Now the tricky thing here, to me, is that company have successfully argued that even if someone buys stuff, that certain parts of the machine is not under the control of the person who purchased the thing
It isn't tricky at all. US copyright law simply doesn't work that way.
"Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord"
And I quote: the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
So long as an instance of a copy is obtained legally, aka via government auction of impounded property, then the buyer can resell or dispose of that one instance of the copy. They are only prohibited from making further copies of it.
So you are legally entitled to resell your purchase bird scooter, copyrighted software and all. You are legally entitled to rip the copyrighted software out of the device, as in to replace it with your own software such as described here. You are always entitled to the right to modify your instance of a copy, so long as it isn't distributed, which is perfectly in line with what is happening here.
No authorization from the copyright holder is needed for any of those things outside of redistribution (and public performance, which doesn't apply here to software)
I'm reversing the sentences of your post in my reply (disclosure to others)
With all of the problems around strangers and kids, I can't believe that the industry is so pigheaded on making this a standard feature.
Nearly everyone doesn't and can't use phones that way. No phone company will spend time and money on a feature that only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their customers would like. That said, I'm one of those lucky few who can and does exactly this, so maybe this will help:
I would prefer to just whitelist my contacts at this point. If I don't know you, I don't want to take a phone call from a seemingly random number.
One can do this on Android and iPhone fairly easily.
Lets you only allow calls from contacts and a whitelist you can make. There are lots of other apps to do basically this but I've only used this one.
iPhone is built in but is unintuitively is under settings and then "do not disturb" Turn do not disturb on, and set to always silence. Lower down is an "allow calls from" that overrides DnD, change it from none to contacts. Or check/uncheck contact groups if you use them.
The phone won't ring or display the call, but they will show up in your missed call log still.
you need to control DNS at the point of end user connection
Why would you? The user end point is already configured to query the root servers, which is all that's needed. Any domain I register will be added to its particular top level that the roots already point at, and the circle of life is complete.
No, all you need is an end user stupid enough to think gmail.myowndomain.tld is actually gmail when they click it, and those are in no short supply.
Bittorrent isnâ(TM)t the provider, they're the end-point. It would be different if they were the ISP. (They havenâ(TM)t become an ISP, have they?) In the highway scenario, where Comcast and AT&T and all are providers of the highway, Bittorrent is the drive-in movie theater... actually thatâ(TM)s not even right.
No, both are problems, but yes they are problems at a very different scale.
Comparing NN to pipes and water leaking: An ISP throttling you with paid fast lanes is akin to a water main pipe bursting in your basement. A service online perhaps akin to a drippy sink faucet.
So yes by all means put 100% of your resources and time into fixing the water main, as that is by far a major problem with major coincidences. No one will fault you for ignoring the leaky faucet during all of that.
But it is still wrong to claim the leaking faucet isn't at all a problem, because it is! It's just a minor one comparatively.
You can always shutoff the valve to that sink and go to a different sink in your house to use for the time being. This isn't *fixing* the problem with the sink, it is *avoiding* the problem with the sink, clearly demonstrating it is still a problem even if trivial to work around while you have bigger things to work on.
I also would say they are not in the *right* for doing this, just like no one asks for a leaky faucet. It is still not wanted, and still a problem needing fixed. It's just a problem that *seems* like not worth dealing with right now, frankly because that is true. That just puts it at the end of the "fix me" list, but it doesn't remove it.
There's nothing wrong with uPnP, it does a job that needs doing at least until we have ubiquitous IPv6.
I still feel it needs to be a touch more effort than the current state of effortless to punch a hole through NAT. I know expecting any effort from the common user is a step too far these days, but see below, you yourself just mistakenly claimed chromecast was effortless to access (which isn't true) and said that was a bad thing.
There's plenty wrong with devices that get (however it's done) external connectivity and then implement zero security, effectively allowing their owners networks to be abused.
Chromecast devices link into a google account before you can have them stream video from anywhere. That means you need to sign in to my google account, by password and 2fa, before you can do anything with it.
In other words, even if I had my chromecast on the Internet, it's security would keep you from streaming random videos to my TV. That makes it more than zero security. Far more than uPNP requires to allow access to literally anything on the inside network in fact.
Many people choose to defeat that security however by saving their passwords in their browser. But I'd be far more upset if google tried to remove that choice from me instead. They don't choose to get infected, but sometimes that happens too. It isn't exactly an unheard of thing even for the unwashed masses.
Getting infected is the root of the problem here, not taking advantage of the users choice to defeat having password protection from what should be a secure computer.
Why does Chroecast open up a port, any port, to the whole wide internet?
It doesn't. The malware these people ran is what sent the uPNP packet to open holes in their router.
The same method has been used by malware in the past to open tons of holes in NAT devices that claim to be firewalls, even SMB and remote desktop, iterating internal IPs in turn to try and find a vulnerable windows host.
uPNP is simply retarded and shouldn't exist. Any user-level software capable of sending a UDP packet can render such a NAT device completely useless as a level of protection that an actual firewall wouldn't allow.
I thought this was already known... Except the glaciers didn't "saw" off the crust (because glaciers don't "move") but pulverized it under their weight as the ice and snow built up and with annual run-off draining the sediment away.
It was previously suspected, not known, that the basement rock was crystallized under the weight of the 2 kilometer thick ice sheets, but there was little evidence this part of the hypothesis was correct, it was just the best fitting piece of the puzzle so far.
The authors of this new puzzle piece both claim it's a better fitting piece and that they have evidence.
If that evidence turns out to be true that would give this explanation a pretty huge leg up over the old guess.
Pluto is a planet, has been for a very long time and will remain so
Not long enough.
Pluto was never predicted to exist. Ever. Pluto was discovered by observation, and was discovered in 1930.
When it was observed in 1930 it was the 8th furthest planet from the Sun, where Neptune was the 9th furthest away. Pluto did not reach the far side of its orbit until 1979 when Neptune became the 8th planet by distance and Pluto became the 9th.
"Planet Nine" (proper noun) was predicted based on orbital effects before that time, in 1906. "Planet Nine" (again, a proper noun) has never been observed in it's predicted orbit to this day.
If you want to combine the two separate event lines for some reason, Pluto would be the 14th planet in order on the list of prediction+observation,
I know these numbers have a whole whopping 4 digits in them, but they really aren't that hard to put in an ascending order...
Just because someone stated Pluto was the 8th planet out, at a point in time when it WAS the 8th planet out, in no way means they subscribe to your political bullshit that wouldn't happen for another 30-ish years to come. We're all a bit tired of hearing you trot out "pluto is a planet!1one2!" when no one is arguing otherwise.
Anyone has an idea how much does the cash handling and transfers cost?
I can answer that for the case of very small companies, in our case a 6 person ISP at the time, as I was the person handling the monthly billing cycle.
Basically the costs were so insignificant they weren't even taken into account.
We had one of those cash register drawer lock boxes, about $20-30 one time expense, that was kept in a locked desk drawer in a locked office. Once every two weeks, assuming we had anything in it, I would leave work on Friday about 30 minutes early but still "on the clock", drive to the bank on my way home, and despot the cash in the ATM, bringing the receipt back with me Monday.
For the most part the ATM was on my way, so didn't cost any more in gas or wear and tear on my car than compared to say stopping for fast food on the way home. Like I said we literally didn't even factor that in, because from my point of view I got to leave 30 minutes early for a 10 minute task and beat out rush hour traffic. So I felt no reason to complain.
Even the company I work for now of about 200 employees uses this same method, although I'm not involved in billing. The plant controller handles the petty cash, which as far as I know is the only reason for having cash there. We do however have expense forms to report millage on for any personal vehicle usage for work purposes.
10-15 minutes of time plus what, 0.05 miles of gas, are variables so inexpensive that I never bothered mathing that out since, as you can see, they are so very insignificant.
The only one potential factor I have no experience with is for frequent and larger cash amount runs. One may make the argument that the safety of the person doing the ATM run should come into play.
Once you hit that point however, at least in the late 90's, Dunbar armored car services were around $60/visit to do that for you.
Uhm....dude. WTF? Are you really that incompetent that you can't adapt to figure out how to move the window via the title bar? If you click on the area between the + and the - at the top right of the title, that space will never have anything in it. There's always space there.
There is an invisible line between those two, with no space by minimize, and again only a few pixels above the plus. The only space even around the plus is due to it showing with a circle outline that has a few more pixels in the corners of the bounding box it is in.
Also you should be more careful throwing around insults like incompetent when you just literally stated the way to move windows is with a tiny space near one corner.
Go open any other window - a file manager, a text editor - anything. Click *right in the center* of the title bar and move it around. See how it actually works? Even Chrome used to work that way just the same. Hell it still does if you manage to miss the invisible line where the tabs start.
So no, don't even try to claim that isn't the standard way to move a window.
I use Chrome both in work and at home. I would end up having a lot of tabs open in work, especially. I've never seen any if the issues being described here. Nor heard anyone in work complain. So I really don't get this...
So is it if anyone has an opinion not matching your own, it's invalid? Otherwise I don't get your post either.
Is this maybe just one person trying to find a reason to rant because they just don't like change, no matter how small, and are blowing stuff out of proportion?
I know five people personally, one of which is me. So the answer to that is no.
With aging eyesight and 40 years worth of muscle memory knowing the title bar is for moving windows, the latest UI change completely breaks flow and makes a mess of the tabs nearly defeating the entire point of them.
There is 4 pixels worth of blue at the very top of the title bar that functions to move the browser window. Anywhere below that in the exact same colored blue is a tab. So the normal process of clicking in the title bar and dragging the window where you need it turns into chrome thinking I am clicking on a tab and dragging just it where I wanted the entire browser to be. Sometimes this results in that tab detaching and becoming its own window, other times it just results in reordering the tabs.
If that is going to be the new behavior, it would be far faster and efficient to go back to individual windows and pretend the one tab in each window doesn't exist. At least that way the same end result will already be there and expected, and at least it won't change the order of the windows in the task bar, or require retraining how the title bar works for a single app and the decades old behavior in all others.
Fortunately, there is a physical limit to what the "bigger muscled" guys can steal from me because I don't carry all the money I own on me all the time. Typically I might have only about 0.01% of it, so that's all they could take - the rest is buried in a secret place in my garden (LoL). OTOH your entire wealth in digital form can be stolen all in one go.
What's ironic is bitcoin was designed to be used the same way, but for some reason few seem to do so.
Bitcoin wallets are free, and transferring small amounts into a new one to have with you or for specific purchases is trivial. Similar to only carrying a small amount of cash with you.
What is far worse however is many people don't even keep *one* wallet let alone multiples. They entrust that task to online sites like exchanges to manage their wallet for them.
It would be akin to not carrying any cash, but instead having Bob hold your cash and follow you around all day in case you need him to take money or hand some out on your behalf. The thing is, you don't really know Bob. For some people they wake up one day and Bob has disappeared. Or one day Bob says he got beaten up and your money was stolen.
It's quite silly sounding to even have a Bob that does this, but that seems to be the norm.
Sometimes it's difficult to know how inherited traits were selected for over the millennia of human development. Generally, a persistent trait can be shown to benefit those who exhibit it. I have to question the conjecture that we have evolved sensors that serve only to make us depressed.
Pretty sure it's the other way around.
The sensors are for light and likely trigger pleasure sensations to encourage you to get out and be active and productive while there is more daylight to do it in. Survival wise it used to be best to be active outdoors when it was light out, since in the dark you have a higher chance of getting eaten or seriously hurt.
Once those pleasure sensations stop, the lack of them feels like a greater difference than from a neutral level. Probably similar in a general sense to how druggies that spend long times pumped up end up having a much harder crash, or how people on pain killers for extended periods experience severe pains when they suddenly stop taking them.
If it was actual depression that evolved, this pathway would fire in the brain when sensing darkness, but the MRI results showed it fired in response to light.
Uh, hang on a cotton-pickin' second. Isn't WhatsApp supposed to have "end to end encryption?"
They do but they have groups as well.
Similar how this very post is encrypted end (my browser) to end (the slashdot server) yet you can read it. In fact the headline is equivalent of saying "Slashdot has an encrypted web troll problem" - the encrypted part literally has nothing to do with it.
That said, I don't know that it actually makes sense to require the government to maintain the archives. Though I suppose that filing fees could be set high enough to cover archival cost.
If we want to ensure we (the public) gets the payment for that copyright protection, someone somewhere needs to hold onto that payment during the protection period.
Although it doesn't really need to be the government doing it, it does make some sense in that whatever entity doing it needs to itself survive into the future.
Individuals have a finite lifetime, and companies require money to spend on their very existence. Governments however tend to all reserve the right to take money from the people in the form of taxes to continue their survival, and can do so by force. It's still the best way to collectively pay for things individuals may or may not choose to pay for but are needed. So Govt is unique in that aspect, and are some of the longest lived organizations available.
Being that the works need held onto as a payment, one also would like that to be somewhat trust-worthy. Yes I know that may seem counter intuitive saying to trust the government and all, but think of it like any other form of escrow. Between choosing a bank or random-dude-off-the-street to hold onto cash, a bank is still the better choice even if in general banks still violate trust.
But that said, as this form of payment is uniquely about copying, and thus the payment can be a copy and still be completely valid, a good argument can be made that the government shouldn't be the *only* entity to maintain archives.
So I'd say the situation isn't ideal, but it does make some amount of sense.
Why the funk should I not profit from the book my grand pa wrote?
Because the contents of that book were promised to us as payment in return for your grandpa getting to profit from it. We don't like it when people steal from us.
For the use that Archive.org has, (archival), they are granted an explicit blanket exception--- so, they can basically ignore a terms of use document as long as their reason for doing so lies within their established operations.
No, that DMCA exception for archive.org applies specifically to archive.org, and is written in the law as for "The Internet Archive, archive.org" explicitly by name.
I can't see any possible way the unrelated ArchiveTeam.org group can claim that has anything to do with them. If they could, why couldn't literally anyone, you and I, claim the archive.org exception applies to us personally too? I doubt that would fly in a court:P
It's interesting you say that as from everything I've read, vPC is part of Nvidia GRID which is specifically different hardware than consumer GTX cards. Do you have anything point to some examples of consumer GTX cards actually have vPC support?
Actually no, and now quite the opposite. I stand corrected.
I misread the Nvidia page listing of cards with vGPU support. What it actually says is: "NVIDIA Virtual GPU software runs on NVIDIA Tesla GPU based on the NVIDIA Volta, NVIDIA Pascal and NVIDIA Maxwell GPU architectures."
I read that as a list of 4 separate architectures, instead of Tesla GPUs specifically on one of those 3. That combined with knowing the GTX 1080 uses the Pascal arch, presumed it was included.
On the virtual GPU is it based on your card? or is it some low end basic card?
The Windows Kernel Internals descriptions say that 'windows sandbox' is put on top of the previous 'windows containers' software, which basically uses Hyper-V. With virtualization options enabled in the CPU, it uses "RemoteFX vGPU"
From the description this is the same virtual GPU sharing used in the remote application part of remote desktop.
I'm not sure how similar it works behind the scenes, but vGPU with Hyper-V actually seemed to be designed in a sane way. So you now how Intel CPUs have VT-D instructions in them? Nvidia cards have something similar called vPC (gtx series) or vDWS (quadro series)
Hyper-V uses that to virtualize all the GPU processing cores, and it can partition video ram.
So it all depends on your hardware really. Most people using or playing with Hyper-V tend to spec out the hardware it runs on at the server level specifically for running VMs. I guess if you put this sandbox feature on a high end gaming rig level PC hardware it should be near native speed. If you put it on a 6 year old laptop with a non-vt core i3 and on-board intel graphics though, everything GPU related will be done in software and likely be super crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Now the tricky thing here, to me, is that company have successfully argued that even if someone buys stuff, that certain parts of the machine is not under the control of the person who purchased the thing
It isn't tricky at all. US copyright law simply doesn't work that way.
Title 17, chapter 1, section 109:
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
"Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord"
And I quote:
the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
So long as an instance of a copy is obtained legally, aka via government auction of impounded property, then the buyer can resell or dispose of that one instance of the copy.
They are only prohibited from making further copies of it.
So you are legally entitled to resell your purchase bird scooter, copyrighted software and all.
You are legally entitled to rip the copyrighted software out of the device, as in to replace it with your own software such as described here.
You are always entitled to the right to modify your instance of a copy, so long as it isn't distributed, which is perfectly in line with what is happening here.
No authorization from the copyright holder is needed for any of those things outside of redistribution (and public performance, which doesn't apply here to software)
I'm reversing the sentences of your post in my reply (disclosure to others)
With all of the problems around strangers and kids, I can't believe that the industry is so pigheaded on making this a standard feature.
Nearly everyone doesn't and can't use phones that way. No phone company will spend time and money on a feature that only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their customers would like.
That said, I'm one of those lucky few who can and does exactly this, so maybe this will help:
I would prefer to just whitelist my contacts at this point. If I don't know you, I don't want to take a phone call from a seemingly random number.
One can do this on Android and iPhone fairly easily.
Android, free app called "Call Blocker"
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vladlee.callblocker&hl=en_US
Lets you only allow calls from contacts and a whitelist you can make.
There are lots of other apps to do basically this but I've only used this one.
iPhone is built in but is unintuitively is under settings and then "do not disturb"
Turn do not disturb on, and set to always silence.
Lower down is an "allow calls from" that overrides DnD, change it from none to contacts. Or check/uncheck contact groups if you use them.
The phone won't ring or display the call, but they will show up in your missed call log still.
Jump Desktop, an RDP and VNC client, works with mice in the same way.
Except it's done so for 8-ish years now instead of 'coming soon'
you need to control DNS at the point of end user connection
Why would you?
The user end point is already configured to query the root servers, which is all that's needed.
Any domain I register will be added to its particular top level that the roots already point at, and the circle of life is complete.
No, all you need is an end user stupid enough to think gmail.myowndomain.tld is actually gmail when they click it, and those are in no short supply.
Bittorrent isnâ(TM)t the provider, they're the end-point. It would be different if they were the ISP. (They havenâ(TM)t become an ISP, have they?) In the highway scenario, where Comcast and AT&T and all are providers of the highway, Bittorrent is the drive-in movie theater... actually thatâ(TM)s not even right.
No, both are problems, but yes they are problems at a very different scale.
Comparing NN to pipes and water leaking:
An ISP throttling you with paid fast lanes is akin to a water main pipe bursting in your basement.
A service online perhaps akin to a drippy sink faucet.
So yes by all means put 100% of your resources and time into fixing the water main, as that is by far a major problem with major coincidences.
No one will fault you for ignoring the leaky faucet during all of that.
But it is still wrong to claim the leaking faucet isn't at all a problem, because it is! It's just a minor one comparatively.
You can always shutoff the valve to that sink and go to a different sink in your house to use for the time being. This isn't *fixing* the problem with the sink, it is *avoiding* the problem with the sink, clearly demonstrating it is still a problem even if trivial to work around while you have bigger things to work on.
I also would say they are not in the *right* for doing this, just like no one asks for a leaky faucet.
It is still not wanted, and still a problem needing fixed.
It's just a problem that *seems* like not worth dealing with right now, frankly because that is true.
That just puts it at the end of the "fix me" list, but it doesn't remove it.
I've been gathering peoples' reactions to this study
Oh, well if it's for science... *hands over sample vial containing my reaction*
There's nothing wrong with uPnP, it does a job that needs doing at least until we have ubiquitous IPv6.
I still feel it needs to be a touch more effort than the current state of effortless to punch a hole through NAT.
I know expecting any effort from the common user is a step too far these days, but see below, you yourself just mistakenly claimed chromecast was effortless to access (which isn't true) and said that was a bad thing.
There's plenty wrong with devices that get (however it's done) external connectivity and then implement zero security, effectively allowing their owners networks to be abused.
Chromecast devices link into a google account before you can have them stream video from anywhere.
That means you need to sign in to my google account, by password and 2fa, before you can do anything with it.
In other words, even if I had my chromecast on the Internet, it's security would keep you from streaming random videos to my TV.
That makes it more than zero security. Far more than uPNP requires to allow access to literally anything on the inside network in fact.
Many people choose to defeat that security however by saving their passwords in their browser.
But I'd be far more upset if google tried to remove that choice from me instead.
They don't choose to get infected, but sometimes that happens too. It isn't exactly an unheard of thing even for the unwashed masses.
Getting infected is the root of the problem here, not taking advantage of the users choice to defeat having password protection from what should be a secure computer.
by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 )
under hacking / other laws PewDiePie is guilty of an crime?
Subscribe to Joe_Dragon!
So under hacking laws, is Joe_Dragon guilty of a crime? If so, lets hope the above meme doesn't catch on for your sake.
At this point it's already a meme for anyone and everyone to add "subscribe to pewdiepie" as a joke.
The time to accuse him has long since past.
PS, subscribe to magarity!
Why does Chroecast open up a port, any port, to the whole wide internet?
It doesn't. The malware these people ran is what sent the uPNP packet to open holes in their router.
The same method has been used by malware in the past to open tons of holes in NAT devices that claim to be firewalls, even SMB and remote desktop, iterating internal IPs in turn to try and find a vulnerable windows host.
uPNP is simply retarded and shouldn't exist. Any user-level software capable of sending a UDP packet can render such a NAT device completely useless as a level of protection that an actual firewall wouldn't allow.
I thought this was already known ... Except the glaciers didn't "saw" off the crust (because glaciers don't "move") but pulverized it under their weight as the ice and snow built up and with annual run-off draining the sediment away.
It was previously suspected, not known, that the basement rock was crystallized under the weight of the 2 kilometer thick ice sheets, but there was little evidence this part of the hypothesis was correct, it was just the best fitting piece of the puzzle so far.
The authors of this new puzzle piece both claim it's a better fitting piece and that they have evidence.
If that evidence turns out to be true that would give this explanation a pretty huge leg up over the old guess.
Pluto is a planet, has been for a very long time and will remain so
Not long enough.
Pluto was never predicted to exist. Ever. Pluto was discovered by observation, and was discovered in 1930.
When it was observed in 1930 it was the 8th furthest planet from the Sun, where Neptune was the 9th furthest away.
Pluto did not reach the far side of its orbit until 1979 when Neptune became the 8th planet by distance and Pluto became the 9th.
"Planet Nine" (proper noun) was predicted based on orbital effects before that time, in 1906.
"Planet Nine" (again, a proper noun) has never been observed in it's predicted orbit to this day.
If you want to combine the two separate event lines for some reason, Pluto would be the 14th planet in order on the list of prediction+observation,
I know these numbers have a whole whopping 4 digits in them, but they really aren't that hard to put in an ascending order...
Just because someone stated Pluto was the 8th planet out, at a point in time when it WAS the 8th planet out, in no way means they subscribe to your political bullshit that wouldn't happen for another 30-ish years to come. We're all a bit tired of hearing you trot out "pluto is a planet!1one2!" when no one is arguing otherwise.
Anyone has an idea how much does the cash handling and transfers cost?
I can answer that for the case of very small companies, in our case a 6 person ISP at the time, as I was the person handling the monthly billing cycle.
Basically the costs were so insignificant they weren't even taken into account.
We had one of those cash register drawer lock boxes, about $20-30 one time expense, that was kept in a locked desk drawer in a locked office.
Once every two weeks, assuming we had anything in it, I would leave work on Friday about 30 minutes early but still "on the clock", drive to the bank on my way home, and despot the cash in the ATM, bringing the receipt back with me Monday.
For the most part the ATM was on my way, so didn't cost any more in gas or wear and tear on my car than compared to say stopping for fast food on the way home.
Like I said we literally didn't even factor that in, because from my point of view I got to leave 30 minutes early for a 10 minute task and beat out rush hour traffic. So I felt no reason to complain.
Even the company I work for now of about 200 employees uses this same method, although I'm not involved in billing. The plant controller handles the petty cash, which as far as I know is the only reason for having cash there.
We do however have expense forms to report millage on for any personal vehicle usage for work purposes.
10-15 minutes of time plus what, 0.05 miles of gas, are variables so inexpensive that I never bothered mathing that out since, as you can see, they are so very insignificant.
The only one potential factor I have no experience with is for frequent and larger cash amount runs. One may make the argument that the safety of the person doing the ATM run should come into play.
Once you hit that point however, at least in the late 90's, Dunbar armored car services were around $60/visit to do that for you.
Uhm....dude. WTF? Are you really that incompetent that you can't adapt to figure out how to move the window via the title bar?
If you click on the area between the + and the - at the top right of the title, that space will never have anything in it. There's always space there.
There is an invisible line between those two, with no space by minimize, and again only a few pixels above the plus. The only space even around the plus is due to it showing with a circle outline that has a few more pixels in the corners of the bounding box it is in.
Also you should be more careful throwing around insults like incompetent when you just literally stated the way to move windows is with a tiny space near one corner.
Go open any other window - a file manager, a text editor - anything.
Click *right in the center* of the title bar and move it around. See how it actually works?
Even Chrome used to work that way just the same. Hell it still does if you manage to miss the invisible line where the tabs start.
So no, don't even try to claim that isn't the standard way to move a window.
I use Chrome both in work and at home. I would end up having a lot of tabs open in work, especially. I've never seen any if the issues being described here. Nor heard anyone in work complain. So I really don't get this...
So is it if anyone has an opinion not matching your own, it's invalid?
Otherwise I don't get your post either.
Is this maybe just one person trying to find a reason to rant because they just don't like change, no matter how small, and are blowing stuff out of proportion?
I know five people personally, one of which is me. So the answer to that is no.
With aging eyesight and 40 years worth of muscle memory knowing the title bar is for moving windows, the latest UI change completely breaks flow and makes a mess of the tabs nearly defeating the entire point of them.
There is 4 pixels worth of blue at the very top of the title bar that functions to move the browser window. Anywhere below that in the exact same colored blue is a tab.
So the normal process of clicking in the title bar and dragging the window where you need it turns into chrome thinking I am clicking on a tab and dragging just it where I wanted the entire browser to be.
Sometimes this results in that tab detaching and becoming its own window, other times it just results in reordering the tabs.
If that is going to be the new behavior, it would be far faster and efficient to go back to individual windows and pretend the one tab in each window doesn't exist.
At least that way the same end result will already be there and expected, and at least it won't change the order of the windows in the task bar, or require retraining how the title bar works for a single app and the decades old behavior in all others.
And only of CebturyLink, noone else? Shouldn't they be customers of all providers, or at least as many as possible?
In some areas being a customer of centurylink *IS* being a customer of all phone providers, which is as many as is possible.
Fortunately, there is a physical limit to what the "bigger muscled" guys can steal from me because I don't carry all the money I own on me all the time. Typically I might have only about 0.01% of it, so that's all they could take - the rest is buried in a secret place in my garden (LoL). OTOH your entire wealth in digital form can be stolen all in one go.
What's ironic is bitcoin was designed to be used the same way, but for some reason few seem to do so.
Bitcoin wallets are free, and transferring small amounts into a new one to have with you or for specific purchases is trivial. Similar to only carrying a small amount of cash with you.
What is far worse however is many people don't even keep *one* wallet let alone multiples.
They entrust that task to online sites like exchanges to manage their wallet for them.
It would be akin to not carrying any cash, but instead having Bob hold your cash and follow you around all day in case you need him to take money or hand some out on your behalf.
The thing is, you don't really know Bob.
For some people they wake up one day and Bob has disappeared.
Or one day Bob says he got beaten up and your money was stolen.
It's quite silly sounding to even have a Bob that does this, but that seems to be the norm.
Sometimes it's difficult to know how inherited traits were selected for over the millennia of human development. Generally, a persistent trait can be shown to benefit those who exhibit it. I have to question the conjecture that we have evolved sensors that serve only to make us depressed.
Pretty sure it's the other way around.
The sensors are for light and likely trigger pleasure sensations to encourage you to get out and be active and productive while there is more daylight to do it in.
Survival wise it used to be best to be active outdoors when it was light out, since in the dark you have a higher chance of getting eaten or seriously hurt.
Once those pleasure sensations stop, the lack of them feels like a greater difference than from a neutral level.
Probably similar in a general sense to how druggies that spend long times pumped up end up having a much harder crash, or how people on pain killers for extended periods experience severe pains when they suddenly stop taking them.
If it was actual depression that evolved, this pathway would fire in the brain when sensing darkness, but the MRI results showed it fired in response to light.
Uh, hang on a cotton-pickin' second. Isn't WhatsApp supposed to have "end to end encryption?"
They do but they have groups as well.
Similar how this very post is encrypted end (my browser) to end (the slashdot server) yet you can read it.
In fact the headline is equivalent of saying "Slashdot has an encrypted web troll problem" - the encrypted part literally has nothing to do with it.
That said, I don't know that it actually makes sense to require the government to maintain the archives. Though I suppose that filing fees could be set high enough to cover archival cost.
If we want to ensure we (the public) gets the payment for that copyright protection, someone somewhere needs to hold onto that payment during the protection period.
Although it doesn't really need to be the government doing it, it does make some sense in that whatever entity doing it needs to itself survive into the future.
Individuals have a finite lifetime, and companies require money to spend on their very existence.
Governments however tend to all reserve the right to take money from the people in the form of taxes to continue their survival, and can do so by force. It's still the best way to collectively pay for things individuals may or may not choose to pay for but are needed. So Govt is unique in that aspect, and are some of the longest lived organizations available.
Being that the works need held onto as a payment, one also would like that to be somewhat trust-worthy. Yes I know that may seem counter intuitive saying to trust the government and all, but think of it like any other form of escrow.
Between choosing a bank or random-dude-off-the-street to hold onto cash, a bank is still the better choice even if in general banks still violate trust.
But that said, as this form of payment is uniquely about copying, and thus the payment can be a copy and still be completely valid, a good argument can be made that the government shouldn't be the *only* entity to maintain archives.
So I'd say the situation isn't ideal, but it does make some amount of sense.
Why the funk should I not profit from the book my grand pa wrote?
Because the contents of that book were promised to us as payment in return for your grandpa getting to profit from it. We don't like it when people steal from us.
For the use that Archive.org has, (archival), they are granted an explicit blanket exception--- so, they can basically ignore a terms of use document as long as their reason for doing so lies within their established operations.
No, that DMCA exception for archive.org applies specifically to archive.org, and is written in the law as for "The Internet Archive, archive.org" explicitly by name.
I can't see any possible way the unrelated ArchiveTeam.org group can claim that has anything to do with them. :P
If they could, why couldn't literally anyone, you and I, claim the archive.org exception applies to us personally too? I doubt that would fly in a court
It's interesting you say that as from everything I've read, vPC is part of Nvidia GRID which is specifically different hardware than consumer GTX cards. Do you have anything point to some examples of consumer GTX cards actually have vPC support?
Actually no, and now quite the opposite. I stand corrected.
I misread the Nvidia page listing of cards with vGPU support. What it actually says is:
"NVIDIA Virtual GPU software runs on NVIDIA Tesla GPU based on the NVIDIA Volta, NVIDIA Pascal and NVIDIA Maxwell GPU architectures."
I read that as a list of 4 separate architectures, instead of Tesla GPUs specifically on one of those 3.
That combined with knowing the GTX 1080 uses the Pascal arch, presumed it was included.
Sorry about that.
On the virtual GPU is it based on your card? or is it some low end basic card?
The Windows Kernel Internals descriptions say that 'windows sandbox' is put on top of the previous 'windows containers' software, which basically uses Hyper-V.
With virtualization options enabled in the CPU, it uses "RemoteFX vGPU"
I didn't know what RemoteFX was but there was a reference link to here:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/remote/remote-desktop-services/rds-remotefx-vgpu
From the description this is the same virtual GPU sharing used in the remote application part of remote desktop.
I'm not sure how similar it works behind the scenes, but vGPU with Hyper-V actually seemed to be designed in a sane way.
So you now how Intel CPUs have VT-D instructions in them? Nvidia cards have something similar called vPC (gtx series) or vDWS (quadro series)
Hyper-V uses that to virtualize all the GPU processing cores, and it can partition video ram.
So it all depends on your hardware really. Most people using or playing with Hyper-V tend to spec out the hardware it runs on at the server level specifically for running VMs.
I guess if you put this sandbox feature on a high end gaming rig level PC hardware it should be near native speed.
If you put it on a 6 year old laptop with a non-vt core i3 and on-board intel graphics though, everything GPU related will be done in software and likely be super crap.
The problem with this is that after filling up 79GB from my favourite sites I now have over 200000 photos to sort through.
Pace yourself. Don't want to get friction burns........
Some people do! We have a fetish tumblr feed if you're inter..... oh yea :(