Most of the major browsers support SNI, as far as I know. As does Apache on the server side (using OpenSSL or GNUTLS). I suspect the fact that IIS doesn't may be a stumbling block for some sites.
They may be decommissioning it, but that doesn't mean they're going to sell it. There are plenty of domains held by companies which they just hold for the purpose of making sure they have the domains matching their trademarks.
I'm not sure what the point in decommissioning it is, tbh. They may as well just make it point to the root Oracle homepage and forget about it.
It's not quite the same thing, you can't see an 18 at the cinema even if accompanied by an adult, nor can you buy or rent a video/DVD/whatever at that classification if under 18.
Although practically speaking, yeah, I don't see why it's such a big deal. It's a shame, a BioShock movie that was decently made I'd probably go and see, but you can't seriously do it as a PG-13/12/whatever-your-regional-classification-is movie - the material is blatantly mature.
Plus, why would you want to make a movie that people who shouldn't even be playing the game can see? Isn't this rather encouraging people to play games that are unsuitable for them?
...is that Uwe Boll is actually going to be in it via the magic of motion capture. If you get to shoot him then I think a large number of critics may buy the game just for that.
Mind you it apparently also has Ron Jeremy, a Playboy bunny and the original cowboy from the Village People, which is an interesting combo.
Likewise. I don't think I've every used it for streaming music, I have Spotify for that (which I do pay a subscription for because I like it and use it a lot).
I'm inclined to agree, the judge in question is not exactly inexperienced and is a specialist in the area. They are in fact "Specialist Circuit Judge, Judge of the Patents County Court and Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal Appointments", they're also a QC.
I get the feeling, from what I've read, that he is distinctly unimpressed and has little interest in allowing them get out judicial oversight; he's actually quoted as saying, "I want to tell you that I am not happy. I am getting the impression with every twist and turn since I started looking at these cases that there is a desire to avoid any judicial scrutiny,"
Why? You have to balance security with usability - in this case the ability to actually do your job - which fundamentally means you have to trust your developers with your source code.
If you're a larger company you can break your code down and only allow people access to the module they're working on, for smaller to mid sized companies that's not such a viable option; people generally work on whatever bit of code needs working on. I doubt Kaspersky actually employees that many developers.
That's assuming it was a developer, it could just as easily have been a systems administrator; controlling their access is often even more difficult because their roles often mean they can circumvent security restrictions. You can audit events like that, of course, but that's usually an after-the-fact thing.
A lot of roles entail a level of implied trust. Sometimes that trust gets betrayed.
This is one of those things which was slightly amusing to witness when it happened, but loses everything in the retelling. It's not news, it's barely even an anecdote.
And I'd point out the three nights of live stargazing was scheduled to straddle the partial solar eclipse on Tuesday.
Proper error handling is, of course, best. Half-arsed error handling can actually create more problems than no error handling at all. At least with no error handling at all you know there's a problem.
We have code at work where I wish the, uh, "developer" hadn't bothered with error handling at all. Primarily because their idea of error handling is a try-catch block which does nothing in the catch; it just swallows the error so it's never reported. Programs can cease operating correctly and it will be months before anyone actually notices.
I'm still failing to have sympathy for anyone who uses unlicensed versions of software or music. I also see no problem with going, "Yeah, buy a license or we sue you for copyright violation. Also, pay this fee for making us have to expend time, money and effort in order to chase you up and get you to pay for the license you should have bought in the first place". This is providing the fee they choose to impose as a "fine" isn't taking the piss.
And you know what to do if you can't afford to buy it when it comes out? Save up and then buy it. It will still be as good (or bad) as it was when it came out and you won't incur the legitimate wrath of the copyright holder. It might even have less bugs, so double win.
I am going to fully admit that it would be nice if software houses who write premium value software tools did cheap(er) single user hobbyist/non-commercial licenses sometimes - some do of course, but a lot don't. Think of it as an investment, hobbyists often transmission to professionals and if they're already familiar with your software, they're more likely to keep using it. There will of course be people and companies who try to get away with using the non-commercial license when they should be using the commercial one, but you know what? They're wilfully violating their license terms, have at them.
If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.
No we wouldn't. I might criticise the infringed party if they claim ludicrous damages, but in general I'd support their right protect their copyright.
I think the problem most of us have with the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, etc isn't that they're protecting copyright, it's that they're behaving like dicks while they do it. The same can hardly be said of the woman in this case.
I like the idea of having a light weight e-Reader which I can carry reference books on. But most of my reference books have colour diagrams, illustrations and figures. They really don't work in black and white - or at least are not as visually appealing, which is important when you're reading something.
I'm not sure why the NYT thinks not being able to play FMV is a problem. I don't want to watch video on an E-Reader; I want to read books. I've already got devices which I can use for watching videos while on the move - though I seldom use them for that - but they suck for reading because of the glossy reflective displays. I just want a device for reading books on the move. In colour.
If Amazon were to bring out a new Kindle with a colour display I might actually buy the damn thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the major browsers support SNI, as far as I know. As does Apache on the server side (using OpenSSL or GNUTLS). I suspect the fact that IIS doesn't may be a stumbling block for some sites.
IE7 and newer, for the record, do support SNI; so long as you're on Windows Vista or Windows 7.
It is possible for something which was innovative and liberating to become stale and restraining, you know.
They may be decommissioning it, but that doesn't mean they're going to sell it. There are plenty of domains held by companies which they just hold for the purpose of making sure they have the domains matching their trademarks.
I'm not sure what the point in decommissioning it is, tbh. They may as well just make it point to the root Oracle homepage and forget about it.
Khaled certainly makes a living out of mIRC.
I think you'll find plenty of English people don't want them to change it either.
I don't want it and I live in the south of England...
The Firefly setting is a single solar system.
I think they already did that; they only make 180 and 240 minute versions now.
It's not quite the same thing, you can't see an 18 at the cinema even if accompanied by an adult, nor can you buy or rent a video/DVD/whatever at that classification if under 18.
Although practically speaking, yeah, I don't see why it's such a big deal. It's a shame, a BioShock movie that was decently made I'd probably go and see, but you can't seriously do it as a PG-13/12/whatever-your-regional-classification-is movie - the material is blatantly mature.
Plus, why would you want to make a movie that people who shouldn't even be playing the game can see? Isn't this rather encouraging people to play games that are unsuitable for them?
...is that Uwe Boll is actually going to be in it via the magic of motion capture. If you get to shoot him then I think a large number of critics may buy the game just for that.
Mind you it apparently also has Ron Jeremy, a Playboy bunny and the original cowboy from the Village People, which is an interesting combo.
Likewise. I don't think I've every used it for streaming music, I have Spotify for that (which I do pay a subscription for because I like it and use it a lot).
I'm inclined to agree, the judge in question is not exactly inexperienced and is a specialist in the area. They are in fact "Specialist Circuit Judge, Judge of the Patents County Court and Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal Appointments", they're also a QC.
I get the feeling, from what I've read, that he is distinctly unimpressed and has little interest in allowing them get out judicial oversight; he's actually quoted as saying, "I want to tell you that I am not happy. I am getting the impression with every twist and turn since I started looking at these cases that there is a desire to avoid any judicial scrutiny,"
By blocking access to them from inside China if they don't, the same way they control anything on the Internet.
Why? You have to balance security with usability - in this case the ability to actually do your job - which fundamentally means you have to trust your developers with your source code.
If you're a larger company you can break your code down and only allow people access to the module they're working on, for smaller to mid sized companies that's not such a viable option; people generally work on whatever bit of code needs working on. I doubt Kaspersky actually employees that many developers.
That's assuming it was a developer, it could just as easily have been a systems administrator; controlling their access is often even more difficult because their roles often mean they can circumvent security restrictions. You can audit events like that, of course, but that's usually an after-the-fact thing.
A lot of roles entail a level of implied trust. Sometimes that trust gets betrayed.
What came next was perhaps the bit which amused me most:
Voice from the crowd: Yes, it all turned up in the kernel.
Keith Packard: Thank you for managing my problem, Linus.
This is one of those things which was slightly amusing to witness when it happened, but loses everything in the retelling. It's not news, it's barely even an anecdote.
And I'd point out the three nights of live stargazing was scheduled to straddle the partial solar eclipse on Tuesday.
Proper error handling is, of course, best. Half-arsed error handling can actually create more problems than no error handling at all. At least with no error handling at all you know there's a problem.
We have code at work where I wish the, uh, "developer" hadn't bothered with error handling at all. Primarily because their idea of error handling is a try-catch block which does nothing in the catch; it just swallows the error so it's never reported. Programs can cease operating correctly and it will be months before anyone actually notices.
Well it was published by the ACM...
My thought was "I want to combine this with a MIDI interface now".
A marimba has resonator tubes suspended bellow the bars.
Databases aren't exactly my thing, but if I was looking in to a database solution, I don't think CA is someone who would come to mind.
I'm still failing to have sympathy for anyone who uses unlicensed versions of software or music. I also see no problem with going, "Yeah, buy a license or we sue you for copyright violation. Also, pay this fee for making us have to expend time, money and effort in order to chase you up and get you to pay for the license you should have bought in the first place". This is providing the fee they choose to impose as a "fine" isn't taking the piss.
And you know what to do if you can't afford to buy it when it comes out? Save up and then buy it. It will still be as good (or bad) as it was when it came out and you won't incur the legitimate wrath of the copyright holder. It might even have less bugs, so double win.
I am going to fully admit that it would be nice if software houses who write premium value software tools did cheap(er) single user hobbyist/non-commercial licenses sometimes - some do of course, but a lot don't. Think of it as an investment, hobbyists often transmission to professionals and if they're already familiar with your software, they're more likely to keep using it. There will of course be people and companies who try to get away with using the non-commercial license when they should be using the commercial one, but you know what? They're wilfully violating their license terms, have at them.
If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.
No we wouldn't. I might criticise the infringed party if they claim ludicrous damages, but in general I'd support their right protect their copyright.
I think the problem most of us have with the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, etc isn't that they're protecting copyright, it's that they're behaving like dicks while they do it. The same can hardly be said of the woman in this case.
I like the idea of having a light weight e-Reader which I can carry reference books on. But most of my reference books have colour diagrams, illustrations and figures. They really don't work in black and white - or at least are not as visually appealing, which is important when you're reading something.
I'm not sure why the NYT thinks not being able to play FMV is a problem. I don't want to watch video on an E-Reader; I want to read books. I've already got devices which I can use for watching videos while on the move - though I seldom use them for that - but they suck for reading because of the glossy reflective displays. I just want a device for reading books on the move. In colour.
If Amazon were to bring out a new Kindle with a colour display I might actually buy the damn thing.