More correctly, the US is a democratic republic, but due to influence from the names of the German Democratic Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Vietnam and so on, the phrase has become irrevocably associated with Communism and so is very rarely heard in reference to any capitalist democracy.
"...on Wired-"
Lost me there.
Hackneyed attacks on what is probably among the most hated of tech magazines pretending to be more independent than they are aside, this is certainly a good idea, but what's to stop people searching for people whom they have nothing to do with? The information on the site, from what I could ascertain from the article, doesn't appear to be meaningfully secured and is open to abuse.
IRC's usually on an obvious port and has a discrete protocol of its own. There's no mistaking IRC. With Twitter everything's through HTTP, so people involved have some small level of deniability, and people are far more likely to notice an odd connection appearing on an abnormal port and look into it than they are to pay any heed to the din of HTTP.
Many phones with touchscreen keyboards have an emoticon keyboard along with the phone-style keypad and qwerty. Many simply with buttons have emoticons on autocomplete or under symbols options. This is simply an upscale.
I can't find the source (TFA gives barely any details) but if this is a student project, I like. It would actually sell well. If this is a commercial product, oh god no. Yes, it will sell well, yes.
I take it that they're referring to "hacker" as in Y Combinator's "Hacker News", as in "programmer in general", rather than the more classic meanings of "one who accesses systems without authorisation by means of exploiting vulnerable code, etc" or "skilled programmer with tendencies to the questionably legal".
It's clear that none of Facebook's code was compromised, otherwise other high-profile pages would be being defaced. What's more likely here is that, through some human flaw of easy security questions or simple passwords (I can't see the Zuck or his immediate staff using unsecured wifi), the account was compromised. Ergo, not a hack.
That pedantry aside, I'm very much pleased to see Facebook knocked down a peg or two, especially in the area of security.
Were this a market and were the government enforcing similar, or were this an industry and a regulator enforcing similar, or were this the internet and an ISP enforcing similar, I'd complain as you are. But this is Facebook's platform. Yes, it's unnecessarily grasping, or so one would think if Facebook are really as profitable as they're telling us. Yes, this will panic the stock monkeys. But this is not an entire market, this is not an entire industry, this is not an entire content platform, this is one service.
Besides, perhaps this will even out competition with the minor developer exodus it'll probably end up causing.
But I heavily doubt that anyone could state TS3 worthy of an Oscar were it not for the drought of good "mainstream" cinema. The rest of the nominees are mostly above average, I'd say, but in no way is TS3 deserving of an Oscar.
This is, though, an undeniable step up from last year's glut of cheap action movies and thrillers.
Did I ever claim moral outrage? I doubt that many people's reaction to having a film, however bad, made of their life would be moral outrage. I simply stated that Wikileaks, as you agree, is not getting a cut.
In addition, as Assange's lawyer earlier condemned the biographies, and no one has their lawyer condemn things that they'll be profiting from, we have it near enough confirmed that, like Wikileaks or Assange or not, no money from this is going anywhere near them.
They're claiming the film rights from an unofficial biographer who, as far as I have heard, did not pay Assange or Wikileaks royalties, and only according to rumour paid them a one-time payment - in short, a biographer who may have paid Assange nothing. They're not claiming the film rights from Assange, or from Wikileaks, or from the Sunshine Press, or from any associated organization or person. Unless Assange or Wikileaks step in, they won't be making a penny and we'll have one more shitty current-events movie.
35k/sec? Around 4am, when I find myself with little to do at such a time but download, I've managed 300k/sec over torrents, more than the line's apparently capable of, but typically torrenting speeds rarely break 1k/sec.
To add to the litany of anti-BT complaints, the home hubs default to opening port 4567 (not sure about business), and it seems impossible to close it for more than a few minutes without the router opening it again. Apparently this is for firmware updates, but the tinfoil hatter in me says it's a backdoor. Rationally, it's more likely to be an unintentional but blatant vulnerability.
I'm, sadly, with BT currently (not my choice); BitTorrent seems affected from about 2pm onwards, though I'm unsure when it ends as I'm generally offline after 11pm.
This wouldn't be a BT first; the Home Hub, their free router, used to rather egregiously violate the GPL. MoonBuggy does appear to be right, though, it'd be an interesting debate to have over whether concealed attribution constitutes attribution.
I don't have the exact statistics, so I may be wrong - feel free to downvote if you disprove this - but I've rarely seen anyone not on a BT line, until the '60s the company which was previously BT had a complete (government-instated) monopoly of telecom infrastructure, and it is known that BT still owns the majority of lines. A lot of TSPs won't give service over anything but BT lines, and I've seen a few ISPs do similarly. If this is being offered to all ISPs on BT's network, as the BBC article claims, then this is being offered to near enough every ISP in Britain.
This is the new year. Investors usually stampede over the new year. It only makes sense that a rising property such as Apple would get a large boost off this. By March things will probably have flattened out, unless there are some major Apple announcements or releases in that time.
Here in the UK, the RIPA already allows authorities to "compel" us to disclose our passwords and keys in what is basically judicial rubberhosing. I can see it coming to the US very soon.
However large/successful/influential a company is, one must always take into account whether or not the product in question is actually necessary. Codecs are a flooded market.
Slashdot Mirror
More correctly, the US is a democratic republic, but due to influence from the names of the German Democratic Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Vietnam and so on, the phrase has become irrevocably associated with Communism and so is very rarely heard in reference to any capitalist democracy.
"...on Wired-" Lost me there. Hackneyed attacks on what is probably among the most hated of tech magazines pretending to be more independent than they are aside, this is certainly a good idea, but what's to stop people searching for people whom they have nothing to do with? The information on the site, from what I could ascertain from the article, doesn't appear to be meaningfully secured and is open to abuse.
True; by "classic" I meant "more classic than this new definition, which I hadn't seen before Y Combinator took it up", but otherwise you're correct,
IRC's usually on an obvious port and has a discrete protocol of its own. There's no mistaking IRC. With Twitter everything's through HTTP, so people involved have some small level of deniability, and people are far more likely to notice an odd connection appearing on an abnormal port and look into it than they are to pay any heed to the din of HTTP.
Many phones with touchscreen keyboards have an emoticon keyboard along with the phone-style keypad and qwerty. Many simply with buttons have emoticons on autocomplete or under symbols options. This is simply an upscale. I can't find the source (TFA gives barely any details) but if this is a student project, I like. It would actually sell well. If this is a commercial product, oh god no. Yes, it will sell well, yes.
I take it that they're referring to "hacker" as in Y Combinator's "Hacker News", as in "programmer in general", rather than the more classic meanings of "one who accesses systems without authorisation by means of exploiting vulnerable code, etc" or "skilled programmer with tendencies to the questionably legal".
It's clear that none of Facebook's code was compromised, otherwise other high-profile pages would be being defaced. What's more likely here is that, through some human flaw of easy security questions or simple passwords (I can't see the Zuck or his immediate staff using unsecured wifi), the account was compromised. Ergo, not a hack. That pedantry aside, I'm very much pleased to see Facebook knocked down a peg or two, especially in the area of security.
Were this a market and were the government enforcing similar, or were this an industry and a regulator enforcing similar, or were this the internet and an ISP enforcing similar, I'd complain as you are. But this is Facebook's platform. Yes, it's unnecessarily grasping, or so one would think if Facebook are really as profitable as they're telling us. Yes, this will panic the stock monkeys. But this is not an entire market, this is not an entire industry, this is not an entire content platform, this is one service. Besides, perhaps this will even out competition with the minor developer exodus it'll probably end up causing.
But I heavily doubt that anyone could state TS3 worthy of an Oscar were it not for the drought of good "mainstream" cinema. The rest of the nominees are mostly above average, I'd say, but in no way is TS3 deserving of an Oscar. This is, though, an undeniable step up from last year's glut of cheap action movies and thrillers.
I'm throwing in my vote for Discordianism.
Wasn't the poor reception of the third enough to warn them away from making any more?
Did I ever claim moral outrage? I doubt that many people's reaction to having a film, however bad, made of their life would be moral outrage. I simply stated that Wikileaks, as you agree, is not getting a cut.
...conveniently omitting any mention of Qatar.
In addition, as Assange's lawyer earlier condemned the biographies, and no one has their lawyer condemn things that they'll be profiting from, we have it near enough confirmed that, like Wikileaks or Assange or not, no money from this is going anywhere near them.
They're claiming the film rights from an unofficial biographer who, as far as I have heard, did not pay Assange or Wikileaks royalties, and only according to rumour paid them a one-time payment - in short, a biographer who may have paid Assange nothing. They're not claiming the film rights from Assange, or from Wikileaks, or from the Sunshine Press, or from any associated organization or person. Unless Assange or Wikileaks step in, they won't be making a penny and we'll have one more shitty current-events movie.
Lost me there.
35k/sec? Around 4am, when I find myself with little to do at such a time but download, I've managed 300k/sec over torrents, more than the line's apparently capable of, but typically torrenting speeds rarely break 1k/sec. To add to the litany of anti-BT complaints, the home hubs default to opening port 4567 (not sure about business), and it seems impossible to close it for more than a few minutes without the router opening it again. Apparently this is for firmware updates, but the tinfoil hatter in me says it's a backdoor. Rationally, it's more likely to be an unintentional but blatant vulnerability.
I'm, sadly, with BT currently (not my choice); BitTorrent seems affected from about 2pm onwards, though I'm unsure when it ends as I'm generally offline after 11pm.
Ah, thanks. I didn't realize that cable had reached any significant level of popularity next to the latter two yet; it appears that I was wrong.
This wouldn't be a BT first; the Home Hub, their free router, used to rather egregiously violate the GPL. MoonBuggy does appear to be right, though, it'd be an interesting debate to have over whether concealed attribution constitutes attribution.
There is some overlap here; BT've been in a long-running dispute over alleged prioritisation with the BBC over iPlayer, which is served by Akamai.
I don't have the exact statistics, so I may be wrong - feel free to downvote if you disprove this - but I've rarely seen anyone not on a BT line, until the '60s the company which was previously BT had a complete (government-instated) monopoly of telecom infrastructure, and it is known that BT still owns the majority of lines. A lot of TSPs won't give service over anything but BT lines, and I've seen a few ISPs do similarly. If this is being offered to all ISPs on BT's network, as the BBC article claims, then this is being offered to near enough every ISP in Britain.
This is the new year. Investors usually stampede over the new year. It only makes sense that a rising property such as Apple would get a large boost off this. By March things will probably have flattened out, unless there are some major Apple announcements or releases in that time.
Here in the UK, the RIPA already allows authorities to "compel" us to disclose our passwords and keys in what is basically judicial rubberhosing. I can see it coming to the US very soon.
However large/successful/influential a company is, one must always take into account whether or not the product in question is actually necessary. Codecs are a flooded market.