Nope, that still doesn't create an impression that Google is begind. Truth is, Google has implemented and then removed h264 support. So it's more like Microsoft being behind and attempting to drag others with it.
Darn it, so when you ban guns, then death from guns go away? Why didn't you just ban murder then? Or are the criminals in Australia reluctant to commit crimes with a gun, that's illegal to own?
Guess who can afford a better lawyer? Facebook or some Joe Nolife? Especially if you take into consideration, that for Facebook it's not about $500K, it's about every two-bit slacker that has ever been banned from Facebook to get in line to get his slice of Facebook's cut. Ain't gonna happen.
Fighting your customers makes about as much sense is pissing against the wind: you end up wet and smell funny. If you can't make a living by selling games, think of another way to make money. But if you try to lure people in a trap of expencive games by selling a cheap console — don't complain when people put the device to another use.
This "bazillion sites" of yours usually links to youtube videos (or simply embed them), not many sites can handle the stress, the video hosting can provide so youtube's choise of codec can be cruisal.
I'd rather have them spend the money on something usefull. Even if they buy the license, they will not be able to transfer it to any other products, that will be based on mozilla.
Sadly, only _certain_ things work, and they never are _needed_ things. Anyways, I'd rather boycott this technology alltogether (why in the world, would we need another flash, only from Microsoft, and with a worse cross-platform compatibility?)
Hey, I've got an idea! Let's ban all guns. Because it will be illegal to own them, all criminals will give them up, because, you know, it's illegal. And then, you will not have to have a fear of being shot by anyone, right?
With a fork I can do it any time I want. Hell, if I still a petroleum truck I can reak a s##tload of havok. And yet Those, that have decided to break the law (hold up a store or kill a person) won't hesitate to use illegal means of getting a gun. While law abiding citizens should have the right of owning and carrying firearms after receiving the required training.
Those kiddies won't have anything on their hands. It will be those, that will create that genocide, who will. Noone blames jews for the Holocaust, no matter how much Nazi propaganda talked about how they brought it on themselves.
The one who looks for an excuse to do something will always find one. So if we pull our heads out of our asses and take a look at what happens around us (not just in the countries, that have rich natural resources) maybe we can prevent another genocidal leader ruining millions of lives.
Actually, they made themselves look bad. The research just provided the opportunity for them to do so (had the vulnerability been fixed sooner and research supported that would have made them look good and in case their concurents would not do that — a splendid opportunity for an advertising campaign).
"Mom and Dad" can pick a plan that bills them per megabyte if they feel, that their hard-earned dollar is subsidising other internet users. If provider can't deliver, what it promises it is not a reason to "choke" some types of traffic. People would be able to choose those providers, that would not resort to filtering — given, that there were providers to choose. Unfortunately not many have this luxury and are stuck with one, two providers at best. In this case it's better to regulate the ISP not to tamper with the traffic and just provide, what they signed up to provide: bandwidth.
There is not such thing as "illegal to posess iformation". Once it's leaked, it's leaked, there is no way to take it back or make information "illegal". It can only be illegal to take classified information and release it to the public.
If you didn't sign a contract with the owner of these documents, reading them is not illegal. Neither is distributing them. It's only illegal for those, who have signed NDAs and provided access to the documents in the first place.
Goddammit, Cartman How is IPv4 in any way more secure than IPv6? NAT does NOT provide anonymity or security. It is crippled by design. The Big Brother you're so worried about will need to contact the ISP to get the info regarding the IP. He has to do exactly the same thing now, if you are hiding behind your ISP's NAT. Want to be anonymous? Use the anonimising proxies, TOR, i2p, hell, there is a whole bunch of solutions and NAT is NOT one of them.
Ahem, you mean like IPs and MAC-addresses? Hate to break it to you kid, but they have been around since the beginning of APRAnet. Thinking that NAT provides anymity is like hoping that shutting your eyes will hide you from everyone's sight. PS You can still spoof your mac if
You know it's wrong to be happy that the corporation will rape you in your ass, just because they will not torture you and kill your family. They should be stopped before they get to rape you. Or the next thing you will be happy about is being just tortured and raped in the ass, as long as the family's fine. The next thing you know, there won't be anything to be happy about, but it will be too late.
Ever thought, that armed population is the guaranty to ensure, that government will not send army and tanks to dismiss a peaceful demonstration they don't like? (think Tiananmen Square) Weapons are not a way to make democracy work or make the government listen to your demands. They are the deterrent. Same as nukes. They can't make you win, but sure as hell will make sure the other side loses too. One thing is beating up unarmed civilians, another — fighting armed men.
"— Why didn't you stop them? — They had guns, sir. And they were shootin' bullets."
Noone elects "nationalist xenophobic thugs". Because for some time they tend to pretend to be law-abiding political party, that has only people's best interests in mind. And when they get the power, they do everything to maximize it. Using any means they can.
That's simply abuse of power and has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. Take a look at modern Russia, for example: people get beaten by police officers exactly because they know, that a lawfull citizen cannot have a gun.
As for the cops — they can use deadly force only when and if there is an imminent danger of someone being shot. If they pull the trigger they will have to account for their actions and justify them in a way, that will stand in court, if necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, that still doesn't create an impression that Google is begind. Truth is, Google has implemented and then removed h264 support. So it's more like Microsoft being behind and attempting to drag others with it.
Darn it, so when you ban guns, then death from guns go away? Why didn't you just ban murder then? Or are the criminals in Australia reluctant to commit crimes with a gun, that's illegal to own?
Please tell me you're not comparing Facebook to water or gas providers? It's a social netword for crying out loud.
Guess who can afford a better lawyer? Facebook or some Joe Nolife? Especially if you take into consideration, that for Facebook it's not about $500K, it's about every two-bit slacker that has ever been banned from Facebook to get in line to get his slice of Facebook's cut. Ain't gonna happen.
Fighting your customers makes about as much sense is pissing against the wind: you end up wet and smell funny. If you can't make a living by selling games, think of another way to make money. But if you try to lure people in a trap of expencive games by selling a cheap console — don't complain when people put the device to another use.
Actually spamming is a crime. People are doing real time in prison for that.
This "bazillion sites" of yours usually links to youtube videos (or simply embed them), not many sites can handle the stress, the video hosting can provide so youtube's choise of codec can be cruisal.
I'd rather have them spend the money on something usefull. Even if they buy the license, they will not be able to transfer it to any other products, that will be based on mozilla.
Sadly, only _certain_ things work, and they never are _needed_ things. Anyways, I'd rather boycott this technology alltogether (why in the world, would we need another flash, only from Microsoft, and with a worse cross-platform compatibility?)
A bad product at ONE point? Heh.
Hey, I've got an idea! Let's ban all guns. Because it will be illegal to own them, all criminals will give them up, because, you know, it's illegal.
And then, you will not have to have a fear of being shot by anyone, right?
With a fork I can do it any time I want. Hell, if I still a petroleum truck I can reak a s##tload of havok. And yet Those, that have decided to break the law (hold up a store or kill a person) won't hesitate to use illegal means of getting a gun. While law abiding citizens should have the right of owning and carrying firearms after receiving the required training.
Those kiddies won't have anything on their hands. It will be those, that will create that genocide, who will. Noone blames jews for the Holocaust, no matter how much Nazi propaganda talked about how they brought it on themselves.
The one who looks for an excuse to do something will always find one. So if we pull our heads out of our asses and take a look at what happens around us (not just in the countries, that have rich natural resources) maybe we can prevent another genocidal leader ruining millions of lives.
Actually, they made themselves look bad. The research just provided the opportunity for them to do so (had the vulnerability been fixed sooner and research supported that would have made them look good and in case their concurents would not do that — a splendid opportunity for an advertising campaign).
"Mom and Dad" can pick a plan that bills them per megabyte if they feel, that their hard-earned dollar is subsidising other internet users. If provider can't deliver, what it promises it is not a reason to "choke" some types of traffic. People would be able to choose those providers, that would not resort to filtering — given, that there were providers to choose. Unfortunately not many have this luxury and are stuck with one, two providers at best. In this case it's better to regulate the ISP not to tamper with the traffic and just provide, what they signed up to provide: bandwidth.
There is not such thing as "illegal to posess iformation". Once it's leaked, it's leaked, there is no way to take it back or make information "illegal". It can only be illegal to take classified information and release it to the public.
If you didn't sign a contract with the owner of these documents, reading them is not illegal. Neither is distributing them. It's only illegal for those, who have signed NDAs and provided access to the documents in the first place.
Convince Facebook, Twitter and Google to provide services in IPv6 only and it will be a matter of days, before all the ISPs switch over.
Goddammit, Cartman
How is IPv4 in any way more secure than IPv6? NAT does NOT provide anonymity or security. It is crippled by design. The Big Brother you're so worried about will need to contact the ISP to get the info regarding the IP. He has to do exactly the same thing now, if you are hiding behind your ISP's NAT. Want to be anonymous? Use the anonimising proxies, TOR, i2p, hell, there is a whole bunch of solutions and NAT is NOT one of them.
Ahem, you mean like IPs and MAC-addresses? Hate to break it to you kid, but they have been around since the beginning of APRAnet. Thinking that NAT provides anymity is like hoping that shutting your eyes will hide you from everyone's sight.
PS You can still spoof your mac if
You know it's wrong to be happy that the corporation will rape you in your ass, just because they will not torture you and kill your family. They should be stopped before they get to rape you. Or the next thing you will be happy about is being just tortured and raped in the ass, as long as the family's fine. The next thing you know, there won't be anything to be happy about, but it will be too late.
Ever thought, that armed population is the guaranty to ensure, that government will not send army and tanks to dismiss a peaceful demonstration they don't like? (think Tiananmen Square)
Weapons are not a way to make democracy work or make the government listen to your demands.
They are the deterrent. Same as nukes. They can't make you win, but sure as hell will make sure the other side loses too. One thing is beating up unarmed civilians, another — fighting armed men.
"— Why didn't you stop them?
— They had guns, sir. And they were shootin' bullets."
The soil in which fascism grows is politicians with insatiable hunger for power, it grows behind the desk, not in the woods.
Noone elects "nationalist xenophobic thugs". Because for some time they tend to pretend to be law-abiding political party, that has only people's best interests in mind. And when they get the power, they do everything to maximize it. Using any means they can.
That's simply abuse of power and has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. Take a look at modern Russia, for example: people get beaten by police officers exactly because they know, that a lawfull citizen cannot have a gun. As for the cops — they can use deadly force only when and if there is an imminent danger of someone being shot. If they pull the trigger they will have to account for their actions and justify them in a way, that will stand in court, if necessary.