Well of course, in rural/remote areas 4x4 big trucks with high/good suspension are waaaaay better than a compact. using a small car in that kind of terrain is just plain stupid (IMHO, you kill it way before it's time), as using an SUV in Paris or any city -downtown- (way to much time/gas). or a car at all (if you live in Paris):).
I live in Montreal, I don't like using my car in the city (to much time/gas/$ wasted + plus frustration), beside the public transportation is quite efficient (especially downtown).
Then again, to each job a tool. Not everything is nail, not every tool is a hammer.
SUVs are good for long distance, comfort + constant highway speed == more MPG, my brother's FX35 has 15-17 Litters/100KM when driving in city, goes to 10-12L/100KM on highway, compared to my protege 7.5L/KM on hw 10L/KM in city .
best was a not that comfy paseo : Montreal-New york on 1 tank 12 Galons that's about 700Km and a broken back:P
In poor weather conditions every thing out there is in danger. One needs to be vigilante (the burden is on the operator not the vehicle).
If you hit for instance a black ice plate nothing in this world (except may be shear luck) can help you.
The only thing most SUVs have over compacts is the AWD. That can help only if one or the other drive train get stuck. Then again that's an advantage some compacts have also (SUBARU, MERCEDES...).
Drove an SUV (not actually mine) and a compact With SUV what I gain in visibility (not that much) a head I lose on the sides (dead angles, and rear) which is IMHO far more important to avoid stupid accidents (I once almost hit a guy , he was in my dead angle. The car was so low and so close I couldn't see it, and I looked).
I hate SUV, I really hate them. Big, noisy unsafe (their weight --inertia- and especially height -high gravity center- make them very unstable)... etc.
But what makes the roads unsafe are simply ass holes and they come in different packages, from bicycles to Big trucks. People who thinks that they somehow own the road and not necessary those who go fast (sometimes you get a dumb ass that stays on a the left lane on a highway although he's going at exactly the same speed as the guy next to him or worse going at the same speed in the dead angle of an 18 wheeler).
in layman terms that's called taking a nap. it is not booting.
and the iphone (or any phone, except may be dumbphones) takes forever to boot if you shut it down.
-55 (with windchill, it was actually around -30, with very string winds) Montreal winter 98/99.
went out for a smoke, removed my glove 10 seconds later droped the smoke and went home (couldn't feel my hand anymore)
If this wasn't done the pirates would be disrupting software sales more than they are. Right now pirates are honestly a major nuisance to software developers. If everything was opt-out by default it would be impossible.
Pirates are enjoying the same software without the all (or most of) the nuisance legitimate users have... (think DRM).
However you never really address my original point - that being that these automatically enabled features are helpful and hardly hurt my freedom to do what I want. In fact those are helpful features.
A good feature stops to be a good feature whenever you lose/relinquish control over it to some 3rd party (unless you trust them 100%, in which case your problem).
Here is a definition of 'license' from Steven H. Gifis' "Law Dictionary, 2d Edition:
"LICENSE: A right granted which gives one permission to do something which he could not legally do absent such permission; 'leave to do a thing which the LICENSOR [the party granting the license] could prevent.'"
A contract, on the other hand, is defined like this: [1]
"a promise, or set of promises, for breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty. I Williston, Contracts Section 1. The essentials of a valid contract are 'parties competent to contract, a proper subject-matter, consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.' 286 N.W. 844, 846: 'a transaction involving two or more individuals whereby each becomes obligated to the other, with reciprocal rights to demand performance of what is promised by each respectively.' 282 P. 2d 1084, 1088. 'The total legal obligation which results from the parties' agreement as affected by law.' U.C.C. Section 1-201."
You wouldn't sign a loan contract without reading it, an EULA is exactly the same thing. It is a binding legal contract.
Eula is a license not a contract. Some (or most) use it as if it were a contract adding means to control/limit further (beyond what is permitted by copyright) on the end users.
It is like a contract you may say. but it is not like a contract.
but I'll just say that, when they rise it back up, it leaves open a profit, ROI window for other entrepreneurs to come in.
Sure let them in I'll do the exact same thing. (remember? no regulation, and very very deep pockets) and continue to do so until I milk the cow dry, or find something more interesting to.
The monopoly would also suffer from popularity for using that strategy so it's not good PR either. Why would you 'gouge' and risk losing everything, as the leader of a market, when you can just carry along and earn a living doing what you do?
I don;t give damn about what they thing... they have no choice. I'm the only one providing that service. It's not like they can go to the competitor there are none (I drove and will continue to drive them away no matter WHAT)
Eventually I'll find something else to do, but in the mean time a lot pf people were screwed over very hard.
well, he privatized everything, and killed a lot of people to do that. I fail to see the connection either... market is not a living thing, how can it be blamed for anything?
Free market is model. A good one. But ideal. the problem? we're humans. The why and the how, are 2 variables not taken into account. And those 2 can break havoc (Adam Smith said it). Given the chance any man (the species) will screw over any other to get what he wants. In the absence of regulations -not that I sanction the regulations we have a this point in time (I'm in Canada)- it is a jungle.
What we need is neither more regulation nor less. It is the proper amount of rules with the sufficiently intelligent people to apply them NOT blindly. and that is Education.
up until some point in time it worked exactly as you described. and everybody was happy.
The problem is that traffic is growing disproportionally to the pipes that transport it, and ISP are over selling that capacity, hoping that some will not use as much as others, now the email gramma wants to see some youtube/netflix videos too. There is a french saying for that :
"déshabiller Pierre pour habiller Paul". It's a kind of a ponzi scheme, in a way.
Ex: few years back BELL was contrasting the locality of DSL and cable --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArpmbnxIQIQ -- (DSL : your own pipe to the CO, cable shared).
In 2007 they started throttling P2P -for their customers- without saying anything to anyone, 2008 they throttle anyone connected via their last mile -all DSL in one word- the reason hey gave P2P eats too, and it is affecting "the neighbors". right at that time they started advertising higher speeds (7mbps VS 5mbps)to their customers (See the contradiction ??? at 5mbps they say we can't too much traffic and they offer higher speeds)
how is not in the source???
you have to call the functions at some point?
and in order for the program to work as a whole you have to link against those libraries.
If you look in the source and find those calls, disable them (plenty of ways to do that) and rebuild the program, the final build shouldn't have ant ads in it.
that would be a little unethical, by doing so you deprive the dev of income. But if he shares infos he's not supposed to share, he deserves that in a way. But the best thing to do is to stay away from those applications
Transparency is the key, if they ask for information they should tell exactly what they intend to do with it be fore you agree to give it or not.
As I said in an other post, if you go to a bar and they ask for an id, you have to give the ID in order to get in (or not but you wont get in), but that doesn't give them carte blanche to do anything they want with that info (drivers lic number name address aged...etc) if they tell you we want that info to validate you have the required age to enter, and we may be giving that info to our sponsors you can say no and go some where else or say hey what the hell I don't mind be my guest. Knowing helps you make a choice (free information is key to free market)
Agreeing or not to give the information depends on what the intended purpose of asking/using.
I walk in bar they ask me for an ID to let me in (which is normal to check if I'm old enough). that's not carte blanche to share that info with whom they want.
So Yes what the intend to do with that info matters.
And if the dev ignores that he's an ass.
But that's beside the point. The poster who answered your post didn't in any way intended to propose a solution for the social eng problem he was merely pointing out to it (giving a scenario where it is possible to get the information).
And there is no at least. Android has its pros and its cons as do the IPhone this nor the place nor the time to start a flameware on what platforn is better.
In this case both did it wrong. Android by it's pseudo openness opens the door to any crap. you're at the mercy of the dev.
And the IPhone with it's closure, you're at the mercy of what ever apple decides to do about it.
did you actually read his post, or it a knee jerk reaction???
he's replying with a hypothetical (and also plausible) way of obtaining information which the GP was say is impossible without the user's consent.
in his scenario he's saying that it is possible that the application asked for that information in order to function as advertised but no where it says hey while we're here I'll be shipping the information that you just gave to [insert add company]. Which is very plausible. If the application would ask may some people may be wont give that information and, some may be wont bother with the application at all, and or some might and buy the full/pro/or whatever version without the ads version if it ever existed.
Well he seems to be longing for a companion, be it his sister. but that would be too perfect and there would be no tension no stress and could kill the story (IMHO).
indeed Suspected != Has. One has to get proof to shift suspecting to asserting. (if anyone is doubting that, the WMD fiasco with Irak should clear that up).
Iran doesn't have them either, they're suspected of trying to get their hands on one.
I wasn't asking if you'd destroy the factory of knives (KNOWING what I know I wouldn't arrest him either. And I insist on the word KNOWING)... I was asking what would happen to him if he got busted by a cop (other than his sister)?
. At some point he was even hesitating to kill Doakes, in the end it was that chick who killed him.
Killing is evil no matter what the reason. There are reasons to justify it, but that doesn't make it less evil.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Iran is suspected of trying to build one.
Israel allegedly has is already. India has it.
That said, this is extremely dangerous stuff (nukes), Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have convinced every one to get rid of all nukes, and drop any nuclear weapons program. and therefor there should be NO EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. NO one is ALLOWED to PRODUCE nukes.
It just has lots of friends who have nukes, most of whom would be willing to use them if push came to shove and a country decided to go on a killing spree.
lot of friends == USA, that's it. Israel or any other country or anything for that matter is worth protecting with nukes. Country_1 shoots nukes &&.. && country_n == no more inhabitable earth (for n very small)
Slashdot Mirror
Well of course, in rural/remote areas 4x4 big trucks with high/good suspension are waaaaay better than a compact. using a small car in that kind of terrain is just plain stupid (IMHO, you kill it way before it's time), as using an SUV in Paris or any city -downtown- (way to much time/gas). or a car at all (if you live in Paris):). :P
I live in Montreal, I don't like using my car in the city (to much time/gas/$ wasted + plus frustration), beside the public transportation is quite efficient (especially downtown).
Then again, to each job a tool. Not everything is nail, not every tool is a hammer.
SUVs are good for long distance, comfort + constant highway speed == more MPG, my brother's FX35 has 15-17 Litters/100KM when driving in city, goes to 10-12L/100KM on highway, compared to my protege 7.5L/KM on hw 10L/KM in city . best was a not that comfy paseo : Montreal-New york on 1 tank 12 Galons that's about 700Km and a broken back
In poor weather conditions every thing out there is in danger. One needs to be vigilante (the burden is on the operator not the vehicle). If you hit for instance a black ice plate nothing in this world (except may be shear luck) can help you. ...).
The only thing most SUVs have over compacts is the AWD. That can help only if one or the other drive train get stuck. Then again that's an advantage some compacts have also (SUBARU, MERCEDES
Drove an SUV (not actually mine) and a compact With SUV what I gain in visibility (not that much) a head I lose on the sides (dead angles, and rear) which is IMHO far more important to avoid stupid accidents (I once almost hit a guy , he was in my dead angle. The car was so low and so close I couldn't see it, and I looked).
but sometimes : http://xkcd.com/677/
I totally forgot one category apart of ass holes (in big cities that is) CAB DRIVERS.
I hate SUV, I really hate them. Big, noisy unsafe (their weight --inertia- and especially height -high gravity center- make them very unstable) ... etc.
But what makes the roads unsafe are simply ass holes and they come in different packages, from bicycles to Big trucks. People who thinks that they somehow own the road and not necessary those who go fast (sometimes you get a dumb ass that stays on a the left lane on a highway although he's going at exactly the same speed as the guy next to him or worse going at the same speed in the dead angle of an 18 wheeler).
in layman terms that's called taking a nap. it is not booting.
and the iphone (or any phone, except may be dumbphones) takes forever to boot if you shut it down.
-55 (with windchill, it was actually around -30, with very string winds) Montreal winter 98/99.
went out for a smoke, removed my glove 10 seconds later droped the smoke and went home (couldn't feel my hand anymore)
done already https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=automan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
If this wasn't done the pirates would be disrupting software sales more than they are. Right now pirates are honestly a major nuisance to software developers. If everything was opt-out by default it would be impossible.
Pirates are enjoying the same software without the all (or most of) the nuisance legitimate users have ... (think DRM).
However you never really address my original point - that being that these automatically enabled features are helpful and hardly hurt my freedom to do what I want. In fact those are helpful features.
A good feature stops to be a good feature whenever you lose/relinquish control over it to some 3rd party (unless you trust them 100%, in which case your problem).
and it is not bad as long as you have control over it.
aren't lawyer specialists in semantics? :P
Here is a definition of 'license' from Steven H. Gifis' "Law Dictionary, 2d Edition: "LICENSE: A right granted which gives one permission to do something which he could not legally do absent such permission; 'leave to do a thing which the LICENSOR [the party granting the license] could prevent.'"
A contract, on the other hand, is defined like this: [1] "a promise, or set of promises, for breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty. I Williston, Contracts Section 1. The essentials of a valid contract are 'parties competent to contract, a proper subject-matter, consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.' 286 N.W. 844, 846: 'a transaction involving two or more individuals whereby each becomes obligated to the other, with reciprocal rights to demand performance of what is promised by each respectively.' 282 P. 2d 1084, 1088. 'The total legal obligation which results from the parties' agreement as affected by law.' U.C.C. Section 1-201."
found that on http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20031214210634851
You wouldn't sign a loan contract without reading it, an EULA is exactly the same thing. It is a binding legal contract.
Eula is a license not a contract. Some (or most) use it as if it were a contract adding means to control/limit further (beyond what is permitted by copyright) on the end users.
It is like a contract you may say. but it is not like a contract.
but I'll just say that, when they rise it back up, it leaves open a profit, ROI window for other entrepreneurs to come in.
Sure let them in I'll do the exact same thing. (remember? no regulation, and very very deep pockets) and continue to do so until I milk the cow dry, or find something more interesting to.
The monopoly would also suffer from popularity for using that strategy so it's not good PR either. Why would you 'gouge' and risk losing everything, as the leader of a market, when you can just carry along and earn a living doing what you do?
I don;t give damn about what they thing ... they have no choice. I'm the only one providing that service. It's not like they can go to the competitor there are none (I drove and will continue to drive them away no matter WHAT)
Eventually I'll find something else to do, but in the mean time a lot pf people were screwed over very hard.
well, he privatized everything, and killed a lot of people to do that. I fail to see the connection either ... market is not a living thing, how can it be blamed for anything?
Free market is model. A good one. But ideal. the problem? we're humans. The why and the how, are 2 variables not taken into account. And those 2 can break havoc (Adam Smith said it). Given the chance any man (the species) will screw over any other to get what he wants. In the absence of regulations -not that I sanction the regulations we have a this point in time (I'm in Canada)- it is a jungle. What we need is neither more regulation nor less. It is the proper amount of rules with the sufficiently intelligent people to apply them NOT blindly. and that is Education.
The poorest places in Africa where thousands (millions?) still die of hunger, are the same places where private property is disallowed by law/custom.
and the absence of "private property" is the only thing to blame, is it? (nothing to to with colonialism at ALL ..)
up until some point in time it worked exactly as you described. and everybody was happy.
The problem is that traffic is growing disproportionally to the pipes that transport it, and ISP are over selling that capacity, hoping that some will not use as much as others, now the email gramma wants to see some youtube/netflix videos too. There is a french saying for that : "déshabiller Pierre pour habiller Paul". It's a kind of a ponzi scheme, in a way.
Ex: few years back BELL was contrasting the locality of DSL and cable --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArpmbnxIQIQ -- (DSL : your own pipe to the CO, cable shared). In 2007 they started throttling P2P -for their customers- without saying anything to anyone, 2008 they throttle anyone connected via their last mile -all DSL in one word- the reason hey gave P2P eats too, and it is affecting "the neighbors". right at that time they started advertising higher speeds (7mbps VS 5mbps)to their customers (See the contradiction ??? at 5mbps they say we can't too much traffic and they offer higher speeds)
how is not in the source??? you have to call the functions at some point? and in order for the program to work as a whole you have to link against those libraries. If you look in the source and find those calls, disable them (plenty of ways to do that) and rebuild the program, the final build shouldn't have ant ads in it.
that would be a little unethical, by doing so you deprive the dev of income. But if he shares infos he's not supposed to share, he deserves that in a way. But the best thing to do is to stay away from those applications
Transparency is the key, if they ask for information they should tell exactly what they intend to do with it be fore you agree to give it or not. As I said in an other post, if you go to a bar and they ask for an id, you have to give the ID in order to get in (or not but you wont get in), but that doesn't give them carte blanche to do anything they want with that info (drivers lic number name address aged...etc) if they tell you we want that info to validate you have the required age to enter, and we may be giving that info to our sponsors you can say no and go some where else or say hey what the hell I don't mind be my guest. Knowing helps you make a choice (free information is key to free market)
Agreeing or not to give the information depends on what the intended purpose of asking/using. I walk in bar they ask me for an ID to let me in (which is normal to check if I'm old enough). that's not carte blanche to share that info with whom they want. So Yes what the intend to do with that info matters. And if the dev ignores that he's an ass.
But that's beside the point. The poster who answered your post didn't in any way intended to propose a solution for the social eng problem he was merely pointing out to it (giving a scenario where it is possible to get the information).
And there is no at least. Android has its pros and its cons as do the IPhone this nor the place nor the time to start a flameware on what platforn is better.
In this case both did it wrong. Android by it's pseudo openness opens the door to any crap. you're at the mercy of the dev. And the IPhone with it's closure, you're at the mercy of what ever apple decides to do about it.
did you actually read his post, or it a knee jerk reaction???
he's replying with a hypothetical (and also plausible) way of obtaining information which the GP was say is impossible without the user's consent.
in his scenario he's saying that it is possible that the application asked for that information in order to function as advertised but no where it says hey while we're here I'll be shipping the information that you just gave to [insert add company]. Which is very plausible. If the application would ask may some people may be wont give that information and, some may be wont bother with the application at all, and or some might and buy the full/pro/or whatever version without the ads version if it ever existed.
Define all the 3rd parties library functions as dummies and rebuild without linking to those libraries ...
Don't own a tin foil hat may be there's a hidden agenda. For instance: gullibility ?
can safely say always been are and will be
Well he seems to be longing for a companion, be it his sister. but that would be too perfect and there would be no tension no stress and could kill the story (IMHO).
indeed Suspected != Has. One has to get proof to shift suspecting to asserting. (if anyone is doubting that, the WMD fiasco with Irak should clear that up).
Iran doesn't have them either, they're suspected of trying to get their hands on one.
not to forget ...who/what ever is in the cross fire
Killing is evil no matter what the reason. There are reasons to justify it, but that doesn't make it less evil.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Iran is suspected of trying to build one. Israel allegedly has is already. India has it. That said, this is extremely dangerous stuff (nukes), Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have convinced every one to get rid of all nukes, and drop any nuclear weapons program. and therefor there should be NO EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. NO one is ALLOWED to PRODUCE nukes.
It just has lots of friends who have nukes, most of whom would be willing to use them if push came to shove and a country decided to go on a killing spree.
lot of friends == USA, that's it. Israel or any other country or anything for that matter is worth protecting with nukes. Country_1 shoots nukes && .. && country_n == no more inhabitable earth (for n very small)