[...] any open system that allows the owner to run the software they want to run can never be as secure as one that only runs software Apple wants to run.
So what you are saying is that none of the apps in the Apple app-store can be Turing-complete.
In this day and age, where social media are ubiquitous, don't you think that governments need to catch up? Why don't you create an open-source set of tools that allows governments to start dialogues with their citizens, and allows concerned citizens to make their voices louder?
To be more concrete, I'm thinking of one or more of the following: 1. An _official_ moderated forum to host political discussions. 2. Moderation of issues/comments on this forum should be hierarchical and based on a fair voting scheme, such that no unjustified censoring can take place. 3. Online polls, created by citizens or MCs, could provide valuable insight. 4. Governments could require their MCs to spend at least X hours per week answering questions.
Of course, once installed in Congress, you could use this software to have your favorite issues (software freedom, etc.) more broadly addressed:)
Making this publicly accessible is extremely expensive and ultimately useless since, unless you understand the innards of the detector and how it responds to particles and spend the time to really understand the complex analysis and reconstruction code there is nothing useful that you can do with the data.
If the format/origin of the data is not understood by your readers, perhaps your publications need more work.
I do not believe that Facebook should be restricted in what it can and cannot do (at least as far as compatibility goes)
In general, I am with you. However, once an internet company reaches the point where it facilitates mass-communication, there should be rules. See the telephone example to see how things go wrong otherwise.
When my family subscribed to a plain old telephone service, they stopped visiting me. I didn't want to subscribe to Ma Bell. So by not joining, I shut myself out. Fortunately, the U.S. Justice Department split the monopoly and required the telephone companies to play nice with eachother.
Where do you need a bank for when you have Bitcoins? The principle behind Bitcoin is that it is a distributed system, and payments can be made in a "peer-to-peer" fashion.
And I don't think it covers a niche. Everybody already has an e-mail address. And everybody seems to prefer the UI-style of chat apps more than their e-mail client. If people start using this, they can easily invite others by just sending chat-messages to their e-mail address.
The only problem is social presence information, and information like "user X is typing" (if you would want that), but that could be handled through another channel (using hopefully an open standard). Also making "groups", and managing them could be a problem.
We are on WA because there is no open communication protocol in widespread use! It's like everybody is sitting on a different island, where slowly people are migrating to the island with the largest population.
WA should be forced to use XMPP, the protocol that they modified such that they could lock their users in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Slashdot Mirror
sudo apt-get -y install build-essential
And also:
sudo apt-get -y install vim
sudo apt-get -y install git-core
sudo apt-get -y install tcsh
sudo apt-get -y install python
sudo apt-get -y install python-setuptools
sudo apt-get -y install libboost-all-dev
sudo apt-get -y install gdb
sudo apt-get -y install valgrind
More evidence! Another user who doesn't use beta.
Extrapolating I find that within the next 10 years there will be no company left that is not at its core in the smartphone business.
[...] any open system that allows the owner to run the software they want to run can never be as secure as one that only runs software Apple wants to run.
So what you are saying is that none of the apps in the Apple app-store can be Turing-complete.
Ok, here is a better analogy: Bitcoin is anonymous like IP addresses are anonymous.
It _is_ anonymous. Until somebody decides to trace back the transaction chain and actually finds weak/strong evidence of a connection to a person.
That's why these ships would be equipped with a self-destruct mechanism.
Hence, the idea is to equip those ships with infallible (*) engines.
(*) If the engine does fail, another drone ship will come and replace the whole engine automatically.
In this day and age, where social media are ubiquitous, don't you think that governments need to catch up?
Why don't you create an open-source set of tools that allows governments to start dialogues with their citizens, and allows concerned citizens to make their voices louder?
To be more concrete, I'm thinking of one or more of the following:
1. An _official_ moderated forum to host political discussions.
2. Moderation of issues/comments on this forum should be hierarchical and based on a fair voting scheme, such that no unjustified censoring can take place.
3. Online polls, created by citizens or MCs, could provide valuable insight.
4. Governments could require their MCs to spend at least X hours per week answering questions.
Of course, once installed in Congress, you could use this software to have your favorite issues (software freedom, etc.) more broadly addressed :)
But what if I want to pay for those rights?
Where is the option for that?
Oh wait, paying money for content is so "not web 2.0".
I'll just have to live with the fact that my personal information can't pay for everything.
Making this publicly accessible is extremely expensive and ultimately useless since, unless you understand the innards of the detector and how it responds to particles and spend the time to really understand the complex analysis and reconstruction code there is nothing useful that you can do with the data.
If the format/origin of the data is not understood by your readers, perhaps your publications need more work.
Make sure the contra-weight is large enough to attract an atmosphere.
There's always a neat solution.
At least Microsoft is conducting research to reduce bugs.
See for example: http://research.microsoft.com/...
Not sure where Apple stands.
I do not believe that Facebook should be restricted in what it can and cannot do (at least as far as compatibility goes)
In general, I am with you.
However, once an internet company reaches the point where it facilitates mass-communication, there should be rules. See the telephone example to see how things go wrong otherwise.
When my family subscribed to a plain old telephone service, they stopped visiting me. I didn't want to subscribe to Ma Bell. So by not joining, I shut myself out.
Fortunately, the U.S. Justice Department split the monopoly and required the telephone companies to play nice with eachother.
Just get yourself a shiny Geiger–Müller counter and be done with it.
Mt.Gox is like a bank
Where do you need a bank for when you have Bitcoins?
The principle behind Bitcoin is that it is a distributed system, and payments can be made in a "peer-to-peer" fashion.
Great idea, actually!
And I don't think it covers a niche. Everybody already has an e-mail address. And everybody seems to prefer the UI-style of chat apps more than their e-mail client. If people start using this, they can easily invite others by just sending chat-messages to their e-mail address.
The only problem is social presence information, and information like "user X is typing" (if you would want that), but that could be handled through another channel (using hopefully an open standard). Also making "groups", and managing them could be a problem.
Well, just produce a paper-generator that adds citations to previously generated papers.
Why can't we have a single standard for sending chat-messages, just like we have for e-mail?
What is so difficult about that?
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
Actually, if Apple had bought Tesla, the car would probably be compatible with only one brand of paint.
These CEOs worked hard for their privileges.
You can start moaning when your salary is 1000x the average.
Who's On WhatsApp, and Why?
We are on WA because there is no open communication protocol in widespread use!
It's like everybody is sitting on a different island, where slowly people are migrating to the island with the largest population.
WA should be forced to use XMPP, the protocol that they modified such that they could lock their users in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Also, how often does it crash?
The winner of the current crash-record on my computer is ffmpeg.
And how do they find out if they are blacklisted?