My BBS ran beautifully via DOS, and so did all my games, CAD software, Code Editor & Word Processor; Not so in Windows 3 -- Programs were clunky if even available at all. The UI was (and still is) slower than autocomplete at the terminal (I had many TSRs that let me extend DOS features). Up through Windows 95 I booted to the command prompt and typed "win" if I needed windows, which was never ("rem win" in AUTOEXEC.BAT). They eventually changed the boot process to launch directly into Windows. Fortunately I was saved by GNU/Linux.
It didn't matter that in blind taste tests more people preferred New Coke, same here.
Well, that comparison does explain a few things... However, did you ever stop to think that maybe with a Cola that selection criteria doesn't matter as much? With an OS though? I mean, who gives a rat's ass if a blind user taste test shows that people prefer the flavor of Windows 8 touch screen UI... They're BLIND.
That's why any developer worth their salt who wanted to use these features has been writing code like...
-webkit-border-radius: 4px;
-moz-border-radius: 4px;
-o-border-radius: 4px;
border-radius: 4px;
No. Any developer worth their salt would never have allowed that to happen. They would have solved this issue by implementing a standard for beta/reference implementations of new features, and ONLY recommended those browser specific prefixes for browser specific extensions. You want a new feature in your web browser, hope to get it standardized? You propose it formally as such: -ref0-border-radius: 4px
Then any browser can implement -ref0-border-radius.
The future browsers would NOT require you to specify both -ref0-border-radius:ANDborder-radius:. Indeed, the FIRST IMPLEMENTATION of the feature would accept BOTH of these going forward, so that as it becomes standardized there's no need to include both. Newer style sheets would use the border-radius: when they stop supporting outdated browsers that don't support the feature. You might even just talk to different browser makers over a week or so to decide what that new feature should do before running off to code it up. The WC3 can get in on the gig whenever they get around to it. If there's friction, then the other browser dev should name their feature like: -ref1-border-radius:. Early adopting web devs could just use border-radius: to mean the latest reference design of radius borders, or the finalized version. Only when the parameters differ greatly would they select -ref0- or -ref1- to apply to specific implementations. Just look at your example. o_O border-radius: 4px is all you should have ever needed there. Old browsers will complain anyway so "-moz-border-radius" is stupid. We could have them just warn instead of error if they don't recognize a "-ref-" prefixed style rule.
Furthermore, WHY MAKE CSS A DIFFERENT ENCODING THAN XML? Sure separate the form and function and content (MVC), but you don't need a new encoding (and parser) to do this -- That means more code, and more attack surface. Noobs, everywhere, I swear. Look, I'm not blaming you for having to use this shit, but if we're going to point fingers at dumb-ass developers, let's aim them at the right ones.
I've been waiting for HTML5 for OVER A DECADE (12 years since v4.01). I gave up. Long Live the Internet, but Fuck the Web. Now I make pixel perfect cross platform web applications with actual APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT toolchains (most have code signing too!) instead of trying to shoehorn in application logic atop an inadequate document display language using a horribly designed and inefficient scripting language. You want a web enabled app development platform? USE ONE. That's not a document display program's job. GTK, Qt, Java, various Android / Java / iOS cross compilers, all exist. It actually takes less time to make 6 platform specific apps, than one single HTML browser page supported by them all...
Taking the top down approach to this whole thing? That's how you create an infinite rabbit hole. That didn't work for life, it doesn't work for OS or Compiler design, and it won't work for the web either... What you do is start at the lowest common denominator: Graphics primitives -- Fonts / Glyphs, colors, gradients, rasters, etc. and you define a protocol for their display at a fundamental level. Then you DISTRIBUTE THAT. Then folks would be able to create all sorts of text based (X)HTML or JSON, content encodings that compiles down to these primitives, And presto! Everything is fully fucking controllable and viewable by everyone forever amen.
HEY, KNOW WHAT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA? INVENT A NEW DOCUMENT DISPLAY FORMAT AND WIND UP RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL! It's like they thought PostScript didn't exist FOR A DECADE PRIOR... I would have just added links and nesting to
Because they'd be seen as non-innovative. Cars aren't allowed design patents. Neither is clothing. Thus, you see many varied designs in clothing, and in car designs. However, the mechanical processes can be patented. That's why I had to buy a GM back door latching mechanism to replace my neighbor's Mazda door latch -- They were identical because they came from the same place. They weren't different, or innovative...
TL;DR: Because they must innovate since they're not allowed patents. Patents stifle innovation.
"Did I vote for the wrong part?" WTF? Do you honestly think parties exist for any other means to distract you from the actual politics? Besides, they PULLED THE REPORT down, and disowned it in less than 24 hours, go read TFA's update. You did vote for the wrong party: Voting along party lines is fucking moronic.
A better solution would be shorter copyright terms attached to renewal-with-conditions.
No. As a content creator I can tell you that a better solution would be to GET RID OF COPYRIGHTS. If you want creators to REALLY be motivated to create NEW works, then take away their legal tools for extorting money from society that they're supposed to be benefiting. I'm not saying they shouldn't extract money, but that they should get paid to DO WORK, and that' is it. You want a car fixed? You shop around, or go to the mechanic you trust, then you agree on a price, then you give them money, ONCE, and your car is fixed.
Bits are in infinite supply, thus have no value. Let me repeat that: The copies have no value. What's valuable is the ability to do work. Artists / Engineers / Mechanics / Programmers / Musicians / etc. should all get paid only when they do work, and proportionate to the work they do. Making a copy is very little work. If data duplication it was so valuable, then P2P would be making a fortune via the copies, and computers would be impossibly expensive. Since it's the Work that's scarce, not the bits, we shouldn't allow them to charge such HUGELY over-inflated prices for the artificially scare bits.
Ah, but the real issue is that the Artists / Authors aren't charging ridiculous over priced fees for copies of their works, PUBLISHERS ARE. Content creators get reimbursed sane fees working to make content for a Publisher. A publisher then does nothing but try to extract as much money from society as possible using the copyright laws as a club. We now have direct lines of communication / access to the creators via a global multi-directional information exchange system. Publishing is CHEAP. What do you think would happen if a Publisher said to a content creator, Make Content For Free! The same that would happen if the general public did... The content creator would say, "Nope, I'm not working unless I know I'll get paid". There's no need for Copyright laws. Once the work is done, the content creator can be paid their agreed upon fee, once, and that's that! Culture is enriched, the work gets paid for one time...
This is the dawn of the Information Age, we haven't adjusted to the idea that EVERYONE is a publisher now. The copyright laws were put in place to prevent greedy publishers from capitalizing on the works of authors by printing their works without permission or reimbursement. This was a time in which copies held great value. It was hard to make a copy, yet the original 1790 copyright act limited the terms to 14 years. Now that copies are trivial to the point of absurdity (this message being duplicated multiple times just to get to you, and hundreds of others), we have copyright terms that extend 70 YERAS beyond the DEATH of an author? (Those dead folks don't care about any incentive you give them to "benefiting the arts and sciences", they refuse to make any new works).
Those strict laws once leveraged against greedy publishers, who held the only way to mass produce content, are now applied to EVERY PERSON, because we all have publishing tools at our fingertips. The idea of Copyright is OBSOLETE here in the Information Age. A mechanic can not prevent you from continually benefiting from their work, so instead they extract all the payment for the work they do ONCE. Content creators get paid to do their work ONCE by the publishers -- some do get royalties, but they get their funding to do work when they do their work. Bands make most of their money WORKING, on tours, playing music, not via selling CDs / MP3s. Only those who self publish make much money via digital distributed arts.
Publishers are worthless middle men. Copyright laws enable them to extort the public while themselves add nothing of value to the works themselves. Availability, you say? I'll refer you to P2P services... which have more availability of higher quality goods than publishers offer, and the don't change you a dime. T
That's not even close to what happened in that episode of Doctor Who.
As a studier of Quantum Mechanics, I too believe we're lost in a universe ruined by truly evil forces, and that the Doctor Who television shows are all the reality that remains as proof of our temporal war with the daleks who now control the world via stock markets and FOREX with their malicious High Frequency Traders -- DESTROY! DESTROY! DESTROY!, indeed...
Twinkies are already pretty valuable in the post apocalyptic world.
Now they're rare too? Who needs gold when you got a twinkie warehouse!
That was my first thought too. I wonder if they'll sell off the twinkie MFG recipe / process. Be great if they would open source it. As a DIY guy, I've made my own twinkies, but they wouldn't last for 50+ years...
I've found an alternative by accident: I "lost" a half eaten loaf of bread behind the stove. I recovered it a year later. While most breads will mold once exposed to air (or even without being exposed), HEB's store-brand bread did not mold. Not Even Mold will eat this stuff! I know what I'm making my Zombie Slaying Helmet out of...
That's a great idea. Someone who wrote a virus to boot before the OS would never think to tell UEFI that it was the Windows Boot Manager.
Well, the UEFI boot images are cryptographically signed, so they'd need to do more than just copy a string; That sounds more like a BIOS writer making a shorrtcut instead of implementing the full EFI spec -- Search for a string instead of implement/FAT (12 | (16 | 32))/... OR maybe just add an exceptional case to already flawed code to get RHEL working. However:
Secure Boot's a GREAT IDEA, Why, someone who found a flaw in your OS would NEVER think to just re-exploit it after it boots up instead of mess with the damn boot record and get caught.
Protip: Secure Boot is a security theater designed to limit and control the public's OS choices and prevent you from tinkering with your hardware while simultaneously comforting you with a false sense of security.
Gurutip: If they can't write secure OS code Secure boot is pointless. If they can write secure OS code, then Secure boot is pointless...
I would pay for a legit service which offered the same quality of service as warez, but since such a service isn't available i can't...
Interesting opinion... It's bullshit, IMO, but whatever. You act like warez is your only other option. Whatever helps you sleep at $BEDTIME. Everyone has different morals.
I was once a Netflix subscriber. My XBox Live subscription ran out, and I wasn't playing many games (and I realize how shitty it is to pay for ads in a service that any PC can do w/ server list, not loading down MS servers), so I sold my Xbox & games, then called Netflix support when I couldn't seem to get it working on my personal computer (PC). The tech on the line assumed I had windows for a while, but when he finally realized I have Linux, they said their silverlight doesn't run on Linux, and they use Silverlight. I pointed out that that's B.S. since it runs on Android and Android uses Linux. They said that their Android player only runs on ARM, not x86(-64). "Ah, gotcha. So, what you're saying is that you have source code you compile on ARM to get Netflix running on Linux for Android, but your company refuses to compile that same code on an x86 machine to give me access on Linux since Android-x86 ports exist. So, what you're company is doing is letting MICROSOFT dictate WHO your customers are? You're VOLUNTARILY turning away paying customers?!" Then I mentioned that I'd be reporting this to their shareholders and the board... and that Hulu runs on Linux via Flash, and that I'll be recommending ANYTHING but Netflx for the people to adopt since you don't want video subscriptions to be locked-into that Windows8 disaster." When asked if there was anything I else they could help me with, I had them cancel my account, and then let me speak to their manager, and his manager, and her manager, for about 4 hours I went up the chain (my day off, heh). They even offered free months of services, or a voucher for XBLA to get me back on Netflix as a last ditch effort via the "executive customer retention" call center.
I know it's the media racket that's requiring silverlight for any desktop machines, however, it's the board and CEO who agree to be bullied by them instead of standing up and saying, "We can use Cross Platform DRM, that'll get us more users, and get publishers more money".
Until then, screw it. I'm out. I don't infringe copyrights, and I don't support big "throw our weight around and squash choice" media anymore, not even by contributing upload speed to a.torrent. Instead, I watch new-media, web shows, Kickstarter funded stuff like Pioneer One. You know what? I didn't have much time for watching video anyway, and there's more new-media stuff to watch than I can consume. To fill the little void left in my entertainment-time budget I started yet another hobby software project, and it's far more rewarding than any passive media.
Bonus: When folks start talking about some Hollywood blockbuster with the same recycled (and butchered) scripts from games, books, comics, and previous films, or some dumbed down TV show, I tell them about the same or better quality of show I'm getting without supporting oppressive media regimes that raped then murdered our public domain.
Exactly this... Guess what? If you're a provider, and you use the new SDK, you just agreed not to keep fragmenting Android by preventing upgrades to the newer versions to make new phones more appealing...
say( "Well, it doesn't really, if they just amend the 2nd amendment." );
say( "IMO, it should be ''right to bear technology'' not ''right to bear arms''." );
say( "Some of my software has been classified by the USBIS as though they were munitions..." );
say( "Failing a 2nd amendment exemption, the 1st amendment should be applied." );
say( "Otherwise, I can be prevented from freely expressing myself via my source code." );
I dare you to speak without any idea of what to say. Speech is the method by which ideas and information are conveyed...
Are you, by chance, Pentecostal?
If they're going to round up people, I wish they'd round up youtube commenters.
Hell yes. Hey, don't stop there! Head on over to the local pub and arrest those morons for ranting about shit too! Hell, let's use surveillance on everyone all the time so that everything they say can be censored if we find it offensive, or in appropriate. Look, we don't have to screen in real time, we can just pick someone we don't like, pull up their Speakings and find something to arrest them for...
At the dawn of The Age of Information humans struggled with the transition to persistent digital communication. The people naturally treated the new medium as they would any other form of conversation, but governments took the opportunity to oppress speech in ways they never could before. In their rush to exploit these newfound powers the governments forced the people to rip them away. Censorship pressures caused the general public to adopt advances in public key encryption and anonymizing technologies. Thus effectively closing the governments prying eyes and ears, instead of fixing the issue at its source. The road to Stronger Individuals' Rights would be as a long and hard as today's eugenically enhanced peni.
Product Placement will become the advertisement of choice, since it's a lot more difficult to remove or block.
Yep. But if you'll be able to donate whatever you like to remove the ads. For sites that are built around a product I'm selling, you won't ever see ads. Hosting isn't that expensive unless you're dumb. Even multi-gig software updates cost me nothing thanks to decentralized distribution and public key encryption / signing.
Protip: People are Decentralized. The Internet is Decentralized. Decentralized services are the future (for my products anyway). OOH! The Internet can survive nuclear attacks and route around censorship of the highest degrees! Let's make a CENTRALIZED content delivery system so we have to worry about HUGE scaling issues, DATA SILO privacy & control issues, and single points of failure instead of utilizing the distributed nature of the web itself!
We gave you an amazingly resilient Internet, and you made the fucking web centralized. Brilliant.
Disable Advertising[ ]
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising.
Note: That box is unchecked... I'm willing to allow slashdot to extract whatever meager ad revenue they can from my presence, in exchange for them allowing me to consume their bandwidth & storage space with my positive and negative contributions.
Jesus, the small company I worked for (400 employees or so)
[...]
It's insane to hear that large companies don't
Scale. Hindsight. Legacy Systems. Easier said than done.
Sometimes you want to do the "right thing"(tm) but need some sort of cluster fsck to show those higher ups that the cost v benefit analysis preventing you from doing so is wrong. Notice it was personal info, not science & engineering stuff. Which would be more effective to lose if you want an org-wide policy approval? Just sayin' maybe their "IT-dept" is actually working as intended.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 3 was better than DOS
[citation needed]
My BBS ran beautifully via DOS, and so did all my games, CAD software, Code Editor & Word Processor; Not so in Windows 3 -- Programs were clunky if even available at all. The UI was (and still is) slower than autocomplete at the terminal (I had many TSRs that let me extend DOS features). Up through Windows 95 I booted to the command prompt and typed "win" if I needed windows, which was never ("rem win" in AUTOEXEC.BAT). They eventually changed the boot process to launch directly into Windows. Fortunately I was saved by GNU/Linux.
It didn't matter that in blind taste tests more people preferred New Coke, same here.
Well, that comparison does explain a few things... However, did you ever stop to think that maybe with a Cola that selection criteria doesn't matter as much? With an OS though? I mean, who gives a rat's ass if a blind user taste test shows that people prefer the flavor of Windows 8 touch screen UI... They're BLIND.
No. Any developer worth their salt would never have allowed that to happen. They would have solved this issue by implementing a standard for beta/reference implementations of new features, and ONLY recommended those browser specific prefixes for browser specific extensions. You want a new feature in your web browser, hope to get it standardized? You propose it formally as such: -ref0-border-radius: 4px Then any browser can implement -ref0-border-radius.
The future browsers would NOT require you to specify both -ref0-border-radius: AND border-radius:. Indeed, the FIRST IMPLEMENTATION of the feature would accept BOTH of these going forward, so that as it becomes standardized there's no need to include both. Newer style sheets would use the border-radius: when they stop supporting outdated browsers that don't support the feature. You might even just talk to different browser makers over a week or so to decide what that new feature should do before running off to code it up. The WC3 can get in on the gig whenever they get around to it. If there's friction, then the other browser dev should name their feature like: -ref1-border-radius:. Early adopting web devs could just use border-radius: to mean the latest reference design of radius borders, or the finalized version. Only when the parameters differ greatly would they select -ref0- or -ref1- to apply to specific implementations. Just look at your example. o_O
border-radius: 4px is all you should have ever needed there. Old browsers will complain anyway so "-moz-border-radius" is stupid. We could have them just warn instead of error if they don't recognize a "-ref-" prefixed style rule.
Furthermore, WHY MAKE CSS A DIFFERENT ENCODING THAN XML? Sure separate the form and function and content (MVC), but you don't need a new encoding (and parser) to do this -- That means more code, and more attack surface. Noobs, everywhere, I swear. Look, I'm not blaming you for having to use this shit, but if we're going to point fingers at dumb-ass developers, let's aim them at the right ones.
I've been waiting for HTML5 for OVER A DECADE (12 years since v4.01). I gave up. Long Live the Internet, but Fuck the Web. Now I make pixel perfect cross platform web applications with actual APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT toolchains (most have code signing too!) instead of trying to shoehorn in application logic atop an inadequate document display language using a horribly designed and inefficient scripting language. You want a web enabled app development platform? USE ONE. That's not a document display program's job. GTK, Qt, Java, various Android / Java / iOS cross compilers, all exist. It actually takes less time to make 6 platform specific apps, than one single HTML browser page supported by them all...
Taking the top down approach to this whole thing? That's how you create an infinite rabbit hole. That didn't work for life, it doesn't work for OS or Compiler design, and it won't work for the web either... What you do is start at the lowest common denominator: Graphics primitives -- Fonts / Glyphs, colors, gradients, rasters, etc. and you define a protocol for their display at a fundamental level. Then you DISTRIBUTE THAT. Then folks would be able to create all sorts of text based (X)HTML or JSON, content encodings that compiles down to these primitives, And presto! Everything is fully fucking controllable and viewable by everyone forever amen.
HEY, KNOW WHAT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA? INVENT A NEW DOCUMENT DISPLAY FORMAT AND WIND UP RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL! It's like they thought PostScript didn't exist FOR A DECADE PRIOR... I would have just added links and nesting to
Why doesn't Ford use GM designs?
Because they'd be seen as non-innovative. Cars aren't allowed design patents. Neither is clothing. Thus, you see many varied designs in clothing, and in car designs. However, the mechanical processes can be patented. That's why I had to buy a GM back door latching mechanism to replace my neighbor's Mazda door latch -- They were identical because they came from the same place. They weren't different, or innovative...
TL;DR: Because they must innovate since they're not allowed patents. Patents stifle innovation.
"Did I vote for the wrong part?" WTF? Do you honestly think parties exist for any other means to distract you from the actual politics? Besides, they PULLED THE REPORT down, and disowned it in less than 24 hours, go read TFA's update. You did vote for the wrong party: Voting along party lines is fucking moronic.
Yes, too bad it's not a policy backed by the GOP (or the MPAA / RIAA), they've pulled down the fucking report, and retracted it.
If you want to read that dead "policy" change, it's still on scribd.
A better solution would be shorter copyright terms attached to renewal-with-conditions.
No. As a content creator I can tell you that a better solution would be to GET RID OF COPYRIGHTS. If you want creators to REALLY be motivated to create NEW works, then take away their legal tools for extorting money from society that they're supposed to be benefiting. I'm not saying they shouldn't extract money, but that they should get paid to DO WORK, and that' is it. You want a car fixed? You shop around, or go to the mechanic you trust, then you agree on a price, then you give them money, ONCE, and your car is fixed.
Bits are in infinite supply, thus have no value. Let me repeat that: The copies have no value. What's valuable is the ability to do work. Artists / Engineers / Mechanics / Programmers / Musicians / etc. should all get paid only when they do work, and proportionate to the work they do. Making a copy is very little work. If data duplication it was so valuable, then P2P would be making a fortune via the copies, and computers would be impossibly expensive. Since it's the Work that's scarce, not the bits, we shouldn't allow them to charge such HUGELY over-inflated prices for the artificially scare bits.
Ah, but the real issue is that the Artists / Authors aren't charging ridiculous over priced fees for copies of their works, PUBLISHERS ARE. Content creators get reimbursed sane fees working to make content for a Publisher. A publisher then does nothing but try to extract as much money from society as possible using the copyright laws as a club. We now have direct lines of communication / access to the creators via a global multi-directional information exchange system. Publishing is CHEAP. What do you think would happen if a Publisher said to a content creator, Make Content For Free! The same that would happen if the general public did... The content creator would say, "Nope, I'm not working unless I know I'll get paid". There's no need for Copyright laws. Once the work is done, the content creator can be paid their agreed upon fee, once, and that's that! Culture is enriched, the work gets paid for one time...
This is the dawn of the Information Age, we haven't adjusted to the idea that EVERYONE is a publisher now. The copyright laws were put in place to prevent greedy publishers from capitalizing on the works of authors by printing their works without permission or reimbursement. This was a time in which copies held great value. It was hard to make a copy, yet the original 1790 copyright act limited the terms to 14 years. Now that copies are trivial to the point of absurdity (this message being duplicated multiple times just to get to you, and hundreds of others), we have copyright terms that extend 70 YERAS beyond the DEATH of an author? (Those dead folks don't care about any incentive you give them to "benefiting the arts and sciences", they refuse to make any new works).
Those strict laws once leveraged against greedy publishers, who held the only way to mass produce content, are now applied to EVERY PERSON, because we all have publishing tools at our fingertips. The idea of Copyright is OBSOLETE here in the Information Age. A mechanic can not prevent you from continually benefiting from their work, so instead they extract all the payment for the work they do ONCE. Content creators get paid to do their work ONCE by the publishers -- some do get royalties, but they get their funding to do work when they do their work. Bands make most of their money WORKING, on tours, playing music, not via selling CDs / MP3s. Only those who self publish make much money via digital distributed arts.
Publishers are worthless middle men. Copyright laws enable them to extort the public while themselves add nothing of value to the works themselves. Availability, you say? I'll refer you to P2P services... which have more availability of higher quality goods than publishers offer, and the don't change you a dime. T
That's not even close to what happened in that episode of Doctor Who.
As a studier of Quantum Mechanics, I too believe we're lost in a universe ruined by truly evil forces, and that the Doctor Who television shows are all the reality that remains as proof of our temporal war with the daleks who now control the world via stock markets and FOREX with their malicious High Frequency Traders -- DESTROY! DESTROY! DESTROY!, indeed...
It's a PIN, you bloody heathen!
It's Damned, not "bloody" you fucking casual.
Twinkies are already pretty valuable in the post apocalyptic world. Now they're rare too? Who needs gold when you got a twinkie warehouse!
That was my first thought too. I wonder if they'll sell off the twinkie MFG recipe / process. Be great if they would open source it. As a DIY guy, I've made my own twinkies, but they wouldn't last for 50+ years...
I've found an alternative by accident: I "lost" a half eaten loaf of bread behind the stove. I recovered it a year later. While most breads will mold once exposed to air (or even without being exposed), HEB's store-brand bread did not mold. Not Even Mold will eat this stuff! I know what I'm making my Zombie Slaying Helmet out of...
That's a great idea. Someone who wrote a virus to boot before the OS would never think to tell UEFI that it was the Windows Boot Manager.
Well, the UEFI boot images are cryptographically signed, so they'd need to do more than just copy a string; That sounds more like a BIOS writer making a shorrtcut instead of implementing the full EFI spec -- Search for a string instead of implement /FAT (12 | (16 | 32))/ ... OR maybe just add an exceptional case to already flawed code to get RHEL working. However:
Secure Boot's a GREAT IDEA, Why, someone who found a flaw in your OS would NEVER think to just re-exploit it after it boots up instead of mess with the damn boot record and get caught.
Protip: Secure Boot is a security theater designed to limit and control the public's OS choices and prevent you from tinkering with your hardware while simultaneously comforting you with a false sense of security.
Gurutip: If they can't write secure OS code Secure boot is pointless. If they can write secure OS code, then Secure boot is pointless...
I would pay for a legit service which offered the same quality of service as warez, but since such a service isn't available i can't...
Interesting opinion... It's bullshit, IMO, but whatever. You act like warez is your only other option. Whatever helps you sleep at $BEDTIME. Everyone has different morals.
I was once a Netflix subscriber. My XBox Live subscription ran out, and I wasn't playing many games (and I realize how shitty it is to pay for ads in a service that any PC can do w/ server list, not loading down MS servers), so I sold my Xbox & games, then called Netflix support when I couldn't seem to get it working on my personal computer (PC). The tech on the line assumed I had windows for a while, but when he finally realized I have Linux, they said their silverlight doesn't run on Linux, and they use Silverlight. I pointed out that that's B.S. since it runs on Android and Android uses Linux. They said that their Android player only runs on ARM, not x86(-64). "Ah, gotcha. So, what you're saying is that you have source code you compile on ARM to get Netflix running on Linux for Android, but your company refuses to compile that same code on an x86 machine to give me access on Linux since Android-x86 ports exist. So, what you're company is doing is letting MICROSOFT dictate WHO your customers are? You're VOLUNTARILY turning away paying customers?!" Then I mentioned that I'd be reporting this to their shareholders and the board... and that Hulu runs on Linux via Flash, and that I'll be recommending ANYTHING but Netflx for the people to adopt since you don't want video subscriptions to be locked-into that Windows8 disaster." When asked if there was anything I else they could help me with, I had them cancel my account, and then let me speak to their manager, and his manager, and her manager, for about 4 hours I went up the chain (my day off, heh). They even offered free months of services, or a voucher for XBLA to get me back on Netflix as a last ditch effort via the "executive customer retention" call center.
I know it's the media racket that's requiring silverlight for any desktop machines, however, it's the board and CEO who agree to be bullied by them instead of standing up and saying, "We can use Cross Platform DRM, that'll get us more users, and get publishers more money".
Until then, screw it. I'm out. I don't infringe copyrights, and I don't support big "throw our weight around and squash choice" media anymore, not even by contributing upload speed to a .torrent. Instead, I watch new-media, web shows, Kickstarter funded stuff like Pioneer One. You know what? I didn't have much time for watching video anyway, and there's more new-media stuff to watch than I can consume. To fill the little void left in my entertainment-time budget I started yet another hobby software project, and it's far more rewarding than any passive media.
Bonus: When folks start talking about some Hollywood blockbuster with the same recycled (and butchered) scripts from games, books, comics, and previous films, or some dumbed down TV show, I tell them about the same or better quality of show I'm getting without supporting oppressive media regimes that raped then murdered our public domain.
Germans made huge leaps forwards with rocketry with their V2.
Hmm, also, just think how much further along with stem cell research and eugenics we'd be if we'd have embraced that whole "master race" thing...
Providers are.
Exactly this... Guess what? If you're a provider, and you use the new SDK, you just agreed not to keep fragmenting Android by preventing upgrades to the newer versions to make new phones more appealing...
Why does software need free speech?
say( "Well, it doesn't really, if they just amend the 2nd amendment." );
say( "IMO, it should be ''right to bear technology'' not ''right to bear arms''." );
say( "Some of my software has been classified by the USBIS as though they were munitions..." );
say( "Failing a 2nd amendment exemption, the 1st amendment should be applied." );
say( "Otherwise, I can be prevented from freely expressing myself via my source code." );
the difference between source code and binaries.
I can write software in machine code. Now what's this difference you're on about?
Free speech is about free speech. Not ideas
I dare you to speak without any idea of what to say. Speech is the method by which ideas and information are conveyed...
Are you, by chance, Pentecostal?
You know what they say: First they came for the youtube commenters ...
... Then they uploaded their videos ...
If they're going to round up people, I wish they'd round up youtube commenters.
Hell yes. Hey, don't stop there! Head on over to the local pub and arrest those morons for ranting about shit too! Hell, let's use surveillance on everyone all the time so that everything they say can be censored if we find it offensive, or in appropriate. Look, we don't have to screen in real time, we can just pick someone we don't like, pull up their Speakings and find something to arrest them for...
At the dawn of The Age of Information humans struggled with the transition to persistent digital communication. The people naturally treated the new medium as they would any other form of conversation, but governments took the opportunity to oppress speech in ways they never could before. In their rush to exploit these newfound powers the governments forced the people to rip them away. Censorship pressures caused the general public to adopt advances in public key encryption and anonymizing technologies. Thus effectively closing the governments prying eyes and ears, instead of fixing the issue at its source. The road to Stronger Individuals' Rights would be as a long and hard as today's eugenically enhanced peni.
Nothing tastes like Chardonnay from plastic cup
Obviously, you've never tasted Chardonnay from a cardboard box.
Yep. But if you'll be able to donate whatever you like to remove the ads. For sites that are built around a product I'm selling, you won't ever see ads. Hosting isn't that expensive unless you're dumb. Even multi-gig software updates cost me nothing thanks to decentralized distribution and public key encryption / signing.
Protip: People are Decentralized. The Internet is Decentralized. Decentralized services are the future (for my products anyway). OOH! The Internet can survive nuclear attacks and route around censorship of the highest degrees! Let's make a CENTRALIZED content delivery system so we have to worry about HUGE scaling issues, DATA SILO privacy & control issues, and single points of failure instead of utilizing the distributed nature of the web itself!
We gave you an amazingly resilient Internet, and you made the fucking web centralized. Brilliant.
Note: That box is unchecked... I'm willing to allow slashdot to extract whatever meager ad revenue they can from my presence, in exchange for them allowing me to consume their bandwidth & storage space with my positive and negative contributions.
Scale. Hindsight. Legacy Systems. Easier said than done.
Sometimes you want to do the "right thing"(tm) but need some sort of cluster fsck to show those higher ups that the cost v benefit analysis preventing you from doing so is wrong. Notice it was personal info, not science & engineering stuff. Which would be more effective to lose if you want an org-wide policy approval? Just sayin' maybe their "IT-dept" is actually working as intended.
We're fucked.
Indeed. The ultimate answer to the Fermi Paradox is too obvious to ignore: Greed.
It's a "sub-brown dwarf".
Kinky, Just what this dom-night elf was looking for...