The one distributor (RS, I think) is notorious for crazy long shipping times, while the other has almost always had stock. Cancel your order, go with the other guy.
The government has no business trying to reduce obesity.
Instead, the government should be working hard to make sure that obesity is much more quickly and certainly fatal. Say, "morbid obesity" causing cetain death within five years if the person does not lose weight.
I mean just imagine. Imagine adults who are 50-100 pounds overweight or more. Before they were 50 pounds overweight they were 10 pounds overweight. Then they were 15 pounds overweight. Then 20. Then 30. You mean to tell me an adult person cannot see this happening and say "hey, I must be doing something incorrectly. if I keep doing what I am doing now, i will keep gaining weight, and if I don't change that, I will be morbidly obese"? Really? For the love of God don't let people like that vote. Don't let them drive. Letting these people vote and drive is cruel and unusual punishment without due process for every person with a shred of sense.
Besides, if morbid obesity were 100% fatal within five years, the lard-asses would suddenly stop making excuses (and oh how they love giving fairytale excuses for why their bad decisions are somehow not their fault. with people like this NOTHING is EVER their fault you know, they are perfect angels and they are perfect victims who demand your false sympathy). They would suddenly start forming better eating habits and exercising. If not, well then, we don't need them clogging up the health-care system. Real consequences means good choices. Stop coddling these people who so thoroughly fail at life. If you have a shred of respect for yourself you won't be a fatass to begin with, you will take care of that before it's so severe.
We could also do the same for people with any other addiction. Alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers, compulsive liars, sex addicts, game addicts... the list goes on and on. We would need some large camps to concentrate these people into for effective use of some sort of solution with finality. Later, the program could be expanded to include anonymous cowards and anyone with any sort of medical defect such as hair that is not blond or eyes that are not blue.
I'm familiar with frand, however I fail to see the relevance. The patent is assigned to The Invention Science Fund I, LLC; and as best I can tell is not part of a joint venture requiring that company to have an frand agreement. It's also beside the point. Regardless of the owners intended licensing policy - there's still nothing forcing 3d printer manufacturers (such as Joe Blow who makes his own, ultimaker, or any other entity that makes one) to license or implement this.
Where is the line between this "fair use" and using the song to promote your personal brand? I think this particular case is better dealt with socially by embarassing the shit out of universal for being such tools.
I'd rather see them go after the automated systems that are sending DMCA notices for things that are clearly NOT their IP in any way shape or form.
Interesting theory, except that universal most likely does not give a shit. The majority of the world already holds record and movie companies in very low regard.
Welcome to the power of open source. There is only one Ford and only one Nike. They can only hire so many designers. In a world of 3D printers there are potentially millions of designers creating and sharing millions of patterns. Who should be scared about who stealing designs?
I'm not sure about Ford, but Nike like other fashion companies use trademarks to protect their property. There's a really good TED talk on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
Not to mention, aren't patents usually used to PREVENT someone (else) from implementing a feature?
A patent doesn't mean it's required to implement. Something like this would have to be integrated into the control software most likely, and many 3d printers and some (but not all) of the software that runs them is open source anyway. You could just remove this bit of code, compile, and go.
The worry is that the whole 'disable secure boot' thing might go away, and where will we be then?
As for the unattended reboots:
To facilitate repeat booting (and to make the pre-bootloader useful for booting hard disks as well as USB keys or DVDs) the pre-bootloader will also check to see if the platform is booting in Setup Mode and if it is, will ask the user for permission to install the signature of loader.efi into the authorized signatures database. If the user gives permission, the signature will be installed and loader.efi will then boot up without any present user tests on all subsequent occasions even after the platform is placed back into secure boot mode.
Ah well that's not so bad, then. The linked article which I quoted doesn't go into that much detail and makes it sound worse than it apparently is.
That seems like a LOT more of a pain in the butt than simply turning off the secure boot option.
How long will motherboard BIOSes ship with the option to turn off UEFI secure boot? Maybe not tomorrow, but what about 1, 2 or 3 years down the road? That's the real issue here! The problem is that the PC commodity market is about to be turned into a walled garden controlled by, guess who? Microsoft in this case. That's pretty scary stuff actually, and I wouldn't wonder if the regulating authorities (at least in the EU) will sooner or later consider this as anti-competitive behavior.
That seems unlikely to me because 1. The work to implement the feature has already been done. 2. Time (and money) would have to be spent to remove it. 3. The companies that ship motherboards would limit their customer base unnecessarily without gaining any benefit.
Basically, they'd have to spend money in order to make less money.
The only scenario I could conceive of where this might happen is an anti-competitive move by MS to pay for or somehow force manufacturers to make the change. This wouldn't be without precedent, but I think something like this would be easily leaked and would lead to some kind of regulatory action as you suggested.
On the other hand, your theory reminds me a lot of the fate of "OtherOS" Linux booting on the Sony PlayStation 3 computer. Perhaps your concern has more merit than I originally thought.
Cellular standards like GSM and UMTS (no idea about other standards like LTE or CDMA) are not designed to be secure. They are designed to be complex to implement and to use as many pieces of patented technology as possible.
Not to mention they were designed in 1990, and anything above only a minimal level of security is "optional". The world (or the parts of it that still use GSM) need to move on.
To address this, the Linux Foundation bootloader will present its own splash screen and require user input before it actually boots.
That seems like a LOT more of a pain in the butt than simply turning off the secure boot option. In fact, it would be a deal breaker for any of my Linux machines that must be able to reboot unattended every time. It's a "solution" to a trumped up problem. There are plenty of legit reasons to hate Microsoft, but this isn't one of them.
The bottom line: UEFI secure boot is not going to be enabled on any machine shipping with Linux unless that distro has the keys themselves. That is most likely the only group of Linux users not savvy enough to change a single setting in the firmware. If someone builds their own p.c. it won't have secure boot enabled. If someone decides to replace the MS os they paid for with Linux, it's not even slightly unreasonable to think they would be capable of changing the necessary firmware setting.
Every linux distribution I've EVER tried including the "easy" ubuntu is more complicated to install than changing this setting would be. Silliness...plain and simple.
PC sales not holding up at current levels does not = the pc is dead. Not by a long shot. I expect much greater decline in pc sales as the "websurfing" crowd switch. People who use computers for work, engineers, geeks, etc will still be using pc type systems for a long time to come. It does mean high volume low quality manufacturers such as HP have something to worry about if they don't change their current business model.
Not because it's viral, because it's become much worse. A religion, and alas religions have their fanatics.
APIs GPL only? Seriously guys, WHAT THE FUCK?
Until today, I thought the anti GPL crowd just had sour grapes. This is bad, and a perfect example of what folks have been complaining about. What a mess.
It will be tied into the aircrafts autopilot system, thus being done "with a computer" thus invalidating any prior art and qualifying for patent protection for that reason as well.
It'll be okay as long as the planes don't have rounded edges thus inciting apple's rage... oh wait... nevermind.
I know several photographers that just use SD cards for this purpose. 1GB SD cards sell on amazon.com for literally 1 cent, and 16GB cards from respected brands like sandisk are only $5usd. You must be using really low res photos, even compressed jpg images from my somewhat outdated (and decidedly not professional grade) 12mp Nikon D90 are far too large to fit a single image on a floppy disk.
I realize parent and grandparent are mostly joking but the internet has not solved the problem of moving around very large amounts of data, quite on the contrary. The disk sizes have been growing much faster for the last 30 years than the network bandwidth. Even today when there is a larger amount of data, it's transferred physically, not over IP.
I think that depends on how you define "very large amounts of data" and where you are moving it to. Since upgrading to FIOS quantum, I regularly move over 1TB a month across my home connection. Generally at work with even larger connections I move a few GB of data to vendors across the country; and that's not counting the data moved across the internet by the other hundred thousand or so employees. The only times I even use physical media are when I have to install an OS, want to perform an offline backup, or transfer data from a non connected device like a digital camera. I considered myself a holdout, too; having only eliminated floppy drives from my computers about 5 years ago. Even when extreme security is concerned, a secure private network or even a secure virtual private network is still probably a better option than using physical media.
Facebook has confirmed that it limited the Prakash's activity but it's unclear how long it took to do so.
Am I the only one who thinks this was not the right response here? It seems like it would be far better to fix the damn vulnerability rather than blocking the guy who reported it...
Slashdot Mirror
The one distributor (RS, I think) is notorious for crazy long shipping times, while the other has almost always had stock. Cancel your order, go with the other guy.
Thanks, I just cancelled the order.
@ $50, it's not even an issue. buy a second one! wooo.
FTFY. Although at this point, I didn't really buy a pi, I loaned them 50 bucks.
The ban, designed to reduce obesity
The government has no business trying to reduce obesity. Instead, the government should be working hard to make sure that obesity is much more quickly and certainly fatal. Say, "morbid obesity" causing cetain death within five years if the person does not lose weight. I mean just imagine. Imagine adults who are 50-100 pounds overweight or more. Before they were 50 pounds overweight they were 10 pounds overweight. Then they were 15 pounds overweight. Then 20. Then 30. You mean to tell me an adult person cannot see this happening and say "hey, I must be doing something incorrectly. if I keep doing what I am doing now, i will keep gaining weight, and if I don't change that, I will be morbidly obese"? Really? For the love of God don't let people like that vote. Don't let them drive. Letting these people vote and drive is cruel and unusual punishment without due process for every person with a shred of sense. Besides, if morbid obesity were 100% fatal within five years, the lard-asses would suddenly stop making excuses (and oh how they love giving fairytale excuses for why their bad decisions are somehow not their fault. with people like this NOTHING is EVER their fault you know, they are perfect angels and they are perfect victims who demand your false sympathy). They would suddenly start forming better eating habits and exercising. If not, well then, we don't need them clogging up the health-care system. Real consequences means good choices. Stop coddling these people who so thoroughly fail at life. If you have a shred of respect for yourself you won't be a fatass to begin with, you will take care of that before it's so severe.
We could also do the same for people with any other addiction. Alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers, compulsive liars, sex addicts, game addicts... the list goes on and on. We would need some large camps to concentrate these people into for effective use of some sort of solution with finality. Later, the program could be expanded to include anonymous cowards and anyone with any sort of medical defect such as hair that is not blond or eyes that are not blue.
Moonwalking with Einstein
If one chooses the bible, I expect them to tell me which book of the bible.
Ecclesiastes. Pretty much everybody, believer or not, should read Ecclesiastes.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1&version=NIV
I'm familiar with frand, however I fail to see the relevance. The patent is assigned to The Invention Science Fund I, LLC; and as best I can tell is not part of a joint venture requiring that company to have an frand agreement. It's also beside the point. Regardless of the owners intended licensing policy - there's still nothing forcing 3d printer manufacturers (such as Joe Blow who makes his own, ultimaker, or any other entity that makes one) to license or implement this.
Where is the line between this "fair use" and using the song to promote your personal brand? I think this particular case is better dealt with socially by embarassing the shit out of universal for being such tools.
I'd rather see them go after the automated systems that are sending DMCA notices for things that are clearly NOT their IP in any way shape or form.
Interesting theory, except that universal most likely does not give a shit. The majority of the world already holds record and movie companies in very low regard.
Welcome to the power of open source. There is only one Ford and only one Nike. They can only hire so many designers. In a world of 3D printers there are potentially millions of designers creating and sharing millions of patterns. Who should be scared about who stealing designs?
I'm not sure about Ford, but Nike like other fashion companies use trademarks to protect their property. There's a really good TED talk on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
Not to mention, aren't patents usually used to PREVENT someone (else) from implementing a feature?
A patent doesn't mean it's required to implement. Something like this would have to be integrated into the control software most likely, and many 3d printers and some (but not all) of the software that runs them is open source anyway. You could just remove this bit of code, compile, and go.
The worry is that the whole 'disable secure boot' thing might go away, and where will we be then?
As for the unattended reboots: To facilitate repeat booting (and to make the pre-bootloader useful for booting hard disks as well as USB keys or DVDs) the pre-bootloader will also check to see if the platform is booting in Setup Mode and if it is, will ask the user for permission to install the signature of loader.efi into the authorized signatures database. If the user gives permission, the signature will be installed and loader.efi will then boot up without any present user tests on all subsequent occasions even after the platform is placed back into secure boot mode.
Ah well that's not so bad, then. The linked article which I quoted doesn't go into that much detail and makes it sound worse than it apparently is.
How long will motherboard BIOSes ship with the option to turn off UEFI secure boot? Maybe not tomorrow, but what about 1, 2 or 3 years down the road? That's the real issue here! The problem is that the PC commodity market is about to be turned into a walled garden controlled by, guess who? Microsoft in this case. That's pretty scary stuff actually, and I wouldn't wonder if the regulating authorities (at least in the EU) will sooner or later consider this as anti-competitive behavior.
That seems unlikely to me because 1. The work to implement the feature has already been done. 2. Time (and money) would have to be spent to remove it. 3. The companies that ship motherboards would limit their customer base unnecessarily without gaining any benefit.
Basically, they'd have to spend money in order to make less money.
The only scenario I could conceive of where this might happen is an anti-competitive move by MS to pay for or somehow force manufacturers to make the change. This wouldn't be without precedent, but I think something like this would be easily leaked and would lead to some kind of regulatory action as you suggested.
On the other hand, your theory reminds me a lot of the fate of "OtherOS" Linux booting on the Sony PlayStation 3 computer. Perhaps your concern has more merit than I originally thought.
Cellular standards like GSM and UMTS (no idea about other standards like LTE or CDMA) are not designed to be secure. They are designed to be complex to implement and to use as many pieces of patented technology as possible.
Not to mention they were designed in 1990, and anything above only a minimal level of security is "optional". The world (or the parts of it that still use GSM) need to move on.
or.. you could just not turn on secure boot on machines where you don't want it.
To address this, the Linux Foundation bootloader will present its own splash screen and require user input before it actually boots.
That seems like a LOT more of a pain in the butt than simply turning off the secure boot option. In fact, it would be a deal breaker for any of my Linux machines that must be able to reboot unattended every time. It's a "solution" to a trumped up problem. There are plenty of legit reasons to hate Microsoft, but this isn't one of them.
The bottom line: UEFI secure boot is not going to be enabled on any machine shipping with Linux unless that distro has the keys themselves. That is most likely the only group of Linux users not savvy enough to change a single setting in the firmware. If someone builds their own p.c. it won't have secure boot enabled. If someone decides to replace the MS os they paid for with Linux, it's not even slightly unreasonable to think they would be capable of changing the necessary firmware setting.
Every linux distribution I've EVER tried including the "easy" ubuntu is more complicated to install than changing this setting would be. Silliness...plain and simple.
PC sales not holding up at current levels does not = the pc is dead. Not by a long shot. I expect much greater decline in pc sales as the "websurfing" crowd switch. People who use computers for work, engineers, geeks, etc will still be using pc type systems for a long time to come. It does mean high volume low quality manufacturers such as HP have something to worry about if they don't change their current business model.
I've got a lenovo stinkpad t420. It's not a bad system as long as you take into account that it's a laptop.
The GPL is a bad thing.
Not because it's viral, because it's become much worse. A religion, and alas religions have their fanatics.
APIs GPL only? Seriously guys, WHAT THE FUCK?
Until today, I thought the anti GPL crowd just had sour grapes. This is bad, and a perfect example of what folks have been complaining about. What a mess.
It will be tied into the aircrafts autopilot system, thus being done "with a computer" thus invalidating any prior art and qualifying for patent protection for that reason as well.
It'll be okay as long as the planes don't have rounded edges thus inciting apple's rage... oh wait... nevermind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDtrPe4Ijc4
I know several photographers that just use SD cards for this purpose. 1GB SD cards sell on amazon.com for literally 1 cent, and 16GB cards from respected brands like sandisk are only $5usd. You must be using really low res photos, even compressed jpg images from my somewhat outdated (and decidedly not professional grade) 12mp Nikon D90 are far too large to fit a single image on a floppy disk.
I realize parent and grandparent are mostly joking but the internet has not solved the problem of moving around very large amounts of data, quite on the contrary. The disk sizes have been growing much faster for the last 30 years than the network bandwidth. Even today when there is a larger amount of data, it's transferred physically, not over IP.
And to continue the hilarity, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFC_1149
I think that depends on how you define "very large amounts of data" and where you are moving it to. Since upgrading to FIOS quantum, I regularly move over 1TB a month across my home connection. Generally at work with even larger connections I move a few GB of data to vendors across the country; and that's not counting the data moved across the internet by the other hundred thousand or so employees. The only times I even use physical media are when I have to install an OS, want to perform an offline backup, or transfer data from a non connected device like a digital camera. I considered myself a holdout, too; having only eliminated floppy drives from my computers about 5 years ago. Even when extreme security is concerned, a secure private network or even a secure virtual private network is still probably a better option than using physical media.
"Islam" more closely translates to "[peace] through submission".
So, it's the religion of choice for the S&M community?
If you jail people for lying then we have to put all of Congress in jail.
You say that, but I'm sure that there are downsides as well.
The only downside I see is that it wouldn't include the rest of our politicians.
Facebook has confirmed that it limited the Prakash's activity but it's unclear how long it took to do so.
Am I the only one who thinks this was not the right response here? It seems like it would be far better to fix the damn vulnerability rather than blocking the guy who reported it...
Most of the rest of the civilized world has this.
It's only Americans who think it should be for profit and that "those of modest means" are on their own if they don't have the money.
That's an overly broad generalization. It's primarily only republicans in America with this point of view.