How does any client side bug set their policy. Their policy clearly leaves out Linux users, and I am refering to their system requirements page. Also, how would they go about detecting a bug with the clients Linux/Flash player in the first place. This seems like an if-else where Linux falls into the else.
The only real question is if this was purposely done or not. I myself have seen my fair share of website that simply do not combinations of Linux and non-IE browsers for no obvious technical reason.
In the NY Times defense however, it's their site, they can do what they want, provided they give their Linux using subscribers a refund on their subscription fee.
That's the res on my 19" monitor. I am in this case however, assuming that this resolution was chose as it would be used so much for reading text. And I think we understand that high resolution does not necessarily translate to small text.
As for the web cam, it just doesn't fit into the equation imo.
I would like to believe this was put in for the social aspect of life, along with other side benifits. A community webcam could very likely satisfy the other benifits, but no very much the social. But to be fair, the a community camera seems like a more efficient idea. Though I know 512MB would not be enough for me, that should be able to hold a lot of well compressed video and a lot of e-book. At the same time, it would lower the appeal of the device to thieves.
Why does the the make of any OS need to work with the fairly normal client applications to make them work on the OS? Shouldn't there be a documented API which the developers can follow? Isn't that part of the definition of being an operating system?
From what I understand, Wii dev kits are relatively quite cheap, so I assume that means non-commercial developers can get their hands on them, although I suspect the chances of this would increase much more post Wii launch.
Consider this, possibly extreme example, your significant other, "extracts" DNA from you and plants it at a scene. Very possible. As is now, unless you have a criminal record, or have your DNA stored in some other DNA bank, the police won't find you.
You make a good point. While I don't find this particular case worring. What is going to happen when medicine progresses to the point where a lot of treatment makes use of individuals DNA? Seems like unless there are exceptions made, a DA could just get the private company to hand over the person's DNA. However, Google needs to start letting criminals know, more formally, that there criminal activties are being logged and are subject to being called in as evidence.
Why should an innocent company (forgetting that this is Google) be forced to give up information unless they are the one under investigation for wrong doing, unless the company is government funded of course?
They are gonna strap these guys down as soon as they get through the doors and feed them "the koolaid", and they will never be the same again. Pity, they were part of an interesting project. Bye bye.
Slashdot Mirror
All I did to get mythtv on FC5 was `yum --enablerepo=atrpms install mythtv-suite`. I already had mysql installed.
Along the lines of missied video: stargate codes given during viewing. I watch live, get the code, dam video is in Flash 8.
Skype just works. Give it a try.
It can't cost that much. Come on now.
Yes. I most certainly believe that you have that right.
That's how things used to be, with webmasters making use of the NOEMBED tag. I personally do not understand the benifit of this screening process.
How does any client side bug set their policy. Their policy clearly leaves out Linux users, and I am refering to their system requirements page. Also, how would they go about detecting a bug with the clients Linux/Flash player in the first place. This seems like an if-else where Linux falls into the else.
The only real question is if this was purposely done or not. I myself have seen my fair share of website that simply do not combinations of Linux and non-IE browsers for no obvious technical reason.
In the NY Times defense however, it's their site, they can do what they want, provided they give their Linux using subscribers a refund on their subscription fee.
That's the res on my 19" monitor. I am in this case however, assuming that this resolution was chose as it would be used so much for reading text. And I think we understand that high resolution does not necessarily translate to small text.
I would like to believe this was put in for the social aspect of life, along with other side benifits. A community webcam could very likely satisfy the other benifits, but no very much the social. But to be fair, the a community camera seems like a more efficient idea. Though I know 512MB would not be enough for me, that should be able to hold a lot of well compressed video and a lot of e-book. At the same time, it would lower the appeal of the device to thieves.
I do not understand your logic, how would a supposedly high res and webcam scare anyone away from a machine?
How much did not knowing how to use something stop you as a child?
What's wrong with a video download?
Why does the the make of any OS need to work with the fairly normal client applications to make them work on the OS? Shouldn't there be a documented API which the developers can follow? Isn't that part of the definition of being an operating system?
From what I understand, Wii dev kits are relatively quite cheap, so I assume that means non-commercial developers can get their hands on them, although I suspect the chances of this would increase much more post Wii launch.
Demographic targetting
yah right
Tru tru, I think your more paranoid than I, as I didn't think of that. Although I would like to believe the forensic scientists can cell ... somehow.
Consider this, possibly extreme example, your significant other, "extracts" DNA from you and plants it at a scene. Very possible. As is now, unless you have a criminal record, or have your DNA stored in some other DNA bank, the police won't find you.
You make a good point. While I don't find this particular case worring. What is going to happen when medicine progresses to the point where a lot of treatment makes use of individuals DNA? Seems like unless there are exceptions made, a DA could just get the private company to hand over the person's DNA. However, Google needs to start letting criminals know, more formally, that there criminal activties are being logged and are subject to being called in as evidence.
Why should an innocent company (forgetting that this is Google) be forced to give up information unless they are the one under investigation for wrong doing, unless the company is government funded of course?
Interesting how he assumes that most people would want to download his music.
They are gonna strap these guys down as soon as they get through the doors and feed them "the koolaid", and they will never be the same again. Pity, they were part of an interesting project. Bye bye.
I have never watched an entire episode of 'Battlestar Galactica' myself. Watched a bit, didn't like it, so I stopped.
Even I would admit last season was a bit boring. But this season seems to be a lot better, and then they kill it :(
Atlantis is ok, but as a show to watch after watching SG-1. The only show that would be left for me on Sci-Fi would be Eureka.
I do not think RedHat/Fedora ever claimed that.