If people are taking active measures to hide your ads (going as far as paying for an adblocker!), then maybe you should review how your website handle this.
Litigating in this case can only do harm; best case scenario they win, and (app store) adblockers get removed. Who's gonna say "hey, I wanted an adblocker, but this company sued them out of existence, so I'll keep using their services"? In the end, will they sue people for not going to their site anymore after pissing them off?
Last night I was disabling the reboot-after-update thing in windows group policy editor, and I noticed an item that can be enabled saying roughly "Turn off the upgrade to the most recent version of windows through windows update". I don't remember seeing this one discussed much around the tubes, but now it might come in handy (if it does what it says).
From what people actually working in that field are saying, this software was already on his way out for some, and already replaced for others. I'd say the risk of piracy here is low.
Beyond other replies about a driver having privilege to do whatever it want (for obvious reasons), the fact that TrueCrypt needed a driver in the first place is part of the issue. It would be nice to have an interface to provide custom filesystems that could run in userspace. On windows, of course; that exists on other OS.
That's the situation that is changing, fast. Along with a lot of indie titles, some (granted, not most) recent AAA titles also have Linux support. I'd give Arkham Knight as an example, but seeing how the windows release has gone I'd rather cite Borderlands, Witcher3 and Valve games, along with X-Com.
For someone that can "only" play a few hours a week, Windows is already not a requirement anymore.
This would not work that well with gmail; images are cached by gmail's servers, and I'm pretty sure any form of "intelligence" in an html mail is sure to fail too on their interface.
The "view your message here" link hypothesis seem more realistic (and sillier but meh).
In that case, I'm pretty sure regulatory organizations *know* the law. There is no ignorance there. But they still can't decide if a law was broken.
In that situation, how can an individual know with certainty if he break the law or not?
If nvidia hopes to sell me anything, they better start by not voluntarily crippling their own software the moment it detect some competitor hardware.
If I want to put both an AMD and an NVidia graphic card in my computer, I should be able to use the NVidia card to its full extent. Instead, they disable some of their proprietary technology in this situation (namely PhysX), with the official answer being "you can't have both running at the same time" and then never answering back.
Guess what? Yes I can have PhysX running on the NVidia GPU while plugging my display on the AMD one. A small unofficial patch makes this work perfectly fine. And even if that wasn't perfectly fine, a disclaimer saying that this configuration is not supported would do no harm.
With this in mind, I'm not going to trust anything they say or buy anything they were seriously involved with. They want people like me to buy their hardware? They should stop screwing their current customers first.
Okay, I'm saying this with almost no knowledge of the fundamental differences between npapi and pepper, but wouldn't it be possible to write a pepper plugin that implement npapi, and can load "legacy" plugins?
Sure, it might be some work, but I have the feeling that a handful of people would be hapy to help maintain this. Of course, the best solution would be to move on and adopt a new standard, but that won't happen as long as there is a possibility to use another browser/use an old version of the browser... That's why there were some IE6 live for so long:(
At least with google it works reasonably well (even outside the US) without having to install another layer of poop in my phone. Was surprised to see my bank name showing up on an incoming call.
Can't tell about the Nexus 7, but on the Nexus 4 and 5 I've been going back and forth between the "stock" bootloader (from different Android versions) and more exotic ones. I very much doubt that they actually lock the user out of that.
Wait... Google provides your cellphone directly? How did you get on their corporate plan?
Seeing that google sells phones on Google Play, don't give a crap about what carrier you have, and these phones works, I'd say your sarcasm is seriously misplaced.
Or are you talking about those Nexuses that are provided by a different carrier, and as such that carrier retains the right to do whatever they want to the OSS Android underneath?
If you believe that there only exist phones with carrier-specific/altered OS, you're the perfect client for them. All the crap they keep doing to phones (locking them on specific networks, adding crapware, removing legitimate options/tools) is totally irrelevant regarding the ability to use a mobile phone...
You know... because Google can't just go on to the Verizon/T-Mobile/AT&T/Sprint network and update everyone's phone. The provider provides the specific Android build.
Let's look at the Nexus5. Google produce a firmware, google put said firmware on their servers, the phone connect to these servers, and get the update. At what point exactly is the carrier doing anything, beside *maybe* providing the data connection (supposing you're not on wifi when the phone checks his updates)?
Same thing for phones from other manufacturer; Samsung handle updates of their devices, LG does the same, etc.
Carrier are only concerned when they sell severly modified version of the OS, where they take pride to redirect the update lookup to their servers, and only provide updates really late (if at all).
And that's why they can't update all the devices at once. Because everyone and their mother can develop their own kernel, and their own Android for their platform.
Now, if everyone just ran AOSP, then Google would be fine to update everyone at the same time.
Quite the contrary. Google provides OTA updates progressively, probably to limit the impact of large unknown bugs. A friend got a notification way before me about his Nexus 5 getting an update. Still, if you want to update before you get the notification, you're free to do it with the exact same image provided online. The latency here is voluntary, and don't have much to do with carrier.
And about AOSP; even if everyone where using it, Google couldn't do squat about updating every devices at once *especially* because the kernel is the only thing that have to be device specific. Sure, the fact that some manufacturer likes to add their own UI and crap is also an issue, but you can't just put AOSP on any phone, you have to have a working kernel for it.
Dear UK politicians,
Please stop screwing our internet. If you don't like it, just make your own, it's easy and the infrastructure exist.
Thanks, the real world.
In all seriousness, if they want to create a "curated" internet, sanctioned by the state, they can. No need to bother the sane people around with their craziness.
A more appropriate terminology is "hide". There is zero improvement in the gov' capacity to actually block such websites from the source (which would at least have a chance to be effective). Instead, they just mess with the DNS to "prevent access" to a list of websites containing gods know what. I wouldn't know such blockage exist without news outlet since I'm not using my ISP's DNS.
And there's not much uproar about these "weapons" (the media call the recent laws "arsenal") being targeted at everyone, very marginally hitting actual terrorists (and not, in any way, hindering their capacity to communicate and recruit). Way to go France.
they were able to survive without TSYNC and make it 'safe' but suddenly they can't
Geez, improving their software's security by taking advantage of better kernel support, Google really are deadbeat stupid. Better drop the sandboxing idea, have everything in the same process, preferably run as root. We'll be all safe with this old, not up-to-date version of openssl with brand new SSL3.0 support.
The actual replies are worse than the slashdot summary; when someone asked for TSYNC support, the answer was "sounds like another good reason not to use Google Spyware". The followup are in the same vein about Flash.
Now one can have his opinion and think that Chrome/Flash are evil incarnates and must be wiped out from our universe, that doesn't change the fact that Flash still exist, is still in use by an awful lot of websites, and Chrome is the only way to get this content under Linux. Telling people "nah, not gonna have it, kthxbai" is probably more hurting than anything.
Slashdot Mirror
If people are taking active measures to hide your ads (going as far as paying for an adblocker!), then maybe you should review how your website handle this.
Litigating in this case can only do harm; best case scenario they win, and (app store) adblockers get removed. Who's gonna say "hey, I wanted an adblocker, but this company sued them out of existence, so I'll keep using their services"? In the end, will they sue people for not going to their site anymore after pissing them off?
Last night I was disabling the reboot-after-update thing in windows group policy editor, and I noticed an item that can be enabled saying roughly "Turn off the upgrade to the most recent version of windows through windows update".
I don't remember seeing this one discussed much around the tubes, but now it might come in handy (if it does what it says).
The fact that you had to dig up a four years old event speak for itself.
From what people actually working in that field are saying, this software was already on his way out for some, and already replaced for others. I'd say the risk of piracy here is low.
Beyond other replies about a driver having privilege to do whatever it want (for obvious reasons), the fact that TrueCrypt needed a driver in the first place is part of the issue. It would be nice to have an interface to provide custom filesystems that could run in userspace. On windows, of course; that exists on other OS.
That's the situation that is changing, fast. Along with a lot of indie titles, some (granted, not most) recent AAA titles also have Linux support. I'd give Arkham Knight as an example, but seeing how the windows release has gone I'd rather cite Borderlands, Witcher3 and Valve games, along with X-Com.
For someone that can "only" play a few hours a week, Windows is already not a requirement anymore.
Suspend support for a given set of hardware is really hit or miss.
At this point, it depends of your definition of "bad". Vista and Me were bad for technical reasons. 10 seems to be bad by design.
This would not work that well with gmail; images are cached by gmail's servers, and I'm pretty sure any form of "intelligence" in an html mail is sure to fail too on their interface.
The "view your message here" link hypothesis seem more realistic (and sillier but meh).
I'm curious about the accuracy of the last shot. The drone seems to move ever so slightly after the first one...
In that case, I'm pretty sure regulatory organizations *know* the law. There is no ignorance there. But they still can't decide if a law was broken.
In that situation, how can an individual know with certainty if he break the law or not?
If nvidia hopes to sell me anything, they better start by not voluntarily crippling their own software the moment it detect some competitor hardware.
If I want to put both an AMD and an NVidia graphic card in my computer, I should be able to use the NVidia card to its full extent. Instead, they disable some of their proprietary technology in this situation (namely PhysX), with the official answer being "you can't have both running at the same time" and then never answering back.
Guess what? Yes I can have PhysX running on the NVidia GPU while plugging my display on the AMD one. A small unofficial patch makes this work perfectly fine. And even if that wasn't perfectly fine, a disclaimer saying that this configuration is not supported would do no harm.
With this in mind, I'm not going to trust anything they say or buy anything they were seriously involved with. They want people like me to buy their hardware? They should stop screwing their current customers first.
Okay, I'm saying this with almost no knowledge of the fundamental differences between npapi and pepper, but wouldn't it be possible to write a pepper plugin that implement npapi, and can load "legacy" plugins? :(
Sure, it might be some work, but I have the feeling that a handful of people would be hapy to help maintain this. Of course, the best solution would be to move on and adopt a new standard, but that won't happen as long as there is a possibility to use another browser/use an old version of the browser... That's why there were some IE6 live for so long
At least with google it works reasonably well (even outside the US) without having to install another layer of poop in my phone. Was surprised to see my bank name showing up on an incoming call.
Ignoring the fact that EA is involved and will probably screw customers one way or another, what part of "game engine footage" did you miss?
Nice troll, citing a *google* app needing a *google* account.
Can't tell about the Nexus 7, but on the Nexus 4 and 5 I've been going back and forth between the "stock" bootloader (from different Android versions) and more exotic ones. I very much doubt that they actually lock the user out of that.
Stop joking, this is coming to us really soon. MS-locked bootloader, that is.
Wait... Google provides your cellphone directly? How did you get on their corporate plan?
Seeing that google sells phones on Google Play, don't give a crap about what carrier you have, and these phones works, I'd say your sarcasm is seriously misplaced.
Or are you talking about those Nexuses that are provided by a different carrier, and as such that carrier retains the right to do whatever they want to the OSS Android underneath?
If you believe that there only exist phones with carrier-specific/altered OS, you're the perfect client for them. All the crap they keep doing to phones (locking them on specific networks, adding crapware, removing legitimate options/tools) is totally irrelevant regarding the ability to use a mobile phone...
You know... because Google can't just go on to the Verizon/T-Mobile/AT&T/Sprint network and update everyone's phone. The provider provides the specific Android build.
Let's look at the Nexus5. Google produce a firmware, google put said firmware on their servers, the phone connect to these servers, and get the update. At what point exactly is the carrier doing anything, beside *maybe* providing the data connection (supposing you're not on wifi when the phone checks his updates)?
Same thing for phones from other manufacturer; Samsung handle updates of their devices, LG does the same, etc.
Carrier are only concerned when they sell severly modified version of the OS, where they take pride to redirect the update lookup to their servers, and only provide updates really late (if at all).
And that's why they can't update all the devices at once. Because everyone and their mother can develop their own kernel, and their own Android for their platform.
Now, if everyone just ran AOSP, then Google would be fine to update everyone at the same time.
Quite the contrary. Google provides OTA updates progressively, probably to limit the impact of large unknown bugs. A friend got a notification way before me about his Nexus 5 getting an update. Still, if you want to update before you get the notification, you're free to do it with the exact same image provided online. The latency here is voluntary, and don't have much to do with carrier.
And about AOSP; even if everyone where using it, Google couldn't do squat about updating every devices at once *especially* because the kernel is the only thing that have to be device specific. Sure, the fact that some manufacturer likes to add their own UI and crap is also an issue, but you can't just put AOSP on any phone, you have to have a working kernel for it.
Dear UK politicians,
Please stop screwing our internet. If you don't like it, just make your own, it's easy and the infrastructure exist.
Thanks, the real world.
In all seriousness, if they want to create a "curated" internet, sanctioned by the state, they can. No need to bother the sane people around with their craziness.
To filter 18+, questions from the end of the 90s is enough. That's how you know you got old.
A more appropriate terminology is "hide". There is zero improvement in the gov' capacity to actually block such websites from the source (which would at least have a chance to be effective). Instead, they just mess with the DNS to "prevent access" to a list of websites containing gods know what. I wouldn't know such blockage exist without news outlet since I'm not using my ISP's DNS.
And there's not much uproar about these "weapons" (the media call the recent laws "arsenal") being targeted at everyone, very marginally hitting actual terrorists (and not, in any way, hindering their capacity to communicate and recruit). Way to go France.
they were able to survive without TSYNC and make it 'safe' but suddenly they can't
Geez, improving their software's security by taking advantage of better kernel support, Google really are deadbeat stupid. Better drop the sandboxing idea, have everything in the same process, preferably run as root. We'll be all safe with this old, not up-to-date version of openssl with brand new SSL3.0 support.
The actual replies are worse than the slashdot summary; when someone asked for TSYNC support, the answer was "sounds like another good reason not to use Google Spyware". The followup are in the same vein about Flash.
Now one can have his opinion and think that Chrome/Flash are evil incarnates and must be wiped out from our universe, that doesn't change the fact that Flash still exist, is still in use by an awful lot of websites, and Chrome is the only way to get this content under Linux. Telling people "nah, not gonna have it, kthxbai" is probably more hurting than anything.
The head tracking, being sort of cut from outside visual noises, and the overall immersion? Stereoscopy is a very little aspect of a VR headset.