I found Stand-Alone Internet from Comcast by going to their website, and selecting it as the product I wanted after plugging in my zip code and being told what products are available in my area.
I'm a tad confused by this article to be honest. Have things changed radically in less than a year, or is Comcast being faulted for something slightly different (say, not advertising it enough or something?)
Ignore the parent, I read a liveblog thing that said the Nexus 7 was out today, but play.google.com puts it at 2-3 weeks, same as the grandparent said.
I dunno. I'm a fan of the Kindle Fire, and perhaps Amazon can add the hardware features in that month (I say that because I'd be surprised if they don't already have designs like that in prototype already), but they'd have issues upgrading their version of Android to be on par with Jellybean in that space of time.
Still, I hope they do. I think the KF was the best thing to happen to the tablet form factor. It was (and still is) the right price and right size. It focused on a specific use case, and does an excellent job with that use case. If Amazon can leapfrog Google the way Google leapfrogged them today, and the way Amazon leapfrogged them with the original KF, I think it's all going to be awesome.
The tablet features weren't introduced in Win7, they've been there for a while. Microsoft has been trying to get people to buy tablets for a long time and at one point Gates' personal computer was a tablet.
What Gates is saying is that tablets suck ass. He's right. And he should know.
Well, if the Republicans stay on their anti-education crusade they've been on lately, I'm pretty sure slate tablets will become standard items in classrooms, again, too.
Rockefeller has a bad rep. But his co-conspirator Henry Flagler has streets named after him all over Florida.
It's a combination of the luck of the draw, and the projects you get involved in after your period of evil, that determine your success. Not sure what Gates' FEC equivalent would be though, or if he even has one up his sleeve.
How is this an outbreak of common sense? What is common sense about deciding that society should generally tolerate lying proven beyond reasonable doubt? Lots of good things are "common sense", but "common sense" is also used to justify all the worst things.
Because there's a difference between society generally tolerating something, and society passing an overly broad draconian law.
And what exactly is wrong with me lying to prevent my wife from finding out about the surprise Birthday party we're having for her? Lying is not always wrong, despite what you might have been told by your parents when you were three years old.
If that's all the problem is, and nobody is against legal immigration, then wouldn't the most obvious solution that "no one" would be against be to legalize all immigration?
I think that the distinction between legal and illegal is not likely to define where people draw the line because it doesn't make sense - the distinction should be defined by where people would draw it. Unless you're proposing that everyone agrees that the current law is exactly the immigration law they want, then...
If Brewer has seriously done that, then she's in for a world of hurt.
The only rule not struck down was something that required state law enforcement check the immigration status of detained suspects of other crimes.
Going into a pool and demanding people's papers is not allowed. And even if an agent finds a pretext to arrest someone for something unrelated to immigration, so they can check the papers, once checked the agent's options are virtually non-existent. The agent can't detain someone on the basis of not having immigration papers. The best they can do is call the INS and hope the INS turns up before they have to release the suspect.
And just to add (well justified) insult to (well justified) injury: SCOTUS didn't rule this part of the law constitutional, they merely said that it couldn't be challenged on the basis that the Feds have a monopoly on immigration enforcement. If thousands of people find themselves harassed by state law enforcement simply because of the color of their skin, then Arizona could still find itself swamped in lawsuits and that part of the law still ruled unconstitutional.
Conservative: "All liberals believe that all illegal immigrants should be welcomed with open arms!"
Liberal: "Uh no"
Conservative: "Liar! Look at this from Obama! "Uh, maybe we should not deport some illegal immigrants, namely a tiny minority who'd be unfairly hurt by such an action". You see, ALL liberals think ALL illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay, even the ones that cross the border, rape our women, and steal our jobs!!?11!"
Do you see the problem here?
You've got nothing. No mainstream Democrat, let alone prominent liberal, has proposed that anything but a small minority that would suffer genuine and entirely unfair hardship be excluded from immigration crackdowns.
That's a fact. Get over it. Stop blaming liberals for your problems.
That's how I used to think too. Then I realized that hearing lies on all sides didn't make me any more informed, it just made me think I was.
Today I'm relatively picky with my news and sources of news. I look for sources I can trust, and if they betray that trust, I'm hard on them.
Who to trust? Not many sources. Some organizations, such as the Guardian Newspaper, have a history of strong independent reporting that means I'm more likely to get the truth from them. Others, such as those parts of the financial press that concentrate on core news, not opinion, are good too. Both the FT and the news part of Bloomberg are pretty good. The comment on the latter is fairly awful and can be safely consigned to a trashcan.
And the BBC? Well, that's more complex than most people give credit for. The BBC is mostly independent, and to be honest, the government connections have never been an issue with the Beeb. The issue is some guy called John Birt, who, before becoming DG of the BBC ran its news department, and changed its culture, from what I can figure out, pretty much permanently. That is, I take a peek from time to time, decades later, and still see the same hacks and analysis style.
Basically, Birt implemented something called the "Mission to Explain", which meant news was mixed with analysis.
How would this work? Well, imagine if the news department had to cover sports (thankfully, this hasn't happened... yet.) At the beginning of the program, the news would report that Team A has lost its match against Team B. The anchor would defer to their Team A vs B playing game C correspondent, who would introduce three experts, who would explain how Team A did so badly, what Team A needs to do from here, and what Team B did right.
Seem reasonable? Well, the report would go out Friday. The game would be played on Saturday. Saturday in three months from now...
That's why I don't care much for BBC News. Especially as we weren't even talking about real experts, just the "armchair general" types.
BBC's independence? First class. The BBC was never fearful of government, it would bully politicians on air. Politicians in government actually hate it. Actual quality of reporting though? With some exceptions, dreadful.
To get back to the point though: the truth can rarely be found by looking at a group of biased media coverage, even if you're lucky enough to find contradictory outlets. You have to try to find the good journalists. Unfortunately, there aren't that many out there.
I'm not sure that's true - that it's a matter of competing for another market, that is.
I really, strongly, feel that if you want to design a portable device for playing games, listening to music, watching movies, browsing the web, and doing "communication stuff" (like email or video chatting), the iPad is a really poor fit for that and about 99% of that is because the iPad is too large and expensive for that purpose. I think the iPad is popular despite its specification, not because of it.
I've got a 10" Android tablet. I've also got a 7" Kindle Fire. The Fire is, hands down, a better system, even though in my view it's more stripped down than a tablet should be. Why? Because the Fire can go in my pocket. Because I can hold it without feeling like I'm holding one volume of an encyclopedia. And because it's half the price of the 10" system, which is about right for something that's less powerful than a netbook.
I can't say I'm optimistic the Google tablet will be a success, but I think their chances of success are much better with a 7", which in my view is much closer to what is actually useful, than a 10".
This is completely absurd. I do more stuff than that in LibreOffice (actually OO.org, but same difference - LibreOffice isn't likely to have regressed) on a regular basis.
This sounds suspiciously like the "I tried installing Lunix but I had to tweak the IRQ settings in the BIOS for it to recognize my graphics card" complaints - complete rubbish, and frankly, more likely to apply to installing a modern Microsoft OS on an older PC than any modern GNU/Linux distribution.
How do you explain that a "mistake" was made when the site is so "obviously not a gambling website", eh?
You're right! A mistake is when someone classifies something CORRECTLY! If the FSF site clearly WAS a gambling site, it would have obviously been a mistake, but because the FSF's site WASN'T, it clearly was ON PURPOSE!!!?!
You know who else didn't assume that Microsoft was doing something malicious and when expressing this view used a somewhat ambiguous, albeit still obvious, form of wording (the word "their" used twice in the same sentence to mean two different entities) just to add insult to injury?
Hitler! That's who!
Thank God we have Slashdot's legion of anti-Microsoft grammar pedants to save us from the evils of, uh, something!
What really sucks is that after rebooting his phone after uninstalling his app, to make a phone call he has to go to Start Menu -> All Programs -> Microsoft Phone -> Microsoft Phone Dialer, then wait two minutes for the splashscreen to finally disappear and the phone app window to open.
- People buy tablets professionally, and end up getting multiple platforms
- People buy complementary tablets, such as an iPad or Transformer, and a Kindle Fire
- The "Gets lost behind a couch, never to be even looked for again" uselessness of the platform probably leads a few people to try a different tablet after being disgusted by the first one they get, thinking it might be better. Likewise all the crap tablets.
Seems reasonable to me.
What bothers me about the story is it lumps Android tablets together. As an Android advocate, I may "like" the fact that gives Android a high market share, but seriously, there's a world of difference between the Kindle Fire platform and, say, Ice Cream Sandwich. Even as a developer I might target both in an app I write, as a Unix person might target FreeBSD and Ubuntu, but I wouldn't consider them the same environment.
Not in this case, no. Web servers do not, traditionally, provide licensing information to end users. They deliver web pages, and in general the person who configures the web server expects traffic to "/", and to distributed links (distributed by pages that are themselves distributed) or not.
In this case, some group of hackers are saying that the web server "authorized them" to access some pages. This is a little like telling R Daneel Olivaw, who I own, to bring you the keys to the car. R Daneel may do so, but Olivaw certainly isn't authorizing you to steal my car simply because he's following the instructions he's been programmed to do, and I've taught him to do, simply because my programming didn't include the sophistication of telling it not to give critical objects to strangers.
This is not to imply that the web server was set up competently. It wasn't. The Payday Lender in this case has been grossly incompetent and deserves to be sued up the wazoo. But that doesn't make the hacker's actions legal. It doesn't mean they were authorized to do anything at all.
It's just anyone, like the AC, who thinks that "The non-sentient robot owned by my victim obeys my commands, therefore I am authorized to do what I commanded it to help me do" is going to get a rude awakening in court.
A webserver is a computer, and has no authority therefore to authorize anything.
Even if we get to an Asimovian utopia with robots serving our every desire, we will not see judges say "Well, I understand you being upset, but your robot said he could do it!"
Slashdot Mirror
I found Stand-Alone Internet from Comcast by going to their website, and selecting it as the product I wanted after plugging in my zip code and being told what products are available in my area.
I'm a tad confused by this article to be honest. Have things changed radically in less than a year, or is Comcast being faulted for something slightly different (say, not advertising it enough or something?)
Ignore the parent, I read a liveblog thing that said the Nexus 7 was out today, but play.google.com puts it at 2-3 weeks, same as the grandparent said.
Sorry.
Nexus 7 is shipping now. It's the Q that's shipping in July (together with the Jellybean updates for existing Google supported devices.)
I dunno. I'm a fan of the Kindle Fire, and perhaps Amazon can add the hardware features in that month (I say that because I'd be surprised if they don't already have designs like that in prototype already), but they'd have issues upgrading their version of Android to be on par with Jellybean in that space of time.
Still, I hope they do. I think the KF was the best thing to happen to the tablet form factor. It was (and still is) the right price and right size. It focused on a specific use case, and does an excellent job with that use case. If Amazon can leapfrog Google the way Google leapfrogged them today, and the way Amazon leapfrogged them with the original KF, I think it's all going to be awesome.
So you're saying he's a phony? A big fat phony?
The tablet features weren't introduced in Win7, they've been there for a while. Microsoft has been trying to get people to buy tablets for a long time and at one point Gates' personal computer was a tablet.
What Gates is saying is that tablets suck ass. He's right. And he should know.
Well, if the Republicans stay on their anti-education crusade they've been on lately, I'm pretty sure slate tablets will become standard items in classrooms, again, too.
Rockefeller has a bad rep. But his co-conspirator Henry Flagler has streets named after him all over Florida.
It's a combination of the luck of the draw, and the projects you get involved in after your period of evil, that determine your success. Not sure what Gates' FEC equivalent would be though, or if he even has one up his sleeve.
Because there's a difference between society generally tolerating something, and society passing an overly broad draconian law.
And what exactly is wrong with me lying to prevent my wife from finding out about the surprise Birthday party we're having for her? Lying is not always wrong, despite what you might have been told by your parents when you were three years old.
If that's all the problem is, and nobody is against legal immigration, then wouldn't the most obvious solution that "no one" would be against be to legalize all immigration?
I think that the distinction between legal and illegal is not likely to define where people draw the line because it doesn't make sense - the distinction should be defined by where people would draw it. Unless you're proposing that everyone agrees that the current law is exactly the immigration law they want, then...
If Brewer has seriously done that, then she's in for a world of hurt.
The only rule not struck down was something that required state law enforcement check the immigration status of detained suspects of other crimes.
Going into a pool and demanding people's papers is not allowed. And even if an agent finds a pretext to arrest someone for something unrelated to immigration, so they can check the papers, once checked the agent's options are virtually non-existent. The agent can't detain someone on the basis of not having immigration papers. The best they can do is call the INS and hope the INS turns up before they have to release the suspect.
And just to add (well justified) insult to (well justified) injury: SCOTUS didn't rule this part of the law constitutional, they merely said that it couldn't be challenged on the basis that the Feds have a monopoly on immigration enforcement. If thousands of people find themselves harassed by state law enforcement simply because of the color of their skin, then Arizona could still find itself swamped in lawsuits and that part of the law still ruled unconstitutional.
Conservative: "All liberals believe that all illegal immigrants should be welcomed with open arms!"
Liberal: "Uh no"
Conservative: "Liar! Look at this from Obama! "Uh, maybe we should not deport some illegal immigrants, namely a tiny minority who'd be unfairly hurt by such an action". You see, ALL liberals think ALL illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay, even the ones that cross the border, rape our women, and steal our jobs!!?11!"
Do you see the problem here?
You've got nothing. No mainstream Democrat, let alone prominent liberal, has proposed that anything but a small minority that would suffer genuine and entirely unfair hardship be excluded from immigration crackdowns.
That's a fact. Get over it. Stop blaming liberals for your problems.
That's how I used to think too. Then I realized that hearing lies on all sides didn't make me any more informed, it just made me think I was.
Today I'm relatively picky with my news and sources of news. I look for sources I can trust, and if they betray that trust, I'm hard on them.
Who to trust? Not many sources. Some organizations, such as the Guardian Newspaper, have a history of strong independent reporting that means I'm more likely to get the truth from them. Others, such as those parts of the financial press that concentrate on core news, not opinion, are good too. Both the FT and the news part of Bloomberg are pretty good. The comment on the latter is fairly awful and can be safely consigned to a trashcan.
And the BBC? Well, that's more complex than most people give credit for. The BBC is mostly independent, and to be honest, the government connections have never been an issue with the Beeb. The issue is some guy called John Birt, who, before becoming DG of the BBC ran its news department, and changed its culture, from what I can figure out, pretty much permanently. That is, I take a peek from time to time, decades later, and still see the same hacks and analysis style.
Basically, Birt implemented something called the "Mission to Explain", which meant news was mixed with analysis.
How would this work? Well, imagine if the news department had to cover sports (thankfully, this hasn't happened... yet.) At the beginning of the program, the news would report that Team A has lost its match against Team B. The anchor would defer to their Team A vs B playing game C correspondent, who would introduce three experts, who would explain how Team A did so badly, what Team A needs to do from here, and what Team B did right.
Seem reasonable? Well, the report would go out Friday. The game would be played on Saturday. Saturday in three months from now...
That's why I don't care much for BBC News. Especially as we weren't even talking about real experts, just the "armchair general" types.
BBC's independence? First class. The BBC was never fearful of government, it would bully politicians on air. Politicians in government actually hate it. Actual quality of reporting though? With some exceptions, dreadful.
To get back to the point though: the truth can rarely be found by looking at a group of biased media coverage, even if you're lucky enough to find contradictory outlets. You have to try to find the good journalists. Unfortunately, there aren't that many out there.
You could run Windows 1, 2, and 3.0 on an 8088 based PC like the PC/XT. IIRC 3.1 was the first version of Windows that didn't support the 8088.
Remember the whole "Are you running Windows in Real, Standard, or Extended mode?" thing?
I'm not sure that's true - that it's a matter of competing for another market, that is.
I really, strongly, feel that if you want to design a portable device for playing games, listening to music, watching movies, browsing the web, and doing "communication stuff" (like email or video chatting), the iPad is a really poor fit for that and about 99% of that is because the iPad is too large and expensive for that purpose. I think the iPad is popular despite its specification, not because of it.
I've got a 10" Android tablet. I've also got a 7" Kindle Fire. The Fire is, hands down, a better system, even though in my view it's more stripped down than a tablet should be. Why? Because the Fire can go in my pocket. Because I can hold it without feeling like I'm holding one volume of an encyclopedia. And because it's half the price of the 10" system, which is about right for something that's less powerful than a netbook.
I can't say I'm optimistic the Google tablet will be a success, but I think their chances of success are much better with a 7", which in my view is much closer to what is actually useful, than a 10".
This is completely absurd. I do more stuff than that in LibreOffice (actually OO.org, but same difference - LibreOffice isn't likely to have regressed) on a regular basis.
This sounds suspiciously like the "I tried installing Lunix but I had to tweak the IRQ settings in the BIOS for it to recognize my graphics card" complaints - complete rubbish, and frankly, more likely to apply to installing a modern Microsoft OS on an older PC than any modern GNU/Linux distribution.
Please stop posting such crap.
You're right! A mistake is when someone classifies something CORRECTLY! If the FSF site clearly WAS a gambling site, it would have obviously been a mistake, but because the FSF's site WASN'T, it clearly was ON PURPOSE!!!?!
You know who else didn't assume that Microsoft was doing something malicious and when expressing this view used a somewhat ambiguous, albeit still obvious, form of wording (the word "their" used twice in the same sentence to mean two different entities) just to add insult to injury?
Hitler! That's who!
Thank God we have Slashdot's legion of anti-Microsoft grammar pedants to save us from the evils of, uh, something!
Huh?
What really sucks is that after rebooting his phone after uninstalling his app, to make a phone call he has to go to Start Menu -> All Programs -> Microsoft Phone -> Microsoft Phone Dialer, then wait two minutes for the splashscreen to finally disappear and the phone app window to open.
11% doesn't seem particularly high, considering:
- People buy tablets professionally, and end up getting multiple platforms
- People buy complementary tablets, such as an iPad or Transformer, and a Kindle Fire
- The "Gets lost behind a couch, never to be even looked for again" uselessness of the platform probably leads a few people to try a different tablet after being disgusted by the first one they get, thinking it might be better. Likewise all the crap tablets.
Seems reasonable to me.
What bothers me about the story is it lumps Android tablets together. As an Android advocate, I may "like" the fact that gives Android a high market share, but seriously, there's a world of difference between the Kindle Fire platform and, say, Ice Cream Sandwich. Even as a developer I might target both in an app I write, as a Unix person might target FreeBSD and Ubuntu, but I wouldn't consider them the same environment.
Holy God the mods are idiotic these days.
Thanks for your enlightened contribution to this discussion.
At least narcc is trying to present useful information.
Not in this case, no. Web servers do not, traditionally, provide licensing information to end users. They deliver web pages, and in general the person who configures the web server expects traffic to "/", and to distributed links (distributed by pages that are themselves distributed) or not.
In this case, some group of hackers are saying that the web server "authorized them" to access some pages. This is a little like telling R Daneel Olivaw, who I own, to bring you the keys to the car. R Daneel may do so, but Olivaw certainly isn't authorizing you to steal my car simply because he's following the instructions he's been programmed to do, and I've taught him to do, simply because my programming didn't include the sophistication of telling it not to give critical objects to strangers.
This is not to imply that the web server was set up competently. It wasn't. The Payday Lender in this case has been grossly incompetent and deserves to be sued up the wazoo. But that doesn't make the hacker's actions legal. It doesn't mean they were authorized to do anything at all.
It's just anyone, like the AC, who thinks that "The non-sentient robot owned by my victim obeys my commands, therefore I am authorized to do what I commanded it to help me do" is going to get a rude awakening in court.
A webserver is a computer, and has no authority therefore to authorize anything.
Even if we get to an Asimovian utopia with robots serving our every desire, we will not see judges say "Well, I understand you being upset, but your robot said he could do it!"