Although I've been a programmer for 30 years, I [relatively] recently (2012) got my degree in Cinema Studies, which is the formal analysis of film as a text. (It's not just saying whether a film is good or bad, but examining themes, set design, sound, etc.) Part of my studies involved looking at the whole process, from pitching a film through global distribution. We all complain about the high costs of movie tickets and snacks at theaters, the frequently lousy chairs and so forth, but the movie studios are not innocent in those costs. While I don't have exact figures to give, out of a $12 movie ticket, the theater may only be getting about $1.50 of the revenue, maybe even less, as the studios are charging them exorbitant licensing and leasing fees for each movie. In addition, they sometimes force theaters to take films that they know are or will be crappy as part of a package deal in order to get the big films. Ever hear the term blockbuster? That's from studios leasing a block of films to theaters, most of which will not be good, in order to get one or two films that everyone is going to want to see. The first blockbusters were films that they sold outside of those blocks because they wanted to make sure that they maximized their potential income.
The only place theaters, including both the small boutique theaters and big chains, make money on are the snacks and food they serve in the theater. As the movie studios continue to raise the costs of leasing the films, the theaters are forced to increase their food costs to keep up while trying to strike a balance with the actual ticket costs. (Lets face it, none of us would likely pay $20 to see Twilight. Hell, I wouldn't take money to see it...)
And then, there's Hollywood's push towards digital distribution, which I admit makes the movie-going experience more pleasant all around. (I've been in a theater when the celluloid film strip melted on the projector, not to mention the graininess that's sometimes there.) A theater quality digital film projector system costs over $75,000, you can probably pile at least another $20k or more on top of that for theater quality THX and/or Dolby speakers, $5-10k for a good projection screen, and God knows how much for seats, maintenance, etc. for each individual theater room at a multiplex. Some of the movie studios have helped with the transition from celluloid to digital projection, it was in their best interests after all, and in the past helped with the hifi to stereo transition, but on the whole, the studios' only goal is to squeeze money out of the theaters. And don't get me started on why they keep making formulaic sequels and remaking/rebooting films... That's got absolutely nothing to do with them being out of ideas, in case you're thinking that...
So, bottom line, Hastings is only partially right. The theaters are the easy target for his blame, but then he's not trying to put films in theaters. It's the movie studios that are really to blame for the sad state of film though.
I wouldn't go as far as to say the OP is an idiot; he could've used any random city or even a fictional one. Detroit was just an easy target and the OP probably didn't think he'd offend (even mildly) anyone, but you're absolutely right, most metropolitan areas are simply referred to by the major city's name, so he inadvertently inferred the entire Metro Detroit area.
Really? It's an example and all, but as developer born and raised in Detroit (the city proper) and a current resident of the city, is it necessary to kick the place even more? Any way, recruiter spam is a constant pest for me as well; one recent one was trying to get me interested in a "Live Chat Customer Service"' opportunity somewhere... I think I'll be taking a peek at NoRecruitingSpam.com .
Actually, from what they said, it's going to have exclusive access for the beta, not necessarily the final release. It probably will be on Xbox One as well, but who knows at this point?
I'm going to give them some benefit of the doubt, just to be diplomatic. I'm going to assume that it is indeed a real airplane and that it was indeed flying in the video. (Global Security disagrees with this assumption at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/qaher-313.htm but I just want to state my two cents on the plane as an enthusiast.) That said, just because they say it's a stealth fighter doesn't make it a stealth fighter. In the footage provided there's no documentation of its stealthiness, nor even a general discussion on what makes it stealthy such as vaguely stating "radar absorbent materials", "carefully calculated angles", or "continuous curvature" like you get in History/Discovery/Military channel overviews of the U.S.'s stealth and stealthy aircraft. It's just "we have a stealth fighter." Even the roll-outs of the F-117A and B-2 contained more information about their stealth designs than was discussed in that video.
Lets give them another benefit of the doubt, that they were too intelligent to discuss those facts for strategic purposes.
Global Security does point out that the air in-takes are too small for any reasonable modern fighter jet, but perhaps the Iranians couldn't make it stealthy with any significant jet engine. They also point out that the nose cone is too small to hold a radar system, but that might be explained by a very involved ground control team; it hasn't been unheard of for officers on the ground to order fighters to certain locations and engage certain enemies. This was a Russian and Chinese strategy though I don't know if they still hold to that. Not including a radar system in an aircraft would make the pilot dependent on its ground control, less capable of independent action, and less likely to be detected by an enemy's threat detection system. They wouldn't be locking on to a target with their own radar, so missiles fired from them would be fed telemetry from a remote location, which means it couldn't give away the aircraft's position (specific or broad) prior to firing. Of course, that's speculation; it's possible that it has a small radar system that is comparatively weak by the standards we use in the West. Global Security quotes David Cenciotti who noted "It looks like this pilot is in a miniature plane" and it appeared "nothing more than a large mock-up model" but then, so does an F-16 up close. The F-16 looks like a toy next to the F-15 or F-22.
Nonetheless, I don't imagine the DoD is losing any sleep over this announcement... Even if the plane is real and really does have some stealthy features, I'd wager that it would still be a large enough radar target for AWACS to pick it up at a distance, and relay lock data to a squadron of F-15s that are well outside of visual range. I think that its possible stealthy f
They weren't exactly building new B-52s in 90. They were committed to supporting the existing aircraft that they were allowed to keep in service (a treaty signed with the Soviets actually had us destroy a large number of the aircraft). The Air Force *knew* they were keeping the plane in service long after they planned to retire the B-1 and B-2 bombers. This wasn't just speculation, or idle planning, they have a vested desire to keep the '52 flying until then.
It should be noted that the USAF knew in 1990 that they'd still be flying B-52s until at least 2040. I was a cadet at Michigan State University's AFROTC, and remember seeing slides and other information that projected that.
These days, in my opinion, sessions are done better and more securely with cookies; a cookie, for example, can be set to require a secure transmission vector (usually SSL in an HTTPS request), and aren't bookmarked as part of a URL. Yes it is more difficult to see what cookies are stored in your browser than in a URL, but most browsers will allow you to view and/or clear cookies easily enough. In addition, cookies can be set to expire automatically a set time on the client so they're only valid for a specified period of time, which can be completely separate from the server side. For instance, you could create a session that would live for 5 hours, and regularly change the session ID (say every fifth request if you like); the session cookie would get updated each time, but the overall session would live only for that 5 hour window. While the same could be done with a session ID in a URL, that session ID could still end up in a bookmark; in the very unlikely event of the session ID being reused, that bookmark could represent an inadvertent attack vector.
In addition, cookies are passed with both GET and POST requests; not every page has to be a POST request to use cookies to pass session IDs, and as I explained already, a session ID in a URL can be bookmarked. GET and POST have two different purposes, and I think everyone designing web pages could stand to read through the HTTP RFC. Logins should be done exclusively with POST in my opinion, and normal data retrieval once logged in should be done with GET. There's no reason that any search engine should ever be given a session, let alone a session ID; if a search engine needs access to otherwise secured information, there are options to accomplish that, but I can't see the logic in locking up data then making it publicly available in a search engine.
Does this mean that AMD/ATI and nVidia are finally recognizing that the only people really losing out in their cold war are their users? I'm traditionally an AMD/ATI customer but have been leaning towards getting an nVidia card for the CUDA support in Adobe's Creative Suite, but if this means that at some point in the future the Radeon HD 7000 series will support CUDA and will potentially accelerate CS, then I'll stick with it...
Definitely true, though I'm sure there are people at the various military contractors that knew better all along. There's no excuse for being lax about security when national security, defense, and military equipment and personnel are involved.
Yes, a video signal is different from the control signal, but any intelligence intercepted by an enemy is still a security risk. More often than not, intelligence from those drones is relayed by radio to ground units rather than being directly received by those units. (Some degree of analysis usually needs to be done.) The video signal needs to be encrypted just as much as the control signals.
My point with regards to the malware infection was more that this should have triggered a re-evaluation of the security involved in the maintenance and usage of our drones.
The question is, after it was confirmed last year that hostiles were intercepting military satellite footage in Afghanistan and that malware was present on a significant number of drones earlier this year, why wasn't any encryption either present or if it was present, why wasn't it updated to prevent interception and/or loss of control? I think the Air Force Cyber Warfare division has some explaining to do...
With regards to Honeycomb, I don't recall them ever actually saying that they'd release the source, though they were willing to share the release with partners that could produce sufficiently powerful hardware.
Right, but that makes it not Open Source! That's all I'm saying. Not that google is evil since that's subjective, or anything else for that matter, just that Honeycomb is not Open Source, and Honeycomb is a release of Android, and therefore you cannot say "Android is Open Source", you can only say "Most versions of Android are Open Source".
But I think you're overlooking the fact that there are lots of open source projects run by companies that make public releases with most of their code, and then also release a closed source version with enhancements from which they make a profit. In addition, as the copyright holder of a project, you're allowed to make some portions or versions of it open source and other portions or versions closed source for whatever reason you like. I may be mistaken, but I think that Android is indeed a dual or multi license project enabling Google to do that very thing even if they weren't the copyright holder. Nonetheless, if and when ICS's source is released, Honeycomb will be irrelevant unless someone really, really, really wants to work with that older version. So I think the point of this discussion is moot.
[citation needed]. Links to lies, fraudulent claims etc please.
Lie: Android is Open Source. Links: everywhere. Counterproof: ICS has been out for ages but the source hasn't. How can you even try to continue this conversation?
Or are you just assuming that using the term "Open Source" is some sort of binding contract for the developer to turn over any and all future source code, regardless of the state of completion?
No, "Open Source" means that whoever can get the binary can get the source. This is the sense in which SCO was open, and Sun before them; anyone who really needed the SunOS source and who had a sizable service contract could get it. But Google is currently not even that Open. They were in the past, and perhaps they will be soon, but they are not currently.
ICS is not an Open Source operating system, and it won't be until Google makes good on their promises.
You probably just tripped yourself up a bit in order to rush that reply out, but ICS hasn't been out AT ALL. Honeycomb was released earlier this year and they haven't released the source to that at all. That said, Google has now said multiple times that they will release the source to ICS once products using it have been released. There's not one released ICS product on the market at the moment. So complain about it after they Galaxy Nexus hits the shelves.
With regards to Honeycomb, I don't recall them ever actually saying that they'd release the source, though they were willing to share the release with partners that could produce sufficiently powerful hardware. Even then, I believe they *did* say they'd look at releasing the source eventually. Eventually doesn't mean last month, last week, today, tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. It means at some point in the future. And for what it's worth, the vast majority of the changes in Honeycomb are in ICS from what I gather, so why not just be satisfied with the newer and better release once the source becomes available.
Take a breath and calm down. Having the source to tinker around with and make your own custom build isn't that important unless you're working on a product you're trying to sell to actual customers.
Funny, I believe it was Andy Rubin that said that exact same thing in the announcement webcast on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning... It's odd that people don't listen the first time around...
Well, the Vita's library is starting off strong with games in the Uncharted, KillZone, LittleBigPlanet, and Wipeout franchises supposedly at launch. The question is will they keep up the production of AAA titles? The PSP started off strong, but the popular titles trickled off to almost nothing within a year, and only the occasional sporadic AAA title really kept it going this long.
Then there's the disparity with accessories as well... Although the XMB on my PSP[-1000] has an option for an apparent camera attachment, one was never released here in the US, though it was in Japan and I think Europe. Later models got the camera, built-in microphones and other features, but even now on the PS3, depending on which continent you say you are on when you set up your PSN account, you get different options. That needs to end; give all users all options and accessories.
I don't know how long it's going to take, but I'm pretty positive that this will blow up in California's face. You can't fix a deficit that big by adding a new tax; you're just going to drive business and revenue out of the state. There was a moratorium on internet sales taxes for multiple reasons at the turn of the century, not the least of which was that it threatened business revenue. (Among the others were double taxation because multiple states might legally be able to tax any given order.) I guess states are getting desperate and stupid with the recession still going on...
First and foremost, I'll admit that I'm biased because I've already purchased two Android based phones (G1 and Nexus One). That said, I believe the key to the somewhat slow start on WP7 based phones is that Microsoft's commercials and marketing approach hasn't been really well thought out, and I think people are subconsciously following the hidden unintended message.
The core to their campaign is that they're advertising their OS as one where you can get more done in a shorter period of time, so that you won't have the phone stuck in front of your face at all times. Their tag line is "Designed to get you in and out and back to life." What that makes me think, right off the bat, is that for efficiency's sake, everything you need would be quickly accessible. A noble goal. But the down side of that, to which I don't think Microsoft's marketing department really paid any heed, is that perhaps the reason you're getting "in and out and back to life" isn't because of a well designed interface or intelligently managed data, but because there's little else to do with the phone. I think Microsoft is unintentionally screaming "Our latest operating system is so limited, you won't want to use your WP7 phone for longer than ten seconds!"
I'm not really one of those people they're complaining about in the commercial: when I get an email or text message, I quickly look at it if I'm in a position to do so safely and then put my phone away. But based on the number of apps and things I can do with my Android based phone, I can completely understand that there are a lot of people out there going from app to app, emailing, tweeting, texting, or just staring at a map or navigation app being updated by GPS. This isn't because they can't get the activity completed with their Android, Blackberry, or iPhone, but because they can use it for more than ten seconds without getting bored. While I haven't touched a WP7 phone and I have no idea how many apps are available for it, Microsoft seems to be implying that having more apps than what they supply is too many; anything else might just cause that same "confusion" and lack of progress that users of other phones suffer from.
I think customers are picking up on the cues and are slow to buy the WP7 phones. Of course, the other possibilities include over-saturation of the smartphone market (how many people are willing to break their recent cellphone contract they just got in order to get the latest Android, Blackberry, or iPhone so they can switch to yet another new one?), or simply unattractive phones or deals... But if you ask me, Microsoft's marketing is to blame, and not in terms of under-advertising their product.
While I count as one of the C people, the performance I encounter in Thunderbird 3 even affect me when I'm utilizing an account with a few dozen messages, and even when trying to send email, not just read messages. I'm experiencing problems on both Windows Vista (64-bit) and Fedora 13 (also 64-bit) with 6 GB RAM; I don't think that I'm running into a low memory situation when Thunderbird takes sudden pauses. Case in point, I went to send an email to a friend on an account with 15 messages in the mailbox (for simplicity's sake, I switch to the inbox of the account I'm working with so I don't have to be as careful in choosing an account in the send message window), Thunderbird paused for 45 seconds or so while I was trying to type the message, then resumed normal operation for a few minutes, then paused again. Heck, even just reading RSS feeds in v3 is pause filled. I didn't get this behavior under v2 with the exact same account configurations. Nonetheless, it's not something that is completely unbearable...
Atari 2600
Atari 800XL (with 64KB RAM!!)
Texas Instruments digital calculator, complete with multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction!
Magnavox VHS VCR, circa 1984 (just missed BetaMax iirc)
Numerous table top video games such as Donkey Kong that came in portable home versions of arcade game housings.
IIRC The OS Is POSIX Compatible, porting *most* applications from Linux to BeOS isn't very difficult.
True, but this works primarily with command line applications and libraries. Haiku (and BeOS for that matter) already has tcpdump, for instance, but assuming they didn't, I don't think it would be terribly hard to port.
The GUI for Wireshark, on the other hand, would prove to be a different story: I'm not sure which GUI tools or library is used in Wireshark's GUI, but I'm pretty positive that there's either no version or no recent version available on BeOS or Haiku at this time. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. Porting that would then become a question of whether the developer should through the effort to port the missing library/libraries or developing a native UI.
Obviously some of the application's code will work just fine, but it's unlikely you're going to find very many applications that compile quickly and easily on Linux that will do the same on BeOS/Haiku.
Of course it could be argued that 19 years is a long time in the computer world and BeOS would be old enough to have accumulated its own cruft by now.
While that's technically true, it's not exactly what happened. As Be moved from the Hobbit processor to the PowerPC then to x86 processors, and in some cases from one version to another, they broke backwards compatibility numerous times, more often than not intentionally for the good of the OS. Some legacy things did transition from one version of BeOS to another, but the engineering managers didn't like to transition a huge amount of [bad] legacy code, they preferred to instead to rewrite a lot of things to solve the problems the earlier versions had. Of course, this has nothing to do with Haiku which is designed to recreate BeOS R5, the last official revision of BeOS.
As I stated, BeOS and Haiku are not Linux compatible except on a limited source code basis. I did a quick search for both QT and WxWidgets on BeBits and Haikuware (two places where many people fetch BeOS/Haiku software) and only found a QT from 2001 (2.3.0) on either site. There's no GNOME, KDE, or even X compatibility in either BeOS or Haiku by default, although I have seen an X server running on BeOS many years ago.
If you put enough energy into it, you can make just about anything run on any operating system, but the question is: is it worth it?
That said, yes, someone could port Linux/Unix software over to Haiku relatively easily, especially if they're willing to use native code for GUI, but that doesn't make Haiku a flavor of Linux any more than it makes Windows a flavor of Linux. There are more similarities between a Linux and Haiku binary than a Windows binary, but the fact is that they'd have to be extremely similar for a Linux binary to run on Haiku, and one of the primary goals of Haiku was to maintain binary compatibility with BeOS R5 instead of Linux.
There... I'm done rambling...:-)
It'd be better if they all came to a consensus on where libraries go and follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard and a package system.
Haiku, like BeOS, is in no way compatible with Linux except on a limited source code basis. It's not using the Linux kernel and cannot run Linux software, therefore there's little point in conforming to anyone's standards but perhaps Be's or their own.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I've been a programmer for 30 years, I [relatively] recently (2012) got my degree in Cinema Studies, which is the formal analysis of film as a text. (It's not just saying whether a film is good or bad, but examining themes, set design, sound, etc.) Part of my studies involved looking at the whole process, from pitching a film through global distribution. We all complain about the high costs of movie tickets and snacks at theaters, the frequently lousy chairs and so forth, but the movie studios are not innocent in those costs. While I don't have exact figures to give, out of a $12 movie ticket, the theater may only be getting about $1.50 of the revenue, maybe even less, as the studios are charging them exorbitant licensing and leasing fees for each movie. In addition, they sometimes force theaters to take films that they know are or will be crappy as part of a package deal in order to get the big films. Ever hear the term blockbuster? That's from studios leasing a block of films to theaters, most of which will not be good, in order to get one or two films that everyone is going to want to see. The first blockbusters were films that they sold outside of those blocks because they wanted to make sure that they maximized their potential income.
The only place theaters, including both the small boutique theaters and big chains, make money on are the snacks and food they serve in the theater. As the movie studios continue to raise the costs of leasing the films, the theaters are forced to increase their food costs to keep up while trying to strike a balance with the actual ticket costs. (Lets face it, none of us would likely pay $20 to see Twilight. Hell, I wouldn't take money to see it...)
And then, there's Hollywood's push towards digital distribution, which I admit makes the movie-going experience more pleasant all around. (I've been in a theater when the celluloid film strip melted on the projector, not to mention the graininess that's sometimes there.) A theater quality digital film projector system costs over $75,000, you can probably pile at least another $20k or more on top of that for theater quality THX and/or Dolby speakers, $5-10k for a good projection screen, and God knows how much for seats, maintenance, etc. for each individual theater room at a multiplex. Some of the movie studios have helped with the transition from celluloid to digital projection, it was in their best interests after all, and in the past helped with the hifi to stereo transition, but on the whole, the studios' only goal is to squeeze money out of the theaters. And don't get me started on why they keep making formulaic sequels and remaking/rebooting films... That's got absolutely nothing to do with them being out of ideas, in case you're thinking that...
So, bottom line, Hastings is only partially right. The theaters are the easy target for his blame, but then he's not trying to put films in theaters. It's the movie studios that are really to blame for the sad state of film though.
I wouldn't go as far as to say the OP is an idiot; he could've used any random city or even a fictional one. Detroit was just an easy target and the OP probably didn't think he'd offend (even mildly) anyone, but you're absolutely right, most metropolitan areas are simply referred to by the major city's name, so he inadvertently inferred the entire Metro Detroit area.
Really? It's an example and all, but as developer born and raised in Detroit (the city proper) and a current resident of the city, is it necessary to kick the place even more? Any way, recruiter spam is a constant pest for me as well; one recent one was trying to get me interested in a "Live Chat Customer Service"' opportunity somewhere... I think I'll be taking a peek at NoRecruitingSpam.com .
Actually, from what they said, it's going to have exclusive access for the beta, not necessarily the final release. It probably will be on Xbox One as well, but who knows at this point?
I'm going to give them some benefit of the doubt, just to be diplomatic. I'm going to assume that it is indeed a real airplane and that it was indeed flying in the video. (Global Security disagrees with this assumption at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/qaher-313.htm but I just want to state my two cents on the plane as an enthusiast.) That said, just because they say it's a stealth fighter doesn't make it a stealth fighter. In the footage provided there's no documentation of its stealthiness, nor even a general discussion on what makes it stealthy such as vaguely stating "radar absorbent materials", "carefully calculated angles", or "continuous curvature" like you get in History/Discovery/Military channel overviews of the U.S.'s stealth and stealthy aircraft. It's just "we have a stealth fighter." Even the roll-outs of the F-117A and B-2 contained more information about their stealth designs than was discussed in that video.
Lets give them another benefit of the doubt, that they were too intelligent to discuss those facts for strategic purposes.
I'm no expert on stealth, but I have fundamental problems with the aircraft's design in terms of stealth. The down pointing wingtips are sufficiently disjunctive with the rest of the flow of the aircraft that I can't help imagine that they'll generate a larger radar cross-section as a result. It has a forward wing-canard which helps with maneuverability (at least when paired with thrust vectoring), but I imagine that the tips (as seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/qaher-313-image06.jpg||| ) would also trigger a larger cross-section from some angles. Hell, this image, http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/qaher-313-image18.jpg||| , to me screams that there's no way in the world this wouldn't reflect radar signals back to the source...
Global Security does point out that the air in-takes are too small for any reasonable modern fighter jet, but perhaps the Iranians couldn't make it stealthy with any significant jet engine. They also point out that the nose cone is too small to hold a radar system, but that might be explained by a very involved ground control team; it hasn't been unheard of for officers on the ground to order fighters to certain locations and engage certain enemies. This was a Russian and Chinese strategy though I don't know if they still hold to that. Not including a radar system in an aircraft would make the pilot dependent on its ground control, less capable of independent action, and less likely to be detected by an enemy's threat detection system. They wouldn't be locking on to a target with their own radar, so missiles fired from them would be fed telemetry from a remote location, which means it couldn't give away the aircraft's position (specific or broad) prior to firing. Of course, that's speculation; it's possible that it has a small radar system that is comparatively weak by the standards we use in the West. Global Security quotes David Cenciotti who noted "It looks like this pilot is in a miniature plane" and it appeared "nothing more than a large mock-up model" but then, so does an F-16 up close. The F-16 looks like a toy next to the F-15 or F-22.
Nonetheless, I don't imagine the DoD is losing any sleep over this announcement... Even if the plane is real and really does have some stealthy features, I'd wager that it would still be a large enough radar target for AWACS to pick it up at a distance, and relay lock data to a squadron of F-15s that are well outside of visual range. I think that its possible stealthy f
They weren't exactly building new B-52s in 90. They were committed to supporting the existing aircraft that they were allowed to keep in service (a treaty signed with the Soviets actually had us destroy a large number of the aircraft). The Air Force *knew* they were keeping the plane in service long after they planned to retire the B-1 and B-2 bombers. This wasn't just speculation, or idle planning, they have a vested desire to keep the '52 flying until then.
It should be noted that the USAF knew in 1990 that they'd still be flying B-52s until at least 2040. I was a cadet at Michigan State University's AFROTC, and remember seeing slides and other information that projected that.
These days, in my opinion, sessions are done better and more securely with cookies; a cookie, for example, can be set to require a secure transmission vector (usually SSL in an HTTPS request), and aren't bookmarked as part of a URL. Yes it is more difficult to see what cookies are stored in your browser than in a URL, but most browsers will allow you to view and/or clear cookies easily enough. In addition, cookies can be set to expire automatically a set time on the client so they're only valid for a specified period of time, which can be completely separate from the server side. For instance, you could create a session that would live for 5 hours, and regularly change the session ID (say every fifth request if you like); the session cookie would get updated each time, but the overall session would live only for that 5 hour window. While the same could be done with a session ID in a URL, that session ID could still end up in a bookmark; in the very unlikely event of the session ID being reused, that bookmark could represent an inadvertent attack vector.
In addition, cookies are passed with both GET and POST requests; not every page has to be a POST request to use cookies to pass session IDs, and as I explained already, a session ID in a URL can be bookmarked. GET and POST have two different purposes, and I think everyone designing web pages could stand to read through the HTTP RFC . Logins should be done exclusively with POST in my opinion, and normal data retrieval once logged in should be done with GET. There's no reason that any search engine should ever be given a session, let alone a session ID; if a search engine needs access to otherwise secured information, there are options to accomplish that, but I can't see the logic in locking up data then making it publicly available in a search engine.
Does this mean that AMD/ATI and nVidia are finally recognizing that the only people really losing out in their cold war are their users? I'm traditionally an AMD/ATI customer but have been leaning towards getting an nVidia card for the CUDA support in Adobe's Creative Suite, but if this means that at some point in the future the Radeon HD 7000 series will support CUDA and will potentially accelerate CS, then I'll stick with it...
Definitely true, though I'm sure there are people at the various military contractors that knew better all along. There's no excuse for being lax about security when national security, defense, and military equipment and personnel are involved.
Yes, a video signal is different from the control signal, but any intelligence intercepted by an enemy is still a security risk. More often than not, intelligence from those drones is relayed by radio to ground units rather than being directly received by those units. (Some degree of analysis usually needs to be done.) The video signal needs to be encrypted just as much as the control signals.
My point with regards to the malware infection was more that this should have triggered a re-evaluation of the security involved in the maintenance and usage of our drones.
The question is, after it was confirmed last year that hostiles were intercepting military satellite footage in Afghanistan and that malware was present on a significant number of drones earlier this year, why wasn't any encryption either present or if it was present, why wasn't it updated to prevent interception and/or loss of control? I think the Air Force Cyber Warfare division has some explaining to do...
With regards to Honeycomb, I don't recall them ever actually saying that they'd release the source, though they were willing to share the release with partners that could produce sufficiently powerful hardware.
Right, but that makes it not Open Source! That's all I'm saying. Not that google is evil since that's subjective, or anything else for that matter, just that Honeycomb is not Open Source, and Honeycomb is a release of Android, and therefore you cannot say "Android is Open Source", you can only say "Most versions of Android are Open Source".
But I think you're overlooking the fact that there are lots of open source projects run by companies that make public releases with most of their code, and then also release a closed source version with enhancements from which they make a profit. In addition, as the copyright holder of a project, you're allowed to make some portions or versions of it open source and other portions or versions closed source for whatever reason you like. I may be mistaken, but I think that Android is indeed a dual or multi license project enabling Google to do that very thing even if they weren't the copyright holder. Nonetheless, if and when ICS's source is released, Honeycomb will be irrelevant unless someone really, really, really wants to work with that older version. So I think the point of this discussion is moot.
[citation needed]. Links to lies, fraudulent claims etc please.
Lie: Android is Open Source. Links: everywhere. Counterproof: ICS has been out for ages but the source hasn't. How can you even try to continue this conversation?
Or are you just assuming that using the term "Open Source" is some sort of binding contract for the developer to turn over any and all future source code, regardless of the state of completion?
No, "Open Source" means that whoever can get the binary can get the source. This is the sense in which SCO was open, and Sun before them; anyone who really needed the SunOS source and who had a sizable service contract could get it. But Google is currently not even that Open. They were in the past, and perhaps they will be soon, but they are not currently.
ICS is not an Open Source operating system, and it won't be until Google makes good on their promises.
You probably just tripped yourself up a bit in order to rush that reply out, but ICS hasn't been out AT ALL. Honeycomb was released earlier this year and they haven't released the source to that at all. That said, Google has now said multiple times that they will release the source to ICS once products using it have been released. There's not one released ICS product on the market at the moment. So complain about it after they Galaxy Nexus hits the shelves.
With regards to Honeycomb, I don't recall them ever actually saying that they'd release the source, though they were willing to share the release with partners that could produce sufficiently powerful hardware. Even then, I believe they *did* say they'd look at releasing the source eventually. Eventually doesn't mean last month, last week, today, tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. It means at some point in the future. And for what it's worth, the vast majority of the changes in Honeycomb are in ICS from what I gather, so why not just be satisfied with the newer and better release once the source becomes available.
Take a breath and calm down. Having the source to tinker around with and make your own custom build isn't that important unless you're working on a product you're trying to sell to actual customers.
Funny, I believe it was Andy Rubin that said that exact same thing in the announcement webcast on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning... It's odd that people don't listen the first time around...
Well, the Vita's library is starting off strong with games in the Uncharted, KillZone, LittleBigPlanet, and Wipeout franchises supposedly at launch. The question is will they keep up the production of AAA titles? The PSP started off strong, but the popular titles trickled off to almost nothing within a year, and only the occasional sporadic AAA title really kept it going this long. Then there's the disparity with accessories as well... Although the XMB on my PSP[-1000] has an option for an apparent camera attachment, one was never released here in the US, though it was in Japan and I think Europe. Later models got the camera, built-in microphones and other features, but even now on the PS3, depending on which continent you say you are on when you set up your PSN account, you get different options. That needs to end; give all users all options and accessories.
I don't know how long it's going to take, but I'm pretty positive that this will blow up in California's face. You can't fix a deficit that big by adding a new tax; you're just going to drive business and revenue out of the state. There was a moratorium on internet sales taxes for multiple reasons at the turn of the century, not the least of which was that it threatened business revenue. (Among the others were double taxation because multiple states might legally be able to tax any given order.) I guess states are getting desperate and stupid with the recession still going on...
First and foremost, I'll admit that I'm biased because I've already purchased two Android based phones (G1 and Nexus One). That said, I believe the key to the somewhat slow start on WP7 based phones is that Microsoft's commercials and marketing approach hasn't been really well thought out, and I think people are subconsciously following the hidden unintended message. The core to their campaign is that they're advertising their OS as one where you can get more done in a shorter period of time, so that you won't have the phone stuck in front of your face at all times. Their tag line is "Designed to get you in and out and back to life." What that makes me think, right off the bat, is that for efficiency's sake, everything you need would be quickly accessible. A noble goal. But the down side of that, to which I don't think Microsoft's marketing department really paid any heed, is that perhaps the reason you're getting "in and out and back to life" isn't because of a well designed interface or intelligently managed data, but because there's little else to do with the phone. I think Microsoft is unintentionally screaming "Our latest operating system is so limited, you won't want to use your WP7 phone for longer than ten seconds!" I'm not really one of those people they're complaining about in the commercial: when I get an email or text message, I quickly look at it if I'm in a position to do so safely and then put my phone away. But based on the number of apps and things I can do with my Android based phone, I can completely understand that there are a lot of people out there going from app to app, emailing, tweeting, texting, or just staring at a map or navigation app being updated by GPS. This isn't because they can't get the activity completed with their Android, Blackberry, or iPhone, but because they can use it for more than ten seconds without getting bored. While I haven't touched a WP7 phone and I have no idea how many apps are available for it, Microsoft seems to be implying that having more apps than what they supply is too many; anything else might just cause that same "confusion" and lack of progress that users of other phones suffer from. I think customers are picking up on the cues and are slow to buy the WP7 phones. Of course, the other possibilities include over-saturation of the smartphone market (how many people are willing to break their recent cellphone contract they just got in order to get the latest Android, Blackberry, or iPhone so they can switch to yet another new one?), or simply unattractive phones or deals... But if you ask me, Microsoft's marketing is to blame, and not in terms of under-advertising their product.
While I count as one of the C people, the performance I encounter in Thunderbird 3 even affect me when I'm utilizing an account with a few dozen messages, and even when trying to send email, not just read messages. I'm experiencing problems on both Windows Vista (64-bit) and Fedora 13 (also 64-bit) with 6 GB RAM; I don't think that I'm running into a low memory situation when Thunderbird takes sudden pauses. Case in point, I went to send an email to a friend on an account with 15 messages in the mailbox (for simplicity's sake, I switch to the inbox of the account I'm working with so I don't have to be as careful in choosing an account in the send message window), Thunderbird paused for 45 seconds or so while I was trying to type the message, then resumed normal operation for a few minutes, then paused again. Heck, even just reading RSS feeds in v3 is pause filled. I didn't get this behavior under v2 with the exact same account configurations. Nonetheless, it's not something that is completely unbearable...
Many scientists misuse stats.
57.5% of all scientists would agree with you. 40.5% wouldn't comment. 3% of all readers will realize these stats are made up without being told... ;-)
Atari 2600
Atari 800XL (with 64KB RAM!!)
Texas Instruments digital calculator, complete with multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction!
Magnavox VHS VCR, circa 1984 (just missed BetaMax iirc)
Numerous table top video games such as Donkey Kong that came in portable home versions of arcade game housings.
God I feel old...
IIRC The OS Is POSIX Compatible, porting *most* applications from Linux to BeOS isn't very difficult.
True, but this works primarily with command line applications and libraries. Haiku (and BeOS for that matter) already has tcpdump, for instance, but assuming they didn't, I don't think it would be terribly hard to port.
The GUI for Wireshark, on the other hand, would prove to be a different story: I'm not sure which GUI tools or library is used in Wireshark's GUI, but I'm pretty positive that there's either no version or no recent version available on BeOS or Haiku at this time. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. Porting that would then become a question of whether the developer should through the effort to port the missing library/libraries or developing a native UI.
Obviously some of the application's code will work just fine, but it's unlikely you're going to find very many applications that compile quickly and easily on Linux that will do the same on BeOS/Haiku.
Be reinvented the wheel already. Haiku is just recreating Be's version with the hopes of adding their own tweaks in the future.
Of course it could be argued that 19 years is a long time in the computer world and BeOS would be old enough to have accumulated its own cruft by now.
While that's technically true, it's not exactly what happened. As Be moved from the Hobbit processor to the PowerPC then to x86 processors, and in some cases from one version to another, they broke backwards compatibility numerous times, more often than not intentionally for the good of the OS. Some legacy things did transition from one version of BeOS to another, but the engineering managers didn't like to transition a huge amount of [bad] legacy code, they preferred to instead to rewrite a lot of things to solve the problems the earlier versions had. Of course, this has nothing to do with Haiku which is designed to recreate BeOS R5, the last official revision of BeOS.
As I stated, BeOS and Haiku are not Linux compatible except on a limited source code basis. I did a quick search for both QT and WxWidgets on BeBits and Haikuware (two places where many people fetch BeOS/Haiku software) and only found a QT from 2001 (2.3.0) on either site. There's no GNOME, KDE, or even X compatibility in either BeOS or Haiku by default, although I have seen an X server running on BeOS many years ago. If you put enough energy into it, you can make just about anything run on any operating system, but the question is: is it worth it? That said, yes, someone could port Linux/Unix software over to Haiku relatively easily, especially if they're willing to use native code for GUI, but that doesn't make Haiku a flavor of Linux any more than it makes Windows a flavor of Linux. There are more similarities between a Linux and Haiku binary than a Windows binary, but the fact is that they'd have to be extremely similar for a Linux binary to run on Haiku, and one of the primary goals of Haiku was to maintain binary compatibility with BeOS R5 instead of Linux. There... I'm done rambling... :-)
It'd be better if they all came to a consensus on where libraries go and follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard and a package system.
Haiku, like BeOS, is in no way compatible with Linux except on a limited source code basis. It's not using the Linux kernel and cannot run Linux software, therefore there's little point in conforming to anyone's standards but perhaps Be's or their own.