Plenty of other companies do colour tablets. Have been since XP Tablet Edition almost a decade ago. The issue is that they're power-hungry and they cause eyestrain because you're basically staring at the backlight when you're reading off them. Monochrome reflective displays, often as E-ink, are favoured for "readers" because you're only getting ambient light and they run for a long time. Apple's made a judgement call and decided that long-term reading isn't used enough to justify hobbling a whole tablet to accomodate it. For battery life, they've just put a really fucking huge battery in there.
From the sounds of things, the hackers cracked what was originally a shareware app. Putting in a money-wasting dialler may just be their way of saying "if you want to pirate games with the assistance of hackers, get ready for some serious bullshit".
The previously-leaked pricing has nothing to do with the estimate they're reporting. They're mentioning it because it's background for the article. Journalists often report the background on a story when writing an article to provide context for the particular news item they are reporting. While this may be a mind-blowing novelty for you, it's actually a component of the journalistic style which has been around for quite some time.
Edge is a print magazine which has been running since the early 1990s.
This is the same source that (accurately) tipped them off about Gears of War 3. Edge has a history of only running very robust leaks. They broke news of a clamshell, rechargable, light-up GBA several months before the GBA SP was revealed.
You can also get hydrogen by hydrolysis fairly efficiently, which of course just shunts the energy renewability issue off someplace else, but means you don't have an issue with trying to maintain a supply of raw material. On an airship, hydrolysis could be a perk, because it'd give you a way to turn ballast into lifting gas plus breathing gas in an emergency situation.
Well, depending on the actual risk of explosion and the cost of the balloon and its typical payloads, it might prove uneconomical to use hydrogen. The potential for human tragedy isn't the only consideration. However it's worth crunching the numbers on.
its impossible for less-organized, unpaid people to outperform highly-paid professionals at the same game
They're usually not playing the same game. They're usually doing things that companies like Adobe wouldn't touch with a barge pole because they're unprofitable. There are kinds of scientific research that you can't even do without OSS - the tools simply don't exist commercially, because there's no significant money to be made. That's the sort of work that Adobe is pretending to be a part of, and that pretense is unqualified bullshit. That is what the GP was posting about.
Whether Flash is in use or not, whether Adobe continues to exist and produce new versions of Flash or not, there will come a time in the not too distant future when the only way to play old.swf files is by installing old Flash Player binaries on a real or virtual machine. Those binaries will not cease to exist just because we've rejected Flash on the web. Access will still be available. No burning will occur.
You can and you must. The point of contention is closed versus open platforms. Condemning both Apple and Adobe is the only philosophically consistent, unhypocritical course of action. The decision only becomes hypocritical when you view the problem as "I must side with Adobe or Apple" which is precisely what the corporations want you to do.
People might say they would like the option of avoiding Flash, or that the Flash omission is symptomatic of the larger issue people are opposed to. That doesn't mean people endorse Flash's closedness or welcome piss-poor attempts to pass it off as an open platform.
Microsoft actually did pitch "ReadyDrive" hybrid SSDs as a selling point for Vista back when it launched. It was basically the same as this, except the caching was controlled in the OS and not the drive and it did some fancier stuff like caching boot data on shutdown. It didn't do very well, perhaps because the technology wasn't mature enough in price and speed.
The user's ad-clicking habits are identified, and correlated with their public information on that site (and possibly others by correlating other ones). It's an in-principle and not in-practice thing at this stage but it is a cause for concern.
I think it's time for us to decide whether the ability for a site to request its referrer is worth the potential privacy issues. Should it not be opt-in? It's not like a cookie, you don't explicitly elect to provide the site with the information in question.
I don't think they'd argue that it was okay - the fact that they apologised speaks otherwise. However it's a mitigating factor. You would hardly argue that a company that did use data scraped this way was no worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Plenty of other companies do colour tablets. Have been since XP Tablet Edition almost a decade ago. The issue is that they're power-hungry and they cause eyestrain because you're basically staring at the backlight when you're reading off them. Monochrome reflective displays, often as E-ink, are favoured for "readers" because you're only getting ambient light and they run for a long time. Apple's made a judgement call and decided that long-term reading isn't used enough to justify hobbling a whole tablet to accomodate it. For battery life, they've just put a really fucking huge battery in there.
That sounds a bit like a Larry Niven story, "Inconstant Moon". Not an awful lot like it, mind, but it's good enough on a similar thing to mention.
From the sounds of things, the hackers cracked what was originally a shareware app. Putting in a money-wasting dialler may just be their way of saying "if you want to pirate games with the assistance of hackers, get ready for some serious bullshit".
I thought this screen was firmware. Would that mean they'd turn it into hardware?
It's not an ouroborus! It's big brothers all the way down!
"Whoever loses, we win" would be the ideal, but I doubt that WB's defense will in any way involve an argument against software patents.
A rant about Microsoft is never a wasted rant.
The previously-leaked pricing has nothing to do with the estimate they're reporting. They're mentioning it because it's background for the article. Journalists often report the background on a story when writing an article to provide context for the particular news item they are reporting. While this may be a mind-blowing novelty for you, it's actually a component of the journalistic style which has been around for quite some time.
Edge is a print magazine which has been running since the early 1990s.
The leak is regarding the US launch price.
The Xbox 360 Arcade is $199 with two games.
This is the same source that (accurately) tipped them off about Gears of War 3. Edge has a history of only running very robust leaks. They broke news of a clamshell, rechargable, light-up GBA several months before the GBA SP was revealed.
You can also get hydrogen by hydrolysis fairly efficiently, which of course just shunts the energy renewability issue off someplace else, but means you don't have an issue with trying to maintain a supply of raw material. On an airship, hydrolysis could be a perk, because it'd give you a way to turn ballast into lifting gas plus breathing gas in an emergency situation.
Well, depending on the actual risk of explosion and the cost of the balloon and its typical payloads, it might prove uneconomical to use hydrogen. The potential for human tragedy isn't the only consideration. However it's worth crunching the numbers on.
its impossible for less-organized, unpaid people to outperform highly-paid professionals at the same game
They're usually not playing the same game. They're usually doing things that companies like Adobe wouldn't touch with a barge pole because they're unprofitable. There are kinds of scientific research that you can't even do without OSS - the tools simply don't exist commercially, because there's no significant money to be made. That's the sort of work that Adobe is pretending to be a part of, and that pretense is unqualified bullshit. That is what the GP was posting about.
Whether Flash is in use or not, whether Adobe continues to exist and produce new versions of Flash or not, there will come a time in the not too distant future when the only way to play old .swf files is by installing old Flash Player binaries on a real or virtual machine. Those binaries will not cease to exist just because we've rejected Flash on the web. Access will still be available. No burning will occur.
you can't have it both ways people
You can and you must. The point of contention is closed versus open platforms. Condemning both Apple and Adobe is the only philosophically consistent, unhypocritical course of action. The decision only becomes hypocritical when you view the problem as "I must side with Adobe or Apple" which is precisely what the corporations want you to do.
People might say they would like the option of avoiding Flash, or that the Flash omission is symptomatic of the larger issue people are opposed to. That doesn't mean people endorse Flash's closedness or welcome piss-poor attempts to pass it off as an open platform.
Well, precisely. A Vista-only product at that.
Microsoft actually did pitch "ReadyDrive" hybrid SSDs as a selling point for Vista back when it launched. It was basically the same as this, except the caching was controlled in the OS and not the drive and it did some fancier stuff like caching boot data on shutdown. It didn't do very well, perhaps because the technology wasn't mature enough in price and speed.
The da Vinci Code begs to differ.
The user's ad-clicking habits are identified, and correlated with their public information on that site (and possibly others by correlating other ones). It's an in-principle and not in-practice thing at this stage but it is a cause for concern.
I think it's time for us to decide whether the ability for a site to request its referrer is worth the potential privacy issues. Should it not be opt-in? It's not like a cookie, you don't explicitly elect to provide the site with the information in question.
A group colluding against someone is a reliable definition of a conspiracy.
They might if it doesn't even occur to them. It's a pretty obscure issue.
Furthermore, the headline is inaccurate. Personal data is could potentially be retrieved by advertisers, but it is public data.
I don't think they'd argue that it was okay - the fact that they apologised speaks otherwise. However it's a mitigating factor. You would hardly argue that a company that did use data scraped this way was no worse.
The possibility of an exploit is not evidence of exploitation, the wrongdoing that you claim.