I actually did this. The problem is I can't type in Japanese because that support works only in the currently active desktop environment. Also, theming doesn't work when your GNOME apps are running like that.
It just goes to show that web developers don't care to write code that is ACID test compliant. (I know, there is no such thing) If web developers didn't use webkit- specific extensions, Microsoft wouldn't be complaining. Developers need to care about that stuff but they don't. This is a fact that Microsoft depended upon while it was rolling over their competition at every turn.
Let's also remind ourselves how Microsoft continues to hurt itself. It continues to have the web browser integrated with its OS and UI.
Here's a similar complaint I have about GNOME.
Many here love and use GNOME2 because GNOME3 with its GNOME Shell just draws anger and rage from users. In order to stay with GNOME2, I elected to go with CentOS because it is stable and mature. But that's when I was faced with a huge problem with GNOME that I couldn't believe. The utter stupidity and betrayal I felt when I came to realize what happened made me lose what little respect for GNOME developers I had at the time. "What's he talking about?!" This:
GNOME2 on CentOS 6.3 cannot run GiMP 2.8.x or above. Why not? Well, it turns out that GTK (Gimp toolkit) was used as part of GNOME2's dependencies. So no matter what a person does to compiled and reconfigure GiMP, he will never get a good user experience under GiMP while using CentOS 6.x. And the fault lies with GNOME2. The application toolkit which was put together and maintained by another project (GIMP in this case) was being used to support a desktop user interface. This means the desktop environment can only support GNOME apps which are 'compatible' with its selection of GTK libraries. This, of course, doesn't happen under Windows or other DEs under Linux or under Mac OS X. Thank you SO frikken much GNOME developers for your little timebomb that was GNOME2. You shat in the corner of the room and moved away to develop GNOME3. People moved away from GNOME3 only to find that they just stepped in the GNOME2 turd you left behind.
Okay, so what does that have to do with Microsoft and HTML and all that? Well, it turns out that by integrating an application (and all its dependent libraries) in the with desktop environment, they have blurred the lines between OS and Application even further and they maintain this behavior even with their new OSes. Why? Well, it served them well in the past though they knew it was anticompetitive. But when they are starting out at the bottom, they need to realize they aren't doing themselves any favors. They need to pull the browser out of the OS to enable people to use multiple versions of Microsoft's own browsers.
The rule which I don't think has ever been stated, where OS and User Interface development is concerned is "DO NOT USE APPLICATIONS LIBRARIES IN YOUR USER INTERFACE CODE!!!" This inherently limits the applications which can run in your OS/UI. The two ways to fix the CentOS/GNOME2 problem is for GiMP to change their code or for CentOS (and Redhat) to update their GNOME2. Neither party is interested in this large task and even if they did, the problem is the same. Microsoft can update their browsers all day long but the problem remains the same so long as you can only have one.
No, this isn't exactly what Microsoft did. The meaning and purpose behind putting "webkit-" in there is to prevent it from being misunderstood as a standard.
Unfortunately, as developers did with Microsoft, was that they deployed techniques which were not standards. In Microsoft's case, they did not announce in any way that "this is Microsoft only." In the case of Webkit, it's pretty darned obvious.
Webkit did what they could while also allowing developers to test and play with the added features. It is the developers who broke the rules by using the Webkit extensions.
Of course, the irony is delicious. This is a reversal of something which Microsoft took heavy advantage for many, many years. It doesn't make it right, but the blame isn't on Webkit for implementing those things. It did, in my opinion, the best thing to ensure that developers were aware that the things they were doing were webkit specific. Additionally, if there were any web development tools which deployed webkit specific functions without informing the developer in some way (such as "enable webkit specific functions? (y/n)") then they share some of the blame.
Microsoft did the same, but worse. Webkit remains obvious and open. Once a feature becomes a standard, the webkit- is removed and simply given the name. I have seen this already. But the process is really, really slow. And that's a big part of the problem. Developers don't want really really slow adoption of standards. They want to make the best, most eye-popping and exciting pages for their clients and for users to experience.
The word is "lies." Look, if they were interested in smaller government, they would cut spending on things that do not serve the interests of the US. Sending out trillions in foreign aid to people who do not return anything of use or benefit to the US is just pure waste.
The taxes they take from us. The social security money they take from us. It goes to fund war (into the pockets of war materials makers mainly) and into 'foreign aid' to places like Israel.
Want to save some money in the big government to make it smaller? There's the elephant in the room.
And this is security "theatre!" It's all very very creative these days isn't it? Good thing nudity as a form of protest is allowable in airports. Unfortunately, nothing on my body looks dangerous... *sigh*
Google may be a great beneficiary and contributor to the internet with its use of open source and open technologies and history of giving back to the community. The exchange for this is that people use their services from which they collect lots and lots of data to be used for lots and lots of things. (Sales/advertising data primarily, but also providing information to governmet and law enforcement in particular)
On one hand, I can see Google lowering the cost of mobile/wireless telephony and causing all sorts of competitive horrors for the few major telecom companies out there raking in their reportedly 6452% markup profits (that's actually the Canadian telecom data from a previous slashdot story but it's fair to presume we're in the same ballpark where US carriers are concerned). On the other hand, there needs to be some limits on what and how Google can collect as far as user data goes. But now that I think about it, there's probably not much limitation on that in place now with the traditional set of carriers' services. But I know this: Data collection and sales of that data is the #1 source of income for Google. I am not sure I can say the same about the carriers.
This news makes me uncomfortable though I can't say precisely why other than the fact that I generally distrust data collectors and sellers.
We see adblocking software all over. Firefox addons, things for rooted androids and the like. Most often, they rely on some sort of hosts file or other host identification. (Thanks APK, no one could have thought of that before you did... oh wait... they did... it was too obvious.) But that sort of functionality really needs to live somewhere on the network. I haven't started googling yet, but I'm willing to bet there is some version of DD-WRT out there which will do that for me. But the idea of building a small VM which serves the purpose doesn't seem like a bad idea either.
A handy little box like this is a cute idea, but I wonder about keeping it updated.
I see a future for these boxes though. Up the price and sell it as a security and monitoring device. The various law enforcement entities out there could require the use of the box for convicts. Concerned parents could also drop one of these in somewhere on the network at home. Of course, an encrypted service out there could easily thwart this in the sense that it it wouldn't be able to monitor what goes on within the session, but it could certainly report that such a session exists.
I don't want it as an additional link in the chain and potential point of failure. I definitely don't want some commercial device controlling the flow of my network while sniffing all the traffic. Selling me blank hardware and showing me how to set it up and even compile from source which I can examine might be acceptible.
Ad companies? You will just have to start TRUSTING the people who host your ads. It'd be impossible to block ads if they originate from the same source as the content. You're an idiot for doing things the way you do now, but keep it up... it enables me to extend my time online before caps kick in.
You know? Endpoint encryption is trivial. There are so many products that do it effectively and easily. Why is this being done so late? Where I work, we do that to EVERY computer a user touches, not just laptops. If it isn't locked behind a server room door, it's locked to a desk and the HDD encrypted. Even the receptionist machine is encrypted.
What the hell are these people even thinking?
Sure... data recovery is more expensive or more impossible. I get that. But you know? It's kind of worth it. Also, if it's important data that lives ONLY on the endpoint machine? Well, that's another thing they are doing wrong.
Apple to describe a computer company is obviously domain protected. There is no natural context for Apple and Computer to come together. On the other hand, if I created a computer company called "keyboard" it might have some trouble if I were to attempt to trademark and then defend it against makers of computer keyboards.
But in this case, it's a game about using your memory to remember where you last saw things on the face of a card. It's a game ABOUT memory and it's CALLED memory and that falls neatly into the definition of obvous context.
"Concentration" is a slightly better name for the same game. .
Isn't there something about trademarks and common words not being eligible? Microsoft *almost* lost their Lindows case in a big way because of that. Anyone remember this case? Lindows was being sued by Microsoft, and Lindows was putting forth the argument that Microsoft is not entitled to the name "Windows" as a trademark. Microsoft paid Lindows to change their name and to dropped the case entirely.
That said, Apple is not a court. They are a company which is exposed to legal action by the holder of the trademark "Memory." Rather than take on that challenge for the greater good (something which I am sure Google would do) Apple has decided in favor of avoiding additional legal problems. It is their right to do so.
So, what should these small apps people do? Well, turns out, there is very little they can do. They can (a) license the use of the name Memory for their game (not something I imagine would be profitabe or even allowed) or (b) file a pre-emptive suit for the right to use the name or possibly (c) file a re-examination request with the trademark offices to see if it can get revoked. Of these, I would push in favor of (c) but even then, if successful, unless it were a big news story, Apple would likely ignore your assertion that "they no longer have the rights to that name, so please allow my app into your store."
If they can't tell you how they are measuring something or what the limits are and how you can track it, then go to the gas pump and go pay for gas without looking at the meters.
No business can get away with that type of behavior for long. AT&T is an arrogant company, but even they will not be able to get away with this for long. AT&T exists under the law which says "we grant you the right of way for your equipment and our protection if anyone else would seek to interfere with your equipment. But in exchange for this, you must play by our rules."
So yes, the correct answer is to take this up with the government. The PROBLEM is that we just missed an election cycle. It may be the next election cycle before you get any resolution on the matter.
... I thought these people were supposed ot be experts in thier fields and stuff. I think even the most casual observer saw the market interest changing. Personal computing is evolving. They should have been evolving along with it. And what's intel doing? They remain quite relevant... not so much on the mobile end I guess... their Atom processor ain't quite it you know?
Still, for home appliances, Atom is pretty good stuff.
We have always been fascinated at the weird, wild and nearly random experiences we have in dreams. When weird sentences such as "I ironed coffee" are most noted, it seems to indicate something about the way our dreams are handled and why they are so damned weird at times. (For example, last night I saw old TRS-80 computers which I had never seen before... even a color version of the model 2... geek dream, but it stuck in my head where other dreams don't) Perhaps that is simply the most effective means by which the subconscious communicates with the conscious?
As for Linux? Never made mention of it, but lately applications being developed are increasinly web enabled meaning that the Windows workstation becomes less relevant or important. As Windows 7 was forced onto people, they didn't exactly go to it because it was "better." I suppose it's true in some sense... that they killed XP from the inside with every update. (Experiment if you have the time: do a perfomance test on two machines. XP SP2 on one and XP SP3 on the other.)
I think you're living a decade behind if you really believe what you are saying. People STILL want Windows XP. For that matter, they still want Windows 98. When Windows 95 came out, PCs and Windows were "electric" with enthusiasm. We were wowed with the newness and freshness of it all. We haven't been excited about PCs for a very long time and when we have anything like it, it came from other sources... Linux and sometimes Apple showing us what machines can do but isn't being done under Windows.
Counterpoint: Tablets have more than enough power when compared to the quite useful PCs we used to have.
When it comes down to truly useful technology, efficient coding (even and often in assembler) can make that sort of hardware do things which are presently unimaginable. A culture of getting the most out of hardware needs to return. It used to exist when PCs were in their infant state. It would be appropriate for tablets today. I can't speak to the efficiency of the efficiency of dalvik code, but it's object oriented so I instinctively doubt that it would be.
Uhm. Are you following what your writing? You're pretty much all over the place here. But you just described what is wrong with what Microsoft is doing better than anyone else. Microsoft is the primary reason great machines become useless. Windows XP was very acceptable until they slowed it down with every update since the release of Windows 7. Do you think that's a coincidence?
Linux has proven over and over again that a LOT can be done with "old computers." They aren't so old. And the power? It's ridiculous... ridiculous that it's being wasted. These days, processors aren't getting any faster. Now it's all about GPUs isn't it. Why is that? Could it be because Microsoft can't make efficient code while coders like those behind "Enlightenment" can still do it all in software??? We should know what is possible. We have examples all over of what is possible. The real question is why Microsoft isn't delivering on it? We know why. It's money. They want more and more and they will stop getting more if they make something great. The reached that limit already... Windows XP was probably the last "great" thing. Now it's all about "upgrade or die" because they are now forcing the world with every ounce of influence they can muster.
I think Microsoft's profit motive was glaring when they changed the volume license deal for corporate customers. It used to be that you could get a volume license for every computer and be done with it. But then Microsoft thought... hey, if we call them all "upgrades" we can make the saps buy it all twice. And that's what they did! You're either running OEM or you bought Windows twice to run it once. Nice play Microsoft. Make them pay more without getting more. *MAGIC!*
I'm not going to accuse you of being a shill. I'm just going to say you need to get some perspective. Computers are machines. They run software. Microsoft Windows is software and a platform for other software. As a platform, it is heavily utilized. But things are changing. Computing is getting more specialized... modularized. The use of "general purpose computing" will be minimalized soon.
Microsoft knows this. Didn't they share with you? Why do you think they are struggling so hard to put out a phone, a tablet and all that? It's where the world is going and no one really wants Microsoft to be a part of the new market set. They burned their customers for too long and they are tired of it.
In case you haven't noticed where things are and where they are going, we have specialized computers everywhere. Your smartphone is the most obvious, but also, your DVD player, your TV and lots of things are specialized computers. And so yes, you do want a separate device for most every task. That is, unless you carry a laptop around instead of a phone.
And things are only getting worse...or better depending on how you look at it. Before long, you will carry your computer and data with you all the time. The interface will depend on the application. In the car, it will be what you want in the car. At home, it will be what you want in the home.
And when you get down to it, most people only do a rather limited set of things with their computers. If they are mostly internet, then guess what? It doesn't matter which OS you use. This Microsoft-proprietary internet is just about dead. The internet+flash is going away too.
And here's a prediction:
Windows 7 will be the last loved OS by Microsoft. Windows 8 will be rejected in an unprecedented manner. It will be rejected by users... that has been done before. Windows 8 will be rejected by developers -- the people Microsoft has most depended on. At the end of the day, what keeps people using Windows is the applications. And when people start coding for other platforms instead of Windows 8, that'll be the end of Microsoft's reign. After that, it's all coasting downhill under its own weight.
And just as hard as it was to imagine IBM not making type writers, it is certainly hard for people to see PCs go. But we've seen it all before. The exit of the floppy... both 5'25" and 3.5" were OMG!! It caused fear and panic for a while. A lot of things are changing. Get used to it. Most of the time it's better. But heaven help us when storage is on the cloud with no option otherwise. That will happen when applications will no longer store data locally... just "cached" locally with built-in limits. Welcome to computing 2.0. Applications and data as a service.
Odd. I have tried this link from other networks and other computers. I do not see this. It's not stealing. It's linking. Are you as confused as the rest of the media who still don't understand the internet?
Yes, I have lots more questions. Among them are how this study is actually balanced. For example, the right to appeal. In comparing the death row versus the life in prison inmate, the costs are about the rights afforded to the condemned. Essentially, they are afforded more rights than those with periodic parole hearings.
The solution is obvious. Equalize the rights of all prisoners. That it's claimed that to kill a man is more expensive than to keep him alive is an over-simplificaiton. It costs little more than the few hours of manpower and the means of death to kill a man. What is expensive are the efforts of keeping him alive until the very last moment. What we are paying for is the appearance of fairness. That's some expensive window dressing.
That said, I stand by my notion that the death penalty should be reserved for the extremely obvious cases such as a person who is seen (by dozens of people) and even recorded performing murder without remorse and presuming there were no mental problems driving him to do it (such as speaking to god for example). Also, I advocate a voluntary death sentence for those who cannot stand another day of life in prison.
That there are claims and assertions which appear to make keeping a person a live more expensive than death? It is ridiculous. None of the articles spell out what is precisely so expensive other than perhaps all the due process involved. Limit the due process and you have already equalized the cost.
In truth, it is no more expensive. Apples to apples we must compare. And if those on death row get more consideration than lifers? Well, the solution to the problem is self-evident. Either give lifer's more rights to due process or reduce it on death row.
This guy is clearly one of "those people." Sorry, but I just don't have respect for them. I'm not going to bother defining for anyone what I mean by "those people" but I will say that "those people" tend to somehow think they can control information and by extension opinions and even thought. I'm sorry, but we live in a world with "an internet" now. Information is inherently free and free-flowing. He's a media person. He hasn't accepted that information... data... media...content... it's all out there and it cannot be controlled without pulling the plug on it. And humanity will not stand for it.
Do you also hold funerals for still-born and miscarriages?
I'm okay with rationalizing "not born yet" as not being people. Then again, I'm also down with the current standards for when it is appropriate for abortion and when it is not.
As far as who gets to make the choice about life and death? We are generally okay, as a people, with family members deciding whether or not to pull the plug in hopeless medical cases. And I'm guessing (just guessing) that you're also pretty okay with war... you know, sending people and machines over great distances with the precise and uncompromised purpose of killing other people. These are decisions made by "officials" to go out and kill people. I think what we are talking about is when it's okay to kill and when it's not.
For your homework, I suggest you make a list of different kinds of death and decide which are okay and which are not. In this way, you can objectively learn a bit more about your real beliefs. Because right now, I don't think you really know what you believe.
Humanity is pretty messed up. Many of the issues you bring up are a direct result of a messed up human condition. It is the human condition which needs repair. And no, religion is not the answer. Religious belief is a huge part of how we separate one people from the rest, how we judge ourselves and others or determine superiority over others. We need less of that for humanity.
Just about everything you have talked about reeks of "be careful what you ask for." As things are now, we have nation-loads of children being born which don't stand a chance of having a reasonable life or future as we understand them. And when they do survive, they are quite often exploited and abused. And if they survive that, they generally become the exploiters and abusers. We have more humans on this planet now than can be sustained. When we have a problem with too many rodents, too many deer or too much of anything to sustain a healthy environment, we kill it. We do that with everything with only one exception -- people. I wouldn't generally be okay with that. But I would be okay with prevention of some sort... perhaps voluntary. But even then we get into some pretty ugly places and positions. In the end, we have a planet full of very unhealthy, uneducated, non-thinking, non-productive humans greatly outnumbering those who have the benefits of health, education, means and freedom. I don't think it's hard to imagine how things can and will come to a head. In some places, it already has.
Your view of the world is almost entirely in the "first world." You need to ponder a bigger picture. One that has understanding of the generalities of human nature, what it really is and what, if anything, truly makes one person better than another.
No matter how many of your Christmas wishes you may get, you will never see and end to human suffering and misery. This is especially true if you believe you should keep everything you 'earn' and refuse to give it all away to people who are more needy than yourself. I'm not lying to myself. I *will* allow my neighbors to starve while I feed my family. I will watch them die if I have to in order to keep my family alive. Can you admit that this is also true of yourself? And if that's true, which I have no doubt that it is, why are you so bent on being interested in how other people live or die? You are aware of the suffering around the world and around your block. You have no business telling others how to live or die unless you are willing to accept that someone ELSE has the same right you have... to tell you how to live or die... someone you do not choose... not your 'god' but someone else... another human. Think on this. Where you are at, right now, your level of ponderance is "I'm okay with everyone I agree with and everyone who agrees with me." You're simply not capable of dealing in any other terms. Congratulations you're religious. The self-appointed judges of the rest of humanity.
I see death sentences as disposal. But clearly there is something which I am very unfamiliar with. How is a death sentence more expensive than a life without parole sentence? Please don't tell me you're talking about prison labor. I fundamentally disagree that there is even such an industry. It's legalized slavery. I don't think the chemicals used to kill someone are all that expensive. So what are you talking about?
One other thing about a death penalty... I think it should be voluntary in most cases.
The "justice system" is about reject disposal and management. No one in the system ever truly gets out. They are forever cursed to live in the lower tiers of life.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually did this. The problem is I can't type in Japanese because that support works only in the currently active desktop environment. Also, theming doesn't work when your GNOME apps are running like that.
Does it have to be annual figures? I don't think so.
The US has spent nearly unimaginable amounts of money on weapons and foreign aid.
It just goes to show that web developers don't care to write code that is ACID test compliant. (I know, there is no such thing) If web developers didn't use webkit- specific extensions, Microsoft wouldn't be complaining. Developers need to care about that stuff but they don't. This is a fact that Microsoft depended upon while it was rolling over their competition at every turn.
Let's also remind ourselves how Microsoft continues to hurt itself. It continues to have the web browser integrated with its OS and UI.
Here's a similar complaint I have about GNOME.
Many here love and use GNOME2 because GNOME3 with its GNOME Shell just draws anger and rage from users. In order to stay with GNOME2, I elected to go with CentOS because it is stable and mature. But that's when I was faced with a huge problem with GNOME that I couldn't believe. The utter stupidity and betrayal I felt when I came to realize what happened made me lose what little respect for GNOME developers I had at the time. "What's he talking about?!" This:
GNOME2 on CentOS 6.3 cannot run GiMP 2.8.x or above. Why not? Well, it turns out that GTK (Gimp toolkit) was used as part of GNOME2's dependencies. So no matter what a person does to compiled and reconfigure GiMP, he will never get a good user experience under GiMP while using CentOS 6.x. And the fault lies with GNOME2. The application toolkit which was put together and maintained by another project (GIMP in this case) was being used to support a desktop user interface. This means the desktop environment can only support GNOME apps which are 'compatible' with its selection of GTK libraries. This, of course, doesn't happen under Windows or other DEs under Linux or under Mac OS X. Thank you SO frikken much GNOME developers for your little timebomb that was GNOME2. You shat in the corner of the room and moved away to develop GNOME3. People moved away from GNOME3 only to find that they just stepped in the GNOME2 turd you left behind.
Okay, so what does that have to do with Microsoft and HTML and all that? Well, it turns out that by integrating an application (and all its dependent libraries) in the with desktop environment, they have blurred the lines between OS and Application even further and they maintain this behavior even with their new OSes. Why? Well, it served them well in the past though they knew it was anticompetitive. But when they are starting out at the bottom, they need to realize they aren't doing themselves any favors. They need to pull the browser out of the OS to enable people to use multiple versions of Microsoft's own browsers.
The rule which I don't think has ever been stated, where OS and User Interface development is concerned is "DO NOT USE APPLICATIONS LIBRARIES IN YOUR USER INTERFACE CODE!!!" This inherently limits the applications which can run in your OS/UI. The two ways to fix the CentOS/GNOME2 problem is for GiMP to change their code or for CentOS (and Redhat) to update their GNOME2. Neither party is interested in this large task and even if they did, the problem is the same. Microsoft can update their browsers all day long but the problem remains the same so long as you can only have one.
No, this isn't exactly what Microsoft did. The meaning and purpose behind putting "webkit-" in there is to prevent it from being misunderstood as a standard.
Unfortunately, as developers did with Microsoft, was that they deployed techniques which were not standards. In Microsoft's case, they did not announce in any way that "this is Microsoft only." In the case of Webkit, it's pretty darned obvious.
Webkit did what they could while also allowing developers to test and play with the added features. It is the developers who broke the rules by using the Webkit extensions.
Of course, the irony is delicious. This is a reversal of something which Microsoft took heavy advantage for many, many years. It doesn't make it right, but the blame isn't on Webkit for implementing those things. It did, in my opinion, the best thing to ensure that developers were aware that the things they were doing were webkit specific. Additionally, if there were any web development tools which deployed webkit specific functions without informing the developer in some way (such as "enable webkit specific functions? (y/n)") then they share some of the blame.
Microsoft did the same, but worse. Webkit remains obvious and open. Once a feature becomes a standard, the webkit- is removed and simply given the name. I have seen this already. But the process is really, really slow. And that's a big part of the problem. Developers don't want really really slow adoption of standards. They want to make the best, most eye-popping and exciting pages for their clients and for users to experience.
The word is "lies." Look, if they were interested in smaller government, they would cut spending on things that do not serve the interests of the US. Sending out trillions in foreign aid to people who do not return anything of use or benefit to the US is just pure waste.
The taxes they take from us. The social security money they take from us. It goes to fund war (into the pockets of war materials makers mainly) and into 'foreign aid' to places like Israel.
Want to save some money in the big government to make it smaller? There's the elephant in the room.
And this is security "theatre!" It's all very very creative these days isn't it? Good thing nudity as a form of protest is allowable in airports. Unfortunately, nothing on my body looks dangerous... *sigh*
Google may be a great beneficiary and contributor to the internet with its use of open source and open technologies and history of giving back to the community. The exchange for this is that people use their services from which they collect lots and lots of data to be used for lots and lots of things. (Sales/advertising data primarily, but also providing information to governmet and law enforcement in particular)
On one hand, I can see Google lowering the cost of mobile/wireless telephony and causing all sorts of competitive horrors for the few major telecom companies out there raking in their reportedly 6452% markup profits (that's actually the Canadian telecom data from a previous slashdot story but it's fair to presume we're in the same ballpark where US carriers are concerned). On the other hand, there needs to be some limits on what and how Google can collect as far as user data goes. But now that I think about it, there's probably not much limitation on that in place now with the traditional set of carriers' services. But I know this: Data collection and sales of that data is the #1 source of income for Google. I am not sure I can say the same about the carriers.
This news makes me uncomfortable though I can't say precisely why other than the fact that I generally distrust data collectors and sellers.
We see adblocking software all over. Firefox addons, things for rooted androids and the like. Most often, they rely on some sort of hosts file or other host identification. (Thanks APK, no one could have thought of that before you did... oh wait... they did... it was too obvious.) But that sort of functionality really needs to live somewhere on the network. I haven't started googling yet, but I'm willing to bet there is some version of DD-WRT out there which will do that for me. But the idea of building a small VM which serves the purpose doesn't seem like a bad idea either.
A handy little box like this is a cute idea, but I wonder about keeping it updated.
I see a future for these boxes though. Up the price and sell it as a security and monitoring device. The various law enforcement entities out there could require the use of the box for convicts. Concerned parents could also drop one of these in somewhere on the network at home. Of course, an encrypted service out there could easily thwart this in the sense that it it wouldn't be able to monitor what goes on within the session, but it could certainly report that such a session exists.
I don't want it as an additional link in the chain and potential point of failure. I definitely don't want some commercial device controlling the flow of my network while sniffing all the traffic. Selling me blank hardware and showing me how to set it up and even compile from source which I can examine might be acceptible.
Ad companies? You will just have to start TRUSTING the people who host your ads. It'd be impossible to block ads if they originate from the same source as the content. You're an idiot for doing things the way you do now, but keep it up... it enables me to extend my time online before caps kick in.
You know? Endpoint encryption is trivial. There are so many products that do it effectively and easily. Why is this being done so late? Where I work, we do that to EVERY computer a user touches, not just laptops. If it isn't locked behind a server room door, it's locked to a desk and the HDD encrypted. Even the receptionist machine is encrypted.
What the hell are these people even thinking?
Sure... data recovery is more expensive or more impossible. I get that. But you know? It's kind of worth it. Also, if it's important data that lives ONLY on the endpoint machine? Well, that's another thing they are doing wrong.
Create volcano in my home...
Apple to describe a computer company is obviously domain protected. There is no natural context for Apple and Computer to come together. On the other hand, if I created a computer company called "keyboard" it might have some trouble if I were to attempt to trademark and then defend it against makers of computer keyboards.
But in this case, it's a game about using your memory to remember where you last saw things on the face of a card. It's a game ABOUT memory and it's CALLED memory and that falls neatly into the definition of obvous context.
"Concentration" is a slightly better name for the same game.
.
Isn't there something about trademarks and common words not being eligible? Microsoft *almost* lost their Lindows case in a big way because of that. Anyone remember this case? Lindows was being sued by Microsoft, and Lindows was putting forth the argument that Microsoft is not entitled to the name "Windows" as a trademark. Microsoft paid Lindows to change their name and to dropped the case entirely.
That said, Apple is not a court. They are a company which is exposed to legal action by the holder of the trademark "Memory." Rather than take on that challenge for the greater good (something which I am sure Google would do) Apple has decided in favor of avoiding additional legal problems. It is their right to do so.
So, what should these small apps people do? Well, turns out, there is very little they can do. They can (a) license the use of the name Memory for their game (not something I imagine would be profitabe or even allowed) or (b) file a pre-emptive suit for the right to use the name or possibly (c) file a re-examination request with the trademark offices to see if it can get revoked. Of these, I would push in favor of (c) but even then, if successful, unless it were a big news story, Apple would likely ignore your assertion that "they no longer have the rights to that name, so please allow my app into your store."
If they can't tell you how they are measuring something or what the limits are and how you can track it, then go to the gas pump and go pay for gas without looking at the meters.
No business can get away with that type of behavior for long. AT&T is an arrogant company, but even they will not be able to get away with this for long. AT&T exists under the law which says "we grant you the right of way for your equipment and our protection if anyone else would seek to interfere with your equipment. But in exchange for this, you must play by our rules."
So yes, the correct answer is to take this up with the government. The PROBLEM is that we just missed an election cycle. It may be the next election cycle before you get any resolution on the matter.
... I thought these people were supposed ot be experts in thier fields and stuff. I think even the most casual observer saw the market interest changing. Personal computing is evolving. They should have been evolving along with it. And what's intel doing? They remain quite relevant... not so much on the mobile end I guess... their Atom processor ain't quite it you know?
Still, for home appliances, Atom is pretty good stuff.
We have always been fascinated at the weird, wild and nearly random experiences we have in dreams. When weird sentences such as "I ironed coffee" are most noted, it seems to indicate something about the way our dreams are handled and why they are so damned weird at times. (For example, last night I saw old TRS-80 computers which I had never seen before... even a color version of the model 2... geek dream, but it stuck in my head where other dreams don't) Perhaps that is simply the most effective means by which the subconscious communicates with the conscious?
People didn't stop using Windows XP voluntarily.
As for Linux? Never made mention of it, but lately applications being developed are increasinly web enabled meaning that the Windows workstation becomes less relevant or important. As Windows 7 was forced onto people, they didn't exactly go to it because it was "better." I suppose it's true in some sense... that they killed XP from the inside with every update. (Experiment if you have the time: do a perfomance test on two machines. XP SP2 on one and XP SP3 on the other.)
I think you're living a decade behind if you really believe what you are saying. People STILL want Windows XP. For that matter, they still want Windows 98. When Windows 95 came out, PCs and Windows were "electric" with enthusiasm. We were wowed with the newness and freshness of it all. We haven't been excited about PCs for a very long time and when we have anything like it, it came from other sources... Linux and sometimes Apple showing us what machines can do but isn't being done under Windows.
Counterpoint: Tablets have more than enough power when compared to the quite useful PCs we used to have.
When it comes down to truly useful technology, efficient coding (even and often in assembler) can make that sort of hardware do things which are presently unimaginable. A culture of getting the most out of hardware needs to return. It used to exist when PCs were in their infant state. It would be appropriate for tablets today. I can't speak to the efficiency of the efficiency of dalvik code, but it's object oriented so I instinctively doubt that it would be.
...in a landfill...
Uhm. Are you following what your writing? You're pretty much all over the place here. But you just described what is wrong with what Microsoft is doing better than anyone else. Microsoft is the primary reason great machines become useless. Windows XP was very acceptable until they slowed it down with every update since the release of Windows 7. Do you think that's a coincidence?
Linux has proven over and over again that a LOT can be done with "old computers." They aren't so old. And the power? It's ridiculous... ridiculous that it's being wasted. These days, processors aren't getting any faster. Now it's all about GPUs isn't it. Why is that? Could it be because Microsoft can't make efficient code while coders like those behind "Enlightenment" can still do it all in software??? We should know what is possible. We have examples all over of what is possible. The real question is why Microsoft isn't delivering on it? We know why. It's money. They want more and more and they will stop getting more if they make something great. The reached that limit already... Windows XP was probably the last "great" thing. Now it's all about "upgrade or die" because they are now forcing the world with every ounce of influence they can muster.
I think Microsoft's profit motive was glaring when they changed the volume license deal for corporate customers. It used to be that you could get a volume license for every computer and be done with it. But then Microsoft thought... hey, if we call them all "upgrades" we can make the saps buy it all twice. And that's what they did! You're either running OEM or you bought Windows twice to run it once. Nice play Microsoft. Make them pay more without getting more. *MAGIC!*
I'm not going to accuse you of being a shill. I'm just going to say you need to get some perspective. Computers are machines. They run software. Microsoft Windows is software and a platform for other software. As a platform, it is heavily utilized. But things are changing. Computing is getting more specialized... modularized. The use of "general purpose computing" will be minimalized soon.
Microsoft knows this. Didn't they share with you? Why do you think they are struggling so hard to put out a phone, a tablet and all that? It's where the world is going and no one really wants Microsoft to be a part of the new market set. They burned their customers for too long and they are tired of it.
Wow! Is it still the 1990s?
In case you haven't noticed where things are and where they are going, we have specialized computers everywhere. Your smartphone is the most obvious, but also, your DVD player, your TV and lots of things are specialized computers. And so yes, you do want a separate device for most every task. That is, unless you carry a laptop around instead of a phone.
And things are only getting worse...or better depending on how you look at it. Before long, you will carry your computer and data with you all the time. The interface will depend on the application. In the car, it will be what you want in the car. At home, it will be what you want in the home.
And when you get down to it, most people only do a rather limited set of things with their computers. If they are mostly internet, then guess what? It doesn't matter which OS you use. This Microsoft-proprietary internet is just about dead. The internet+flash is going away too.
And here's a prediction:
Windows 7 will be the last loved OS by Microsoft. Windows 8 will be rejected in an unprecedented manner. It will be rejected by users... that has been done before. Windows 8 will be rejected by developers -- the people Microsoft has most depended on. At the end of the day, what keeps people using Windows is the applications. And when people start coding for other platforms instead of Windows 8, that'll be the end of Microsoft's reign. After that, it's all coasting downhill under its own weight.
And just as hard as it was to imagine IBM not making type writers, it is certainly hard for people to see PCs go. But we've seen it all before. The exit of the floppy... both 5'25" and 3.5" were OMG!! It caused fear and panic for a while. A lot of things are changing. Get used to it. Most of the time it's better. But heaven help us when storage is on the cloud with no option otherwise. That will happen when applications will no longer store data locally... just "cached" locally with built-in limits. Welcome to computing 2.0. Applications and data as a service.
Odd. I have tried this link from other networks and other computers. I do not see this. It's not stealing. It's linking. Are you as confused as the rest of the media who still don't understand the internet?
Yes, I have lots more questions. Among them are how this study is actually balanced. For example, the right to appeal. In comparing the death row versus the life in prison inmate, the costs are about the rights afforded to the condemned. Essentially, they are afforded more rights than those with periodic parole hearings.
The solution is obvious. Equalize the rights of all prisoners. That it's claimed that to kill a man is more expensive than to keep him alive is an over-simplificaiton. It costs little more than the few hours of manpower and the means of death to kill a man. What is expensive are the efforts of keeping him alive until the very last moment. What we are paying for is the appearance of fairness. That's some expensive window dressing.
That said, I stand by my notion that the death penalty should be reserved for the extremely obvious cases such as a person who is seen (by dozens of people) and even recorded performing murder without remorse and presuming there were no mental problems driving him to do it (such as speaking to god for example). Also, I advocate a voluntary death sentence for those who cannot stand another day of life in prison.
That there are claims and assertions which appear to make keeping a person a live more expensive than death? It is ridiculous. None of the articles spell out what is precisely so expensive other than perhaps all the due process involved. Limit the due process and you have already equalized the cost.
In truth, it is no more expensive. Apples to apples we must compare. And if those on death row get more consideration than lifers? Well, the solution to the problem is self-evident. Either give lifer's more rights to due process or reduce it on death row.
I'm guessing hundreds of thousands of people just like me have been googling this guy's name.
Of interest, I found this image:
http://ozsoapbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/michael-trkulja-original-herald-sun-hitman-article-2007.jpg
This guy is clearly one of "those people." Sorry, but I just don't have respect for them. I'm not going to bother defining for anyone what I mean by "those people" but I will say that "those people" tend to somehow think they can control information and by extension opinions and even thought. I'm sorry, but we live in a world with "an internet" now. Information is inherently free and free-flowing. He's a media person. He hasn't accepted that information... data... media...content... it's all out there and it cannot be controlled without pulling the plug on it. And humanity will not stand for it.
Do you also hold funerals for still-born and miscarriages?
I'm okay with rationalizing "not born yet" as not being people. Then again, I'm also down with the current standards for when it is appropriate for abortion and when it is not.
As far as who gets to make the choice about life and death? We are generally okay, as a people, with family members deciding whether or not to pull the plug in hopeless medical cases. And I'm guessing (just guessing) that you're also pretty okay with war... you know, sending people and machines over great distances with the precise and uncompromised purpose of killing other people. These are decisions made by "officials" to go out and kill people. I think what we are talking about is when it's okay to kill and when it's not.
For your homework, I suggest you make a list of different kinds of death and decide which are okay and which are not. In this way, you can objectively learn a bit more about your real beliefs. Because right now, I don't think you really know what you believe.
Humanity is pretty messed up. Many of the issues you bring up are a direct result of a messed up human condition. It is the human condition which needs repair. And no, religion is not the answer. Religious belief is a huge part of how we separate one people from the rest, how we judge ourselves and others or determine superiority over others. We need less of that for humanity.
Just about everything you have talked about reeks of "be careful what you ask for." As things are now, we have nation-loads of children being born which don't stand a chance of having a reasonable life or future as we understand them. And when they do survive, they are quite often exploited and abused. And if they survive that, they generally become the exploiters and abusers. We have more humans on this planet now than can be sustained. When we have a problem with too many rodents, too many deer or too much of anything to sustain a healthy environment, we kill it. We do that with everything with only one exception -- people. I wouldn't generally be okay with that. But I would be okay with prevention of some sort... perhaps voluntary. But even then we get into some pretty ugly places and positions. In the end, we have a planet full of very unhealthy, uneducated, non-thinking, non-productive humans greatly outnumbering those who have the benefits of health, education, means and freedom. I don't think it's hard to imagine how things can and will come to a head. In some places, it already has.
Your view of the world is almost entirely in the "first world." You need to ponder a bigger picture. One that has understanding of the generalities of human nature, what it really is and what, if anything, truly makes one person better than another.
No matter how many of your Christmas wishes you may get, you will never see and end to human suffering and misery. This is especially true if you believe you should keep everything you 'earn' and refuse to give it all away to people who are more needy than yourself. I'm not lying to myself. I *will* allow my neighbors to starve while I feed my family. I will watch them die if I have to in order to keep my family alive. Can you admit that this is also true of yourself? And if that's true, which I have no doubt that it is, why are you so bent on being interested in how other people live or die? You are aware of the suffering around the world and around your block. You have no business telling others how to live or die unless you are willing to accept that someone ELSE has the same right you have... to tell you how to live or die... someone you do not choose... not your 'god' but someone else... another human. Think on this. Where you are at, right now, your level of ponderance is "I'm okay with everyone I agree with and everyone who agrees with me." You're simply not capable of dealing in any other terms. Congratulations you're religious. The self-appointed judges of the rest of humanity.
I see death sentences as disposal. But clearly there is something which I am very unfamiliar with. How is a death sentence more expensive than a life without parole sentence? Please don't tell me you're talking about prison labor. I fundamentally disagree that there is even such an industry. It's legalized slavery. I don't think the chemicals used to kill someone are all that expensive. So what are you talking about?
One other thing about a death penalty... I think it should be voluntary in most cases.
The "justice system" is about reject disposal and management. No one in the system ever truly gets out. They are forever cursed to live in the lower tiers of life.