An expensive device without such basics as a headphone jack, with "exclusivity" sold as a fucking advantage, and with plenty of cheaper, more capable, alternatives. I remain surprised the "high end" Android phones sell at all, given it seems that the more expensive they are, the fewer key features are included and the more fragile the phone (iPhones? Yes, because iPhone buyers tend to already be locked into the iOS ecosystem, but Android users have alternatives.)
It'd be nice to think this is the last time someone will come out with a new company based upon the stunningly original business model of "Copy every bad decision Apple has made, but compete in the Android ecosystem, and BTW let's hype exclusivity because that's what customers really want, they must do, because, uh, what?", but let's be honest, there's someone out there right now convinced that he'd outsell Samsung if only he can find a way to engineer a cellphone that's as thin as a sheet of paper and has a battery life of five minutes.
Are we still really arguing that Trump is playing eleventeen-dimensional chess every time he does something obviously stupid? Even now? Two, three, years later after it's been pretty much confirmed that the man is just doing whatever the last man who praised him (which in this case is John Bolton) told him to do?
For a tech forum, you'd expect people here to not repeat obvious bullshit political points like "The DNC didn't hand a server over to the FBI" given:
1. Real tech people know that the FBI wouldn't need the original server, they could easily work from a ghosted image, or might even be able to do what they need to do with supervised access.
2. Real tech people know that plopping a critical server out of commission and handing it over to a third party where it would become unreachable and unusable would kill the entity relying upon it.
But no, this bullshit that the DNC did something wrong by not closing itself down the moment it discovered it got hacked and making it impossible to continue to operate by doing something completely unnecessary for the FBI somehow keeps being repeated here over and over again.
And you wonder why the left and centrists and, well, pretty much who isn't an eye-swivling Trumpist, is pretty much convinced that Russia's IRA has a fair number of its trolls posting to Slashdot.
It sounds like you didn't understand what we're talking about. The person I was responding to thought that the DIR-620 might be the type of device ISPs give out. I said it isn't because it's just a router. ISPs don't generally give out routers unless they also have a cable modem or DSL modem built in.
You seem to be reading that backwards as "ISPs don't give out DSL modems or cable modems unless they have a router built in" which is (obviously!) not the case. ISPs will provide customers with bare modems, but they won't give their customers routers, unless they're also modems. Some obscure ISP you've never heard of that was really cool to you one time excepting, of course.
The point is that ISPs wouldn't send their customers DIR-620s, and so would never have cause to need remote admin access to one enabled.
If Twitter does it unilaterally, and Trump has nothing to do with the selection, then nothing. The ruling is against Trump, not Twitter, and Twitter isn't mandated to do anything.
Think of it this way: if I have a garden party, and Trump walks in, and then orders his security detail to eject all the people who disagree with him (which would be, like, 99% of anyone at a garden party I organize, but that's neither here nor there), then a judge might rule that's illegal. If I, on the other hand, decide to kick people out for being drunk, or making death threats, or harassing people, then I don't see why a judge would get involved. Do you?
The ruling was against Trump not Twitter. Twitter can do whatever the hell they want. Trump, however, cannot use Twitter's tools to block people who doesn't want to hear from.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment gives people the right to petition the government. They don't mean sign sheets of paper on clipboards starting with the words "We the people demand...", they mean speak to the government and have it listen.
Trump is not a private citizen, he's the actual personification of the executive branch of the government right now. So yeah, if he opens a two way public channel of communications (and his Twitter ID is such a channel) he can't block specific people from speaking to him via it.
(This isn't to imply he has to read every single tweet, or anything like that, courts have traditionally respected the technical limits of any system; nor is he required to take action or agree with every single one; but he certainly can't discriminate in terms of whose tweets he reads, even if he'll ultimately decide to dismiss the views of @obamarulz23 while choosing to retweet @honesthardworkingamerikan291929001.ru)
The DIR-620 is a consumer Wi-Fi router, I actually have one somewhere although it's not in use. It's not something you'd get from an ISP, who would generally want something with either a DSL or cable modem built in, otherwise they'd have to give you two boxes and risk you screwing up the configuration between the two somehow.
I can say it's pretty insecure to begin with, default username 'admin', no password, with nothing to encourage you to set a password.
I don't know how many people actually enable WAN access to begin with. And it's off by default.
But, regardless, that's probably not the major problem. The major problem comes if your own network is compromised, say, by an IoT device. Then it potentially has a password to your router.
That seems to me to be likely a much bigger problem.
Yeah, those were supposedly called the Model S and model X.
(Yes, I know Tesla then decided to build an entirely new assembly line, but that doesn't justify claiming that the Model 3 would be half the price it actually sells for.)
That at least has some plausibility, in that it cannot be easily falsified
Wouldn't the existence of fossils of other forms of life predating the first octopi (or octopi like species) be evidence that this theory is crap? Unless they're claiming that the fossils were extra-terrestrial as well? Or are they proposing life came in waves or something bizarre like that?
It's certainly true, though, that Gates stole CPM from Gary Kildall, and (after modifying it to run on a then-incompatible filesystem) sold it to IBM, as PC-DOS, for mucho dinero.
It certainly isn't true, not even remotely.
Microsoft bought MS DOS from Seattle Associates, a seller of 8086 cards for S-100 systems, which had called the OS QDOS. QDOS itself had little to do with CP/M, it had an entirely different filesystem (Microsoft's FAT file system, which was written for early standalone Microsoft BASIC implementations intended to run without needing a seperate operating system), had a different toolset, different CLI, and was only similar to CP/M in one respect: it exported a similar, but not identical, API for applications to use. The latter was to make it easier to port CP/M applications to QDOS.
That part, like the rest of the operating system, was written from scratch, but if it hadn't been, the amount of code Seattle Associates would have "stolen" would have amounted to a tiny percentage of CP/M, literally a few hundred bytes of code, because all the complexity was in the file system and command line tools. I mention this not to suggest that if they did it it wouldn't have been a problem, I mention this to give you some idea of how ludicrous the allegation is: "Let's write a whole new operating system, but for no reason let's illegally copy a few hundred bytes from CP/M when it would be easier for us to write the same code afresh." That's how stupid the allegation is.
Microsoft's first product was BASIC. They bought MSDOS. MSDOS was not a copy of CP/M or based upon it. IBM knew what it was getting into when it bought a license. Compaq, not Microsoft, started the clones movement (Microsoft sold MS DOS to companies like ACT/Apricot before that, who were producing machines completely incompatible with IBM's.)
Microsoft was fairly neutral as a technology company until the Windows vs GEM thing started up. That snowballed into DOS/Windows vs DR DOS, Windows vs OS/2, and all the other slimy things they did. But for the first 10-15 years they were relatively normal.
I think you're missing the point. The point is that, relative to land mass, our population is still tiny. How much do you think each person need in terms of resources?
Another way to look at it might be to look at the US and its obsession with suburbanization. Suburbs are inherently inefficient in land use terms - most of the land is being allocated just for transportation (roads, cars, etc), and single floor homes are the norm, not the exception. Would suburbanization be practical or affordable if there was actual overpopulation? (Leaving aside the fact suburbs sucks, but that's another story.)
If they're not making enough money from app sales - which is their complaint then withdrawing from the app store isn't going to hurt them more than it hurts Apple.
because unlike an employee union - you can't just find another employer
That's... not how unions work or why they exist. Traditionally they've existed precisely because employers have monopsonies on employment for the workers concerned. If there was no monopsony, the employees wouldn't need the union, they could just hop onto a rival employer.
Well, speaking for myself, given it's useful data that should be in the public domain, I'm in favor of continuing to pay for it. But I loved the way you worded that option as "using even more of your tax dollars" as if my taxes will suddenly be hiked to pay for it.
That said, I'm also in favor of paying more taxes to get better services, like basic healthcare for everyone. So even if it did mean a tax hike, that wouldn't mean I'm opposed to it.
Oh well then, if we grant full access to the authors of the operating system then of course it would be hypocritical of us to deny access to a third party with a proven track record of abusing personal data given to it.
(And no, Google doesn't sell your data. It uses your data to improve its decisions on which ads to show you, but it doesn't hand you data to third parties - hell, that'd destroy its business model if it did that.)
It used to be that people would claim that you could fit the entire population of the world on the Isle of Wight. That's not true... but it's nearly true, if the Isle of Wight were about 3x bigger (which is still really, really, small) you could fit the entire population there.
I don't think we're anywhere near the point that we need to start culling people or sending them in missions to blackholes full of bookcases with poor dialog and shitty science.
It is not about money. At some time, a society just reaches a state where it does not expand anymore and instead shrinks down slowly to a sane size. Most of the west is already there or getting there fast. It is not really a problem, you just need to manage this instead of ignoring it and sticking to the old recipes. Of course, the leadership of some countries is less well equipped to do that...
He's arguing that society has collectively just decided to stop growing for no reason, and that this is something societies do from time to time.
(I'm quoting to answer your question about what he's proposing, not agreeing with him.)
If you want them to be unable to adapt the next time Microsoft revamps the Windows UI, or their boss asks them to use a Mac, or even a Ubuntu machine, then teaching a kid the current Windows UI and refusing to expose them to anything non-Windows is a good way to do it.
If you want them to have generic skills that can apply across all platforms, and not assume that because one thing works one way everything else does, then providing them with something different to the UI used on the school computers, etc, is a better approach.
I suspect there are a lot of coffee companies in CA that are smaller than most pot farms. Just saying. It's coffee FFS. It's been the Hipster's drink before hipsters were cool.
It's worse than that, due to the Hastert rule the bill will never even be allowed a vote unless a majority of Republicans support it. So it's essentially dead in the water.
Slashdot Mirror
An expensive device without such basics as a headphone jack, with "exclusivity" sold as a fucking advantage, and with plenty of cheaper, more capable, alternatives. I remain surprised the "high end" Android phones sell at all, given it seems that the more expensive they are, the fewer key features are included and the more fragile the phone (iPhones? Yes, because iPhone buyers tend to already be locked into the iOS ecosystem, but Android users have alternatives.)
It'd be nice to think this is the last time someone will come out with a new company based upon the stunningly original business model of "Copy every bad decision Apple has made, but compete in the Android ecosystem, and BTW let's hype exclusivity because that's what customers really want, they must do, because, uh, what?", but let's be honest, there's someone out there right now convinced that he'd outsell Samsung if only he can find a way to engineer a cellphone that's as thin as a sheet of paper and has a battery life of five minutes.
Are we still really arguing that Trump is playing eleventeen-dimensional chess every time he does something obviously stupid? Even now? Two, three, years later after it's been pretty much confirmed that the man is just doing whatever the last man who praised him (which in this case is John Bolton) told him to do?
For a tech forum, you'd expect people here to not repeat obvious bullshit political points like "The DNC didn't hand a server over to the FBI" given:
1. Real tech people know that the FBI wouldn't need the original server, they could easily work from a ghosted image, or might even be able to do what they need to do with supervised access.
2. Real tech people know that plopping a critical server out of commission and handing it over to a third party where it would become unreachable and unusable would kill the entity relying upon it.
But no, this bullshit that the DNC did something wrong by not closing itself down the moment it discovered it got hacked and making it impossible to continue to operate by doing something completely unnecessary for the FBI somehow keeps being repeated here over and over again.
And you wonder why the left and centrists and, well, pretty much who isn't an eye-swivling Trumpist, is pretty much convinced that Russia's IRA has a fair number of its trolls posting to Slashdot.
It sounds like you didn't understand what we're talking about. The person I was responding to thought that the DIR-620 might be the type of device ISPs give out. I said it isn't because it's just a router. ISPs don't generally give out routers unless they also have a cable modem or DSL modem built in.
You seem to be reading that backwards as "ISPs don't give out DSL modems or cable modems unless they have a router built in" which is (obviously!) not the case. ISPs will provide customers with bare modems, but they won't give their customers routers, unless they're also modems. Some obscure ISP you've never heard of that was really cool to you one time excepting, of course.
The point is that ISPs wouldn't send their customers DIR-620s, and so would never have cause to need remote admin access to one enabled.
If Twitter does it unilaterally, and Trump has nothing to do with the selection, then nothing. The ruling is against Trump, not Twitter, and Twitter isn't mandated to do anything.
Think of it this way: if I have a garden party, and Trump walks in, and then orders his security detail to eject all the people who disagree with him (which would be, like, 99% of anyone at a garden party I organize, but that's neither here nor there), then a judge might rule that's illegal. If I, on the other hand, decide to kick people out for being drunk, or making death threats, or harassing people, then I don't see why a judge would get involved. Do you?
The ruling was against Trump not Twitter. Twitter can do whatever the hell they want. Trump, however, cannot use Twitter's tools to block people who doesn't want to hear from.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment gives people the right to petition the government. They don't mean sign sheets of paper on clipboards starting with the words "We the people demand...", they mean speak to the government and have it listen.
Trump is not a private citizen, he's the actual personification of the executive branch of the government right now. So yeah, if he opens a two way public channel of communications (and his Twitter ID is such a channel) he can't block specific people from speaking to him via it.
(This isn't to imply he has to read every single tweet, or anything like that, courts have traditionally respected the technical limits of any system; nor is he required to take action or agree with every single one; but he certainly can't discriminate in terms of whose tweets he reads, even if he'll ultimately decide to dismiss the views of @obamarulz23 while choosing to retweet @honesthardworkingamerikan291929001.ru)
The DIR-620 is a consumer Wi-Fi router, I actually have one somewhere although it's not in use. It's not something you'd get from an ISP, who would generally want something with either a DSL or cable modem built in, otherwise they'd have to give you two boxes and risk you screwing up the configuration between the two somehow.
I can say it's pretty insecure to begin with, default username 'admin', no password, with nothing to encourage you to set a password.
I don't know how many people actually enable WAN access to begin with. And it's off by default.
But, regardless, that's probably not the major problem. The major problem comes if your own network is compromised, say, by an IoT device. Then it potentially has a password to your router.
That seems to me to be likely a much bigger problem.
Yeah, those were supposedly called the Model S and model X.
(Yes, I know Tesla then decided to build an entirely new assembly line, but that doesn't justify claiming that the Model 3 would be half the price it actually sells for.)
Wouldn't the existence of fossils of other forms of life predating the first octopi (or octopi like species) be evidence that this theory is crap? Unless they're claiming that the fossils were extra-terrestrial as well? Or are they proposing life came in waves or something bizarre like that?
That's what probably makes you not a natural Trump supporter.
It certainly isn't true, not even remotely.
Microsoft bought MS DOS from Seattle Associates, a seller of 8086 cards for S-100 systems, which had called the OS QDOS. QDOS itself had little to do with CP/M, it had an entirely different filesystem (Microsoft's FAT file system, which was written for early standalone Microsoft BASIC implementations intended to run without needing a seperate operating system), had a different toolset, different CLI, and was only similar to CP/M in one respect: it exported a similar, but not identical, API for applications to use. The latter was to make it easier to port CP/M applications to QDOS.
That part, like the rest of the operating system, was written from scratch, but if it hadn't been, the amount of code Seattle Associates would have "stolen" would have amounted to a tiny percentage of CP/M, literally a few hundred bytes of code, because all the complexity was in the file system and command line tools. I mention this not to suggest that if they did it it wouldn't have been a problem, I mention this to give you some idea of how ludicrous the allegation is: "Let's write a whole new operating system, but for no reason let's illegally copy a few hundred bytes from CP/M when it would be easier for us to write the same code afresh." That's how stupid the allegation is.
Microsoft's first product was BASIC. They bought MSDOS. MSDOS was not a copy of CP/M or based upon it. IBM knew what it was getting into when it bought a license. Compaq, not Microsoft, started the clones movement (Microsoft sold MS DOS to companies like ACT/Apricot before that, who were producing machines completely incompatible with IBM's.)
Microsoft was fairly neutral as a technology company until the Windows vs GEM thing started up. That snowballed into DOS/Windows vs DR DOS, Windows vs OS/2, and all the other slimy things they did. But for the first 10-15 years they were relatively normal.
I think you're missing the point. The point is that, relative to land mass, our population is still tiny. How much do you think each person need in terms of resources?
Another way to look at it might be to look at the US and its obsession with suburbanization. Suburbs are inherently inefficient in land use terms - most of the land is being allocated just for transportation (roads, cars, etc), and single floor homes are the norm, not the exception. Would suburbanization be practical or affordable if there was actual overpopulation? (Leaving aside the fact suburbs sucks, but that's another story.)
If they're not making enough money from app sales - which is their complaint then withdrawing from the app store isn't going to hurt them more than it hurts Apple.
That's... not how unions work or why they exist. Traditionally they've existed precisely because employers have monopsonies on employment for the workers concerned. If there was no monopsony, the employees wouldn't need the union, they could just hop onto a rival employer.
Is GCC really more sophisticated than Emacs? ;-) [Cue someone replying with unfunny systemd joke.]
Well, speaking for myself, given it's useful data that should be in the public domain, I'm in favor of continuing to pay for it. But I loved the way you worded that option as "using even more of your tax dollars" as if my taxes will suddenly be hiked to pay for it.
That said, I'm also in favor of paying more taxes to get better services, like basic healthcare for everyone. So even if it did mean a tax hike, that wouldn't mean I'm opposed to it.
Oh well then, if we grant full access to the authors of the operating system then of course it would be hypocritical of us to deny access to a third party with a proven track record of abusing personal data given to it.
(And no, Google doesn't sell your data. It uses your data to improve its decisions on which ads to show you, but it doesn't hand you data to third parties - hell, that'd destroy its business model if it did that.)
It used to be that people would claim that you could fit the entire population of the world on the Isle of Wight. That's not true... but it's nearly true, if the Isle of Wight were about 3x bigger (which is still really, really, small) you could fit the entire population there.
I don't think we're anywhere near the point that we need to start culling people or sending them in missions to blackholes full of bookcases with poor dialog and shitty science.
Yes, raising wages while reducing overall productivity is a great recipe for success. ;-)
He's arguing that society has collectively just decided to stop growing for no reason, and that this is something societies do from time to time.
(I'm quoting to answer your question about what he's proposing, not agreeing with him.)
Of course she's more interesting than me, she's the 2.0 version of me and my wife.
If you want them to be unable to adapt the next time Microsoft revamps the Windows UI, or their boss asks them to use a Mac, or even a Ubuntu machine, then teaching a kid the current Windows UI and refusing to expose them to anything non-Windows is a good way to do it.
If you want them to have generic skills that can apply across all platforms, and not assume that because one thing works one way everything else does, then providing them with something different to the UI used on the school computers, etc, is a better approach.
I suspect there are a lot of coffee companies in CA that are smaller than most pot farms. Just saying. It's coffee FFS. It's been the Hipster's drink before hipsters were cool.
It's worse than that, due to the Hastert rule the bill will never even be allowed a vote unless a majority of Republicans support it. So it's essentially dead in the water.