Easily detectable like the one car on the road that isn't screeching to a halt?
Any car-to-car network is going to be an organized mesh network not random blasts of signal. It's pretty easy to log where these commands are coming from for the most part. Sure you can think up some crazy scenario where Lex Luther figures out an anonymous way to alter the system that relies on 100 levels of "what-if"s. But it's just not realistic; real life isn't a bad Hollywood movie (Die Hard wasn't a documentary).
If hyper advanced random acts of cyber terrorism were actually a concern you would already see it. Why isn't the emergency response system being hacked constantly? It uses radio waves so it has to be vulnerable right? And as soon as something is vulnerable it's already been used for senseless killing right?
Doing these things would be highly illegal (just like they are now). That's what stops people from doing them currently (that and most people aren't sociopaths). The people that would do this intersected with the people that could do this is so vanishingly small (probably 0) that it's really not a concern. If that set is larger than 0 you can guarantee they would already be getting those results by other means anyway.
Well you see: this thread was about using hardware you bought. In this case, specifically, the xbox one. Now you and at least one other person came in and said that you can use the hardware you bought any way that you want. I just laid out some very specific and real reasons why you cannot use hardware that you bought and own.
You cannot say that you "own" the hardware and can use it however when you are legally disallowed from actually using however. That is the entire topic of discussion here. Stop maintaining that you own the hardware and are free to do what you want with it. That is simply false for any effective use of the hardware. I don't know about you but my definition of "whatever i want" is not "turn it on and use it how I'm told or smash it with a hammer".
I guess I'm confused because you decided to chime in with a retort that had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and was provably false.
So how exactly do you propose to use hardware without using software? How do you run your own software on something with an encrypted bootloader without reverse engineering the software to learn how it works? How would you use your xbox one, which is exactly what this thread is about and is locked down exactly the same as the ps3, without using a similar process George Hotz did to the PS3?
Are you purposefully being disingenuous or are you actually just that dense? Sometimes it's hard to tell on Slashdot.
the tablet is the preferable option in cases where it may be used.
A tablet is the preferable option in extremely few content creation situations. Researching / day-dreaming / etc. are not content creation activities even if they are essential in the creation process. Name just one real creation activity where a tablet is preferable and not just an accessory.
A real text-entry device is always going to be preferred to anybody that is seriously entering text. Graphics manipulation is infinitely better on a computer with a Wacom tablet (my Android tablet event has a Wacom built in and a computer is still better).
Every example of "on the couch" or "at the beach" would be better served with a small laptop than a tablet if you are doing anything more than reading. I love my tablet but I still recognize that it's only marginally above the "toy" level.
Of course research and reading are part of the creative process but by definition cannot replace the creative process. Hence content consuming devices cannot replace content creation devices. I don't know what kind of cursory level research you do but I'd much prefer to have many documents/resources open across many large screens than be limited to one document in one instance of an "app" on a 7-10 inch screen. Which I can quickly navigate through by mouse or keyboard (which ever was more convenient to access at the time).
Not to rain on your parade or anything but what you refer to as "phablets" are not cheap. The main "phablet" player is the Galaxy Note line and they are anything but cheap and I've seen quite a few of those in the wild.
At at most a fifth of the speed and probably a lot slower. I use all ten of my fingers and not just two of them when typing emails on a keyboard. I imagine someone who couldn't type at all might not notice a different though.
That's a bit like arguing that a computer's a terrible content creation tool because it's no good as a woodworking lathe or sewing machine
If you bought a computer to replace a lathe or sewing machine you probably would have that complaint. Fortunately nobody does that because it's a stupid idea (and a pointless analogy). There may be a handful of things a tablet is better at than a computer (I'm unconvinced of any of them) but there are a million things a computer is better at than a tablet. Nobody would genuinely refer to that as a "replacement".
Can we stop with this pointless defense bogging down every discussion that involves tablets? Your argument of how good they are for content creation was "look at all this stuff I can look at on it". That's not really content creation- it's pretty much content consumption.
It's a nice way to read email. It's terrible for composing an email larger than "OK".
Nobody has a "right" not to see something or be exposed to something that they can easily avoid by choosing not to partake of it.
So, seeing a bullfight should be compulsory, as well as executions, and I don't mean that you can voluntarily go and see the "show", I mean that, according to your reasoning, it should be a must.
Are you dumb or just trolling? What part of "easily avoid" do you equate to "compulsory"?
No, it's actually more like expecting you to have built a box, a chair, a shed. Anything before building something as huge as a house. Or do you think you can just pick up a hammer one day a build a house? How the hell else are you going to learn something without actually using or doing it? You have to "**decide**" what you're going to use on your own; no one else can do it for you. That requires research, learning and making an informed decision. How is a web development library supposed to do that for you?
It's funny that you think a developer held the project hostage for wanting it to be in compliance with the terms they contributed under. Could it not be that Apple is actually holding the device you paid good money for hostage? It's them that aren't allowing you to install any software unless you play by their rules and pay them their toll.
I'm going to completely ignore your little "free" diatribe because I know you've had it explained to you dozens of times. The concept and meaning of the word "Free" to the FOSS movement is presented loudly and repeatedly anywhere FOSS lands. So you either have no idea what you are talking about or are being dishonest.
They are anti-GPL because their policies do not allow compliance with the GPL. They do not allow GPL software on their platform. GPL software must be re-licensed before it can be put into the store. I am sorry "anti-GPL" sounds negative towards Apple and causes cognitive dissonance in you but how else would you like it put? "Counter-GPL"? "Un-GPL friendly"? "In direct conflict with the ideals of the GPL"?
Of course others want Apple to change their policies. A good portion of people think their policies are bullshit. The whole point of the GPL is to make computing open. It only stands to reason that the same people would want to get Apple to change their policy on un-open computing.
There are api docs, millions of tutorials and active communities that will help people out. What more could a "noob off the street" demand? I do not mean to be insulting but there is only so much the internet can do. Another of the benefits of the jQuery library is that it is widely documented, known, and discussed. That makes it easy to pick up for self-learners.
Of course you can use jQuery to do what you want. Or at least parts of what you want. I would recommend learning the library on lesser projects though. That will give you a better idea of what to do and what is and isn't possible. You're trying to run before you can walk. A novice isn't going to pick up a new technology and out-do the current champions. You may find that their suckiness stems from certain limitations of the platform.
That's quite the persecution complex you have there. It would certainly help OSS ideals if he managed to convince every other GPL author to do the same. Perhaps this person actually believes in the software freedom they contribute to?
What you consider fair is not what everyone considers fair. Some developers do not want anyone to see their source code under any circumstances.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive as you frame them. In fact, every other platform manages to accommodate both.
Yes they do but where does it developers have a right to use Apple's store to distribute their software as they wish. Nowhere.
Perfectly true. And the developers of GPL software have every right to have their work removed from Apple's store and encourage others to do the same. Somehow I think no GPL software in the ios ecosystem would be more harmful to the ios usebase than it would be to writers of GPL software.
That is not a problem to the people that wrote the GPL. If you want to make use of the hard work of others then you have to pay them their due. They demand the price of having your software also benefiting others.
If what you are linking is so trivial that you don't think it should be able to control the licensing of your software don't use it. Write it yourself like everyone else has to.
The GPL means nothing without copyright under it, therefore copyright is still with the original owner.
we know that's false because there are many GPL based apps in the App Store today
I wrote softwareX- I hold the copyright. I am free to license softwareX to Fred under the GPL. I am also free to license softwareX to Greg under a license I make up on the fly. Fred still has a GPL license to softwareX.
If the owners of the copyrights to GPL softwareY want to allow their software on Apple's AppStore even if it doesn't fully comply with the GPL license they are free to do so. That does not mean that the Apple AppStore complies with the GPL. As we see here, if a copyright holder does not allow the re-licensing to allow it there it will get removed.
Slashdot Mirror
Easily detectable like the one car on the road that isn't screeching to a halt?
Any car-to-car network is going to be an organized mesh network not random blasts of signal. It's pretty easy to log where these commands are coming from for the most part. Sure you can think up some crazy scenario where Lex Luther figures out an anonymous way to alter the system that relies on 100 levels of "what-if"s. But it's just not realistic; real life isn't a bad Hollywood movie (Die Hard wasn't a documentary).
If hyper advanced random acts of cyber terrorism were actually a concern you would already see it. Why isn't the emergency response system being hacked constantly? It uses radio waves so it has to be vulnerable right? And as soon as something is vulnerable it's already been used for senseless killing right?
Doing these things would be highly illegal (just like they are now). That's what stops people from doing them currently (that and most people aren't sociopaths). The people that would do this intersected with the people that could do this is so vanishingly small (probably 0) that it's really not a concern. If that set is larger than 0 you can guarantee they would already be getting those results by other means anyway.
Both of those things are already possible and with similar levels of detectability.
I could easily instal strobes into my lights to make my vehicle look like an unmarked cruiser.
I can lob paint balloons (or anything really) out the windows at other drivers.
Same outcome. These things have been possible for ever yet we don't see some epidemic of them happening.
Did the iPhone 3G have an aluminum body? I thought it was plastic and glass.
Does that stop any other phone from having a wall charger? What the hell was the point of that comment?
Well you see: this thread was about using hardware you bought. In this case, specifically, the xbox one. Now you and at least one other person came in and said that you can use the hardware you bought any way that you want. I just laid out some very specific and real reasons why you cannot use hardware that you bought and own.
You cannot say that you "own" the hardware and can use it however when you are legally disallowed from actually using however. That is the entire topic of discussion here. Stop maintaining that you own the hardware and are free to do what you want with it. That is simply false for any effective use of the hardware. I don't know about you but my definition of "whatever i want" is not "turn it on and use it how I'm told or smash it with a hammer".
I guess I'm confused because you decided to chime in with a retort that had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and was provably false.
So how exactly do you propose to use hardware without using software? How do you run your own software on something with an encrypted bootloader without reverse engineering the software to learn how it works? How would you use your xbox one, which is exactly what this thread is about and is locked down exactly the same as the ps3, without using a similar process George Hotz did to the PS3?
Are you purposefully being disingenuous or are you actually just that dense? Sometimes it's hard to tell on Slashdot.
I would agree but that doesn't stop some pretty powerful players from attacking you.
Citation provided: Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz
Just don't tell anyone else about it. And definitely don't tell them how you did it- that's copyright violation, dmca, wire-fraud, etc, etc.
the tablet is the preferable option in cases where it may be used.
A tablet is the preferable option in extremely few content creation situations. Researching / day-dreaming / etc. are not content creation activities even if they are essential in the creation process. Name just one real creation activity where a tablet is preferable and not just an accessory.
A real text-entry device is always going to be preferred to anybody that is seriously entering text. Graphics manipulation is infinitely better on a computer with a Wacom tablet (my Android tablet event has a Wacom built in and a computer is still better).
Every example of "on the couch" or "at the beach" would be better served with a small laptop than a tablet if you are doing anything more than reading. I love my tablet but I still recognize that it's only marginally above the "toy" level.
Of course research and reading are part of the creative process but by definition cannot replace the creative process. Hence content consuming devices cannot replace content creation devices. I don't know what kind of cursory level research you do but I'd much prefer to have many documents/resources open across many large screens than be limited to one document in one instance of an "app" on a 7-10 inch screen. Which I can quickly navigate through by mouse or keyboard (which ever was more convenient to access at the time).
no micro-SD port, and no USB port for flash drives
Yeah, your Nexus 7 sure has that iPad beat in those areas. Er wait.
Not to rain on your parade or anything but what you refer to as "phablets" are not cheap. The main "phablet" player is the Galaxy Note line and they are anything but cheap and I've seen quite a few of those in the wild.
I could touch-type with my thumbs within a month
At at most a fifth of the speed and probably a lot slower. I use all ten of my fingers and not just two of them when typing emails on a keyboard. I imagine someone who couldn't type at all might not notice a different though.
That's a bit like arguing that a computer's a terrible content creation tool because it's no good as a woodworking lathe or sewing machine
If you bought a computer to replace a lathe or sewing machine you probably would have that complaint. Fortunately nobody does that because it's a stupid idea (and a pointless analogy). There may be a handful of things a tablet is better at than a computer (I'm unconvinced of any of them) but there are a million things a computer is better at than a tablet. Nobody would genuinely refer to that as a "replacement".
Can we stop with this pointless defense bogging down every discussion that involves tablets? Your argument of how good they are for content creation was "look at all this stuff I can look at on it". That's not really content creation- it's pretty much content consumption.
It's a nice way to read email. It's terrible for composing an email larger than "OK".
Believe it or not- Slashdot as a whole does not really have a great respect for the intelligence or abilities of web developers.
Whether you are helping or hurting that bias with this I'll leave up to the reader to decide.
Nobody has a "right" not to see something or be exposed to something that they can easily avoid by choosing not to partake of it.
So, seeing a bullfight should be compulsory, as well as executions, and I don't mean that you can voluntarily go and see the "show", I mean that, according to your reasoning, it should be a must.
Are you dumb or just trolling? What part of "easily avoid" do you equate to "compulsory"?
Yes corps pay taxes too and they have the right to use it as much as you
Yeah! you're right. They, in fact, have the exact same right to use it as I do. Which is all nicely defined in the GPL license.
GPL is am ideology that is impractical
Seems to be doing pretty well though.
No, it's actually more like expecting you to have built a box, a chair, a shed. Anything before building something as huge as a house. Or do you think you can just pick up a hammer one day a build a house? How the hell else are you going to learn something without actually using or doing it? You have to "**decide**" what you're going to use on your own; no one else can do it for you. That requires research, learning and making an informed decision. How is a web development library supposed to do that for you?
It's funny that you think a developer held the project hostage for wanting it to be in compliance with the terms they contributed under. Could it not be that Apple is actually holding the device you paid good money for hostage? It's them that aren't allowing you to install any software unless you play by their rules and pay them their toll.
I'm going to completely ignore your little "free" diatribe because I know you've had it explained to you dozens of times. The concept and meaning of the word "Free" to the FOSS movement is presented loudly and repeatedly anywhere FOSS lands. So you either have no idea what you are talking about or are being dishonest.
They are anti-GPL because their policies do not allow compliance with the GPL. They do not allow GPL software on their platform. GPL software must be re-licensed before it can be put into the store. I am sorry "anti-GPL" sounds negative towards Apple and causes cognitive dissonance in you but how else would you like it put? "Counter-GPL"? "Un-GPL friendly"? "In direct conflict with the ideals of the GPL"?
Of course others want Apple to change their policies. A good portion of people think their policies are bullshit. The whole point of the GPL is to make computing open. It only stands to reason that the same people would want to get Apple to change their policy on un-open computing.
There are api docs, millions of tutorials and active communities that will help people out. What more could a "noob off the street" demand? I do not mean to be insulting but there is only so much the internet can do. Another of the benefits of the jQuery library is that it is widely documented, known, and discussed. That makes it easy to pick up for self-learners.
Of course you can use jQuery to do what you want. Or at least parts of what you want. I would recommend learning the library on lesser projects though. That will give you a better idea of what to do and what is and isn't possible. You're trying to run before you can walk. A novice isn't going to pick up a new technology and out-do the current champions. You may find that their suckiness stems from certain limitations of the platform.
That's quite the persecution complex you have there. It would certainly help OSS ideals if he managed to convince every other GPL author to do the same. Perhaps this person actually believes in the software freedom they contribute to?
What you consider fair is not what everyone considers fair. Some developers do not want anyone to see their source code under any circumstances.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive as you frame them. In fact, every other platform manages to accommodate both.
Yes they do but where does it developers have a right to use Apple's store to distribute their software as they wish. Nowhere.
Perfectly true. And the developers of GPL software have every right to have their work removed from Apple's store and encourage others to do the same. Somehow I think no GPL software in the ios ecosystem would be more harmful to the ios usebase than it would be to writers of GPL software.
That is not a problem to the people that wrote the GPL. If you want to make use of the hard work of others then you have to pay them their due. They demand the price of having your software also benefiting others.
If what you are linking is so trivial that you don't think it should be able to control the licensing of your software don't use it. Write it yourself like everyone else has to.
The GPL means nothing without copyright under it, therefore copyright is still with the original owner.
we know that's false because there are many GPL based apps in the App Store today
I wrote softwareX- I hold the copyright. I am free to license softwareX to Fred under the GPL. I am also free to license softwareX to Greg under a license I make up on the fly. Fred still has a GPL license to softwareX.
If the owners of the copyrights to GPL softwareY want to allow their software on Apple's AppStore even if it doesn't fully comply with the GPL license they are free to do so. That does not mean that the Apple AppStore complies with the GPL. As we see here, if a copyright holder does not allow the re-licensing to allow it there it will get removed.