It may have escaped your attention that the above poster was talking about Apple computers in the first place, since he explicitly mentioned how it affects Mac users.
It affects both Mac users who communicate only with users of Mac, iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch devices and Mac users who also communicate with users of Windows, GNU/Linux, or Android devices. The former can switch to iMessage; the latter cannot.
Until recently, they used to have YouTube place preroll ads on their videos. But that's less effective now that YouTube is enforcing stricter standards on what material in videos is "advertiser friendly".
DC is part of Warner Bros. Buying Warner would bring Daffy Duck and Donald Duck under the same umbrella, which I imagine would raise antitrust suspicion even in a Republican administration.
What would stop someone from creating a malicious software and naming it APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 32/64-bit?
The fact that its hash wouldn't match that of the existing APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 32/64-bit posted all over forums.
Now if you replace "10" with "11" in your question, you have a more interesting problem: how to distinguish subsequent versions of the same publisher's application from an impostor's malware. The publisher of the authentic application could generate a self-signed code signing certificate and sign each version of all of its programs. Then each user would configure his devices to "Trust other programs from publisher APK". In my opinion, Microsoft screwed up Authenticode for hobbyist programmers by requiring paid organizational validation of all certificates from a commercial certificate authority rather than allowing reputation to accumulate on self-signed publisher certificates.
I am assuming your version of APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 32/64-bit is MALWARE.
I'm guessing others have tested it in a sandbox for malicious behavior. Do you assume Intel and AMD CPUs contain malware? And if you do, do you use them despite said assumption?
First, no ISP ever offers a 100mbs connection. They offer an "up to" 100mbs connection because they oversell their infrastructure and use some legalese to cover for inferior performance in peak usage times.
Which only encourages ISPs to define "peak usage times" as 5 AM to 1 AM in order to allow the network to run saturated instead of improving it. Comcast, for example, was caught saturating its Tata link most of the time seven years ago.
That is how it has worked for a long time - some people have basement servers, especially small startups and hobbyists.
Only for those hobbyists who can afford the upgrade from home Internet, whose acceptable use policy bans even light-traffic servers and/or which is behind carrier-grade NAT in many countries, to business Internet, which allows servers and offers a static IPv4 address. (ISPs in some countries skip the intermediate "dynamic but mostly stable IP address" state that US ISP Xfinity by Comcast is known for.) Customers behind carrier-grade NAT can run a basement server, but it'll be accessible only through the customer's LAN, not through the Internet, because carrier-grade NAT doesn't allow receiving TCP connections.
Or is an IPv6-only website viable in fourth quarter 2017?
Because countries that allow homeschooling have refused the parents' application for asylum or a work visa.
Well then you should work harder to pay for it then!
To what does "it" refer? If by "it" you mean a work visa, that fails because countries impose conditions on admitting guest workers other than pure ability to pay. If by "it" you mean homeschooling, payment doesn't change the fact that it's a crime in many countries. By "it" did you mean the entire cost of establishing an accredited private school?
Competition requires action by a government in the first place to establish rights of way. Otherwise, non-subscribing landowners could block providers from crossing subscribers' land with their copper or fiber by asserting the exclusive right that essentially all industrialized countries' governments recognize in land.
If "[w]e are barely a blip on the radar", then what's this "Slashdot effect" that I used to hear about? What factors have caused traffic referred from Slashdot to become less effective at overwhelming web server resources? And how would the end of net neutrality regulation affect these factors?
That something is possible doesn't really matter if it is neither legal nor desirable.
The headline begins "France To Ban". This implies that somebody thinks the ban is desirable and ought to be legal and has convinced those with legislative or regulatory power of same.
Hell where I live a phone without credit will receive but not make calls
What country is that? Where I live, the sender pays half the minute rate (unless the sender has minutes remaining or an unmetered plan) and the receiver pays half the minute rate (unless the receiver has minutes remaining or an unmetered plan), as both sides of the call are using channel-minutes on a tower. Having never lived in France, I have no experience with its mobile phone service pricing model.
where there are multiple architectures, you could reasonably expect people to write most software in high level languages, in a portable way.
It costs money to support multiple architectures and multiple operating systems. Even though cross-compilation is possible, cross-testing is a bit more expensive, as it's not quite as practical to judge user interface responsiveness when you're relying on remote access to a leased VPS of the appropriate architecture through RDP, VNC, X11, GoToMyPC, LogMeIn, or the like. If a smaller company hasn't yet ramped up its collection of target hardware on which to test, end users will end up seeing notices like this on its applications:
x86-64: Buy Now MIPS64: Sign Up to be notified when we expand to your architecture. AArch64: Sign Up to be notified when we expand to your architecture. RISC-V: Sign Up to be notified when we expand to your architecture.
It's only true if doing a cross-platform release will cost more than doing a web-based app, and I don't see any obvious reason for that to be the case 100% of the time.
Anti-script hardliners believe it to be the case 0% of the time, which I imagine is even less likely to be true than 100%.
Allow me to begin the cost analysis: A web-based application requires a domain (with renewals per year) and a (free) domain-validated TLS certificate, which are less expensive than a set of organization-validated code signing certificates, one for each platform, and renewals per platform per year. Hosting of an applcation's online component is a wash between web and native.
Like, someone does this... once? Because if they do it routinely, presumably to access the same content, wouldn't it be easier to just terminate their account, rather than restructure your entire fee system?
The claim, as I understand it, is that a substantial fraction of the user base has done this once.
I'm not a patron or creator on Patreon, but here's what I've been able to piece together from recent news:
The credit card processors charge a swipe fee on the order of 30 cents per transaction in addition to a rake of 2 to 3 percent of the value. For debit cards processed through card-present EFTPOS, only the swipe fee applies, which is part of why stores default to "debit" instead of "credit". But in either case, the swipe fee is why many convenience stores have a minimum charge for small purchases, and Amazon charges sellers a minimum commission of $1 per item.
The use of "de-aggregate" in this Tweet implies that Patreon used to aggregate pledges from multiple donors when charging patrons' credit cards. But there were reportedly a couple abuses of this. One involved people who would pledge to a particular creator, view the creator's patron-only posts, and cancel the pledge the user's before billing date. Another is that a chargeback by a cardmember who doesn't remember his pledges would affect all pledges. So instead, Patreon switched to separately on behalf of each creator.
I can think of a few ways that Patreon could reduce the impact of a swipe fee on $1 and $2 pledges.
Annual billing
Let the user pay 12 months of a pledge in advance with one transaction. Print magazines, for instance, have used this for decades.
"Reset my billing date" button
Reintroduce aggregation as an opt-in choice, where patron-only posts remain locked until a patron submits a form that charges a pro-rated fraction of the existing pledges.
Gift cards
Let a patron top-up Patreon credit. Prepaid mobile phone providers use this.
Slashdot Mirror
iMessage is Apple only
It may have escaped your attention that the above poster was talking about Apple computers in the first place, since he explicitly mentioned how it affects Mac users.
It affects both Mac users who communicate only with users of Mac, iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch devices and Mac users who also communicate with users of Windows, GNU/Linux, or Android devices. The former can switch to iMessage; the latter cannot.
You must not have logged onto AIM in the past two weeks. The service has been sending out shutdown reminders on login.
To my knowledge, there is no way to read a news article on either google or facebook.
Google operates a caching CDN for pages using the stripped-down AMP dialect of HTML, and it places AMP pages higher in search results.
What do YouTubers do?
Until recently, they used to have YouTube place preroll ads on their videos. But that's less effective now that YouTube is enforcing stricter standards on what material in videos is "advertiser friendly".
And after the acquisition, they have a deal with Disney to produce the films for them.
DC is part of Warner Bros. Buying Warner would bring Daffy Duck and Donald Duck under the same umbrella, which I imagine would raise antitrust suspicion even in a Republican administration.
What would stop someone from creating a malicious software and naming it APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 32/64-bit?
The fact that its hash wouldn't match that of the existing APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 32/64-bit posted all over forums.
Now if you replace "10" with "11" in your question, you have a more interesting problem: how to distinguish subsequent versions of the same publisher's application from an impostor's malware. The publisher of the authentic application could generate a self-signed code signing certificate and sign each version of all of its programs. Then each user would configure his devices to "Trust other programs from publisher APK". In my opinion, Microsoft screwed up Authenticode for hobbyist programmers by requiring paid organizational validation of all certificates from a commercial certificate authority rather than allowing reputation to accumulate on self-signed publisher certificates.
Could you provide sources to your claims.
Each of the 50 occurrences of the word "Illegal" in the Wikipedia article you linked should have a source next to it.
Not every program packed with UPX is a virus.
I am assuming your version of APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 32/64-bit is MALWARE.
I'm guessing others have tested it in a sandbox for malicious behavior. Do you assume Intel and AMD CPUs contain malware? And if you do, do you use them despite said assumption?
So why not just open source it
If this post is to be believed, APK doesn't want people adding malware, building it, and distributing it, like eFast did with Chromium.
The other option is for some Slashdot user to make a free replacement. Does the functionality described in this specification appear useful?
First, no ISP ever offers a 100mbs connection. They offer an "up to" 100mbs connection because they oversell their infrastructure and use some legalese to cover for inferior performance in peak usage times.
Which only encourages ISPs to define "peak usage times" as 5 AM to 1 AM in order to allow the network to run saturated instead of improving it. Comcast, for example, was caught saturating its Tata link most of the time seven years ago.
That is how it has worked for a long time - some people have basement servers, especially small startups and hobbyists.
Only for those hobbyists who can afford the upgrade from home Internet, whose acceptable use policy bans even light-traffic servers and/or which is behind carrier-grade NAT in many countries, to business Internet, which allows servers and offers a static IPv4 address. (ISPs in some countries skip the intermediate "dynamic but mostly stable IP address" state that US ISP Xfinity by Comcast is known for.) Customers behind carrier-grade NAT can run a basement server, but it'll be accessible only through the customer's LAN, not through the Internet, because carrier-grade NAT doesn't allow receiving TCP connections.
Or is an IPv6-only website viable in fourth quarter 2017?
Most countries IIRC will allow homeschooling once the legal hoops have been negotiated.
In countries like these, "the legal hoops" are equivalent to establishing a private school, including becoming a licensed teacher.
Because countries that allow homeschooling have refused the parents' application for asylum or a work visa.
Well then you should work harder to pay for it then!
To what does "it" refer? If by "it" you mean a work visa, that fails because countries impose conditions on admitting guest workers other than pure ability to pay. If by "it" you mean homeschooling, payment doesn't change the fact that it's a crime in many countries. By "it" did you mean the entire cost of establishing an accredited private school?
Competition requires action by a government in the first place to establish rights of way. Otherwise, non-subscribing landowners could block providers from crossing subscribers' land with their copper or fiber by asserting the exclusive right that essentially all industrialized countries' governments recognize in land.
One example is blocking traffic to a particular server, as various cellular ISPs have done with the servers of Apple FaceTime video chat. Another is intentionally routing traffic to a particular server over a chronically congested link, as Comcast did with its Tata link a few years back. A third is making high-speed Internet available only to subscribers to the same company's traditional multichannel pay television service.
Would those missing 29 million be Americans with three or more choices, all of which have violated net neutrality?
If "[w]e are barely a blip on the radar", then what's this "Slashdot effect" that I used to hear about? What factors have caused traffic referred from Slashdot to become less effective at overwhelming web server resources? And how would the end of net neutrality regulation affect these factors?
That something is possible doesn't really matter if it is neither legal nor desirable.
The headline begins "France To Ban". This implies that somebody thinks the ban is desirable and ought to be legal and has convinced those with legislative or regulatory power of same.
Hell where I live a phone without credit will receive but not make calls
What country is that? Where I live, the sender pays half the minute rate (unless the sender has minutes remaining or an unmetered plan) and the receiver pays half the minute rate (unless the receiver has minutes remaining or an unmetered plan), as both sides of the call are using channel-minutes on a tower. Having never lived in France, I have no experience with its mobile phone service pricing model.
Because countries that allow homeschooling have refused the parents' application for asylum or a work visa.
where there are multiple architectures, you could reasonably expect people to write most software in high level languages, in a portable way.
It costs money to support multiple architectures and multiple operating systems. Even though cross-compilation is possible, cross-testing is a bit more expensive, as it's not quite as practical to judge user interface responsiveness when you're relying on remote access to a leased VPS of the appropriate architecture through RDP, VNC, X11, GoToMyPC, LogMeIn, or the like. If a smaller company hasn't yet ramped up its collection of target hardware on which to test, end users will end up seeing notices like this on its applications:
x86-64: Buy Now
MIPS64: Sign Up to be notified when we expand to your architecture.
AArch64: Sign Up to be notified when we expand to your architecture.
RISC-V: Sign Up to be notified when we expand to your architecture.
It's only true if doing a cross-platform release will cost more than doing a web-based app, and I don't see any obvious reason for that to be the case 100% of the time.
Anti-script hardliners believe it to be the case 0% of the time, which I imagine is even less likely to be true than 100%.
Allow me to begin the cost analysis:
A web-based application requires a domain (with renewals per year) and a (free) domain-validated TLS certificate, which are less expensive than a set of organization-validated code signing certificates, one for each platform, and renewals per platform per year. Hosting of an applcation's online component is a wash between web and native.
Like, someone does this ... once? Because if they do it routinely, presumably to access the same content, wouldn't it be easier to just terminate their account, rather than restructure your entire fee system?
The claim, as I understand it, is that a substantial fraction of the user base has done this once.
I'm not a patron or creator on Patreon, but here's what I've been able to piece together from recent news:
The credit card processors charge a swipe fee on the order of 30 cents per transaction in addition to a rake of 2 to 3 percent of the value. For debit cards processed through card-present EFTPOS, only the swipe fee applies, which is part of why stores default to "debit" instead of "credit". But in either case, the swipe fee is why many convenience stores have a minimum charge for small purchases, and Amazon charges sellers a minimum commission of $1 per item.
The use of "de-aggregate" in this Tweet implies that Patreon used to aggregate pledges from multiple donors when charging patrons' credit cards. But there were reportedly a couple abuses of this. One involved people who would pledge to a particular creator, view the creator's patron-only posts, and cancel the pledge the user's before billing date. Another is that a chargeback by a cardmember who doesn't remember his pledges would affect all pledges. So instead, Patreon switched to separately on behalf of each creator.
I can think of a few ways that Patreon could reduce the impact of a swipe fee on $1 and $2 pledges.
Annual billing Let the user pay 12 months of a pledge in advance with one transaction. Print magazines, for instance, have used this for decades. "Reset my billing date" button Reintroduce aggregation as an opt-in choice, where patron-only posts remain locked until a patron submits a form that charges a pro-rated fraction of the existing pledges. Gift cards Let a patron top-up Patreon credit. Prepaid mobile phone providers use this.