
Most malware authors have learned not to crap in their own bed: the days of a virus that wiped your files are fading; now we have malware that more-or-less uses your files alone, but uses your connection to send spam or do DoS attacks. If they make the attack less blatant, it's less likely to be discovered and cleaned up.
While the malware authors may be trying to stay quiet on the PC, they sure don't mind hurting companies... and that hurts the internet as a whole. As much as some in the geek community may dislike it, the Internet is payed for by commerce--internet sales, services, and subscriptions indirectly pay for the infrastructure we all use. If these small companies are hurt by spammers and malware authors, then the small companies may be less willing to maintain an internet presence--which means there will be less people who pay the ISPs to maintain and improve the infrastructure.
There are a lot of contingent statements in the above paragraph, and maybe I'm getting more worried than I should be, but I have to wonder: how long will it be until spammers, scammers, and other low-grade shits ruin the Internet for everyone?
I'm surprised no one's come up with a "jailbreak" for it. A quick search on "Kindle hacks" shows that the firmware seems to be accessible, and one would hazard that replacing the DRM-laden reader with a free reader would not be excessively difficult.
Accusations of Microsoft being a monopolist are not FUD. Accusations of Microsoft being intrinsically bad software because they're a monopolist (or because they're not open source, or because they seek a profit for their software, or because they take steps against what they consider piracy) are FUD, and should not be tolerated.
This is a very good point, but not one that will win favor from the MS-bashing crowd.
The truth of the matter is that much of the "Computer R&D" is incestuous and cannibalistic. Microsoft used BSD networking stack for Windows, and the whole "windowing" motif from Apple. Apple, in turn, got the windowing motif from Xerox. It would be difficult at best to say where the boys at MIT "stole" the idea for the X windowing system.
Some "borrowing" is necessary and understandable. Open Office and Microsoft Office are inextricably intertwined, but this is not necessarily because anyone "stole" from anyone else. This is because any suite of programs that perform the same fundamental functions is going to have some overlap on its functionality.
Microsoft's FUD to the side, yes, new things do come from the OSS community. Microsoft still hasn't implemented Windows over network connections like X does--instead, they use Remote Desktop, "stolen" from the VNC protocol. At the same time, Microsoft has a massive install base, and has become the de facto "standard," as much as we might wish it had not: Linux is still playing catch-up.
I guess I don't see the need to respond to Microsoft's FUD with FUD of our own. After all, if it's wrong for them to do it, is it not also wrong for us?
By strict reading, the 4th Amendment only applies to "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." It does not apply to a person's activities in a public place, nor to any records of their activities in a public place. Which means that the librarian, in turning over the computer, did not violate (or assist in violating, or accede to a violation of) anyone's 4th amendment rights.
Though I will admit I was just as much in on it as anyone else. Perhaps instead of malice or stupidity, it was simply "taking care of the biggest customer pool first."
But frankly, I fail to see any practical applications for this.
Like you, I can't see any practical applications. But the science itself is fascinating.
It does make a certain measure of sense (to my no-more-pure-sciences-since-high-school mind): the additional energy provided by the heat and pressure would excite all of the shell layers.
But I confess I'm over my depth: I go more towards computer sciences than physics.
So? It's not as though Microsoft tech support is all that and a bag of chips.
"Microsoft does just as badly, so it's OK."
Since when are we, as FOSS users, supposed to compare ourselves to a standard of behavior that Microsoft uses? And since when is it a good thing if we are no better?
Since when is it even acceptable to be no better than the Great Evil Corporation?
I'm not chiding the developers, but the "FOSS ambassadors" who chide people for using Windows one moment, then make the learning curve for Linux to high for the typical user.
Slashdot Mirror
There's an article?
And i read it! :( I'm so sorry--it will never happen again!
Lessons in Googlespeak:
"Google does it" == "Not Evil."
Based on TFA, the lenses don't make any adaptation to vision: the only thing they do is monitor intraocular pressure.
At the risk of confronting the No True Scotsman fallacy....
You already have a few others, why not add this one to the list!
You don't like the iPhone, and the restrictive terms that go with it? Then don't use one and don't develop for one. But don't bitch about those who choose to. Their choice to use/develop for iPhones neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
New Slashdot mantra: "All developers are equal, but some are more equal than others."
So, this means that there is still a hidden kill switch in the iPhone.
Nope--the kill switch is in the kool-aid.
What you are arguing against is not what I am saying, Nick.
It's a start. In medicine nowadays, the "Big Name, Big Profit" companies pay for new techniques, and those techniques--eventually--filter down to the poor.
It's not right--but it is the way of the world.
For decades, the Chinese have been probably the greatest competition the US has had as far as spying goes. Not only for military secrets, but, also commercial secrets.
I hate the "Fixed that for you" meme, but this time I couldn't resist.
Warm, fond, slightly squishy memories.
Not an operating system, but it has fulfilled Zawinski's law.
"Dammit emacs!" :D
The internet ceasing to be a content-agnostic delivery system for bits would be the real tragedy.
This is starting to wander off-topic, but the Internet has never been "content agnostic"--and the WWW is even less so. At least since the advent of the "commercial Internet," and even to some extent on the pre-commercial "academic internet," content (and locations) is vetted by the administrators of the various service providers. Back in the days of the academic Internet--your sysop doesn't like netnews? He can tell the college administrators "It's full of porn," block port 119, and there's not a damn thing most users could do about it. Worse yet--your sysop has a beef against Indiana State University? He can block the whole domain, and you have to go outside your school's network to get there.
Now in the days of the "Commercial Internet," it's even worse. Most providers treat it as a business instead of content-agnostic media--well, that's completely understandable, given that it is a business. And by treating the Internet as a business, blocking (or even simply refusing to support) things like Usenet actually saves them money, making them more profitable.
Now come the spammers, and how do the local ISPs react? Do they block the offending websites? If so, do they take the time to weed through and block the specific pages, or do they just do a quick-and-dirty block of the name or IP range? The second takes less time and effort--which means less expense.
I dunno. Maybe registrar is right, and I'm just doom-and-glooming. But I'm sick and tired of the "content-agnostic delivery system" being hijacked by the very people who I pay money each month to be able to use the damn thing.
Hackers (in the senses of "improvisational programmer" or "ethical student of security technology") often don't grasp this.
Actually, most (if not all) of them do, and take a perverse, quixotic joy in fighting against the majority usage. It's probably an issue of pride ("I'm a HACKER, not some scummy script-kiddie!"). I view it as about as "useful" as OS-flamewars, or endless arguments over editors.
And while we're talking about editors, don't get me started about emacs. ;)
Cross-posted from my journal.
And now we have the latest malware wave, where 1000+ legitimate sites have been hacked to serve a fake Flash player. This is going to seriously hurt CNN's reputation (and ad revenue), as a lot of folks are going to set their mail servers to delete stuff that even mentions CNN. Worse yet, it's going to put a serious hurting on the 1000+ hacked sites: CNN has enough goodwill and trust built up that it will survive the onslaught, but the "other victims" may end up blacklisted by a lot of folks.
Most malware authors have learned not to crap in their own bed: the days of a virus that wiped your files are fading; now we have malware that more-or-less uses your files alone, but uses your connection to send spam or do DoS attacks. If they make the attack less blatant, it's less likely to be discovered and cleaned up.
While the malware authors may be trying to stay quiet on the PC, they sure don't mind hurting companies ... and that hurts the internet as a whole. As much as some in the geek community may dislike it, the Internet is payed for by commerce--internet sales, services, and subscriptions indirectly pay for the infrastructure we all use. If these small companies are hurt by spammers and malware authors, then the small companies may be less willing to maintain an internet presence--which means there will be less people who pay the ISPs to maintain and improve the infrastructure.
There are a lot of contingent statements in the above paragraph, and maybe I'm getting more worried than I should be, but I have to wonder: how long will it be until spammers, scammers, and other low-grade shits ruin the Internet for everyone?
My bad--for some reason I thought the Kindle would only allow the proprietary files from Amazon. Time to go to bed.
I'm surprised no one's come up with a "jailbreak" for it. A quick search on "Kindle hacks" shows that the firmware seems to be accessible, and one would hazard that replacing the DRM-laden reader with a free reader would not be excessively difficult.
(A la "Goodbye, Blue Sky") Look, mummie, there's a joke flying up in the sky!
Accusations of Microsoft being a monopolist are not FUD. Accusations of Microsoft being intrinsically bad software because they're a monopolist (or because they're not open source, or because they seek a profit for their software, or because they take steps against what they consider piracy) are FUD, and should not be tolerated.
This is a very good point, but not one that will win favor from the MS-bashing crowd.
The truth of the matter is that much of the "Computer R&D" is incestuous and cannibalistic. Microsoft used BSD networking stack for Windows, and the whole "windowing" motif from Apple. Apple, in turn, got the windowing motif from Xerox. It would be difficult at best to say where the boys at MIT "stole" the idea for the X windowing system.
Some "borrowing" is necessary and understandable. Open Office and Microsoft Office are inextricably intertwined, but this is not necessarily because anyone "stole" from anyone else. This is because any suite of programs that perform the same fundamental functions is going to have some overlap on its functionality.
Microsoft's FUD to the side, yes, new things do come from the OSS community. Microsoft still hasn't implemented Windows over network connections like X does--instead, they use Remote Desktop, "stolen" from the VNC protocol. At the same time, Microsoft has a massive install base, and has become the de facto "standard," as much as we might wish it had not: Linux is still playing catch-up. I guess I don't see the need to respond to Microsoft's FUD with FUD of our own. After all, if it's wrong for them to do it, is it not also wrong for us?
The operative word in your post is "if."
By strict reading, the 4th Amendment only applies to "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." It does not apply to a person's activities in a public place, nor to any records of their activities in a public place. Which means that the librarian, in turning over the computer, did not violate (or assist in violating, or accede to a violation of) anyone's 4th amendment rights.
Though I will admit I was just as much in on it as anyone else. Perhaps instead of malice or stupidity, it was simply "taking care of the biggest customer pool first."
But frankly, I fail to see any practical applications for this.
Like you, I can't see any practical applications. But the science itself is fascinating.
It does make a certain measure of sense (to my no-more-pure-sciences-since-high-school mind): the additional energy provided by the heat and pressure would excite all of the shell layers.
But I confess I'm over my depth: I go more towards computer sciences than physics.
So? It's not as though Microsoft tech support is all that and a bag of chips.
"Microsoft does just as badly, so it's OK."
Since when are we, as FOSS users, supposed to compare ourselves to a standard of behavior that Microsoft uses? And since when is it a good thing if we are no better?
Since when is it even acceptable to be no better than the Great Evil Corporation?
I did RTFA (I know, shame on me), but either the text was ambiguous or I'm still insufficiently caffeinated. Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not chiding the developers, but the "FOSS ambassadors" who chide people for using Windows one moment, then make the learning curve for Linux to high for the typical user.