Seriously. Who doesn't know that the A4 contains an A8 and that the A8 (the new A8, not the other A8 in the A4) will contain an A9? Shit, I learned that in pre-school.
First, I don't think the internet, Anonymous, Facebook, or Twitter brought down Ben Ali. I think the people of Tunisia did. Did those things "help"? Maybe they helped people communicate, but the people in the country were clearly upset (you can tell because of the college grad who decided his best option was self-immolation). I don't really want to take away credit to the actual people and give that credit to the tools they used. The demonstrators in Iran had the same tools available, for example, but they weren't successful in achieving their goals.
Anyway, software is great, technology is great, people are great, tyrants suck, etc etc
That's fine for a world economy in the world's most populous country. I gave that as an example because it's really the only one we have. But I'm more concerned about the smaller nations that have been dealing with wars for decades and don't have the same level of education that the Chinese do.
If somebody modifies open source software, and gives you the modified version with, just hypothetically, a "back door" or censorship feature or whatever, there is nothing preventing you from just going and getting the OTHER, truly open-source version, and using that instead. THAT is why open source is more "secure", and why it can't be "taken over". The "additions" are there for everybody to see, and anybody to eliminate.
Really? A farmer who gets paid $2 per week is going to walk into his local government-supplied internet cafe and recompile the kernel? What about the government-run national gateways, are they going to monitor traffic and find out where people are going? About the source in general, is the user even going to be able to find the source for the government OS in the cafe? As far as the user is concerned the software might as well be proprietary, they don't have access to the government's source. Yeah, they can download other open-source and proprietary software, assuming the government lets them or they're skilled enough to know how to mask their traffic. I'm not sure the ability to go download the official version is unique to open-source though. Is the Opera browser less "secure" and more prone to being "taken over" than Firefox? I mean, why doesn't this statement apply:
If somebody modifies publicly-available software, and gives you the modified version with, just hypothetically, a "back door" or censorship feature or whatever, there is nothing preventing you from just going and getting the OTHER, official version, and using that instead.
The strength of open-source software is that you can download, inspect, and change the code. That doesn't happen when the autocratic government doesn't release its changes. China isn't even autocratic.
With a name like AmicusNYCL, you should know that Open Source software, just like proprietary software, comes with legal obligations.
Uh huh. Tell the government of the Congo that if they want to make changes to Linux and distribute it to their organizations and their citizens that they need to release their changes. See how much they care about what you call "legal obligations". I think they may be more worried about controlling their rape squads than making sure they're in compliance with some arbitrary software license. Yeah, for the sake of argument it doesn't matter if they co-opt open-source or proprietary software, but they're going to have a much easier time getting the source code for open-source than they are for proprietary.
Hence, in all likelihood they are going to favor and choose open-source over proprietary, just because it's more accessible. In theory it doesn't matter if they pick open-source or proprietary, because they could abuse either. In reality, they're going to pick open-source.
I don't think the license comes into play at all. If I'm an autocratic ruler, and I want to use some software, I'm not even going to read the license. I may be violating it, I may not be violating it, but I have no idea and frankly don't care because I haven't even bothered to look into the terms in the first place. It's the software I care about, not the legal terminology that people in other countries want to insist governs the use of that software. I'll tell them to kindly take it up with my foreign minister/army general.
You're arguing about a grain of sand and missing the larger point.
A government takes something like Linux or Apache, a piece of open-source software. They're using open-source software. They have programmers that make a few changes to it, and send it out to wherever it's going. You can argue all you want that the software is no longer considered "Open Source Software", in capital letters and everything. And yeah, don't worry, they're not going to abide by the licensing terms so they aren't going to be considered a part of your community anyway. But give it a rest, they're using open-source software, for the same reasons that anyone else does.
He's not distributing the truth, he's wholesale dumping as much onto the world as he can to cause as much anarchy as he can.
Regardless of his motives, distributing the truth is exactly what he's doing. I'm not arguing about his motives, just about his actions.
Was it really necessary that the world know Gadhaffi's security details or a thousand other similar things?
Was it necessary according to whom? Was it necessary that he released gun-camera footage showing an Apache mowing down several journalists and children? Sort of depends on your viewpoint, doesn't it? I would imagine the families of those people did think it necessary; the pilot pulling the trigger, probably not so much. I don't think he's sitting there thinking about what is and is not necessary to release. If he can verify the source and correctness of the information, that's enough.
I'm sure if informed your hypothetical mother-in-law about your hypothetical dislike of her cooking, it would somehow not be ok?
Would I be upset or embarrassed? Probably. Would I be more careful about who I confide in? Yeah. Would I launch a manhunt? No. It's pretty much my fault for that information having gotten out there. It's not fair to blame him for other people's faults. I would be irritated at whoever breached my confidence and told him, not him for releasing it. That's like blaming Watergate on Woodward and Bernstein.
So far the biggest alleged crime I have heard about is a request to gather some information on UN diplomats.
Right, that whole Apache thing was just a misunderstanding. Those UN "peacekeepers" sexually abusing girls in Congo, that's fine too (but that doesn't affect you anyway, because it happened to black people). Also, why would the US conceal 15,000 civilian deaths in Iraq? Likewise, using civilians as human bomb detectors is definitely allowed in the Geneva conventions, as far as I know anyway. And anyone who's been in the military knows that you're practically ordered to procure young boys for entertainment and sex. That's just a given. I also seriously doubt there's a single Spaniard alive who would care that his country's copyright laws are being written by the US.
Wholesale release of documents, just because they have them shows the claim of informing people of facts to be disingenuous.
Actually, that's exactly what dissemination of information is. The wholesale release of documents, just because you have them. I'm not trying to dispute the veracity of the claims in the documents, just the fact that the documents themselves are real.
Spying for whom? Which foreign nation is he an agent for?
Just remember, wikileaks next victim might be someone or something that you support.
That's fine. If some institution I support has done some underhanded bastardly things in the past, I want to know about it so I can stop supporting them. Distributing the truth isn't "attacking" anything, he's just trying to make sure people are informed about factual things they are not currently informed about. If you can't handle that, then that's your problem, not his, and not mine. Go ahead and bury your head in the sand if you want to. I, personally, want to know.
That's the problem with anarchy groups like wikileaks, they're as likely to turn against you as anything else.
Their only allies are people who seek the truth, and their only enemies are people who want to hide the truth. They don't "turn" against anything, they disseminate information. I seriously doubt they have anyone going over the information they have to decide if the subject is on their "good" list or "bad" list and whether they should release it, if the information contains substantial truths that are not widely known, they release it.
I didn't claim that we have never tried the concept of equipping seagoing vessels with weapons. The existence and long history of the U.S. Navy would be a glaring flaw in that claim. Considering that, your tone is a bit mysterious to me.
There's no mystery. Current laws around the U.S. and Caribbean areas with respect to weapons on board commercial ships are a result of piracy in the 17th and 18th centuries. Nations want to avoid being preyed upon by pirates, so they made laws denying armed ships access to their ports. In the U.S. specifically, putting a weapon on a ship counts as a weapons export and requires a permit from the State Dept. This is the history you seem to be ignoring when suggesting that commercial ships should just arm themselves.
Of all the seagoing merchant ships worldwide, what fraction of them ever enter waters where Somalian pirates are known to operate? To re-phrase the question, how far is a 6-meter boat going to travel from the Somalian mainland and how big is the ocean in comparison? The problem is limited to a minority of at-risk ships.
Doesn't it make more sense to just station military ships in that one contained geographical region instead of arming every ship that may pass through there?
The parallels to civilian conceal-carry laws concerning handguns are immense and that means we already have a generic model.
Again, you're speaking as if we don't already have a huge historic model to draw from. We aren't making up a new system here, this has been going on for a long time. Last year, in fact, Egypt has started enforcing its laws about no guns through the Suez canal.
All of this could be done. It's a matter of having the will to do it.
You're right. It's only a matter of having the will to write a single law that every country with a water border can agree to. That sounds way simpler than having several strategically-positioned capable warships in the area to monitor everything. You can have ships launching air drones, you can develop a jet-ski sized water drone for fast long-range interception, there are several possibilities that don't require the changing of laws around the world.
Mariners are perfectly capable of carrying firearms now, and some do it. But everyone who does knows that if you're going to carry weapons then you need to make sure that you're complying with the laws of any nation whose waters you enter, and that's a much more difficult thing to do for large commercial transports who may pass through 20 or more national boundaries on their voyage.
Arming the target ships is the best way to deal with this problem. It's also the one we consistently refuse to try.
It's not that we refuse to try it. It's that we look at the times when there weren't any restrictions on what you brought into port, and we see how that turned out. You know, it's the whole not-forgetting-history thing. We already did try it.
Would arming commercial ships decrease piracy? Obviously. The reason we haven't isn't because of an unwillingness to try something new, it's because we look back at why those laws were made in the first place. Maybe it's time to revisit those laws, maybe our advances in communication, aircraft, satellites, radar, etc have lessened the danger caused by potentially hostile armed ships.
Just don't act like it hasn't been tried before...
That's a good mix of hard right and hard left. I'd say they're just pure anarchist with a mix of pure crazy.
You know, I see a lot of this language. "We can't put him in a box, he's obviously crazy."
I have a wide mix of left and right beliefs. I think that gun control means being able to hit your target, that abortions before a certain time should be legal, that immigrants who entered the country illegally need to leave and come back in legally if at all, and that any two people should be able to marry each other if they want to (and, c'mon, valuing your currency against a precious metal isn't exactly a crazy idea). Like "the crazy" in this story, I also live in AZ and own guns. So, am I crazy? Am I some "weird" outsider suitable for ignoring because my political views happen to come from both columns? Are you only a valid citizen if you can put either a D or R next to your name? Your comment stands at +5 insightful, so several people must agree with you, what's the deal?
The casinos are helping evolve our race against addictability.
Doesn't that sort of assume that the people who are addicted to gambling aren't reproducing? In order for that trait to be naturally selected against, there has to be a relationship between having the trait and not being able to reproduce. If you think that being a gambler means not reproducing, have you seen the prostitution industry in Vegas? How do you think people are paying for those prostitutes?
Corporations do not claim that they aren't in the game exclusively for profit. They don't lie about what their priorities are, it says right in their charters that their number one duty to stockholders is to earn revenue and increase profit and value. People running governments, despite having many of those same inclinations, never admit to that and act like it works some way other than how it actually works. This is why Senators seeking re-election always talk about how bad it is in Washington and how it needs to be changed, expecting us to forget that it was them that made it that way. They say it's terrible, it's corrupt, it's hard to get anything meaningful done, it needs to be changed, and oh, won't you please send me back?
than trying to whip a mouse halfway across your desk
Adjust your sensitivity. There's a reason mouse pads are so small, even those marketed for gaming.
Circle straffing some poor bastard with a mouse is almost unsporting.
C'mon, anyone using a mouse who can figure out how to get into the game can figure out how to evade someone circling around.
I remember doing that to the noobs trying to use a mouse as far back as marathon.
Give them a break, they only had one button.
to target someone at a distance with ironsights, with a mouse you... With an analog stick and experience with the stick...
What, only the guy with the stick gets experience? Why doesn't this apply?:
With mouse and experience with the mouse, you can get close to exact almost instantaneously, then if you're still a few pixels off target you slow down your hand movement and fine tune it before firing.
And that is why sticks beat mice close up and mice beat sticks at range.
If you're close up then your target is many, many times larger than at range, and precision doesn't matter nearly as much. It's still down to only the speed you can move it at, and there's a reason why games let people adjust the mouse sensitivity so high. One small flick can move the cursor a long way.
computers still tended to have the overall advantage because they had over 30 keys to bind to specific actions. Now with the average controller having 10 buttons on it in addition to dual analog sticks, that levels the playing field in that respect.
Not when the standard keyboard has 101 or more keys, and you can get mice with buttons for each finger. There are several games that are too complex to move to a console, like X3.
I have no beef against Python using whitespaces. But I'd rather be warned I made a typo in an obscure procedure called once a year when I first start the program, not when it encounters that procedure after a year.
You know, some basic unit testing would catch problems like that. You may want to look into testing a little more before deploying your once-a-year code.
That article is out of date, from May. It claims only 27% of Android users support version 2.1 or higher. Looking at the current numbers, that has obviously changed a lot over the past 7 months:
Now it appears that 83% of devices are running 2.1 or higher.
In other words, the problem isn't as big as everyone claims. Yeah, periodically applications will be released that require the latest OS version. It doesn't take long for everyone to catch up.
This is a real problem affecting both users and developers.
I'm not sure if he was defending Mozilla so much as pointing out that Firefox is not exactly running on all-new code, which takes them 10 years to fix on occasion.
Lightweight! I've got Firefox/Firebug open to a single tab (granted, a lot of refreshing and ajaxing) and it has 3:52 of CPU time and is using 206MB of RAM and 202MB of VM. Ha!
I've gotten to the point where I'll happily sacrifice a small amount of money and a little flexibility in exchange for a well-vetted, vertically integrated solution rather than an assembly kit
Vertically-integrated solution? Apple's PR has trained you well.
Where's that Ben Franklin quote...
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Well, enjoy your secure walled garden. While it lasts, anyway.
I have 3 android devices in my home...none of them run the same version, one has google apps natively, one has a hack to get it and the other one I haven't even bothered with because its too much of a pain in the ass. All have different front ends as well...
Whose fault is that? Is that the fault of Android, or Google? Is it the fault of your carrier(s)? Is it the fault of the application developers? Is it your fault for buying three different devices and expecting them to be the same?
Slashdot Mirror
Holy shit they're stupid.
Seriously. Who doesn't know that the A4 contains an A8 and that the A8 (the new A8, not the other A8 in the A4) will contain an A9? Shit, I learned that in pre-school.
First, I don't think the internet, Anonymous, Facebook, or Twitter brought down Ben Ali. I think the people of Tunisia did. Did those things "help"? Maybe they helped people communicate, but the people in the country were clearly upset (you can tell because of the college grad who decided his best option was self-immolation). I don't really want to take away credit to the actual people and give that credit to the tools they used. The demonstrators in Iran had the same tools available, for example, but they weren't successful in achieving their goals.
Anyway, software is great, technology is great, people are great, tyrants suck, etc etc
That's fine for a world economy in the world's most populous country. I gave that as an example because it's really the only one we have. But I'm more concerned about the smaller nations that have been dealing with wars for decades and don't have the same level of education that the Chinese do.
If somebody modifies open source software, and gives you the modified version with, just hypothetically, a "back door" or censorship feature or whatever, there is nothing preventing you from just going and getting the OTHER, truly open-source version, and using that instead. THAT is why open source is more "secure", and why it can't be "taken over". The "additions" are there for everybody to see, and anybody to eliminate.
Really? A farmer who gets paid $2 per week is going to walk into his local government-supplied internet cafe and recompile the kernel? What about the government-run national gateways, are they going to monitor traffic and find out where people are going? About the source in general, is the user even going to be able to find the source for the government OS in the cafe? As far as the user is concerned the software might as well be proprietary, they don't have access to the government's source. Yeah, they can download other open-source and proprietary software, assuming the government lets them or they're skilled enough to know how to mask their traffic. I'm not sure the ability to go download the official version is unique to open-source though. Is the Opera browser less "secure" and more prone to being "taken over" than Firefox? I mean, why doesn't this statement apply:
If somebody modifies publicly-available software, and gives you the modified version with, just hypothetically, a "back door" or censorship feature or whatever, there is nothing preventing you from just going and getting the OTHER, official version, and using that instead.
The strength of open-source software is that you can download, inspect, and change the code. That doesn't happen when the autocratic government doesn't release its changes. China isn't even autocratic.
With a name like AmicusNYCL, you should know that Open Source software, just like proprietary software, comes with legal obligations.
Uh huh. Tell the government of the Congo that if they want to make changes to Linux and distribute it to their organizations and their citizens that they need to release their changes. See how much they care about what you call "legal obligations". I think they may be more worried about controlling their rape squads than making sure they're in compliance with some arbitrary software license. Yeah, for the sake of argument it doesn't matter if they co-opt open-source or proprietary software, but they're going to have a much easier time getting the source code for open-source than they are for proprietary.
Hence, in all likelihood they are going to favor and choose open-source over proprietary, just because it's more accessible. In theory it doesn't matter if they pick open-source or proprietary, because they could abuse either. In reality, they're going to pick open-source.
I don't think the license comes into play at all. If I'm an autocratic ruler, and I want to use some software, I'm not even going to read the license. I may be violating it, I may not be violating it, but I have no idea and frankly don't care because I haven't even bothered to look into the terms in the first place. It's the software I care about, not the legal terminology that people in other countries want to insist governs the use of that software. I'll tell them to kindly take it up with my foreign minister/army general.
You're arguing about a grain of sand and missing the larger point.
A government takes something like Linux or Apache, a piece of open-source software. They're using open-source software. They have programmers that make a few changes to it, and send it out to wherever it's going. You can argue all you want that the software is no longer considered "Open Source Software", in capital letters and everything. And yeah, don't worry, they're not going to abide by the licensing terms so they aren't going to be considered a part of your community anyway. But give it a rest, they're using open-source software, for the same reasons that anyone else does.
He's not distributing the truth, he's wholesale dumping as much onto the world as he can to cause as much anarchy as he can.
Regardless of his motives, distributing the truth is exactly what he's doing. I'm not arguing about his motives, just about his actions.
Was it really necessary that the world know Gadhaffi's security details or a thousand other similar things?
Was it necessary according to whom? Was it necessary that he released gun-camera footage showing an Apache mowing down several journalists and children? Sort of depends on your viewpoint, doesn't it? I would imagine the families of those people did think it necessary; the pilot pulling the trigger, probably not so much. I don't think he's sitting there thinking about what is and is not necessary to release. If he can verify the source and correctness of the information, that's enough.
I'm sure if informed your hypothetical mother-in-law about your hypothetical dislike of her cooking, it would somehow not be ok?
Would I be upset or embarrassed? Probably. Would I be more careful about who I confide in? Yeah. Would I launch a manhunt? No. It's pretty much my fault for that information having gotten out there. It's not fair to blame him for other people's faults. I would be irritated at whoever breached my confidence and told him, not him for releasing it. That's like blaming Watergate on Woodward and Bernstein.
So far the biggest alleged crime I have heard about is a request to gather some information on UN diplomats.
Right, that whole Apache thing was just a misunderstanding. Those UN "peacekeepers" sexually abusing girls in Congo, that's fine too (but that doesn't affect you anyway, because it happened to black people). Also, why would the US conceal 15,000 civilian deaths in Iraq? Likewise, using civilians as human bomb detectors is definitely allowed in the Geneva conventions, as far as I know anyway. And anyone who's been in the military knows that you're practically ordered to procure young boys for entertainment and sex. That's just a given. I also seriously doubt there's a single Spaniard alive who would care that his country's copyright laws are being written by the US.
http://nothing-new-under-the-sun.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-has-wikileaks-ever-done-for-us.html
Wholesale release of documents, just because they have them shows the claim of informing people of facts to be disingenuous.
Actually, that's exactly what dissemination of information is. The wholesale release of documents, just because you have them. I'm not trying to dispute the veracity of the claims in the documents, just the fact that the documents themselves are real.
to put him on trial for spying
Spying for whom? Which foreign nation is he an agent for?
Just remember, wikileaks next victim might be someone or something that you support.
That's fine. If some institution I support has done some underhanded bastardly things in the past, I want to know about it so I can stop supporting them. Distributing the truth isn't "attacking" anything, he's just trying to make sure people are informed about factual things they are not currently informed about. If you can't handle that, then that's your problem, not his, and not mine. Go ahead and bury your head in the sand if you want to. I, personally, want to know.
That's the problem with anarchy groups like wikileaks, they're as likely to turn against you as anything else.
Their only allies are people who seek the truth, and their only enemies are people who want to hide the truth. They don't "turn" against anything, they disseminate information. I seriously doubt they have anyone going over the information they have to decide if the subject is on their "good" list or "bad" list and whether they should release it, if the information contains substantial truths that are not widely known, they release it.
I didn't claim that we have never tried the concept of equipping seagoing vessels with weapons. The existence and long history of the U.S. Navy would be a glaring flaw in that claim. Considering that, your tone is a bit mysterious to me.
There's no mystery. Current laws around the U.S. and Caribbean areas with respect to weapons on board commercial ships are a result of piracy in the 17th and 18th centuries. Nations want to avoid being preyed upon by pirates, so they made laws denying armed ships access to their ports. In the U.S. specifically, putting a weapon on a ship counts as a weapons export and requires a permit from the State Dept. This is the history you seem to be ignoring when suggesting that commercial ships should just arm themselves.
Of all the seagoing merchant ships worldwide, what fraction of them ever enter waters where Somalian pirates are known to operate? To re-phrase the question, how far is a 6-meter boat going to travel from the Somalian mainland and how big is the ocean in comparison? The problem is limited to a minority of at-risk ships.
Doesn't it make more sense to just station military ships in that one contained geographical region instead of arming every ship that may pass through there?
The parallels to civilian conceal-carry laws concerning handguns are immense and that means we already have a generic model.
Again, you're speaking as if we don't already have a huge historic model to draw from. We aren't making up a new system here, this has been going on for a long time. Last year, in fact, Egypt has started enforcing its laws about no guns through the Suez canal.
All of this could be done. It's a matter of having the will to do it.
You're right. It's only a matter of having the will to write a single law that every country with a water border can agree to. That sounds way simpler than having several strategically-positioned capable warships in the area to monitor everything. You can have ships launching air drones, you can develop a jet-ski sized water drone for fast long-range interception, there are several possibilities that don't require the changing of laws around the world.
Mariners are perfectly capable of carrying firearms now, and some do it. But everyone who does knows that if you're going to carry weapons then you need to make sure that you're complying with the laws of any nation whose waters you enter, and that's a much more difficult thing to do for large commercial transports who may pass through 20 or more national boundaries on their voyage.
Arming the target ships is the best way to deal with this problem. It's also the one we consistently refuse to try.
It's not that we refuse to try it. It's that we look at the times when there weren't any restrictions on what you brought into port, and we see how that turned out. You know, it's the whole not-forgetting-history thing. We already did try it.
Would arming commercial ships decrease piracy? Obviously. The reason we haven't isn't because of an unwillingness to try something new, it's because we look back at why those laws were made in the first place. Maybe it's time to revisit those laws, maybe our advances in communication, aircraft, satellites, radar, etc have lessened the danger caused by potentially hostile armed ships.
Just don't act like it hasn't been tried before...
That's a good mix of hard right and hard left. I'd say they're just pure anarchist with a mix of pure crazy.
You know, I see a lot of this language. "We can't put him in a box, he's obviously crazy."
I have a wide mix of left and right beliefs. I think that gun control means being able to hit your target, that abortions before a certain time should be legal, that immigrants who entered the country illegally need to leave and come back in legally if at all, and that any two people should be able to marry each other if they want to (and, c'mon, valuing your currency against a precious metal isn't exactly a crazy idea). Like "the crazy" in this story, I also live in AZ and own guns. So, am I crazy? Am I some "weird" outsider suitable for ignoring because my political views happen to come from both columns? Are you only a valid citizen if you can put either a D or R next to your name? Your comment stands at +5 insightful, so several people must agree with you, what's the deal?
The casinos are helping evolve our race against addictability.
Doesn't that sort of assume that the people who are addicted to gambling aren't reproducing? In order for that trait to be naturally selected against, there has to be a relationship between having the trait and not being able to reproduce. If you think that being a gambler means not reproducing, have you seen the prostitution industry in Vegas? How do you think people are paying for those prostitutes?
Corporations do not claim that they aren't in the game exclusively for profit. They don't lie about what their priorities are, it says right in their charters that their number one duty to stockholders is to earn revenue and increase profit and value. People running governments, despite having many of those same inclinations, never admit to that and act like it works some way other than how it actually works. This is why Senators seeking re-election always talk about how bad it is in Washington and how it needs to be changed, expecting us to forget that it was them that made it that way. They say it's terrible, it's corrupt, it's hard to get anything meaningful done, it needs to be changed, and oh, won't you please send me back?
Today's laser mice actually do pretty good but they cost a lot.
That comment would have made sense about 5 years ago.
than trying to whip a mouse halfway across your desk
Adjust your sensitivity. There's a reason mouse pads are so small, even those marketed for gaming.
Circle straffing some poor bastard with a mouse is almost unsporting.
C'mon, anyone using a mouse who can figure out how to get into the game can figure out how to evade someone circling around.
I remember doing that to the noobs trying to use a mouse as far back as marathon.
Give them a break, they only had one button.
to target someone at a distance with ironsights, with a mouse you...
With an analog stick and experience with the stick...
What, only the guy with the stick gets experience? Why doesn't this apply?:
With mouse and experience with the mouse, you can get close to exact almost instantaneously, then if you're still a few pixels off target you slow down your hand movement and fine tune it before firing.
And that is why sticks beat mice close up and mice beat sticks at range.
If you're close up then your target is many, many times larger than at range, and precision doesn't matter nearly as much. It's still down to only the speed you can move it at, and there's a reason why games let people adjust the mouse sensitivity so high. One small flick can move the cursor a long way.
computers still tended to have the overall advantage because they had over 30 keys to bind to specific actions. Now with the average controller having 10 buttons on it in addition to dual analog sticks, that levels the playing field in that respect.
Not when the standard keyboard has 101 or more keys, and you can get mice with buttons for each finger. There are several games that are too complex to move to a console, like X3.
I have no beef against Python using whitespaces. But I'd rather be warned I made a typo in an obscure procedure called once a year when I first start the program, not when it encounters that procedure after a year.
You know, some basic unit testing would catch problems like that. You may want to look into testing a little more before deploying your once-a-year code.
With the newer Android NDK, however, using native codes for Android apps has been becoming easier.
Codes, plural? What exactly is "one code"?
This article makes it sound like he used a WEP-cracking utility:
He created e-mail accounts in Matt Kostolnik's name and used a password-cracking program to hack into the Kostolniks' wireless router.
Not only that. It WAS secured.
He created e-mail accounts in Matt Kostolnik's name and used a password-cracking program to hack into the Kostolniks' wireless router.
That being the extent of the technical details, it sounds like he may have used a WEP-cracking utility.
That article is out of date, from May. It claims only 27% of Android users support version 2.1 or higher. Looking at the current numbers, that has obviously changed a lot over the past 7 months:
Platform Versions
Now it appears that 83% of devices are running 2.1 or higher.
In other words, the problem isn't as big as everyone claims. Yeah, periodically applications will be released that require the latest OS version. It doesn't take long for everyone to catch up.
This is a real problem affecting both users and developers.
Yeah, a real small problem.
I'm not sure if he was defending Mozilla so much as pointing out that Firefox is not exactly running on all-new code, which takes them 10 years to fix on occasion.
Lightweight! I've got Firefox/Firebug open to a single tab (granted, a lot of refreshing and ajaxing) and it has 3:52 of CPU time and is using 206MB of RAM and 202MB of VM. Ha!
Really? It's the fault of Google that this guy has three different phones that each run a different version of Android? Google made that decision?
I've gotten to the point where I'll happily sacrifice a small amount of money and a little flexibility in exchange for a well-vetted, vertically integrated solution rather than an assembly kit
Vertically-integrated solution? Apple's PR has trained you well.
Where's that Ben Franklin quote...
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Well, enjoy your secure walled garden. While it lasts, anyway.
I have 3 android devices in my home...none of them run the same version, one has google apps natively, one has a hack to get it and the other one I haven't even bothered with because its too much of a pain in the ass. All have different front ends as well...
Whose fault is that? Is that the fault of Android, or Google? Is it the fault of your carrier(s)? Is it the fault of the application developers? Is it your fault for buying three different devices and expecting them to be the same?