Social part? You clearly don't study Engineering. Or your universities differ greatly from ours. I've never noticed any "social" part in university study.
If you want to live in the world of closed and patented crap (can't blame you as it's all around us, everywhere) then you can get away with RPMFusion, which is a repository (app store thing) full of borderline illegal (as in against lobbied laws) stuff like automatic DVD 'copy protection' cracking on the fly, MPEG codecs, patented stuff and what have you? You can simply enable that with the browser.
Illegal in USA, but not in most of the rest of the world. All the stuff you mentioned in pretty much legal in most countries.
Fedora isn't really bleeding edge:
Debian is very very stable and usually lags behind. Arch is really bleeding edge.
The decision to put the flag on this content is done at the editor level... or perhaps at the "autoconfirmed user" level (like what you need to edit semi-protected content). It isn't that big of a deal and you can get that kind of status by simply participating on Wikipedia for four days. If you disagree with the flag, you can add it or remove it or join into that battle royale of discussion arguing over specific content and the application of the flag. You certainly don't need to worry about some faceless censoring committee. As for genuine medical photos... that can be dealt with on a case by case basis as well.
Yes, it's done at an editor level, but editor's need guidelines. Some will want to add the "porn flag" to everything with nudity, others will accept art with nudity as non-porn. Or maybe medical articules like "female reproductive organ". A guideline needs to be written, a guidelines that indicates where to draw the line; and that's the issue; where to draw it.
You can also choose to add this flag or not, and you as a parent can decide if you want to use this flag or not for your kids (it is originally opt-out). If you don't want to trip across some porn when randomly going through Wikipedia, you can filter that out or you can turn the switch off and have that stuff included. It is your choice. Censorship would be removing choices from people, and this does exactly the opposite as it expands the range of choices for you to use.
Parents are responsable for their kid's education, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that whould provide acurate, complete and neutral information, that's the difference.
Not really. Censoring NSFW stuff on an encyclopedia isn't the same as a TV show. There's educational purposes, it's for learning. While there are some extreme photos that don't need to be there, plenty of medical articles have adult content.
Where to draw the line is what's really hard, and the value of that bit depends on that line.
If he were genuinely interested in making the government more accessible, he would have told them to adhere to strict HTML standards without vendor extensions, and W3C accessibility guidelines, so they work with any browser, whether mobile or not, or not even existing yet, instead of tailoring it to specific clients or types of clients.
Did it occur to you that a career politician is unlikely to know any of that?
Politicians have advisors for this sort of thing, so they don't call shots about thing without knowing the technical details.
The article implies that people that are poor waste more time (and likely, a greater percentage of their already small income) on Digital Entertainment.
Isn't this really the other way around? I think people that waste lots of time watching movies and buying gadets they don't need end up being poor. (Of course rich people are an exception, but I'm talking low/middle class here).
If you're having a discussion about a complex help desk ticket, and you want someone to take a look at the specific ticket but it's nearly identical to twelve other tickets, you have to write down the ticket number... or hey, just print out the ticket and hand it to them (as my boss did to me twice this morning.) And heaven help you if the Internet goes down and you're using SaaS. Suddenly, everything has to go into temporary Word files... which are later on printed out so they can be entered into the system properly.
Why can't you email the ticket number instead of taking a piece of paper to that person? Also, why do you need to PRINT something to move it from word to another system. Don't ctrl+c and ctrl+v work in your office?
In Argentina, to quite a job, you legally need to send a telegram. You can do it for free from any post office, but it still proves how far we are from email dying.
I also worked an a very, VERY large software company (think "one of the largest 5"), and fax was still used there.
Finally, a friend had an issue with his mac about 3 years ago, and needed to fax the original invoice to mac tech support to get the cd he needed.
With more and more servers and clients every day, broken ones tend to die faster. Except huge corporate sponsored ones (yes, I'm looking at you, Outlook!). In any case, if something DID replace email someday, you'd still have broken implementations, and many of the same issues. Maybe phishing may fade, though phising is really a user/educational problem, unrelated to the protocol.
Who's been predicting the death of email for years? I haven't heard of anything like that, nor have I noticed any reduction in the usage of email. On the contrary, with smartphones, I've noticed IM and email are slowly replacing SMSs.
So DMCA lets suposed copyright holders act without due process. Great, we never needed due process anyway, right? If someone sends a notice, it must be right, there's no way it can be mistaken.
Also, making my own program to view DVDs I legally buyed is surely a bad thing, so it's ok if I'm banned from developing and distributing my own.
This is a first world country we're talking about here, with a way lower level of corruption, and people who care a lot more about this sort of stuff. Generally, these sort of changes from on day to the next don't happen, there's a way greater level of stability.
Spend at least 5 seconds googling, or, umm, yahooing, before complaining.
Those "smart tags" make gmail a pain to use over IMAP, since you have lots of autogenerated folders, and deleting an email won't delete it, and moving it sometimes copies, sometimes moves. It's really a pain if you use any client which is not their own.
That's funny, because the show is screen the same day as USA in Argentina, are you sure it takes a week to get to australia? We're already well-known for receiving things late in general.
It would cost me a fortune to pay for cable TV, especially HDTV, and on top of that, add HBO. I'd be happy to pay-per-view online for the show, or even pay for HBO for the six months GoT is broadcast, but cable TV is way out of budget.
HBO needs to change it's business model, and stop depending on cabletv companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Social part? You clearly don't study Engineering. Or your universities differ greatly from ours. I've never noticed any "social" part in university study.
If you want to live in the world of closed and patented crap (can't blame you as it's all around us, everywhere) then you can get away with RPMFusion, which is a repository (app store thing) full of borderline illegal (as in against lobbied laws) stuff like automatic DVD 'copy protection' cracking on the fly, MPEG codecs, patented stuff and what have you? You can simply enable that with the browser.
Illegal in USA, but not in most of the rest of the world. All the stuff you mentioned in pretty much legal in most countries.
Fedora isn't really bleeding edge:
Debian is very very stable and usually lags behind.
Arch is really bleeding edge.
Fedora is somewhat in between both.
The decision to put the flag on this content is done at the editor level... or perhaps at the "autoconfirmed user" level (like what you need to edit semi-protected content). It isn't that big of a deal and you can get that kind of status by simply participating on Wikipedia for four days. If you disagree with the flag, you can add it or remove it or join into that battle royale of discussion arguing over specific content and the application of the flag. You certainly don't need to worry about some faceless censoring committee. As for genuine medical photos... that can be dealt with on a case by case basis as well.
Yes, it's done at an editor level, but editor's need guidelines. Some will want to add the "porn flag" to everything with nudity, others will accept art with nudity as non-porn. Or maybe medical articules like "female reproductive organ".
A guideline needs to be written, a guidelines that indicates where to draw the line; and that's the issue; where to draw it.
You can also choose to add this flag or not, and you as a parent can decide if you want to use this flag or not for your kids (it is originally opt-out). If you don't want to trip across some porn when randomly going through Wikipedia, you can filter that out or you can turn the switch off and have that stuff included. It is your choice. Censorship would be removing choices from people, and this does exactly the opposite as it expands the range of choices for you to use.
Parents are responsable for their kid's education, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that whould provide acurate, complete and neutral information, that's the difference.
Not really. Censoring NSFW stuff on an encyclopedia isn't the same as a TV show. There's educational purposes, it's for learning. While there are some extreme photos that don't need to be there, plenty of medical articles have adult content.
Where to draw the line is what's really hard, and the value of that bit depends on that line.
Simply don't buy a cell phone from a carrier. There is a bit of a conflic of interests there anyway.
Yup, it's abusing monopoly, just like bundling your product with your flagship OS is also anti-trust (IE in Windows).
Did it occur to you that a career politician is unlikely to know any of that?
Politicians have advisors for this sort of thing, so they don't call shots about thing without knowing the technical details.
The search engine is the only product I use. DDG is catching up pretty well though.
The huge ad that says "Suft the net faster: USE CHROME NOW" on youtube.com and google.com seem a bit of an abuse IMHO.
The article implies that people that are poor waste more time (and likely, a greater percentage of their already small income) on Digital Entertainment.
Isn't this really the other way around?
I think people that waste lots of time watching movies and buying gadets they don't need end up being poor. (Of course rich people are an exception, but I'm talking low/middle class here).
Someone mod this up. It's pretty informative actually.
If you're having a discussion about a complex help desk ticket, and you want someone to take a look at the specific ticket but it's nearly identical to twelve other tickets, you have to write down the ticket number... or hey, just print out the ticket and hand it to them (as my boss did to me twice this morning.) And heaven help you if the Internet goes down and you're using SaaS. Suddenly, everything has to go into temporary Word files... which are later on printed out so they can be entered into the system properly.
Why can't you email the ticket number instead of taking a piece of paper to that person?
Also, why do you need to PRINT something to move it from word to another system. Don't ctrl+c and ctrl+v work in your office?
In Argentina, to quite a job, you legally need to send a telegram. You can do it for free from any post office, but it still proves how far we are from email dying.
I also worked an a very, VERY large software company (think "one of the largest 5"), and fax was still used there.
Finally, a friend had an issue with his mac about 3 years ago, and needed to fax the original invoice to mac tech support to get the cd he needed.
With more and more servers and clients every day, broken ones tend to die faster. Except huge corporate sponsored ones (yes, I'm looking at you, Outlook!).
In any case, if something DID replace email someday, you'd still have broken implementations, and many of the same issues. Maybe phishing may fade, though phising is really a user/educational problem, unrelated to the protocol.
Who's been predicting the death of email for years? I haven't heard of anything like that, nor have I noticed any reduction in the usage of email.
On the contrary, with smartphones, I've noticed IM and email are slowly replacing SMSs.
Or maybe DRM needs to die once and for all, which is what most consumer are expecting.
15 years? We already have the necessary speed.
So DMCA lets suposed copyright holders act without due process. Great, we never needed due process anyway, right? If someone sends a notice, it must be right, there's no way it can be mistaken.
Also, making my own program to view DVDs I legally buyed is surely a bad thing, so it's ok if I'm banned from developing and distributing my own.
This is a first world country we're talking about here, with a way lower level of corruption, and people who care a lot more about this sort of stuff. Generally, these sort of changes from on day to the next don't happen, there's a way greater level of stability.
Or even worse; one big flash covering the entire page/website.
Try "on a portable device".
The problem is the SMTP daemon, in this case, it's perfectly valid. Whoever wrote the daemon, didn't read the RFC.
Labels are strictly more powerful than folders especially now that gmail has nested labels: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/06/superstars-and-nested-labels-now.html.
Spend at least 5 seconds googling, or, umm, yahooing, before complaining.
Those "smart tags" make gmail a pain to use over IMAP, since you have lots of autogenerated folders, and deleting an email won't delete it, and moving it sometimes copies, sometimes moves. It's really a pain if you use any client which is not their own.
That's funny, because the show is screen the same day as USA in Argentina, are you sure it takes a week to get to australia? We're already well-known for receiving things late in general.
This is the pure truth.
It would cost me a fortune to pay for cable TV, especially HDTV, and on top of that, add HBO.
I'd be happy to pay-per-view online for the show, or even pay for HBO for the six months GoT is broadcast, but cable TV is way out of budget.
HBO needs to change it's business model, and stop depending on cabletv companies.