But of course, Microsoft put themselves in that position. Bullied is the apropriate term. Windows 8 licensing states that OEMs have to implement restricted boot, and for ARM OEM it even says it can't be unlockable.
"You want to instal Windows 8 in that tablet? Well you better make it a Windows-Only tablet then."
MS is making all OEMs his bitches. Sadly OEMs don't really care. They have the option of Android and Google can make the same demands. OEMs won't care until demand for unlockable hardware increases.
He has the option of paying what the domain is worth but'd rather not pay. He has the option of leading with example but he rather have me do as he says not as he does.
But Libertarianism defines itself as a moral stance and an utilitarian aproach. Regulation is worng they say, regulation doesn't even work, they say. Specifically Ron Paul says the US should get out of the UN. The UN is evil, it's full of commies and muslims and jews and cooties. We don't want it and we don't need it. The Free Market is all we need, it fixes everything, except this one time please UN help me here on this one. *then* go fuck yourself we don't want you. That's the hippocrisy. The slavery example was reductio ad absurdum but the simple fact is that Ron Paul is using resources he insists we shouldn't have.
Agreed, punkbuster is an snake oil sales man. I'm usually against closed source software, and for essential tasks, I'm 100% against it. For non essential stuff like videogames it's somewhat okay. You can't make a game secure without end-to-end encryption.
You can get close enough by offucating the network protocol and periodically chaning it. You don't even need the source code for game itself to be closed, you just need encrypted, or really offuscated application code to hide an authentication key and that's it. What punkbuster does is trying to apply a band-aid to security by running a blacklist of strings over RAM. You can remotedly disconnect someone by sending them a message containing a blacklisted string for instance. How stupid is that? And of course Punkbuster needs administrator access for it so if punkbuster or any subprocess get compromised the intruder gets admin access to your system. And in the end punkbuster run in the client anyway, how do you know it hasn't been compromised?
Again with the "working within" bullshit. You cannot make use of an available resource and argue against such resource from a moral highground.
It's like:
MightyYar: I hate slavery, believe it's agains human rights, it's a sickening violence against all that is good and moral. It's wrong, you should just stop doing it.
Me: But aren't you the owner of a huge plantation exploiting hundreads of slaves kidnaped from africa?
MightyYar: Oh well I'm just working within the system I find myself in. I paid the taxes that contributed to their slaving so I think I'm entitled to these slave's lives. I still think you shouldn't do it, it's wrong, you should be ashamed of it.
That's fucking bullshit. You cannot make moral claims that way. Ron Paul is full of bullshit and so are you and everyone making this defense. If you want to start a change you have to lead with your example. If libertarians use social regulations when it benefits them why can't I?
Well I don't think the concept of cyberspace is exactly wrong, much less stupid. It's that there are strong froces trying to kill it and that widespread usage has changed its significance.
In other words it's becoming (and it is being made to become) outdated.
Rather than the product of stupid minds. Cyberspace was how the Internet felt like before social networks and governments became dominant.
1) Not everything was indexed. 2) IRC and email was a sizable chunk of what people did online. 3) Governments didn't regulate as heavily. 4) Most people were known, and knew others strictly through pseudonimous personae. 5) Pretty much no one in your family was there.
The impact of the first 2 points was significant. Google makes the web feel like a flat world where no page is more accesible than any other. Without massive indexes a lot of the information people really wanted had to be browsed, manually, several branches deep in the site tree. This made the Internet feel deeper. Liek a city.
Also IRC and email, through mailing lists, and *that network which shall go unamed* made belonging to a comunity a more involved experience. Getting around litterally ment knowing the right people, and they weren't just listed in facebook.
These things are still true but it's slowly dieing.
They offered the site for free as a gift, he refused and now wants to get it without paying the site's worth (as set by the site creators). So basically he is fighting for his right to not call it a gift. This is a huge waste of public resources, the same public resources libertarians insist we shouldn't have access to.
I know you are trying to bash linux users here, point out their hypocrisy or something like that (yeah, because huge business like Intel need your emotional support).
BUT
That is in fact the right thing to do. Even if you never wanted Touchscreen to begin with, somebody else will and won't be able to because the OCMs don't release the specs or hardware drivers. So you should always complain that manufacturers should support Linux/FLOSS, because we are a community.
They ask me for a passport and that thing has my photo and (right thumb) fingerprint. I hate going to the US, they treat me like a damn terrorist everytime.
For some people, the suggestion that you should respect your users' freedoms is an impossition on their own freedoms. For some people, the mere fact that he voices a different opinion equals violent cohertion. For these people, their right to swing their arms only ends after they can force you to puch your own nose.
Kinda, we should nudge mozilla in the direction of including EFF's "HTTPS Anywhere" extension by default, it's a very harmless extension that tries to connect by https before fallin gback and using http. Same goes for GPG/PGP in Thunderbird. It shouldn't be a separate add-on.
Tor Park needs to be a turn-key solution. Also, people should have easy access to onion sites. Even if hosting a hidden service remains black magic, accessing one shouldn't.
And serisouly I need to start making a tutorial for these things. Partially to educate myself better.
Citizen encryption has so tremendous potential that we can't allow goverments and criminals to be the only ones using it. We really need to start pushing encryption into the masses.
What this guy is complaining about is that Error Handling code must reside at some point along the code that may encounter an error. He specifically mentions that he'd like to put all error handling in another file.
What he really wants is a tool for organizing code blocks in a more logical way.
What this guy wanta is something like the Leo editor. Of course Leo is not the only player in it's cathegory, see Outliners.
Now for the most interesting problem, singaling abnormal return conditions. Exceptions trully are the right contruct, specially for any code that is intended to be used in a larger program. Exceptions do the right thing and they do it better.
Code examples. For example, all these snippets of pseudocode are functionally the same: # using out parameters
code = functionCall(argument1, argument2, OUT PARAMETER value)
if code != SUCCESS_CONST
return code
else
doSomething(value) # using ad hoc structures
returnHandler = functionCall(argument1, argument2)
if not returnHandler.success
return returnHandler.errorCode
else
doSomething(returnHandler.value) # using a resource object, basically same as above, but with more functions in the name space
resource = functionCall(argument1, argument2)
if not library_successTest(resource)
return library_getError(resource)
else
doSomething(library_getValue(resource)) # using exceptions
doSomething(functionCall(argument1, argument2))
Yes, the last example is exception oriented code. No Try/Catch needed. Must exception oriented code include a stupid amount of superfluous try/catch. The first idea is that code that doesn't handle errors shouldn't care about errors. in this example `doSomething` doesn't do anything with the error values of functionCall so why should it take so much effort to feed the return of functionCall to doSomething or bail?
If you argument is that the calling code shouldn't return an error and should handle the error; think about it. Whatever the parent intended to do has failed, so the parent still has to handle the error but now it doesn't have any information about what went wrong. Unless of course, you intend the caller to fix everything, in which case you live in a perfect world where errors don't occur. Or, you intend functions to handle errors for their all their calling parents which is insane.
Just to state the obvious, this isn't something México is doing anymore than being sued for libel is something that Britain for instance. More over World Directories really doesn't sound like a Mexican business. It's probably a larger problem between WD and Y! but Y! probably got away in the US and WD is trying somewhere else. Further more, I don't think the final fine is ever going to be that large, WD is probably looking for a settlement.
This, too. And no, I don't care about the average joe noted above. The average joe didn't care about linux, doesn't care about programming languages, and if he is american, probably doesn't care about i18n, by passing opressive regimes, or any sort of customization or innovation. In short, I'm not related to this "average joe".
It's not the games, it's the company. What good is it that I can play indie games if I have to play them on a console that is the very definition of proprietary? That's why I'm getting an Ouya.
Don't be too harsh on you either, Mexico does contribute to the problem. Want to help Mexico and by extension the US? Keep your government away from ours. That won't fix everything overnight but will make progress possible. Of course you can't do that until you fix your own, duh.
At this point I suspect any progress in Mexican politics needs start with activism in America. American politics are really world politics now. Things like the RIAA basically have global jurisdiction and we are not even getting started on the bankers and arms dealers... if they can be stopped at all, they must be stopped in the US.
When a corporations is found guilty of selling military secrets to foreign countries, defrauding the IRS for millions, poisoning countless innocent people and kicking a puppy, the worst the get is a slap on the wrist... and maybe millionaire fines.
But you never hear of the houses of CEOs getting raided and all their personal computers and phones getting abducted because of it. Well except Kim Dotcom but we know due process doesn't apply to him. What about us? Can't we do something like that? Can't I use a corporation, or a non-profit to shield myself from ridiculous rides like this?
I mean, I understand that a government doesn't like when citizens use Tor, but why taking all his stuff? It's not like his phone was the exit node. And even if it was the case, what's the legal justification to allow them to search his phone or consoles or whatever without any evidence for it?
Yes of course, all Mexicans are guilty of causing the American War on Drugs by not hunting down every single one of the obscure and impoverished writers of narco corridos.
That was sarcasm, BTW. "Narco Corridos", (a term that can't be easily translated into English, but I'll give you "drug trafficker folk songs") are an obscure music genre that is already illegal. You can't sell that stuff in Wall-mart or cast it in the radio. Compare that with "gansta" culture which is relatively mainstream in the States.
At this point trying to completely eliminate narco corridos would amount to a ridiculous witch hunt. So yeah we have a criminality problem. It is caused by deep social inequality, close to zero chance of social advancement, and 70 years of a corrupt and inefficient government subservient to and supported by foreign interests, including the American government.
So please, don't try to make it about there not being enough censorship unto the lower classes in Mexico when it's always being about supranational entities messing around with governments.
Given how megaupload's raid was partially justified in it having an American TLD all these.baby domans seems like a move to extend US net jurisdiction.
The right to have data miners delete my profile along with associated statistics is absolutelly absurd.
The right to make my costumers legally unable to play or backup my DRM-ed content for which they payed in anything other than my aproved device and software, and to make it ilegal to comunicate this information to others? That's alright and absolutely reasonable.
Call me an hypocrite but I think there is a difference between the right to privacy in one's home and the rights to privacy in my exclusive multi-acre hunting grounds club. These people own a sizeble chunk of the environment. You know. That stuff most of us learn about in school. These people are breaking animal rights laws. We don't let a factory pollute the grounds just because it is "private territory". I don't feel sorry fo these rednecks at all.
Slashdot Mirror
But of course, Microsoft put themselves in that position. Bullied is the apropriate term. Windows 8 licensing states that OEMs have to implement restricted boot, and for ARM OEM it even says it can't be unlockable.
"You want to instal Windows 8 in that tablet? Well you better make it a Windows-Only tablet then."
MS is making all OEMs his bitches. Sadly OEMs don't really care. They have the option of Android and Google can make the same demands. OEMs won't care until demand for unlockable hardware increases.
He has the option of paying what the domain is worth but'd rather not pay. He has the option of leading with example but he rather have me do as he says not as he does.
But Libertarianism defines itself as a moral stance and an utilitarian aproach. Regulation is worng they say, regulation doesn't even work, they say. Specifically Ron Paul says the US should get out of the UN. The UN is evil, it's full of commies and muslims and jews and cooties. We don't want it and we don't need it. The Free Market is all we need, it fixes everything, except this one time please UN help me here on this one. *then* go fuck yourself we don't want you. That's the hippocrisy. The slavery example was reductio ad absurdum but the simple fact is that Ron Paul is using resources he insists we shouldn't have.
Agreed, punkbuster is an snake oil sales man. I'm usually against closed source software, and for essential tasks, I'm 100% against it. For non essential stuff like videogames it's somewhat okay. You can't make a game secure without end-to-end encryption.
You can get close enough by offucating the network protocol and periodically chaning it. You don't even need the source code for game itself to be closed, you just need encrypted, or really offuscated application code to hide an authentication key and that's it. What punkbuster does is trying to apply a band-aid to security by running a blacklist of strings over RAM. You can remotedly disconnect someone by sending them a message containing a blacklisted string for instance. How stupid is that? And of course Punkbuster needs administrator access for it so if punkbuster or any subprocess get compromised the intruder gets admin access to your system. And in the end punkbuster run in the client anyway, how do you know it hasn't been compromised?
To be honest a lot of RP fans only wanted to legalize weed.
Again with the "working within" bullshit. You cannot make use of an available resource and argue against such resource from a moral highground.
It's like:
MightyYar: I hate slavery, believe it's agains human rights, it's a sickening violence against all that is good and moral. It's wrong, you should just stop doing it.
Me: But aren't you the owner of a huge plantation exploiting hundreads of slaves kidnaped from africa?
MightyYar: Oh well I'm just working within the system I find myself in. I paid the taxes that contributed to their slaving so I think I'm entitled to these slave's lives. I still think you shouldn't do it, it's wrong, you should be ashamed of it.
That's fucking bullshit. You cannot make moral claims that way. Ron Paul is full of bullshit and so are you and everyone making this defense. If you want to start a change you have to lead with your example. If libertarians use social regulations when it benefits them why can't I?
Well I don't think the concept of cyberspace is exactly wrong, much less stupid. It's that there are strong froces trying to kill it and that widespread usage has changed its significance.
In other words it's becoming (and it is being made to become) outdated.
Rather than the product of stupid minds. Cyberspace was how the Internet felt like before social networks and governments became dominant.
1) Not everything was indexed.
2) IRC and email was a sizable chunk of what people did online.
3) Governments didn't regulate as heavily.
4) Most people were known, and knew others strictly through pseudonimous personae.
5) Pretty much no one in your family was there.
The impact of the first 2 points was significant. Google makes the web feel like a flat world where no page is more accesible than any other. Without massive indexes a lot of the information people really wanted had to be browsed, manually, several branches deep in the site tree. This made the Internet feel deeper. Liek a city.
Also IRC and email, through mailing lists, and *that network which shall go unamed* made belonging to a comunity a more involved experience. Getting around litterally ment knowing the right people, and they weren't just listed in facebook.
These things are still true but it's slowly dieing.
Isn't this a clear case of frivolous litigation?
Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation
They offered the site for free as a gift, he refused and now wants to get it without paying the site's worth (as set by the site creators). So basically he is fighting for his right to not call it a gift. This is a huge waste of public resources, the same public resources libertarians insist we shouldn't have access to.
Actually a small screen is an advantage in many situations. It's lighter to hold, more portable, etc.
I know you are trying to bash linux users here, point out their hypocrisy or something like that (yeah, because huge business like Intel need your emotional support).
BUT
That is in fact the right thing to do. Even if you never wanted Touchscreen to begin with, somebody else will and won't be able to because the OCMs don't release the specs or hardware drivers. So you should always complain that manufacturers should support Linux/FLOSS, because we are a community.
They ask me for a passport and that thing has my photo and (right thumb) fingerprint. I hate going to the US, they treat me like a damn terrorist everytime.
For some people, the suggestion that you should respect your users' freedoms is an impossition on their own freedoms. For some people, the mere fact that he voices a different opinion equals violent cohertion. For these people, their right to swing their arms only ends after they can force you to puch your own nose.
Give me that motherfucker's in game name, I'll hunt him down like I was paid for it, because you are going to pay me for it don't you?
Serisously that must be one of the sweetest job descriptions ever. Professional Player Killer.
Kinda, we should nudge mozilla in the direction of including EFF's "HTTPS Anywhere" extension by default, it's a very harmless extension that tries to connect by https before fallin gback and using http. Same goes for GPG/PGP in Thunderbird. It shouldn't be a separate add-on.
Tor Park needs to be a turn-key solution. Also, people should have easy access to onion sites. Even if hosting a hidden service remains black magic, accessing one shouldn't.
And serisouly I need to start making a tutorial for these things. Partially to educate myself better.
Citizen encryption has so tremendous potential that we can't allow goverments and criminals to be the only ones using it. We really need to start pushing encryption into the masses.
What this guy is complaining about is that Error Handling code must reside at some point along the code that may encounter an error. He specifically mentions that he'd like to put all error handling in another file.
What he really wants is a tool for organizing code blocks in a more logical way.
What this guy wanta is something like the Leo editor. Of course Leo is not the only player in it's cathegory, see Outliners.
Now for the most interesting problem, singaling abnormal return conditions. Exceptions trully are the right contruct, specially for any code that is intended to be used in a larger program. Exceptions do the right thing and they do it better.
Code examples. For example, all these snippets of pseudocode are functionally the same:
# using out parameters
code = functionCall(argument1, argument2, OUT PARAMETER value)
if code != SUCCESS_CONST
return code
else
doSomething(value)
# using ad hoc structures
returnHandler = functionCall(argument1, argument2)
if not returnHandler.success
return returnHandler.errorCode
else
doSomething(returnHandler.value)
# using a resource object, basically same as above, but with more functions in the name space
resource = functionCall(argument1, argument2)
if not library_successTest(resource)
return library_getError(resource)
else
doSomething(library_getValue(resource))
# using exceptions
doSomething(functionCall(argument1, argument2))
Yes, the last example is exception oriented code. No Try/Catch needed. Must exception oriented code include a stupid amount of superfluous try/catch. The first idea is that code that doesn't handle errors shouldn't care about errors. in this example `doSomething` doesn't do anything with the error values of functionCall so why should it take so much effort to feed the return of functionCall to doSomething or bail?
If you argument is that the calling code shouldn't return an error and should handle the error; think about it. Whatever the parent intended to do has failed, so the parent still has to handle the error but now it doesn't have any information about what went wrong. Unless of course, you intend the caller to fix everything, in which case you live in a perfect world where errors don't occur. Or, you intend functions to handle errors for their all their calling parents which is insane.
Just to state the obvious, this isn't something México is doing anymore than being sued for libel is something that Britain for instance. More over World Directories really doesn't sound like a Mexican business. It's probably a larger problem between WD and Y! but Y! probably got away in the US and WD is trying somewhere else. Further more, I don't think the final fine is ever going to be that large, WD is probably looking for a settlement.
This, too. And no, I don't care about the average joe noted above. The average joe didn't care about linux, doesn't care about programming languages, and if he is american, probably doesn't care about i18n, by passing opressive regimes, or any sort of customization or innovation. In short, I'm not related to this "average joe".
It's not the games, it's the company. What good is it that I can play indie games if I have to play them on a console that is the very definition of proprietary? That's why I'm getting an Ouya.
Don't be too harsh on you either, Mexico does contribute to the problem. Want to help Mexico and by extension the US? Keep your government away from ours. That won't fix everything overnight but will make progress possible. Of course you can't do that until you fix your own, duh.
At this point I suspect any progress in Mexican politics needs start with activism in America. American politics are really world politics now. Things like the RIAA basically have global jurisdiction and we are not even getting started on the bankers and arms dealers... if they can be stopped at all, they must be stopped in the US.
I mean, like corporations do it.
When a corporations is found guilty of selling military secrets to foreign countries, defrauding the IRS for millions, poisoning countless innocent people and kicking a puppy, the worst the get is a slap on the wrist... and maybe millionaire fines.
But you never hear of the houses of CEOs getting raided and all their personal computers and phones getting abducted because of it. Well except Kim Dotcom but we know due process doesn't apply to him. What about us? Can't we do something like that? Can't I use a corporation, or a non-profit to shield myself from ridiculous rides like this?
I mean, I understand that a government doesn't like when citizens use Tor, but why taking all his stuff? It's not like his phone was the exit node. And even if it was the case, what's the legal justification to allow them to search his phone or consoles or whatever without any evidence for it?
Yes of course, all Mexicans are guilty of causing the American War on Drugs by not hunting down every single one of the obscure and impoverished writers of narco corridos.
That was sarcasm, BTW. "Narco Corridos", (a term that can't be easily translated into English, but I'll give you "drug trafficker folk songs") are an obscure music genre that is already illegal. You can't sell that stuff in Wall-mart or cast it in the radio. Compare that with "gansta" culture which is relatively mainstream in the States.
At this point trying to completely eliminate narco corridos would amount to a ridiculous witch hunt. So yeah we have a criminality problem. It is caused by deep social inequality, close to zero chance of social advancement, and 70 years of a corrupt and inefficient government subservient to and supported by foreign interests, including the American government.
So please, don't try to make it about there not being enough censorship unto the lower classes in Mexico when it's always being about supranational entities messing around with governments.
Given how megaupload's raid was partially justified in it having an American TLD all these .baby domans seems like a move to extend US net jurisdiction.
The right to have data miners delete my profile along with associated statistics is absolutelly absurd.
The right to make my costumers legally unable to play or backup my DRM-ed content for which they payed in anything other than my aproved device and software, and to make it ilegal to comunicate this information to others? That's alright and absolutely reasonable.
Call me an hypocrite but I think there is a difference between the right to privacy in one's home and the rights to privacy in my exclusive multi-acre hunting grounds club. These people own a sizeble chunk of the environment. You know. That stuff most of us learn about in school. These people are breaking animal rights laws. We don't let a factory pollute the grounds just because it is "private territory". I don't feel sorry fo these rednecks at all.