Ha! Yeah. Everyone I know who uses open-source anything always subscribes to the mailing lists and reads all of the messages. In fact, right now I'm monitoring the mailing lists for PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Apache, Ted, WHM/cPanel, GIMP, PEAR, Suhosin, Perl, gcc, ClamAV, exim, ftpd, named, imap, spamd, etc. You know, just in case.
You forgot to factor in the number of discs destroyed via current (1) versus the number of discs destroyed by the log, and calculating the energy cost to destroy per disc. I'll leave the number of discs that a 1kg burning log can melt as an exercise for the reader.
I believe it actually states the MOST SECURE in the post.
Which, as well all know, are never wrong and always 100% accurate.
What's wrong with just burning them? Why would someone ever want to waste 150,000 volts to erase a little bit of data on a single disc when you could erase as many as you can toss in for the low, low energy cost of a single burning log?
I see you've played Earth 2150 too. That thing looks just like a Spider chassis. Plasma or rockets are your choice, or machine guns if you're poor, and some shields would be nice too.
Deciding to enter an existing market with existing laws, and having the laws change in a current market are two different scenarios. Here in the US, I would expect that there would be a substantial amount of corporate lobbying against more government regulations. They would also be unpopular with the people, so I don't think it is likely.
That being said, think of how the government would respond if they did pass a law like that, and RIM decided to shut off its service as long as the law was in effect. RIM has a lot of government users, and a lot of corporate users. A lack of service would be a pretty good motivation to "re-visit" the laws, and it would be terrible publicity for the government.
I realize I'm being idealistic here, but I'm just saying it would be a great thing to actually see companies stand up for the ethics they believe in.
It's not about making them change. Either you sacrifice your principles, or you don't. If they do change, then maybe you can look at entering that market. If they don't change, then there's no reason to consider them in your global strategy if you're unwilling to sacrifice your principles.
If you're willing to sacrifice your principles for more money, then none if this applies.
So it is "childish" to bitch and moan about RIM having to follow the law in countries they do business in.
Actually, I think it's perfectly acceptable to criticize the choice that was made to sacrifice your core principles in order to do business in a certain country. I know it's against the norm, but a company is not completely bound and obligated to increase profits at every expense. It is reasonable for a business to refuse to sacrifice their core principals in exchange for access to a certain market. And frankly, I think it's "childish" to just dismiss the criticism of companies which make the choice to sacrifice their principals. Where do you draw the line? How much sacrifice is too much? If it's OK for them to open their data up to India, is it also OK to allow the US government to monitor all phone calls, SMS and MMS messages, internet traffic, and email sent to or from a device? Where exactly do you think the line is before it becomes too much?
Look, there's nothing Blackberry can do about it and it's not their job. It's not like they would be able to fight it if USA was the same. It's the people in general who will need to deal with their governments, not some single random company that is just selling products for the market. Stop being childish and stop these immature comments. If you want, YOU go change those governments minds.
I understand what you're saying, but it would be very refreshing to see a major company say something like "We are ceasing operations in country X because we are refusing to sacrifice the security of our customers." I mean, that's not exactly terrible for your reputation as a company, especially when you advertise security. I don't ever remember seeing that happen though. Google comes pretty close with China, but not quite.
is an integral part of Chinese business culture and it's not funny.
Sorry, but this is definitely funny. Especially since I'm not affected by it. A lot of things the Chinese do to make money are pretty funny, in fact. It's not like it's a tragedy, if they thought it was tragic they would try to change it. In fact, one of the funniest things about the whole thing is that it is so integral, even the government rips things off. The best part is they act like nothing is going on. That's not Mickey Mouse, it's a cat with round ears! That's not Donald Duck, it's an original Chinese duck character! This is like a bad B-movie plot, but it's actually happening.
Are we at war with anyone with submarines this week?
Do U.S. intelligence services only monitor those vessels belonging to nations with which we are currently at war? When was the last time we went to war against Russia or China? How much do you want to bet that we are currently attempting to monitor the movements of Russian and Chinese submarines?
You don't think it's possible for an agency like DARPA to figure out who is using a particular IP? They say the data is anonymous because 1) it makes people feel better and 2) it is anonymous, at least until they want to put a name to your IP. If someone is beating all of their simulations, you better bet that they would want to contact that person and at least offer them a job.
Ahh, let me guess. The US has no right to be in Afghanistan fighting a war, but it is our responsibility to help Japan, and anywhere else in the world that needs help. Is that about right? Japan is one of the world leaders in civil robotics, so why have they failed to help themselves? Why is it our responsibility to do that also? Why are we giving them our radiation-hardened robots instead of them using their own? Are there any other failings in other countries that are our fault? How about Gbagbo in Ivory Coast, it's probably our fault that he's so far refused to give up power, isn't it?
The mere presence of a _folder_ with the offending name triggered the AV. That AV's gotto be the new benchmark as far as being crappy goes.
Sort of like writing an anti-virus program which checks for files called "virus.exe" and calling it secure. Reminds me of mod_security for Apache, and how it blocks things called "shell.php" (and possibly other extensions) from executing just based on the same. Pretty retarded view of "security". It took me forever to figure out why the PHP files that were hosting our Flash courseware shells weren't running when everything else was. Turns out it was a "security" measure, thanks to mod_security. It really helps to instill a lot of confidence that mod_security is competent in any way.
Oh, and nice racism there, calling QQ "Chinese", thus implying it is strange and weird.
I'm pretty sure you're the one who equated Chinese with strange and weird, I don't see that in the OP. Due to the fact that QQ is developed and operated by a Chinese company, there's nothing racist in saying that QQ is Chinese. It is. "Chinese" is not a racist term, it's a demonym.
Furthermore, if this guy is a Web developer, then why is he concerned about underlying architectures? Stick with HTML and CSS and leave the heavy coding for the adults.
Did you miss the part where he explains this is a Python application? Just because the output is HTML markup doesn't mean it's not a "real application", or that the architecture that the code which produces that markup is running on doesn't matter.
You can designate a two-finger click to do the same thing as a right-click, or designate one of the lower (ie. the right or left) corners to operate as a right-click, or both, or neither (for old-timers who think ctrl-click is a good idea; it isn't, but it's still supported).
That's what I don't really understand about Apple's design decisions. You can click the button with two fingers, you can use software to set where to click or which keyboard buttons to hold down while you click, but they won't just give you a second button. Why not just a second button? Is there a compelling reason why that would not be a good idea? It just seems like refusal for the sake of refusal.
Don't be, I don't use own a Mac or use one regularly. Touching the trackpad with 2 fingers while pressing a button isn't exactly as intuitive as simply a second button.
Two finger tap to right click - OSX makes just as much use of context menus as Windows does, so it's not like they left the feature out of the hardware.
Actually, it's exactly like they left the feature out of the hardware. I disable the touch-to-click on trackpads, because I'll be typing and some part of one of my hands will hit the trackpad and the cursor jumps somewhere or clicks a button or something. A second mouse button is really easy to implement in hardware, and so is a third or fourth for that matter. It's not a question about how to use the hardware ("you're holding it wrong"), it's whether or not the hardware even works for what you need it to do. Regardless of how many context menus OSX makes use of, I still can't use the hardware the way I want to.
Slashdot Mirror
there is no danger of any of the projects that you named disappearing without notice.
How do I know that? I'm just a user. Wouldn't I have to monitor the mailing lists to determine that?
You watch the mailing list
Ha! Yeah. Everyone I know who uses open-source anything always subscribes to the mailing lists and reads all of the messages. In fact, right now I'm monitoring the mailing lists for PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Apache, Ted, WHM/cPanel, GIMP, PEAR, Suhosin, Perl, gcc, ClamAV, exim, ftpd, named, imap, spamd, etc. You know, just in case.
You forgot to factor in the number of discs destroyed via current (1) versus the number of discs destroyed by the log, and calculating the energy cost to destroy per disc. I'll leave the number of discs that a 1kg burning log can melt as an exercise for the reader.
That only applies for pressed discs, not writable ones.
I believe it actually states the MOST SECURE in the post.
Which, as well all know, are never wrong and always 100% accurate.
What's wrong with just burning them? Why would someone ever want to waste 150,000 volts to erase a little bit of data on a single disc when you could erase as many as you can toss in for the low, low energy cost of a single burning log?
I see you've played Earth 2150 too. That thing looks just like a Spider chassis. Plasma or rockets are your choice, or machine guns if you're poor, and some shields would be nice too.
Deciding to enter an existing market with existing laws, and having the laws change in a current market are two different scenarios. Here in the US, I would expect that there would be a substantial amount of corporate lobbying against more government regulations. They would also be unpopular with the people, so I don't think it is likely.
That being said, think of how the government would respond if they did pass a law like that, and RIM decided to shut off its service as long as the law was in effect. RIM has a lot of government users, and a lot of corporate users. A lack of service would be a pretty good motivation to "re-visit" the laws, and it would be terrible publicity for the government.
I realize I'm being idealistic here, but I'm just saying it would be a great thing to actually see companies stand up for the ethics they believe in.
It's not about making them change. Either you sacrifice your principles, or you don't. If they do change, then maybe you can look at entering that market. If they don't change, then there's no reason to consider them in your global strategy if you're unwilling to sacrifice your principles.
If you're willing to sacrifice your principles for more money, then none if this applies.
So it is "childish" to bitch and moan about RIM having to follow the law in countries they do business in.
Actually, I think it's perfectly acceptable to criticize the choice that was made to sacrifice your core principles in order to do business in a certain country. I know it's against the norm, but a company is not completely bound and obligated to increase profits at every expense. It is reasonable for a business to refuse to sacrifice their core principals in exchange for access to a certain market. And frankly, I think it's "childish" to just dismiss the criticism of companies which make the choice to sacrifice their principals. Where do you draw the line? How much sacrifice is too much? If it's OK for them to open their data up to India, is it also OK to allow the US government to monitor all phone calls, SMS and MMS messages, internet traffic, and email sent to or from a device? Where exactly do you think the line is before it becomes too much?
My wife wanted a blackberry on this last go round of upgrades. Nope.
Just out of curiosity, what did she get instead?
Look, there's nothing Blackberry can do about it and it's not their job. It's not like they would be able to fight it if USA was the same. It's the people in general who will need to deal with their governments, not some single random company that is just selling products for the market. Stop being childish and stop these immature comments. If you want, YOU go change those governments minds.
I understand what you're saying, but it would be very refreshing to see a major company say something like "We are ceasing operations in country X because we are refusing to sacrifice the security of our customers." I mean, that's not exactly terrible for your reputation as a company, especially when you advertise security. I don't ever remember seeing that happen though. Google comes pretty close with China, but not quite.
is an integral part of Chinese business culture and it's not funny.
Sorry, but this is definitely funny. Especially since I'm not affected by it. A lot of things the Chinese do to make money are pretty funny, in fact. It's not like it's a tragedy, if they thought it was tragic they would try to change it. In fact, one of the funniest things about the whole thing is that it is so integral, even the government rips things off. The best part is they act like nothing is going on. That's not Mickey Mouse, it's a cat with round ears! That's not Donald Duck, it's an original Chinese duck character! This is like a bad B-movie plot, but it's actually happening.
Are we at war with anyone with submarines this week?
Do U.S. intelligence services only monitor those vessels belonging to nations with which we are currently at war? When was the last time we went to war against Russia or China? How much do you want to bet that we are currently attempting to monitor the movements of Russian and Chinese submarines?
You don't think it's possible for an agency like DARPA to figure out who is using a particular IP? They say the data is anonymous because 1) it makes people feel better and 2) it is anonymous, at least until they want to put a name to your IP. If someone is beating all of their simulations, you better bet that they would want to contact that person and at least offer them a job.
Sounds like Ender's Game to me. How would the player know if the data they are being fed is simulated or gathered from actual sensors?
Ahh, let me guess. The US has no right to be in Afghanistan fighting a war, but it is our responsibility to help Japan, and anywhere else in the world that needs help. Is that about right? Japan is one of the world leaders in civil robotics, so why have they failed to help themselves? Why is it our responsibility to do that also? Why are we giving them our radiation-hardened robots instead of them using their own? Are there any other failings in other countries that are our fault? How about Gbagbo in Ivory Coast, it's probably our fault that he's so far refused to give up power, isn't it?
No, it matters to no one that you failed to get a first post. In fact, I wonder why people even bother trying to do that.
The mere presence of a _folder_ with the offending name triggered the AV. That AV's gotto be the new benchmark as far as being crappy goes.
Sort of like writing an anti-virus program which checks for files called "virus.exe" and calling it secure. Reminds me of mod_security for Apache, and how it blocks things called "shell.php" (and possibly other extensions) from executing just based on the same. Pretty retarded view of "security". It took me forever to figure out why the PHP files that were hosting our Flash courseware shells weren't running when everything else was. Turns out it was a "security" measure, thanks to mod_security. It really helps to instill a lot of confidence that mod_security is competent in any way.
Welcome to my shitlist, Samsung. I believe you already know Sony. I'm not sure if you've met Belkin. I'm sure you'll all become friends.
Oh, and nice racism there, calling QQ "Chinese", thus implying it is strange and weird.
I'm pretty sure you're the one who equated Chinese with strange and weird, I don't see that in the OP. Due to the fact that QQ is developed and operated by a Chinese company, there's nothing racist in saying that QQ is Chinese. It is. "Chinese" is not a racist term, it's a demonym.
Furthermore, if this guy is a Web developer, then why is he concerned about underlying architectures? Stick with HTML and CSS and leave the heavy coding for the adults.
Did you miss the part where he explains this is a Python application? Just because the output is HTML markup doesn't mean it's not a "real application", or that the architecture that the code which produces that markup is running on doesn't matter.
You can designate a two-finger click to do the same thing as a right-click, or designate one of the lower (ie. the right or left) corners to operate as a right-click, or both, or neither (for old-timers who think ctrl-click is a good idea; it isn't, but it's still supported).
That's what I don't really understand about Apple's design decisions. You can click the button with two fingers, you can use software to set where to click or which keyboard buttons to hold down while you click, but they won't just give you a second button. Why not just a second button? Is there a compelling reason why that would not be a good idea? It just seems like refusal for the sake of refusal.
I'm surprised you have not figured this out yet.
Don't be, I don't use own a Mac or use one regularly. Touching the trackpad with 2 fingers while pressing a button isn't exactly as intuitive as simply a second button.
Two finger tap to right click - OSX makes just as much use of context menus as Windows does, so it's not like they left the feature out of the hardware.
Actually, it's exactly like they left the feature out of the hardware. I disable the touch-to-click on trackpads, because I'll be typing and some part of one of my hands will hit the trackpad and the cursor jumps somewhere or clicks a button or something. A second mouse button is really easy to implement in hardware, and so is a third or fourth for that matter. It's not a question about how to use the hardware ("you're holding it wrong"), it's whether or not the hardware even works for what you need it to do. Regardless of how many context menus OSX makes use of, I still can't use the hardware the way I want to.
Why would they? Where's the business case? What, if they don't then the Times is going to stop using their service? ooooooooo