I guess these must illuminate with the same luminescence as the sun at their ultra high 13 watts?
I guess someone doesn't understand how size and intensity are related. I don't know how bright a 2w single LED actually is, so don't take this as defending that statement specifically, but those household lamp units contain dozens of individual LEDs plus their power control circuirty (LEDs don't run on 120VAC you know), adding up to the specified 13w consumption. The intensity of the light is then further reduced by the translucent cover wrapped around them to make them look and cast a light pattern more like an incandescent bulb.
In no way are those comparable to ultra-bright individual LEDs, which are a single small source of light which depending on the LED's shell design may even be focused in a particular direction.
Around 13w worth of light spreading in all directions from about 20 square inches of surface area versus 2w from what appears to the unaided eye to basically be a point source at any notable distance which is then possibly focused in one direction. The 2w bulb will look a shitload more intense if you put them side by side for sure, even though the 13w unit is putting out more light energy overall.
Relies on external libraries that understand file formats just to write a file and check integrity.
*citation needed*
To my knowledge WinFS uses checksums for data integrity, just like many other filesystems. The external libraries that understand the file are for metadata extraction on files saved by applications that are not WinFS aware, since the main "selling point" of WinFS was its metadata storage and search capabilities. WinFS-aware applications will of course be expected to set their own metadata.
How many people neglect to update their plugins, leaving themselves vulnerable?
Now how many people have a valid reason to stick to an old, vulnerable version of a plugin? On top of that, how many of those people have somehow managed to come to that conclusion without having access to someone who knows enough to Google their way to one of the many pages telling exactly how to override the blacklist?
Plugin-based browser exploits were fairly common at the time this feature came around, so when weighing the two options I have to say that defaulting to forcing the laggards to upgrade and secure themselves is worth the minor inconvenience to the few who are stuck dealing with $shitty_java_app that depends on $ancient_java_version.
So you as a developer have 2 options you can say that your toolbar will work with version 1 through 999999 and just hope that a firefox update really doesn't ever break your add-on OR you can update it with every release ensuring that it works with the new version and require your users / (admins in corp environment) to update the add-on every time. Both of the above options have there drawbacks.
Is this really that hard? If it's something you never intend to support anymore, set maxVersion to infinite and call it a day. It'll install on anything and if it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't.
If you're still actively supporting it, set the supported version to the current release of Firefox. As an active addon developer, you should be running at least the current beta release, so if something breaks on upgrade you'll be able to tell. Fix it if necessary or if not just update your restrictions and release a new version (also allowing those running beta versions to update). Firefox automatically checks for updates to all extensions on first run of a new version, so it'll automatically download any needed update and all will be well. Your users on stable releases will never notice anything, and those on beta should know that's what beta means.
And that is fair, as long as that applies evenly. If I can connect to another Comcast subscriber directly, not leaving their network, and sent files around without it counting against my cap, then you are right.
As it is described, they're picking out this specific service to exempt from billing rather than just not charging because it doesn't hit the open internet.
This is exactly correct. If they make on-network (or local area, I don't know how their distribution is set up for this) traffic among subscribers not count against the cap in exactly the same way, I don't have a problem with it. The cap would then be being applied fairly and evenly based on logical rules.
IIRC some Australian ISPs have caps that only apply to traffic leaving the country due to the cost of international undersea links. It's the same idea, it makes sense, and it's fair.
Unfortunately for Comcast my understanding is that only certain Comcast services are exempt from the cap.
How about this: Set the speed limits sanely, then most people won't violate them.
When a road that should be 45 or 55 is set to 25 because some politicians' crotchety old grandma lives on that street and bitches or because some overconcerned parent with connections thinks that the whole world revolves around their children, it's the speed limit that is wrong and not those violating it. When a divided highway with good shoulders and large barriers is set to 55, it's the speed limit that's wrong and not those violating it.
Yes someone doing 120 in any of those cases is still in the wrong, but that's because they're exceeding the safe and proper speed for the road, which in almost all cases is somewhere between 10 and 35 MPH greater than the posted speed limit.
I don't have the references handy, but I've read a number of papers indicating that on average, people tend to drive the same speed on the same stretch of road no matter what the posted limit actually is. We know what feels right for the road and just do that. Whether the average road speed in clear traffic has anything to do with the posted limit is nothing more than an indication of how broken the politics are in that area. On that note, the D.C. metro area is a top offender here. Miles upon miles of smooth, wide, divided asphalt where the no-traffic comfortable cruising speed is 80-85, yet the speed limit is 55. If it's not gridlock, at least 80% of the vehicles on the road are doing 25+ over the limit.
Speed limits are necessary because we all know there'd be some people trying to do 150 everywhere if they weren't around, but don't try for a second to act like the limits commonly in place make a bit of sense.
Regardless of one's position on universal healthcare (FYI I'm all for it) fuel taxes shouldn't have anything to do with healthcare funding. That money should go entirely in to road construction, maintenance, and improvement. We do need more of that too though, and in a time where increasing fuel economy tightens the budget on our already severely underfunded road system it pisses me off whenever fuel taxes are reduced with the goal of reducing gas costs.
But as always in this country, short term gains > long term success.
Don't even get me started on Microsoft's boneheaded implementation of patching for games purchased on Live. Why the hell it downloads the original version then only bothers to patch when I want to actually play the game is mind boggling. If a title was released years ago and hasn't had a patch in quite some time, how hard can it be to make the version I'd download if I bought it today be patched right off the bat?
In this case the patches also have to go through the console's usual certification process which obviously involves Microsoft or Sony employees spending time on it. Also remember that until the current generation of consoles, games were expected to work right out of the box and not need patching. Obviously that didn't always happen, as anyone who's used cheat devices like Gameshark can attest to some big sellers had many revisions over the years and games like Morrowind on Xbox had game-breaking bugs which required re-buying the "Game of the Year" edition to fix, but the idea is that console games should not be treated like PC titles where launch-day patches are almost expected.
I'm not defending the exact numbers, $40,000 does seem rather high, but between actually charging for the certification work, CDN space, and bandwidth used plus adding a "try to get it right the first time" charge it might not be unreasonable.
IANAL of course, but I believe this ruling would permit exactly that, as long as the files were promptly deleted from your system immediately after they're transferred to someone else.
But it's not like a local attacker intercepting communication at your end is the only possible option. What if the datacenter the server is hosted in or an ISP along the path has been compromised? What if the target site's DNS has been modified to point to the attacker? There are many possible ways that an attacker could cover only parts of the internet or only the specific target itself, still allowing full access to the CRLs and thus allowing them to do their jobs.
That said, I can't argue with the privacy point.
IMO since the privacy concern is legit and it is true that it's not as useful as some might have believed, it should be made optional rather than removing it outright. Even understanding the situations where it doesn't work, there are still situations where it does.
On that note, using CRLs alone rather than OCSP eliminates the privacy concern to a substantial degree as then the CA only knows you accessed a site using a certificate that points at that CRL, not which certificate you're using. Of course the tradeoff is that it requires downloading the whole list every time you need it, so a whole different can of worms comes up with caching versus the ability to rapidly revoke certs.
No cable as well, so mostly Netflix, Hulu Plus, and usenet. Add in both my roommate and I having about a game a month Steam habit as well as random arcade games and DLC on our 360s and that accounts for the majority of it.
We also work from home, so at least one of us is likely to be streaming either audio or video at pretty much any time between 9am and 1 am.
I know I'm a heavy user, but 700+GB a month is not unusual for me and many months I've exceeded 1TB. 250GB is a good cap for an entry-level plan, but it's hilariously low when DOCSIS 3 speeds are in play.
In a native code environment, decompiling usually results in something with the appearance and syntax of whatever language you're decompiling to, but with a structure more like assembly. VM environments like Java or.net can be decompiled in to something that much more closely resembles the original code, but still isn't the same.
In either case, comments are gone, some structure is bound to be mangled, and function and variable names are meaningless unless by a stroke of luck debugging features were left on during compilation.
You are correct that decompilation does provide some level of insight in to the code and on paper you should be able to compile it back for functionally identical code (given appropriate libraries) AND in such a legal environment it would be completely OK to distribute modified versions. Unfortunately the explicit purpose of the GPL is to require continued redistribution of the source of any variants of said code you may distribute. Without copyright law you'd be free to take GPL code and use it in commercial software without giving back. Even if you can decompile it and try to reverse engineer the changes it's not comparable to being able to require modified code be released.
My Evo 4G running Debian would like a word with you. Most rooted Android devices can install a Debian or Debian-derived (like Ubuntu) distro with ease following the exact same method as I used, and I assume there's probably a similar option for other distros as long as there's support for the appropriate processor for your device (usually ARM). I haven't tried, but I'll bet I could get it running the exact same way on my iPhone 3G that dual boots with Android 2.3.
Here's the problem, those are not at all inherent to GM foods. They're a side effect of the stupid way we allow GM foods to be made. Complaining about all GM foods because Monsanto sucks is like Republitards trying to eliminate all unions because some have too much power and abuse it. Fix the problem, don't wipe out good things because someone abused them.
It's not just MS that thinks IE6 sucks, by any objective measure IE6 sucks. Unless your only criteria is "do my shitty old apps written by absolute fucking idiots run on it", IE6 sucks.
If someone had critical infrastructure that depended on GOPHER or WAIS would you be complaining about support for those being dropped? Technology is a moving target, things become obsolete, and when you do it wrong (as anyone who wrote an IE6-only app unarguably did) that happens sooner rather than later.
Too bad, learn a lesson for next time that depending on broken implementations of things is a bad idea no matter what, because it will be fixed and you will be fucked.
It is not clear whether Savage/Hyneman or Belleci/Imahara/Byron were conducting the experiment.
This was a Build Team myth.
Grant and Kari were both tweeting pictures of the cannon from the site yesterday which were getting RTs from the Mythbusters and Discovery accounts. Of course all of those are gone now, but even a fraction of a second of research would have answered this question.
Does it matter at this point? Millions of those GPS receivers are out there. Yes they did it wrong, but that's in the past already. Anyone who did it wrong and especially anyone still doing it wrong needs a good smack, but consumers who bought that hardware had absolutely no way to know and it's a hard thing to argue that we should be in favor of significantly impacting their functionality.
If you need a Linux distro that fits on a CD drive, there are other options, but just about every machine in the past 5-6 years boots off a USB key or DVD drive.
Hell, I had a DVD drive in a budget PC in late 1998. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that any machine incapable of booting from either DVD or USB is so old that its ability to install an OS releasing in 2012 is completely irrelevant. The only logical complaint is the download size for those with slow or capped connections, and they can easily just order discs which are sold at cost (5 GBP for 5 discs last time I checked).
Slashdot Mirror
I guess these must illuminate with the same luminescence as the sun at their ultra high 13 watts?
I guess someone doesn't understand how size and intensity are related. I don't know how bright a 2w single LED actually is, so don't take this as defending that statement specifically, but those household lamp units contain dozens of individual LEDs plus their power control circuirty (LEDs don't run on 120VAC you know), adding up to the specified 13w consumption. The intensity of the light is then further reduced by the translucent cover wrapped around them to make them look and cast a light pattern more like an incandescent bulb.
In no way are those comparable to ultra-bright individual LEDs, which are a single small source of light which depending on the LED's shell design may even be focused in a particular direction.
Around 13w worth of light spreading in all directions from about 20 square inches of surface area versus 2w from what appears to the unaided eye to basically be a point source at any notable distance which is then possibly focused in one direction. The 2w bulb will look a shitload more intense if you put them side by side for sure, even though the 13w unit is putting out more light energy overall.
Relies on external libraries that understand file formats just to write a file and check integrity.
*citation needed*
To my knowledge WinFS uses checksums for data integrity, just like many other filesystems. The external libraries that understand the file are for metadata extraction on files saved by applications that are not WinFS aware, since the main "selling point" of WinFS was its metadata storage and search capabilities. WinFS-aware applications will of course be expected to set their own metadata.
How many people neglect to update their plugins, leaving themselves vulnerable?
Now how many people have a valid reason to stick to an old, vulnerable version of a plugin? On top of that, how many of those people have somehow managed to come to that conclusion without having access to someone who knows enough to Google their way to one of the many pages telling exactly how to override the blacklist?
Plugin-based browser exploits were fairly common at the time this feature came around, so when weighing the two options I have to say that defaulting to forcing the laggards to upgrade and secure themselves is worth the minor inconvenience to the few who are stuck dealing with $shitty_java_app that depends on $ancient_java_version.
So you as a developer have 2 options you can say that your toolbar will work with version 1 through 999999 and just hope that a firefox update really doesn't ever break your add-on OR you can update it with every release ensuring that it works with the new version and require your users / (admins in corp environment) to update the add-on every time. Both of the above options have there drawbacks.
Is this really that hard? If it's something you never intend to support anymore, set maxVersion to infinite and call it a day. It'll install on anything and if it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't.
If you're still actively supporting it, set the supported version to the current release of Firefox. As an active addon developer, you should be running at least the current beta release, so if something breaks on upgrade you'll be able to tell. Fix it if necessary or if not just update your restrictions and release a new version (also allowing those running beta versions to update). Firefox automatically checks for updates to all extensions on first run of a new version, so it'll automatically download any needed update and all will be well. Your users on stable releases will never notice anything, and those on beta should know that's what beta means.
And that is fair, as long as that applies evenly. If I can connect to another Comcast subscriber directly, not leaving their network, and sent files around without it counting against my cap, then you are right.
As it is described, they're picking out this specific service to exempt from billing rather than just not charging because it doesn't hit the open internet.
This is exactly correct. If they make on-network (or local area, I don't know how their distribution is set up for this) traffic among subscribers not count against the cap in exactly the same way, I don't have a problem with it. The cap would then be being applied fairly and evenly based on logical rules.
IIRC some Australian ISPs have caps that only apply to traffic leaving the country due to the cost of international undersea links. It's the same idea, it makes sense, and it's fair.
Unfortunately for Comcast my understanding is that only certain Comcast services are exempt from the cap.
Next, on Discovery's Deadliest Cabling Job...
I left Adblock on, only Flashblock had to be disabled.
How about this: Set the speed limits sanely, then most people won't violate them.
When a road that should be 45 or 55 is set to 25 because some politicians' crotchety old grandma lives on that street and bitches or because some overconcerned parent with connections thinks that the whole world revolves around their children, it's the speed limit that is wrong and not those violating it. When a divided highway with good shoulders and large barriers is set to 55, it's the speed limit that's wrong and not those violating it.
Yes someone doing 120 in any of those cases is still in the wrong, but that's because they're exceeding the safe and proper speed for the road, which in almost all cases is somewhere between 10 and 35 MPH greater than the posted speed limit.
I don't have the references handy, but I've read a number of papers indicating that on average, people tend to drive the same speed on the same stretch of road no matter what the posted limit actually is. We know what feels right for the road and just do that. Whether the average road speed in clear traffic has anything to do with the posted limit is nothing more than an indication of how broken the politics are in that area. On that note, the D.C. metro area is a top offender here. Miles upon miles of smooth, wide, divided asphalt where the no-traffic comfortable cruising speed is 80-85, yet the speed limit is 55. If it's not gridlock, at least 80% of the vehicles on the road are doing 25+ over the limit.
Speed limits are necessary because we all know there'd be some people trying to do 150 everywhere if they weren't around, but don't try for a second to act like the limits commonly in place make a bit of sense.
Regardless of one's position on universal healthcare (FYI I'm all for it) fuel taxes shouldn't have anything to do with healthcare funding. That money should go entirely in to road construction, maintenance, and improvement. We do need more of that too though, and in a time where increasing fuel economy tightens the budget on our already severely underfunded road system it pisses me off whenever fuel taxes are reduced with the goal of reducing gas costs.
But as always in this country, short term gains > long term success.
Don't even get me started on Microsoft's boneheaded implementation of patching for games purchased on Live. Why the hell it downloads the original version then only bothers to patch when I want to actually play the game is mind boggling. If a title was released years ago and hasn't had a patch in quite some time, how hard can it be to make the version I'd download if I bought it today be patched right off the bat?
In this case the patches also have to go through the console's usual certification process which obviously involves Microsoft or Sony employees spending time on it. Also remember that until the current generation of consoles, games were expected to work right out of the box and not need patching. Obviously that didn't always happen, as anyone who's used cheat devices like Gameshark can attest to some big sellers had many revisions over the years and games like Morrowind on Xbox had game-breaking bugs which required re-buying the "Game of the Year" edition to fix, but the idea is that console games should not be treated like PC titles where launch-day patches are almost expected.
I'm not defending the exact numbers, $40,000 does seem rather high, but between actually charging for the certification work, CDN space, and bandwidth used plus adding a "try to get it right the first time" charge it might not be unreasonable.
IANAL of course, but I believe this ruling would permit exactly that, as long as the files were promptly deleted from your system immediately after they're transferred to someone else.
But it's not like a local attacker intercepting communication at your end is the only possible option. What if the datacenter the server is hosted in or an ISP along the path has been compromised? What if the target site's DNS has been modified to point to the attacker? There are many possible ways that an attacker could cover only parts of the internet or only the specific target itself, still allowing full access to the CRLs and thus allowing them to do their jobs.
That said, I can't argue with the privacy point.
IMO since the privacy concern is legit and it is true that it's not as useful as some might have believed, it should be made optional rather than removing it outright. Even understanding the situations where it doesn't work, there are still situations where it does.
On that note, using CRLs alone rather than OCSP eliminates the privacy concern to a substantial degree as then the CA only knows you accessed a site using a certificate that points at that CRL, not which certificate you're using. Of course the tradeoff is that it requires downloading the whole list every time you need it, so a whole different can of worms comes up with caching versus the ability to rapidly revoke certs.
Rand is Ron's son.
No cable as well, so mostly Netflix, Hulu Plus, and usenet. Add in both my roommate and I having about a game a month Steam habit as well as random arcade games and DLC on our 360s and that accounts for the majority of it.
We also work from home, so at least one of us is likely to be streaming either audio or video at pretty much any time between 9am and 1 am.
I know I'm a heavy user, but 700+GB a month is not unusual for me and many months I've exceeded 1TB. 250GB is a good cap for an entry-level plan, but it's hilariously low when DOCSIS 3 speeds are in play.
In a native code environment, decompiling usually results in something with the appearance and syntax of whatever language you're decompiling to, but with a structure more like assembly. VM environments like Java or .net can be decompiled in to something that much more closely resembles the original code, but still isn't the same.
In either case, comments are gone, some structure is bound to be mangled, and function and variable names are meaningless unless by a stroke of luck debugging features were left on during compilation.
You are correct that decompilation does provide some level of insight in to the code and on paper you should be able to compile it back for functionally identical code (given appropriate libraries) AND in such a legal environment it would be completely OK to distribute modified versions. Unfortunately the explicit purpose of the GPL is to require continued redistribution of the source of any variants of said code you may distribute. Without copyright law you'd be free to take GPL code and use it in commercial software without giving back. Even if you can decompile it and try to reverse engineer the changes it's not comparable to being able to require modified code be released.
My Evo 4G running Debian would like a word with you. Most rooted Android devices can install a Debian or Debian-derived (like Ubuntu) distro with ease following the exact same method as I used, and I assume there's probably a similar option for other distros as long as there's support for the appropriate processor for your device (usually ARM). I haven't tried, but I'll bet I could get it running the exact same way on my iPhone 3G that dual boots with Android 2.3.
Here's the problem, those are not at all inherent to GM foods. They're a side effect of the stupid way we allow GM foods to be made. Complaining about all GM foods because Monsanto sucks is like Republitards trying to eliminate all unions because some have too much power and abuse it. Fix the problem, don't wipe out good things because someone abused them.
It's not just MS that thinks IE6 sucks, by any objective measure IE6 sucks. Unless your only criteria is "do my shitty old apps written by absolute fucking idiots run on it", IE6 sucks.
If someone had critical infrastructure that depended on GOPHER or WAIS would you be complaining about support for those being dropped? Technology is a moving target, things become obsolete, and when you do it wrong (as anyone who wrote an IE6-only app unarguably did) that happens sooner rather than later.
Too bad, learn a lesson for next time that depending on broken implementations of things is a bad idea no matter what, because it will be fixed and you will be fucked.
Fuck IE6. Fuck it hard. Companies that have been dragging their feet on this for years need a hard kick in the ass, and this is how to do it.
If something breaks because of this, you only have yourself to blame. Anyone still running this shit intentionally knew they were on a path to pain.
It is not clear whether Savage/Hyneman or Belleci/Imahara/Byron were conducting the experiment.
This was a Build Team myth.
Grant and Kari were both tweeting pictures of the cannon from the site yesterday which were getting RTs from the Mythbusters and Discovery accounts. Of course all of those are gone now, but even a fraction of a second of research would have answered this question.
Does it matter at this point? Millions of those GPS receivers are out there. Yes they did it wrong, but that's in the past already. Anyone who did it wrong and especially anyone still doing it wrong needs a good smack, but consumers who bought that hardware had absolutely no way to know and it's a hard thing to argue that we should be in favor of significantly impacting their functionality.
If you need a Linux distro that fits on a CD drive, there are other options, but just about every machine in the past 5-6 years boots off a USB key or DVD drive.
Hell, I had a DVD drive in a budget PC in late 1998. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that any machine incapable of booting from either DVD or USB is so old that its ability to install an OS releasing in 2012 is completely irrelevant. The only logical complaint is the download size for those with slow or capped connections, and they can easily just order discs which are sold at cost (5 GBP for 5 discs last time I checked).
I see this entirely as a non-issue.