Yes, newsgroups were awesome. I still try to use them to this day but it is mainly spam. I understand why people want to shut their servers down. I feel part of the problem is ISPs never advertise newsgroups and really it was only up to those who knew about them beforehand to use them.
Source is the easiest, imo, of anything out there atm. If gives you a range too from HL-2 style games, CS style or humorous TF2 styles without having to create too many (if any) assets.
Using as much or more memory is no problem if it feels snappy and fast. That is Firefox's problem, it does not against browser consuming as much if not more resources.
As far as I'm concerned if you're pushing your info onto the streets and a spy finds it then the spy did nothing wrong. Face it though, the spy won't do that as he's part of the government and grabbing data on you from the comfort of his desk.
Would you want a government happy to fine people for insecure networks, who just lost a big chunk of money to Greece having a list of everyone with open connections?
Why not send a government official to Google to have a quick look and over watch its destruction? If they feel Google may not actually destroy it...well it's digital data. Google could have millions of copies around the world. They could never prove a copy of the data does no exist somewhere by handing over some hardware.
If Google didn't share the data then that is the same as hearing a phone conversation and not discussing it and would it not be the same to say I can use your open connection but can't share the data I download?
I agree it's not great they did log it even if it's not shared but I'd much rather see the responsibility lie with the wifi modem and router manufacturers as my concern is more with people who have more evil uses for wifi connections than Google or any other company. I like privacy but I don't want people thinking they can then infringe on my rights in a public area just because they're too stupid to keep their business private.
That's not strictly true. Squatter's rights exist and, at least in the UK, if there is no forced entry it's not criminal.
If you read up on trespassing laws you'll see that simply being on someone's property or even in their home is not a crime. If you do things like leave your door open all the time and I lay a catalogue inside your home then I probably won't get in trouble especially if you have a mail slot on your door which I couldn't use since the door was open. I could even be found further in your house claiming I thought something was wrong as the door was open and assumed a crime took place. Good Samaritan laws can override your right to keep me out. In fact you can physically break into someone's house if there was a just reason. For instance I found you bleeding on your door step.
Most people don't have a right to be in your home and if they're found doing something questionable or with your property in their hands then yes they're screwed and yes entering open windows is generally, without a doubt, considered wrong but the fact is people can enter your property, especially if you leave it open and it's not automatically a crime or even a civil penalty.
Yet you can buy all of those things. But more importantly most devices that connect to wifi are purposely built to find wifi points. Should that be illegal if so most phones, laptops, routers, etc are in violation of your neighbour's privacy.
Sometimes those devices will simply connect to the point they feel is the best option and it may not be your own especially if yours is locked and your neighbour's point is not. You technically used their connection though.
The pressure needs to be put on modems/routers/etc to be not broadcast by default and simply have all their settings set with maximum privacy and security in mind rather than punishing people for seeing public data.
I'm not entirely happy that they collect the data however I don't know if I want it be a case where I can get in trouble for collecting something that is freely available and in fact my hardware (router, laptop, phone, etc) are built to find. Where do you draw the line on when you're collecting data and breaking someone's privacy.
Also if your privacy extends onto public streets do I get in trouble for taking pictures in front of people's houses or when someone happens to be walking in front of my camera?
If anything the call should instead be for modems and routers to default to the most secure settings and warnings telling people that when they change the settings they are opening themselves up to privacy and security concerns. This would stop Google or anyone (as I'm certain Google isn't the only one) from cataloguing the data but much more importantly it will stop people from doing something far worse with people's internet connections and quite frankly I'm less concerned about Google knowing my wifi exists and more concerned about someone breaking in and using it to pirate or worse yet download illegal images.
For the past couple of years I've only watched DVDs through linux. I was a bit shocked at how long it took to get some of my movies started on a friends DVD player. I think it's nearly criminal to ask me to hand over £10 for a movie and force me to sit through crap I don't want to see the first time let alone every time after that.
Yes porn can be people having sex but then it might just be pictures of naked women. Some people who have sex dislike porn. Which is why saying that Steve Jobs dislikes sex when he talks about porn is wrong.
porn != sex. In fact porn is used by people who don't have sex.
I do believe people should have more freedom to choose what they do with their hardware and I do like porn but I know what he's getting at. I really dislike seeing numerous shitty similar apps on the Android app market for girls in bikini calendars, picture viewers, etc. I don't want that. I don't really care for most porn websites either. They're annoying. It's just easier to go onto P2P networks when I want and grab what I want.
There needs to be a system that tops Apple's method of simply banning things and gives people the ability to look at porn and avoid it when they want to.
In my opinion the people at Gawker are bottom feeders who just talk about other people's work or just simply point people to other people's work. Critics in general don't offer much value so I do believe Steve has a point.
We can't sit here and say Roger Ebert's opinion on gaming is invalid because he's a movie guy and then say some Gawker guy's opinion is valid despite the fact he may be as clueless as Ebert.
He also has a good point, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Even when when criticising Apple Ryan says their products are awesome. To his fan base, who probably care about having shiny things rather than doing the right thing, they're not going really care about this.
Perhaps he should worry less about offending companies and having the freebies dry up and convince his viewers why they shouldn't buy Apple products rather than just shit stirring to draw people into his site.
The majority of Americans do live on the coasts so the numbers for everything (especially during early adoption) should be much higher on the coasts. Even the percentage of local population should be higher on the coasts because there is a higher variety of people and therefore you're more likely to find a group of people that will like it.
They're doing pretty good (better than MS) in the mobile market and their talented search engine staff won't necessarily know what to do for a mobile OS and they're busy on the search business anyway so Google would need to hire people or buy a company to fill the resourcing for developing a mobile OS. What is the real difference between them buying a company to incorporate into their company or buying up that company's talent and letting that company fall to the side?
No one has dominated search forever. Odds are Google won't either so they need to spread out but hopefully in a sensible way unlike Yahoo whom has just filled their homepage with a load of unnecessary shit. Google is at least getting into more sensible things. I think trying to do everything would be too much. If they offer superior pricing plans and more then they'll probably have to build the infrastructure too because who is going to work with Google and share their towers with someone who is cutting into their business and giving consumers more freedom?
I don't think it is so much about over coming them but that you shouldn't have to spend nearly as long testing (if not longer) in loads of browsers as you do developing it. It's not fun but it is necessary.
One thing that helps is writing a CSS style sheet that wipes the browser default styles and then allows you to start from a common base. But people shouldn't have to do that and add one more file to request. Imo, browsers shouldn't apply any styling. It should be up the dev to do his job right.
I think this has been improved, especially with JavaFX but applets have had such a bad start and Flash made decent inroads so it'll be hard to get people to convert despite the fact Java would be superior to Flash.
That is because of frameworks and libraries. I think people need to learn the basics more first before jumping into frameworks and libraries to save time. The thing is you aren't going to convince people to do that when they feel they don't have to.
Sure Flash does more now because it has a head start but initially Flash was very basic. But people have done things like Super Mario Bros (minus sound if I remember) in Javascript and a lot of things now are just demos to prove a point. People can and will eventually do better things. There is a higher learning curve because it won't have Macromedia / Adobe's Flash app for creating things in a gui with minimal coding.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, newsgroups were awesome. I still try to use them to this day but it is mainly spam. I understand why people want to shut their servers down. I feel part of the problem is ISPs never advertise newsgroups and really it was only up to those who knew about them beforehand to use them.
The user of the software didn't develop the software, they only run it. Do you deserve any patents related to Windows just for using Windows?
Source is the easiest, imo, of anything out there atm. If gives you a range too from HL-2 style games, CS style or humorous TF2 styles without having to create too many (if any) assets.
Using as much or more memory is no problem if it feels snappy and fast. That is Firefox's problem, it does not against browser consuming as much if not more resources.
As far as I'm concerned if you're pushing your info onto the streets and a spy finds it then the spy did nothing wrong. Face it though, the spy won't do that as he's part of the government and grabbing data on you from the comfort of his desk.
Would you want a government happy to fine people for insecure networks, who just lost a big chunk of money to Greece having a list of everyone with open connections?
Why not send a government official to Google to have a quick look and over watch its destruction? If they feel Google may not actually destroy it...well it's digital data. Google could have millions of copies around the world. They could never prove a copy of the data does no exist somewhere by handing over some hardware.
If Google didn't share the data then that is the same as hearing a phone conversation and not discussing it and would it not be the same to say I can use your open connection but can't share the data I download?
I agree it's not great they did log it even if it's not shared but I'd much rather see the responsibility lie with the wifi modem and router manufacturers as my concern is more with people who have more evil uses for wifi connections than Google or any other company. I like privacy but I don't want people thinking they can then infringe on my rights in a public area just because they're too stupid to keep their business private.
That's not strictly true. Squatter's rights exist and, at least in the UK, if there is no forced entry it's not criminal.
If you read up on trespassing laws you'll see that simply being on someone's property or even in their home is not a crime. If you do things like leave your door open all the time and I lay a catalogue inside your home then I probably won't get in trouble especially if you have a mail slot on your door which I couldn't use since the door was open. I could even be found further in your house claiming I thought something was wrong as the door was open and assumed a crime took place. Good Samaritan laws can override your right to keep me out. In fact you can physically break into someone's house if there was a just reason. For instance I found you bleeding on your door step.
Most people don't have a right to be in your home and if they're found doing something questionable or with your property in their hands then yes they're screwed and yes entering open windows is generally, without a doubt, considered wrong but the fact is people can enter your property, especially if you leave it open and it's not automatically a crime or even a civil penalty.
Yet you can buy all of those things. But more importantly most devices that connect to wifi are purposely built to find wifi points. Should that be illegal if so most phones, laptops, routers, etc are in violation of your neighbour's privacy.
Sometimes those devices will simply connect to the point they feel is the best option and it may not be your own especially if yours is locked and your neighbour's point is not. You technically used their connection though.
The pressure needs to be put on modems/routers/etc to be not broadcast by default and simply have all their settings set with maximum privacy and security in mind rather than punishing people for seeing public data.
I'm not entirely happy that they collect the data however I don't know if I want it be a case where I can get in trouble for collecting something that is freely available and in fact my hardware (router, laptop, phone, etc) are built to find. Where do you draw the line on when you're collecting data and breaking someone's privacy.
Also if your privacy extends onto public streets do I get in trouble for taking pictures in front of people's houses or when someone happens to be walking in front of my camera?
If anything the call should instead be for modems and routers to default to the most secure settings and warnings telling people that when they change the settings they are opening themselves up to privacy and security concerns. This would stop Google or anyone (as I'm certain Google isn't the only one) from cataloguing the data but much more importantly it will stop people from doing something far worse with people's internet connections and quite frankly I'm less concerned about Google knowing my wifi exists and more concerned about someone breaking in and using it to pirate or worse yet download illegal images.
Why use iTunes when Amazon is cheap and gives you DRM free MP3s that can be taken anywhere?
For the past couple of years I've only watched DVDs through linux. I was a bit shocked at how long it took to get some of my movies started on a friends DVD player. I think it's nearly criminal to ask me to hand over £10 for a movie and force me to sit through crap I don't want to see the first time let alone every time after that.
Yes porn can be people having sex but then it might just be pictures of naked women. Some people who have sex dislike porn. Which is why saying that Steve Jobs dislikes sex when he talks about porn is wrong.
Because not everyone is cheap.
porn != sex. In fact porn is used by people who don't have sex.
I do believe people should have more freedom to choose what they do with their hardware and I do like porn but I know what he's getting at. I really dislike seeing numerous shitty similar apps on the Android app market for girls in bikini calendars, picture viewers, etc. I don't want that. I don't really care for most porn websites either. They're annoying. It's just easier to go onto P2P networks when I want and grab what I want.
There needs to be a system that tops Apple's method of simply banning things and gives people the ability to look at porn and avoid it when they want to.
In my opinion the people at Gawker are bottom feeders who just talk about other people's work or just simply point people to other people's work. Critics in general don't offer much value so I do believe Steve has a point.
We can't sit here and say Roger Ebert's opinion on gaming is invalid because he's a movie guy and then say some Gawker guy's opinion is valid despite the fact he may be as clueless as Ebert.
He also has a good point, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Even when when criticising Apple Ryan says their products are awesome. To his fan base, who probably care about having shiny things rather than doing the right thing, they're not going really care about this.
Perhaps he should worry less about offending companies and having the freebies dry up and convince his viewers why they shouldn't buy Apple products rather than just shit stirring to draw people into his site.
The majority of Americans do live on the coasts so the numbers for everything (especially during early adoption) should be much higher on the coasts. Even the percentage of local population should be higher on the coasts because there is a higher variety of people and therefore you're more likely to find a group of people that will like it.
They're doing pretty good (better than MS) in the mobile market and their talented search engine staff won't necessarily know what to do for a mobile OS and they're busy on the search business anyway so Google would need to hire people or buy a company to fill the resourcing for developing a mobile OS. What is the real difference between them buying a company to incorporate into their company or buying up that company's talent and letting that company fall to the side?
No one has dominated search forever. Odds are Google won't either so they need to spread out but hopefully in a sensible way unlike Yahoo whom has just filled their homepage with a load of unnecessary shit. Google is at least getting into more sensible things. I think trying to do everything would be too much. If they offer superior pricing plans and more then they'll probably have to build the infrastructure too because who is going to work with Google and share their towers with someone who is cutting into their business and giving consumers more freedom?
Their business model isn't the same. The Wii is the cheapest system. Nothing of Apple's is cheap.
An iphone is for people who don't really play games. The DS can do any game the iPhone can do but better and many more the iPhone can't do.
It's the same as long as you don't use the netbook remix version. Imo, UNR is unnecessary.
I don't think it is so much about over coming them but that you shouldn't have to spend nearly as long testing (if not longer) in loads of browsers as you do developing it. It's not fun but it is necessary.
One thing that helps is writing a CSS style sheet that wipes the browser default styles and then allows you to start from a common base. But people shouldn't have to do that and add one more file to request. Imo, browsers shouldn't apply any styling. It should be up the dev to do his job right.
I think this has been improved, especially with JavaFX but applets have had such a bad start and Flash made decent inroads so it'll be hard to get people to convert despite the fact Java would be superior to Flash.
That is because of frameworks and libraries. I think people need to learn the basics more first before jumping into frameworks and libraries to save time. The thing is you aren't going to convince people to do that when they feel they don't have to.
Sure Flash does more now because it has a head start but initially Flash was very basic. But people have done things like Super Mario Bros (minus sound if I remember) in Javascript and a lot of things now are just demos to prove a point. People can and will eventually do better things. There is a higher learning curve because it won't have Macromedia / Adobe's Flash app for creating things in a gui with minimal coding.