You are right - assuming differences of degree do not matter. But they do [wikipedia.org]:
The Pirate Bay defendants claimed in their trial that 80% of the torrent files on TPB were for for files that could be legitimately shared. The prosecution had done only limited searches in order to find copyright violations and hence could not refute that claim.
I think (but I could be wrong) that AT&T supports email on some (or all) mobile devices where there is no push server involved. AT&T reads the email and presents it to the user through a browser.
I believe they do.
If they wrote mail clients that did IMAP Idle this would not ever need to be done, or at least very rarely
Which means that AT&T is doing exactly the same as Nokia is doing -- getting the unencrypted passwords of their customer's third party email accounts.
Is it reliable (as in stable)? Sure. I have yet to have Vista bomb out on me that wasn't due to a buggy 3rd party driver
That is a distinction without a difference. If you need those drivers to run Vista on your PC, then Vista has a problem. Users should not have to care who writes the drivers, unless you have some esoteric and unusual hardware in your PC.
Hey, I'm not trying to stir it up here, but I'm confused. Serious question here. Why is it Vista's fault if the hardware manufacturer releases crappy drivers, regardless of the nature of the hardware? Driver signing?
You are confusing fault with who needs to own the problem. Imagine that I go into a restaurant and the food presented is off. Who is at fault: possibly the supplier of the food, but who am I going to complain to: the manager of the restaurant.
Microsoft continually talks about "experience" -- if a crappy driver spoils my experience, then Microsoft has a problem, even if MS is not at fault.
And you think that way of all OSes? Even ones not from Microsoft?
Isn't that Red Hat's value proposition? Red Hat supplies and supports Linux, yet the components come from multiple sources. If a shitty driver in Red Hat Enterprise Linux is causing problems and I have a support contract, then I expect Red Hat to take ownership of the problem and not just blame it on the author of the device driver.
Both Win2k and XP are in "extended support" mode, according to MS. I'm not quite sure how MS can justify this for an OS that is still being sold by MS.
The Mozilla foundation won't be the first to make this decision -- for example, recent iTunes releses haven't run in Win2k and Windows Defender won't install on Win2k (unless you edit the MSI file, after which it will install and run fine under Win2k).
Is it reliable (as in stable)? Sure. I have yet to have Vista bomb out on me that wasn't due to a buggy 3rd party driver
That is a distinction without a difference. If you need those drivers to run Vista on your PC, then Vista has a problem. Users should not have to care who writes the drivers, unless you have some esoteric and unusual hardware in your PC.
AFAIK from previous statements, it doesn't use a local browser cookie for tracking (too easy to mess with), only for opt-out - I believe it's based upon IP/mac address outbound; if you're all behind a single NAT router, it'll combine you all together.
Firstly, we should all remember that what is known about Phorm comes from Phorme's employees and they have not been models of accuracy and full disclosure.
But the use described opt-out mechanism implies that people will have to keep opting out. IP addresses: what happens when your IP address changes? You have to opt out again? MAC addresses? Not seen past the first router. Why use a cookie? Cookies can't be used for a total opt-out, since they require the tracking mechanism to interact with the PC -- in other words, the web traffic has to be redirected to Phorm so that Phorm can check the cookie.
My guess is that, even with an opt-out mechanism, Phorm will make it sufficiently intrusive to opt-out so that people will eventually tire of opting out and will find themselves opted-in.
Mind you, well done to my local MP for taking the correct action in getting me a response from literally the highest level available on the subject in the UK.
Was it the correct action? I don't see what it achieved. Perhaps a successful early day motion would have made the relevent minister do a little more research. Frankly, it sounds like your MP just passed the buck.
The big difference between Phorm and Google is Google has consent of the WEB SITES.
Neither really have "user" consent,
One can argue that Google has implicit consent. Nothing is forcing me to use Google's services. I could use alternative search engines, etc.. Phorm, on the other hand, the only way to opt out is to use a different ISP.
The INTERNET isn't private. It is PUBLIC. What you do on the internet, what sites you go to, what you look at, what you listen to, what you do, what information you send, what you receive is ALL PUBLIC.
You are arguing a false dichotomy here. While it may be true to say that the Internet is not private, it is not public either. Public means that anyone can gain access to your Internet activity. I cannot see what websites you visit -- only your ISP can see that and a subset of your Internet activity can be seen by other entities that carry the packets to/from the websites you visit.
As has been said before, the nearest real life equivalent is sending postcards, and I don't think people consider postcards to be public -- just not private.
ICE(20-25%) * Batteries(95% efficient) * Electric Motor(95% efficient)
ICE's can be more efficient (and simpler) if they only operate at a single load/speed. This is possible if the engine only drives a generator and is not connected to the drivetrain, as is the case with the Aptera. Because of startup costs, such an engine may not be immediately available to the designers, but it could make a big difference to the efficiency of plug-in hybrids.
It is also possible that such an engine may not be economically viable for some time, since one would expect a plug-in hybrid to run off batteries most of the time, so the annual savings from a more efficient ICE might be quite small.
If anything, we need to eliminate all subsidies and allow the major automakers to fail. Then we carve them up into smaller automakers, pat them on the back, and set them loose. This keeps them in business and in theory encourages innovation.
No, we don't need to do this, because those smaller companies will fail. Car manufacturing for the mass market is an area that thrives on economies of scale. Once you don't have scale, the only thing to do is go into specialist markets, but that is unlikely to be successful in the longer term.
IMHO, the problem is at least in part that Detroit car companies have been overpaying employees for decades, but it has not been obvious. This overpayment has been hidden in retirement benefits that are only sustainable if the big three keep at the same levels of revenue and profits. Bankruptcy will enable those retirement benefits to be renegotiated and reduced (at considerable cost to the retirees).
Again, IMHO, berating Detroit for focussing on large vehicles misses the point: those vehicles were the most profitable. Detroit has not been able to build small vehicles economically for many years now -- and has outsourced the building of smaller cars. The only way to change this is to make Detroit's costs comparable with imports -- employee costs are one factor in that, the other factor is probably the cost of parts, which is going to be painful for US based suppliers.
Many, many years ago, I remember a question being posed by the site manager of the place that I worked: "Why should you be paid more than someone in another country who produces the same product as you do"? That is the dilemma facing Detroit.
the equivalent of 4-10 (or more) DS1's DS1's for less than a US$100 when a DS1 (1.5 aka T1) still costs 3-5 times that? (Depending on area)
It only costs that because the local loop is very expensive. Around here, one can buy a business-class wireless connection with 2Mb up and down for under $150 per month -- and since this is a business connection, not only do you get real support, but also no cap on bandwidth.
What does this show? That the residential ISPs are engaged in price gouging.
I have recently noticed spam coming in to an invalid email address in one of my domains. Since I was curious abut this, I redirected these emails to an actual mailbox. I was the first registrant of the domain that receives these (the TLD only became available 3-4 years ago), so the address has never been valid.
What is really odd about these emails is the the "To:" address (not the envelope address, but the To address listed in the header text of the email) is a valid email address in another of my domain names. Both domains have private whois data, so there is no connection that can be made through the whois information. The only public link between the two domains is the common mail server (highest priority MX record).
In summary, the emails have an envelope address which is an invalid address in one domain, but the header address is different and valid address in a second domain. Note that any address that is valid on one of my domains is valid in all of my domains.
Curious, yes?
Even Redhat's CEO commented he didn't believe in Linux's desktop future.
And, IMHO, if he means "Linux in general" (as opposed to Red Hat Enterprise Linux), that is a huge mistake, because MS will use its desktop monopoly and control of protocols to limit the penetration of Linux servers.
Altavista also got worse. Around '96 or '97, AltaVista searches returned lists of mostly broken links because their crawler could not crawl the web fast enough.
Doesn't it just ask an NTP server for the time? I don't think that'll be an issue.
NTP just provides the time in UMT (GMT). It's up to the local machine to translate that into local time using the relevant offsets for geography and daylight savings time (I think).
Imagine Watergate today. The Whitehouse would just get AT&T or another friendly telco to bug their conversations and then claim state immunity. Nixon would never have resigned. Does anyone think that would have been a good idea?
Disagree. Windows security issues are a major concern for Microsoft's customers, and hence to them.
I disagree with that statement. IMHO, Windows users are either:
1. Concerned about viruses, but they think their machine has some magical immunity because they don't actually think their machine might ever be infected, OR:
2. Are totally clueless about viruses and spyware.
Even on forums where experienced users post, how many times have you seen a post that is something like: "I don't use anti-virus, I'm just careful where I browse and my PC has never been infected"? Replace "never been" for "I've never been aware" and you might get something close to the truth.
Again, IMHO, Windows users for one reason or another are not significantly concerned about viruses.
One of my colleagues keeps asking why people create viruses -- I keep telling him that today, they do it for profit, but he seems to have a hard time wrapping his mind around that concept. I don't think he is atypical and I think that he, like many others, just doesn't understand how harmful viruses and spyware are and hence doesn't recognize the seriousness of the threat.
One would think before you'd write a check for $10,000 you'd get some legal knowledge. A consultation with a lawyer would have been well advised.
IMHO, they would get a bunch of "maybe"s, "might"s, "possibly"s and other vague statements from a lawyer. So now they have to pay the lawyer without having any hard advice on how to proceed.
Need to add a new SCSI tape library to a Linux server? Sorry, need to reboot the server!
A simple google search such as this one would show you that a reboot is not necessary to get Linux to recognize a tape drive that is added to a SCSI bus. Please take your FUD elsewhere.
What do I have (and by I, I'm just meaning any photographer in general)?
But do you have timely copyright registrations?
What would encourage a lawyer to take on an action against the stock photo website on a contingency basis? The possibility of statutory damages of $150k per infringement. If the photographs are a business, the photographer should consider copyright registration as a necessary cost of doing business.
I also think most open source projects should file for copyright registrations on a defensive basis, but very few do. It's a shame!
Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Bay defendants claimed in their trial that 80% of the torrent files on TPB were for for files that could be legitimately shared. The prosecution had done only limited searches in order to find copyright violations and hence could not refute that claim.
Which means that AT&T is doing exactly the same as Nokia is doing -- getting the unencrypted passwords of their customer's third party email accounts.
You are confusing fault with who needs to own the problem. Imagine that I go into a restaurant and the food presented is off. Who is at fault: possibly the supplier of the food, but who am I going to complain to: the manager of the restaurant.
Microsoft continually talks about "experience" -- if a crappy driver spoils my experience, then Microsoft has a problem, even if MS is not at fault.
Isn't that Red Hat's value proposition? Red Hat supplies and supports Linux, yet the components come from multiple sources. If a shitty driver in Red Hat Enterprise Linux is causing problems and I have a support contract, then I expect Red Hat to take ownership of the problem and not just blame it on the author of the device driver.
Both Win2k and XP are in "extended support" mode, according to MS. I'm not quite sure how MS can justify this for an OS that is still being sold by MS.
The Mozilla foundation won't be the first to make this decision -- for example, recent iTunes releses haven't run in Win2k and Windows Defender won't install on Win2k (unless you edit the MSI file, after which it will install and run fine under Win2k).
That is a distinction without a difference. If you need those drivers to run Vista on your PC, then Vista has a problem. Users should not have to care who writes the drivers, unless you have some esoteric and unusual hardware in your PC.
Firstly, we should all remember that what is known about Phorm comes from Phorme's employees and they have not been models of accuracy and full disclosure.
But the use described opt-out mechanism implies that people will have to keep opting out. IP addresses: what happens when your IP address changes? You have to opt out again? MAC addresses? Not seen past the first router. Why use a cookie? Cookies can't be used for a total opt-out, since they require the tracking mechanism to interact with the PC -- in other words, the web traffic has to be redirected to Phorm so that Phorm can check the cookie.
My guess is that, even with an opt-out mechanism, Phorm will make it sufficiently intrusive to opt-out so that people will eventually tire of opting out and will find themselves opted-in.
Was it the correct action? I don't see what it achieved. Perhaps a successful early day motion would have made the relevent minister do a little more research. Frankly, it sounds like your MP just passed the buck.
One can argue that Google has implicit consent. Nothing is forcing me to use Google's services. I could use alternative search engines, etc.. Phorm, on the other hand, the only way to opt out is to use a different ISP.
You are arguing a false dichotomy here. While it may be true to say that the Internet is not private, it is not public either. Public means that anyone can gain access to your Internet activity. I cannot see what websites you visit -- only your ISP can see that and a subset of your Internet activity can be seen by other entities that carry the packets to/from the websites you visit.
As has been said before, the nearest real life equivalent is sending postcards, and I don't think people consider postcards to be public -- just not private.
ICE's can be more efficient (and simpler) if they only operate at a single load/speed. This is possible if the engine only drives a generator and is not connected to the drivetrain, as is the case with the Aptera. Because of startup costs, such an engine may not be immediately available to the designers, but it could make a big difference to the efficiency of plug-in hybrids.
It is also possible that such an engine may not be economically viable for some time, since one would expect a plug-in hybrid to run off batteries most of the time, so the annual savings from a more efficient ICE might be quite small.
No, we don't need to do this, because those smaller companies will fail. Car manufacturing for the mass market is an area that thrives on economies of scale. Once you don't have scale, the only thing to do is go into specialist markets, but that is unlikely to be successful in the longer term.
IMHO, the problem is at least in part that Detroit car companies have been overpaying employees for decades, but it has not been obvious. This overpayment has been hidden in retirement benefits that are only sustainable if the big three keep at the same levels of revenue and profits. Bankruptcy will enable those retirement benefits to be renegotiated and reduced (at considerable cost to the retirees).
Again, IMHO, berating Detroit for focussing on large vehicles misses the point: those vehicles were the most profitable. Detroit has not been able to build small vehicles economically for many years now -- and has outsourced the building of smaller cars. The only way to change this is to make Detroit's costs comparable with imports -- employee costs are one factor in that, the other factor is probably the cost of parts, which is going to be painful for US based suppliers.
Many, many years ago, I remember a question being posed by the site manager of the place that I worked: "Why should you be paid more than someone in another country who produces the same product as you do"? That is the dilemma facing Detroit.
It only costs that because the local loop is very expensive. Around here, one can buy a business-class wireless connection with 2Mb up and down for under $150 per month -- and since this is a business connection, not only do you get real support, but also no cap on bandwidth.
What does this show? That the residential ISPs are engaged in price gouging.
I have recently noticed spam coming in to an invalid email address in one of my domains. Since I was curious abut this, I redirected these emails to an actual mailbox. I was the first registrant of the domain that receives these (the TLD only became available 3-4 years ago), so the address has never been valid.
What is really odd about these emails is the the "To:" address (not the envelope address, but the To address listed in the header text of the email) is a valid email address in another of my domain names. Both domains have private whois data, so there is no connection that can be made through the whois information. The only public link between the two domains is the common mail server (highest priority MX record).
In summary, the emails have an envelope address which is an invalid address in one domain, but the header address is different and valid address in a second domain. Note that any address that is valid on one of my domains is valid in all of my domains. Curious, yes?
And, IMHO, if he means "Linux in general" (as opposed to Red Hat Enterprise Linux), that is a huge mistake, because MS will use its desktop monopoly and control of protocols to limit the penetration of Linux servers.
Altavista also got worse. Around '96 or '97, AltaVista searches returned lists of mostly broken links because their crawler could not crawl the web fast enough.
NTP just provides the time in UMT (GMT). It's up to the local machine to translate that into local time using the relevant offsets for geography and daylight savings time (I think).
Except that the whole "sell the crap for cheap" part is missing.
Imagine Watergate today. The Whitehouse would just get AT&T or another friendly telco to bug their conversations and then claim state immunity. Nixon would never have resigned. Does anyone think that would have been a good idea?
I disagree with that statement. IMHO, Windows users are either:
1. Concerned about viruses, but they think their machine has some magical immunity because they don't actually think their machine might ever be infected, OR:
2. Are totally clueless about viruses and spyware.
Even on forums where experienced users post, how many times have you seen a post that is something like: "I don't use anti-virus, I'm just careful where I browse and my PC has never been infected"? Replace "never been" for "I've never been aware" and you might get something close to the truth.
Again, IMHO, Windows users for one reason or another are not significantly concerned about viruses.
One of my colleagues keeps asking why people create viruses -- I keep telling him that today, they do it for profit, but he seems to have a hard time wrapping his mind around that concept. I don't think he is atypical and I think that he, like many others, just doesn't understand how harmful viruses and spyware are and hence doesn't recognize the seriousness of the threat.
IMHO, they would get a bunch of "maybe"s, "might"s, "possibly"s and other vague statements from a lawyer. So now they have to pay the lawyer without having any hard advice on how to proceed.
A simple google search such as this one would show you that a reboot is not necessary to get Linux to recognize a tape drive that is added to a SCSI bus. Please take your FUD elsewhere.
But do you have timely copyright registrations?
What would encourage a lawyer to take on an action against the stock photo website on a contingency basis? The possibility of statutory damages of $150k per infringement. If the photographs are a business, the photographer should consider copyright registration as a necessary cost of doing business.
I also think most open source projects should file for copyright registrations on a defensive basis, but very few do. It's a shame!
Do you mean this story. Probably not. It did not seem to gain national attention either.
Perhaps it is too soon, but a search on Google news suggests that this story is getting little attention in news media.