I am just saying I miss those days. As for the computer it was probably something like a Pentium 90 if I got the time right. I had some pretty high end stuff, but of course any phone today is going to have more horsepower than a computer from 94-96ish.
Quite recently there was a Slashdot article about some company taking out patents on modular smart phone technology, something I have been thinking about and talking about for *years*. Not original thought by a long shot and obvious to every tech out there. Just not as much profit in making something modular because it makes a heck of lot harder to get everybody replacing their shiny shit over and over again every 12 months.
Imagine having a cylinder with only some buttons running down the side and all it did was make phone calls. That's it. Period. Had enough battery in it to operate a couple of hours standalone. Plus, an external battery that merely twists off into a separate part that so that you could have a few with you in your pocket.
The unit itself would not be designed to make phone calls without a hands free, either wired or wireless. Need it to connect up to the Internet? Just slide the whole cylinder into a port on your laptop, tablet, etc. Charges off the main device and then provides a NIC to it. Other functions can be accessed via an API so it could be cross platform compatible.
I would never need a smart phone ever again. Just a tablet of my choosing and the phone itself would just be a phone again... and last a week on its own.
You might be right. However, I don't know a single person, IT especially, that is not constantly on their phones in the car, at lunch, and at work.
Just going by my experience. It seems, especially with FB, that people can't put their phone down for 2 minutes without knowing how twatted what or posted what to whoever's wall or whatever shit that it is all about.
I think you are the exception to the rule to be honest.
I use my BB quite often with some other apps actually. Nothing that uses the Internet really heavy because all web browsing sucks on all phones equally. The form factor is just not suited for it. I open up documents and read reports generated from servers and processes all day long. Plus instant messaging via Skype.
So if you are going by how often I have the phone actually on and using it, I use it about 75% as much as anybody else. Plus, I have to admit that when waiting for something out and about I have a little Texas Holdem game that I play. It was free.
As for the BBM and email, that's a nice cheap shot, but it's not hitting the mark over here. If we go by straight uptime I am still at 99% for the last couple of years with BB. In all fairness, iPhone and Android will be about the same with a well maintained infrastructure and service.
A couple of days in 4 years is nothing to get my panties bunched up about.
That's a great idea. If part of your bucket list is being some guy's prison wife.
I knew a kid in real life that pulled it off. Was with me in Military school... wonder why?
Never tried him as an adult, but he got in plenty of trouble and his parents were sued... by hundreds of families.
Set up the system to record the girls locker room and had an IR remote to turn it off and on to save on VHS tape (this was quite some time ago). Used an editing rig to create a "best of" collection and sold it for thousands of dollars during the last 3 days of school. Some kids sister caught her brother "watching" the tape.
I have no love for Apple. Never made any pretense about that.
However, everybody I know with an Android based phone and tablet have a car adapter, usb adapter, and and plug in adapter (usually just something for the USB to plug into).
I still have a Verizon Storm. Why? I don't need it for anything other than BB messages and email support.
All of my friends and fellow co-workers on Android are *always* running out of power by mid-afternoon..... at best. Using it with the flashlight apps is hilarious. It has to be the most inefficient flashlight in history. You can see the battery running down in front of you:)
They are constantly plugging it into my car and at a coffee shop it's like I need a 8 port USB hub just to allow all the people that need to charge up their phone or tablet.
Android sucks on power usage and my Storm can go 36 hours on a single charge even with me talking for a few hours with bluetooth on all the time.
That alone is the biggest reason why I am not getting a new phone yet. Don't want to take all the extension cords with me.
*sigh*.... I miss the days of my TDMA AT&T Nokia cell phone with the extended battery. Went on vacation with it in the middle of nowhere for two weeks without the charger. It made it all the way back home with a percent to spare. Also the only phone that was able to connect to a tower to make a call.
Can you tell me what the hell you are talking about? It sounds really cool, but I don't know what search terms to put into Google to start researching it:)
You know that thing out of the matrix where all the frames are taken simultaneously but dispersed along the path you want the viewpoint to take when the frames are played sequentially as a video. Maybe bolt onto a frame, or stick around the inside of a room with velcro.
Actually, I was remembering that kid on YouTube a bunch of years back that took a video of him showing his "mad skills" with a light saber.
That would have been even more awesome in bullet time.
He never said, or even implied, they would be taken off school property.
I have had plenty of old unused equipment that is surplus. Plenty of times I have used them in my own little projects at work to try out an idea or something cool. If companies are willing to pay for you to take classes outside of work to increase your skill sets, why would they object to you using equipment not currently allocated to anything to do the same?
At this moment I have a test VM server on my desk from an used system. Using it to test out different images and appliances.
I believe that is what he asking for. What idea do you have to use 45 web cameras? I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I am curious.
Yeah... buts let's face it. If it is going to be truly informative we all have to admit that the average Slashdotter would only benefit from 1-3 of those camera angles maximum anyways.
Ok, I really, really hope you appreciate the full irony of the fact that you are endorsing Chrome, the browser made by Google (one of, if not the, largest advertising companies in the world) in a post complaining about.. companies that push advertising. Oh, the irony!
That is the search engine part of their business. I would not use Chrome if it did not support the extensions that allow me to block ads. AFAIK, Google has never come out saying it was developing browser technology to specifically support advertisements like Opera has.
I can see where you might see irony, for sure. However, Opera is the only company supporting a browser that is being designed around advertisements.
But I don't really see how advertising is the problem. If it wasn't for ads, the Internet would not be able to exist as it does today. Many of the sites you like would have to be behind paywalls, probably including Slashdot and its kin. And not just that, but, taking it further, TV shows could only exist on premium channels like HBO. Ads, as annoying as they can be, support a lot, for minimal cost to the end user (I can live with minor annoyance). You could even argue that they benefit us (an ad for a sale could actually save you money). I don't see at all how it drives copyright and distribution wars.
1) I don't care about paywalls or who has to "die". I'm sure there were some sympathetic people for the buggy whip industry when automobiles were first starting to hurt their profits. I will do everything possible to get rid of advertisements due to how much I hate them. Most other people are the same as I am, but just not as dedicated. Meaning, very few people would choose advertisements willingly as part of some overall big picture understanding, as you seemingly would.
2) They are not a minor annoyance. Advertisements have got so out of control they are a HUGE annoyance. There is a reason why when I watch TV shows on Netflix so many come up as being 20-23 minutes in duration, and why older shows are longer in duration. In show overlay advertising has reached such disruptive levels I cannot even watch TV shows on TV anymore. It is simply impossible for me to concentrate and get into the show. Sorry, my brain does not multi-task like that naturally and it takes effort. After a hard day of multi-tasking on 3 monitors the last thing I want to do is have to concentrate to ignore one stream of data to get at another one. Furthermore, those in show advertisements actually interfere with important aspects of the show itself. Many times an important element in the scene is blocked, somebody talking and moving their hands is actually obscured. That's bullshit, and paying for it is just stupidity.
3) Cost to the user is not minimal. I was paying nearly $100 per month for the converter boxes and programming on a per box basis. If I am already paying $100 per month, why the heck am I still seeing advertisements? I should be seeing everything with zero interference of any kind, and at this point, completely on demand. Clearly, the $100 per month is not enough to satiate all those involved, and that means it is not sustainable. Since it is not sustainable, the only sane solution is to let it die and live within our means. That goes for a lot more than TV and its associated industries.
4) Advertisements never benefit you, they benefit the advertiser. They are fundamentally tools that utilize deception and manipulation of the consumer. There are other ways I could be informed about a sale. When I want something, or need something, I do research. It is at that point the companies involved should be telling me that Company A has it on sale for $50 instead of $75 everywhere else. Basically, other methods and processes could be leveraged to accomplish the same thing and have informed consumers about the truth of a product, instead of which celebrity "loves" it or how much pussy it will magically get you by drinking it.
I don't use Opera, or really know anything about it. I have it installed of course since I need to see how pages are rendered in different browsers for my job, but the features and feel did not attract me nearly as much as Chrome.
Believe me, nobody was more surprised than me that such a new browser would be that good, but it was and is.
This is my first experience with Opera as a company, and they seem to be supporting the advertisers despite what you have pointed out. I get your point, but I don't think it is a good idea for any browser company to be announcing how they are trying to support advertising at all. It makes them seem like part of the problem and not part of the solution. Advertising, in part, is driving the whole copyright and distribution war since that is what companies are really fighting for. Advertising revenue.
It's a great, effective idea.... if you used it properly.
As I am sure others have pointed out it is most effectively used, with as few false positives/negatives as possible, if only used in a scoring system.
If I get an email from you, the lack of a record adds about 20% I think to the SPAM threshold. If the rest of your email is fairly normal and contains nothing flagged from anything like Spamhaus, your email gets through without rejection.
Automatically rejecting the connection and giving a 5xx error when the records don't match can block legitimate email from people like you that don't have the ability to do so, or people that are so inept, they don't even know what you are talking about.
I learned that fairly quick, which is why I just add it to a scoring system now instead of outright blocking.
So the better question is how to use rDNS and PTR records properly in a mail server, not whether they should be used at all.
It was just a comment on GPs attempt to dismiss the matter of "stealing" having occurred, when, if you accept the latter three definitions above, it did. If you choose to dismiss any dictionary which defines "steal" as also involving non-physical objects, that's your choice - but that doesn't resolve a dispute on the topic. Geeks need to man up about this and accept that words change. It's like folks are treating "steal" as a dirty word, and something they like to pretend they're not involved with; Denying any modern meaning of the word is how they go about setting themselves apart, and feel better about what they do.
You're wrong, and on many levels.
Plagiarism is not a form of stealing. Just like copyright infringement, it is a separate act, that for exactly the same reasons, had the word steal misappropriated to benefit the copyright holders.
Geeks do not need to "man up". We need to bunker down and refuse to allow people like you to change the word. Saying that change is just part of life, and like oh well, just go with the flow is harmful bullshit.
I don't "pretend" anything. I have fully admitted, that on many occasions, both past and present, that I willfully perform acts of copyright infringement. I did so in my youth due to availability and in inability to pay, and as an adult because I choose to not respect any form of copyrights or patents that are older than 20 years. I find them to be harmful and detrimental to society and I will continue to treat them as if they were in the Public Domain. Because they should be. Period.
As for words changing meaning, yes that is inevitable. What I will always fight is WHY. IT IS THE WHY THAT I FIGHT.
The word steal is continually being misappropriated to the act of copyright infringement for a purpose.
Just as you say I am denying the word to make myself feel better about what I am doing, "they" are changing the word to better support their positions and what they are doing.
"They" are quite often referred to as Big Content, Big Media, etc. It is simply, a group of people and companies that represent large portfolios of copyrighted works that want to change the laws that govern our society to suit their interests. These interests are not in the best interests of The People, but rather themselves, which they conveniently and constantly spin to be "providing shareholder value".
No. NO. NO.
I will not participate with you in allowing the perversion of the word to suit a small group of people that want to apply a reality distortion field to a dispute and argument that affects all societies everywhere, and at an important and fundamental level.
So for the exact same reasons you outlined, I am not letting Big Content get away with it. There is no stealing in cyberspace. Period. Once you take that away, we can start seeing these acts for what they are. Civil disputes between two parties, wherein one party has had their legal entitlements infringed upon by the other and they seek restitution as provided for by law.
You allow that word to change and you are merely collaborating with a group of people that most certainly care nothing about your interests or freedoms, but whatever it takes, regardless of harm, to serve their own selfish interests.
Why I am so fanatical about this?
Big Content has done tremendous damage to our rights and privacy/anonymity to aid them in their civil disputes simply because they are unable to enforce their own legal entitlements. Use of the word steal is merely part of their propaganda and warped logic to erode our civil liberties, harm copyrights and the Public Domain, and to ultimately destroy the Public Domain.
It is killing innovation and doing the exact opposite that one might think.
No sir, I will not participate, I will not give up my rights, and I will fight to my last breath to protect the best interests of The People. That means copyright/patent reform and the realization that nothing is important enough to give up my Freedoms. That is not even logical. We fought to hard for our Freedoms to give it up to help criminalize even the smallest form of copyright infringement.
However, I think you truly have a point. At least I really hope so. What is claimed in this article makes Air Force cyber security look so weak and pathetic that whoever they have tasked to do it could not qualify for a job with the Geek Squad.
If our security really is that weak.... why the hell are we worried about terrorists taking over civilian aircraft still when they could remotely take over a bunch of armed drones and attack military and civilian targets with our own advanced weaponry?
You're wrong about the 98%. However, we can add another category... apathy. You fall into that category. Maybe your category is 15-20%. I doubt it. Most people I run into either don't know how to do it, or are already blocking. You are the first person I ever run into that just does not care.
Why it should be a bigger deal to you is that advertisements are one way that malware is spread. You present a much smaller target if you are not automatically running flash and rendering advertisements on all sites. Even trusted sites should be blocked by default since they are not always capable, or even trying, to vet all advertisements for malware. They just let it through, and sometimes allow it be controlled wholly by third parties. Not every site serving malware was designed to do it, but hijacked to do it. Big difference.
Basically, it is a good security practice to block all advertising by default, and especially flash. I also recommend keeping an up to date hosts file to block most known malware and advertisement domains. It is not foolproof by any means, but just another tool in the tool box.
Interestingly enough (at least to me) the only way to block that annoying pop-under ad from Fandango is with the hosts file. Cannot figure out how to get any other piece of software to block it, which was part of my point that there is a constant battle to push the advertising in front of your face.
If you can deal with it.... believe me... you don't represent the average person. The average person finds it disruptive and annoying to the experience.
Sorry, but that definition still is, and always will be, complete and utter bullshit.
All of your points involved the physical world. The act of theft, or stealing, can ONLY occur in the physical world. It blows my mind that anyone can come to a different conclusion once all things are considered. You cannot steal an idea, thoughts, etc. All you can do is share in them.
Regardless of how one feels about intellectual property, we should be able to not treat each other like idiots and stop using the word theft or steal.
It is copyright infringement. In cyberspace, stealing/theft can not ever occur. Only copying or destruction. Unlike space/time where energy can be neither created nor destroyed, which apparently has been extended to include "information" by scientists, cyberspace does allow for the destruction of information. It occurs all the time, either through intent or malice.
The attempts to attribute the word steal, theft, etc. to the copying of information are all part of a disingenuous tactic to apply a reality distortion field.
What is actually happening is quite important to understand, in fact critically important. These acts of copying and distributing data, which are called "piracy" so often, are just acts of copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement, when done the way it is being done on the Internet, is considered by law to be civil disputes by most countries. This is quite inarguable actually. If it was stealing or theft, district attorneys would be involved (in the US) and the plaintiff would be the United States and the defendant would be John Smith. This is not true is it? Nope. Only time it is ever true is in criminal cases that involve physical distribution and profiting at fairly large scales. What we have in reality is large legal firms starting thousands, or hundreds of thousands of civil lawsuits.
For the record, a copyright is a set of legal entitlements granted by society to the creators. We do this, according to the appropriate philosophies, to encourage innovation by rewarding those who do it, and to provide a valuable wealth of art and knowledge that all of society, and all societies as well, can use to create ever more new works of art and technologies.
One cannot steal a set of legal entitlements, but infringe upon them. Totally different concept.
And also for the record.... I support reasonable and sane copyrights and their interpretations. Not the reality distorted views and representations by groups of companies, people, legislators, etc. that outright lie and warp the facts to harm society with their actions. Taking away our rights, privacy, and anonymity to protect some legal entitlements is insanity. Sometimes poison can be used to cure, but this is not one of those cases.
Copyright infringement DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE EITHER!:)
This is actual hacking. The malicious intent by a person to disrupt a system, copy information, for whatever purposes they want without the authorization by the people who own it.
It will not be copyright laws that are ultimately brought to bear upon the person responsible for this, but laws expressly written to punish people who cause harm to companies and systems through their actions.
The poster who brought this point up was not being pedantic, but only pointing out what you immediately attacked as untrue. No actual theft occurred here. However, yes, there were crimes committed.
That's great and all, but I laugh at the emphasis on supporting advertisements. Seriously, why waste your time on that kind of development?
The only reason there are still advertisements is because there are 3 types of people in the world:
1) People who don't know how to stop it. Getting smaller all the time. 2) People who do know how to stop it. Getting bigger all the time. 3) People who have constructed a logical argument that advertisements are required and/or necessary, and that the act of bypassing them somehow constitutes unethical behavior at a minimum and outright theft at a maximum.
Category 3 is very small percentage. 1 & 2 make up 99.99% of all people on the planet.
Unfortunately, there are some very influential and strong people and companies in Category 3 that are always thinking of new ways to make 1 bigger and 2 smaller.
The last thing we need is a company like Opera actively enabling them to do it. The browser company that makes it part of their core functionality to increase Category 2 is the one I will be throwing my full support behind. Of course, naturally, Category 2 gravitates towards the browser that is the most effective at it.
All this article makes me want to do is support Opera a heck of lot less is that is their mentality.
P.S - That includes the one that makes it easiest to block other undesirable platforms like Flash, Javascript, etc. with as much granularity as possible.
The whole idea is not to need to get to stuff quicker at all.
If you are:
1) Completely virtualized. 2) Use power circuits that are monitored for load, on a battery back up, power conditioners, and diesel fuel generators for local utility backup. 3) Use management devices to control all your bare metal as if you are standing there, complete with USB connected storage per device that you can swap out the iso for. 4) Have redundancy in your virtualization setup that allows you to have high availability, live migration, automated backups, etc.
What you get is an infrastructure that allows you to route around failures and schedule hardware swap outs on your own timetable, which can be far more economical.
If you don't have that then it does involve costly emergency response at 2am to replace a bare metal server that went down. You either pay somebody you have retained locally to do it, or you are the one driving down to the datacenter at 2am to do the replacement yourself with who-the-heck-knows how long it will take with uptime monitoring solutions sending out emails like crazy to the rest of the admin staff, and heavens help you, some execs that demanded to be in the loop from now on due to an "incident".
Don't know about you..... but I would rather be able to relax at 10pm and have a few beers once awhile (to the point I can't drive) without worrying about bare metal servers going down all the time, or who is on call, etc.
Whatever. I don't know the standardized terms and fully admit that.
Funny is one thing, and what I am saying has nothing to do with being politically correct at all and I think most people know that.
"tainted crap" is not a politically charged term. Whether or not it is humorous is going to be a hit or miss depending on the receiver. Or are you really trying to tell me that "tainted crap" is such a well used term in open source that everybody would understand it to be humorous and not to be taken personally?
Even if it is, new developers are coming around all the time and might not understand it for what it allegedly is. I certainly did not, and I am just getting involved with open source to the point where I can start contributing. If somebody marked my contribution as "tainted crap" I would not immediately take it lighthearted and would more than likely see it as non constructive, combative, and hostile.
Open source needs as many contributors as possible and to do so, just maybe, maybe, it might not be such a good idea to be throwing around attributions to other people's contributions like that. Just sayin'.
In any case, you are only supporting my main point. That civilized discourse is the best option in such communities and your point you are trying to make to me, is that it should not have been taken personally and was "civilized" because I should have understood it to be humorous.
I don't think name calling is ever really appropriate. It does not create an environment where people are willing to cooperate and work with each other. All it creates is a sense of hostility and defensiveness amongst developers.
"tainted crap" is not helpful as a term or a category in any way shape or form. All it does is send the message that you have nothing but contempt for the other contributors. That can never be helpful.
Perhaps another term, or any other term, would have been better. Terms like critical, serious, unstable, etc. They get the point across without injecting vitriol into the discussion or environment.
I doubt these protestors have the sophistication or the awareness to see through the bullshit and understand what they're actually opposing. Unfortunately, they are likely to be useful idiots, pawns on someone's great chessboard. That's generally the problem when you have blind, stupid, unfocused rage that lacks understanding and a strong sense of constructive purpose
Well......... It's infinitely better than apathy .
We sit here and do nothing we will be no more than serfs in a new type of Feudalistic society. Ruled by fear of losing what we have and serving faceless lords that control everything we do, all under the guise of democracy and freedom, while not truly having either.
At the moment, we still have some rights left. Specifically, as you say, the right to be stupid and enraged while attacking (peaceful protests) what we think is the heart of the oppressors while understanding neither their nature or how to defeat them.
Although centuries ago we were nothing more than property to the aristocracy, at least you could run far and deep enough in the woods and have the skills to survive, and perhaps prosper. If nobody was ever able to find you, it might be possible to have lived free in those times.
Can we say the same about people today? I know people that would not survive for 3 days without the advanced technology that they have cocooned themselves with.
There are two ways the 99% can fight back and win:
1) Suffer.
Cut back to only the essentials. Give up some of the conveniences that make you choose between your freedoms and the shiny baubles the faceless powers entice you with. Sony wants DRM enforced by law? Don't buy any Sony products. Don't buy Apple. Don't buy Microsoft. Force yourself, either through education or connections, to use only Open Source and Open Hardware. Want something shiny? Don't use any credit to get it. Live within your means like your ancestors did. Your ancestors in World War I & II and the Great Depression did not ride out those hard times with shiny plastic credit cards pushing their problems off till the next day.
Basically, become more self sufficient and less reliant on centralized infrastructure owned by monopolies and duopolies.
2) Fight with every ounce of strength and courage you have to keep the rights you have left, to gain the ones you have lost, and to increase the strength of what rights we had, and should have. Perform acts of civil disobedience. Protest till you have no voice left. Let them arrest you and abuse you, and then tell them, "See you next week".
That's the way we could win. However, the 99% are still asleep. A small smattering of pissed of people that are part of the.0001% that are awake are the only ones that care and know what is happening and what is to come. What parts of history will repeat itself, yet again.
As you said, action now only identifies who you are to be rounded up for arrests, put through the "system", and possibly "reeducation camps" if things progress to their logical conclusion.
However, I would rather go out courageously lined up and shot, then cowardly in a comfortable little apartment enjoying the scraps that are thrown at my feet to keep me complacent.
Well removing the ability to search the text would seem to be inevitable if you are trying to "safe" the document. Unless you are very experienced with Adobe, the tools, and the interface, you will probably end up with something not searchable. So for a novice, the end result would most likely be a very "dumb" document.
That probably won't work. Most of these work by converting the PDF to PostScript for the printer and then back again. In both the PDF and the PostScript, the text will be represented as black text on a black background.
Okay. Correct me if I am wrong here, but the black text on black background will just be one large rectangle filled uniformly with black color? Meaning, the printer itself won't print it in a such a way that you could tell what the text was at all.
It seems to me that you are saying you would still be able to tell what the text was. Like printing out text, then running the paper back in and printing out a huge black filled rectangle. If you were to do that, you could figure out what the text was by inspecting the paper. Difficult, but not impossible.
Use a PDF printer driver to print the document all over again. Export it out as a graphic and then put that up on the website.
Basically, there are quite a few different ways to change the elements in a PDF doc before publishing.
The largest problem is that PDF is so freaking complicated to the average person and it is not intuitive in the least that there would be data in the document not visible on the screen. You can embed entire books into an HTML document that don't get rendered in the browser, but the data is still there isn't it?
I'm a developer and using documentation on how to construct PDF documents and spreadsheets for data exports can be fairly complicated and look like complete gibberish to anyone walking by. Not to mention how many different versions and formats there are for documents to begin with.
If you are not an "IT person" the safest, and most assured way, to be completely certain that the document on your screen is what gets sent to the recipient is to print it out and scan it back it in. The method I mentioned first is a compromise, but you can be fairly certain that everything is rendered as a graphic in the printer driver before it gets printed back into a document.
You're technique, although inefficient and a blunt instrument, is actually the best one there is if you are that concerned about security.
Slashdot Mirror
You're entirely right.
I am just saying I miss those days. As for the computer it was probably something like a Pentium 90 if I got the time right. I had some pretty high end stuff, but of course any phone today is going to have more horsepower than a computer from 94-96ish.
Quite recently there was a Slashdot article about some company taking out patents on modular smart phone technology, something I have been thinking about and talking about for *years*. Not original thought by a long shot and obvious to every tech out there. Just not as much profit in making something modular because it makes a heck of lot harder to get everybody replacing their shiny shit over and over again every 12 months.
Imagine having a cylinder with only some buttons running down the side and all it did was make phone calls. That's it. Period. Had enough battery in it to operate a couple of hours standalone. Plus, an external battery that merely twists off into a separate part that so that you could have a few with you in your pocket.
The unit itself would not be designed to make phone calls without a hands free, either wired or wireless. Need it to connect up to the Internet? Just slide the whole cylinder into a port on your laptop, tablet, etc. Charges off the main device and then provides a NIC to it. Other functions can be accessed via an API so it could be cross platform compatible.
I would never need a smart phone ever again. Just a tablet of my choosing and the phone itself would just be a phone again... and last a week on its own.
It's possible to do, just unlikely to happen.
You might be right. However, I don't know a single person, IT especially, that is not constantly on their phones in the car, at lunch, and at work.
Just going by my experience. It seems, especially with FB, that people can't put their phone down for 2 minutes without knowing how twatted what or posted what to whoever's wall or whatever shit that it is all about.
I think you are the exception to the rule to be honest.
I use my BB quite often with some other apps actually. Nothing that uses the Internet really heavy because all web browsing sucks on all phones equally. The form factor is just not suited for it. I open up documents and read reports generated from servers and processes all day long. Plus instant messaging via Skype.
So if you are going by how often I have the phone actually on and using it, I use it about 75% as much as anybody else. Plus, I have to admit that when waiting for something out and about I have a little Texas Holdem game that I play. It was free.
As for the BBM and email, that's a nice cheap shot, but it's not hitting the mark over here. If we go by straight uptime I am still at 99% for the last couple of years with BB. In all fairness, iPhone and Android will be about the same with a well maintained infrastructure and service.
A couple of days in 4 years is nothing to get my panties bunched up about.
That's a great idea. If part of your bucket list is being some guy's prison wife.
I knew a kid in real life that pulled it off. Was with me in Military school... wonder why?
Never tried him as an adult, but he got in plenty of trouble and his parents were sued... by hundreds of families.
Set up the system to record the girls locker room and had an IR remote to turn it off and on to save on VHS tape (this was quite some time ago). Used an editing rig to create a "best of" collection and sold it for thousands of dollars during the last 3 days of school. Some kids sister caught her brother "watching" the tape.
It got ugly. Really ugly. Very ugly.
I have no love for Apple. Never made any pretense about that.
However, everybody I know with an Android based phone and tablet have a car adapter, usb adapter, and and plug in adapter (usually just something for the USB to plug into).
I still have a Verizon Storm. Why? I don't need it for anything other than BB messages and email support.
All of my friends and fellow co-workers on Android are *always* running out of power by mid-afternoon..... at best. Using it with the flashlight apps is hilarious. It has to be the most inefficient flashlight in history. You can see the battery running down in front of you :)
They are constantly plugging it into my car and at a coffee shop it's like I need a 8 port USB hub just to allow all the people that need to charge up their phone or tablet.
Android sucks on power usage and my Storm can go 36 hours on a single charge even with me talking for a few hours with bluetooth on all the time.
That alone is the biggest reason why I am not getting a new phone yet. Don't want to take all the extension cords with me.
*sigh*.... I miss the days of my TDMA AT&T Nokia cell phone with the extended battery. Went on vacation with it in the middle of nowhere for two weeks without the charger. It made it all the way back home with a percent to spare. Also the only phone that was able to connect to a tower to make a call.
Can you tell me what the hell you are talking about? It sounds really cool, but I don't know what search terms to put into Google to start researching it :)
You know that thing out of the matrix where all the frames are taken simultaneously but dispersed along the path you want the viewpoint to take when the frames are played sequentially as a video. Maybe bolt onto a frame, or stick around the inside of a room with velcro.
Actually, I was remembering that kid on YouTube a bunch of years back that took a video of him showing his "mad skills" with a light saber.
That would have been even more awesome in bullet time.
He never said, or even implied, they would be taken off school property.
I have had plenty of old unused equipment that is surplus. Plenty of times I have used them in my own little projects at work to try out an idea or something cool. If companies are willing to pay for you to take classes outside of work to increase your skill sets, why would they object to you using equipment not currently allocated to anything to do the same?
At this moment I have a test VM server on my desk from an used system. Using it to test out different images and appliances.
I believe that is what he asking for. What idea do you have to use 45 web cameras? I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I am curious.
Yeah... buts let's face it. If it is going to be truly informative we all have to admit that the average Slashdotter would only benefit from 1-3 of those camera angles maximum anyways.
Ok, I really, really hope you appreciate the full irony of the fact that you are endorsing Chrome, the browser made by Google (one of, if not the, largest advertising companies in the world) in a post complaining about.. companies that push advertising. Oh, the irony!
That is the search engine part of their business. I would not use Chrome if it did not support the extensions that allow me to block ads. AFAIK, Google has never come out saying it was developing browser technology to specifically support advertisements like Opera has.
I can see where you might see irony, for sure. However, Opera is the only company supporting a browser that is being designed around advertisements.
But I don't really see how advertising is the problem. If it wasn't for ads, the Internet would not be able to exist as it does today. Many of the sites you like would have to be behind paywalls, probably including Slashdot and its kin. And not just that, but, taking it further, TV shows could only exist on premium channels like HBO. Ads, as annoying as they can be, support a lot, for minimal cost to the end user (I can live with minor annoyance). You could even argue that they benefit us (an ad for a sale could actually save you money). I don't see at all how it drives copyright and distribution wars.
1) I don't care about paywalls or who has to "die". I'm sure there were some sympathetic people for the buggy whip industry when automobiles were first starting to hurt their profits. I will do everything possible to get rid of advertisements due to how much I hate them. Most other people are the same as I am, but just not as dedicated. Meaning, very few people would choose advertisements willingly as part of some overall big picture understanding, as you seemingly would.
2) They are not a minor annoyance. Advertisements have got so out of control they are a HUGE annoyance. There is a reason why when I watch TV shows on Netflix so many come up as being 20-23 minutes in duration, and why older shows are longer in duration. In show overlay advertising has reached such disruptive levels I cannot even watch TV shows on TV anymore. It is simply impossible for me to concentrate and get into the show. Sorry, my brain does not multi-task like that naturally and it takes effort. After a hard day of multi-tasking on 3 monitors the last thing I want to do is have to concentrate to ignore one stream of data to get at another one. Furthermore, those in show advertisements actually interfere with important aspects of the show itself. Many times an important element in the scene is blocked, somebody talking and moving their hands is actually obscured. That's bullshit, and paying for it is just stupidity.
3) Cost to the user is not minimal. I was paying nearly $100 per month for the converter boxes and programming on a per box basis. If I am already paying $100 per month, why the heck am I still seeing advertisements? I should be seeing everything with zero interference of any kind, and at this point, completely on demand. Clearly, the $100 per month is not enough to satiate all those involved, and that means it is not sustainable. Since it is not sustainable, the only sane solution is to let it die and live within our means. That goes for a lot more than TV and its associated industries.
4) Advertisements never benefit you, they benefit the advertiser. They are fundamentally tools that utilize deception and manipulation of the consumer. There are other ways I could be informed about a sale. When I want something, or need something, I do research. It is at that point the companies involved should be telling me that Company A has it on sale for $50 instead of $75 everywhere else. Basically, other methods and processes could be leveraged to accomplish the same thing and have informed consumers about the truth of a product, instead of which celebrity "loves" it or how much pussy it will magically get you by drinking it.
Well... first impressions are everything right?
I don't use Opera, or really know anything about it. I have it installed of course since I need to see how pages are rendered in different browsers for my job, but the features and feel did not attract me nearly as much as Chrome.
Believe me, nobody was more surprised than me that such a new browser would be that good, but it was and is.
This is my first experience with Opera as a company, and they seem to be supporting the advertisers despite what you have pointed out. I get your point, but I don't think it is a good idea for any browser company to be announcing how they are trying to support advertising at all. It makes them seem like part of the problem and not part of the solution. Advertising, in part, is driving the whole copyright and distribution war since that is what companies are really fighting for. Advertising revenue.
It's a great, effective idea.... if you used it properly.
As I am sure others have pointed out it is most effectively used, with as few false positives/negatives as possible, if only used in a scoring system.
If I get an email from you, the lack of a record adds about 20% I think to the SPAM threshold. If the rest of your email is fairly normal and contains nothing flagged from anything like Spamhaus, your email gets through without rejection.
Automatically rejecting the connection and giving a 5xx error when the records don't match can block legitimate email from people like you that don't have the ability to do so, or people that are so inept, they don't even know what you are talking about.
I learned that fairly quick, which is why I just add it to a scoring system now instead of outright blocking.
So the better question is how to use rDNS and PTR records properly in a mail server, not whether they should be used at all.
You forgot to mention that God gave us the Flintstones and only the blind fools and tools of Satan don't see it for what it is.... a documentary.
It was just a comment on GPs attempt to dismiss the matter of "stealing" having occurred, when, if you accept the latter three definitions above, it did. If you choose to dismiss any dictionary which defines "steal" as also involving non-physical objects, that's your choice - but that doesn't resolve a dispute on the topic. Geeks need to man up about this and accept that words change. It's like folks are treating "steal" as a dirty word, and something they like to pretend they're not involved with; Denying any modern meaning of the word is how they go about setting themselves apart, and feel better about what they do.
You're wrong, and on many levels.
Plagiarism is not a form of stealing. Just like copyright infringement, it is a separate act, that for exactly the same reasons, had the word steal misappropriated to benefit the copyright holders.
Geeks do not need to "man up". We need to bunker down and refuse to allow people like you to change the word. Saying that change is just part of life, and like oh well, just go with the flow is harmful bullshit.
I don't "pretend" anything. I have fully admitted, that on many occasions, both past and present, that I willfully perform acts of copyright infringement. I did so in my youth due to availability and in inability to pay, and as an adult because I choose to not respect any form of copyrights or patents that are older than 20 years. I find them to be harmful and detrimental to society and I will continue to treat them as if they were in the Public Domain. Because they should be. Period.
As for words changing meaning, yes that is inevitable. What I will always fight is WHY. IT IS THE WHY THAT I FIGHT.
The word steal is continually being misappropriated to the act of copyright infringement for a purpose.
Just as you say I am denying the word to make myself feel better about what I am doing, "they" are changing the word to better support their positions and what they are doing.
"They" are quite often referred to as Big Content, Big Media, etc. It is simply, a group of people and companies that represent large portfolios of copyrighted works that want to change the laws that govern our society to suit their interests. These interests are not in the best interests of The People, but rather themselves, which they conveniently and constantly spin to be "providing shareholder value".
No. NO. NO.
I will not participate with you in allowing the perversion of the word to suit a small group of people that want to apply a reality distortion field to a dispute and argument that affects all societies everywhere, and at an important and fundamental level.
So for the exact same reasons you outlined, I am not letting Big Content get away with it. There is no stealing in cyberspace. Period. Once you take that away, we can start seeing these acts for what they are. Civil disputes between two parties, wherein one party has had their legal entitlements infringed upon by the other and they seek restitution as provided for by law.
You allow that word to change and you are merely collaborating with a group of people that most certainly care nothing about your interests or freedoms, but whatever it takes, regardless of harm, to serve their own selfish interests.
Why I am so fanatical about this?
Big Content has done tremendous damage to our rights and privacy/anonymity to aid them in their civil disputes simply because they are unable to enforce their own legal entitlements. Use of the word steal is merely part of their propaganda and warped logic to erode our civil liberties, harm copyrights and the Public Domain, and to ultimately destroy the Public Domain.
It is killing innovation and doing the exact opposite that one might think.
No sir, I will not participate, I will not give up my rights, and I will fight to my last breath to protect the best interests of The People. That means copyright/patent reform and the realization that nothing is important enough to give up my Freedoms. That is not even logical. We fought to hard for our Freedoms to give it up to help criminalize even the smallest form of copyright infringement.
No.
You know... you might be saying that being funny.
However, I think you truly have a point. At least I really hope so. What is claimed in this article makes Air Force cyber security look so weak and pathetic that whoever they have tasked to do it could not qualify for a job with the Geek Squad.
If our security really is that weak.... why the hell are we worried about terrorists taking over civilian aircraft still when they could remotely take over a bunch of armed drones and attack military and civilian targets with our own advanced weaponry?
You're wrong about the 98%. However, we can add another category... apathy. You fall into that category. Maybe your category is 15-20%. I doubt it. Most people I run into either don't know how to do it, or are already blocking. You are the first person I ever run into that just does not care.
Why it should be a bigger deal to you is that advertisements are one way that malware is spread. You present a much smaller target if you are not automatically running flash and rendering advertisements on all sites. Even trusted sites should be blocked by default since they are not always capable, or even trying, to vet all advertisements for malware. They just let it through, and sometimes allow it be controlled wholly by third parties. Not every site serving malware was designed to do it, but hijacked to do it. Big difference.
Basically, it is a good security practice to block all advertising by default, and especially flash. I also recommend keeping an up to date hosts file to block most known malware and advertisement domains. It is not foolproof by any means, but just another tool in the tool box.
Interestingly enough (at least to me) the only way to block that annoying pop-under ad from Fandango is with the hosts file. Cannot figure out how to get any other piece of software to block it, which was part of my point that there is a constant battle to push the advertising in front of your face.
If you can deal with it.... believe me... you don't represent the average person. The average person finds it disruptive and annoying to the experience.
Sorry, but that definition still is, and always will be, complete and utter bullshit.
All of your points involved the physical world. The act of theft, or stealing, can ONLY occur in the physical world . It blows my mind that anyone can come to a different conclusion once all things are considered. You cannot steal an idea, thoughts, etc. All you can do is share in them.
Regardless of how one feels about intellectual property, we should be able to not treat each other like idiots and stop using the word theft or steal.
It is copyright infringement. In cyberspace, stealing/theft can not ever occur. Only copying or destruction. Unlike space/time where energy can be neither created nor destroyed, which apparently has been extended to include "information" by scientists, cyberspace does allow for the destruction of information. It occurs all the time, either through intent or malice.
The attempts to attribute the word steal, theft, etc. to the copying of information are all part of a disingenuous tactic to apply a reality distortion field.
What is actually happening is quite important to understand, in fact critically important. These acts of copying and distributing data, which are called "piracy" so often, are just acts of copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement, when done the way it is being done on the Internet, is considered by law to be civil disputes by most countries. This is quite inarguable actually. If it was stealing or theft, district attorneys would be involved (in the US) and the plaintiff would be the United States and the defendant would be John Smith. This is not true is it? Nope. Only time it is ever true is in criminal cases that involve physical distribution and profiting at fairly large scales. What we have in reality is large legal firms starting thousands, or hundreds of thousands of civil lawsuits.
For the record, a copyright is a set of legal entitlements granted by society to the creators. We do this, according to the appropriate philosophies, to encourage innovation by rewarding those who do it, and to provide a valuable wealth of art and knowledge that all of society, and all societies as well, can use to create ever more new works of art and technologies.
One cannot steal a set of legal entitlements, but infringe upon them. Totally different concept.
And also for the record.... I support reasonable and sane copyrights and their interpretations. Not the reality distorted views and representations by groups of companies, people, legislators, etc. that outright lie and warp the facts to harm society with their actions. Taking away our rights, privacy, and anonymity to protect some legal entitlements is insanity. Sometimes poison can be used to cure, but this is not one of those cases.
Copyright infringement DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE EITHER! :)
This is actual hacking. The malicious intent by a person to disrupt a system, copy information, for whatever purposes they want without the authorization by the people who own it.
It will not be copyright laws that are ultimately brought to bear upon the person responsible for this, but laws expressly written to punish people who cause harm to companies and systems through their actions.
The poster who brought this point up was not being pedantic, but only pointing out what you immediately attacked as untrue. No actual theft occurred here. However, yes, there were crimes committed.
That's great and all, but I laugh at the emphasis on supporting advertisements. Seriously, why waste your time on that kind of development?
The only reason there are still advertisements is because there are 3 types of people in the world:
1) People who don't know how to stop it. Getting smaller all the time.
2) People who do know how to stop it. Getting bigger all the time.
3) People who have constructed a logical argument that advertisements are required and/or necessary, and that the act of bypassing them somehow constitutes unethical behavior at a minimum and outright theft at a maximum.
Category 3 is very small percentage. 1 & 2 make up 99.99% of all people on the planet.
Unfortunately, there are some very influential and strong people and companies in Category 3 that are always thinking of new ways to make 1 bigger and 2 smaller.
The last thing we need is a company like Opera actively enabling them to do it. The browser company that makes it part of their core functionality to increase Category 2 is the one I will be throwing my full support behind. Of course, naturally, Category 2 gravitates towards the browser that is the most effective at it.
All this article makes me want to do is support Opera a heck of lot less is that is their mentality.
P.S - That includes the one that makes it easiest to block other undesirable platforms like Flash, Javascript, etc. with as much granularity as possible.
The whole idea is not to need to get to stuff quicker at all.
If you are:
1) Completely virtualized.
2) Use power circuits that are monitored for load, on a battery back up, power conditioners, and diesel fuel generators for local utility backup.
3) Use management devices to control all your bare metal as if you are standing there, complete with USB connected storage per device that you can swap out the iso for.
4) Have redundancy in your virtualization setup that allows you to have high availability, live migration, automated backups, etc.
What you get is an infrastructure that allows you to route around failures and schedule hardware swap outs on your own timetable, which can be far more economical.
If you don't have that then it does involve costly emergency response at 2am to replace a bare metal server that went down. You either pay somebody you have retained locally to do it, or you are the one driving down to the datacenter at 2am to do the replacement yourself with who-the-heck-knows how long it will take with uptime monitoring solutions sending out emails like crazy to the rest of the admin staff, and heavens help you, some execs that demanded to be in the loop from now on due to an "incident".
Don't know about you..... but I would rather be able to relax at 10pm and have a few beers once awhile (to the point I can't drive) without worrying about bare metal servers going down all the time, or who is on call, etc.
Whatever. I don't know the standardized terms and fully admit that.
Funny is one thing, and what I am saying has nothing to do with being politically correct at all and I think most people know that.
"tainted crap" is not a politically charged term. Whether or not it is humorous is going to be a hit or miss depending on the receiver. Or are you really trying to tell me that "tainted crap" is such a well used term in open source that everybody would understand it to be humorous and not to be taken personally?
Even if it is, new developers are coming around all the time and might not understand it for what it allegedly is. I certainly did not, and I am just getting involved with open source to the point where I can start contributing. If somebody marked my contribution as "tainted crap" I would not immediately take it lighthearted and would more than likely see it as non constructive, combative, and hostile.
Open source needs as many contributors as possible and to do so, just maybe, maybe, it might not be such a good idea to be throwing around attributions to other people's contributions like that. Just sayin'.
In any case, you are only supporting my main point. That civilized discourse is the best option in such communities and your point you are trying to make to me, is that it should not have been taken personally and was "civilized" because I should have understood it to be humorous.
I don't think name calling is ever really appropriate. It does not create an environment where people are willing to cooperate and work with each other. All it creates is a sense of hostility and defensiveness amongst developers.
"tainted crap" is not helpful as a term or a category in any way shape or form. All it does is send the message that you have nothing but contempt for the other contributors. That can never be helpful.
Perhaps another term, or any other term, would have been better. Terms like critical, serious, unstable, etc. They get the point across without injecting vitriol into the discussion or environment.
Thank You.
I will probably get into trouble, but I am absolutely using that for a particular user right now...... :)
I doubt these protestors have the sophistication or the awareness to see through the bullshit and understand what they're actually opposing. Unfortunately, they are likely to be useful idiots, pawns on someone's great chessboard. That's generally the problem when you have blind, stupid, unfocused rage that lacks understanding and a strong sense of constructive purpose
Well......... It's infinitely better than apathy .
We sit here and do nothing we will be no more than serfs in a new type of Feudalistic society. Ruled by fear of losing what we have and serving faceless lords that control everything we do, all under the guise of democracy and freedom, while not truly having either.
At the moment, we still have some rights left. Specifically, as you say, the right to be stupid and enraged while attacking (peaceful protests) what we think is the heart of the oppressors while understanding neither their nature or how to defeat them.
Although centuries ago we were nothing more than property to the aristocracy, at least you could run far and deep enough in the woods and have the skills to survive, and perhaps prosper. If nobody was ever able to find you, it might be possible to have lived free in those times.
Can we say the same about people today? I know people that would not survive for 3 days without the advanced technology that they have cocooned themselves with.
There are two ways the 99% can fight back and win:
1) Suffer.
Cut back to only the essentials. Give up some of the conveniences that make you choose between your freedoms and the shiny baubles the faceless powers entice you with. Sony wants DRM enforced by law? Don't buy any Sony products. Don't buy Apple. Don't buy Microsoft. Force yourself, either through education or connections, to use only Open Source and Open Hardware. Want something shiny? Don't use any credit to get it. Live within your means like your ancestors did. Your ancestors in World War I & II and the Great Depression did not ride out those hard times with shiny plastic credit cards pushing their problems off till the next day.
Basically, become more self sufficient and less reliant on centralized infrastructure owned by monopolies and duopolies.
2) Fight with every ounce of strength and courage you have to keep the rights you have left, to gain the ones you have lost, and to increase the strength of what rights we had, and should have. Perform acts of civil disobedience. Protest till you have no voice left. Let them arrest you and abuse you, and then tell them, "See you next week".
That's the way we could win. However, the 99% are still asleep. A small smattering of pissed of people that are part of the .0001% that are awake are the only ones that care and know what is happening and what is to come. What parts of history will repeat itself, yet again.
As you said, action now only identifies who you are to be rounded up for arrests, put through the "system", and possibly "reeducation camps" if things progress to their logical conclusion.
However, I would rather go out courageously lined up and shot, then cowardly in a comfortable little apartment enjoying the scraps that are thrown at my feet to keep me complacent.
Well removing the ability to search the text would seem to be inevitable if you are trying to "safe" the document. Unless you are very experienced with Adobe, the tools, and the interface, you will probably end up with something not searchable. So for a novice, the end result would most likely be a very "dumb" document.
That probably won't work. Most of these work by converting the PDF to PostScript for the printer and then back again. In both the PDF and the PostScript, the text will be represented as black text on a black background.
Okay. Correct me if I am wrong here, but the black text on black background will just be one large rectangle filled uniformly with black color? Meaning, the printer itself won't print it in a such a way that you could tell what the text was at all.
It seems to me that you are saying you would still be able to tell what the text was. Like printing out text, then running the paper back in and printing out a huge black filled rectangle. If you were to do that, you could figure out what the text was by inspecting the paper. Difficult, but not impossible.
Use a PDF printer driver to print the document all over again. Export it out as a graphic and then put that up on the website.
Basically, there are quite a few different ways to change the elements in a PDF doc before publishing.
The largest problem is that PDF is so freaking complicated to the average person and it is not intuitive in the least that there would be data in the document not visible on the screen. You can embed entire books into an HTML document that don't get rendered in the browser, but the data is still there isn't it?
I'm a developer and using documentation on how to construct PDF documents and spreadsheets for data exports can be fairly complicated and look like complete gibberish to anyone walking by. Not to mention how many different versions and formats there are for documents to begin with.
If you are not an "IT person" the safest, and most assured way, to be completely certain that the document on your screen is what gets sent to the recipient is to print it out and scan it back it in. The method I mentioned first is a compromise, but you can be fairly certain that everything is rendered as a graphic in the printer driver before it gets printed back into a document.
You're technique, although inefficient and a blunt instrument, is actually the best one there is if you are that concerned about security.