As I understand it: Because they were mapping out GPS locations of WIFI access points people were advertising, and the tool they used to do so records packets by default.
This is the one that bugs me as a Canadian. We can keep up the metric for a lot of things, but being this close on a hard good means using their crappy paper size. You have no idea how much I wish could use metric paper.
Precedent says that's not necessarily good enough. MP3.com had a huge library of music, that was only available if you proved you owned the CD already. They were shut down quite dramatically.
Depending on what you mean by "prove". It's all too easy to present an argument and have it taken seriously, because the rigor in filtering out bad science is lacking, so it's easy to get something published that "proves" a position. Of course, when the proof/review system starts allowing proofs of all sorts of contradictory things, people's faith in the inscrutability of the proof system goes out the window.
Now, when you have several thousand people doing scientific research into one subject, you're going to get some dissenting results, either as a result of the "law of averages"-kind of thinking, or because sloppy methodology will creep in. It doesn't matter how rigorous the review system is, this is going to happen occasionally. So we need to figure out how to prevent people from latching onto the one result that shows what they want it to show, as opposed to the thousands that show the opposite.
They have, in the sense that the window list doesn't exist anymore:) Instead, you zoom-out to a expose-style view of what's going on. For windows that need your attention (they used to blink in the window list), you should get notifications by another means.... but I'm not up on what that looks like these days.
If you're considering giving him internet access, consider what it means. It means the ability to interact with random strangers on the internet. I don't mean to over-exaggerate the risk of this, but it's something you would never consider doing in-person unattended.
If he has internet access at all, make sure it's supervised.
Make sure there's some form of security/anti-virus. Other than that, let him run wild, and see what he comes up with, as opposed to what you'd give him:)
Except that restricting it to use of the word 'union' keeps it seen as inferior to marriage and perpetuates separation of 'those homosexual types' from 'us normal folk' and perpetuates discrimination.
Not if you make it equal equal.
Let gay couples have civil unions. Let straight couples have civil unions too.
Let people figure out for themselves what a "marriage" is or isn't, without any government meddling whatsoever.
Is H264 incumbered by any patents not held by the MPEG-LA? Their argument is that if you pay to use their codec, you're in the clear patent-wise, but there's no guarantee that another 3rd party won't pull out a patent they're infringing.... and the MPEG-LA has stated they're going to start charging everybody for access to H264 anyways.
Theora and VP8 are in a better position patent-wise anyways. They both have tearms that have done searches patents (i believe VP8 has, I *know* Theora has), and they've publicly said that you're not going to get in trouble for using their stuff, EVER.
This is/was the problem with instant messaging networks: Unless you were on the right network, along with your friends, you got nothing.
The solution that's quickly gaining ground is federated XMPP, where your identity is tied to a server, but the server can talk to other servers, so you're not stuck in one walled off garden.
Any outlook for good federated, multi-server, distributed and de-centralized social networking? I know there's status.net, where interesting stuff is happening...
The main feature of Facebook seems to be friend suggestions. How to manage the friend graph without the central server could be a challenge...
Just a thought, maybe Linux could be aware of what those cores look like, and what their sensitivities to temperature are.... and change the amount or type of work pushed to that core? Although I suppose heat from the other cores would most likely transmit very quick to the "zombie" core. Any CPUs have seperate temperature tracking per core?
As long as Microsoft had a decent standard, that could be implemented without patent/IP-rights, I don't even care that much. A workable standard people follow is better that a perfect standard that 70% of deployed browser instances promptly ignore.
The flip-side of course is that if the company is submitting their code for security checking, they're paying at least some attention to security. The company that doesn't care may have many many more vulnerabilities.
Our University is looking at switching, and a bunch of students have opted to move early, since Google's offering the services whether we switch entirely or not.
Our contract says they give us free service, and explicitly says they do *NOT* mine our emails for anything, ever.
Specifically, they're designed for different interaction methods. A phone is meant to be used in one hand (zero, for handsfree), and held to the head (or in a pocket for handsfree). A gaming controller is meant to be held in two hands for maximum expressivness. A two-handed interface works best when the hands are relatively fare apart, meaning a set of controls on each end of a "stick" device, implying a horizontal interface. A one-handed device, or any device with a screen in general, is meant to be used vertically, so the screen is as far from the hands as possible, for maximum visibility.
Touch-screen interfaces are sub-optimal two, since you end up obscruring the display by using it.
Is there any practical way to conceal the details of the device from the carrier? To prevent the carrier from knowing the ID#, model #, or software details of the phone, beyond the identifying numbers on the SIM card?
As far as I'm concerned, if I own the hardware, I should be able to do what I want with it. All the service provider should care about is the SIM card to which they provide service.
The thing is, if the requirement is "Render a video at this coordinate on the page, with this size", the javascript implementation could simply go "Hey, pass that off as an and let another plugin handle it." Firefox's HTML5 code is being set up to handle an external supplier, for the linux case, gstreamer, in which case Firefox should be able to do html5 video with whatever codecs the system has available.
As someone rather new to flash, I'm not so sure how flash video works.
My assumption has always been that flash has support for h263 and other codecs coded into the plugin itself, so no one is writing flash actionscript to actually handle the codecs. If that's the case, the javascript flash implementation could likewise just pass the video decoding/rendering off to code in the browser designed to do that... unless I'm way off base, and people are actually writing actionscript for the video handling code, which I'd consider terribly distasteful.
We have Javascript in web browsers, and it's rare to see vulnerabilities this rare.
What's the difference? Is Adobe just not sandboxing Javascript code properly? I've never really used Adobe's products for this... but what's to stop them from just using an established javascript implementation like that used in Firefox or Webkit?
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it: Because they were mapping out GPS locations of WIFI access points people were advertising, and the tool they used to do so records packets by default.
This is the one that bugs me as a Canadian. We can keep up the metric for a lot of things, but being this close on a hard good means using their crappy paper size. You have no idea how much I wish could use metric paper.
This is all good and fine, assuming your video drivers and wifi drivers work. That's still a big assumption.
Precedent says that's not necessarily good enough. MP3.com had a huge library of music, that was only available if you proved you owned the CD already. They were shut down quite dramatically.
You had punctuation marks
Things are getting more difficult to prove.
Depending on what you mean by "prove". It's all too easy to present an argument and have it taken seriously, because the rigor in filtering out bad science is lacking, so it's easy to get something published that "proves" a position. Of course, when the proof/review system starts allowing proofs of all sorts of contradictory things, people's faith in the inscrutability of the proof system goes out the window.
Now, when you have several thousand people doing scientific research into one subject, you're going to get some dissenting results, either as a result of the "law of averages"-kind of thinking, or because sloppy methodology will creep in. It doesn't matter how rigorous the review system is, this is going to happen occasionally. So we need to figure out how to prevent people from latching onto the one result that shows what they want it to show, as opposed to the thousands that show the opposite.
They have, in the sense that the window list doesn't exist anymore :) Instead, you zoom-out to a expose-style view of what's going on. For windows that need your attention (they used to blink in the window list), you should get notifications by another means.... but I'm not up on what that looks like these days.
If you're considering giving him internet access, consider what it means. It means the ability to interact with random strangers on the internet. I don't mean to over-exaggerate the risk of this, but it's something you would never consider doing in-person unattended.
If he has internet access at all, make sure it's supervised.
Make sure there's some form of security/anti-virus. Other than that, let him run wild, and see what he comes up with, as opposed to what you'd give him :)
Except that restricting it to use of the word 'union' keeps it seen as inferior to marriage and perpetuates separation of 'those homosexual types' from 'us normal folk' and perpetuates discrimination.
Not if you make it equal equal.
Let gay couples have civil unions. Let straight couples have civil unions too.
Let people figure out for themselves what a "marriage" is or isn't, without any government meddling whatsoever.
Is H264 incumbered by any patents not held by the MPEG-LA? Their argument is that if you pay to use their codec, you're in the clear patent-wise, but there's no guarantee that another 3rd party won't pull out a patent they're infringing.... and the MPEG-LA has stated they're going to start charging everybody for access to H264 anyways.
Theora and VP8 are in a better position patent-wise anyways. They both have tearms that have done searches patents (i believe VP8 has, I *know* Theora has), and they've publicly said that you're not going to get in trouble for using their stuff, EVER.
But how do you find a new friend that's got similar connections?
This is/was the problem with instant messaging networks: Unless you were on the right network, along with your friends, you got nothing.
The solution that's quickly gaining ground is federated XMPP, where your identity is tied to a server, but the server can talk to other servers, so you're not stuck in one walled off garden.
Any outlook for good federated, multi-server, distributed and de-centralized social networking? I know there's status.net, where interesting stuff is happening...
The main feature of Facebook seems to be friend suggestions. How to manage the friend graph without the central server could be a challenge...
Just a thought, maybe Linux could be aware of what those cores look like, and what their sensitivities to temperature are.... and change the amount or type of work pushed to that core? Although I suppose heat from the other cores would most likely transmit very quick to the "zombie" core. Any CPUs have seperate temperature tracking per core?
The ipod touch and iphone run darwin, a *nix with full shell/root access... but locked down.
As long as Microsoft had a decent standard, that could be implemented without patent/IP-rights, I don't even care that much. A workable standard people follow is better that a perfect standard that 70% of deployed browser instances promptly ignore.
Slashdotted before a first-post. That's unfortunate.
The flip-side of course is that if the company is submitting their code for security checking, they're paying at least some attention to security. The company that doesn't care may have many many more vulnerabilities.
Our University is looking at switching, and a bunch of students have opted to move early, since Google's offering the services whether we switch entirely or not.
Our contract says they give us free service, and explicitly says they do *NOT* mine our emails for anything, ever.
Hah, well played. I saw these after I posted blindly without previewing, and groaned.
Specifically, they're designed for different interaction methods. A phone is meant to be used in one hand (zero, for handsfree), and held to the head (or in a pocket for handsfree). A gaming controller is meant to be held in two hands for maximum expressivness. A two-handed interface works best when the hands are relatively fare apart, meaning a set of controls on each end of a "stick" device, implying a horizontal interface. A one-handed device, or any device with a screen in general, is meant to be used vertically, so the screen is as far from the hands as possible, for maximum visibility.
Touch-screen interfaces are sub-optimal two, since you end up obscruring the display by using it.
Is there any practical way to conceal the details of the device from the carrier? To prevent the carrier from knowing the ID#, model #, or software details of the phone, beyond the identifying numbers on the SIM card?
As far as I'm concerned, if I own the hardware, I should be able to do what I want with it. All the service provider should care about is the SIM card to which they provide service.
How do we know the patent is awarded? I'm no expert on reading patents, but I don't see any references to a patent status there.
The thing is, if the requirement is "Render a video at this coordinate on the page, with this size", the javascript implementation could simply go "Hey, pass that off as an and let another plugin handle it." Firefox's HTML5 code is being set up to handle an external supplier, for the linux case, gstreamer, in which case Firefox should be able to do html5 video with whatever codecs the system has available.
As someone rather new to flash, I'm not so sure how flash video works.
My assumption has always been that flash has support for h263 and other codecs coded into the plugin itself, so no one is writing flash actionscript to actually handle the codecs. If that's the case, the javascript flash implementation could likewise just pass the video decoding/rendering off to code in the browser designed to do that... unless I'm way off base, and people are actually writing actionscript for the video handling code, which I'd consider terribly distasteful.
We have Javascript in web browsers, and it's rare to see vulnerabilities this rare.
What's the difference? Is Adobe just not sandboxing Javascript code properly? I've never really used Adobe's products for this... but what's to stop them from just using an established javascript implementation like that used in Firefox or Webkit?