Not so long ago ebay was forcing you to use paypal, and penalising you for using anything else... You used to be able to accept cash or bank transfers, or charge extra to cover fees if a buyer wants to use paypal
No, they won't... You will just need to hack a different device in order to steal the data. Hacking an end user's system will typically be much easier than a large provider, but you'll only get one user's data each time and have to hack many devices.
Because a PC is a complex tool designed for geeks.. Most people have never wanted such a tool, they wanted to access the internet and there was no other option. They don't want to deal with applying updates, installing software, worrying about viruses or other maintenance.
Now there are better options for accessing the internet like phones and tablets, so increasing numbers of people are using only these devices. I know many people who have never owned a PC and have no intention to buy one, but they post on facebook every day.
The model of selling software has a limited shelf life and the publishers all know this... There are very few compelling new features, previous versions do the job perfectly well and a lot of users want to stay with older versions. Newer versions introduce features users don't want, while also being more bloated and slower.
If users are subscribing to a service, then the vendors can stop new development almost entirely, and just perform occasional bugfixes. They would save a lot of money if they fired 90% of their dev staff.
If they glance away during the fade transition then they will still have no idea a transition took place. The contents of the slides however should make it *obvious* that a transition took place, even if you glanced away while it happened.
Most people hate it, but they've worked out how to get around the bugs that it has.. They don't like change like libreoffice not because its any worse, but because it has a different set of bugs for which they need to learn new workarounds.
Dumping out the contents of memory might work in very simple cases as a quick and dirty hack, but it's a terrible long term strategy... Code changes (even changes to the compiler) could change memory layout, and porting to new hardware (64bit, ARM etc) can completely break stuff...
Someone posted earlier about open source applications often feeling sluggish, but this is one of the reasons why - open source apps tend to store the data in well structured formats (eg xml) which require a lot more parsing, but are much better specified and far more reliable.
The UI layers tend to be portable and often highly flexible (eg firefox - XUL), but this adds weight and slows things down.
A lot of closed source seems to be bloated and sluggish too, flash for instance, many java applications (java has been sluggish for user interfaces since long before it was open sourced) Open source developers often prefer to do things in a clean (but not necessarily optimal) way... Other people will be seeing the code, and may have to accept it into their project so if the function of the code isn't clear it may not get accepted. There also tends to be greater use of higher level languages, which again adds overhead.
Some open source however is lightweight and fast, all depends on the goals of the authors.
If your data set is that big then a spreadsheet isn't a good tool for the job anyway... I've only ever used desktop spreadsheets for relatively small and trivial tasks (as do most people, if they use such applications at all) and libreoffice is more than adequate.
For word processing however, large documents make libreoffice writer slow but they can make word totally crash or behave in strange ways (eg the spellcheck stops working for no apparent reason).
All of whom have their own agendas, and are under NDA... But the source code of these application is not available to the general public, so independent researchers cannot review it. If a government is going to review code for their own use, they will review open code too as they don't need to jump through hoops to get it. Having restricted access to source code just gives an advantage to those who have it, to the detriment of everyone else.
Also there are various illegal leaks of closed source code. Being illegal, no legitimate researchers will touch them, but those with criminal intent have no such problem and will happily review the illegal leaks looking for bugs they can exploit.
What if someone has *no* driving record because they haven't driven before? That means they have no history of either safe or unsafe driving, but also they have no experience of actually driving.
Also car insurance is not just about driving, it also covers the car when it's not being driven - eg against theft, or someone hitting it while its parked etc so the location the car spends most of its time can have an affect on the likelihood of it being stolen or vandalised.
Which they already do.. If you've recently made any claims your insurance premiums will be MUCH higher (and you are required to disclose this information)...
A free subscription is arguably worse, as you have less legal comeback in the event they choose to discontinue service.
At least in the case of photoshop, you have the option to export your data in open (jpeg, png etc) formats for use in other tools. I'd not subscribe to a service without at least some provision to get the data out in the event of cancellation.
A compiler fix is fine, but will take a long time as you still need to recompile everything using the new fixed compiler... This may be relatively easy for open source, but closed source code will take a lot longer and some of it will never get fixed.
Actually if you're paying a high per-gigabyte cost its actually in their interest *not* to throttle you, as then you'll be paying for more gigabytes...
Having streaming video throttled by default is a good thing, providing there is an option to turn the throttling off. Cellphone screens are relatively small, so unless the quality is extremely low or your eyesight especially good you'll not notice. Also cellphones run on batteries, consuming more bandwidth to download larger higher quality video which then requires more resources to decode is only going to reduce your battery life.
If providers are throttling by default, but giving you the option to disable the throttling then i'd call that an ideal situation.
Radio spectrum is a finite resource, if there is more demand than supply then prices will be increased to bring the two in line as there's no way to increase the supply.
For every user who signs up to a wired connection (fibre, dsl etc), there is an individual wire from your house to a central point and then shared capacity from that point upwards. If lots of users sign up in a given area they each have their own dedicated wire to the central location, and bandwidth at that central location can be upgraded as required depending on the number of users.
With wireless, there is a fixed amount of radio spectrum available between you and the tower, the more users on the service the slower it will get and there's nothing that can be done about it.
Wireless should absolutely not be used for fixed locations (homes, offices etc), where you'd be better served by getting a wired connection and sharing it locally... There are even femtocells available which will provide a localised cellphone service over a wired connection. Wireless connections should be reserved for mobile users, for whom there is no other option. If everyone used wireless only when they needed to, there would be a lot more bandwidth available when you need it.
Using a wireless connection at home is selfish, if everyone did that in a densely populated area then the service would completely choke under the load and would be unusable. On the other hand if everyone used a wired connection whenever possible, your mobile connection when you're out and about would be much faster.
And many services that can be downloaded (and many more if your willing to go the illegal route)... If everyone who *could* download did so, then there would be much more bandwidth available for those instances where streaming is essential (eg live sports). Part of the reason why hotel internet is generally so unusable is because of all the users trying to stream, especially adaptive streaming services that try to use any available bandwidth to increase quality without considering that the connection in a hotel is shared between many users.
The problem is that cellular infrastructure is quicker to deploy, and offers better headline speeds than fixed line providers using older copper cables. The providers capitalise on this, the first few 4G users boast about great speeds and users flock to the service and forego the wired services, which results in even less investment in the fixed line infrastructure. After a while the available spectrum is completely inadequate for the number of users, service turns to shit and users have no alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Not so long ago ebay was forcing you to use paypal, and penalising you for using anything else...
You used to be able to accept cash or bank transfers, or charge extra to cover fees if a buyer wants to use paypal
hacking and data theft will become impossible.
No, they won't... You will just need to hack a different device in order to steal the data. Hacking an end user's system will typically be much easier than a large provider, but you'll only get one user's data each time and have to hack many devices.
Because a PC is a complex tool designed for geeks.. Most people have never wanted such a tool, they wanted to access the internet and there was no other option. They don't want to deal with applying updates, installing software, worrying about viruses or other maintenance.
Now there are better options for accessing the internet like phones and tablets, so increasing numbers of people are using only these devices. I know many people who have never owned a PC and have no intention to buy one, but they post on facebook every day.
The model of selling software has a limited shelf life and the publishers all know this... There are very few compelling new features, previous versions do the job perfectly well and a lot of users want to stay with older versions. Newer versions introduce features users don't want, while also being more bloated and slower.
If users are subscribing to a service, then the vendors can stop new development almost entirely, and just perform occasional bugfixes. They would save a lot of money if they fired 90% of their dev staff.
It sounds like it opened those documents as plain text instead of recognising them as pagemaker documents?
If they glance away during the fade transition then they will still have no idea a transition took place.
The contents of the slides however should make it *obvious* that a transition took place, even if you glanced away while it happened.
A ribbon-like interface is optional, you can choose to use it or not.
Most people hate it, but they've worked out how to get around the bugs that it has..
They don't like change like libreoffice not because its any worse, but because it has a different set of bugs for which they need to learn new workarounds.
Dumping out the contents of memory might work in very simple cases as a quick and dirty hack, but it's a terrible long term strategy...
Code changes (even changes to the compiler) could change memory layout, and porting to new hardware (64bit, ARM etc) can completely break stuff...
Someone posted earlier about open source applications often feeling sluggish, but this is one of the reasons why - open source apps tend to store the data in well structured formats (eg xml) which require a lot more parsing, but are much better specified and far more reliable.
Among other things...
The UI layers tend to be portable and often highly flexible (eg firefox - XUL), but this adds weight and slows things down.
A lot of closed source seems to be bloated and sluggish too, flash for instance, many java applications (java has been sluggish for user interfaces since long before it was open sourced)
Open source developers often prefer to do things in a clean (but not necessarily optimal) way... Other people will be seeing the code, and may have to accept it into their project so if the function of the code isn't clear it may not get accepted.
There also tends to be greater use of higher level languages, which again adds overhead.
Some open source however is lightweight and fast, all depends on the goals of the authors.
If your data set is that big then a spreadsheet isn't a good tool for the job anyway...
I've only ever used desktop spreadsheets for relatively small and trivial tasks (as do most people, if they use such applications at all) and libreoffice is more than adequate.
For word processing however, large documents make libreoffice writer slow but they can make word totally crash or behave in strange ways (eg the spellcheck stops working for no apparent reason).
All of whom have their own agendas, and are under NDA...
But the source code of these application is not available to the general public, so independent researchers cannot review it.
If a government is going to review code for their own use, they will review open code too as they don't need to jump through hoops to get it. Having restricted access to source code just gives an advantage to those who have it, to the detriment of everyone else.
Also there are various illegal leaks of closed source code. Being illegal, no legitimate researchers will touch them, but those with criminal intent have no such problem and will happily review the illegal leaks looking for bugs they can exploit.
What if someone has *no* driving record because they haven't driven before?
That means they have no history of either safe or unsafe driving, but also they have no experience of actually driving.
Also car insurance is not just about driving, it also covers the car when it's not being driven - eg against theft, or someone hitting it while its parked etc so the location the car spends most of its time can have an affect on the likelihood of it being stolen or vandalised.
Which they already do..
If you've recently made any claims your insurance premiums will be MUCH higher (and you are required to disclose this information)...
Has anyone proven that the old PowerPC processors are not vulnerable, or has IBM only bothered checking the newer models?
Who said anything about free software?
A free subscription stops working as soon as the provider shuts off the services it depends on.
A free subscription is arguably worse, as you have less legal comeback in the event they choose to discontinue service.
At least in the case of photoshop, you have the option to export your data in open (jpeg, png etc) formats for use in other tools. I'd not subscribe to a service without at least some provision to get the data out in the event of cancellation.
A compiler fix is fine, but will take a long time as you still need to recompile everything using the new fixed compiler...
This may be relatively easy for open source, but closed source code will take a lot longer and some of it will never get fixed.
Some areas have competition, some areas do not... Compare the service between those areas.
Any software controls will be quickly circumvented, like all forms of DRM...
People already manufacture their own drugs at home, these homes are generally referred to as "meth labs"...
Actually if you're paying a high per-gigabyte cost its actually in their interest *not* to throttle you, as then you'll be paying for more gigabytes...
Having streaming video throttled by default is a good thing, providing there is an option to turn the throttling off. Cellphone screens are relatively small, so unless the quality is extremely low or your eyesight especially good you'll not notice. Also cellphones run on batteries, consuming more bandwidth to download larger higher quality video which then requires more resources to decode is only going to reduce your battery life.
If providers are throttling by default, but giving you the option to disable the throttling then i'd call that an ideal situation.
Radio spectrum is a finite resource, if there is more demand than supply then prices will be increased to bring the two in line as there's no way to increase the supply.
For every user who signs up to a wired connection (fibre, dsl etc), there is an individual wire from your house to a central point and then shared capacity from that point upwards. If lots of users sign up in a given area they each have their own dedicated wire to the central location, and bandwidth at that central location can be upgraded as required depending on the number of users.
With wireless, there is a fixed amount of radio spectrum available between you and the tower, the more users on the service the slower it will get and there's nothing that can be done about it.
Wireless should absolutely not be used for fixed locations (homes, offices etc), where you'd be better served by getting a wired connection and sharing it locally... There are even femtocells available which will provide a localised cellphone service over a wired connection.
Wireless connections should be reserved for mobile users, for whom there is no other option.
If everyone used wireless only when they needed to, there would be a lot more bandwidth available when you need it.
Using a wireless connection at home is selfish, if everyone did that in a densely populated area then the service would completely choke under the load and would be unusable. On the other hand if everyone used a wired connection whenever possible, your mobile connection when you're out and about would be much faster.
And many services that can be downloaded (and many more if your willing to go the illegal route)...
If everyone who *could* download did so, then there would be much more bandwidth available for those instances where streaming is essential (eg live sports).
Part of the reason why hotel internet is generally so unusable is because of all the users trying to stream, especially adaptive streaming services that try to use any available bandwidth to increase quality without considering that the connection in a hotel is shared between many users.
The problem is that cellular infrastructure is quicker to deploy, and offers better headline speeds than fixed line providers using older copper cables.
The providers capitalise on this, the first few 4G users boast about great speeds and users flock to the service and forego the wired services, which results in even less investment in the fixed line infrastructure.
After a while the available spectrum is completely inadequate for the number of users, service turns to shit and users have no alternatives.