Sounds like a circular argument. If they were brought into court and ordered to remotely kill, and had the capability, they would have to. But if they didn't have the capability, they couldn't be ordered to, because they couldn't do it. It would be like ordering someone to flap his arms and fly away, or that pi was equal to 3.0. Well, ignore that last one.
We don't really talk about it publicly because the focus is on testing of apps to make sure they're okay, but in the rare event that we need to
More like, in the event that it would benefit us, regardless of its cost to you. Seriously, when the hell does anyone need to remotely kill some app on your phone?... Yeah, I thought so.
The uplink is simple. Remember, Australia is on the lower part of the globe, so radio signals work in reverse there. That means it's easier for homes to transmit back to the central station, but hard for the opposite. That's good, because they can put a big transmitter at the central station, rather than having to put them in homes. Too bad that wouldn't work in the northern hemisphere.
Slashvertisement? No way. I mean, it "runs on the RISC processor architecture". No way that could be marketing material. Nor this: "PC Technologies offers a neat and novel thin-client desktop computing solution". And what could be better than having the computer inside the wall? Imagine all the problems this crea..er, solves.
Terms of the settlement include $8 million to cover lawyer fees and fund privacy policy education on the Internet, but do not include cash payouts to Gmail users.
Nonsense! They offered to refund every cent I've paid them for my Gmail service for the last half-decade I've been with them, which totaled to $0.00.
Are you seriously suggesting that it's okay for Google to sniff your emails and passwords because it's merely "gathering demographic information" for marketing purposes?
No. If you read what I wrote: "Yeah, because someone who knows you spying on your text messages is exactly the same as some software gathering demographic information [...]"
The blind Google defenders on Slashdot are really getting annoying. This company can apparently do no wrong! Calling the spying of your private data a harmless case of "gathering demographic information" is probably the most amusing understatement I've seen yet. Amusing in a sad way.
What's sadder is your imagination that I'm defending Google. I simply called into question the grandparent's implication that installing a message logger on someone's phone so you could spy on everything was the same as Google gathering demographic information in an automated way on data you feed through their system. I don't care whether someone is for or against Google, I hold everyone to the same standard. That means not mispresenting situations merely to support one's point of view, even if it means a less-dramatic case for/against something.
At some point, you have to take a stand and let people know your privacy does have meaning, even on the internet.
If you want privacy on the Internet, the surest way to achieve that is avoiding services that violate it. That's one important difference between this case; here, even your private information that you thought you were just sending to another (trusted) party over a non-Internet network is being snooped, and it's not the company who provides the service who's doing it.
This attitude I'm seeing lately where people shrug their shoulders and accept that everything they do on the internet is accessible is bullshit
Who the hell here is shrugging their shoulders and accepting it? See, your warping of my original statement hurts the cause for privacy, because you alienate people who have similar views, just because they aren't extreme about it and misrepresent things in order to support their views. Lose the extremism and stop imagining things that people didn't even write.
So you're basically saying that video games allow you to vent your anger for people who abuse you, without actually doing anything to stop the abuse? Sounds like your case is in support of video games causing more violence in the long-term.
Yeah, because someone who knows you spying on your text messages is exactly the same as some software gathering demographic information that will be used to better market things to large groups of people.
You're saying the alarm events should use local time? What if you're moving between time zones, for example? You presumably want them to occur the same relative time from now, regardless of local time. DST is the bug, not all these devices that don't handle the subtleties of it properly.
Printers don't generally accept feedback. I know you can't view the video but what you see is a typewriter (with the keys moving) typing out the opening to Zork and then the user issuing it a few commands on the same typewriter keys that then come back to life and respond.
Nifty, so it's a teletype. Odd this word wasn't used in the article headline, as you'd think any real computer geek would know what that is.
Since when was IE9 actually launched? Are we seriously predicting the doom of IE because not so many people downloaded a browser that isn't even released yet?
...though we called it a "printer". Also, are there any pictures of the thing from the front? Not everyone has the ability to view videos. All I can see are some internals pictures on the project page.
Actually, I think that adding it after it's been shot will result in a better experience, because it will be added so that it looks good to the viewer. That means they can do it technically wrong, but visually pleasing. Not that I'm interested; I'm perfectly happy borrowing DVDs from the library and watching on my 29 inch CRT TV with component video connection.
I'd love to have a search engine that "biases" the results away from spam, and preferably shows only things I'm looking for. No more sifting through many pages to find the tidbit I'm searching for.
I guess an unbiased search engine is basically choosing a random set of web pages.
Daylight savings saves (hence the name) billions every year in electricity costs.
Got a source on that? Or did you mean that it seems like it would save in electricty costs? Also, what about other costs incurred due to the problems it causes? Is it a net benefit? And even if it is, are there better approaches that give at least as much benefit, but don't have as many problems?
Isn't that part simply for context to explain the purpose of the GPL rather than directly legally enforcable though?
Then I replied:
Correct, that describes their intent, and it ends with "Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products." So unless their lawyers are incompetent, the rest of the license legally implements the intent described in the paragraph I quoted.
Then you replied:
Right, but that is GPL v3, the Linux kernel and VLC have chosen to remain with GPL v2, which do not have that wording.
How is the GPL version relevant to 91degrees' question? He was noting that my quote wasn't from the legally-binding portion, and I noted that it is merely a summary of what the legally-binding portion does. It wasn't about which version of the GPL is being used, so your response doesn't make sense to me.
In the overall context, the article summary states "Apple has decided that [...] they'd rather kick out GPLed software than change their own rules." Software under the GPL v3, the current version of the GPL, is GPLed software, and I was replying to this part of the summary. I don't think this article was about merely allowing VLC, but of allowing all GPLed software, so I don't see how the particular version VLC uses is even significant. Even if it were, why would the intent of the FSF with GPL v3 be any different than v2? As I understand it, the whole reason for v3 was to close loopholes in v2. Not being able to run modified user programs is a limitation on user freedom that the FSF considers unacceptable.
And before anyone starts accusing me of being anti-GPL, I release most of my open-source code under a GPL license. I still retain the ability to be objective and see the security implications and understand why others don't choose to use GPL or support its freedoms.
If each fork represents a patent, all the philosophers have picked up a fork and now are unable to eat because they don't have enough forks to make a smartphone.
Nope, I tried that once, but contrary to popular belief, you can't make a smartphone out of forks. Oh how I tried...
Correct, that describes their intent, and it ends with "Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products." So unless their lawyers are incompetent, the rest of the license legally implements the intent described in the paragraph I quoted.
Huh? You're saying that the TSA treats foreigners that way in response to something their governments does to American citizens? I'd like to understand your charge of hypocrisy.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a circular argument. If they were brought into court and ordered to remotely kill, and had the capability, they would have to. But if they didn't have the capability, they couldn't be ordered to, because they couldn't do it. It would be like ordering someone to flap his arms and fly away, or that pi was equal to 3.0. Well, ignore that last one.
More like, in the event that it would benefit us, regardless of its cost to you. Seriously, when the hell does anyone need to remotely kill some app on your phone? ... Yeah, I thought so.
If it was funded by donations, why did the city need to be involved?
The uplink is simple. Remember, Australia is on the lower part of the globe, so radio signals work in reverse there. That means it's easier for homes to transmit back to the central station, but hard for the opposite. That's good, because they can put a big transmitter at the central station, rather than having to put them in homes. Too bad that wouldn't work in the northern hemisphere.
A talking principle? In my day, they were just conceptual. My how things have advanced.
Slashvertisement? No way. I mean, it "runs on the RISC processor architecture". No way that could be marketing material. Nor this: "PC Technologies offers a neat and novel thin-client desktop computing solution". And what could be better than having the computer inside the wall? Imagine all the problems this crea..er, solves.
Nonsense! They offered to refund every cent I've paid them for my Gmail service for the last half-decade I've been with them, which totaled to $0.00.
Hi, my name is Tom, and I work in MT (matter technology). Oh, specifically? I operate a forklift.
No. If you read what I wrote: "Yeah, because someone who knows you spying on your text messages is exactly the same as some software gathering demographic information [...]"
What's sadder is your imagination that I'm defending Google. I simply called into question the grandparent's implication that installing a message logger on someone's phone so you could spy on everything was the same as Google gathering demographic information in an automated way on data you feed through their system. I don't care whether someone is for or against Google, I hold everyone to the same standard. That means not mispresenting situations merely to support one's point of view, even if it means a less-dramatic case for/against something.
If you want privacy on the Internet, the surest way to achieve that is avoiding services that violate it. That's one important difference between this case; here, even your private information that you thought you were just sending to another (trusted) party over a non-Internet network is being snooped, and it's not the company who provides the service who's doing it.
Who the hell here is shrugging their shoulders and accepting it? See, your warping of my original statement hurts the cause for privacy, because you alienate people who have similar views, just because they aren't extreme about it and misrepresent things in order to support their views. Lose the extremism and stop imagining things that people didn't even write.
So you're basically saying that video games allow you to vent your anger for people who abuse you, without actually doing anything to stop the abuse? Sounds like your case is in support of video games causing more violence in the long-term.
Yeah, because someone who knows you spying on your text messages is exactly the same as some software gathering demographic information that will be used to better market things to large groups of people.
Sorry, I find that pretty unbelievable... yeah right, a girlfriend.
You're saying the alarm events should use local time? What if you're moving between time zones, for example? You presumably want them to occur the same relative time from now, regardless of local time. DST is the bug, not all these devices that don't handle the subtleties of it properly.
Nifty, so it's a teletype. Odd this word wasn't used in the article headline, as you'd think any real computer geek would know what that is.
Anonymous Brave Guy, meet Mr. Hyperbole.
...though we called it a "printer". Also, are there any pictures of the thing from the front? Not everyone has the ability to view videos. All I can see are some internals pictures on the project page.
Actually, I think that adding it after it's been shot will result in a better experience, because it will be added so that it looks good to the viewer. That means they can do it technically wrong, but visually pleasing. Not that I'm interested; I'm perfectly happy borrowing DVDs from the library and watching on my 29 inch CRT TV with component video connection.
Or people browsing from systems that don't support Flash video, for one of many legitimate reasons?
I guess an unbiased search engine is basically choosing a random set of web pages.
Got a source on that? Or did you mean that it seems like it would save in electricty costs? Also, what about other costs incurred due to the problems it causes? Is it a net benefit? And even if it is, are there better approaches that give at least as much benefit, but don't have as many problems?
Then I replied:
Then you replied:
How is the GPL version relevant to 91degrees' question? He was noting that my quote wasn't from the legally-binding portion, and I noted that it is merely a summary of what the legally-binding portion does. It wasn't about which version of the GPL is being used, so your response doesn't make sense to me.
In the overall context, the article summary states "Apple has decided that [...] they'd rather kick out GPLed software than change their own rules." Software under the GPL v3, the current version of the GPL, is GPLed software, and I was replying to this part of the summary. I don't think this article was about merely allowing VLC, but of allowing all GPLed software, so I don't see how the particular version VLC uses is even significant. Even if it were, why would the intent of the FSF with GPL v3 be any different than v2? As I understand it, the whole reason for v3 was to close loopholes in v2. Not being able to run modified user programs is a limitation on user freedom that the FSF considers unacceptable.
And before anyone starts accusing me of being anti-GPL, I release most of my open-source code under a GPL license. I still retain the ability to be objective and see the security implications and understand why others don't choose to use GPL or support its freedoms.
The real bug is that we change the time at all, considering all the problems it brings.
Nope, I tried that once, but contrary to popular belief, you can't make a smartphone out of forks. Oh how I tried...
Correct, that describes their intent, and it ends with "Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products." So unless their lawyers are incompetent, the rest of the license legally implements the intent described in the paragraph I quoted.
Huh? You're saying that the TSA treats foreigners that way in response to something their governments does to American citizens? I'd like to understand your charge of hypocrisy.