Update: NASA has reestablished contact with the International Space Station. For the latest news, read: NASA Restores Contact with Space Station
As far as NASA officials can tell, the space station's loss of communications was unrelated to the software update, Kelly Humphries, a public affairs specialist at NASA told SPACE.com. It was a coincidence that the space agency lost contact with the station as the computers were being updated.
Turn it to "off" and the engine will lose power. The car will stop. Also, you can shift it in to neutral. Might not be the best for the engine at high RPMs, but it'll do the trick.
Sure, unless you have a newer car with those stupid keyless ignition systems, where there's no keyslot, just a "key" with an RFID that allows you to push a button to start car as long as the key is in your pocket. It's all controlled by the car's computer.
Certified mail is a lot cheaper and will get his attention faster than someone paying $100 so his personal assistant will see the message.
Even for $100, who says anybody will read the message, personal assistant, intern, janitor, or otherwise? There are several comments already implying that a human will actually read the email, but there's nothing in the article that implies there's any sort of guarantee or understanding that your $100 message will be read by anybody at all. It's not even a guarantee that a spam filter won't stop it, it's merely an "'economic signal' as one way to determine whether that user's message is legitimate."
pervasive, but lacking enterprise adoption on large applications
Seriously? How many enterprise level web based sites/applications are there that don't use JavaScript vs. do use JavaScript? I know, you're going to argue that the whole thing isn't entirely based on JavaScript, but seriously, wouldn't you say enterprise adoption is pretty darn high?
In many parts of the world owning a bible is illegal.
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? Watch Fox News much? North Korea maybe, where it's not technically illegal but there was a North Korean who was imprisoned because he was accused of spying when he smuggled bibles into the country in 2009. Name me all these other places in the world today where owning a bible is illegal, based on reality not what some Fox News pundit said. Even in Saudi Arabia (our supposed allies, the country most of the 9/11 terrorists were from), trying to convert somebody to Christianity is illegal, but even there it's perfectly legal to practice Christianity with your bible as long as you don't try to convert anybody.
In 15th century England it was illegal to own an English translation of the bible, because the church didn't want people to actually read the bible and interpret it themselves, they wanted to control the flow of information through the clergy. I don't think North Korea and 15th century England qualify as "many parts of the world."
The only way for the Freiburgs of the world to throw off the yoke of MS oppression is to support FOSS. And no level of government has any business conducting OUR affairs using propietary data formats that can be easily held hostage.
No, the only way for the Freiburgs of the world to throw off the yoke of MS oppression would be for the rest of the world to, too, or for FOSS solutions to do an excellent job importing and exporting Word documents. Beyond basic text, it pretty much sucks. That means the users are going to be frustrated and waste time anytime their dealing with documents created by somebody outside of the city government, which is most cases in municipal government happens a lot more than you'd think.
Face it, the users aren't going to know or care if their frustrations are because of file format issues and don't care if the blame falls on OpenOffice or MS. All they know is that when the use OpenOffice, it's a bigger pain in the ass than when they use MS Office. Their not developers, they're not IT experts, and they shouldn't have to be. Until a FOSS solution can actually import Word docs perfectly, it's just not going to be an adequate replacement for organizations like this. Licensing might cost money, but so does personnel time.
More to the point, ISPs keep announcing grand plans like this, but not mentioning how they plan to detect "pirates" or what appeals process they plan to put in place. And yes, I know we'll all joke and say "none, of course", but realistically, you don't just lose all your rights as a result of engaging in minor civil offenses against a third party. Hell, even serial killers still get their day in court.
Actually, they have announced how they plan on detecting pirates. They will rely on the rights holders to send them complaints, and there is a (probably useless) dispute process. While this is better than deep packet inspection, I see the problems as:
1. If you do get a warning letter, your only recourse is to give your ISP $30 to dispute it with no confidence that they'll actually do anything or care. 2. Even if you give them money to dispute it, you can still be effectively disconnected (throttled into uselessness) without getting your day in court. The ISP doesn't have to give a damn about your dispute. In reality there's no recourse for false positives, and the history of the rightsholders extortion letters gives us confidence that there will be many false positives. 3. The ISP bears the cost of dealing with these accusations from the rightsholders, which their customers ultimately end up having to pay for. The rightsholders don't have to pay anything to the ISP even though customers have to pay to dispute it. 4. Most of us in the US don't have a choice of ISPs so if we don't like it, tough. If we're lucky we have the choice of 2 (cable or DSL) and more than likely both of them are a-holes.
Perhaps there's a reason why this isn't in a peer reviewed journal. First off, you have a sample size in each group of exactly one. I'm not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure that in itself makes the whole thing utterly meaningless.
But let's pretend you get the same results with a statistically significant sample size...here it comes....correlation != causation (you were thinking that already). Perhaps the cause is nutrition, so you'd have to factor in nutrition, either by using neglected children who somehow had good nutrition, or non-neglected children who had poor nutrition (although I doubt those overbearing vegan hippies would be willing to let their children get blasted with evil voodoo radiation for the imaging studies). What if it's because the parents' brains are smaller? Perhaps it's purely genetic, the parents are stupid because of smaller brains and fuzzy spots and passed that trait onto their children, and they also neglect their child because they're stupid. The article also states that the child was neglected and *abused*, so how do we know the difference isn't the result of physical trauma?
I take it you don't live in Hawaii? I do. Was the media overhyping it? Of course. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a real danger. Based on looking at the buoy data and what the pacific tsunami warning center folks were saying, I figured it probably wouldn't be a big deal, but why take the risk? They actually didn't issue the warning until they had actual buoy data, and on the tv and radio they were interviewing the folks at the pacific tsunami warning center as much as possible. We actually did get hit by the tsunami, but not enough to cause damage. Even as of midday today currents were surging, creating potential danger for swimmers - that's not based on what the media said but actual observation from friends who were out paddling.
It was my anniversary and we were planning on having sex on the beach (not the drink), and the surges that we did experience (3-6ft rise) could have swept us away, so while being in the car uphill wasn't as much fun it might have actually saved our lives.
man u dont know anything about the real world do you? dogs might seem cheaper but they die.... then the dogs are not "willing too work" they get beaten until they do... yes i would be "willing" to work then too
Wow! Are people really that ignorant, or are you troll? I really hope you're a troll, but maybe you're some PETA nut job? Dogs are not only willing to work, but they love it. I used to do K9 search and rescue. I moved and my dog is old and retired, but when she was working, it was her favorite thing (now her favorite activity is going to the beach, just like a retired human). She loved it! She had a special squeaky toy and wore a bear-bell (so I could hear where she was when she was ranging)...when she would hear a similar sounding bell or squeak she'd get super excited and happy. It's years later and once and while she'll hear a similar sounding bell or squeaky toy and she still gets excited because she thinks she might get to go work! Working to her was the human equivalent of having your ideal job, favorite sport and favorite hobby all rolled into one. This is true of all the dogs I worked with. A decent trainer can identify a dog who has the temperament to feel this way pretty early on. A trainer isn't going to waste their time on a dog that doesn't love to work, and isn't going to be successful even if they tried. So no, dogs are absolutely not forced to work.
and third... cute?? lol i wouldnt come too close too them trained dogs if i was you... try petting them and see what happens
She loves to be pet and she especially loves her chest to be scratched. She's had a child walk up and smack her in the face for no reason, and she just sat there still looking happy. Oh, and she's damn cute. So what PETA tells you about dogs not wanting to work is complete and utter bullshit.
You forgot another problem with dogs: They can be trained to respond to a surrepticious signal to indicate explosives or drugs when there are none... thus allowing the officers probable cause to go dig around for what they're actually looking for.
You do realize that in an airport they can pretty much search whoever and whatever they want, with or without a dog or machine, right?
They complain about the expense of training dogs. Yes, they require a lot of training and that takes a lot of time an money, but how many dogs could you train for the cost of these devices? Each FIDO device costs $21k. It costs $10k-$15k to train a bomb sniffing dog, and once you pay for their education dogs are willing to work for room and board. If more resources were put into training methods then the per-dog cost to train could probably be brought down quite a big too. Dogs are also a lot cuter, and the FIDO device doesn't like to cuddle, or so I've heard. I say forget all the fancy super expensive scanners, just go back to old-fashioned metal detectors for people and x-ray scanners for carry-ons, and get a lot of dogs.
I used to work for an ophthalamic ultrasound company. You'd think that doctors, having all those years of college and medical school, would know better than to browse the internet on a medical device, or know enough to ensure that the USB flash drive they're carrying around and using to transfer images from one ultrasound to their computer is free of malware, but the sad reality is they're not, and while I can't speak for other devices manufactured by other companies, ours couldn't run antivirus and still run the ultrasound application effectively, so it was essentially wide-open to malicious software.
You'd think that an ultrasound company, with all their engineers and software developers with years of computer science education, could figure out how to block unnecessary websites from the computer running the ultrasound and figure out how to keep their software and the software the computer is running on up to date. They charge enough for their product for f's sake. I want my doctor spending his/her time specializing in medicine, not computer security.
They're the goose with the golden egg, so they get what they want.
End of story.
Um, no. You clearly have no idea how doctors work. The whole point of it is to give doctors easier access. Doctors don't live at the hospital. Most doctors aren't even at the hospital full time, they have an office where they see patients and do all of their paperwork. It's extremely useful to be able to access patient records, lab results, imaging (x-rays, MRI, CT etc) remotely. It makes things much, much faster (they can get information critical to the patient in minutes rather than days). The whole point is to be able to provide better care by having more information (something you clearly don't care about or wouldn't make such uninformed statements). They usually have to access the hospital network over VPN, but what good does that do if there's Malware on the computer (frankly, I want my doctor to spend his/her time specializing in medicine, not computer security) the doctor is accessing the VPN from.
Of course, most EMR/EHR systems are complete pieces of crap. The makers of the software don't care if their software is any good, because they make *more* money if it sucks, because they make more in implementation than in licensing. Since it's really, really, really expensive for a hospital to upgrade (and often times met with failure) because of the utter shitiness of the large scale EHR systems available, the hospitals can't update their software. There are seriously very large hospitals still running IE6 because their piece-of-crap software won't run on anything newer it would cost them 10's of millions in implementation costs to upgrade.
So...don't blame the doctors, don't blame the hospital (although at many hospitals IT lacks competency and are all about CYA rather than doing anything good), don't blame Microsoft, instead blame the companies that make the software for selling such a crappy product.
It's not just a dupe, it's less accurate. The previous story at least has a title that makes it clear that they ruled in favor of libraries, not Google. There's a big difference, since it's Google doing the actual copying, not the libraries. If I rent a movie from Redbox, rip it and bittorrent, who's going to get in trouble - me or Redbox? Whether or not Google will get in trouble hasn't been decided yet.
I think what the author means is that a Windows enabled tablet could replace the laptop space. On your work desk, it's connected to an external mouse, keyboard and monitor - desktop mode When you go to a meeting, or go on the road, you take the tablet with you - mobile mode
Yes this. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, I don't think it's going to be successful, and I don't want it, but I think this is what they're banking on. I didn't want to knock the-UI-formerly-known-as-Metro until I actually tried it, so I tried it and it and I don't like it. It basically seems like they're making you use a touchscreen UI with a mouse and keyboard. The only reason this makes sense is if they want you to be able to use the same device as both a tablet with a touchscreen and a computer with a mouse and keyboard. The concept of One Device to Rule Them All has its merits, but the I don't think it's going to be successful because the implementation sucks.
Because if you patent stuff that makes sure that it is not used.
Boeing is not a patent troll. They actually make stuff. The obvious customer for this is NASA and other space agencies, and Boeing is a contractor. If they have the patent, they are the obvious choice as the contractor.
It also has the advantage of preventing an actual patent troll from getting a patent on it first, and if Boeing spends tons of money on R&D to get the details right, then nobody can copy their solution and underbid them, so it protects Boeing's investment. This is exactly what patents are meant for. It seems everyone is so allergic to the idea of patents after all the patent troll stories we read, people forget that patents actually do have a purpose other than to make lawyers lots of money.
Has a false DMCA takedown notice ever resulted in legal liability? I'm genuinely curious, we always hear about bogus takedown notices that don't result in anything bad happening to the evildoers.
The summary says Iran has a parliament, but that doesn't make any sense! Here in the good ol' US of A we're told that Iran is an evil fundamentalist religious dictatorship! If they have a parliament, that means....Oh my god...they are more like us! Next thing you know they'll be telling us that women are allowed to vote and aren't actually stoned if they don't wear a burka! Wait, what? Women is Iran can vote? They don't have to wear a burka? There's Jews and Christians in Iran that are treated equally? It's individual groups of assholes that make them all look bad, the same way every other civilized country in the world has certain groups of assholes? Say it ain't so!
Isn't this is exactly what the large publishers/record companies/movie producers want? Make it more difficult to publish or own stuff which makes it harder to compete with them? Remember when you had to be a computer nerd to make a website to share information? Now anybody who can click a mouse can post whatever they want on Facebook or elsewhere. That's exactly what the publishers don't want to happen to them.
The only way this problem is going to be improved is if the law requires some sort of human oversight, and somehow held accountable for such blatantly false takedown notices. Not that I see that happening anytime soon.
The fine referenced in the summary was an intentional violation of privacy, at least from what I understand. It sounds like the point of the red team is to find unintentional security flaws that may cause privacy risks. That's good and all, but it really doesn't address the issue that the article and summary are pretending to address.
No, it doesn't support ePub, but Amazon does have a free program (search for "kindlegen") that will convert epub to mobi. There's even have a Linux version. Obviously not as good as actually supporting it on the Kindle, but works.
The ISP is not the one doing the monitoring, it's the RIAA/MPAA hired contractors, who will then complain to your ISP. In theory, they should only be doing this for things they own the copyright for, but you can bet mistakes will be made. Afterall, why bother with accuracy when they know anybody using bittorrent must be a pirate?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.space.com/19853-space-station-contact-lost-nasa.html
Update: NASA has reestablished contact with the International Space Station. For the latest news, read: NASA Restores Contact with Space Station
As far as NASA officials can tell, the space station's loss of communications was unrelated to the software update, Kelly Humphries, a public affairs specialist at NASA told SPACE.com. It was a coincidence that the space agency lost contact with the station as the computers were being updated.
Turn it to "off" and the engine will lose power. The car will stop. Also, you can shift it in to neutral. Might not be the best for the engine at high RPMs, but it'll do the trick.
Sure, unless you have a newer car with those stupid keyless ignition systems, where there's no keyslot, just a "key" with an RFID that allows you to push a button to start car as long as the key is in your pocket. It's all controlled by the car's computer.
Certified mail is a lot cheaper and will get his attention faster than someone paying $100 so his personal assistant will see the message.
Even for $100, who says anybody will read the message, personal assistant, intern, janitor, or otherwise? There are several comments already implying that a human will actually read the email, but there's nothing in the article that implies there's any sort of guarantee or understanding that your $100 message will be read by anybody at all. It's not even a guarantee that a spam filter won't stop it, it's merely an "'economic signal' as one way to determine whether that user's message is legitimate."
pervasive, but lacking enterprise adoption on large applications
Seriously? How many enterprise level web based sites/applications are there that don't use JavaScript vs. do use JavaScript? I know, you're going to argue that the whole thing isn't entirely based on JavaScript, but seriously, wouldn't you say enterprise adoption is pretty darn high?
In many parts of the world owning a bible is illegal.
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? Watch Fox News much? North Korea maybe, where it's not technically illegal but there was a North Korean who was imprisoned because he was accused of spying when he smuggled bibles into the country in 2009. Name me all these other places in the world today where owning a bible is illegal, based on reality not what some Fox News pundit said. Even in Saudi Arabia (our supposed allies, the country most of the 9/11 terrorists were from), trying to convert somebody to Christianity is illegal, but even there it's perfectly legal to practice Christianity with your bible as long as you don't try to convert anybody.
In 15th century England it was illegal to own an English translation of the bible, because the church didn't want people to actually read the bible and interpret it themselves, they wanted to control the flow of information through the clergy. I don't think North Korea and 15th century England qualify as "many parts of the world."
The only way for the Freiburgs of the world to throw off the yoke of MS oppression is to support FOSS. And no level of government has any business conducting OUR affairs using propietary data formats that can be easily held hostage.
No, the only way for the Freiburgs of the world to throw off the yoke of MS oppression would be for the rest of the world to, too, or for FOSS solutions to do an excellent job importing and exporting Word documents. Beyond basic text, it pretty much sucks. That means the users are going to be frustrated and waste time anytime their dealing with documents created by somebody outside of the city government, which is most cases in municipal government happens a lot more than you'd think.
Face it, the users aren't going to know or care if their frustrations are because of file format issues and don't care if the blame falls on OpenOffice or MS. All they know is that when the use OpenOffice, it's a bigger pain in the ass than when they use MS Office. Their not developers, they're not IT experts, and they shouldn't have to be. Until a FOSS solution can actually import Word docs perfectly, it's just not going to be an adequate replacement for organizations like this. Licensing might cost money, but so does personnel time.
More to the point, ISPs keep announcing grand plans like this, but not mentioning how they plan to detect "pirates" or what appeals process they plan to put in place. And yes, I know we'll all joke and say "none, of course", but realistically, you don't just lose all your rights as a result of engaging in minor civil offenses against a third party. Hell, even serial killers still get their day in court.
Actually, they have announced how they plan on detecting pirates. They will rely on the rights holders to send them complaints, and there is a (probably useless) dispute process. While this is better than deep packet inspection, I see the problems as:
1. If you do get a warning letter, your only recourse is to give your ISP $30 to dispute it with no confidence that they'll actually do anything or care.
2. Even if you give them money to dispute it, you can still be effectively disconnected (throttled into uselessness) without getting your day in court. The ISP doesn't have to give a damn about your dispute. In reality there's no recourse for false positives, and the history of the rightsholders extortion letters gives us confidence that there will be many false positives.
3. The ISP bears the cost of dealing with these accusations from the rightsholders, which their customers ultimately end up having to pay for. The rightsholders don't have to pay anything to the ISP even though customers have to pay to dispute it.
4. Most of us in the US don't have a choice of ISPs so if we don't like it, tough. If we're lucky we have the choice of 2 (cable or DSL) and more than likely both of them are a-holes.
Perhaps there's a reason why this isn't in a peer reviewed journal. First off, you have a sample size in each group of exactly one. I'm not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure that in itself makes the whole thing utterly meaningless.
But let's pretend you get the same results with a statistically significant sample size...here it comes....correlation != causation (you were thinking that already). Perhaps the cause is nutrition, so you'd have to factor in nutrition, either by using neglected children who somehow had good nutrition, or non-neglected children who had poor nutrition (although I doubt those overbearing vegan hippies would be willing to let their children get blasted with evil voodoo radiation for the imaging studies). What if it's because the parents' brains are smaller? Perhaps it's purely genetic, the parents are stupid because of smaller brains and fuzzy spots and passed that trait onto their children, and they also neglect their child because they're stupid. The article also states that the child was neglected and *abused*, so how do we know the difference isn't the result of physical trauma?
I take it you don't live in Hawaii? I do. Was the media overhyping it? Of course. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a real danger. Based on looking at the buoy data and what the pacific tsunami warning center folks were saying, I figured it probably wouldn't be a big deal, but why take the risk? They actually didn't issue the warning until they had actual buoy data, and on the tv and radio they were interviewing the folks at the pacific tsunami warning center as much as possible. We actually did get hit by the tsunami, but not enough to cause damage. Even as of midday today currents were surging, creating potential danger for swimmers - that's not based on what the media said but actual observation from friends who were out paddling.
It was my anniversary and we were planning on having sex on the beach (not the drink), and the surges that we did experience (3-6ft rise) could have swept us away, so while being in the car uphill wasn't as much fun it might have actually saved our lives.
man u dont know anything about the real world do you? dogs might seem cheaper but they die.... then the dogs are not "willing too work" they get beaten until they do... yes i would be "willing" to work then too
Wow! Are people really that ignorant, or are you troll? I really hope you're a troll, but maybe you're some PETA nut job? Dogs are not only willing to work, but they love it. I used to do K9 search and rescue. I moved and my dog is old and retired, but when she was working, it was her favorite thing (now her favorite activity is going to the beach, just like a retired human). She loved it! She had a special squeaky toy and wore a bear-bell (so I could hear where she was when she was ranging)...when she would hear a similar sounding bell or squeak she'd get super excited and happy. It's years later and once and while she'll hear a similar sounding bell or squeaky toy and she still gets excited because she thinks she might get to go work! Working to her was the human equivalent of having your ideal job, favorite sport and favorite hobby all rolled into one. This is true of all the dogs I worked with. A decent trainer can identify a dog who has the temperament to feel this way pretty early on. A trainer isn't going to waste their time on a dog that doesn't love to work, and isn't going to be successful even if they tried. So no, dogs are absolutely not forced to work.
and third... cute?? lol i wouldnt come too close too them trained dogs if i was you... try petting them and see what happens
She loves to be pet and she especially loves her chest to be scratched. She's had a child walk up and smack her in the face for no reason, and she just sat there still looking happy. Oh, and she's damn cute. So what PETA tells you about dogs not wanting to work is complete and utter bullshit.
You forgot another problem with dogs: They can be trained to respond to a surrepticious signal to indicate explosives or drugs when there are none... thus allowing the officers probable cause to go dig around for what they're actually looking for.
You do realize that in an airport they can pretty much search whoever and whatever they want, with or without a dog or machine, right?
They complain about the expense of training dogs. Yes, they require a lot of training and that takes a lot of time an money, but how many dogs could you train for the cost of these devices? Each FIDO device costs $21k. It costs $10k-$15k to train a bomb sniffing dog, and once you pay for their education dogs are willing to work for room and board. If more resources were put into training methods then the per-dog cost to train could probably be brought down quite a big too. Dogs are also a lot cuter, and the FIDO device doesn't like to cuddle, or so I've heard. I say forget all the fancy super expensive scanners, just go back to old-fashioned metal detectors for people and x-ray scanners for carry-ons, and get a lot of dogs.
I used to work for an ophthalamic ultrasound company. You'd think that doctors, having all those years of college and medical school, would know better than to browse the internet on a medical device, or know enough to ensure that the USB flash drive they're carrying around and using to transfer images from one ultrasound to their computer is free of malware, but the sad reality is they're not, and while I can't speak for other devices manufactured by other companies, ours couldn't run antivirus and still run the ultrasound application effectively, so it was essentially wide-open to malicious software.
You'd think that an ultrasound company, with all their engineers and software developers with years of computer science education, could figure out how to block unnecessary websites from the computer running the ultrasound and figure out how to keep their software and the software the computer is running on up to date. They charge enough for their product for f's sake. I want my doctor spending his/her time specializing in medicine, not computer security.
It's as simple as this.
The doctors demanded it.
They're the goose with the golden egg, so they get what they want.
End of story.
Um, no. You clearly have no idea how doctors work. The whole point of it is to give doctors easier access. Doctors don't live at the hospital. Most doctors aren't even at the hospital full time, they have an office where they see patients and do all of their paperwork. It's extremely useful to be able to access patient records, lab results, imaging (x-rays, MRI, CT etc) remotely. It makes things much, much faster (they can get information critical to the patient in minutes rather than days). The whole point is to be able to provide better care by having more information (something you clearly don't care about or wouldn't make such uninformed statements). They usually have to access the hospital network over VPN, but what good does that do if there's Malware on the computer (frankly, I want my doctor to spend his/her time specializing in medicine, not computer security) the doctor is accessing the VPN from.
Of course, most EMR/EHR systems are complete pieces of crap. The makers of the software don't care if their software is any good, because they make *more* money if it sucks, because they make more in implementation than in licensing. Since it's really, really, really expensive for a hospital to upgrade (and often times met with failure) because of the utter shitiness of the large scale EHR systems available, the hospitals can't update their software. There are seriously very large hospitals still running IE6 because their piece-of-crap software won't run on anything newer it would cost them 10's of millions in implementation costs to upgrade.
So...don't blame the doctors, don't blame the hospital (although at many hospitals IT lacks competency and are all about CYA rather than doing anything good), don't blame Microsoft, instead blame the companies that make the software for selling such a crappy product.
It's not just a dupe, it's less accurate. The previous story at least has a title that makes it clear that they ruled in favor of libraries, not Google. There's a big difference, since it's Google doing the actual copying, not the libraries. If I rent a movie from Redbox, rip it and bittorrent, who's going to get in trouble - me or Redbox? Whether or not Google will get in trouble hasn't been decided yet.
I think what the author means is that a Windows enabled tablet could replace the laptop space.
On your work desk, it's connected to an external mouse, keyboard and monitor - desktop mode
When you go to a meeting, or go on the road, you take the tablet with you - mobile mode
Yes this. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, I don't think it's going to be successful, and I don't want it, but I think this is what they're banking on. I didn't want to knock the-UI-formerly-known-as-Metro until I actually tried it, so I tried it and it and I don't like it. It basically seems like they're making you use a touchscreen UI with a mouse and keyboard. The only reason this makes sense is if they want you to be able to use the same device as both a tablet with a touchscreen and a computer with a mouse and keyboard. The concept of One Device to Rule Them All has its merits, but the I don't think it's going to be successful because the implementation sucks.
Because if you patent stuff that makes sure that it is not used.
Boeing is not a patent troll. They actually make stuff. The obvious customer for this is NASA and other space agencies, and Boeing is a contractor. If they have the patent, they are the obvious choice as the contractor.
It also has the advantage of preventing an actual patent troll from getting a patent on it first, and if Boeing spends tons of money on R&D to get the details right, then nobody can copy their solution and underbid them, so it protects Boeing's investment. This is exactly what patents are meant for. It seems everyone is so allergic to the idea of patents after all the patent troll stories we read, people forget that patents actually do have a purpose other than to make lawyers lots of money.
Has a false DMCA takedown notice ever resulted in legal liability? I'm genuinely curious, we always hear about bogus takedown notices that don't result in anything bad happening to the evildoers.
The summary says Iran has a parliament, but that doesn't make any sense! Here in the good ol' US of A we're told that Iran is an evil fundamentalist religious dictatorship! If they have a parliament, that means....Oh my god...they are more like us! Next thing you know they'll be telling us that women are allowed to vote and aren't actually stoned if they don't wear a burka! Wait, what? Women is Iran can vote? They don't have to wear a burka? There's Jews and Christians in Iran that are treated equally? It's individual groups of assholes that make them all look bad, the same way every other civilized country in the world has certain groups of assholes? Say it ain't so!
Free open source California textbooks unavailable for download due to bogus DMCA takedown notices from Pearson, Cengage Learning, and Macmillan.
Isn't this is exactly what the large publishers/record companies/movie producers want? Make it more difficult to publish or own stuff which makes it harder to compete with them? Remember when you had to be a computer nerd to make a website to share information? Now anybody who can click a mouse can post whatever they want on Facebook or elsewhere. That's exactly what the publishers don't want to happen to them.
The only way this problem is going to be improved is if the law requires some sort of human oversight, and somehow held accountable for such blatantly false takedown notices. Not that I see that happening anytime soon.
No.
The fine referenced in the summary was an intentional violation of privacy, at least from what I understand. It sounds like the point of the red team is to find unintentional security flaws that may cause privacy risks. That's good and all, but it really doesn't address the issue that the article and summary are pretending to address.
So does the kindle support ePub yet ...?
No, it doesn't support ePub, but Amazon does have a free program (search for "kindlegen") that will convert epub to mobi. There's even have a Linux version. Obviously not as good as actually supporting it on the Kindle, but works.
The ISP is not the one doing the monitoring, it's the RIAA/MPAA hired contractors, who will then complain to your ISP. In theory, they should only be doing this for things they own the copyright for, but you can bet mistakes will be made. Afterall, why bother with accuracy when they know anybody using bittorrent must be a pirate?