Theres something wrong with VMware that makes it think it can charge more for virtualization software than the hardware it is replacing. They need their asses handed to them for a few years to put them back in their place.
It's name. VMWare was the first to virtualize the x86, and thus people bought into them by name alone. Sort of like how people used to buy IBM, or Microsoft. Now they buy VMWare.
And I know many a sysadmin who for their home system, refuse to run anything but the home versions of VMWare (notably on Mac, VMWare Fusion). They wouldn't even consider Parallels (nevermind VirtualBox).
VMWare has name recognition primarily. You'll never go wrong buying VMWare. Hyper-V is only done because it's Microsoft.
Are generally found to be distortion and a roll off of high frequencies when one bothers to take apart the actual music reproduction.
Correct. Tubes distort "harmonically" when overdriven (which happens easily and often). It's one reason why tubes are generally preferred for audio effects boxes because overdriving them is what you want, and what comes out sounds good and doesn't make your listeners want to rip their ears off.
Transistors are much better as long as they stay in the linear region of operation. However, once you exceed that region, they distort, and their distortion introduces harsher harmonics, nevermind the even worst ones you get when they're clipping.
Vinyl's an interesting case - there's something to be said about its distortions, but it's also because of the limits of mastering which resulted in the loudness wars not happening to it. (Note: it's possible to have dynamic-range-compressed masters sent to Vinyl, in which case they sound just as awful as the CD).
I think what needs to happen is to follow the Consitution - 1 member per 30,000 people. That's 10,000 representatives - far too many to be held in DC, but if everyone telecommutes, a much easier proposition.
Having that many seems silly, but it has a few advantages - first, it's a LOT harder to lobby - pay off 150-odd people versus 5001? If you gave $1M to everyone before, that's over $150M vs. $5B - not many companies can lobby like that.
Plus, a "foreign factor" comes into play - if you don't know the other representatives as well, getting them to vote one way is a lot harder, so you can't even amplify the whole "backscratching" thing (and whole calling in favors thing is a lot less important).
Plus, since there's so many, lobby groups can't spend so much per representative, so local dollars you can I can give them can mean much more.
Oh yeah, salaries will have to go down a bit since we can't afford them all on the hog. Not a bad thing, but then again, they don't have to maintain two offices, two sets of aides, etc. etc. etc. And dealing with 30,000 consituents is a lot easier than what, 2,000,000 average? Hell, heaven forbid that they actually get personable enough to make friends in the community. But lower salaries at least let them see how the rest of their consituents live (especially if we pay them commeasurate with the area they serve).
A vita (playstation portable) or an DS *never* fitted in pocket, the playstation portable is 7":). The fit in pocket myth something Apple users have to justify screen envy.
No, the purpose for limiting screen sizes on the iPhone is it's too (*#&@%^ hard to use a 5" screen single-handledly. If you're looking up some information on your phone while your other hand is busy (holding a cup of coffee, an umbrella, your shopping, whatever), being able to reach the entire screen with your thumb might be useful. Perhaps to look up directions or whatever. Or to send a quick text.
For gaming, larger is better, because you have both hands holding it - whether it be Vita, (3)DS, phablet, tablet, whatever. (And yes, my 3DS fits in my pocket just fine). But I don't expect to play my 3DS/Vita/tablet single handedly because the use case for it isn't there.
OTOH, a large screen android phablet has a great advantage - it's impossible to text and drive with those things because you can't use it single-handedly without it being awkward in some way. So yay to road safety to boo to Apple for making it possible to have one hand on the wheel and one on their phone. With a Note or something? Impossible unless you can text using one side of the keyboard.
As for this - make sure you buy it from a place with a good return policy, because Archos devices have really bad LCD screens. As in dead pixel bad (really - has anyone seen dead pixels? All the Archos ones I've seen had 4 or 5 until I returned them enough times to get a perfect one).
So how about this: before wildly casting accusations of bribery around, why don't you take a few minutes to actually read the opinion and then tell us what you think is wrong with it?
That's the problem - the opinion is long and boring, snappy headlines sell.
Anyhow, isoHunt did the Google defense, which the judge ruled invalid as isoHunt was doing "editorial content" and pointing out specific torrents that were to be of interest. This invalidates any DMCA safe harbour because the site is no longer neutral - the site operators were looking at the site and point out what might be of interest.
DMCA safe harbour only applies when the site treats everything the same.
I'm not sure how compiling my copyrighted work with a program would force me to change its copyright to GPL3. The GPL has to be applied to the source code, and this requires the creators of binary distributions of the source code to provide the source for the binaries. I do not think the GPL3 could make a binary created by GCC 4.8.0 count as covered under the GPL because the GPL isn't applied to binaries its is applied to source code. I am almost 100% certainly GCC 4.8.0 can't make my source code use the GPL. That is something I, as the copyright owner, have to do. Perhaps there is some weird language in the GPL3 that says by using GCC 4.8.0 I, by default, am assigning the GPL3 to my code, but that seems unlikely. I will take the time to read the GPL3 this weekend.
The problem is because the OUTPUT of GCC may consist of GPL copyrighted stuff.
First, there's stuff like runtime libraries like libgcc which provide helper functions in case GCC is unable to emit instructions to do so (a common one is integer division - on ARM, libgcc often comes into play on some of the more esoteric divisions. You may see symbols like _uldivs). This library is shipped with GCC and compiled as part of the build of GCC. The source is GPL(v3), which in theory would make the library GPLv3 so if you link it (which is default otherwise you'll get link errors), your final binary will be GPLv3. However, an exception in the GCC license makes it so libgcc is NOT GPLv3.
The second part is a bit more tricky. Part of the output of GCC comes out from the source code of GCC. I.e., when the compilation is being done, you have an intermediate representation which falls out from GCC's internal code, followed by a back end that emits assembly code, which also falls out from GCC's source code. A very strict interpretation could imply that this output was partially derived from GCC's source code and thus is GPLv3 as well.
Again, the license exception means that the output is NOT GPLv3. This also applies to a few other tools that take in source and transform it in some way producing more source code.
Note that I think GCC also ships with some libraries that are optional and thus do not have the GPL exception to them.
General upshot of it is that yes, you can compile proprietary code with GCC and GCC will NOT alter the license.
And yes, you're right to ask. A lot of companies are scared of GPLv3 and have instituted policies to restrict and limit what kind of open-source code is used in their company to avoid accidentally producing licensing violations. Especially since GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only code. I've seen some go as far as declare all GPLv3 code is verboten, except for a small lit of approved programs. And these policies apply not only to open-source code bundled with a product, but open-source tools. New versions may have to be re-sent to legal in order for them to compare the licensing terms to ensure they haven't changed.
And if you wonder why there's such an interest in LLVM - well that's how scared they are
If I didn't have to type my password all the freakin' time, I might generate an actually secure one. Granted, iOS has gotten somewhat better with the latest updates- at least it doesn't ask me for every app update anymore. But, still...
Blame all the developers and users for that one then. Back in iOS 4 days, parents would download an app and then find their kids have spent thousands of dollars on smurfberries on their credit card bill, so parents demanded action. Apple went ahead and split the timer between app store purchases and in-app purchases.
The timer can be set at least to two different values - 15 minutes (default) or immediately, which means it always asks for a password (Settings->General->Restrictions or parental controls or somesuch).
And naturally, Apple was sued and forced to pay out for that as well, so they're here to stay. More telling is why it hasn't happened on Android to a significant extent - either people don't really use apps on Android, or in-app purchases aren't common?
Is an internet company responsible to the country that it operates from, or is it responsible to every country that they can be reached from?
The second would be a remarkably scary result.
This stuff has already gone to court. Google execs were charged with crimes in italy for YouTube videos showing bullying. Google ignored it and Italy couldn't do anything. If Internet was ruled by every law in every country then it wouldn't exist. Sorry France you lose.
I think Italy arrested a few Google execs from Google Italy, which wouldn't be as scary - in which case as long as Twitter has no French connections (no servers, etc) then France can't do anything. If they do, France can go after the French company.
(Which is basically OP's point 1 - since the company has operations in various countries, they have to comply with the law, but only in those countries).
At the very worst, if a twitter exec was passing through France, they could potentially be arrested until the fine is paid for, I suppose.
Since I don't think Twitter has any assets or anything in France, the French government can't do a thing unless they can convince the rest of the EU that it's worth pursuing through other EU assets. Maybe. They can also arrest any twitter exec passing through France, I suppose - the US does it.
Of course, this would mean that while Twitter is protected by US laws, it's also subject to the whims of the US government, including those ones on copyright infringement and such.
I have decided to warn users about a string of critical security flaws in Apple products. They allow an attacker to 0wn your pets, borrow your car one day a week and other terrible things. In the interests of safety I'm not going to detail them in any way or provide any evidence of their existence, just warn you. Take my word for it, they exist and I am in no way trolling Apple fans.
Apple's released 3 updates to iOS 6 already in the span of a month or so... and supposedly even the passcode bug isn't completely fixed as people have found a new one.
Anyhow, with Samsung phones, the only one you buy is the flagship model as that one will get the most software updates. Forget the free phones or crap-droids. Alas, it also means obscenely large hands if you want to use a SGS4 single handedly. (Why... why can't I find a phone with a 4.5" or smaller screen, a top end processor and GPU, high res, lots of memory and software updates? Why do I have to settle for ever larger screens? Is it no longer possible to have a usable flagship phone without needing to toss in a 55" screen and the kitchen sink?)
I don't like even having the mayor involved. What's wrong with having two witnesses, and perhaps a notarized document at the most? What if the mayor hates you and decides he doesn't want you to be married?
In many places you don't even need the administrative part. Just living together can often trigger a marriage like circumstance. It's called common-law marriage and depending on location, the protections vary from nil to that of full status marriage. The length of time to trigger such a law also vary - usually it's a couple of years or so. (And yes, that can mean if you live with someone for a couple of years, there will be issues of dividing up assets, support payments, etc.).
Anyhow, it's usually just some bureaucrat that does it. It's a simple form after all. Fill it in, pay the fee, and it gets rubber stamped. You can go fancier with civil weddings and hire a Justice of the Peace to do both the administrative and the "fancy" part of the wedding as well (for the not-so-religious).
I can see compromised websites popping up with requests to load codec-XXX to "See Sexy Suzy Stripping". And there'll be a lot of idiots who'll fall for it.
They already do. It's called the codec exploit. Many fake torrents for movies play a video that is nothing but "Your system does not have the right software to play this video. Please download it at http://rootkits.r.us.com/pwned". And many sites that do that have a landing page that says "Your system lacks the required codec. Click to install.".
EME binary blobs or no, it happens right now. Hell, turn off your ad blocker and view TPB or other common torrent site and look at how many ads are saying "Plugin missing" or other crap to get you to click on them.
This form of social engineering actually has a name - Dancing Pigs (or rabbits). It's an extremely successful method to because users are task-oriented - they get on the web to get something accomplished. Anyone who's watched a user click a dialog box without reading it or other thing has experienced this.
Anyhow, the nicer thing is that if you don't want to run binary blobs, you don't have to. Imagine if it was impemented inside Silverlight or Flash - they will probably just run it blindly until some exploit happens that causes them to lock it down. A browser can easily see intent and not download or run them by default unless they're signed or preapproved or already installed. Or disabled altogether. Or not run them until the user clicks on them (making them useless for thins that need auto-play). And hell, a browser can treat them like plugins and refuse to run vulnerable versions
A standardised DRM means everyone will use it. If everyone uses a different standard it slows the spread of DRM and makes it more difficult for those who wish to use it.
No, it doesn't. We already have proof of it. In the form of flash video with DRM, and silverlight video, with DRM. Both were extremely popular, and everyone had Flash and Silverlight installed so they could watch their DRM'd videos.
Now, is this a better outcome than having it as a standardized system? Consider all the flash vulnerabilities and silverlight vulnerabilities - everyone had to have them installed after all.
And no, your opinion on DRM is not going to matter - if people provide useful content DRM'd like this, people will just install whatever.
And frankly - what really keeps someone from taking Firefox and modifying the EME handler to instead of playing it in a video box, dumping the unencrypted content to a hard drive? Putting them in the HTML spec means the browser handles it, and honestly, I trust the browser vendors more than Flash or Silverlight. At least the browser gives you control.
because nobody was checking the signature as they were supposed to
Where did this rumor get started? The signature on the card is not for comparison purposes.
It signifies something more important - that the cardholder (i.e., the guy presenting the card) has AGREED TO and SIGNED the credit card agreement. An unsigned card or an invalidly signed card (e.g, "Check ID") is NOT a valid credit card and MUST NOT be accepted.
Likewise, the signature on the slip is not to prove your identity, but if you look closely, it says "The cardholder agrees to pay the above amount in accordance with the cardholder agreement" or similar. I.e., you agree to pay the charge on the slip.
The merchant keeps that because they use it to prove the charge was valid should there be a chargeback.
Naturally, for card not present transactions, things are way more risky since no card was presented, and no agreement to pay for the charges was actually signed.
And yes, if somehow by mistake, the merchant gives you the entire slip instead of keeping it, you could theoretically do a chargeback since they have no proof. It's fraud, of course.
It helps, but if that's all you noticed about my password then you failed at understanding that it strikes a balance between memorable and secure. This password includes numbers, symbols, upper and lower case, and is longer than most while still easy to remember.
Here's a monthly password list that's "secure" and "easy to remember" you can use: January!2013 February@2013 March#2013... November-2013 December=2013
Apple didn't release the patch "to break the jailbreak", but to solve a more severe bug - that someone can take your locked phone and break into it.
Fixing the jailbreak (it was fixing one of the many exploits it relied on) could have been a side effect, or on purpose, but the main fix was to fix the damn privacy flaw.
Of course, everyone concentrates on the jailbreaking aspect, and not the real reason for the fix that everyone knew was coming (and has been demonstrated weeks ago).
Nielsen has one and only purpose - to help price ad-time buys. Shows on bittorrent have had the ads stripped out. The people watching those versions might as well not exist for all that Nielsen's customers care.
Exactly. Neilson is NOT about popularity of TV shows. Popularity does NOT have one iota of relevance to TV execs. Ad time buys do.
For example - CBS "wins" Tuesday nights with NCIS and NCIS Los Angeles, which routinely pull in anywhere from 15-20M viewers per episode. Which on Tuesday nights, usually outnumber all the viewers of every other network out there combined.
However, CBS only charges roughly $150K per 30 second spot on these shows - cheap by prime time standards, and many shows with fewer viewers charge a lot more (easily up to $500K).
Why? Despite its popularity, its Neilson rating is only around 2.1-2.5 or so. It's normally the #1 or #2 show, but the prime demographic that advertisers care about (the ones they pay top $$$ for) are NOT served by NCIS/NCIS LA.
Popularity does NOT matter. If a popular show can't pull in the ad money, it will get cancelled. So even if Game of Thrones is the most pirated TV show on TPB, HBO doesn't care because those numbers don't matter. The only numbers that do are ad selling ones and ones that show increases in subscribers. Which explains the fairly delayed releases for download/streaming and media purchase.
And no, product placement does not work in a lot of instances unless your TV show is situated sometime in +/- 5 years or so. Any further and it's either too old or too new to be useful. Which means historical dramas like Game of Thrones, or sci-fi movies in the far future can't benefit.
It's all about ad money. The only really hopeful bit is that a popular show MIGHT be able to be fan supported, but the number of shows that are cancelled means it'll be a very select few with hardcore fans.
Have you actually investigated the practical effects of COPPA? It results in companies like Google and Facebook simply imposing blanket bans on anyone who states they're under 13. It makes them universally persona-non-grata in the online world. I suppose that's one way to "protect" kids, but it's sort of like how locking them in the house can protect them from road accidents - a completely ridiculous solution to problems that are best solved other ways.
Also makes things like Nintendo consoles to be extremely difficult to use online and DRM that isn't scalable because of it.
For every complaint about how Nintendo's online system is incompetent compared to Sony or Microsoft, you have to see where they're coming from - the various child privacy laws effectively say you cannot get any personal information at all - not even a first name and email address. So it's not like Nintendo can ask to create an online account to link all their console purchases together.
It's not a drone if there's a human operator controlling it at all times.
That's the definition of a drone - a remotely piloted aircraft. Autonomous and semi-autonomous aircraft are much fewer - most are only demonstrations doing partial flying tasks and not full missions.
You have UAVs at the top - which can be simply a remotely piloted aircraft (essentially a long-range R/C aircraft), and autonomous and semi-autonmous aircraft. (Same goes for UCAVs, except that those, of course, carry weapons - guns and what not).
PC games need to implement anti-piracy strategies as well.
Depends. The traditional AAA titles are a lot fewer on PCs if you don't count "we'll release PC to make a few extra bucks" console ports. However, the PC has a vibrant indie community (no doubt helped by mobile app stores that feed off each other - successful mobile games often get PC ports and vice-versa) that then slowly trickle to consoles.
For the most part, other than a few PC exclusive game types, the PC game market is "dead" to all but indie games. But ease of development will keep the PC gaming scene alive.
diablo 3 release was just as bad, I spent a month trying to get a refund with no luck. I dont know why more people are not still bitching about them as well to be honest. I saw sim having a problem, so i waited and im glad i did.
Because Diablo 3 is old news - it was released last year.
And that Activision are just as money grubbing, but have "better PR" and have acquired many "likes" through acquisitions like Blizzard and exclusivity of developers like Bungie.
If Bungie can get Destiny out within the year, it'll probably do well. If not, it'll be a horrendous mess of nickle and diming and DRM in attempts to monetize the heck out of it and capitalize on all that goodwill Bungie has. They have 10 years to do so, after all.
These guys already have mad joystick skillz, and they are mostly nice people who don't to around asking people how to become a drone pilot cuz they think it's cool to blow shit up.
I play golf at a course right next to a major R/C airfield. On most Sunday mornings you can see two big R/C jets, most likely scratch-built. These suckers are loud and FAST. The way they maneuver these things around and come in for a precise landing is awesome to watch.
A drone is essentially a long-range RC aircraft.
You see, a UAV encompasses unmanned aircraft. But they can be controlled from the ground (remotely piloted), aka a drone, or they can have some smarts in it and be fully autonomous or semi-autonomous (in which a pilot plots the course and the plane flies it while the pilot watches).
Drons that kill, are also called UCAVs, but it's inaccurate since it encompasses again, both remotely piloted and autonomous (fully or semi) aircraft.
Typically for lowlevel duties, an autonomous aircraft works fine - small and do little damage if they malfunction. But if you want to integrate into the current airspace system, it's currently only drones or semi-autonomous vehicles as well, until the technology becomes universal, UAVs can't quite talk to ATC yet.
There are plenty of civilian applications, including SAR (a drone can fly in weather that a SAR pilot would not - better to not risk the SAR crew, after all. A lot of SAR is actually trying to prevent the SAR crews from getting trapped like the people they're rescuing).
iphone has always needed less CPU/RAM resources than android. i have a droid pro i carry for work and my wife's old iphone 4 with only 128MB or RAM was a much better phone
I'm actually surprised the S4 only scores twice as much as the iPhone 5. Given the latter is still just a dual core 1.3GHz processor. The S4 is a 4+4 ("octacore" if you want to believe the marketing) running at 1.5-1.8GHz. Geekbench takes cores into account, so it should be much more than double the iPhone 5.
I suppose they could've tested the Snapdragon version (North American model) which is only quadcore.
But looking at the spec sheets, I would expect the S4 to be much faster than the iPhone. Hell, it's like comparing an i5 dual core with a quadcore i7 processor - of course the latter will outperform the former, especially in synthetic tests like Geekbench.
It's like some threads I saw that said Android phones render webpages 50% faster than an iPhone. Well, duh, if you throw raw processing power at the problem, that should be the case.
Android phones have ALWAYS outclassed the iPhone on the spec sheet. More RAM. More CPU. More this and that - been true since the iPhone 3G and the HTC G1. The iPhone 5 is also the first iPhone to break the 1GHz barrier on CPU speed - something that has been done on Android with the Droid or so ages ago. And the iPhone 5 also has 1GB of RAM, something Android phones have had for years before as well.
Frankly, has it even been useful to compare? The iPhone is always inferior hardware wise. Always has been, and unless something happens to change that, always will.
What's next, the Tegra 4 Android tablets outrun the iPad? Duh - the Tegra 4 tablets would have way more CPU horsepower (again, quad vs. dual core, or I think the Tegra has 4+4 now?).
Something else, somewhere, will handle, authorise and sanitise that request and response and do NOTHING else. Yes or NO. The program should have NO way to detect what that process is (so if the user wants to run in a zero-privilege environment, the browser just has to cope with that rather than say "I can't run without admin").
Now replace "browser" with "word processor", "spreadsheet", "hardware utility" or anything else that you use on your system.
The problem we have is that we've come from general purpose OS that were designed to let all processes have access to anything that wasn't explicitly locked away from them. The fix is to give processes the absolute bare minimum they require to do their work, make them ASK for everything, and refuse any request that you don't like. And make every process work (for the correct definition of work) even when tested inside a bottle that ALWAYS gets No to every request.
OS X started doing this by default on a limited basis. For all Mac App Store apps, sandboxing is required and enforced by the OS. Of course, it's lead to more than a few difficulties which result in apps having to be removed from the MAS because the sandbox restrictions were too tight (i.e., they cannot access system files, so if you're a text editor, that's a fairly significant limitation).
Likewise, general apps cannot access cloud-saved data (with good reason - it's possible for clever malware to embed itself into the cloud storage which results in that app continually reinfecting itself, and since it doesn't sandbox (not enforced for non-MAS apps), result in the machine continually getting reinfected.
Of course, if you ask the/. crowd, when Apple tries to do sandboxing and such, it's evil and results in the iOS-ization of OS X. And that access to the whole filesystem is a right and the MAS should die because it's sandboxing...
The GPL has been already effectively tested in court, repeatedly. Unfortunately, intellectual property lawyers are scared of the GPL. I discussed it with one 8 days ago: they consider it dangerously viral. I'm trying to arrange a lunch so we can sit down and go over the details of it, so they can understand why I much prefer to use it and I can give examples of companies who pretend to be open source but drive engineer like me nuts when their commercial versions of their "open source" tools break and we can't get source code and can't have any confidence in its security models because they're commercial code is unpublished.
The problem isn't the GPL per se. Most were fairly happy with the GPLv2. It's GPLv3 that has them in a tizzy - especially on many levels. First is the sheer number of GPLv3 licenses - especially ones like the AGPL that can be problematic.
Next would be the inherent incompatibility - GPLv2 is completely and utterly incompatible with GPLv3, so you cannot mix GPLv2 and GPLv3 code together (especially since both generally go under "GPL" making it hard to determine). GPLv2+ code CAN be mixed with GPLv3 code (forming a GPLv3 work). But then if you had GPLv2 code mixed with GPLv2+ code, and now add GPLv3 code... the whole thing explodes and you've got a nasty mess.
One company I worked at instituted an open-source review program where opensource code would now have to be approved whether it's for use in product code or just internal tools - to speed things up they had lits of pre-approved OSS code. The review presentations made it very clear that GPLv2 was now only allowed by review, BSD and APL would tend to sail through review, and GPLv3, unless preapproved already or one could make a very convincing case, was verboten and will NEVER be approved (short of CEO approval).
The inventor or innovator of a new product is usually not the big winner when his/her baby hits it big. Every now and then, an entrepreneur doesn't sell out to the "big" offer that comes along with initial success... but that's not the way it usually works
Usually, said new product needs to be brought out to the market, which is quite a bit different from inventing. Productization and manufacturing are very specific skills that few inventors actually have and can't really fake. You can try, but you'll find you won't make a lot of money - going from the lab to production is not trivial nor a matter of scaling things up. In addition, new inventions aren't necessarily public-ready - inventing the technology was the easy part, the hard part is all the productization and refinement that can turn it into something commercially viable.
Unfortunately, this step is also the most expensive. So the traditional route has been to seek an investor who will front the money to do the dull boring and expensive parts (including tooling for manufacturing - an up front cost that can vary from thousands to millions). Of course, the investor is risking basically all their money, so they demand equally big returns.
However, we do have the advantage of things like kickstarter, which is an easy source for this money with very little demanded on returns. But it also means that the inventor has to do a bit of the boring stuff so they can market and show their invention to the world and make it relevant to kickstarter browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
It's name. VMWare was the first to virtualize the x86, and thus people bought into them by name alone. Sort of like how people used to buy IBM, or Microsoft. Now they buy VMWare.
And I know many a sysadmin who for their home system, refuse to run anything but the home versions of VMWare (notably on Mac, VMWare Fusion). They wouldn't even consider Parallels (nevermind VirtualBox).
VMWare has name recognition primarily. You'll never go wrong buying VMWare. Hyper-V is only done because it's Microsoft.
Correct. Tubes distort "harmonically" when overdriven (which happens easily and often). It's one reason why tubes are generally preferred for audio effects boxes because overdriving them is what you want, and what comes out sounds good and doesn't make your listeners want to rip their ears off.
Transistors are much better as long as they stay in the linear region of operation. However, once you exceed that region, they distort, and their distortion introduces harsher harmonics, nevermind the even worst ones you get when they're clipping.
Vinyl's an interesting case - there's something to be said about its distortions, but it's also because of the limits of mastering which resulted in the loudness wars not happening to it. (Note: it's possible to have dynamic-range-compressed masters sent to Vinyl, in which case they sound just as awful as the CD).
No, the purpose for limiting screen sizes on the iPhone is it's too (*#&@%^ hard to use a 5" screen single-handledly. If you're looking up some information on your phone while your other hand is busy (holding a cup of coffee, an umbrella, your shopping, whatever), being able to reach the entire screen with your thumb might be useful. Perhaps to look up directions or whatever. Or to send a quick text.
For gaming, larger is better, because you have both hands holding it - whether it be Vita, (3)DS, phablet, tablet, whatever. (And yes, my 3DS fits in my pocket just fine). But I don't expect to play my 3DS/Vita/tablet single handedly because the use case for it isn't there.
OTOH, a large screen android phablet has a great advantage - it's impossible to text and drive with those things because you can't use it single-handedly without it being awkward in some way. So yay to road safety to boo to Apple for making it possible to have one hand on the wheel and one on their phone. With a Note or something? Impossible unless you can text using one side of the keyboard.
As for this - make sure you buy it from a place with a good return policy, because Archos devices have really bad LCD screens. As in dead pixel bad (really - has anyone seen dead pixels? All the Archos ones I've seen had 4 or 5 until I returned them enough times to get a perfect one).
That's the problem - the opinion is long and boring, snappy headlines sell.
Anyhow, isoHunt did the Google defense, which the judge ruled invalid as isoHunt was doing "editorial content" and pointing out specific torrents that were to be of interest. This invalidates any DMCA safe harbour because the site is no longer neutral - the site operators were looking at the site and point out what might be of interest.
DMCA safe harbour only applies when the site treats everything the same.
The problem is because the OUTPUT of GCC may consist of GPL copyrighted stuff.
First, there's stuff like runtime libraries like libgcc which provide helper functions in case GCC is unable to emit instructions to do so (a common one is integer division - on ARM, libgcc often comes into play on some of the more esoteric divisions. You may see symbols like _uldivs). This library is shipped with GCC and compiled as part of the build of GCC. The source is GPL(v3), which in theory would make the library GPLv3 so if you link it (which is default otherwise you'll get link errors), your final binary will be GPLv3. However, an exception in the GCC license makes it so libgcc is NOT GPLv3.
The second part is a bit more tricky. Part of the output of GCC comes out from the source code of GCC. I.e., when the compilation is being done, you have an intermediate representation which falls out from GCC's internal code, followed by a back end that emits assembly code, which also falls out from GCC's source code. A very strict interpretation could imply that this output was partially derived from GCC's source code and thus is GPLv3 as well.
Again, the license exception means that the output is NOT GPLv3. This also applies to a few other tools that take in source and transform it in some way producing more source code.
Note that I think GCC also ships with some libraries that are optional and thus do not have the GPL exception to them.
General upshot of it is that yes, you can compile proprietary code with GCC and GCC will NOT alter the license.
And yes, you're right to ask. A lot of companies are scared of GPLv3 and have instituted policies to restrict and limit what kind of open-source code is used in their company to avoid accidentally producing licensing violations. Especially since GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only code. I've seen some go as far as declare all GPLv3 code is verboten, except for a small lit of approved programs. And these policies apply not only to open-source code bundled with a product, but open-source tools. New versions may have to be re-sent to legal in order for them to compare the licensing terms to ensure they haven't changed.
And if you wonder why there's such an interest in LLVM - well that's how scared they are
Blame all the developers and users for that one then. Back in iOS 4 days, parents would download an app and then find their kids have spent thousands of dollars on smurfberries on their credit card bill, so parents demanded action. Apple went ahead and split the timer between app store purchases and in-app purchases.
The timer can be set at least to two different values - 15 minutes (default) or immediately, which means it always asks for a password (Settings->General->Restrictions or parental controls or somesuch).
And naturally, Apple was sued and forced to pay out for that as well, so they're here to stay. More telling is why it hasn't happened on Android to a significant extent - either people don't really use apps on Android, or in-app purchases aren't common?
I think Italy arrested a few Google execs from Google Italy, which wouldn't be as scary - in which case as long as Twitter has no French connections (no servers, etc) then France can't do anything. If they do, France can go after the French company.
(Which is basically OP's point 1 - since the company has operations in various countries, they have to comply with the law, but only in those countries).
At the very worst, if a twitter exec was passing through France, they could potentially be arrested until the fine is paid for, I suppose.
Since I don't think Twitter has any assets or anything in France, the French government can't do a thing unless they can convince the rest of the EU that it's worth pursuing through other EU assets. Maybe. They can also arrest any twitter exec passing through France, I suppose - the US does it.
Of course, this would mean that while Twitter is protected by US laws, it's also subject to the whims of the US government, including those ones on copyright infringement and such.
Apple's released 3 updates to iOS 6 already in the span of a month or so... and supposedly even the passcode bug isn't completely fixed as people have found a new one.
Anyhow, with Samsung phones, the only one you buy is the flagship model as that one will get the most software updates. Forget the free phones or crap-droids. Alas, it also means obscenely large hands if you want to use a SGS4 single handedly. (Why... why can't I find a phone with a 4.5" or smaller screen, a top end processor and GPU, high res, lots of memory and software updates? Why do I have to settle for ever larger screens? Is it no longer possible to have a usable flagship phone without needing to toss in a 55" screen and the kitchen sink?)
In many places you don't even need the administrative part. Just living together can often trigger a marriage like circumstance. It's called common-law marriage and depending on location, the protections vary from nil to that of full status marriage. The length of time to trigger such a law also vary - usually it's a couple of years or so. (And yes, that can mean if you live with someone for a couple of years, there will be issues of dividing up assets, support payments, etc.).
Anyhow, it's usually just some bureaucrat that does it. It's a simple form after all. Fill it in, pay the fee, and it gets rubber stamped. You can go fancier with civil weddings and hire a Justice of the Peace to do both the administrative and the "fancy" part of the wedding as well (for the not-so-religious).
They already do. It's called the codec exploit. Many fake torrents for movies play a video that is nothing but "Your system does not have the right software to play this video. Please download it at http://rootkits.r.us.com/pwned". And many sites that do that have a landing page that says "Your system lacks the required codec. Click to install.".
EME binary blobs or no, it happens right now. Hell, turn off your ad blocker and view TPB or other common torrent site and look at how many ads are saying "Plugin missing" or other crap to get you to click on them.
This form of social engineering actually has a name - Dancing Pigs (or rabbits). It's an extremely successful method to because users are task-oriented - they get on the web to get something accomplished. Anyone who's watched a user click a dialog box without reading it or other thing has experienced this.
Anyhow, the nicer thing is that if you don't want to run binary blobs, you don't have to. Imagine if it was impemented inside Silverlight or Flash - they will probably just run it blindly until some exploit happens that causes them to lock it down. A browser can easily see intent and not download or run them by default unless they're signed or preapproved or already installed. Or disabled altogether. Or not run them until the user clicks on them (making them useless for thins that need auto-play). And hell, a browser can treat them like plugins and refuse to run vulnerable versions
No, it doesn't. We already have proof of it. In the form of flash video with DRM, and silverlight video, with DRM. Both were extremely popular, and everyone had Flash and Silverlight installed so they could watch their DRM'd videos.
Now, is this a better outcome than having it as a standardized system? Consider all the flash vulnerabilities and silverlight vulnerabilities - everyone had to have them installed after all.
And no, your opinion on DRM is not going to matter - if people provide useful content DRM'd like this, people will just install whatever.
And frankly - what really keeps someone from taking Firefox and modifying the EME handler to instead of playing it in a video box, dumping the unencrypted content to a hard drive? Putting them in the HTML spec means the browser handles it, and honestly, I trust the browser vendors more than Flash or Silverlight. At least the browser gives you control.
Where did this rumor get started? The signature on the card is not for comparison purposes.
It signifies something more important - that the cardholder (i.e., the guy presenting the card) has AGREED TO and SIGNED the credit card agreement. An unsigned card or an invalidly signed card (e.g, "Check ID") is NOT a valid credit card and MUST NOT be accepted.
Likewise, the signature on the slip is not to prove your identity, but if you look closely, it says "The cardholder agrees to pay the above amount in accordance with the cardholder agreement" or similar. I.e., you agree to pay the charge on the slip.
The merchant keeps that because they use it to prove the charge was valid should there be a chargeback.
Naturally, for card not present transactions, things are way more risky since no card was presented, and no agreement to pay for the charges was actually signed.
And yes, if somehow by mistake, the merchant gives you the entire slip instead of keeping it, you could theoretically do a chargeback since they have no proof. It's fraud, of course.
Here's a monthly password list that's "secure" and "easy to remember" you can use: ...
January!2013
February@2013
March#2013
November-2013
December=2013
Capitals. Numbers. Symbols. Easy to remember.
Check!
Apple didn't release the patch "to break the jailbreak", but to solve a more severe bug - that someone can take your locked phone and break into it.
Fixing the jailbreak (it was fixing one of the many exploits it relied on) could have been a side effect, or on purpose, but the main fix was to fix the damn privacy flaw.
Of course, everyone concentrates on the jailbreaking aspect, and not the real reason for the fix that everyone knew was coming (and has been demonstrated weeks ago).
Exactly. Neilson is NOT about popularity of TV shows. Popularity does NOT have one iota of relevance to TV execs. Ad time buys do.
For example - CBS "wins" Tuesday nights with NCIS and NCIS Los Angeles, which routinely pull in anywhere from 15-20M viewers per episode. Which on Tuesday nights, usually outnumber all the viewers of every other network out there combined.
However, CBS only charges roughly $150K per 30 second spot on these shows - cheap by prime time standards, and many shows with fewer viewers charge a lot more (easily up to $500K).
Why? Despite its popularity, its Neilson rating is only around 2.1-2.5 or so. It's normally the #1 or #2 show, but the prime demographic that advertisers care about (the ones they pay top $$$ for) are NOT served by NCIS/NCIS LA.
Popularity does NOT matter. If a popular show can't pull in the ad money, it will get cancelled. So even if Game of Thrones is the most pirated TV show on TPB, HBO doesn't care because those numbers don't matter. The only numbers that do are ad selling ones and ones that show increases in subscribers. Which explains the fairly delayed releases for download/streaming and media purchase.
And no, product placement does not work in a lot of instances unless your TV show is situated sometime in +/- 5 years or so. Any further and it's either too old or too new to be useful. Which means historical dramas like Game of Thrones, or sci-fi movies in the far future can't benefit.
It's all about ad money. The only really hopeful bit is that a popular show MIGHT be able to be fan supported, but the number of shows that are cancelled means it'll be a very select few with hardcore fans.
Also makes things like Nintendo consoles to be extremely difficult to use online and DRM that isn't scalable because of it.
For every complaint about how Nintendo's online system is incompetent compared to Sony or Microsoft, you have to see where they're coming from - the various child privacy laws effectively say you cannot get any personal information at all - not even a first name and email address. So it's not like Nintendo can ask to create an online account to link all their console purchases together.
So you end up with the crap that we have now.
Same goes for friend codes, too.
That's the definition of a drone - a remotely piloted aircraft. Autonomous and semi-autonomous aircraft are much fewer - most are only demonstrations doing partial flying tasks and not full missions.
You have UAVs at the top - which can be simply a remotely piloted aircraft (essentially a long-range R/C aircraft), and autonomous and semi-autonmous aircraft. (Same goes for UCAVs, except that those, of course, carry weapons - guns and what not).
Depends. The traditional AAA titles are a lot fewer on PCs if you don't count "we'll release PC to make a few extra bucks" console ports. However, the PC has a vibrant indie community (no doubt helped by mobile app stores that feed off each other - successful mobile games often get PC ports and vice-versa) that then slowly trickle to consoles.
For the most part, other than a few PC exclusive game types, the PC game market is "dead" to all but indie games. But ease of development will keep the PC gaming scene alive.
Because Diablo 3 is old news - it was released last year.
And that Activision are just as money grubbing, but have "better PR" and have acquired many "likes" through acquisitions like Blizzard and exclusivity of developers like Bungie.
If Bungie can get Destiny out within the year, it'll probably do well. If not, it'll be a horrendous mess of nickle and diming and DRM in attempts to monetize the heck out of it and capitalize on all that goodwill Bungie has. They have 10 years to do so, after all.
A drone is essentially a long-range RC aircraft.
You see, a UAV encompasses unmanned aircraft. But they can be controlled from the ground (remotely piloted), aka a drone, or they can have some smarts in it and be fully autonomous or semi-autonomous (in which a pilot plots the course and the plane flies it while the pilot watches).
Drons that kill, are also called UCAVs, but it's inaccurate since it encompasses again, both remotely piloted and autonomous (fully or semi) aircraft.
Typically for lowlevel duties, an autonomous aircraft works fine - small and do little damage if they malfunction. But if you want to integrate into the current airspace system, it's currently only drones or semi-autonomous vehicles as well, until the technology becomes universal, UAVs can't quite talk to ATC yet.
There are plenty of civilian applications, including SAR (a drone can fly in weather that a SAR pilot would not - better to not risk the SAR crew, after all. A lot of SAR is actually trying to prevent the SAR crews from getting trapped like the people they're rescuing).
I'm actually surprised the S4 only scores twice as much as the iPhone 5. Given the latter is still just a dual core 1.3GHz processor. The S4 is a 4+4 ("octacore" if you want to believe the marketing) running at 1.5-1.8GHz. Geekbench takes cores into account, so it should be much more than double the iPhone 5.
I suppose they could've tested the Snapdragon version (North American model) which is only quadcore.
But looking at the spec sheets, I would expect the S4 to be much faster than the iPhone. Hell, it's like comparing an i5 dual core with a quadcore i7 processor - of course the latter will outperform the former, especially in synthetic tests like Geekbench.
It's like some threads I saw that said Android phones render webpages 50% faster than an iPhone. Well, duh, if you throw raw processing power at the problem, that should be the case.
Android phones have ALWAYS outclassed the iPhone on the spec sheet. More RAM. More CPU. More this and that - been true since the iPhone 3G and the HTC G1. The iPhone 5 is also the first iPhone to break the 1GHz barrier on CPU speed - something that has been done on Android with the Droid or so ages ago. And the iPhone 5 also has 1GB of RAM, something Android phones have had for years before as well.
Frankly, has it even been useful to compare? The iPhone is always inferior hardware wise. Always has been, and unless something happens to change that, always will.
What's next, the Tegra 4 Android tablets outrun the iPad? Duh - the Tegra 4 tablets would have way more CPU horsepower (again, quad vs. dual core, or I think the Tegra has 4+4 now?).
OS X started doing this by default on a limited basis. For all Mac App Store apps, sandboxing is required and enforced by the OS. Of course, it's lead to more than a few difficulties which result in apps having to be removed from the MAS because the sandbox restrictions were too tight (i.e., they cannot access system files, so if you're a text editor, that's a fairly significant limitation).
Likewise, general apps cannot access cloud-saved data (with good reason - it's possible for clever malware to embed itself into the cloud storage which results in that app continually reinfecting itself, and since it doesn't sandbox (not enforced for non-MAS apps), result in the machine continually getting reinfected.
Of course, if you ask the /. crowd, when Apple tries to do sandboxing and such, it's evil and results in the iOS-ization of OS X. And that access to the whole filesystem is a right and the MAS should die because it's sandboxing...
The problem isn't the GPL per se. Most were fairly happy with the GPLv2. It's GPLv3 that has them in a tizzy - especially on many levels. First is the sheer number of GPLv3 licenses - especially ones like the AGPL that can be problematic.
Next would be the inherent incompatibility - GPLv2 is completely and utterly incompatible with GPLv3, so you cannot mix GPLv2 and GPLv3 code together (especially since both generally go under "GPL" making it hard to determine). GPLv2+ code CAN be mixed with GPLv3 code (forming a GPLv3 work). But then if you had GPLv2 code mixed with GPLv2+ code, and now add GPLv3 code... the whole thing explodes and you've got a nasty mess.
One company I worked at instituted an open-source review program where opensource code would now have to be approved whether it's for use in product code or just internal tools - to speed things up they had lits of pre-approved OSS code. The review presentations made it very clear that GPLv2 was now only allowed by review, BSD and APL would tend to sail through review, and GPLv3, unless preapproved already or one could make a very convincing case, was verboten and will NEVER be approved (short of CEO approval).
Usually, said new product needs to be brought out to the market, which is quite a bit different from inventing. Productization and manufacturing are very specific skills that few inventors actually have and can't really fake. You can try, but you'll find you won't make a lot of money - going from the lab to production is not trivial nor a matter of scaling things up. In addition, new inventions aren't necessarily public-ready - inventing the technology was the easy part, the hard part is all the productization and refinement that can turn it into something commercially viable.
Unfortunately, this step is also the most expensive. So the traditional route has been to seek an investor who will front the money to do the dull boring and expensive parts (including tooling for manufacturing - an up front cost that can vary from thousands to millions). Of course, the investor is risking basically all their money, so they demand equally big returns.
However, we do have the advantage of things like kickstarter, which is an easy source for this money with very little demanded on returns. But it also means that the inventor has to do a bit of the boring stuff so they can market and show their invention to the world and make it relevant to kickstarter browsers.