I don't have timing numbers, but I found that running a Windows render engine on linux via wine was (slightly) faster than native. Rendering isn't exactly typical usage, but it does point to an overhead. Particularly when rendering under windows there was only the rendering (no other apps running) while on linux there was the desktop and regular workstation usage concurrent with the rendering.
At least with respect to WinXP, I did find an objective improvement by using linux+wine versus windows.
Microsoft is compelling in these areas? Let's see:
1. Enterprise tablets.
Superficially, you are correct. Apple is *not* enterprise friendly, it just has enough gloss to be almost workable. However, the real selling point for a Windows tablet is office and... do you really want to write word docs on a tablet? Or create a power point presentation? Tablets have turned out differently than I expected and are being used more for casual computing. Apple's mail client is at least as good as any MS offering, the web browser is competent and, outside of niches, that covers corporate use. Office isn't really a good fit for a tablet.
The important thing for enterprise use is management, but Microsoft will have to convince an entrenched user base of iPad/Android users that they must start over with Windows tablets. Without a compelling case to sweeten the pot (like Office would have been when tablets were still new) I think they'll have difficulty getting traction. Will they get sales? Certainly. Substantial? Probably. There are plenty of places that will buy it because it has the MS brand on it. But significant market share? That I'm less sure of. There just isn't that compelling of a reason.
2. Medical tables Most are Windows OEMs. Says you. Possibly true, I haven't bothered to check. I do know there are medical apps for the iPad, however. If your right about the synergy this could well be a *niche* market for a windows tablet.
3. Sales / Presentation Compelling in what way? You just state a possible sales point for a tablet without giving any indication of why someone would choose a MS made tablet over Apple or Android.
4. Consumer enterprise content Really? Light editing, etc., is already done on Apple devices and, I can only assume, on Android ones. There is nothing compelling about a MS made tablet here.
5. Education tablets for schools that are windows centric Why? Apple's tablet interoperates with OS X and Windows just fine. Were you trying to re-use the enterprise argument? I fail to see any compelling argument here. As a windows-centric university that has been busy uprooting Apple computers for the last ten years we have had wide spread adoption of the iPad.
So... there *may* be an enterprise management issue that helps MS sell a few tablets (#1), there may be a medical tablet niche market (#2). None of your other examples hold any water at all.http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/08/2350247/internet-explorer-market-share-drops-to-almost-15#
Microsoft may be boldly donning the tablet interface for all devices, regardless of suitability, but all it looks like is a garish attempt to commit hara-kiri.
(No, I don't think MS is going to die any time soon, but it does look like they are going to continue to bleed with no end to the haemorrhaging in sight.)
I got in trouble this morning because of an error (word in the wrong place) changed the meaning to an extent that I wasn't sure *what* was intended. Heaven forfend, but I pointed this out and... it wasn't pretty. Worse, once things were clarified I then tried to explain what should have been said and how it altered the meaning.
Most adults don't take kindly to the idea that they don't speak correctly. No one does, not completely, but most mistakes are clear from context and intent. What gets you are the ones where they are not.
As someone said earlier, it is about being understood. And someone with poor grammar skills is not just at risk of looking uneducated, but being misunderstood as well. And it isn't just complex expressions either. Incorrect usage can be as simple as "both rocks are not round" vs "the rocks are not both round".
You might want to read up on the Gulf of Tonkin. Or the "he has WMD!" rhetoric that preceded the invasion of Iraq. Or... if people in power want to start a war and have the political savvy to get people behind it, it isn't very hard.
the problem with this is the same as with music: inherent monopoly. I can't create a movie to compete with the avengers that has Thor, Captain America, etc. Those characters are all "protected". If I don't like how does business I can't just buy from -- that's not how it works.
If you watch independent films you'll find that there are some real stinkers. There are also some diamonds in the rough ("Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" yeah!). But it basically doesn't matter how good one of those movies is, because it doesn't have the marketing and distribution of a large label. A good example of this is Robert Rodriguez. He got attention because -- with no money, no big name actors (no little name actors either) -- he made El Mariachi. He had so little money there were no second takes. He had to frame the shot, have the lighting, etc., correct and if an actor flubbed he had to find some way around it other than a retake. Just because he's such a damn good director he made it all work. But there aren't that many people who have that kind of talent.
Just saying "well, just create your own movie studio" is idiotic and ignores the skill required to work outside the system and succeed (in terms of trying to turn market forces against the wealthy, entrenched criminals) and the money required to stand up to them. If the terms to use AES, blowfish, etc., were onerous would you just create your own cryptosystem to get around it? Unless you happen to be a world class cryptologist it isn't likely to end well for you.
you are wrong. the DMCA in no way requires the measure be effective. You are only allowed to circumvent measures if doing so does not create other crimes and you defeat it by yourself without assistance or instruction. In other words, using the library available for linux to decrypt a dvd is an illegal circumvention. The only case I've seen where this addressed by a judge it was found to be a sufficient exception.
Perhaps to you the "circumvention exception" demonstrates "lack of effective" but in that case you are simply living in the same world as the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/ESA lawyers. Congrats. The rest of us would appreciate being able to *legally* time shift/format shift content.
I wish I had mod points. Its easy to tear apart what he says, but you give some good, solid advice as to how he might better approach this. Kudos to you, sir.
Unfortunately you are wrong on at least one point: the guy in the restaurant is unlikely to ever be fingered for skimming. If the restaurant were identified (which it won't be) it won't be likely he works there anymore (check out the employee turn over in food services some time). But lets get to the notion that someone is working to find correlation to determine the point of loss: lots of luck, there are simply too many ways for a card to be compromised. For example:
1. restaurants 2. card readers 3. malware on a computer 4. thief walks out with hard drive full of the data from a data center
None of those are theoretical, all are significant problems. The poster claiming that it is a victimless crime is either incredibly naive or trying to justify the crime, but the real problem with catching and prosecuting the criminals is that it is an easy crime to commit, hard to identify the criminals and build a case for prosecution. However, the FBI *does* consider it worth pursuing and they do. But they are more likely to catch a poor mule who only has a loose idea that crime was even being committed than the professionals who run the business. Doesn't stop the mule from going to jail, though. It also doesn't get much press because it isn't exactly exciting to read that "Joe Schmoe fell for a work-at-home scam where he purchased product from Amazon with fraudulent CC (provided by his anonymous handler) and shipped the items to England".
you want something as good as Visio? How about better? I submit that yEd is better. Visio has some rather obnoxious interface designs that inhibit clean usage. If you are used to Visio then getting started with yEd may take some effort because those roadblocks get ingrained in how you do things. But it shouldn't take long.
1. safer 2. cheaper 3. can function as baseline power
Instead of asking on slashdot why don't you... you know... research the subject? People have posted links to DOE report on cost (cheaper), to the deaths/terrwatt (safer), and possibly even points about density (baseline). Maybe you don't want to know?
1. Slashdot has a conspiracy to promote coal and nuclear
or
2. you just don't have your facts straight
You might try informing yourself on the subject. Elsewhere on this page is a link to DOE information on the total cost of operation. You say "nuclear is *expensive*" -- but there is a citation needed (just claiming some random facts is not a citation). And more importantly, expensive compared to what?
According to the DOE the cheapest is oil (by a good margin) followed by coal and nuclear and then solar. I forget just where hydro, etc., fit in, but you can look it up yourself.
Maybe the DOE is part of this conspiracy. Those who believe in conspiracies generally find no end of their adversaries and enemies. It *is* easier than admitting maybe you were wrong.
you don't have good reading comprehension. They promise not to randomly share SPI (which may not mean you think it means) to random individuals (e.g., making it publicly available) but they can provide it to business partners. The kicker is that your identity is not considered SPI, nor is your location, nor information about your economic or financial situation.
In other words they are planning on doing the largest privacy-removing correlation in history and selling to those that can afford it. I mean, providing it to select business partners.
You apparently like using Google's services. Fine, your choice. However, it is *very* hard to use the Internet without providing information to Google -- and I'm not talking about overtly using any of Google's services. They are going to correlate all information (which their "privacy" policy is ballsy enough to mention some particularly nasty aspects of) on someone that they can, whether or not the person is even aware of Google's involvement. In fact, they may feel that they *aren't* involved with Google, even deliberately avoiding Google after this blatant attack on privacy.
But your average individual isn't aware of the far reaches of google (analytics, etc.) doesn't use NoScript (even if they are using FireFox).
Would you be okay with Pinkerton monitoring you with mobile and static surveillance, using IR cameras, mikes, etc., to get information about you and then sell it to other companies? After all, they would be going through the hard work of establishing business relationships to find customers for the data, paying employees to conduct the stake outs, etc. And you could only talk in sound proofed rooms, never enter buildings without windows, try to lose tails, and so on -- but should that level of avoidance be expected from someone who didn't feel like having their life paid out to the highest bidder?
The fact that in the modern age Google can practically do the level of spying it can, whereas Pinkerton would go broke trying to do it, shouldn't make it any different from an ethics or morals point of view.
I hope you have the same response for all of the other companies who are using cheap Chinese/Korean/wherever labor to give you cheap electronics.
This isn't just Apple, its pretty much all electronic gear (and non-electronic, and food items, etc. -- look at canned food and see if you can distinguish between canned in China/distributed via US front company and canned in the US)
ah, yes, the Army technique that is usually demonstrated during in processing (very late at night/early in the morning) where people stand in formation until they start to drop. As someone else said, hitting the floor wakes you up -- but people definitely can fall asleep/pass out just standing.
whatever. So you and he just ignore well-established facts about learning because "he says so"? Great. Not recommended for those that want to learn. For a high level introduction to the topic you might want to try taking a cognitive psychology class, but in short there are real studies that he is claiming are wrong. He doesn't attack the studies (such as by raising a legitimate question about methodology), he just says "I'm right".
He wants publicity and doesn't care whose learning is negatively impacted.
Having personally been in the position of contacting Blizzard to try and help them out with their customers... I seriously question Blizzard "personally spent a ridiculous amount of resources to try [and] contact Rogers". It took a lot of effort, but I *did* get a response from Blizzard, and it was "we don't care" about their customers experience.
Maybe they did as Rogers represents many more customers than we do, but their attitude towards their customers has been made apparent in other ways. (Jacking with game play, for example)
apparently you don't actually deal with QoS, haven't supported VoIP, have never dealt with what bit torrent (and other P2P protocols) do to a network, or how traffic shaping works and how bit torrent actively works to defeat shaping.
but this is exactly how bit torrent (and related protocols) survive. They'd be stomped dead by ISPs otherwise. I hate the inefficient and high resource consumption of p2p apps* and although ISPs are rather less affected by this aspect than their customers they *are* affected by the insanely aggressive nature of them. In the fight-to-the-death that bit torrent has started they do everything they can to avoid being controllable at the expense of everything else.
I recently had occasion to investigate some bit torrent traffic and discovered that *28 hours* after the client had disconnected remote peers were still hammering for more. A reasonable, high network latency, time out is 5 minutes. 15 minutes is unreasonable, an hour time out is ridiculous, but I'm starting to wonder if bit torrent *has* a time out. And all of this traffic, which is comprised of small tcp packets, has to be routed. Hundreds of remote peers doing this to who knows how many disconnected peers just for one torrent? (The IP address in question was on wireless which has high turn over of IP *and* is generally harder hit with routing the numerous packets associated with p2p so no good arguing that the IP had been stable and in use by the client for a long time, it hadn't.)
Peer-to-peer file sharing *should* be tcp -- this allows for assessing, in the underlying protocol, whether or not the packet was received and resending as necessary. But P2P switched from tcp to udp because... udp is stateless and harder to block. With tcp you can send a reset both ways to disrupt the connection, not so with udp. So the p2p protocools had to have this basic capability built into them -- and, as it is relying on UDP for transport -- has necessary and unavoidable inefficiencies.
Count on bit torrent being adjust to look like VOIP or some other requires-low-latency protocol. Count on everything possible being done to make protocol detection difficult and blocking infeasible. It doesn't matter to these guys what impact this has on protocols that actually *do* require low latency.
* no, I'm not talking about the computer running the client, I'm referring to the cheap router that is connecting said computer to the Internet that runs out of table space due to bit torrent's inefficient and high resource consumption design -- and then the user blames their ISP
You should read the link GP provided. You might learn something. But I'll help you out: Baen books provides some ebooks for free, sells some ebooks for a fee, and, yeah, they sell printed books for a fee.
But notice that they sell for a fee and provide for free. Moreover, an ebook title may only be free for a limited time.
In the case of Apple... I haven't read it thoroughly, but my understanding of the EULA is that you are limited to the product produced by Apple's software being sold through Apple, but that certainly doesn't in and of itself preclude selling the same *content* produced with *different* software through a different venue.
But, really, what is the big deal? It isn't like there aren't other ways to produce ebooks for sale (or for free) elsewhere. Even if Apple has a stupid requirement listed (which, btw, isn't unheard of -- I don't know the current situation but there certainly used to be "indy" game dev suites that similar stipulations) all it does is act as a disincentive to using their software and their retail outlet.
Despite all the hatred Apple gets on slashdot they don't seem to make a habit of cutting off their nose to spite their face.
you're out of luck. MS made (or had made) a great product and then discontinued it. Last I looked you could pay a nice premium to get one that was allegedly new...
I put up with the idiosyncrasies of my 8 (i think) year old MS track ball because it is still better than the alternatives. I dread the day when mine quits working.
Ah, an anonymous coward spreading lies and misinformation. No wonder you posted anonymously.
CarrierIQ is *not* "baked" into iOS. Although Apple *used* to use CarrierIQ they stopped doing so *before* the news hit.
What information is collected is visible to the user and configurable by the user. In iOS 5 (again, *before* the CarrierIQ news hit) it is presented when first setting up the phone. To make it clear what is (or isn't, when disabled) enabled.
If you had an iPhone and didn't want to store email in iCloud you have two options. 1. don't setup and use iCloud (it *requires* user action to setup and use an account) 2. use iCloud (if you otherwise want to), but don't sync your email to it
As to your last "point" -- Apple has the ability to spy on iOS users because they are providing the device and the operating system. That alone is sufficient to enable the technical ability to spy. Wow. That was really, really insightful. Again, I see why you posted as anonymous coward. Next up, "the ability for [Google|Microsoft|etc.] to spy on [Android|Windows|etc.] users most certainly is NOT [fake]".
which is why I'm always amused to see someone post that they do "X" and haven't had a virus in Y years. I'm guessing its because they think they are uber-elite and super-smart and would mystically just *know* if a nasty virus worked its way into their computer.
They know they haven't gotten a fake AV, or one of the other variants that makes itself known (typically scareware). And they are blissfully unaware of crimeware and think silent infections that steal passwords and conduct bank transactions are only done by highly targeted viruses or by skilled uber-elite and super-smart hackers.
Less amusing is when they use their uber-elite and super-smart skills to clean other people's computers (and some even dare charge for this "service"). It is increasingly common for a rootkit with reinfector capability to be installed so while they may remove the fake AV scareware they only dealt with the visible and (relatively) trivial problem and not the underlying infection. And then tell the person they "helped" that the computer is now clean and secure. Blech!
(Yeah, not every infection is that bad. But how much work did you go through to demonstrate that there *wasn't* a re-infector hidden in one of the many ways they can be? Or did you just run your tools until nothing was found? And realize that it is SOP for blackhats to tune malware until it isn't detected by tools before use. What, you thought the AV vendors quit trying?)
Sophos is trying the same tactic, which isn't going to be helpful for anyone.
Are you sure Sophos is trying the same tactic? Or is Sophos saying more-or-less what you are saying. Perhaps you meant Fujitsu? Or the Japanese Defense Ministry which is funding the effort? At least, that is according to the fine summary...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have timing numbers, but I found that running a Windows render engine on linux via wine was (slightly) faster than native. Rendering isn't exactly typical usage, but it does point to an overhead. Particularly when rendering under windows there was only the rendering (no other apps running) while on linux there was the desktop and regular workstation usage concurrent with the rendering.
At least with respect to WinXP, I did find an objective improvement by using linux+wine versus windows.
It seems you understand the dark side of the force.
Microsoft is compelling in these areas? Let's see:
1. Enterprise tablets.
Superficially, you are correct. Apple is *not* enterprise friendly, it just has enough gloss to be almost workable. However, the real selling point for a Windows tablet is office and... do you really want to write word docs on a tablet? Or create a power point presentation? Tablets have turned out differently than I expected and are being used more for casual computing. Apple's mail client is at least as good as any MS offering, the web browser is competent and, outside of niches, that covers corporate use. Office isn't really a good fit for a tablet.
The important thing for enterprise use is management, but Microsoft will have to convince an entrenched user base of iPad/Android users that they must start over with Windows tablets. Without a compelling case to sweeten the pot (like Office would have been when tablets were still new) I think they'll have difficulty getting traction. Will they get sales? Certainly. Substantial? Probably. There are plenty of places that will buy it because it has the MS brand on it. But significant market share? That I'm less sure of. There just isn't that compelling of a reason.
2. Medical tables
Most are Windows OEMs. Says you. Possibly true, I haven't bothered to check. I do know there are medical apps for the iPad, however. If your right about the synergy this could well be a *niche* market for a windows tablet.
3. Sales / Presentation
Compelling in what way? You just state a possible sales point for a tablet without giving any indication of why someone would choose a MS made tablet over Apple or Android.
4. Consumer enterprise content
Really? Light editing, etc., is already done on Apple devices and, I can only assume, on Android ones. There is nothing compelling about a MS made tablet here.
5. Education tablets for schools that are windows centric
Why? Apple's tablet interoperates with OS X and Windows just fine. Were you trying to re-use the enterprise argument? I fail to see any compelling argument here. As a windows-centric university that has been busy uprooting Apple computers for the last ten years we have had wide spread adoption of the iPad.
So... there *may* be an enterprise management issue that helps MS sell a few tablets (#1), there may be a medical tablet niche market (#2). None of your other examples hold any water at all.http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/08/2350247/internet-explorer-market-share-drops-to-almost-15#
Microsoft may be boldly donning the tablet interface for all devices, regardless of suitability, but all it looks like is a garish attempt to commit hara-kiri.
(No, I don't think MS is going to die any time soon, but it does look like they are going to continue to bleed with no end to the haemorrhaging in sight.)
I got in trouble this morning because of an error (word in the wrong place) changed the meaning to an extent that I wasn't sure *what* was intended. Heaven forfend, but I pointed this out and... it wasn't pretty. Worse, once things were clarified I then tried to explain what should have been said and how it altered the meaning.
Most adults don't take kindly to the idea that they don't speak correctly. No one does, not completely, but most mistakes are clear from context and intent. What gets you are the ones where they are not.
As someone said earlier, it is about being understood. And someone with poor grammar skills is not just at risk of looking uneducated, but being misunderstood as well. And it isn't just complex expressions either. Incorrect usage can be as simple as "both rocks are not round" vs "the rocks are not both round".
You might want to read up on the Gulf of Tonkin. Or the "he has WMD!" rhetoric that preceded the invasion of Iraq. Or... if people in power want to start a war and have the political savvy to get people behind it, it isn't very hard.
the problem with this is the same as with music: inherent monopoly. I can't create a movie to compete with the avengers that has Thor, Captain America, etc. Those characters are all "protected". If I don't like how does business I can't just buy from -- that's not how it works.
If you watch independent films you'll find that there are some real stinkers. There are also some diamonds in the rough ("Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" yeah!). But it basically doesn't matter how good one of those movies is, because it doesn't have the marketing and distribution of a large label. A good example of this is Robert Rodriguez. He got attention because -- with no money, no big name actors (no little name actors either) -- he made El Mariachi. He had so little money there were no second takes. He had to frame the shot, have the lighting, etc., correct and if an actor flubbed he had to find some way around it other than a retake. Just because he's such a damn good director he made it all work. But there aren't that many people who have that kind of talent.
Just saying "well, just create your own movie studio" is idiotic and ignores the skill required to work outside the system and succeed (in terms of trying to turn market forces against the wealthy, entrenched criminals) and the money required to stand up to them. If the terms to use AES, blowfish, etc., were onerous would you just create your own cryptosystem to get around it? Unless you happen to be a world class cryptologist it isn't likely to end well for you.
you are wrong. the DMCA in no way requires the measure be effective. You are only allowed to circumvent measures if doing so does not create other crimes and you defeat it by yourself without assistance or instruction. In other words, using the library available for linux to decrypt a dvd is an illegal circumvention. The only case I've seen where this addressed by a judge it was found to be a sufficient exception.
Perhaps to you the "circumvention exception" demonstrates "lack of effective" but in that case you are simply living in the same world as the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/ESA lawyers. Congrats. The rest of us would appreciate being able to *legally* time shift/format shift content.
I wish I had mod points. Its easy to tear apart what he says, but you give some good, solid advice as to how he might better approach this. Kudos to you, sir.
Unfortunately you are wrong on at least one point: the guy in the restaurant is unlikely to ever be fingered for skimming. If the restaurant were identified (which it won't be) it won't be likely he works there anymore (check out the employee turn over in food services some time). But lets get to the notion that someone is working to find correlation to determine the point of loss: lots of luck, there are simply too many ways for a card to be compromised. For example:
1. restaurants
2. card readers
3. malware on a computer
4. thief walks out with hard drive full of the data from a data center
None of those are theoretical, all are significant problems. The poster claiming that it is a victimless crime is either incredibly naive or trying to justify the crime, but the real problem with catching and prosecuting the criminals is that it is an easy crime to commit, hard to identify the criminals and build a case for prosecution. However, the FBI *does* consider it worth pursuing and they do. But they are more likely to catch a poor mule who only has a loose idea that crime was even being committed than the professionals who run the business. Doesn't stop the mule from going to jail, though. It also doesn't get much press because it isn't exactly exciting to read that "Joe Schmoe fell for a work-at-home scam where he purchased product from Amazon with fraudulent CC (provided by his anonymous handler) and shipped the items to England".
wow. lots of shell games apparent in those sales and corporate name changes...
you want something as good as Visio? How about better? I submit that yEd is better. Visio has some rather obnoxious interface designs that inhibit clean usage. If you are used to Visio then getting started with yEd may take some effort because those roadblocks get ingrained in how you do things. But it shouldn't take long.
because they are
1. safer
2. cheaper
3. can function as baseline power
Instead of asking on slashdot why don't you... you know... research the subject? People have posted links to DOE report on cost (cheaper), to the deaths/terrwatt (safer), and possibly even points about density (baseline). Maybe you don't want to know?
eh, maybe its because your wrong? Consider:
1. Slashdot has a conspiracy to promote coal and nuclear
or
2. you just don't have your facts straight
You might try informing yourself on the subject. Elsewhere on this page is a link to DOE information on the total cost of operation. You say "nuclear is *expensive*" -- but there is a citation needed (just claiming some random facts is not a citation). And more importantly, expensive compared to what?
According to the DOE the cheapest is oil (by a good margin) followed by coal and nuclear and then solar. I forget just where hydro, etc., fit in, but you can look it up yourself.
Maybe the DOE is part of this conspiracy. Those who believe in conspiracies generally find no end of their adversaries and enemies. It *is* easier than admitting maybe you were wrong.
you don't have good reading comprehension. They promise not to randomly share SPI (which may not mean you think it means) to random individuals (e.g., making it publicly available) but they can provide it to business partners. The kicker is that your identity is not considered SPI, nor is your location, nor information about your economic or financial situation.
In other words they are planning on doing the largest privacy-removing correlation in history and selling to those that can afford it. I mean, providing it to select business partners.
You apparently like using Google's services. Fine, your choice. However, it is *very* hard to use the Internet without providing information to Google -- and I'm not talking about overtly using any of Google's services. They are going to correlate all information (which their "privacy" policy is ballsy enough to mention some particularly nasty aspects of) on someone that they can, whether or not the person is even aware of Google's involvement. In fact, they may feel that they *aren't* involved with Google, even deliberately avoiding Google after this blatant attack on privacy.
But your average individual isn't aware of the far reaches of google (analytics, etc.) doesn't use NoScript (even if they are using FireFox).
Would you be okay with Pinkerton monitoring you with mobile and static surveillance, using IR cameras, mikes, etc., to get information about you and then sell it to other companies? After all, they would be going through the hard work of establishing business relationships to find customers for the data, paying employees to conduct the stake outs, etc. And you could only talk in sound proofed rooms, never enter buildings without windows, try to lose tails, and so on -- but should that level of avoidance be expected from someone who didn't feel like having their life paid out to the highest bidder?
The fact that in the modern age Google can practically do the level of spying it can, whereas Pinkerton would go broke trying to do it, shouldn't make it any different from an ethics or morals point of view.
I hope you have the same response for all of the other companies who are using cheap Chinese/Korean/wherever labor to give you cheap electronics.
This isn't just Apple, its pretty much all electronic gear (and non-electronic, and food items, etc. -- look at canned food and see if you can distinguish between canned in China/distributed via US front company and canned in the US)
ah, yes, the Army technique that is usually demonstrated during in processing (very late at night/early in the morning) where people stand in formation until they start to drop. As someone else said, hitting the floor wakes you up -- but people definitely can fall asleep/pass out just standing.
whatever. So you and he just ignore well-established facts about learning because "he says so"? Great. Not recommended for those that want to learn. For a high level introduction to the topic you might want to try taking a cognitive psychology class, but in short there are real studies that he is claiming are wrong. He doesn't attack the studies (such as by raising a legitimate question about methodology), he just says "I'm right".
He wants publicity and doesn't care whose learning is negatively impacted.
Having personally been in the position of contacting Blizzard to try and help them out with their customers... I seriously question Blizzard "personally spent a ridiculous amount of resources to try [and] contact Rogers". It took a lot of effort, but I *did* get a response from Blizzard, and it was "we don't care" about their customers experience.
Maybe they did as Rogers represents many more customers than we do, but their attitude towards their customers has been made apparent in other ways. (Jacking with game play, for example)
apparently you don't actually deal with QoS, haven't supported VoIP, have never dealt with what bit torrent (and other P2P protocols) do to a network, or how traffic shaping works and how bit torrent actively works to defeat shaping.
But then again, I'm responding to an AC...
but this is exactly how bit torrent (and related protocols) survive. They'd be stomped dead by ISPs otherwise. I hate the inefficient and high resource consumption of p2p apps* and although ISPs are rather less affected by this aspect than their customers they *are* affected by the insanely aggressive nature of them. In the fight-to-the-death that bit torrent has started they do everything they can to avoid being controllable at the expense of everything else.
I recently had occasion to investigate some bit torrent traffic and discovered that *28 hours* after the client had disconnected remote peers were still hammering for more. A reasonable, high network latency, time out is 5 minutes. 15 minutes is unreasonable, an hour time out is ridiculous, but I'm starting to wonder if bit torrent *has* a time out. And all of this traffic, which is comprised of small tcp packets, has to be routed. Hundreds of remote peers doing this to who knows how many disconnected peers just for one torrent? (The IP address in question was on wireless which has high turn over of IP *and* is generally harder hit with routing the numerous packets associated with p2p so no good arguing that the IP had been stable and in use by the client for a long time, it hadn't.)
Peer-to-peer file sharing *should* be tcp -- this allows for assessing, in the underlying protocol, whether or not the packet was received and resending as necessary. But P2P switched from tcp to udp because... udp is stateless and harder to block. With tcp you can send a reset both ways to disrupt the connection, not so with udp. So the p2p protocools had to have this basic capability built into them -- and, as it is relying on UDP for transport -- has necessary and unavoidable inefficiencies.
Count on bit torrent being adjust to look like VOIP or some other requires-low-latency protocol. Count on everything possible being done to make protocol detection difficult and blocking infeasible. It doesn't matter to these guys what impact this has on protocols that actually *do* require low latency.
* no, I'm not talking about the computer running the client, I'm referring to the cheap router that is connecting said computer to the Internet that runs out of table space due to bit torrent's inefficient and high resource consumption design -- and then the user blames their ISP
You should read the link GP provided. You might learn something. But I'll help you out: Baen books provides some ebooks for free, sells some ebooks for a fee, and, yeah, they sell printed books for a fee.
But notice that they sell for a fee and provide for free. Moreover, an ebook title may only be free for a limited time.
In the case of Apple... I haven't read it thoroughly, but my understanding of the EULA is that you are limited to the product produced by Apple's software being sold through Apple, but that certainly doesn't in and of itself preclude selling the same *content* produced with *different* software through a different venue.
But, really, what is the big deal? It isn't like there aren't other ways to produce ebooks for sale (or for free) elsewhere. Even if Apple has a stupid requirement listed (which, btw, isn't unheard of -- I don't know the current situation but there certainly used to be "indy" game dev suites that similar stipulations) all it does is act as a disincentive to using their software and their retail outlet.
Despite all the hatred Apple gets on slashdot they don't seem to make a habit of cutting off their nose to spite their face.
you're out of luck. MS made (or had made) a great product and then discontinued it. Last I looked you could pay a nice premium to get one that was allegedly new...
I put up with the idiosyncrasies of my 8 (i think) year old MS track ball because it is still better than the alternatives. I dread the day when mine quits working.
Ah, an anonymous coward spreading lies and misinformation. No wonder you posted anonymously.
CarrierIQ is *not* "baked" into iOS. Although Apple *used* to use CarrierIQ they stopped doing so *before* the news hit.
What information is collected is visible to the user and configurable by the user. In iOS 5 (again, *before* the CarrierIQ news hit) it is presented when first setting up the phone. To make it clear what is (or isn't, when disabled) enabled.
If you had an iPhone and didn't want to store email in iCloud you have two options.
1. don't setup and use iCloud (it *requires* user action to setup and use an account)
2. use iCloud (if you otherwise want to), but don't sync your email to it
As to your last "point" -- Apple has the ability to spy on iOS users because they are providing the device and the operating system. That alone is sufficient to enable the technical ability to spy. Wow. That was really, really insightful. Again, I see why you posted as anonymous coward. Next up, "the ability for [Google|Microsoft|etc.] to spy on [Android|Windows|etc.] users most certainly is NOT [fake]".
Yeah, you go cowboy
which is why I'm always amused to see someone post that they do "X" and haven't had a virus in Y years. I'm guessing its because they think they are uber-elite and super-smart and would mystically just *know* if a nasty virus worked its way into their computer.
They know they haven't gotten a fake AV, or one of the other variants that makes itself known (typically scareware). And they are blissfully unaware of crimeware and think silent infections that steal passwords and conduct bank transactions are only done by highly targeted viruses or by skilled uber-elite and super-smart hackers.
Less amusing is when they use their uber-elite and super-smart skills to clean other people's computers (and some even dare charge for this "service"). It is increasingly common for a rootkit with reinfector capability to be installed so while they may remove the fake AV scareware they only dealt with the visible and (relatively) trivial problem and not the underlying infection. And then tell the person they "helped" that the computer is now clean and secure. Blech!
(Yeah, not every infection is that bad. But how much work did you go through to demonstrate that there *wasn't* a re-infector hidden in one of the many ways they can be? Or did you just run your tools until nothing was found? And realize that it is SOP for blackhats to tune malware until it isn't detected by tools before use. What, you thought the AV vendors quit trying?)
Sophos is trying the same tactic, which isn't going to be helpful for anyone.
Are you sure Sophos is trying the same tactic? Or is Sophos saying more-or-less what you are saying. Perhaps you meant Fujitsu? Or the Japanese Defense Ministry which is funding the effort? At least, that is according to the fine summary...