Eat the nano-pill, and the nanobots cruise to your brain, and start replacing it in-place with a billion-times-faster device. As you look up at the ceiling fan, it will start slowing until it comes to almost a stop; you're thinking that much faster. The hitch is that communicating with those who have not taken the pill become excruciatingly slow, like one word every year, from your perception. "The digital divide" indeed!
If the devices used to replace your neurons take full advantage of the nanotechnology they should have (and would need to be able to do such a thing in the first place), you should also be able to adjust your own clock speed so to speak, under full conscious control.
When talking to 'meat bags', you could slow your brain down to the standard human speed (or slightly higher) to communicate and be able to take part in real-world activities.
In fact while the majority of humans are still humans, you would want to run in that state as the default mode, only speeding things up when you needed to think at higher rates. Only after most people are switched over, or for the times you are around people that are all upgraded, would everyone in the group think faster by default to stay at the same speeds.
It would be more like the fight scene in the recent Sherlock Holmes movie. You raise your clock speed and think out your plan for 15 minutes of thought time, which only takes a second or so of real time, then when done thinking you slow back down some what to execute the plan physically.
And I for one can not wait for the singularity of nanotechnology!
Using someone else's credit card is criminal. Doesn't matter if they use a megaphone and tell the whole world what it is
While yes using someone else's credit card fraudulently is criminal, I wouldn't say the megaphone bit doesn't matter.
Screaming out their customers credit cards of course does NOT excuse the wardrivers crime in any way shape or form. But the separate act of sending all of their customers credit card information to the world should also be a crime as well.
At the very least I wish the police would post a list of these companies, so the general public knows they can not be trusted with our business.
At most, the companies should be brought up on charges of mishandling customer credit accounts and fraud. They will just need to schedule that court case for a different day than the wardrivers court date, so everyone can attend.
That is unfortunately a very common reaction. I don't understand how people could not care either.
Another unfortunately common reaction is, after trying to be nice and warn them about the problem, once someone else actually does exploit the problem, they likely will come back to blame you:/
I do hope for your sake that doesn't happen, but I've had it happen to me before, and was shocked at the multiple layers of stupid their line of thinking was.
These days I don't even bother unless I already know the person. Being accused of a serious crime for only trying to help just isn't worth the chance.
I still view it as stealing from the moral perspective, as I am depriving someone, somewhere (who probably sleeps on a big pile of gold and is a complete asshole) of their royalty payment.
There are millions of books written and put in stores every year.
If you purchase only 5 books that year, you are by your logic morally stealing 999,999,995 books, EVERY YEAR, since you are depriving that many people from royalty payments.
It's mainly because the government would have no use for this.
If you have ANY cell phone, the cellular company itself logs where you are using this method. All of them. For all phones. All of the time.
The government goes to the cell companies to get that data. They have no need to get it from your home computer or the phone itself, especially so when they are guaranteed the end user couldn't possibly muck with the data stored at the phone company server, as well as being guaranteed you will not notice them collecting the data. You would likely notice your cell phone or home computer being mucked with, and you knowing they are looking at that data is not in their best interest.
in fact I didn't know Flash was available on jailbroken phones, been awhile since I had a iPhone 3G.
I'm not sure if you still have or use your iPhone, but you can google for frash-0.0.2.deb It takes ssh'ing in and dpkg -i to install.
probably a higher percentage of people would know how to set preference then jailbreak an iPhone and install Flash.
Totally agreed. I would say most Android users, way over half. Of the non-zero percent to ten percent of jailbroken iPhones, even I would have to guess it would be the far lower end of that spectrum of users that installed flash. I'd pick 1% if I had to think about it, and be surprised if it was 1-2 points above that even!
I have no idea why Apple is so actively against such things. I do understand why they wouldn't want to support us jailbreakers, or even admit we exist. I'd also imagine most of us jailbreakers would be perfectly happy with that.
It's the actively trying to lock the phone down to make it harder to do, for no real good reason.
I used to love Apple back in the pre-mac days. They were shockingly open compared to most other technology companies at the time. Boy did that change big time:{
iPhone - Flash uses up 0% of CPU, works on 0% of Flash based sites - for some people this is ideal. Android: Flash uses up CPU (potentially lots) when I allow it to (it's set to on demand), works on... 20% of Flash based sites? - for some people this is better then the above option.
Not quite accurate numbers there.
At last count, around 10% of all iPhones are jailbroken. That means some percentage of iPhones DO have flash installed, ranging from non-zero percent up to 10%. Defiantly not zero percent however.
In addition, flash on the iPhone is always set to on-demand. With flash installed on the iPhone, browsing to a web page with flash in it will display a correctly sized square with the blue question mark 'missing plugin' icon. Once you tap on that, it will load the actual flash code and run it.
However in the past year+ I have had flash on my iPhone, I can only think of a handful of times I've allowed it to run, since most instances of flash really are banner ads.
unwanted flash ads appear as clickable boxes, and and flash object in a page can be loaded by clicking it.
Ironically this is exactly how flash on the iPhone and iPad works. I've been using this very setup on my iPad with flash for over a year.
I can honestly say I don't miss the ads one bit. But it comes in very handy for those few rare sites that still put a navigation box of plain links in a flash widget, which should have been a href links from the start.
and I have no need to broadcast my wifi outside of my house.
What about receiving cell phone signals from outside of the house?
The number of people who do not have a land line phone at all anymore is pretty high, and climbing every day.
While you personally may still not own or use a cell phone, your guests might start avoiding coming over if they lose signal upon entering your front door;}
I don't own a PS3, so I really don't care one way or the other. But I thought the intended use for the PS3 was to play games.
For Hotz, it is quite obvious from his statements that his intended purpose was to run Linux. So by installing Linux on his PS3, he was using it for exactly it's intended purpose.
While the OP is obviously not the only one who bought the PS3, he's part of the majority of consumers that did. Which also happens to be the group that are using it for its intended purpose.
The OP very clearly stated he purchased a PS3 to play games. While playing games is clearly the ops intended purpose for the PS3, neither the op nor Hotz qualify as 'everybody'
Once Sony put the device on the market for others to purchase, Sony's intended purpose no longer matters. (PS3's kept by Sony for their own use excluded of course)
Once you realize that there is no single 'intended purpose', and such a term is defined only by the purchaser, it will be less confusing.
Hotz is using it for Hotz intended purpose. Op is using it for the ops intended purpose. I use it for my own intended purpose. You, well I guess you don't have an intended purpose yet, as you have not bought one.
If there could only be one single 'intended purpose', than aren't you just as 'bad' as Hotz? After all, Sony said it must be used for playing games. Hotz bought one and did not play games on it. You did not buy one and did not play games on it. Both of you are going against Sony's wishes.
Sony does not have the right to force Hotz to use his PS3 for games, any more than Sony has the right to force you to purchase a PS3 and play games on it, when you clearly do not wish to spend the money on one.
Maybe people should be pissed at the dip shits that tried to cheat with modified consoles rather than the company that was nice enough to allow the system to be hacked to begin with.
You are correct in that people should most definitely be pissed at the dip shits that are cheating with their console. You are also correct with "rather than the company", which is exactly the same as "rather than Hotz" as well.
I am a happy tablet owner, however I have not seen convertible laptops as small (or nearly so) as a tablet before your google image link in the next post down.
The last convertible laptop I've actually seen was one of those "rugged" models basically designed to be run over with cars and dropped from cell towers and such (Which quite obviously isn't exactly the form factor we are talking about:)
Which model(s) of convertible laptop match the specs you are quoting for that price? Because I think you have me sold!
http://www.startssl.com/ - Free for class-1. They don't verify who you are beyond what you type in the text box, but if money is not involved (CC numbers and the like) then that shouldn't be an issue.
a) A signed (not self-signed!) SSL cert, which means that you have to hand over a not insignificant amount of cash every year or two, otherwise your server will cause strong warnings on every browser out there.
b) A dedicated IP address, since a standard SSL certificate is bound to a particular address.
For 'A', there are now certificate authorities that are much better priced than Verisign.
http://www.trustico.com/ sells RapidSSL class-2 certs for $20/yr http://www.startssl.com/ has free class-1 certs (The cert makes no claim that you verified your identity with them), and class-2 certs for $45/yr (I'd go with a RapidSSL cert for that)
The advantage to a class-2 cert is mainly when accepting things like credit card numbers, so the user ideally can check and know who they are sending it to. But for sites that just use accounts for login and money isn't involved, there is nothing wrong with a class-1 cert. One wouldn't need to know Slashdots address and business name for example, as long as the name doesn't up and change on you you'll know you are sending the username/password to the same place each time.
For 'B' however you're spot on.
In the next year or two the cost of a static IP address is likely to be as high or higher than the cost of the certificate:/
Named based websites are the #1 reason that's generally out of your control that is holding back https everywhere.
I've found a decent way to handle self-signed certs is to run your own certificate authority.
For Linux a great app I use is TinyCA Windows Server 2003 has a module built in to do this, in a limited windows way. I can only assume 2008 server has it too.
If you sign all your self-signed certs with one private CA key, you only need to import a single public CA key to your browser, and makes things a lot easier.
Under a windows domain, you can even push that public CA key to IE automatically.
My work domain has one for all of our internal webapp tools and webservers, and my home network has one for the same.
I also run a nice sized IRC network which uses a round-robbin DNS setup, so letting users import a single CA key makes auto-reconnecting easier without having to accept a new cert each time you land on a new random server.
I too only recently came across startssl.com, only about a year ago. Their certs seem fairly well supported in the recent common browsers, though they weren't listed in mIRC last I checked.
Still, sometimes its just easier to handle the signing process yourself than going through startssl (or any other CA for that matter)
My only wish was for an app like TinyCA designed for use on a plain windows workstation.
There used to be a bootable knoppix image with TinyCA on it designed to work off an encrypted usb disk, but sadly the link seems dead. For most of us here however, setting up a live usb based linux install just for tinyCA, or even something in virtualbox, shouldn't be too hard to make. I just wish they made it easier for more people to do.
My iPhone does have MyWi installed, but I haven't received any emails from AT&T yet about tethering.
Ironically however, the only device I really tether to it is my iPad. I wonder how that would effect their detection methods...
While I do have the 3G iPad, it's $15/mo for 250mb. My iPhone is grandfathered in to the unlimited plan, so sometimes it's better to tether the iPad through the phone to not count against its cap, and other times it's easier and faster to just enable 3G on the iPad if what I'm planning to transfer is small.
But seeing as any and all data transferred through my iPhone via tether would be normal iPad traffic, which should look identical to when the iPad is using 3G directly, that might be throwing off whatever means they use to detect alternate data streams.
Of course if they are going purely by amount of data transferred, then again there would be little difference between the two devices, as I could clearly generate the same amount of traffic from my phone directly, as I could from my iPad tethered through the phone.
I just don't understand why americans tolerate ISPs enforcing ridiculous caps
If you would read just one or two of the posts here, you would clearly see we are not wanting to tolerate it.
It's not as if we have any option to stop it. We're all ears on workable ideas however if you have any! Please to be keeping in mind only suggestions the average citizen is capable of will do any good, as that is your audience.
You are correct in that it does not follow the intention of the license.
Unfortunately it is following the letter of the law, and legally following the license, thus there is nothing legally that can be done.
This is why the GPLv3 was created, to fix that legal loophole.
However, one tricky bit about declaring the intention of the license is that only the author(s) of the software can really define what was intended.
The authors don't seem to mind this legal loophole existing, since even their newer versions are still GPLv2. At least up to version 1.1.7 anyway. They have had many released versions between the app stores 0.9.6 version and 1.1.7 (and I believe their newest version as well, as I haven't heard about them changing licenses) to upgrade to GPLv3, but they haven't.
So I don't think the authors mind, judging by their actions.
It definitely is possible to damage a CRT with the xfree config, as I've done it twice:)
The sound the poor thing made the first time was both so painful yet so amazing at the same time.
I guess I should have included in my last post that I too have never heard of a warranty being voided that way, but on the other hand I never bothered trying to take my monitor back after that one. It was old enough to most likely be out of warranty, plus it was clearly of my doing, not to mention the pile of other CRTs in the basement I really should have gotten rid of by that point;)
After thinking about the floppy drive one, I just had to go Google for "Apple 2 disk drive sound simulator" just to relive those r/w head smacking sounds that used to freak out people not used to such drives. Good times for sure
Slashdot Mirror
Parent never once mentioned Xbox Live (Or any service) was better, so that wasn't an argument being made to need a response about which was better.
His entire post was a complaint about Sony fanbois who can't stop talking about how great Sony is.
They also charge a monthly fee, just sayin'.
Just like that :P
Eat the nano-pill, and the nanobots cruise to your brain, and start replacing it in-place with a billion-times-faster device. As you look up at the ceiling fan, it will start slowing until it comes to almost a stop; you're thinking that much faster. The hitch is that communicating with those who have not taken the pill become excruciatingly slow, like one word every year, from your perception. "The digital divide" indeed!
If the devices used to replace your neurons take full advantage of the nanotechnology they should have (and would need to be able to do such a thing in the first place), you should also be able to adjust your own clock speed so to speak, under full conscious control.
When talking to 'meat bags', you could slow your brain down to the standard human speed (or slightly higher) to communicate and be able to take part in real-world activities.
In fact while the majority of humans are still humans, you would want to run in that state as the default mode, only speeding things up when you needed to think at higher rates.
Only after most people are switched over, or for the times you are around people that are all upgraded, would everyone in the group think faster by default to stay at the same speeds.
It would be more like the fight scene in the recent Sherlock Holmes movie.
You raise your clock speed and think out your plan for 15 minutes of thought time, which only takes a second or so of real time, then when done thinking you slow back down some what to execute the plan physically.
And I for one can not wait for the singularity of nanotechnology!
Using someone else's credit card is criminal. Doesn't matter if they use a megaphone and tell the whole world what it is
While yes using someone else's credit card fraudulently is criminal, I wouldn't say the megaphone bit doesn't matter.
Screaming out their customers credit cards of course does NOT excuse the wardrivers crime in any way shape or form. But the separate act of sending all of their customers credit card information to the world should also be a crime as well.
At the very least I wish the police would post a list of these companies, so the general public knows they can not be trusted with our business.
At most, the companies should be brought up on charges of mishandling customer credit accounts and fraud.
They will just need to schedule that court case for a different day than the wardrivers court date, so everyone can attend.
That is unfortunately a very common reaction. I don't understand how people could not care either.
Another unfortunately common reaction is, after trying to be nice and warn them about the problem, once someone else actually does exploit the problem, they likely will come back to blame you :/
I do hope for your sake that doesn't happen, but I've had it happen to me before, and was shocked at the multiple layers of stupid their line of thinking was.
These days I don't even bother unless I already know the person. Being accused of a serious crime for only trying to help just isn't worth the chance.
I still view it as stealing from the moral perspective, as I am depriving someone, somewhere (who probably sleeps on a big pile of gold and is a complete asshole) of their royalty payment.
There are millions of books written and put in stores every year.
If you purchase only 5 books that year, you are by your logic morally stealing 999,999,995 books, EVERY YEAR, since you are depriving that many people from royalty payments.
You are a really horrible person by your logic :P
It's mainly because the government would have no use for this.
If you have ANY cell phone, the cellular company itself logs where you are using this method. All of them. For all phones. All of the time.
The government goes to the cell companies to get that data. They have no need to get it from your home computer or the phone itself, especially so when they are guaranteed the end user couldn't possibly muck with the data stored at the phone company server, as well as being guaranteed you will not notice them collecting the data. You would likely notice your cell phone or home computer being mucked with, and you knowing they are looking at that data is not in their best interest.
in fact I didn't know Flash was available on jailbroken phones, been awhile since I had a iPhone 3G.
I'm not sure if you still have or use your iPhone, but you can google for frash-0.0.2.deb
It takes ssh'ing in and dpkg -i to install.
probably a higher percentage of people would know how to set preference then jailbreak an iPhone and install Flash.
Totally agreed. I would say most Android users, way over half.
Of the non-zero percent to ten percent of jailbroken iPhones, even I would have to guess it would be the far lower end of that spectrum of users that installed flash.
I'd pick 1% if I had to think about it, and be surprised if it was 1-2 points above that even!
I have no idea why Apple is so actively against such things.
I do understand why they wouldn't want to support us jailbreakers, or even admit we exist. I'd also imagine most of us jailbreakers would be perfectly happy with that.
It's the actively trying to lock the phone down to make it harder to do, for no real good reason.
I used to love Apple back in the pre-mac days. They were shockingly open compared to most other technology companies at the time. :{
Boy did that change big time
iPhone - Flash uses up 0% of CPU, works on 0% of Flash based sites - for some people this is ideal.
Android: Flash uses up CPU (potentially lots) when I allow it to (it's set to on demand), works on... 20% of Flash based sites? - for some people this is better then the above option.
Not quite accurate numbers there.
At last count, around 10% of all iPhones are jailbroken.
That means some percentage of iPhones DO have flash installed, ranging from non-zero percent up to 10%. Defiantly not zero percent however.
In addition, flash on the iPhone is always set to on-demand.
With flash installed on the iPhone, browsing to a web page with flash in it will display a correctly sized square with the blue question mark 'missing plugin' icon. Once you tap on that, it will load the actual flash code and run it.
However in the past year+ I have had flash on my iPhone, I can only think of a handful of times I've allowed it to run, since most instances of flash really are banner ads.
unwanted flash ads appear as clickable boxes, and and flash object in a page can be loaded by clicking it.
Ironically this is exactly how flash on the iPhone and iPad works.
I've been using this very setup on my iPad with flash for over a year.
I can honestly say I don't miss the ads one bit. But it comes in very handy for those few rare sites that still put a navigation box of plain links in a flash widget, which should have been a href links from the start.
and I have no need to broadcast my wifi outside of my house.
What about receiving cell phone signals from outside of the house?
The number of people who do not have a land line phone at all anymore is pretty high, and climbing every day.
While you personally may still not own or use a cell phone, your guests might start avoiding coming over if they lose signal upon entering your front door ;}
I don't own a PS3, so I really don't care one way or the other. But I thought the intended use for the PS3 was to play games.
For Hotz, it is quite obvious from his statements that his intended purpose was to run Linux. So by installing Linux on his PS3, he was using it for exactly it's intended purpose.
While the OP is obviously not the only one who bought the PS3, he's part of the majority of consumers that did. Which also happens to be the group that are using it for its intended purpose.
The OP very clearly stated he purchased a PS3 to play games.
While playing games is clearly the ops intended purpose for the PS3, neither the op nor Hotz qualify as 'everybody'
Once Sony put the device on the market for others to purchase, Sony's intended purpose no longer matters. (PS3's kept by Sony for their own use excluded of course)
Once you realize that there is no single 'intended purpose', and such a term is defined only by the purchaser, it will be less confusing.
Hotz is using it for Hotz intended purpose. Op is using it for the ops intended purpose.
I use it for my own intended purpose.
You, well I guess you don't have an intended purpose yet, as you have not bought one.
If there could only be one single 'intended purpose', than aren't you just as 'bad' as Hotz?
After all, Sony said it must be used for playing games.
Hotz bought one and did not play games on it. You did not buy one and did not play games on it.
Both of you are going against Sony's wishes.
Sony does not have the right to force Hotz to use his PS3 for games, any more than Sony has the right to force you to purchase a PS3 and play games on it, when you clearly do not wish to spend the money on one.
Maybe people should be pissed at the dip shits that tried to cheat with modified consoles rather than the company that was nice enough to allow the system to be hacked to begin with.
You are correct in that people should most definitely be pissed at the dip shits that are cheating with their console.
You are also correct with "rather than the company", which is exactly the same as "rather than Hotz" as well.
and let the good companies like Microsoft be alone.
You're preaching to the wrong website here pal.
We don't take kindly to your type around these parts
If you're the 9th grade bully you don't go picking on the 12th grade wrestling star who's the son of the Principal.
Shh, sometimes the 9th grader bully actually does when he is goaded on enough ;)
It's funny And entertaining!
Let's hope Sony does try to pull something
So serious question if you wouldn't mind.
I am a happy tablet owner, however I have not seen convertible laptops as small (or nearly so) as a tablet before your google image link in the next post down.
The last convertible laptop I've actually seen was one of those "rugged" models basically designed to be run over with cars and dropped from cell towers and such (Which quite obviously isn't exactly the form factor we are talking about :)
Which model(s) of convertible laptop match the specs you are quoting for that price?
Because I think you have me sold!
My two favorite CAs so far on price:
http://www.trustico.com/ - $20/yr for class-2 (Identification verified)
http://www.startssl.com/ - Free for class-1.
They don't verify who you are beyond what you type in the text box, but if money is not involved (CC numbers and the like) then that shouldn't be an issue.
a) A signed (not self-signed!) SSL cert, which means that you have to hand over a not insignificant amount of cash every year or two, otherwise your server will cause strong warnings on every browser out there.
b) A dedicated IP address, since a standard SSL certificate is bound to a particular address.
For 'A', there are now certificate authorities that are much better priced than Verisign.
http://www.trustico.com/ sells RapidSSL class-2 certs for $20/yr
http://www.startssl.com/ has free class-1 certs (The cert makes no claim that you verified your identity with them), and class-2 certs for $45/yr (I'd go with a RapidSSL cert for that)
The advantage to a class-2 cert is mainly when accepting things like credit card numbers, so the user ideally can check and know who they are sending it to.
But for sites that just use accounts for login and money isn't involved, there is nothing wrong with a class-1 cert. One wouldn't need to know Slashdots address and business name for example, as long as the name doesn't up and change on you you'll know you are sending the username/password to the same place each time.
For 'B' however you're spot on.
In the next year or two the cost of a static IP address is likely to be as high or higher than the cost of the certificate :/
Named based websites are the #1 reason that's generally out of your control that is holding back https everywhere.
I've found a decent way to handle self-signed certs is to run your own certificate authority.
For Linux a great app I use is TinyCA
Windows Server 2003 has a module built in to do this, in a limited windows way. I can only assume 2008 server has it too.
If you sign all your self-signed certs with one private CA key, you only need to import a single public CA key to your browser, and makes things a lot easier.
Under a windows domain, you can even push that public CA key to IE automatically.
My work domain has one for all of our internal webapp tools and webservers, and my home network has one for the same.
I also run a nice sized IRC network which uses a round-robbin DNS setup, so letting users import a single CA key makes auto-reconnecting easier without having to accept a new cert each time you land on a new random server.
I too only recently came across startssl.com, only about a year ago.
Their certs seem fairly well supported in the recent common browsers, though they weren't listed in mIRC last I checked.
Still, sometimes its just easier to handle the signing process yourself than going through startssl (or any other CA for that matter)
My only wish was for an app like TinyCA designed for use on a plain windows workstation.
There used to be a bootable knoppix image with TinyCA on it designed to work off an encrypted usb disk, but sadly the link seems dead.
For most of us here however, setting up a live usb based linux install just for tinyCA, or even something in virtualbox, shouldn't be too hard to make.
I just wish they made it easier for more people to do.
My iPhone does have MyWi installed, but I haven't received any emails from AT&T yet about tethering.
Ironically however, the only device I really tether to it is my iPad.
I wonder how that would effect their detection methods...
While I do have the 3G iPad, it's $15/mo for 250mb.
My iPhone is grandfathered in to the unlimited plan, so sometimes it's better to tether the iPad through the phone to not count against its cap, and other times it's easier and faster to just enable 3G on the iPad if what I'm planning to transfer is small.
But seeing as any and all data transferred through my iPhone via tether would be normal iPad traffic, which should look identical to when the iPad is using 3G directly, that might be throwing off whatever means they use to detect alternate data streams.
Of course if they are going purely by amount of data transferred, then again there would be little difference between the two devices, as I could clearly generate the same amount of traffic from my phone directly, as I could from my iPad tethered through the phone.
Whoops, i screwed those tags up something good.
I should probably sue my keyboard manufacturer for implying I can't type, since the fact I can't type doesn't matter ;P
So, did he make the posting: yes. Did the plaintiff get fired as a result: yes. Did he lose income as a result: yes.,/quote>
As for the bold question, I would say the answer is no. (3rd one too as a result)
It was not the blogger pointing out this persons fraud that got the person fired.
It was the person committing fraud that got the person fired.
Thus it was the person committing fraud who is responsible for losing their job, and thus their lost income.
I just don't understand why americans tolerate ISPs enforcing ridiculous caps
If you would read just one or two of the posts here, you would clearly see we are not wanting to tolerate it.
It's not as if we have any option to stop it.
We're all ears on workable ideas however if you have any! Please to be keeping in mind only suggestions the average citizen is capable of will do any good, as that is your audience.
You are correct in that it does not follow the intention of the license.
Unfortunately it is following the letter of the law, and legally following the license, thus there is nothing legally that can be done.
This is why the GPLv3 was created, to fix that legal loophole.
However, one tricky bit about declaring the intention of the license is that only the author(s) of the software can really define what was intended.
The authors don't seem to mind this legal loophole existing, since even their newer versions are still GPLv2. At least up to version 1.1.7 anyway.
They have had many released versions between the app stores 0.9.6 version and 1.1.7 (and I believe their newest version as well, as I haven't heard about them changing licenses) to upgrade to GPLv3, but they haven't.
So I don't think the authors mind, judging by their actions.
It definitely is possible to damage a CRT with the xfree config, as I've done it twice :)
The sound the poor thing made the first time was both so painful yet so amazing at the same time.
I guess I should have included in my last post that I too have never heard of a warranty being voided that way, but on the other hand I never bothered trying to take my monitor back after that one. It was old enough to most likely be out of warranty, plus it was clearly of my doing, not to mention the pile of other CRTs in the basement I really should have gotten rid of by that point ;)
After thinking about the floppy drive one, I just had to go Google for "Apple 2 disk drive sound simulator" just to relive those r/w head smacking sounds that used to freak out people not used to such drives. Good times for sure
And does anyone know why he's usually jumping facing backward? Does Mario go farther that way?
It helps with the collision detection with enemies, walking through walls, and to jump off the side of bricks, among other things.
Here is a list of pretty much all the exploits used, with animated GIFs and explanations, from the same site containing the recorded key press files:
http://tasvideos.org/GameResources/NES/SuperMarioBros.html
Any guesses on how long before we see an Church of Satan app
There are a few, but only if you jailbreak the device.
Then you get access to the whole file system and can echo "all your sins" > /dev/hell