Read Sycroft's comment above you, there are absolutely some situations where OSS is not cost-effective, from either a short-term or long-term perspective. And while you make accusations of someone being a Microsoft astroturfer, know that you're little better as a typical Slashdotter who plugs their ears and sings, "La, la, la, I can't hear you! You must be an MS shill!" whenever someone makes valid criticisms of open-source from a business standpoint.
It's not "anti-Microsoft", it's common sense. Microsoft wants IE6 to go away as much as, if not more than, anyone else. Every day that people keep using IE6 is one more day that they have to spend writing/testing security updates for an ancient product, and dealing with embarrassing stories like this Chinese hacking situation. It's a testament to the stubbornness of many corporate IT shops that even when the rest of the world, including Microsoft, screams "GET RID OF THIS BROWSER!", they don't budge. I was in favor of a slow, phased migration 2-3 years ago, but now I think websites should just start dropping IE6 support with no warning. People need to get the message.
No way. The writing has been on the wall for IE6 for years, both from Google (many of their more advanced products, like Wave, state very explicitly that something more modern than IE6 is needed if you want to partake), and across the internet (Digg, YouTube, etc.). Any IT shop that hasn't already begun plans to migrate away from IE6 by now is just being stubborn, and needs a kick in the pants.
I know why there are so many businesses that won't upgrade from IE6, with their legacy web apps that they refuse to upgrade, but for God's sake, IE8 has compatibility mode. For the good of humanity, upgrade!
There's an even bigger oversight: they're selling Replicator blocks. All you have to do is buy a couple, toss in some scrap metal then you can sell as many as you want!
There are way too many people in this debate who think that "anti-competitive behavior" == "Waaaaah, they won't do what I want!".
As has been explained by more level-headed people countless times, Apple is the copyright holder of OS X. The copyright holder (of any kind of work, not just software) is given exclusive rights to license that work for others to use, under the terms of their choice. Apple's "terms of choice" are, you'll run OS X on our hardware and no one else's. If you don't do that, you're committing copyright infringement by using their work without their permission.
There is definitely an argument to be made that that's a silly state of affairs, and that copyright laws with respect to software are lousy, but as the laws stand now, Apple has every right to do what they do. When you say "this behavior should be illegal for any OS", that's one thing, and you might be right, but at the moment it's not illegal, and so Apple is in the clear.
If you don't like that, you need to complain to your government officials to change how software is copyrighted, not try frantically to stick labels like "anti-competitive behavior" where they don't apply.
Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?
I've read interviews with multiple government and legal officials, whose basic point seems to be that patents on genes are a "necessary evil", because research into genomics is really, really, really expensive, and without patents + licensing fees giving biotech firms some way to recover some of their investment now (as opposed to ten years down, when drugs based on their discoveries could conceivably come to market), no businessperson would even think of throwing his money at that kind of research. According to them, without patents, there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever.
I'm not saying whether or not I agree with that, but that's the way it is.
Not necessarily. If they can find a protein corresponding to one of these mutations that is not produced in a healthy cell: presto, instant cancer test.
You're misreading the summary. They weren't involved in the price fixing, they were affected by it. Apple has to pay component manufacturers just like everyone else.
However, their cost to check has now gone up by at least 2x, maybe even 10x - they need to manually inspect every person (you can't just check the negatives because if the faker happens to have passed through successfully in the past their 'new' prints will already be in the database).
Not really. Japan prints every foreigner that passes into the country anyway, I don't think a manual inspection before they make you put your fingers on the pad would add that much time to the process.
Again, though...they need to be honest from the start and not change things suddenly.
I don't think it's dishonesty so much as, "we thought this model would make money and we were wrong". Find me a business that continues to keep its promises even when it means pouring money down the drain and I'll show you a business with shitty management. It sucks for the players, but if they weren't generating enough revenue, EA sort of has no choice here.
One other note: I'm seeing a lot of people here and on the forums saying things like, "This is a terrible decision! They'll drive the players away and lose money!", which is kind of silly logic. They were already losing money. They could either stick with the plan that is unprofitable, or they can go with a new plan that might be unprofitable. Sort of a no-brainer.
I think you're missing the point. This is not something Wall Street bankers are going to be investing in. The kind of people chipping in to this operation are probably the sort of people who are just as likely as the pirates themselves to not take being cheated so well, and express that dissatisfaction with automatic weapons.
What's even more confusing is that the summary seems to be implying that there's some big debate going on. NASA wants more assurance of crew safety. Lawmakers want more assurance of crew safety. Where's the problem here?
So, are you saying that because Google builds their business on top of open-source technologies, they have an obligation to release EVERY piece of software they've EVER written EVER back to the open-source community? Including their search algorithm, their AdWords processes, etc?
I hope you realize that this is the kind of attitude that impedes greater commercial support of open-source technology. If businesses think that using FOSS means having to placate rabid fanboys like you who bitch and moan that their proprietary technologies (that they depend on for revenue) aren't available for public scrutiny, they're going to say, "Fuck that."
And for the record, the GP is right. Spend five minutes on Google Code and you can see that Google has made and continues to make huge contributions to all kinds of open-source projects. Just because they've decided not to contribute to $MY_PERSONAL_FAVORITE_SOFTWARE, doesn't mean they're evil.
Wouldn't making your plane or missile shiny / reflective defeat these things pretty easily?
The answer is no, because no shiny surface has 100% reflectivity (your bathroom mirror probably tops out at around 85%): some of the light will always penetrate to the base layer, and if the surface is being hit by a megawatt weaponized laser, it'll just burn straight through.
It's an intriguing idea, but I can't help but wonder: which pieces of 1970s-era software are you hoping to have access to? When I see code from the 70s my only thought is to get as far away from it as possible.
Is your head. Plain and simple. Never write a password down on your hand and NEVER on a sticky note on your monitor. Make at least two or three passwords. One for forum and slashdot and another for banking and secure sites. Use firefox's "master password" lock and set that password to your third password.
Congrats on completely ignoring every part of the OP's question. Your head is not the most secure place if your memory ain't what it used to be, because you'll inevitably be writing it down, and the OP specifically mentioned that he is using Firefox for password management now and wants to move away from that.
It always baffles me when people obviously don't read the question on an Ask Slashdot before jumping in with an answer. What the hell makes you think you can solve someone's problem when you can't even be bothered to know what it is?
(also: writing it on your hand? Seriously? Who does that?)
I second this. If you have them in your wallet, they are immediately accessible, and if your wallet is lost/stolen, not identifying each password with a particular site will give you enough time to change the passwords before you can be compromised (since most people know pretty quick when their wallet goes missing). Obviously this would necessitate having a second copy somewhere, probably on an encrypted file on your computer that you would use only for the purpose of changing your passwords.
Slashdot Mirror
Read Sycroft's comment above you, there are absolutely some situations where OSS is not cost-effective, from either a short-term or long-term perspective. And while you make accusations of someone being a Microsoft astroturfer, know that you're little better as a typical Slashdotter who plugs their ears and sings, "La, la, la, I can't hear you! You must be an MS shill!" whenever someone makes valid criticisms of open-source from a business standpoint.
In upstate New York, I can access 4chan from my Droid just fine (over 3G).
Why anyone would want to access 4chan is another matter.
It's not "anti-Microsoft", it's common sense. Microsoft wants IE6 to go away as much as, if not more than, anyone else. Every day that people keep using IE6 is one more day that they have to spend writing/testing security updates for an ancient product, and dealing with embarrassing stories like this Chinese hacking situation. It's a testament to the stubbornness of many corporate IT shops that even when the rest of the world, including Microsoft, screams "GET RID OF THIS BROWSER!", they don't budge. I was in favor of a slow, phased migration 2-3 years ago, but now I think websites should just start dropping IE6 support with no warning. People need to get the message.
No way. The writing has been on the wall for IE6 for years, both from Google (many of their more advanced products, like Wave, state very explicitly that something more modern than IE6 is needed if you want to partake), and across the internet (Digg, YouTube, etc.). Any IT shop that hasn't already begun plans to migrate away from IE6 by now is just being stubborn, and needs a kick in the pants.
I know why there are so many businesses that won't upgrade from IE6, with their legacy web apps that they refuse to upgrade, but for God's sake, IE8 has compatibility mode. For the good of humanity, upgrade!
iPhone has no garbage collection, for one thing.
That's an iPhone thing, not an Objective-C thing. Apple has explicitly stated the iPhone won't support garbage collection for performance reasons.
There's an even bigger oversight: they're selling Replicator blocks. All you have to do is buy a couple, toss in some scrap metal then you can sell as many as you want!
There are way too many people in this debate who think that "anti-competitive behavior" == "Waaaaah, they won't do what I want!".
As has been explained by more level-headed people countless times, Apple is the copyright holder of OS X. The copyright holder (of any kind of work, not just software) is given exclusive rights to license that work for others to use, under the terms of their choice. Apple's "terms of choice" are, you'll run OS X on our hardware and no one else's. If you don't do that, you're committing copyright infringement by using their work without their permission.
There is definitely an argument to be made that that's a silly state of affairs, and that copyright laws with respect to software are lousy, but as the laws stand now, Apple has every right to do what they do. When you say "this behavior should be illegal for any OS", that's one thing, and you might be right, but at the moment it's not illegal, and so Apple is in the clear.
If you don't like that, you need to complain to your government officials to change how software is copyrighted, not try frantically to stick labels like "anti-competitive behavior" where they don't apply.
Didn't we do this in the 90's, throw a lot of money at the providers and all they did was give it out to the shareholders?
If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.
Whoa, whoa, that sounds like socialism. We'll have none of that.
Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?
I've read interviews with multiple government and legal officials, whose basic point seems to be that patents on genes are a "necessary evil", because research into genomics is really, really, really expensive, and without patents + licensing fees giving biotech firms some way to recover some of their investment now (as opposed to ten years down, when drugs based on their discoveries could conceivably come to market), no businessperson would even think of throwing his money at that kind of research. According to them, without patents, there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever.
I'm not saying whether or not I agree with that, but that's the way it is.
Not necessarily. If they can find a protein corresponding to one of these mutations that is not produced in a healthy cell: presto, instant cancer test.
I'm guessing those are the "location of Iraq's WMDs" e-mails.
You're misreading the summary. They weren't involved in the price fixing, they were affected by it. Apple has to pay component manufacturers just like everyone else.
what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?
Wikileaks is hosted outside the United States. So, none.
However, their cost to check has now gone up by at least 2x, maybe even 10x - they need to manually inspect every person (you can't just check the negatives because if the faker happens to have passed through successfully in the past their 'new' prints will already be in the database).
Not really. Japan prints every foreigner that passes into the country anyway, I don't think a manual inspection before they make you put your fingers on the pad would add that much time to the process.
Again, though...they need to be honest from the start and not change things suddenly.
I don't think it's dishonesty so much as, "we thought this model would make money and we were wrong". Find me a business that continues to keep its promises even when it means pouring money down the drain and I'll show you a business with shitty management. It sucks for the players, but if they weren't generating enough revenue, EA sort of has no choice here.
One other note: I'm seeing a lot of people here and on the forums saying things like, "This is a terrible decision! They'll drive the players away and lose money!", which is kind of silly logic. They were already losing money. They could either stick with the plan that is unprofitable, or they can go with a new plan that might be unprofitable. Sort of a no-brainer.
I think you're missing the point. This is not something Wall Street bankers are going to be investing in. The kind of people chipping in to this operation are probably the sort of people who are just as likely as the pirates themselves to not take being cheated so well, and express that dissatisfaction with automatic weapons.
What's even more confusing is that the summary seems to be implying that there's some big debate going on. NASA wants more assurance of crew safety. Lawmakers want more assurance of crew safety. Where's the problem here?
So, are you saying that because Google builds their business on top of open-source technologies, they have an obligation to release EVERY piece of software they've EVER written EVER back to the open-source community? Including their search algorithm, their AdWords processes, etc?
I hope you realize that this is the kind of attitude that impedes greater commercial support of open-source technology. If businesses think that using FOSS means having to placate rabid fanboys like you who bitch and moan that their proprietary technologies (that they depend on for revenue) aren't available for public scrutiny, they're going to say, "Fuck that."
And for the record, the GP is right. Spend five minutes on Google Code and you can see that Google has made and continues to make huge contributions to all kinds of open-source projects. Just because they've decided not to contribute to $MY_PERSONAL_FAVORITE_SOFTWARE, doesn't mean they're evil.
Wouldn't making your plane or missile shiny / reflective defeat these things pretty easily?
The answer is no, because no shiny surface has 100% reflectivity (your bathroom mirror probably tops out at around 85%): some of the light will always penetrate to the base layer, and if the surface is being hit by a megawatt weaponized laser, it'll just burn straight through.
and no one will tell you what you can, or cannot do.
Except, of course, sell any software to Americans
Palin might make you read the bible and believe in creationism, but other than that, her government wouldn't be involved in this sort of stuff.
Mod parent funny.
It's an intriguing idea, but I can't help but wonder: which pieces of 1970s-era software are you hoping to have access to? When I see code from the 70s my only thought is to get as far away from it as possible.
Russia has been on a steady trail back to the oppression and control of the USSR days..
They never really left.
Is your head. Plain and simple. Never write a password down on your hand and NEVER on a sticky note on your monitor. Make at least two or three passwords. One for forum and slashdot and another for banking and secure sites. Use firefox's "master password" lock and set that password to your third password.
Congrats on completely ignoring every part of the OP's question. Your head is not the most secure place if your memory ain't what it used to be, because you'll inevitably be writing it down, and the OP specifically mentioned that he is using Firefox for password management now and wants to move away from that.
It always baffles me when people obviously don't read the question on an Ask Slashdot before jumping in with an answer. What the hell makes you think you can solve someone's problem when you can't even be bothered to know what it is?
(also: writing it on your hand? Seriously? Who does that?)
I second this. If you have them in your wallet, they are immediately accessible, and if your wallet is lost/stolen, not identifying each password with a particular site will give you enough time to change the passwords before you can be compromised (since most people know pretty quick when their wallet goes missing). Obviously this would necessitate having a second copy somewhere, probably on an encrypted file on your computer that you would use only for the purpose of changing your passwords.