Here's another data point: My web usage on a Mac is heavily dependent on Flash-- primarily because I watch online video on my Mac.
I hardly get the crashes you get on Safari-- but then, I'm using Firefox, so I'm probably trading some measure of stability for increased resource usage.
I do use Adblock, so that probably contributes to the stability. Many Flash ads are poorly scripted, and some are even maliciously coded. What's more, Flash for Mac may have some threshold of concurrent open files (or something similar) beyond which one sees the crashing and instability you see.
I think that, in general, Flash is inherently unstable when you have a significant number of Flash apps open concurrently. I would expect some level of instability and/or malware infection if I were using Flash on a Windows box with no ad-blocking, on IE, for example.
Adobe's probably getting pressure from advertisers. Surprisingly, Adobe hasn't fast-tracked a Flash player for the more open platforms out there - 3 years of griping about Flash on the iPhone, and they don't have anything for Android.
I'll help you out there-- Google is working with them to roll Flash out with Android 2.2, or so says the word on the street.
That's ridiculous. He was saying that if the person is white-skinned, the cops won't bother even if it is an illegal alien.
The point was, the cops are going to use this to target Hispanics regardless of residency status. You can bet that they will detain and/or deport as many as they can until it's struck down in the courts.
1. This law would be the rough equivalent of Japan now checking Zainichi (Japanese citizens of Korean or Chinese descent) for their papers. I'm sure they're regularly harassed by the Japanese police enough*, but this would add insult to injury. Now apply this situation to Arizona resident citizens of Hispanic descent.
2. The problem with this law is this: You cannot reliably identify and differentiate a citizen of the same ethnicity as an illegal alien. Therefore, unless law enforcement is willing to do the Right Thing constitutionally and build a case based on probable cause (which this law does not do, and law enforcement doesn't want to do this anyway), enforcement of this law requires arbitrary inspection of both citizens and illegals. Because some citizens may not have their "papers" in hand, some citizens will be wrongfully arrested and possibly even deported; likewise, because some illegals have really good fake IDs, some will evade arrest. The fundamental, constitutional problem is that enforcement requires a search of a citizen with little or no probable cause that they are here illegally-- the legal standard for requesting identification for investigating illegal immigration here is frankly a sick joke.
You may think that isn't a Fourth Amendment case (protection vs. illegal search & seizure). I beg to differ.
*Generally, the metropolitan areas don't pull this BS as it would be horrible for tourism, but Japanese in less densely populated areas tend to be rather xenophobic.
I'm not sure if this was your point, but: Apple cares about no one but its shareholders. User experience is really ancillary; it's a hook to get people to buy massive amounts of their shiny things so that their shareholders make a mint on their stock.
Money is rarely the issue in cases like these, ironic as that may sound. The objective here is to force the maintainers and community of Linux (and by extension, all FOSS) to pay corporations a "protection fee". They'll call it "indemnification" or whatever bullshit term they come up with, but that is what it amounts to.
Sure, Novell, IBM, et al have (had) to spend the resources to defend themselves against a stupid, pointless, and entirely frivolous lawsuit. But money can easily be replaced. Freedom cannot.
Going with your analogy, wouldn't the post-bankruptcy hearings be the equivalent of Novell banging the case on the counter, saying "HELLO, POLLY! WAKEY-WAKEY!!" *bonk bonk bonk* "RISE AND SHINE!" *bonk bonk bonk* "THIS IS YOUR NINE O'CLOCK ALARM CALL!!"
I'm guessing that he didn't use the same names in his design partly because that would be inviting a patent infringement lawsuit. It would be trivial to convince a judge (let alone a jury) to bring down the legal hammer because the two specs use the same terminology. It would make for a horrible technological explanation, sure, but imagine Montgomery trying to explain where his spec differs in testimony without putting the audience to sleep.
If you want to refute a rant, pick some illustrative points and clearly answer them. Don't pick apart the text, all of it, sentence by sentence. Fancy colouring and highlighting don't make it better written.
That's your preference for a rebuttal, but it seems that Montgomery doesn't want to leave any room for ambiguity-- that means he has to be thorough, or allow his critics to get away with the figurative hoodwinking.
And when those who pushed for the global economy and free trade have the cash with which to bribe-- sorry, <sarcasmquotes>influence through the lobbying process</sarcasmquotes>-- legislators, set up think tanks with which to train pro-business lawyers who then get appointed to federal benches and later the SCOTUS (see: Federalist Society et al), and also (thanks to Citizens United) buy ads for/against candidates for national office, whereas we have maybe a few hundred to spare for campaign donations, guess who wins?
It'd be unregulated within the scope of its own market-- the black market. In the scope of the broader economy, I'd say that contraband is maximally regulated-- it's hard to get any more regulated than "you shall not trade in this, and if you do, we'll toss you in the slammer".
Let's not forget that while Facebook conveniently (for them, anyway) selected the options that would maximize their revenues, the user can just as conveniently (albeit less so, as one needs to manipulate a web form) select the options that maximize privacy and information protection-- or what little one can expect online, at least.
Sure, it would be nice if online information brokers (*cough*Google*cough*) would set up these products with the security of users' data first and foremost in mind, but unfortunately there's this thing called "profit motive" that discourages such a policy, particularly since Google discovered that such data mining is extremely lucrative. We should expect the Web to be as private as a billboard on the I-5 with a powerful radio transmitter; if you want online privacy, keep as much information as you can off it. You'll sacrifice conveniences like online applications and banking, but at least you will know that the usual online suspects aren't the ones who accidentally leaked your personal information to spammers and identity thieves.
It was a thrill to see him return after "retiring" twice (once for "Unification" on TNG, and again for Star Trek)-- those reprises of Spock, despite his earlier intentions to refrain from returning, are testament to his devotion to the fans of the Trek franchise.
He's also one of the funniest actors in Trek, as convention panels with William Shatner and his recordings with John de Lancie have demonstrated.
Why bother with manuals when their game level design helps the player learn?
Or, rather, it's supposed to, but more often than not it relies on interrupting the game and lecturing to the player rather than using the game mechanics itself to guide the player (Portal is a great example of this).
The fundamental legal structure of corporations, especially in the US, is flawed. In most circumstances, the corporation is essentially enslaved to the profit motive of the shareholders-- if they make a decision that would not maximize the benefits to the shareholders, and as long as the profit-maximizing strategy is not criminal, they can sue the corporation and win in court, ethics or principles be damned. This is how Ben & Jerry's turned from a company with principles not unlike that of many progressives to a sell-out-- the shareholders threatened to sue the board of directors unless the board allowed a buyout bid.
Non-profits are not subject to the will of shareholders by definition, but they come with other restrictions, many of which would be disadvantages to for-profit models.
There is a movement underway to introduce a new corporate form that does not make the shareholders' interests supreme, but it hasn't gotten much coverage in the news, nor headway in the legislatures. If the movement is successful, I'd be more than willing to invest what little I have in companies that adopt such a corporate charter. The key, however, is getting often-dysfunctional state governments to accept them, and that's not going to be easy.
Clearly WATCHING a movie or PLAYING a video game is not art.
Are you certain? Watching a movie, I'll grant you that, as everyone watches in much the same way (unless they decide to be horribly disruptive).
But no two people play a game in the same manner, unless they strictly follow a script and play with exactly the same set of start conditions and rules. For some, a guy playing a game might seem trite and uninteresting, but there is a market of recording and/or watching masters of the game-- to the point of calling their play-throughs "performance art".
Then again, Mr. Biden appears not to have much influence with the Government Accountability Office, as they're calling bullshit on the "WE'RE LOSING BILLIONS TO DEM PIRATS!!1!" argument so often touted by record labels and movie studios. Without the "OMG MASSIVE LOSSES!" argument, I don't know if Congress will be inclined to act.
Many would suggest profit, as though the execs and bean counters are Ferengi. I think that's too naive.
If they open up their creative works even a crack, there is a small probability that it would be exploited for amateurs who would then create variations on the legally-purchased works. They cannot tolerate the idea that their own fans would think up new and creative ways to enjoy what they sell, so they force every signing artist to hand over all of the rights to the creative works.
That's the entire reason-- they want complete control of the entire market and of every creative person. It is much bigger than money, although money plays a significant role. There is a reason why corporations offshore jobs, and why Chinese factories essentially enslave their workers, and it's not just because those in charge are assholes.
Given the draconian nature of media cartel execs, they will have a database of sanctioned works that are ladened with DRM. Any file other than those that requires a codec to be reproduced would be banned, even if they are not media files, and even if no RIAA or MPAA member company had anything to do with its production and distribution.
They will try to pressure Microsoft and Apple to build this into their operating systems, and they will try to pressure legislators to make "non-compliant" operating systems such as Linux illegal. That is the only way they can make this happen.
Given that this is an unprecedented amount of control to be demanded on consumers, I doubt that this will get very far; and given that the GAO has severe doubts about the loss figures the media cartel keeps giving Congress and the US Trade Representative, I think this could backfire.
The difference would be that cutting the military budget gives his foes "evidence" (false evidence, but they'll still use it) of the "talking points", in addition to "he doesn't support our troops".
Right now they are arguing from a vacuum. For now, Obama wants to keep it that way.
They think only of themselves and how to remain in power. A school district is nowhere near as lucrative or influential as, say, a Congressional seat, so all they have is their own little kingdom, where they get to set the rules and policies with little or no oversight. In such an environment, humans tend to behave in ways that defy common sense and ethics, similar to how investment banks and hedge funds operated in the early 21st century.
Slashdot Mirror
So let me get this straight. The US is saying that billions of people have inadequate copyright "protection"??
Since when did we start caring about IP law that overwhelmingly favors large multinational media cartels?
Here's another data point: My web usage on a Mac is heavily dependent on Flash-- primarily because I watch online video on my Mac.
I hardly get the crashes you get on Safari-- but then, I'm using Firefox, so I'm probably trading some measure of stability for increased resource usage.
I do use Adblock, so that probably contributes to the stability. Many Flash ads are poorly scripted, and some are even maliciously coded. What's more, Flash for Mac may have some threshold of concurrent open files (or something similar) beyond which one sees the crashing and instability you see.
I think that, in general, Flash is inherently unstable when you have a significant number of Flash apps open concurrently. I would expect some level of instability and/or malware infection if I were using Flash on a Windows box with no ad-blocking, on IE, for example.
I'll help you out there-- Google is working with them to roll Flash out with Android 2.2, or so says the word on the street.
Sssshhhhh. They don't want details, they want their libertarian utopia.
That's ridiculous. He was saying that if the person is white-skinned, the cops won't bother even if it is an illegal alien.
The point was, the cops are going to use this to target Hispanics regardless of residency status. You can bet that they will detain and/or deport as many as they can until it's struck down in the courts.
So you are supporting this bill, which essentially legitimizes abuses of power that police officers regularly engage in?
What sort of logic is that? Why drag this "separate battle" into the immigration brouhaha?
Two things:
1. This law would be the rough equivalent of Japan now checking Zainichi (Japanese citizens of Korean or Chinese descent) for their papers. I'm sure they're regularly harassed by the Japanese police enough*, but this would add insult to injury. Now apply this situation to Arizona resident citizens of Hispanic descent.
2. The problem with this law is this: You cannot reliably identify and differentiate a citizen of the same ethnicity as an illegal alien. Therefore, unless law enforcement is willing to do the Right Thing constitutionally and build a case based on probable cause (which this law does not do, and law enforcement doesn't want to do this anyway), enforcement of this law requires arbitrary inspection of both citizens and illegals. Because some citizens may not have their "papers" in hand, some citizens will be wrongfully arrested and possibly even deported; likewise, because some illegals have really good fake IDs, some will evade arrest. The fundamental, constitutional problem is that enforcement requires a search of a citizen with little or no probable cause that they are here illegally-- the legal standard for requesting identification for investigating illegal immigration here is frankly a sick joke.
You may think that isn't a Fourth Amendment case (protection vs. illegal search & seizure). I beg to differ.
*Generally, the metropolitan areas don't pull this BS as it would be horrible for tourism, but Japanese in less densely populated areas tend to be rather xenophobic.
I'm not sure if this was your point, but: Apple cares about no one but its shareholders. User experience is really ancillary; it's a hook to get people to buy massive amounts of their shiny things so that their shareholders make a mint on their stock.
Money is rarely the issue in cases like these, ironic as that may sound. The objective here is to force the maintainers and community of Linux (and by extension, all FOSS) to pay corporations a "protection fee". They'll call it "indemnification" or whatever bullshit term they come up with, but that is what it amounts to.
Sure, Novell, IBM, et al have (had) to spend the resources to defend themselves against a stupid, pointless, and entirely frivolous lawsuit. But money can easily be replaced. Freedom cannot.
Going with your analogy, wouldn't the post-bankruptcy hearings be the equivalent of Novell banging the case on the counter, saying "HELLO, POLLY! WAKEY-WAKEY!!" *bonk bonk bonk* "RISE AND SHINE!" *bonk bonk bonk* "THIS IS YOUR NINE O'CLOCK ALARM CALL!!"
This motion is SCO saying "No, it's stunned."
I'm guessing that he didn't use the same names in his design partly because that would be inviting a patent infringement lawsuit. It would be trivial to convince a judge (let alone a jury) to bring down the legal hammer because the two specs use the same terminology. It would make for a horrible technological explanation, sure, but imagine Montgomery trying to explain where his spec differs in testimony without putting the audience to sleep.
That's your preference for a rebuttal, but it seems that Montgomery doesn't want to leave any room for ambiguity-- that means he has to be thorough, or allow his critics to get away with the figurative hoodwinking.
Besides, I'm sure he wanted to rant in response.
And when those who pushed for the global economy and free trade have the cash with which to bribe-- sorry, <sarcasmquotes>influence through the lobbying process</sarcasmquotes>-- legislators, set up think tanks with which to train pro-business lawyers who then get appointed to federal benches and later the SCOTUS (see: Federalist Society et al), and also (thanks to Citizens United) buy ads for/against candidates for national office, whereas we have maybe a few hundred to spare for campaign donations, guess who wins?
(Note: armchair economist)
It'd be unregulated within the scope of its own market-- the black market. In the scope of the broader economy, I'd say that contraband is maximally regulated-- it's hard to get any more regulated than "you shall not trade in this, and if you do, we'll toss you in the slammer".
Let's not forget that while Facebook conveniently (for them, anyway) selected the options that would maximize their revenues, the user can just as conveniently (albeit less so, as one needs to manipulate a web form) select the options that maximize privacy and information protection-- or what little one can expect online, at least.
Sure, it would be nice if online information brokers (*cough*Google*cough*) would set up these products with the security of users' data first and foremost in mind, but unfortunately there's this thing called "profit motive" that discourages such a policy, particularly since Google discovered that such data mining is extremely lucrative. We should expect the Web to be as private as a billboard on the I-5 with a powerful radio transmitter; if you want online privacy, keep as much information as you can off it. You'll sacrifice conveniences like online applications and banking, but at least you will know that the usual online suspects aren't the ones who accidentally leaked your personal information to spammers and identity thieves.
It was a thrill to see him return after "retiring" twice (once for "Unification" on TNG, and again for Star Trek)-- those reprises of Spock, despite his earlier intentions to refrain from returning, are testament to his devotion to the fans of the Trek franchise.
He's also one of the funniest actors in Trek, as convention panels with William Shatner and his recordings with John de Lancie have demonstrated.
Why bother with manuals when their game level design helps the player learn?
Or, rather, it's supposed to, but more often than not it relies on interrupting the game and lecturing to the player rather than using the game mechanics itself to guide the player (Portal is a great example of this).
The fundamental legal structure of corporations, especially in the US, is flawed. In most circumstances, the corporation is essentially enslaved to the profit motive of the shareholders-- if they make a decision that would not maximize the benefits to the shareholders, and as long as the profit-maximizing strategy is not criminal, they can sue the corporation and win in court, ethics or principles be damned. This is how Ben & Jerry's turned from a company with principles not unlike that of many progressives to a sell-out-- the shareholders threatened to sue the board of directors unless the board allowed a buyout bid.
Non-profits are not subject to the will of shareholders by definition, but they come with other restrictions, many of which would be disadvantages to for-profit models.
There is a movement underway to introduce a new corporate form that does not make the shareholders' interests supreme, but it hasn't gotten much coverage in the news, nor headway in the legislatures. If the movement is successful, I'd be more than willing to invest what little I have in companies that adopt such a corporate charter. The key, however, is getting often-dysfunctional state governments to accept them, and that's not going to be easy.
Are you certain? Watching a movie, I'll grant you that, as everyone watches in much the same way (unless they decide to be horribly disruptive).
But no two people play a game in the same manner, unless they strictly follow a script and play with exactly the same set of start conditions and rules. For some, a guy playing a game might seem trite and uninteresting, but there is a market of recording and/or watching masters of the game-- to the point of calling their play-throughs "performance art".
Not every activity can be dismissed as "not art".
I suppose the instructions of this relic seem as much legalese as it seems to be Biblical parody:
Then again, Mr. Biden appears not to have much influence with the Government Accountability Office, as they're calling bullshit on the "WE'RE LOSING BILLIONS TO DEM PIRATS!!1!" argument so often touted by record labels and movie studios. Without the "OMG MASSIVE LOSSES!" argument, I don't know if Congress will be inclined to act.
Many would suggest profit, as though the execs and bean counters are Ferengi. I think that's too naive.
If they open up their creative works even a crack, there is a small probability that it would be exploited for amateurs who would then create variations on the legally-purchased works. They cannot tolerate the idea that their own fans would think up new and creative ways to enjoy what they sell, so they force every signing artist to hand over all of the rights to the creative works.
That's the entire reason-- they want complete control of the entire market and of every creative person. It is much bigger than money, although money plays a significant role. There is a reason why corporations offshore jobs, and why Chinese factories essentially enslave their workers, and it's not just because those in charge are assholes.
Given the draconian nature of media cartel execs, they will have a database of sanctioned works that are ladened with DRM. Any file other than those that requires a codec to be reproduced would be banned, even if they are not media files, and even if no RIAA or MPAA member company had anything to do with its production and distribution.
They will try to pressure Microsoft and Apple to build this into their operating systems, and they will try to pressure legislators to make "non-compliant" operating systems such as Linux illegal. That is the only way they can make this happen.
Given that this is an unprecedented amount of control to be demanded on consumers, I doubt that this will get very far; and given that the GAO has severe doubts about the loss figures the media cartel keeps giving Congress and the US Trade Representative, I think this could backfire.
Maybe they're not interested in "hackability" because they've never had the opportunity.
The difference would be that cutting the military budget gives his foes "evidence" (false evidence, but they'll still use it) of the "talking points", in addition to "he doesn't support our troops".
Right now they are arguing from a vacuum. For now, Obama wants to keep it that way.
They think only of themselves and how to remain in power. A school district is nowhere near as lucrative or influential as, say, a Congressional seat, so all they have is their own little kingdom, where they get to set the rules and policies with little or no oversight. In such an environment, humans tend to behave in ways that defy common sense and ethics, similar to how investment banks and hedge funds operated in the early 21st century.