and of course, telegram already does self-destructing messages.
At least they have video support, last I saw they didn't have it at all.
But.. the big one, to be successful they need to remove the requirement to have your phone number as your ID. The reason Whatsapp was bought out was not for the users but their data - and having everyone and their contacts phone numbers is a really valuable key for tying social crap to real people.
I think most people pirate because its easier to click a torrent and down comes the movie, and 10 minutes later you're watching it.
why else is Netflix so popular?
Of course there's always someone who does it because its free, and many more who say they'd pay a small amount but wouldn't when push comes to shove. But the majority would pay a reasonable amount to download, especially if there was cheaper options for, say, older movies so the latest blockbuster could subsidize them.
they could not figure out how to not zap commercial planes w the microwaves
surely just tell the planes - you don't fly through this area. Similarly, you put a big fence round the collector with signs on it that say "restricted area, cross this fence, you'll die". But I guess they'll still get sued by relatives of people dumb enough to enter the microwave collecting area.
Instead, you could place a ring of panels in high orbit around the earth and have -all- of them working nearly all the time
I think you need to remember that the Earth is also round, not flat, so the panels will be in incredibly cold darkness half the time. Just like the moon.:-)
I guess the reason they'd prefer to put them on the moon is ease of construction and maintenance, especially for the transmitters. That and the lack of space debris might be a factor, and the fuel and engine requirements to keep them in a stable orbit (things in orbit tend to slowly fall back down to Earth)
sure, "by connecting to ISP x's network you agree to provide consent to our use of trusted proxies to provide you with enhanced network facilities. Do you want to proceed?"
That assume they don't just bury it in the small print and so you "agree" to its use permanently.
The whole point of the article was own to this - trusted proxies will be inserted everywhere by your ISP and your data will be mined by them. Maybe its a bit paranoid,but its probably best to be quite clear right from the start.
The main point of a proxy here is to allow things like caching, so you connect to the proxy using an encrypted pipe and as the proxy is trusted, you allow it to de-crypt your data, do whatever network efficiencies it wants to do and then re-encrypt your data to pass on to the destination.
I'm sure you can see why this might be a problem - your encrypted, secure data is automatically decrypted right at the point the NSA (or your ISP) wants it. Now if you trust your ISP or NSA to protect you and you don;t care if they are data mining your communications, then this is a great thing, let then do it as efficiently as possible.
if on the other hand, you think that the data you encrypt is done to stop others from performing man-in-the-middle attacks, then you'd not want this to be used.
Personally, I think its an ok thing as long as there's another mechanism for encrypting private data. I mean - you encrypt the boring stuff that you still don't want intercepted over a wifi link for example, but you still want your passwords to be properly encrypted and unreadable even by the trusted proxy. I would want the benefits of SSL on all my comms and have the benefits of proxy servers working with these, but still have my private data encrypted. I'm not sure how we could achieve this though, hopefully someone will enlighten me.
Thats why I like that windows 8.1 got rid of all that glass crap everywhere and i dont really touch any metro stuff since none of the applications i use have metro versions
so you love they got rid of that glass crap (on the desktop I assume you mean) and then you only use the desktop.
You must be a designer - every new interface is so cool, and clean, and elegant, with its fresh lines and clean interface.... as long as you don't have to the use the horrific stuff.
or.. you can use a different licence for the library - they we get the benefit of open source stuff much more widely used. I doubt anyone really writes a library and then says "no, I don't want people to use this unless they are as fully into OSS as I am". Most people who write a library do so because they want it used to benefit others, and if it encourages others to write OSS stuff too, that's a bonus.
There's too much reinventing wheels in this industry (especially in the.net world where anything decent that gets written gets re-implemented and bundled by Microsoft). If the OSS was more easily usable, they'd have a harder time encouraging their own lock-in. That's the problem when people are encouraged to write their own - they do:(
so.. LGPL all the way. As you say, its what GPL should have been if the legal system wasn't stuck up Disney's (et al) arseholes.
oh wait, I was thinking you were criticising the GPL for a moment - after all, if I use your open source code, and write my application on top of, you say I own the code I wrote.. but then, if that's the case, why do I have to release it as GPL as well?!
See, the GPL is a fine ideal, but I prefer the LGPL style licences that say your code is free but if I use it (as is your intention, by making it open source after all) then I still want to be able to licence my parts as I want.
Now if I change your code, that's different, its now a collaborative work where we both worked on it and frankly, I think it should still be licensed once, under the original licence. But using a OSS library means my application is forced to use your licence... no, sorry, that way lies madness... as you can see by the LibreOffice team not being able to use any of the OpenOffice code because of GPL licensing conflicts.
but you miss the point - the unix shell works, and still works today. So why try to break it by changing it in the name of "progress".
Powershell is an abomination that makes WMI look good (which is it BTW, it doesn't look pretty though). But hey, Microsoft likes changing things for changes sake,. Maybe one day they'll mature.
In these cases, the patent holder sues an OSS developer and it turns out that the patented produce contained source from the defending code.
Defence then either says "ha, but the licence you accepted when you took our code contains a patent licence grant" (eg Apache licence) and therefore the defence is legitimately licenced to use the patent, or says "ha, you used our code illegally, cease and desist selling your product".
Trolls don't tend to actually have products, so this really doesn't apply here.
I should think "Release the photons" would be more sensible, and shooting implies some active approach to attack something, which as everyone knows, BMW drivers use the bulk of the BMW for (at least I think its that, some people day they're just rubbish at driving properly)
STL strings used to have CoW, until they realised that performance dies horribly with such a thin on multi-threaded applications. The memory cost of copying the string data (nowadays) is much less than blocking the CPU with a context switch every time you want to copy or modify a string.
There's no reason to worry about compatibility - use STLPort and you're good to go; or use uSTL and you're good even on really crappy hardware (which kind of defeats the point, if you're using really crappy hardware 80% of your full featured game engine won't run anyway)
Reinventing the wheel is a stupid thing to do, especially with something standardised like the STL.
Lets consider the nail gun.... The ancient craftsman would be won over.
He'd probably use it in battle, until the nails ran out and then he'd throw the useless piece of junk away - as the nail gun is worthless without the precision shaped nails it uses, and in those old days, nails were forged by hand and so were all shapes and sizes. This also assumes he has the right electrical supply infrastructure to power it.
Its like when I was a kid, we were taught about helping African farmers be more productive, everyone wanted to send them tractors to better plough the fields = well that worked for Europe right so what could go wrong?
Well, the price of fuel was so high the farmer's couldn't afford it (if they could get it in quantity at all) so so said tractors ended up rusting by the side of the field. The moral is: to really help you should have sent spades instead.
In terms of slashdot (and other) "updates" with technology - the problem is the same, the UI might be great on a tablet with a super-fast CPU and masses of bandwidth but it isn't terribly usable to those who don't have these things, its as good as those tractors. Make better spades.
Its really a problem with Design teams that used to plague development teams.
You've seen the coders who shout "this is crap, we must rewrite it using cool new technology X".. when really they should be fixing and refactoring the existing stuff that actually works. We eventually realised that the rewrite was never the golden bullet that fixes all problems - and in most cases introduces even more problems than there ever was (but that allows the coders to shout "next cool technology please!".
Design teams haven't worked this out yet, they think the "new redesign using the latest thoughts on graphics" is the only way to go. What's "in" this year, whether its skeuomorphic interfaces, or "clean Scandinavian lines" or sanserif fonts or bright colours, or no colours... its the same issue as the developer rewrite, only in design team terms.
Nowhere in the quote didit say anything about jQuery. They said "a workaround like this", which could easily be calls to scrape the back-end of XML data without calling their API that does it for you (with some usual stat reporting and so on). It might be that they are calling an exposed method and not sending the correct (ie Panasonic approved) parameters. I would assume their API is a similar javascript-wrapper that helps the caller make calls, and they do not mention XMLHttpRequest directly as the caller only used it indirectly via jQuery's equivalentm, which they did mention.
I know what jQuery is, and I know what they've said - and nothing points to it being anything other than the OP not making calls in the way they expect.
I guess we'll never really know unless the OP wants to show us the offending code.
Slashdot Mirror
and of course, telegram already does self-destructing messages.
At least they have video support, last I saw they didn't have it at all.
But.. the big one, to be successful they need to remove the requirement to have your phone number as your ID. The reason Whatsapp was bought out was not for the users but their data - and having everyone and their contacts phone numbers is a really valuable key for tying social crap to real people.
I think most people pirate because its easier to click a torrent and down comes the movie, and 10 minutes later you're watching it.
why else is Netflix so popular?
Of course there's always someone who does it because its free, and many more who say they'd pay a small amount but wouldn't when push comes to shove. But the majority would pay a reasonable amount to download, especially if there was cheaper options for, say, older movies so the latest blockbuster could subsidize them.
they could not figure out how to not zap commercial planes w the microwaves
surely just tell the planes - you don't fly through this area. Similarly, you put a big fence round the collector with signs on it that say "restricted area, cross this fence, you'll die". But I guess they'll still get sued by relatives of people dumb enough to enter the microwave collecting area.
Instead, you could place a ring of panels in high orbit around the earth and have -all- of them working nearly all the time
I think you need to remember that the Earth is also round, not flat, so the panels will be in incredibly cold darkness half the time. Just like the moon. :-)
I guess the reason they'd prefer to put them on the moon is ease of construction and maintenance, especially for the transmitters. That and the lack of space debris might be a factor, and the fuel and engine requirements to keep them in a stable orbit (things in orbit tend to slowly fall back down to Earth)
sure, "by connecting to ISP x's network you agree to provide consent to our use of trusted proxies to provide you with enhanced network facilities. Do you want to proceed?"
That assume they don't just bury it in the small print and so you "agree" to its use permanently.
The whole point of the article was own to this - trusted proxies will be inserted everywhere by your ISP and your data will be mined by them. Maybe its a bit paranoid,but its probably best to be quite clear right from the start.
someone didn't RTFM!
and do what with the data then?
The main point of a proxy here is to allow things like caching, so you connect to the proxy using an encrypted pipe and as the proxy is trusted, you allow it to de-crypt your data, do whatever network efficiencies it wants to do and then re-encrypt your data to pass on to the destination.
I'm sure you can see why this might be a problem - your encrypted, secure data is automatically decrypted right at the point the NSA (or your ISP) wants it. Now if you trust your ISP or NSA to protect you and you don;t care if they are data mining your communications, then this is a great thing, let then do it as efficiently as possible.
if on the other hand, you think that the data you encrypt is done to stop others from performing man-in-the-middle attacks, then you'd not want this to be used.
Personally, I think its an ok thing as long as there's another mechanism for encrypting private data. I mean - you encrypt the boring stuff that you still don't want intercepted over a wifi link for example, but you still want your passwords to be properly encrypted and unreadable even by the trusted proxy. I would want the benefits of SSL on all my comms and have the benefits of proxy servers working with these, but still have my private data encrypted. I'm not sure how we could achieve this though, hopefully someone will enlighten me.
all it needs is for someone to mount Google Glass on a drone and then all hell will break loose in the media.
They'd probably ban all drones at that point.
be vewy vewy qwiet. I'm hunting dwones.
Moron.
Thats why I like that windows 8.1 got rid of all that glass crap everywhere and i dont really touch any metro stuff since none of the applications i use have metro versions
so you love they got rid of that glass crap (on the desktop I assume you mean) and then you only use the desktop.
You must be a designer - every new interface is so cool, and clean, and elegant, with its fresh lines and clean interface.... as long as you don't have to the use the horrific stuff.
or.. you can use a different licence for the library - they we get the benefit of open source stuff much more widely used. I doubt anyone really writes a library and then says "no, I don't want people to use this unless they are as fully into OSS as I am". Most people who write a library do so because they want it used to benefit others, and if it encourages others to write OSS stuff too, that's a bonus.
There's too much reinventing wheels in this industry (especially in the .net world where anything decent that gets written gets re-implemented and bundled by Microsoft). If the OSS was more easily usable, they'd have a harder time encouraging their own lock-in. That's the problem when people are encouraged to write their own - they do :(
so.. LGPL all the way. As you say, its what GPL should have been if the legal system wasn't stuck up Disney's (et al) arseholes.
BSD requires you to keep the licence and attribution information.
GPL retains no rights for you, your code is free and open source once you've released it into the wild. It does however retain rights for itself.
oh wait, I was thinking you were criticising the GPL for a moment - after all, if I use your open source code, and write my application on top of, you say I own the code I wrote.. but then, if that's the case, why do I have to release it as GPL as well?!
See, the GPL is a fine ideal, but I prefer the LGPL style licences that say your code is free but if I use it (as is your intention, by making it open source after all) then I still want to be able to licence my parts as I want.
Now if I change your code, that's different, its now a collaborative work where we both worked on it and frankly, I think it should still be licensed once, under the original licence. But using a OSS library means my application is forced to use your licence... no, sorry, that way lies madness... as you can see by the LibreOffice team not being able to use any of the OpenOffice code because of GPL licensing conflicts.
ah, but Metro is bad for non-power users too and they can't avoid using it either.
Its just bad all round.
but you miss the point - the unix shell works, and still works today. So why try to break it by changing it in the name of "progress".
Powershell is an abomination that makes WMI look good (which is it BTW, it doesn't look pretty though). But hey, Microsoft likes changing things for changes sake,. Maybe one day they'll mature.
when I saw this, I thought it was a fantasy film, not a fucking documentary of American civilisation.
In these cases, the patent holder sues an OSS developer and it turns out that the patented produce contained source from the defending code.
Defence then either says "ha, but the licence you accepted when you took our code contains a patent licence grant" (eg Apache licence) and therefore the defence is legitimately licenced to use the patent, or says "ha, you used our code illegally, cease and desist selling your product".
Trolls don't tend to actually have products, so this really doesn't apply here.
I should think "Release the photons" would be more sensible, and shooting implies some active approach to attack something, which as everyone knows, BMW drivers use the bulk of the BMW for (at least I think its that, some people day they're just rubbish at driving properly)
the S stands for "standard", abbreviated to std for convenience.
STL strings used to have CoW, until they realised that performance dies horribly with such a thin on multi-threaded applications. The memory cost of copying the string data (nowadays) is much less than blocking the CPU with a context switch every time you want to copy or modify a string.
There's no reason to worry about compatibility - use STLPort and you're good to go; or use uSTL and you're good even on really crappy hardware (which kind of defeats the point, if you're using really crappy hardware 80% of your full featured game engine won't run anyway)
Reinventing the wheel is a stupid thing to do, especially with something standardised like the STL.
Lets consider the nail gun. ... The ancient craftsman would be won over.
He'd probably use it in battle, until the nails ran out and then he'd throw the useless piece of junk away - as the nail gun is worthless without the precision shaped nails it uses, and in those old days, nails were forged by hand and so were all shapes and sizes. This also assumes he has the right electrical supply infrastructure to power it.
Its like when I was a kid, we were taught about helping African farmers be more productive, everyone wanted to send them tractors to better plough the fields = well that worked for Europe right so what could go wrong?
Well, the price of fuel was so high the farmer's couldn't afford it (if they could get it in quantity at all) so so said tractors ended up rusting by the side of the field. The moral is: to really help you should have sent spades instead.
In terms of slashdot (and other) "updates" with technology - the problem is the same, the UI might be great on a tablet with a super-fast CPU and masses of bandwidth but it isn't terribly usable to those who don't have these things, its as good as those tractors. Make better spades.
Its really a problem with Design teams that used to plague development teams.
You've seen the coders who shout "this is crap, we must rewrite it using cool new technology X".. when really they should be fixing and refactoring the existing stuff that actually works. We eventually realised that the rewrite was never the golden bullet that fixes all problems - and in most cases introduces even more problems than there ever was (but that allows the coders to shout "next cool technology please!".
Design teams haven't worked this out yet, they think the "new redesign using the latest thoughts on graphics" is the only way to go. What's "in" this year, whether its skeuomorphic interfaces, or "clean Scandinavian lines" or sanserif fonts or bright colours, or no colours... its the same issue as the developer rewrite, only in design team terms.
send *her* on a nice vacation trip, and while she's away out of your hair.. you can do something you truly enjoy - coding up a new slashdot :-)
You can get days old news practically anywhere.
alas, that includes Slashdot these days anyway.
you prefer one of the other /. memes??? For Profit, Natalie Portman's Hot Grits say "Fuck Beta"
It'll die down of its own accord, until then chill and enjoy the fireworks.
oh yes I nearly forgot: FUCK BETA
Nowhere in the quote didit say anything about jQuery. They said "a workaround like this", which could easily be calls to scrape the back-end of XML data without calling their API that does it for you (with some usual stat reporting and so on). It might be that they are calling an exposed method and not sending the correct (ie Panasonic approved) parameters. I would assume their API is a similar javascript-wrapper that helps the caller make calls, and they do not mention XMLHttpRequest directly as the caller only used it indirectly via jQuery's equivalentm, which they did mention.
I know what jQuery is, and I know what they've said - and nothing points to it being anything other than the OP not making calls in the way they expect.
I guess we'll never really know unless the OP wants to show us the offending code.