THere's at least half a dozen direct copy programs available for ipod synchronization. I'm not sure why I would want something that doesn't focus on that for Linux. Linux has many other players that are decent. So I'd still question why I'd want something out of the mainstream just to copy music to an ipod. So it still reverts to the main question - what does Songbird provide?
While in theory you're correct, in fact, SMS can actually cost the provider. You can flood an SMS network with the right kind of connectivity and block all further transmissions.
I'd rather have them come break into a building, thank you. Last time I checked, that required a warrant and a bunch of other stuff. Git is fine, github not so much, for proprietary code that you want kept proprietary. Granted, just keeping it out of the cloud is insufficient, but once in the cloud, you might as well email the source out.
The most interesting thing about this announcement is that there was a songbird. Never heard of it and based on the number of responses, neither had anyone else. No surprise then that it folded. I mean, compared to winamp, wmp, itunes, or a host of of other players that are all free, does Songbird do the one main thing better than any of them? Namely, play music? (For the slow - that's a rhetorical question) I don't know about the masses, but I don't care to share information about what I'm listening to or futz with plugins for music, or really anything other than: play music. I also don't want anyone tracking what I'm listening to, nor provide ads (WinAmp....) Management of music has always been a pain, and none of the players I've used to date do it well, IMNSHO. They require too much manual work and have too view choices, or maybe enough choices but too weak an algorithm to properly deal with the resulting meta-data. It still wouldn't warrant writing a new player.
I'm not so sure the majority of the voters disagree. This appears to be of interest to the masses, finally. And it appears it's not going to go away, despite whatever pressure the government tries to exert. We've all known what was possible, and that it was most likely occurring, but without a nice document clearly stating it, it sounded like a bunch of paranoid techies complaining about "big government". While we can bask in we were right, that seems quite hollow given how far the government has actually gone which makes even the most paranoid person seem slightly oblivious of their surroundings by comparison.
You misunderstand. I didn't say it's inoperative. I stated that it's not subject to interpretation. All searches are unreasonable except for those backed by a warrant. Yes, there are some exceptions, such as searching a suspect upon arrest, and current law has made it clear what those exceptions are and that they are accepted by the populace. Having every person in the US's calls tracked is very clearly outside those accepted exceptions, no matter what nit-picking those violating our rights say. Otherwise there would be no story here.
You're a day late and a dollar short on vilifying MS's XBone for invasion purposes. Why don't you look at network connected "SmartTVs" which have cameras and microphones? I certainly don't have my entertainment gear hooked up to the internet.
In many ways, Snowden's announcements (which others have correctly pointed out simply confirm data that leaked years ago) show that the NSA is 'bored' with their current level of data collection, now it is old hat to suck and save all regular Internet/phone traffic. Team Obama is desperate to go into places the NSA has never gone before. Much of the intent is the power powerful scumbags think they gain when they can become the supreme 'peeping-tom' and peer into the homes of millions of citizens at will.
They were already processing all calls, but that didn't give them a record of association that they could mine. This does. And for clarity - this was started under Bush. To scare you further - the progression of hyper nationalization follows that of Germany in the 1930s, think how that would have turned out with this type of information available. And don't think it couldn't happen again, even in a place like the US.
You can't take things out of context there. The founders were very specific on that wording - it starts with right to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures.... which is then limited and defined as searches allowed by warrant with cause and must explicitly state what and where will be searched.
So there is no room for interpretation of "unreasonable", as the right to be secure is inviolate. Read the sentence carefully, and note that it is a single sentence. Realize what led to that sentence being added to the BoR in the first place - egregious violations of the colonists privacy. Also see how they treated the mail system - violating the privacy of a piece of mail has very serious consequences, seemingly out of proportion to the crime unless you take this as an inviolate right. Then make the simple conversion that email, chat, and voice calls are nothing more than "mail" of an electronic sort, and the scope of the illegality of the current operation is easy to quantify. It's blatantly illegal on every level, in every way, with no wiggle room.
It actually did with JDK6 at least IIRC. java.sql.xx packages changed interfaces to the extent that old code wouldn't compile. Another is the changed NIO in JDK7. Also the JMX code in JDK 1.2 compared with prior releases. Those are the first ones off the top of my head, and yes, those were all components under development, except for the SQL packages. The JMX component is actually interesting because it was first released as an add on library.
And I agree that generics are less than they might have been. I'm still at a loss why additional metadata dealing with generics properly at runtime wasn't included, which would have made generics fully fleshed out. Yes, I've run into this problem and had to resort to some interesting reflection code to resolve it. If there had only been that 1 piece of metadata, it would have been so much easier. But, it's better have what is there than not have anything at all.
And why is that? Because of the regulations that have pushed that fuel out of favor. Tax it more, it should be undesirable. And, IIRC correctly, all those older engines can be rebuilt to handle non-leaded gas. Yeah, it won't be "authentic" anymore, but it wouldn't be anyways since if you use it, the only reason I can see why you'd be pissed at the increased cost, you'll be making or buying non-authentic replacement parts anyways.
I'm not sure that Java requires regular release dates at this stage. While I don't mind additions, I do mind compatibility breaking changes in core functionality. I can ignore additions after all. I'd rather have a solid core with supporting libraries released to that core.
And you still don't get it - you don't have to store everything when there's tons of duplicity in what's being downloaded. Also, given how many things work, especially in the HTML5 world, you can know a lot from just the server side. Unless you're one of those people that need to count every ant in the pile before stating there's a million ants down there, each one in their own little square.
To be fair, after the debut presentation for the Xbox One, I'm not convinced that they have any games either.
It's looking like this generation will belong to the PS4 and whatever newcomer comes in (heaven help us if it's Google or Apple, since neither of them gets gaming).
Well - phone home is a deal killer, so I don't suppose it matters that they don't have games. The entire appeal of a console was buying and owning said game, playing it whenever and however much you wanted, without having to continue paying the subscription price. MMOs made people return to the equivalent of pushing quarters, except now they had to pay even if they didn't play. I wouldn't be surprised if a subscription service becomes part of the cost of playing those $70 games - you get the first month free....
Because I don't have to store everything, and certainly not browser dumps for every browser. All I'd need is to store is timestamps, requests made, and a processed response. Let's take this slashdot story for instance. Perhaps 100K people read it today, we only need 1 copy of the story (the "final" archived one is fine) along with request/response history. That's a whole lot less than 100K * this page size * # of views (since that would most likely be larger than 1 for a percentage of the readers. Now consider that most web browsing is exactly this type of activity, and all of a sudden storing all that activity doesn't seem all that insurmountable.
The USA Patriot Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed.
With politicians who were worried about being seen as indecisive or un-American, but with the general populace? There seemed to be a lot of concern even when it was proposed and passed. Especially about the expansion of police powers. I just personally hope this results in a real privacy protection act that enshrines personal privacy in language that our apparently semi-idiot legislators can understand. (Apparently the 4th amendment requires too much interpretation for them)
I didn't say I wanted to do it like that. This is what happens on failing projects. There's not much you can do when the stakeholders do this. With an agreed upon design, however, you have ammo against the stakeholders pulling this nonsense, and there is no incremental scope creep unless all sides allow it. With Agile, scope creep is almost a foregone conclusion unless there is this person, generally a PM, that locks it down. But Agile doesn't have PMs.....It's actually one of the few appealing pieces of Agile, since no one likes those bothersome PMs. Seriously, I don't like them either, but I'd rather have one on a project than a "tech lead" that doesn't have enough leadership ability to manage a project. (Fr)Agile sucks, and all it's adherents can say is "You're doing it wrong" without pointing to where Agile will let you do it right and achieve success. The sooner it dies, the sooner it will stop causing projects to fail.
That's why it doesn't just come out at the end. We show what we've got at the end of every sprint. If it sucks eggs, we can change it. Without Agile, we'd discover this much later. And the earlier you discover this stuff, the cheaper it is to change it.
This assertion is a fallacy, Example: you create the ability to register a user, then edit that user, then assign it to a group, etc. The requirements come out over 6 iterations and are worked in across roughly 10. Yes, it is demo'd every time and accepted. Then the business tweaks the back end service requirements a small bit, causing some major changes in the front end, after which they look at it and go - wow, wouldn't it be cool if we combined this suite of functionality into a single functional piece? And many iterations later, that newly envisioned piece, that requires a whole new backend suite of services, is still in flux. Fortunately I'm not responsible for that, only that it and other issues have moved the delivery date out by a factor of 4.
Furthermore, what makes you think that Agile, and only Agile, will deliver components for review early?
You've actually summed up my points well, and they jibe with the criticism I've offered. As for Agile, that it " doesn't preclude the option of prior planning" is 99% of the problem with Agile, it is an option, and an unstated option at that. In fact, it's the only purported software process that doesn't make the equivalent statement to "Get your engineers and architects together and design, scope, and plan the overall project". I've always held you need a documented vision of the final product and a roadmap on how to get there. Agile eschews both in principal and often in practice. The first thing I generally do on Agile projects I come into is ask for artifacts outlining both of those pieces, otherwise I know I'm on a doomed project before I even start.
I'm not sure about this specific exploit - didn't read TFA, but windows has several known exploits that allow arbitrary code injection into system DLLs, and one of those was even a suggested solution on stackoverflow for getting around the deprecation of the security token manipulation APIs, forcing a process to run at high level if you needed to do anything interesting. So with that ability firmly in place for at least 20 years, I'd say any other kernel level exploit is almost irrelevant. Also, disclosing the problem is not the same as providing an exploit kit. To follow your analogy, you could state at the bar that open windows are a security hazard, you don't need to mention anything else. (I do like the metaphor in that statement though - well done)
You are forced to open a box that may have data providing that you are guilty, but that information is already there and it's not new, you weren't forced to first create that data and then give it up, you are forced to open the data that existed already in a form that is not attached to you, it's independent of you, it is already existing outside of you.
IIRC, if you state you don't have the key, nothing else happens to you. Ball is in the prosecution's court. (unless, of course, they find the key on you or somehow prove you knew or should have known where the key was) With regards to encryption, the rules changed, and now you are held in contempt if you don't conjure this key out of thin air. Maybe he wrote it on a scrap of paper that he ate when they came for him, who knows. It shouldn't matter, according to previous stories, they should have enough to put him away for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
And in 2011 their fears were realized, as their decline accelerated.
THere's at least half a dozen direct copy programs available for ipod synchronization. I'm not sure why I would want something that doesn't focus on that for Linux. Linux has many other players that are decent. So I'd still question why I'd want something out of the mainstream just to copy music to an ipod. So it still reverts to the main question - what does Songbird provide?
While in theory you're correct, in fact, SMS can actually cost the provider. You can flood an SMS network with the right kind of connectivity and block all further transmissions.
I'd rather have them come break into a building, thank you. Last time I checked, that required a warrant and a bunch of other stuff. Git is fine, github not so much, for proprietary code that you want kept proprietary. Granted, just keeping it out of the cloud is insufficient, but once in the cloud, you might as well email the source out.
The most interesting thing about this announcement is that there was a songbird. Never heard of it and based on the number of responses, neither had anyone else. No surprise then that it folded. I mean, compared to winamp, wmp, itunes, or a host of of other players that are all free, does Songbird do the one main thing better than any of them? Namely, play music? (For the slow - that's a rhetorical question) I don't know about the masses, but I don't care to share information about what I'm listening to or futz with plugins for music, or really anything other than: play music. I also don't want anyone tracking what I'm listening to, nor provide ads (WinAmp....) Management of music has always been a pain, and none of the players I've used to date do it well, IMNSHO. They require too much manual work and have too view choices, or maybe enough choices but too weak an algorithm to properly deal with the resulting meta-data. It still wouldn't warrant writing a new player.
I'm not so sure the majority of the voters disagree. This appears to be of interest to the masses, finally. And it appears it's not going to go away, despite whatever pressure the government tries to exert. We've all known what was possible, and that it was most likely occurring, but without a nice document clearly stating it, it sounded like a bunch of paranoid techies complaining about "big government". While we can bask in we were right, that seems quite hollow given how far the government has actually gone which makes even the most paranoid person seem slightly oblivious of their surroundings by comparison.
You misunderstand. I didn't say it's inoperative. I stated that it's not subject to interpretation. All searches are unreasonable except for those backed by a warrant. Yes, there are some exceptions, such as searching a suspect upon arrest, and current law has made it clear what those exceptions are and that they are accepted by the populace. Having every person in the US's calls tracked is very clearly outside those accepted exceptions, no matter what nit-picking those violating our rights say. Otherwise there would be no story here.
In many ways, Snowden's announcements (which others have correctly pointed out simply confirm data that leaked years ago) show that the NSA is 'bored' with their current level of data collection, now it is old hat to suck and save all regular Internet/phone traffic. Team Obama is desperate to go into places the NSA has never gone before. Much of the intent is the power powerful scumbags think they gain when they can become the supreme 'peeping-tom' and peer into the homes of millions of citizens at will.
They were already processing all calls, but that didn't give them a record of association that they could mine. This does. And for clarity - this was started under Bush. To scare you further - the progression of hyper nationalization follows that of Germany in the 1930s, think how that would have turned out with this type of information available. And don't think it couldn't happen again, even in a place like the US.
It hasn't fully played out yet. That may yet come to be. The environment isn't very favorable for it, though.
You can't take things out of context there. The founders were very specific on that wording - it starts with right to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures.... which is then limited and defined as searches allowed by warrant with cause and must explicitly state what and where will be searched.
So there is no room for interpretation of "unreasonable", as the right to be secure is inviolate. Read the sentence carefully, and note that it is a single sentence. Realize what led to that sentence being added to the BoR in the first place - egregious violations of the colonists privacy. Also see how they treated the mail system - violating the privacy of a piece of mail has very serious consequences, seemingly out of proportion to the crime unless you take this as an inviolate right. Then make the simple conversion that email, chat, and voice calls are nothing more than "mail" of an electronic sort, and the scope of the illegality of the current operation is easy to quantify. It's blatantly illegal on every level, in every way, with no wiggle room.
It actually did with JDK6 at least IIRC. java.sql.xx packages changed interfaces to the extent that old code wouldn't compile. Another is the changed NIO in JDK7. Also the JMX code in JDK 1.2 compared with prior releases. Those are the first ones off the top of my head, and yes, those were all components under development, except for the SQL packages. The JMX component is actually interesting because it was first released as an add on library.
And I agree that generics are less than they might have been. I'm still at a loss why additional metadata dealing with generics properly at runtime wasn't included, which would have made generics fully fleshed out. Yes, I've run into this problem and had to resort to some interesting reflection code to resolve it. If there had only been that 1 piece of metadata, it would have been so much easier. But, it's better have what is there than not have anything at all.
And why is that? Because of the regulations that have pushed that fuel out of favor. Tax it more, it should be undesirable. And, IIRC correctly, all those older engines can be rebuilt to handle non-leaded gas. Yeah, it won't be "authentic" anymore, but it wouldn't be anyways since if you use it, the only reason I can see why you'd be pissed at the increased cost, you'll be making or buying non-authentic replacement parts anyways.
I'm not sure that Java requires regular release dates at this stage. While I don't mind additions, I do mind compatibility breaking changes in core functionality. I can ignore additions after all. I'd rather have a solid core with supporting libraries released to that core.
The only thing I can think of regarding Sony in this context is CD rootkits. They own the player, the OS, and the media.... Hmmmmmm.....
And you still don't get it - you don't have to store everything when there's tons of duplicity in what's being downloaded. Also, given how many things work, especially in the HTML5 world, you can know a lot from just the server side. Unless you're one of those people that need to count every ant in the pile before stating there's a million ants down there, each one in their own little square.
To be fair, after the debut presentation for the Xbox One, I'm not convinced that they have any games either.
It's looking like this generation will belong to the PS4 and whatever newcomer comes in (heaven help us if it's Google or Apple, since neither of them gets gaming).
Well - phone home is a deal killer, so I don't suppose it matters that they don't have games. The entire appeal of a console was buying and owning said game, playing it whenever and however much you wanted, without having to continue paying the subscription price. MMOs made people return to the equivalent of pushing quarters, except now they had to pay even if they didn't play. I wouldn't be surprised if a subscription service becomes part of the cost of playing those $70 games - you get the first month free....
Proving my point. Thank you.
Because I don't have to store everything, and certainly not browser dumps for every browser. All I'd need is to store is timestamps, requests made, and a processed response. Let's take this slashdot story for instance. Perhaps 100K people read it today, we only need 1 copy of the story (the "final" archived one is fine) along with request/response history. That's a whole lot less than 100K * this page size * # of views (since that would most likely be larger than 1 for a percentage of the readers. Now consider that most web browsing is exactly this type of activity, and all of a sudden storing all that activity doesn't seem all that insurmountable.
The USA Patriot Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed.
With politicians who were worried about being seen as indecisive or un-American, but with the general populace? There seemed to be a lot of concern even when it was proposed and passed. Especially about the expansion of police powers. I just personally hope this results in a real privacy protection act that enshrines personal privacy in language that our apparently semi-idiot legislators can understand. (Apparently the 4th amendment requires too much interpretation for them)
You've obviously not worked with search indexes.
I didn't say I wanted to do it like that. This is what happens on failing projects. There's not much you can do when the stakeholders do this. With an agreed upon design, however, you have ammo against the stakeholders pulling this nonsense, and there is no incremental scope creep unless all sides allow it. With Agile, scope creep is almost a foregone conclusion unless there is this person, generally a PM, that locks it down. But Agile doesn't have PMs.....It's actually one of the few appealing pieces of Agile, since no one likes those bothersome PMs. Seriously, I don't like them either, but I'd rather have one on a project than a "tech lead" that doesn't have enough leadership ability to manage a project. (Fr)Agile sucks, and all it's adherents can say is "You're doing it wrong" without pointing to where Agile will let you do it right and achieve success. The sooner it dies, the sooner it will stop causing projects to fail.
That's why it doesn't just come out at the end. We show what we've got at the end of every sprint. If it sucks eggs, we can change it. Without Agile, we'd discover this much later. And the earlier you discover this stuff, the cheaper it is to change it.
This assertion is a fallacy, Example: you create the ability to register a user, then edit that user, then assign it to a group, etc. The requirements come out over 6 iterations and are worked in across roughly 10. Yes, it is demo'd every time and accepted. Then the business tweaks the back end service requirements a small bit, causing some major changes in the front end, after which they look at it and go - wow, wouldn't it be cool if we combined this suite of functionality into a single functional piece? And many iterations later, that newly envisioned piece, that requires a whole new backend suite of services, is still in flux. Fortunately I'm not responsible for that, only that it and other issues have moved the delivery date out by a factor of 4.
Furthermore, what makes you think that Agile, and only Agile, will deliver components for review early?
You've actually summed up my points well, and they jibe with the criticism I've offered. As for Agile, that it " doesn't preclude the option of prior planning" is 99% of the problem with Agile, it is an option, and an unstated option at that. In fact, it's the only purported software process that doesn't make the equivalent statement to "Get your engineers and architects together and design, scope, and plan the overall project". I've always held you need a documented vision of the final product and a roadmap on how to get there. Agile eschews both in principal and often in practice. The first thing I generally do on Agile projects I come into is ask for artifacts outlining both of those pieces, otherwise I know I'm on a doomed project before I even start.
I'm not sure about this specific exploit - didn't read TFA, but windows has several known exploits that allow arbitrary code injection into system DLLs, and one of those was even a suggested solution on stackoverflow for getting around the deprecation of the security token manipulation APIs, forcing a process to run at high level if you needed to do anything interesting. So with that ability firmly in place for at least 20 years, I'd say any other kernel level exploit is almost irrelevant. Also, disclosing the problem is not the same as providing an exploit kit. To follow your analogy, you could state at the bar that open windows are a security hazard, you don't need to mention anything else. (I do like the metaphor in that statement though - well done)
You are forced to open a box that may have data providing that you are guilty, but that information is already there and it's not new, you weren't forced to first create that data and then give it up, you are forced to open the data that existed already in a form that is not attached to you, it's independent of you, it is already existing outside of you.
IIRC, if you state you don't have the key, nothing else happens to you. Ball is in the prosecution's court. (unless, of course, they find the key on you or somehow prove you knew or should have known where the key was) With regards to encryption, the rules changed, and now you are held in contempt if you don't conjure this key out of thin air. Maybe he wrote it on a scrap of paper that he ate when they came for him, who knows. It shouldn't matter, according to previous stories, they should have enough to put him away for a long time.
Sarah Palin?
Ouch! Stop punching me!
You brought her into this, you'll have to make her stop.