Canadian citizens want to police. While we're at it, we also want new politicians.
These ass-clowns just don't get it that while laws that enable them to use new technologies are reasonable, laws that bypass established due process aren't. I don't care that computers allow much more efficient investi-trolling. You still get a warrant, or you don't get the data, in my world. Anything else - C-30 or not - is illegal to me and puts the government and police in an adversarial position relative to their constituents.
Yeah yeah we know it does work, mostly, and is probably written in VBscript or cobol.
But damn, you can afford a EX licence, but cannot afford a high end intel 512G SSD x 2.
Restore in 5mins.
Hardrives, puhhhh.... so 90s, like C64 tapes. Get with the future dude.
Sure. So you restore in minutes but that's when you realize that the information store is - by definition - backed up dirty because it's in use. A moment later you discover that Exchange insists on you running some nice ISINTEG routines to mark the database as clean before it can be mounted. Those routines joyfully take a minor eternity, even on SSD if you have a huge database. Like... 450G. When you're done with ISINTEG, if you're really lucky you can have a bonus round of ESEUTIL followed by ISINTEG again if it turns out there was any minor database structural issues you didn't know about.
High I/O absolutely helps, but don't write this off as if massive database restores are trivial just because someone follows your advice. For businesses that are big enough to accrue huge amounts of data but not big enough to afford redundant servers, TIME is the cost they pay.
You mean like water, where you pay for what you use? Or electricity, where you pay for what you use? Or gas, where you pay for what you use?
Yes. Exactly like that.
Exactly like that? We'd be fine if it was exactly like that. Where I live (Canada) those utilities aren't marked up very much. Yes, I pay a flat delivery fee and some taxes, but overall the per-unit usage price is close to the price of production.
A barrel of oil is 42 gallons, and people scream about gas costing $3 a gallon. When a barrel costs $80 and the refined product (after shipping and taxes) results in a 50% mark-up, people scream. But it's reasonable.
Data movement isn't like that at all. You're looking at pennies per gigabyte of data movement. And yet the pricing is dollars per gigabyte. Two orders of magnitude worth of markup. It's okay for the providers to just decide one day that they'll make a 1,000% markup on their service?
That's why "we" object to data caps. Flat unlimited plans force the providers to pick a price-point that we can ALL live with. $50 or so a month and we all get to be happy. You get telnet to the occasional router, I get to download all the video I want, and the provider gets to rake in a massive profit. Win, win, win.
Understand, all the complaint about infrastructure is just smoke and mirrors. I know an independent ISP. He's able to make a tidy profit without monthly caps. That's right... he pays for his hardware and his peering agreements and his overhead and pockets spare money... without a monthly cap.
So if the options are "have a cap, pay through the nose because we inflated the price nearly three orders of magnitude" or "pricing gets flattened and poor jamesh 'subsidizes' me", only one makes sense to ANYONE but the incumbent carriers.
Right. Because they speak English on Caprica and use English spelling and rules of grammar. That wiki is just how some fans rationalise things. Anyway, an acronym you speak as a single word rather than spell out (D_R_A_D_I_S) is usually written lower case -- radar, laser, etc.
Nobody said anything about English. But... the script was written in English and the topic we're discussing was named in the script. You're disputing that, I provided citation. It's now your job to demonstrate my sources as incorrect, preferably without a random ad hominem attack. That wiki states where it got its information. You... just made some stuff up.
RAID. NAS. BIOS. You don't discuss updating the bios on your nas box to ensure there's no corruption on your raid array. While I agree that neither "radar" nor "laser" follow those rules, if you do a bit of research you'll find the origin of your example terms were acronyms. The terms have entered common language as standard nouns.
So, aside from you immediately refuting yourself, I can recall them showing ships across a solar system, light hours away.There's never more than a few seconds delay. And that more for the sweeping of whatever it is that they beam out in analogy to microwaves. It was called dradis for a reason, so they could make it do whatever they wanted dramatically. If they had wanted to limit it to real world EM and lightspeed, they would have done that. They had plenty enough antique technology.
I said visible. As in... can be seen. By the viewer. The object that just jumped in is close enough that there's no notable delay. It's close. It's not far away. It's right there. Rinse, repeat.
You saw things across a solar system. I'll tell you what. Give me an episode name and a time offset and I'll call it evidence.
Also it's "dradis". Which isn't explained, but does appear to be effectively instantaneous. When they start a scan they get an image from millions of miles away in seconds. In BSG they have FTL travel, so FTL "radar" isn't out of the question.
Here you go, doing exactly what I was being critical of. Making stuff up. There's NO sign in that show that it is instantaneous. At close range perhaps, which is where most of the engagements happen, but we are almost always SHOWN (for dramatic effect) whatever has just jumped into range. It's visible. Immediately. No light-speed delay. Everything that happens in BSG combat-wise is visibly in the general range of tens of kilometers. DRADIS obviously had fairly limited range on it, with even one raptor micro-jump exceeding it. So even short FTL travel defeated it. Therein lies the evidence that they didn't have FTL detection.
Missing the point to enjoy their their own voices
on
Aircraft Carriers In Space
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As usual, when it comes to nitpicking science fiction, assumptions as bogus as those in the fiction get applied.
In BSG - for instance - every time we see observation of enemy ship positions, the sensors used (DRADIS) appear to be active sensors, not passive. A cylon basestar jumping 3 light minutes away from Galactica wouldn't observe its presence for six minutes. At least in that show, such vast distances weren't particularly useful.
That's where the inevitable "well, they should've" speculation comes in. Kinetic kill weapons should be used, right? Passive projectiles from far away with massive velocity just smash into where a target is/was/will be. Okay, well, the counter-speculation kicks in with "if anyone used that tactic, it would be SOP to have all ships injecting a random factor into their movement".
Blah, blah, blah. All of this misses the fundamental truth: this is all about entertainment. Accuracy isn't necessarily entertaining, and in the case of space battles, very likely wouldn't be entertaining at all if it were utterly realistic.
One area that is constantly ignored are the grey-area copyrights (where no one knows who owns the copyright because a copyright holder has gone bankrupt) and the stuff in torrents that is not even in print. Trading that stuff doesn't hurt anyone and, as a matter of fact, often gets them noticed again and brought back into print. Has anyone ever heard a greedhead from the *AAs even acknowledge this?
You don't understand. If you're consuming entertainment material that isn't available legally anymore, you're STEALING from the makers of content that is legally available. How can this be? Simple. You have X hours of entertainment time in your week. If there is no free entertainment available, you will purchase entertainment that is not free. By going back to out-of-print material or by dipping into TV/movies that are no longer available, you are wasting your valuable entertainment dollar-hours that should have been invested in Big Entertainment. For shame.
This is the biggest problem Mozilla has. They listen to everybody and everything, and so they can't win because surprise, people don't agree.
People were pushing hard for Firefox to have a more minimalist UI like Chrome. Mozilla acquiesced. Then all the people who use their browser as a tool and not a lifestyle got a big surprise when the update came down the pipeline and got irritated about it.
People are pushing hard for Firefox to update more often - this was probably legitimate, since it was taking a year plus between releases. They did. Then another group of people got irate about rapid releases.
Who are these people you keep mentioning? I haven't met anyone yet who matches these descriptions. Where have you been reading "if only Firefox had less interface exposed so that doing anything except Forward and Back was concealed?" Where have you been reading "if only Firefox was putting out rapid releases so each one is insignificant?"
No. I'm sorry. Mozilla has their own agenda and vision. It's an Awesomebar TabBrowser Minimalistico-Rapido vision and it's the only one they see. It's not us users asking for this.
Now... memory... that was a gripe. But very few people are complaining about the old leaks being fixed.
Piracy is not as big a problem as some devs are making it out to be.
I agree. The real "problem" is that (many) developers just don't get it that their fart app really isn't worth $.99 to most people. Clue: your weather widget... it's a fart app. Your uber-mega-clock? It's a fart app. Battery Gauge Max++ Professional Edition is... a fart app. If you really dig on Google Play, you're going to see thousands of "apps" almost all of which are just superfluous fluff. Even most of the games are roughly equivalent to the freeware of the Windows platform circa 1990.
Developers... get this: unless you're making either a top-tier game or a truly powerful app like Documents to Go or Repligo PDF Reader, you're making crap we don't need. Some of your fart apps we might kinda-sorta want, a little bit, maybe. And sometimes someone of us might bother with your token microtransactions because we're bored. But don't think counting on that income is a valid business plan. It's not. There are five other stock-ticker apps out there that are actually free instead of almost-but-not-quite-free. Sure, maybe yours comes with a blue icon and sure, maybe that's enough motivation for someone to pirate yours instead of using one of the free ones with green icons, but don't kid yourself... you didn't get pirated because Android blah blah platform for piracy blah blah. No. You got pirated because your product really, truly isn't worth $.99 (With the notable exceptions mentioned earlier.)
No, the American People ruined America after 11th Sep by letting Congress (and their state and local governments, who use the same excuses) act unchecked.
I'm sorry, but I've got to ask... what exactly were you thinking the American people should have done? Vote for the other party that does whatever they want when they're in power? Write some letters that aren't accompanied by nice lobbyist cheques?
Let's face it. There isn't anything legal their citizens could really do. Revolt is pretty much all that's left for radical change (and yes, shutting down or preventing the paranoid state is radical). Only problem with that is the people are happy enough, enough of the time that they won't go to war against their government over the periods they're not happy.
Replace a dead cat with a human cadaver. Is it still difficult to differentiate between disturbing and adorable?
Well, most people find cats adorable. Humans - except perhaps children - aren't generally considered adorable. So general use of a human cadaver wouldn't likely be adorable, would it? Unless it was a kid. Then it might be a fair comparison.
For myself, this is disturbing. It makes a mockery of creature, whether it is alive or dead. It's like taking a head of a murder victim, sticking it on a pole and calling it art. Sure, maybe the victim doesn't care anymore, but the entire display is a mockery of life.
Mockery of? You mean "tribute to", right? Taking a shovel and burying your dead where you never have to see them or think about them again... that's the real mockery. Incinerating the remains and keeping a jar of ashes around as if those ashes have anything tangible to do with the dead... that's mockery. Doing taxidermy with a dead pet shows that you're willing to be reminded every day that your furry friend isn't with you any more. That takes strength.
Heck, I think this could be a good test to see if someone is a psychopath. A psychopath would definitely not find anything wrong with this usage of a "cat".
Again, I disagree. And that as someone who recently lost a beloved pet. Unless by "psychopath" you mean "able to bear the constant reminder of loss and find some small measure of joy together after death."
Remember, death taboo is a strong social construct. Doesn't mean it has any objective importance. It's just what you're taught.
"What's the likelihood a dictionary attack is going to crack "hastalavistababy!"..."
Pretty damn fucking HIGH I'd say.
How do you figure? While each of the constituent words will likely be in a dictionary, the concatenated string is much less likely to be. Realistically an attacker will have to try low-hanging fruit passwords (such as "password") first, then try brute-forcing short combinations (such as "123abc"), then try a dictionary attack (such as "elephantine"), move back to brute-forcing slightly longer possibilities (such as "1234password#1") and finally start combinations of dictionary words in the desperate hope they might stumble upon a passphrase (such as "pluckmypubichairwithyourteeth").
While yes, phrases consisting of dictionary words are technically a group of tokens, in practice hacking an unknown password isn't trivial. You can think a phrase using five words is equivalent to a five-letter password, but it's really not. By extending the length of the password, you force the attacker to try other combinations first, for efficiency's sake. And if you introduce a single spelling error you screw the attacker right over.
Here in the Netherlands (and as I understand it, most of Europe atleast), WhatsApp is the current chat method, and it's available on most mobile platforms, including BB. It's still proprietary, but atleast it's practically platform agnostic.
And it still doesn't tell you when someone you're chatting with is typing. Or when they read your messages. And it doesn't have the same attachment capacity. Oh, and as far as I can tell all my contacts get sent to WhatsApp.
I was on BB for the last three years and just moved to Android, reluctantly. There's a lot to be said for the platform, but the lack of actual, fully-functional BBM is glaring. Google Talk will do attachments, but not delivery notification. WhatsApp the reverse. There just isn't an equivalent.
The only thing you should know (which you may already) is that toner cartridges have parts that will wear out. The seals tend to do so suddenly, and when they do the result is usually a very large leak inside the printer. Once that happens you need a very fine filter rated for toner in order to clean it up. I'm not discouraging toner refills, but you need to know that there's a limited number of rotations before they basically explode.
Quick related story. I had a customer who used a large scale laser printer for printing mail labels. Very, very low coverage per page and using very, very large cartridges. They were rated for something like 6,000 pages. Well, after 6,000 pages they'd still have a good 90% toner left. So they'd keep running it. And running it. Until it detonated inside the printer. They did this a few times then bought themselves a toner-rated vacuum because it was cheaper than tossing half-filled cartridges.
Just know there's a big mess in your future and you'll be fine.
There virtually no interest in anything that isn't personally and obviously of benefit to Joe Average these days. If it isn't a new iPhone app or a new GPS option in their car, or a simpler way to get bigger breasts, or an indisputable cure for baldness, crow's feet, or liver-cancer, Joe Average doesn't want to hear about it and CERTAINLY won't want to pay for it.
Ignorance is bliss, and as long as the digital TV signal carrying Jersey Shores is nice and strong, that's all the technology most people care for.
It's the specials, the freaks, the weirdos who insist on dreaming and asking "what if". We read science fiction and speculative fiction, and we play games that model hypothetical situations and we desperately want to know MORE about many things. Even if human teleportation devices can't be invented in our lifetime, we want to see the steps as the precursor technology is built. But we're not normal.
Okay, so what this means is that if you're going to carry something "weird", you can declare it as you board the plane, someone inspects it then, tags it with a uniquely coded "TSA Buttprobe Approved" tag, and you're sent on your way. If the item is seen by someone nosy, flight crew can calmly ask to see your tag. If you've got one that has a hand-written note that matches the description of your weird object, everything's cool. If you leave your weird thing behind, the tag is attached to it so again, nobody needs to get upset. If you took the tag off in mid-flight, well... you're a great big jerk.
As far as I'm concerned, train the TSA to detect/test things like shampoo and toothpaste. If you claim something is X, they confirm it is X, and you're allowed on the damned airplane. Nobody needs to worry about not being able to bring common items with them anymore. If the TSA can't tell apple juice from bomb-making material on the ground, one of two things are true: A} they're incompetent at the job they reputedly are hired to do or B} air flight cannot be made safe because bomb-making material is in-differentiable from drinkable items.
There are real-world solutions to the idiocy and inconvenience the TSA represents. The fact that those real-world solutions aren't being sought and implemented speaks volumes.
The student is not to blame, even if they were looking for a way to strike out at a teacher.
I have to disagree, sort of. I learned at a very young age that hurting other people isn't cool, even if you don't like them. I suspect I learned that lesson by being bullied. (Note: I am not in favor of the anti-bullying efforts being thrown around... the political and business worlds are hierarchical and if you can't learn early when and how to stand your ground, that's natural.)
Children are loaded guns.
They have the capacity to do incredible harm to adults. They're real people with real individual culpability. They may not have decades of life-experience but really, after you break a few toys as a toddler you should learn that actions have consequence and that hurting a person is something that can rarely be undone. I'll agree that parents have a part in teaching that, but it's really up to the kid to learn the things that the parent and reality are teaching them. Being ignorant and non-receptive is a character fault of nobody but the kid.
If only there was an Internet where people posted comments and reviews of things. If you're not looking for a cutting-edge crack, you're not really in any meaningful danger. There's not really much of a chance that if you were to look for a cracked version of oh, say, Wing Commander ][ today that you'd find it infected with cutting-edge undetectable 0-day rootkit technology that you can't deal with.
To hell with that - they forgot an even bigger question:
What in the unholy hell are all the BES admins going to do about this? Upgrade their server (bleah), or pray for patches, or build a ginormous blacklist, or...?
I suspect BES admins will use the existing policies to deny users permission to install applications.
Any shop that's got pornanoia will already have architecture in place to filter content the hypothetical BBBoobies app will need to reach. Because accessing web content is all done through the BES MDS, it won't really be any different.
Any shop that allows their users to do whatever they want probably won't suddenly change.
Mmmm. Name-calling. Sure sign of a brilliant critical-thinker, that is. Since you ask, I'm precisely 6.02 x 10 ^ 23 stupid.
This boils down to "this isn't a credible enough source for me to believe it." Fine. That's your judgement call to make, but you don't get to make it for me, or for anyone else. There's no evidence that the story is based on anything untrue. You've got zero to undermine its veracity.
I don't understand much about quantum physics, but when CERN says they've "confirmed" some esoteric and frankly counter-intuitive particle exists and has some psychotically unlikely property that makes the universe work I can accept their use of the word. I don't know for sure that they're not just making stuff up and I don't know for sure that their peer-reviewers aren't in on the joke. In fact some times data gets analyzed with different techniques and things that were accepted as confirmed end up being retracted.
How can such a thing be, you ask? Because a reasonable degree of not being a super-skeptical myopic pedant gets you able to accept grey areas in probable facts. And fact is there's a hell of a lot of evidence lining up to point at the iPad3 having the display that's claimed my MacRumours. Their claim to have a panel - given all the other evidence - is actually very reasonable. Being reasonable, why should I doubt it? They're not claiming to have confirmed that the thing will have a 3 pixel by 7 pixel display that only shows shades of purple. I don't need Apple because I don't see any reason to think they're lying which is what you're claiming.
I'd like you to cite evidence confirming your allegation that they're lying. Of course I'll only accept evidence from the author of the MacRumours article since only they know for sure.
Confirmed? Really? AWESOME!! Uh, just because I want to see, could someone post a link to Apple's announcement confirming it?
Yeah.
Confirmed. I think you're using that word without knowing what it means...
Really? I looked up the definition of "confirmed" in a few dictionaries and not one of them even mentioned Apple.
It seems the consensus amongst dictionaries is that confirmation is done by some body possessing knowledge that makes the confirmed statement certain. If you're going to accept that Apple can say with sufficient [i]certainty[/i] that - for instance - the world won't be destroyed by aliens before iPad3 is released, then you should reasonably be willing to accept that Mac Rumours' ability to [i]count[/i].
Slashdot Mirror
New, damnit. New. Not "to". We want new police.
Canadian citizens want to police. While we're at it, we also want new politicians.
These ass-clowns just don't get it that while laws that enable them to use new technologies are reasonable, laws that bypass established due process aren't. I don't care that computers allow much more efficient investi-trolling. You still get a warrant, or you don't get the data, in my world. Anything else - C-30 or not - is illegal to me and puts the government and police in an adversarial position relative to their constituents.
Yeah yeah we know it does work, mostly, and is probably written in VBscript or cobol.
But damn, you can afford a EX licence, but cannot afford a high end intel 512G SSD x 2.
Restore in 5mins.
Hardrives, puhhhh.... so 90s, like C64 tapes. Get with the future dude.
Sure. So you restore in minutes but that's when you realize that the information store is - by definition - backed up dirty because it's in use. A moment later you discover that Exchange insists on you running some nice ISINTEG routines to mark the database as clean before it can be mounted. Those routines joyfully take a minor eternity, even on SSD if you have a huge database. Like... 450G. When you're done with ISINTEG, if you're really lucky you can have a bonus round of ESEUTIL followed by ISINTEG again if it turns out there was any minor database structural issues you didn't know about.
High I/O absolutely helps, but don't write this off as if massive database restores are trivial just because someone follows your advice. For businesses that are big enough to accrue huge amounts of data but not big enough to afford redundant servers, TIME is the cost they pay.
It needs to be regulated like a public utility.
You mean like water, where you pay for what you use? Or electricity, where you pay for what you use? Or gas, where you pay for what you use?
Yes. Exactly like that.
Exactly like that? We'd be fine if it was exactly like that. Where I live (Canada) those utilities aren't marked up very much. Yes, I pay a flat delivery fee and some taxes, but overall the per-unit usage price is close to the price of production.
A barrel of oil is 42 gallons, and people scream about gas costing $3 a gallon. When a barrel costs $80 and the refined product (after shipping and taxes) results in a 50% mark-up, people scream. But it's reasonable.
Data movement isn't like that at all. You're looking at pennies per gigabyte of data movement. And yet the pricing is dollars per gigabyte. Two orders of magnitude worth of markup. It's okay for the providers to just decide one day that they'll make a 1,000% markup on their service?
That's why "we" object to data caps. Flat unlimited plans force the providers to pick a price-point that we can ALL live with. $50 or so a month and we all get to be happy. You get telnet to the occasional router, I get to download all the video I want, and the provider gets to rake in a massive profit. Win, win, win.
Understand, all the complaint about infrastructure is just smoke and mirrors. I know an independent ISP. He's able to make a tidy profit without monthly caps. That's right... he pays for his hardware and his peering agreements and his overhead and pockets spare money... without a monthly cap.
So if the options are "have a cap, pay through the nose because we inflated the price nearly three orders of magnitude" or "pricing gets flattened and poor jamesh 'subsidizes' me", only one makes sense to ANYONE but the incumbent carriers.
Right. Because they speak English on Caprica and use English spelling and rules of grammar. That wiki is just how some fans rationalise things. Anyway, an acronym you speak as a single word rather than spell out (D_R_A_D_I_S) is usually written lower case -- radar, laser, etc.
Nobody said anything about English. But... the script was written in English and the topic we're discussing was named in the script. You're disputing that, I provided citation. It's now your job to demonstrate my sources as incorrect, preferably without a random ad hominem attack. That wiki states where it got its information. You... just made some stuff up.
RAID. NAS. BIOS. You don't discuss updating the bios on your nas box to ensure there's no corruption on your raid array. While I agree that neither "radar" nor "laser" follow those rules, if you do a bit of research you'll find the origin of your example terms were acronyms. The terms have entered common language as standard nouns.
So, aside from you immediately refuting yourself, I can recall them showing ships across a solar system, light hours away.There's never more than a few seconds delay. And that more for the sweeping of whatever it is that they beam out in analogy to microwaves. It was called dradis for a reason, so they could make it do whatever they wanted dramatically. If they had wanted to limit it to real world EM and lightspeed, they would have done that. They had plenty enough antique technology.
I said visible. As in... can be seen. By the viewer. The object that just jumped in is close enough that there's no notable delay. It's close. It's not far away. It's right there. Rinse, repeat.
You saw things across a solar system. I'll tell you what. Give me an episode name and a time offset and I'll call it evidence.
Also it's "dradis". Which isn't explained, but does appear to be effectively instantaneous. When they start a scan they get an image from millions of miles away in seconds. In BSG they have FTL travel, so FTL "radar" isn't out of the question.
Also, it's not "dradis". It's DRADIS. http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/DRADIS
Here you go, doing exactly what I was being critical of. Making stuff up. There's NO sign in that show that it is instantaneous. At close range perhaps, which is where most of the engagements happen, but we are almost always SHOWN (for dramatic effect) whatever has just jumped into range. It's visible. Immediately. No light-speed delay. Everything that happens in BSG combat-wise is visibly in the general range of tens of kilometers. DRADIS obviously had fairly limited range on it, with even one raptor micro-jump exceeding it. So even short FTL travel defeated it. Therein lies the evidence that they didn't have FTL detection.
As usual, when it comes to nitpicking science fiction, assumptions as bogus as those in the fiction get applied.
In BSG - for instance - every time we see observation of enemy ship positions, the sensors used (DRADIS) appear to be active sensors, not passive. A cylon basestar jumping 3 light minutes away from Galactica wouldn't observe its presence for six minutes. At least in that show, such vast distances weren't particularly useful.
That's where the inevitable "well, they should've" speculation comes in. Kinetic kill weapons should be used, right? Passive projectiles from far away with massive velocity just smash into where a target is/was/will be. Okay, well, the counter-speculation kicks in with "if anyone used that tactic, it would be SOP to have all ships injecting a random factor into their movement".
Blah, blah, blah. All of this misses the fundamental truth: this is all about entertainment. Accuracy isn't necessarily entertaining, and in the case of space battles, very likely wouldn't be entertaining at all if it were utterly realistic.
One area that is constantly ignored are the grey-area copyrights (where no one knows who owns the copyright because a copyright holder has gone bankrupt) and the stuff in torrents that is not even in print. Trading that stuff doesn't hurt anyone and, as a matter of fact, often gets them noticed again and brought back into print. Has anyone ever heard a greedhead from the *AAs even acknowledge this?
You don't understand. If you're consuming entertainment material that isn't available legally anymore, you're STEALING from the makers of content that is legally available. How can this be? Simple. You have X hours of entertainment time in your week. If there is no free entertainment available, you will purchase entertainment that is not free. By going back to out-of-print material or by dipping into TV/movies that are no longer available, you are wasting your valuable entertainment dollar-hours that should have been invested in Big Entertainment. For shame.
This is the biggest problem Mozilla has. They listen to everybody and everything, and so they can't win because surprise, people don't agree.
People were pushing hard for Firefox to have a more minimalist UI like Chrome. Mozilla acquiesced. Then all the people who use their browser as a tool and not a lifestyle got a big surprise when the update came down the pipeline and got irritated about it.
People are pushing hard for Firefox to update more often - this was probably legitimate, since it was taking a year plus between releases. They did. Then another group of people got irate about rapid releases.
Who are these people you keep mentioning? I haven't met anyone yet who matches these descriptions. Where have you been reading "if only Firefox had less interface exposed so that doing anything except Forward and Back was concealed?" Where have you been reading "if only Firefox was putting out rapid releases so each one is insignificant?"
No. I'm sorry. Mozilla has their own agenda and vision. It's an Awesomebar TabBrowser Minimalistico-Rapido vision and it's the only one they see. It's not us users asking for this.
Now... memory... that was a gripe. But very few people are complaining about the old leaks being fixed.
Piracy is not as big a problem as some devs are making it out to be.
I agree. The real "problem" is that (many) developers just don't get it that their fart app really isn't worth $.99 to most people. Clue: your weather widget... it's a fart app. Your uber-mega-clock? It's a fart app. Battery Gauge Max++ Professional Edition is... a fart app. If you really dig on Google Play, you're going to see thousands of "apps" almost all of which are just superfluous fluff. Even most of the games are roughly equivalent to the freeware of the Windows platform circa 1990.
Developers... get this: unless you're making either a top-tier game or a truly powerful app like Documents to Go or Repligo PDF Reader, you're making crap we don't need. Some of your fart apps we might kinda-sorta want, a little bit, maybe. And sometimes someone of us might bother with your token microtransactions because we're bored. But don't think counting on that income is a valid business plan. It's not. There are five other stock-ticker apps out there that are actually free instead of almost-but-not-quite-free. Sure, maybe yours comes with a blue icon and sure, maybe that's enough motivation for someone to pirate yours instead of using one of the free ones with green icons, but don't kid yourself... you didn't get pirated because Android blah blah platform for piracy blah blah. No. You got pirated because your product really, truly isn't worth $.99 (With the notable exceptions mentioned earlier.)
No, the American People ruined America after 11th Sep by letting Congress (and their state and local governments, who use the same excuses) act unchecked.
I'm sorry, but I've got to ask... what exactly were you thinking the American people should have done? Vote for the other party that does whatever they want when they're in power? Write some letters that aren't accompanied by nice lobbyist cheques?
Let's face it. There isn't anything legal their citizens could really do. Revolt is pretty much all that's left for radical change (and yes, shutting down or preventing the paranoid state is radical). Only problem with that is the people are happy enough, enough of the time that they won't go to war against their government over the periods they're not happy.
Replace a dead cat with a human cadaver. Is it still difficult to differentiate between disturbing and adorable?
Well, most people find cats adorable. Humans - except perhaps children - aren't generally considered adorable. So general use of a human cadaver wouldn't likely be adorable, would it? Unless it was a kid. Then it might be a fair comparison.
For myself, this is disturbing. It makes a mockery of creature, whether it is alive or dead. It's like taking a head of a murder victim, sticking it on a pole and calling it art. Sure, maybe the victim doesn't care anymore, but the entire display is a mockery of life.
Mockery of? You mean "tribute to", right? Taking a shovel and burying your dead where you never have to see them or think about them again... that's the real mockery. Incinerating the remains and keeping a jar of ashes around as if those ashes have anything tangible to do with the dead... that's mockery. Doing taxidermy with a dead pet shows that you're willing to be reminded every day that your furry friend isn't with you any more. That takes strength.
Heck, I think this could be a good test to see if someone is a psychopath. A psychopath would definitely not find anything wrong with this usage of a "cat".
Again, I disagree. And that as someone who recently lost a beloved pet. Unless by "psychopath" you mean "able to bear the constant reminder of loss and find some small measure of joy together after death."
Remember, death taboo is a strong social construct. Doesn't mean it has any objective importance. It's just what you're taught.
You're young aren't you?
"What's the likelihood a dictionary attack is going to crack "hastalavistababy!"..."
Pretty damn fucking HIGH I'd say.
How do you figure? While each of the constituent words will likely be in a dictionary, the concatenated string is much less likely to be. Realistically an attacker will have to try low-hanging fruit passwords (such as "password") first, then try brute-forcing short combinations (such as "123abc"), then try a dictionary attack (such as "elephantine"), move back to brute-forcing slightly longer possibilities (such as "1234password#1") and finally start combinations of dictionary words in the desperate hope they might stumble upon a passphrase (such as "pluckmypubichairwithyourteeth").
While yes, phrases consisting of dictionary words are technically a group of tokens, in practice hacking an unknown password isn't trivial. You can think a phrase using five words is equivalent to a five-letter password, but it's really not. By extending the length of the password, you force the attacker to try other combinations first, for efficiency's sake. And if you introduce a single spelling error you screw the attacker right over.
Here in the Netherlands (and as I understand it, most of Europe atleast), WhatsApp is the current chat method, and it's available on most mobile platforms, including BB. It's still proprietary, but atleast it's practically platform agnostic.
And it still doesn't tell you when someone you're chatting with is typing. Or when they read your messages. And it doesn't have the same attachment capacity. Oh, and as far as I can tell all my contacts get sent to WhatsApp.
I was on BB for the last three years and just moved to Android, reluctantly. There's a lot to be said for the platform, but the lack of actual, fully-functional BBM is glaring. Google Talk will do attachments, but not delivery notification. WhatsApp the reverse. There just isn't an equivalent.
The only thing you should know (which you may already) is that toner cartridges have parts that will wear out. The seals tend to do so suddenly, and when they do the result is usually a very large leak inside the printer. Once that happens you need a very fine filter rated for toner in order to clean it up. I'm not discouraging toner refills, but you need to know that there's a limited number of rotations before they basically explode.
Quick related story. I had a customer who used a large scale laser printer for printing mail labels. Very, very low coverage per page and using very, very large cartridges. They were rated for something like 6,000 pages. Well, after 6,000 pages they'd still have a good 90% toner left. So they'd keep running it. And running it. Until it detonated inside the printer. They did this a few times then bought themselves a toner-rated vacuum because it was cheaper than tossing half-filled cartridges.
Just know there's a big mess in your future and you'll be fine.
There virtually no interest in anything that isn't personally and obviously of benefit to Joe Average these days. If it isn't a new iPhone app or a new GPS option in their car, or a simpler way to get bigger breasts, or an indisputable cure for baldness, crow's feet, or liver-cancer, Joe Average doesn't want to hear about it and CERTAINLY won't want to pay for it.
Ignorance is bliss, and as long as the digital TV signal carrying Jersey Shores is nice and strong, that's all the technology most people care for.
It's the specials, the freaks, the weirdos who insist on dreaming and asking "what if". We read science fiction and speculative fiction, and we play games that model hypothetical situations and we desperately want to know MORE about many things. Even if human teleportation devices can't be invented in our lifetime, we want to see the steps as the precursor technology is built. But we're not normal.
Okay, so what this means is that if you're going to carry something "weird", you can declare it as you board the plane, someone inspects it then, tags it with a uniquely coded "TSA Buttprobe Approved" tag, and you're sent on your way. If the item is seen by someone nosy, flight crew can calmly ask to see your tag. If you've got one that has a hand-written note that matches the description of your weird object, everything's cool. If you leave your weird thing behind, the tag is attached to it so again, nobody needs to get upset. If you took the tag off in mid-flight, well... you're a great big jerk. As far as I'm concerned, train the TSA to detect/test things like shampoo and toothpaste. If you claim something is X, they confirm it is X, and you're allowed on the damned airplane. Nobody needs to worry about not being able to bring common items with them anymore. If the TSA can't tell apple juice from bomb-making material on the ground, one of two things are true: A} they're incompetent at the job they reputedly are hired to do or B} air flight cannot be made safe because bomb-making material is in-differentiable from drinkable items. There are real-world solutions to the idiocy and inconvenience the TSA represents. The fact that those real-world solutions aren't being sought and implemented speaks volumes.
The student is not to blame, even if they were looking for a way to strike out at a teacher.
I have to disagree, sort of. I learned at a very young age that hurting other people isn't cool, even if you don't like them. I suspect I learned that lesson by being bullied. (Note: I am not in favor of the anti-bullying efforts being thrown around... the political and business worlds are hierarchical and if you can't learn early when and how to stand your ground, that's natural.)
Children are loaded guns.
They have the capacity to do incredible harm to adults. They're real people with real individual culpability. They may not have decades of life-experience but really, after you break a few toys as a toddler you should learn that actions have consequence and that hurting a person is something that can rarely be undone. I'll agree that parents have a part in teaching that, but it's really up to the kid to learn the things that the parent and reality are teaching them. Being ignorant and non-receptive is a character fault of nobody but the kid.
If only there was an Internet where people posted comments and reviews of things. If you're not looking for a cutting-edge crack, you're not really in any meaningful danger. There's not really much of a chance that if you were to look for a cracked version of oh, say, Wing Commander ][ today that you'd find it infected with cutting-edge undetectable 0-day rootkit technology that you can't deal with.
you won't be able to find the patch that removes the DRM.
What? Google goes out of business and all we're left with is Bing? The future you describe is unthinkable.
It's pathetic how few vehicles get decent mileage.
The definition of "decent mileage" keeps changing.
I hope the gambling apps will be tested to be fair and 100% legal in areas as permitted by law.
If by "fair" you mean "heavily weighted in the favor of the company who runs it", I'm sure your hopes will be satisfied.
To hell with that - they forgot an even bigger question:
What in the unholy hell are all the BES admins going to do about this? Upgrade their server (bleah), or pray for patches, or build a ginormous blacklist, or...?
I suspect BES admins will use the existing policies to deny users permission to install applications.
Any shop that's got pornanoia will already have architecture in place to filter content the hypothetical BBBoobies app will need to reach. Because accessing web content is all done through the BES MDS, it won't really be any different.
Any shop that allows their users to do whatever they want probably won't suddenly change.
Precisely how stupid are you?
Mmmm. Name-calling. Sure sign of a brilliant critical-thinker, that is. Since you ask, I'm precisely 6.02 x 10 ^ 23 stupid.
This boils down to "this isn't a credible enough source for me to believe it." Fine. That's your judgement call to make, but you don't get to make it for me, or for anyone else. There's no evidence that the story is based on anything untrue. You've got zero to undermine its veracity.
I don't understand much about quantum physics, but when CERN says they've "confirmed" some esoteric and frankly counter-intuitive particle exists and has some psychotically unlikely property that makes the universe work I can accept their use of the word. I don't know for sure that they're not just making stuff up and I don't know for sure that their peer-reviewers aren't in on the joke. In fact some times data gets analyzed with different techniques and things that were accepted as confirmed end up being retracted.
How can such a thing be, you ask? Because a reasonable degree of not being a super-skeptical myopic pedant gets you able to accept grey areas in probable facts. And fact is there's a hell of a lot of evidence lining up to point at the iPad3 having the display that's claimed my MacRumours. Their claim to have a panel - given all the other evidence - is actually very reasonable. Being reasonable, why should I doubt it? They're not claiming to have confirmed that the thing will have a 3 pixel by 7 pixel display that only shows shades of purple. I don't need Apple because I don't see any reason to think they're lying which is what you're claiming.
I'd like you to cite evidence confirming your allegation that they're lying. Of course I'll only accept evidence from the author of the MacRumours article since only they know for sure.
Confirmed? Really? AWESOME!! Uh, just because I want to see, could someone post a link to Apple's announcement confirming it?
Yeah.
Confirmed. I think you're using that word without knowing what it means...
Really? I looked up the definition of "confirmed" in a few dictionaries and not one of them even mentioned Apple.
It seems the consensus amongst dictionaries is that confirmation is done by some body possessing knowledge that makes the confirmed statement certain. If you're going to accept that Apple can say with sufficient [i]certainty[/i] that - for instance - the world won't be destroyed by aliens before iPad3 is released, then you should reasonably be willing to accept that Mac Rumours' ability to [i]count[/i].