With the exception that if you disable it, it actually IS disabled. If you don't use features that specifically require online contact (eg: Siri, Genius, Apple Music, etc) then it doesn't. (AFAIK)
They're essentially trying to develop a machine that can understand Poe's Law. Considering how much trouble people have with that, they've set a pretty high bar for themselves.
I'm guessing that it's never dark in Morocco for more than 8 hours? I would hope the engineers who designed this thing allowed for a generous margin. It would suck to wake up in the morning and not have any power cause the salt went cold.
What I don't understand is why are last generation parts not dropping in price? For the longest time, whenever new stuff came out, the prices of older stuff dropped. But that doesn't seem to happen anymore.
Apple has made it abundantly clear that they are selling a *secure* device. Always on encryption, etc etc.
How would you expect such a device to behave when it is compromised with unauthorized components? A phone with 3rd party components could do pretty much *anything*, including sending everything on the device to an unknown third party, without your knowledge or consent.
Heck, this sort of "problem" just makes me appreciate Apple's commitment to security even more.
My only complaint is that the phone doesn't brick soon enough. It should brick itself immediately upon the next boot up.
But does everything still work after you resume?:)
But more seriously, do they have a software repository that specifically caters to it? Ie: Have they vetted software and indicated which ones will not run like crap on a tablet? Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly that trying to shoehorn desktop UI onto a tablet just does not work. Ubuntu created Unity, which helps with core OS usage, but what about individual apps?
A typical desktop app is annoying as hell when you're using fingers instead of a mouse.
And if an errant weather menu bar widget uses up 5-10% cpu on your desktop even when unused, most people probably wouldn't notice or care. But that would be devastating on a tablet.
It's one thing to say that you can get 10 hours of battery life doing some trivial task. It's another thing entirely when that figure drops to 3 hours because your mail client insist on doing a full scan of your entire IMAP account every 15 minutes. I ran into this problem a LOT on android. Google does a really lousy job at curating applications on the Play Store.
Well, Microsoft isn't even trying to block the update on incompatible machines. I've already read stories elsewhere about people running into this exact issue.
True, however Microsoft will also use those numbers to represent popularity of their OS. Mark my words, in a few weeks Microsoft will be putting out a press release about the sudden jump in numbers, and trumpet how much people are "loving" Windows 10.
I realize my reaction is fundamentally an emotional one. I just find Microsoft's behaviour really galling. So much for Microsoft trying to clean up their act.
And that's all fine and good. But if you're using anything newer than Windows XP, you are going to have to jump through hoops to NOT get upgraded. That means all machines released in... what? The last 10 years, give or take, are going to be forcibly upgraded to the new OS unless you know enough to stop it.
And as a sister comment said, Microsoft has switched the update to "Recommended" status. It's only a matter of time before they decide it becomes Critical.
Well, I was thinking in terms of Microsoft using the numbers to show how much people love their new OS, which is something they love to crow about. I didn't think of other possible interpretations.
Microsoft is forcing people to update, which makes these numbers meaningless. The only people who arn't going to update are the ones with the knowledge to block it.
This is like saying murders are way down, but ignoring to mention that you've put the entire population in straight jackets.
The fact that despite these strong-arming efforts, they're *still* only just now surpassing XP and Win8, says a lot about how much people don't want this latest and not-so-greatest OS.
I feel bad for Microsoft developers. When I tried the OS, I actually *liked* it. But then Microsoft had to go screw everything up with their OS-as-a-privacy-killing-service bullshit.
Google's hands off approach is why I wrote off the Android platform. The last Android device I had was a Galaxy S3, and I had to root it, and replace the OS with cyanogenmod just so that I would have a working phone.
This sort of crap is inexcusable.
Now if only Google will also do what Apple does and support their products for a minimum of 3 years, then maybe I'll start taking Android seriously.
Wanted =/= has, and is not sufficient reason to go to war.
What WMD did he have, other than what the parent described? With sources, pls, cause I haven't seen a non-Faux News news source that definitively said that WMDs were found.
I wish I had some way of quantifying how much their reputation is affecting them as well, but I'd be willing to bet that it's significant.
Between me and all the techie people I know, I have only met a couple that have a positive attitude towards Microsoft. The rest of us consider Microsoft to be a monster that desperately needs to disappear, and would never willingly consider a Microsoft product unless there was no other option.
Their hostile, and (subsequently deemed) illegal self-serving policies amounted to extortion of the entire PC industry and ostensibly cost us decades of progress. Then there was their browser shenanigans. Their shenanigans with Office, particularly with their "Open" file format, decimated the office application market and ruined an entire industry standards body.
And the list just goes on and on. There's a reason Microsoft is synonymous with "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".
I don't want to see Microsoft gain a foothold in *any* new markets, because it is a guarantee that they will destroy those markets.
My most immediate question, before even reading the feature set, was why they forked in the first place. I had to do some digging (ie: click multiple links and read a couple different pages to find what I was looking for), so to save others time, here's the why:
We had technical reasons to fork. As much as we love the functionality/feature set of pfSense, we do not enjoy the code quality and anarchistic development method. We like structure, achievable goals set forth in a roadmap with regular releases and a decent framework. Security
On the security part the main issue was the need to separate logic. The GUI should not perform tasks that require root access. Quality
As for quality, all new features will be built using a solid framework with a Model View Controller. For this purpose we choose Phalcon as it is the fastest open source PHP framework available. And we will gradually migrate parts inherited from pfSense to the new framework to avoid a big-bang approach. Community
A thriving community can only exist when people are willing to share. We want to make it easier for people to join and help to build the community. With pfSense this has been rather difficult as the tools to build it are difficult to use and often do not work in the first few attempts. And since 2014 year they are not freely available any more, you need to apply for access with ESF. We believe a good open source project has nothing to hide so access to the sources should be there for all. It will remain a mystery why ESF made that move as commit rights and read rights are totally different.
Note ESF has since changed their policy and the source code is now available under their 6 clause ESF license.
Transparency
A real concern with pfSense is transparency. Since Netgate bought the majority share of pfSense and renamed the company to ESF it has been difficult to understand the direction they want the project to go. Removing the tools from github without prior warning and using the brand name to fence off competitors has scared quite a lot of people. Also the license had changed for no apparent reason Restore a firm open source project
With OPNsense we have restored a stable project with clear goals and a very simple license that is suitable for forking and making OEM versions. We think a community project is there for all to use and work with.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but did he not give money to an advocacy group whose sole purpose was to take partnership rights, which are granted to all other citizens of the state, from gay people?
This is either factually correct, or factually incorrect. If I am wrong, then I take it back. But if that fact is true, then he provided a material contribution to a group that would be considered a hate group by pretty much every country in the world whose society isn't clouded by medieval religious doctrine.
It's depressing that you consider the idea that all people should be treated fairly (which is, ironically, enshrined in your bloody constitution), to be an extreme position, equivalent to religious whackjobs who think people should be put into concentration camps, or outright murdered, just for believing in a different imaginary friend than you.
You used the word "evil", not me. The concept of "evil" is essentially pointless, because when people use it it ends up boiling down to "someone or something that does the exact opposite of what I want". My own father believes that liberals are "evil" because they want to take his money in the form of taxes, and use it for things that don't directly benefit him, like schools and libraries.
All I can say is that if someone insists that it is their duty to ruin other people's lives for no other reason than that those other people exist, that person has massive empathy issues and I feel no sympathy whatsoever when the blowback bites them in the ass. Eich put himself into that category when he aided that group. No, he wasn't the one that stood before the legislature and pushed the bill. But he provided a material contribution to that effort. Trying to claim that he wasn't involved, is like saying that a person shouldn't be considered an accessory to murder because "all they did" was give the murderer the gun with the full knowledge beforehand that the murderer was going to shoot someone.
But according to your "logic", if I paid someone to murder my neighbour I shouldn't be held liable because I was only "exercising my right to express my values".
But what's a right?
Oh don't even go there. This isn't philosophy class.
Wow, I've never seen anyone try to cut the heads off of a hydra that big before. It'll be amusing to see their reaction when the resulting mass of new heads looms above them.
No, my argument is that he wanted to strip citizens of their rights, for no other reason than that he doesn't like them.
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Arguing topics and policies among equal people is politics. Stripping people of their rights for no other reason than "because you can", is oppression.
I'm starting to believe that you're a psychopath or something. This issue isn't about "winning". It's about equal rights. If you don't believe all people deserve the same rights equally, then *everyone* loses.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. -- Martin Niemöller
He spent 7 years in a concentration camp because people like you think that oppression is a perfectly acceptable thing.
He directly contributed to a cause that took away the rights of other people, for no other reason than that he didn't think they should be allowed to have them.
So no, he wasn't some innocent party just "expressing his opinion". He did a direct action, which had a negative effect on an entire class of people, for no other reason than his own intolerance.
So what if he didn't discriminate (directly) against gay people at Mozilla? He discriminated against gays in an entire *state*, which also includes Mozilla employees.
I'd be willing to bet that the only reason why he was "tolerant" at Mozilla, was cause he knew if he *did* try to start something the backlash would destroy Mozilla almost overnight. So instead, he quietly contributed to a third party, and assumed people wouldn't find out.
Slashdot Mirror
With the exception that if you disable it, it actually IS disabled. If you don't use features that specifically require online contact (eg: Siri, Genius, Apple Music, etc) then it doesn't. (AFAIK)
So apparently asking for clarification on the details counts as trolling in your book? You must be a Republican.
I had planned on thanking you for your response and asking a follow up question, but since you prefer to be a douche, I won't bother.
They're essentially trying to develop a machine that can understand Poe's Law. Considering how much trouble people have with that, they've set a pretty high bar for themselves.
I'm guessing that it's never dark in Morocco for more than 8 hours? I would hope the engineers who designed this thing allowed for a generous margin. It would suck to wake up in the morning and not have any power cause the salt went cold.
What I don't understand is why are last generation parts not dropping in price? For the longest time, whenever new stuff came out, the prices of older stuff dropped. But that doesn't seem to happen anymore.
What's up with that?
30000/year is 3.42/h, one panel typically 0.250 at peek. Even at 10% efficiency you only need about 12x12 panels. Far from the mentioned "7,776".
So what you're saying is... they must construction additional pylons? :)
Apple has made it abundantly clear that they are selling a *secure* device. Always on encryption, etc etc.
How would you expect such a device to behave when it is compromised with unauthorized components? A phone with 3rd party components could do pretty much *anything*, including sending everything on the device to an unknown third party, without your knowledge or consent.
Heck, this sort of "problem" just makes me appreciate Apple's commitment to security even more.
My only complaint is that the phone doesn't brick soon enough. It should brick itself immediately upon the next boot up.
Oh, I just came across this article that goes into some more usage details than what was included in the summary.
But does everything still work after you resume? :)
But more seriously, do they have a software repository that specifically caters to it? Ie: Have they vetted software and indicated which ones will not run like crap on a tablet? Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly that trying to shoehorn desktop UI onto a tablet just does not work. Ubuntu created Unity, which helps with core OS usage, but what about individual apps?
A typical desktop app is annoying as hell when you're using fingers instead of a mouse.
And if an errant weather menu bar widget uses up 5-10% cpu on your desktop even when unused, most people probably wouldn't notice or care. But that would be devastating on a tablet.
It's one thing to say that you can get 10 hours of battery life doing some trivial task. It's another thing entirely when that figure drops to 3 hours because your mail client insist on doing a full scan of your entire IMAP account every 15 minutes. I ran into this problem a LOT on android. Google does a really lousy job at curating applications on the Play Store.
Check his page. It does cover a lot of ground, including cleansing various registry entries, deleting win10 if it's already been downloaded, etc.
Like I said, it's the most thorough one I've found so far, and the dev is actively keeping up with events and responding accordingly.
It's the single best one I've found so far. And the creator is constantly updating it to keep up with the changes Microsoft has been making.
It also has a monitoring mode where it stays in memory and warns you if Microsoft re-enables the updates.
Well, Microsoft isn't even trying to block the update on incompatible machines. I've already read stories elsewhere about people running into this exact issue.
True, however Microsoft will also use those numbers to represent popularity of their OS. Mark my words, in a few weeks Microsoft will be putting out a press release about the sudden jump in numbers, and trumpet how much people are "loving" Windows 10.
I realize my reaction is fundamentally an emotional one. I just find Microsoft's behaviour really galling. So much for Microsoft trying to clean up their act.
And that's all fine and good. But if you're using anything newer than Windows XP, you are going to have to jump through hoops to NOT get upgraded.
That means all machines released in... what? The last 10 years, give or take, are going to be forcibly upgraded to the new OS unless you know enough to stop it.
Someone has written a tool to automate and manage the problem:
http://ultimateoutsider.com/do...
And as a sister comment said, Microsoft has switched the update to "Recommended" status. It's only a matter of time before they decide it becomes Critical.
Well, I was thinking in terms of Microsoft using the numbers to show how much people love their new OS, which is something they love to crow about. I didn't think of other possible interpretations.
Microsoft is forcing people to update, which makes these numbers meaningless. The only people who arn't going to update are the ones with the knowledge to block it.
This is like saying murders are way down, but ignoring to mention that you've put the entire population in straight jackets.
The fact that despite these strong-arming efforts, they're *still* only just now surpassing XP and Win8, says a lot about how much people don't want this latest and not-so-greatest OS.
I feel bad for Microsoft developers. When I tried the OS, I actually *liked* it. But then Microsoft had to go screw everything up with their OS-as-a-privacy-killing-service bullshit.
Google's hands off approach is why I wrote off the Android platform. The last Android device I had was a Galaxy S3, and I had to root it, and replace the OS with cyanogenmod just so that I would have a working phone.
This sort of crap is inexcusable.
Now if only Google will also do what Apple does and support their products for a minimum of 3 years, then maybe I'll start taking Android seriously.
Wanted =/= has, and is not sufficient reason to go to war.
What WMD did he have, other than what the parent described? With sources, pls, cause I haven't seen a non-Faux News news source that definitively said that WMDs were found.
I wish I had some way of quantifying how much their reputation is affecting them as well, but I'd be willing to bet that it's significant.
Between me and all the techie people I know, I have only met a couple that have a positive attitude towards Microsoft. The rest of us consider Microsoft to be a monster that desperately needs to disappear, and would never willingly consider a Microsoft product unless there was no other option.
Their hostile, and (subsequently deemed) illegal self-serving policies amounted to extortion of the entire PC industry and ostensibly cost us decades of progress. Then there was their browser shenanigans. Their shenanigans with Office, particularly with their "Open" file format, decimated the office application market and ruined an entire industry standards body.
And the list just goes on and on. There's a reason Microsoft is synonymous with "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".
I don't want to see Microsoft gain a foothold in *any* new markets, because it is a guarantee that they will destroy those markets.
My most immediate question, before even reading the feature set, was why they forked in the first place. I had to do some digging (ie: click multiple links and read a couple different pages to find what I was looking for), so to save others time, here's the why:
https://docs.opnsense.org/fork...
Technical
We had technical reasons to fork. As much as we love the functionality/feature set of pfSense, we do not enjoy the code quality and anarchistic development method. We like structure, achievable goals set forth in a roadmap with regular releases and a decent framework.
Security
On the security part the main issue was the need to separate logic. The GUI should not perform tasks that require root access.
Quality
As for quality, all new features will be built using a solid framework with a Model View Controller. For this purpose we choose Phalcon as it is the fastest open source PHP framework available. And we will gradually migrate parts inherited from pfSense to the new framework to avoid a big-bang approach.
Community
A thriving community can only exist when people are willing to share. We want to make it easier for people to join and help to build the community. With pfSense this has been rather difficult as the tools to build it are difficult to use and often do not work in the first few attempts. And since 2014 year they are not freely available any more, you need to apply for access with ESF. We believe a good open source project has nothing to hide so access to the sources should be there for all. It will remain a mystery why ESF made that move as commit rights and read rights are totally different.
Note
ESF has since changed their policy and the source code is now available under their 6 clause ESF license.
Transparency
A real concern with pfSense is transparency. Since Netgate bought the majority share of pfSense and renamed the company to ESF it has been difficult to understand the direction they want the project to go. Removing the tools from github without prior warning and using the brand name to fence off competitors has scared quite a lot of people. Also the license had changed for no apparent reason
Restore a firm open source project
With OPNsense we have restored a stable project with clear goals and a very simple license that is suitable for forking and making OEM versions. We think a community project is there for all to use and work with.
That's your opinion.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but did he not give money to an advocacy group whose sole purpose was to take partnership rights, which are granted to all other citizens of the state, from gay people?
This is either factually correct, or factually incorrect. If I am wrong, then I take it back. But if that fact is true, then he provided a material contribution to a group that would be considered a hate group by pretty much every country in the world whose society isn't clouded by medieval religious doctrine.
It's depressing that you consider the idea that all people should be treated fairly (which is, ironically, enshrined in your bloody constitution), to be an extreme position, equivalent to religious whackjobs who think people should be put into concentration camps, or outright murdered, just for believing in a different imaginary friend than you.
You used the word "evil", not me. The concept of "evil" is essentially pointless, because when people use it it ends up boiling down to "someone or something that does the exact opposite of what I want". My own father believes that liberals are "evil" because they want to take his money in the form of taxes, and use it for things that don't directly benefit him, like schools and libraries.
All I can say is that if someone insists that it is their duty to ruin other people's lives for no other reason than that those other people exist, that person has massive empathy issues and I feel no sympathy whatsoever when the blowback bites them in the ass. Eich put himself into that category when he aided that group. No, he wasn't the one that stood before the legislature and pushed the bill. But he provided a material contribution to that effort. Trying to claim that he wasn't involved, is like saying that a person shouldn't be considered an accessory to murder because "all they did" was give the murderer the gun with the full knowledge beforehand that the murderer was going to shoot someone.
But according to your "logic", if I paid someone to murder my neighbour I shouldn't be held liable because I was only "exercising my right to express my values".
But what's a right?
Oh don't even go there. This isn't philosophy class.
Wow, I've never seen anyone try to cut the heads off of a hydra that big before. It'll be amusing to see their reaction when the resulting mass of new heads looms above them.
No, my argument is that he wanted to strip citizens of their rights, for no other reason than that he doesn't like them.
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Arguing topics and policies among equal people is politics. Stripping people of their rights for no other reason than "because you can", is oppression.
I'm starting to believe that you're a psychopath or something. This issue isn't about "winning". It's about equal rights. If you don't believe all people deserve the same rights equally, then *everyone* loses.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller
He spent 7 years in a concentration camp because people like you think that oppression is a perfectly acceptable thing.
Actually, yes, he was.
He directly contributed to a cause that took away the rights of other people, for no other reason than that he didn't think they should be allowed to have them.
So no, he wasn't some innocent party just "expressing his opinion". He did a direct action, which had a negative effect on an entire class of people, for no other reason than his own intolerance.
So what if he didn't discriminate (directly) against gay people at Mozilla? He discriminated against gays in an entire *state*, which also includes Mozilla employees.
I'd be willing to bet that the only reason why he was "tolerant" at Mozilla, was cause he knew if he *did* try to start something the backlash would destroy Mozilla almost overnight. So instead, he quietly contributed to a third party, and assumed people wouldn't find out.