So what does Ubuntu phone offer that is compelling. Especially compelling to OEMs (eg, HTC, Sony, Samsung) and compelling to mobile operators (AT&T, Verizon, etc)? And what is compelling to end users that the competition cannot easily replicate?
I rag on Unity just about any time there's a chance, but I'm actually excited about this.
IMO, after you get the radios working, the apps out there for phones are really really simple. My phone (an HTC EVO Shift 4g) is often sluggish, and the OS and mandatory apps take up a ton of the available space. Something like this has the potential to provide a very full featured and light weight OS/apps that are nice and snappy. This matters a LOT in the mobile area. The less power you need, the less batter you use up. You can't simply keep throwing more power into the phones to accommodate things, because it comes at a big cost.
What's the matter to OEMs? They'll (potentially) be able to produce a feature comparable device for less money, or tweak out more speed and free space and free ram from the same hardware.
This is similar to what Meego and Symbian had going for them. The Nokia / MS thing killed much of that momentum. It *could* be picked back up (there is at least one company trying to do so), but so could this. IMO, something like this is a very very good thing.
There are plenty of things i can NOT do with my android that I would (likely) be able to do with a phone that is more purely GNU. A bunch of that could be resolved by rooting my phone, but that still leaves things, and it's not as easy to port things to it.
I think there's plenty of room in the market for this (or something very similar). The poor reception of Windows 8 phones is not an indicator that this will fail. There are also many other price, performance, market, control, customization ability, etc differences. This would be a better comparison to Nokia's previous phones, but more advanced, and those were profitable.
What? There's nothing here about OS. It's a browser feature, and both of the browsers listed run on Microsoft and Apple platforms.
GP was right. This is unlikely to kill Skype for the vast majority of users, which means it won't really kill it for non-MS non-Apple users either.
That's because all the companies that still use Exchange and AD and run Windows damn near everywhere will still be forcing their employees to use things like Lync, Skype, etc. And Apple users will mostly be using iChat and unable to talk to non-Apple users. Safarri may not even pick up this tech, and IE will probably be using MS's twist on it, CU-RTC-Web. So, even if these other browsers work there, many users won't have them. So they're just as likely to use some other application, which has been possible for ages and ages (video chat isn't anything new... not by a long shot).
This is neat stuff, but it's just formalizing a way to do something that's been done in lots of ways for a long time, some of which were also standards.
I'd like to see a Skype killer, but IMAP + IMAP-push + ical + caldav + etc etc hasn't killed Exchange & friends, and they've been free and prevalent for a long long time. If "Skype" dies, it'll probably be by MS's own hand.
I was on board with you there until you claimed that you don't cure a hangover by drinking more alcohol. That works so incredibly well, I'm starting to think the gov't did the right thing!:-)
Yeah, that's what we need to do, trust Microsoft to solve the problem. They eliminated viruses and malware so quickly, I'm sure they could solve this problem too...
I didn't say "Microsoft". When I said, "something like 100% skype", I meant something like that technology (which wasn't started at MS) but without the tie in to the PSTN (so robocallers on the existing phone network couldn't access it). Ideally, the directory service and everything about it would be open, with some way to accurately identify and locate users (possibly something based on XMPP and jabber servers). Might take forever to get everyone moved over to it. Many would be disenfranchised during the transition, unless there was a tie in to the old system... and if there was, then it won't solve the robocalling problem. Bit of a chicken-and-egg problem.
I've seen a lot of posts now advocating an OPTIONAL increment appended. Or, optional middle, and when there's a conflict, and optional other thing jacked in.
My only suggestion - whatever format you go with, don't have optional parts.
For example, you should not end up with: john@domain.tld john.smith@domain.tld john.a.smith@domain.tld john.a.smith2@domain.tld...etc...
If you expect a large user base, go with the full format for the auto-generated. The above list would then be: john.a.smith101@domain.tld john.a.smith102@domain.tld john.a.smith103@domain.tld john.a.smith104@domain.tld
Then there's no complaints from one to the other. Even better, people emailing those people won't get to the wrong person when they email "john@domain.tld", because that address won't exist.
After the auto-generated email is handed you, then you can allow "special" people to reserve or alias other names. For example, if one of the VP's is a "john.a.smith", then give him it without the number, and with a 1. Notice, the numbering above started at 101... that reserves 100 low numbers for somewhat special people to make them feel more important:-)
(personally, I'd drop the middle initial. Too many people don't have one, or have two, etc... and you end up with odd series of dots and/or concatenated names)
If I could simply tell the phone company that I'm not willing to accept numbers which don't match their origin, that would kill off all of the crap I get. And I don't care about the legitimate ones, because by masking their real phone number they're no better than the scammers.
This. +1 pseudo mod point.
No No No. It's a non-starter. That ability doesn't exist due to the design of the phone system. The only known hop is the one immediately before you.
Someday, hopefully, that'll all get replaced because the resulting routing due to costs (LCR) + wholesale voip + intra/inter state taxes and termination fees etc etc etc ends up being horribly inefficient. Routing over pure voip would be far more efficient as far as the routes and miles of cables and number of routers/switches/etc involved, even if it does chew up more bandwidth for the same quality.
If you want what you're describing, you'll have to move to an entirely different system. Maybe something like 100% skype and deny all landline access to it.
It's sad, but attacking this issue after the fact is the only possibility right now (ie. after an infringement has happened, then attack it). They can track down these people, especially because these outfits are not just going after a single recipient - they're always calling many people. They (FTC) just have to do it.
What part of I hate licenses isn't clear here? I neither want to keep rights not give them away. I just want to open the source of certain projects up to people that want to read and learn from it. And that's what I've done. Lots of people have said thanks. There's a whole big world out there that don't care about GPL, BSD or Public Domain.
The part that isn't clear is your words... like these you said in the previous comment:
I post code to the internet for others to learn from. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine.
But your software is not open source. It is fully copyrighted to you, and no exceptions have been made because you didn't explicitly make them.
You're welcome to hate licenses, and you're welcome to pick whatever you want. The issue is that your stated goals don't match your (lack of) actions, except that you hate licenses and are not going to explicitly use one (which means you are implicitly under the default, which is not something people can use for snippets etc).
This is like taking a stance against the 2 party system in the US by not voting.
I've had friends that took this same stance (hated the licensing aspect). Any time anyone talked about it, they would just zone out and ignore everything that was said. They simply weren't interested in knowing anything about it (not saying you're in that exact same boat), so they ended up ignorant and making decisions from ignorance. They'd pick (or not pick) licenses that didn't suit what they verbalized that they wanted. I don't get it.. people are honestly trying to provide helpful and targeted advice that suits your stated desires, and your response is just "I hate licenses". That's too bad, but you don't have to think about it... say what you want out of your code release, and someone will tell you which license you need to cp/paste into it. You don' t have to enjoy it or even do much of anything.
None of this requires licenses. And I hate licenses. Why would I want to use one or invent one.
Then take just the little tiny tiny little action that is needed to declare that on your work: mark it public domain. I'll even make it easy for you... paste this into a file called "license.txt" in the base of your repository:
"I, the author, hereby agree to waive all claim of copyright (economic and moral) in all content contributed by me, the user, and immediately place any and all contributions by me into the public domain, unless otherwise noted. I grant anyone the right to use my work for any purpose, without any conditions, to be changed or destroyed in any manner whatsoever without any attribution or notification."
That pretty much sums up what you were saying, but more clearly, and explicitly. Without that (or something similar, since you live where you do (and yes, I'm making an assumption about where you live)), you are not giving a gift to anyone. You are not allowing anyone to take snippets, or the whole thing. You are not allowing anyone to make a copy or distribute it. Sorry, but that's life, and there's a really REALLY easy way to make it like you want - just paste that little bit of text in a file and check it in. There's really no point to me even suggesting the other option, because you're too lazy or ignorant to state your real intents in your code. That other option is to get the law changed - and that's very very unlikely to happen, because it's so damn easy to create something and explicitly put it in the public domain (or anywhere else you want).
There is no problem with open source licensing here. The problem is a general ignorance of readily available licenses.
SELinux and "UNIX multi-user security" are not referring to the same thing. This doesn't "fly in the face" of anything. I'm 99.9% sure "Unix multi-user security" is referring to user/group/world permission bits per file/directory. That doesn't help all that much in the realm of embedded systems, as they said. SELinux is an entirely different beast, and achieves many of the same results as signed executables and sandboxing, and some more (and vice-versa).
I can think of a couple of apps recently where I had serious issues. The first was "virt-manager"...
Just a guess, cause I'm running virtualbox instead of virt-manager, but does it display a thumbnail of the vm's state? If so, that'd likely explain it, because it's essentially doubling the rdp/x11 traffic.
Second one was....filezilla of all things. I was at work and needed to test an external service. So I ssh into my home box, and fire up filezilla from there. I ended up packing up and driving home to do the test, it was THAT slow.
First, the upload speed on cable (typical home access) is often horrible. That'll probably hit bandwidth constraints right there with most apps (partially because most apps these days use bitmapped graphics for drawing all their ui elements, as opposed to something like mwm or xwm and apps using the x11 toolkit).
Second, since you fired up filezilla from home, I'm guessing you may have been using it to do other ftp type operations. If that was another upload, that'll completely choke off your upload bandwidth, and your x11 session will suffer. Put some QoS on your home link, giving ssh highest priority, and it might help.... but QoS also costs some bandwidth (you have to set a maximum rateup that is less than your absolute max in order for it to work well).
All that said, I've seen similar things quite often, and newer UI toolkits and applications seem to be consistently worse than their elder counterparts.
On top of it all, the ssh tunnel itself will add some lag. Might be worth risking a direct connect sans tunnel.
The bias against spinny storage is just mindless iCult nonsense.
I own the rMBP I'm getting 450MB/sec which is faster than many good quality spinning RAID systems. I'd love to have more space, and I'd prefer something like the fusion drive. But no it isn't just mindless iCult nonsense.
...and you need 450MB/sec on an iPod for what exactly? (I know you didn't say iPod, but GP did)
Flash storage has it's places, and fast disk access is one (very useful on a laptop that is rebooted frequently; random access is good for desktops). It's good on tablets and such not because of speed, but because of reliability. You can drop it and the heads won't smash against the platters. It's also good for size reasons (it's not a 2.5" drive in there). All that said, I'd like to see spinny storage options on some tablets and iPod sized devices... that is the part we've been conned out of, and conned into thinking that, if you need > 64gb storage, the next step is 128gb of flash, and that's the max. Why not pop in a 2.5" drive at that point?
Things in space and really cold stuff makes perfect sense. Both articles even point to that for the most part. The night vision thing is only mentioned in the dumbed down txchnologist piece, and only once, and via a small quote from someone that wasn't even involved in the project:
“The big potential users of this cooling technology are night-vision goggles, and infrared cameras on satellites, where weight is very important and you would not want the motors and pumps and vibrations that come with regular coolers if you can,” says Richard Epstein, a University of New Mexico physicist and CEO at technology startup ThermoDynamic Films, who did not take part in this research.
I'd love to know the rest of the context for that comment, because it seems absolutely crazy to me that night-vision goggles and infrared cameras on satellites are _THE_ big potential users of one given cooling technology... those are VERY different applications. There are optics involved in each of them, but otherwise they are very different beasts. It'd make a lot more sense if "goggles" were simply dropped from the sentence, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was some editor jacking in "goggles" after he read "night-vision", and messing up the quote.
There are so many comments on this page about night vision goggles, and yet my hunch is that is the single most incorrect or out of place phrase on that article. This is a good progression of laser cooling, and could have useful applications, but night vision goggles? There's gotta be better and more exciting uses than that!? (if that would even be useful there in the least)
Presumably the system would be completely self contained. Neither the laser nor the fluorescing being visible. Maybe we can think of the fluorescing as a mechanism to conduct heat from the electronic components to the case of the NVG. Of course that would heat up the NVG case but perhaps it is not emitting in the iR anymore than the person's face underneath it. More info is needed.
I've seen multiple posts like this one, and they all seem to be missing a huge point (maybe I'm getting trolled?... or maybe I'm completely wrong).
From the article (sorry, I read it): "...starting from 290 kelvin. We use a pump laser with a wavelength of 514 nanometres, and obtain an estimated cooling efficiency of about 1.3 per cent and an estimated cooling power of 180 microwatts."
Where the hell is all the heat going if you stick this thing inside some goggles with the direct purpose of cooling something inside said goggles? That question has nothing to do with the above quote... it's there to drive it home - look at how inefficient this process is!?! I'm sure it's extremely useful and interesting for a great many cases, but I don't see (pun) how this is good for night vision goggles.
I keep picturing a guy on a sailboat blowing really hard on his sail.
Been through this myself. In my case, she was open to gaming and even enjoyed watching me play some things, though I'm not a hard core gamer by any means. But it's been tough to find games we can both enjoy together.
Borderlands 2 isn't a bad idea. I found that it's a bit too complicated (the controls) for her. She manages and does ok, and she hasn't tried the new mech class yet, but it can still be a bit tough.
One game that we LOVED playing through: Lord of the Rings : War in the North (and neither of us are LotR fans).
One series that I'd live to do with her, which is only on PS2 (I own the game but not the console), is the Baldur's gate series: Baldur's Gate: Dark Aliance Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II Champions of Norrath Champions: Return to Arms
I had to look those up to get the names cause it's been so long. In doing so, I just learned that, besides BG:DAII, they were all developed by or with Snowblind Studios. So, just a note: I'm not associated with them in ANY way... guess I just like their games.
If any one of those works out, you'll probably enjoy all of them. I wish they'd do some more, and/or re-release those things for the PS3.
Then how do so many popular shared hosting providers get away with not offering HTTPS?
1. SNI (Server Name Indication) is somewhat new. The operators may not know about it, may not know enough about it, or their tools (deployment/config/etc) may not support it (yet, or at the version they bought).
2. SSL incures more overhead. They're trying to run cheap, and this runs counter to cheap. They can offer slightly more expensive plans including SSL.
3. (most likely, IMO) because SNI isn't 100% supported. They could care less about what your users experience is, but your experience (their direct customer) could cause a SIGNIFICANT increase in support costs. Imagine a user getting a vhost that says they include support for HTTPS (with an asterisk pointing to fine print saying it's via SNI), and then when the user goes to their new HTTPS site, they end up on someone elses site, or a generic placeholder page... "WTH! Where's my HTTPS site?!?".
IMHO, SNI should be an opt-in option from all/most shared hosting providers. IE, they shouldn't offer it by default, and should make it clear what the limitations are. For the biggest and cheapest of shared hosting providers, especially those where the service is secondary to their primary service (ex. GoDaddy), it doesn't surprise me in the least that they don't offer it.
Filters don't stop his free speech. He can still speak. We have the right to filter him out and listen to only that speech we want.
WE have that right... but should the carriers? Back in the day of dial-up internet access, I'd argue that all those ISP's had the right to provide spam filtering services for their users. Users could easily go somewhere else if they wanted. I'm not so sure now, since there's only a handful of choices for high speed access.
At some point, it hits common carrier level. If the NAP's were fighting to put content filtering in the NAP's (network access points, like MAE East, MAE West, Sprint NAP, Ameritech NAP (chi), Pac Bell), I strongly believe the consensus would go the other way... to "NO! Get all filtering out of there!!!"
He has no right to force us to listen to his speech. That's what he's asking of the government.
That's not what he's asking. He's asking that filtering at the common carrier level be removed, and the onus put on the user. We could still filter locally. There would also likely be some qualification for network size, so small operators could offer SMS spam filtering to their users.
IMO, the right compromise would be to have it disabled by default, and make it an opt-in service for users. When someone creates a new account with a cell provider, they'd just have to tick a box to turn it on.
FWIW, I hate spam with a passion, and think that charging users for receiving sms's is silly. This is a case where the sender can be identified, so I have much less of a problem with it... just don't charge me for being sent the stuff, and I'd be fine with doing the filtering myself.
Thank you. I miss three characters, and the whole point gets missed cause someone doesn't know anything about make ("make -j dinner", as dutchd00d below says, would do fine).
Why is it that everyone seems to be ignoring the possibility of using more than one drive!?!? Maybe it's been said, but I haven't seen it.
I did see one poster suggest getting a separate usb -rw drive and internal -r drive, but that's silly.
newegg has an external usb 2.0 cdrom for $15. Buy 6 or so of those, and do 6 disks at a time. Or buy internals (cheapest on newegg seems to be about $18). Or USB 3.0 drives at $30. Or get even more of them, or a mix of internal and external, etc.
Assuming he has a day job and can spend 4hr a day burning, and has 450 cd's:
5min/cd (old drive) * 450 = 37.5hr / 4hr = 10 days 15min/cd (new drive) * 450 = 112.5hr / 4hr = 29 days 6drives 15min/cd * 450 = 18.75hr / 4hr = 5 days...and buy different models, and some of those are bound to be faster. Probably get it down to 2-3 days. And if you're feeling dirty, return the drives afterwards... you'll have them less than a week, which is well within return periods. You could also get them used.
That said, the question isn't really about how to do this better/faster/cheaper. He really just wants a good drive, and is using this to justify that research and purchase (IMO, of course). If it were really about speed, he could just stick the disk in and hit CDDB and click the button to buy it from amazon (or whereever) which would have good metadata as well (but wouldn't be FLAC).
If it's really about quality + FLAC + metadata + fast, get a bunch of cheap drives, and maybe a USB hub or SATA or IDE card. It's a one time process. Afterwards, 15min/disk using the new drive won't matter for the one off additions.
Veering off the point bit... you do understand that copyright was, has been, and is all about granting all of society free access to that work... after copyright expires. Your morals are not the same as everyone else's, but using those, the third choice is to wait for copyright to expire. This is important because you *should* also feel that YOU have a moral right to access all content produced without charge... after copyright expires.
In this case, none of that even matters. They're not going after him for copying these works nor for watching them. They're going after him for making them more accessible than they already were. It's like if you asked me where you could score some weed, and I said I heard that some guy on the corner of 5th and Lex might have some, while wearing a sandwich board saying, "free information brought to you by Colgate". Why should that be wrong? And would shutting me down make a damn bit of difference WRT they guy that's (possibly) dealing?
If those sharing the protected works were directly paying the guy to send people their way, then there might be some ties to the actual wrongdoing. AFAICT, that wasn't the case. They (MPAA, etc) should be going after the actual content providers. They went after him for the same reason his service was useful - it made it easy to find those copyrighted works. IMO, they should have just used the site like anyone else (followed the links), and busted all those serving the content. (to be entirely honest, I'd rather they just dry up and disappear... but if they're going to go on these hunts, they should go for the right targets at least)
If people want to make websites with ads, you've a simple "moral" choice: go there, or don't go there.
...but for a lot of the best content on the web there has to be some sort of revenue stream.... The fact is that you're bragging about leeching off the current system so I hope you have a way to replace it.
The way to replace it is to go backwards just a little bit. The following would also cut down on a massive amount of useless noise.
It wasn't always just a couple handfuls of really big sites with content from loads of various sources, and the web was not originally intentioned for that behavior. Think about the sites that would really be hurt the most sans-ads, like hulu, youtube, facebook, pinterest, gmail, blogs, etc. They have one big "provider" servicing loads of content from lots of various content generators (people/companies). They're really only there because the infrastructure they have wins over what is available with ease to those that use those services (well, that and people have been lead like sheep to them). Even services like github fall into this category.
Let's take that last one as an example, github. Anyone can start a project, allocate space there, use those services, and not pay a dime for it. Users can access it similarly without paying a dime. As a developer myself, I'd gladly host that service on my personal vserver if that were easy to do. "github" doesn't really provide much service in the way of social interaction (there is a common userbase, but that can be worked around easily by using oauth or similar). The barrier to entry is just great enough that most just use github (or similar). Many projects could be culled from the herd - they don't need github level services, and could do just fine with a git repo on their desktop. Take away ads, and the others could justify sticking it on their own server (possibly at home, the way things were meant to be... static ipv6 would make this entirely possible). And the really big projects have funding enough for real servers.
Hulu, as another example, only exists because: a) the studios are (or at least were) nearly braindead in this field b) the platform is closed and would take significant effort for each studio to reproduce a comparable product It could be replaced by a very low bandwidth search/mashup site of the various studio offerings.
Slashdot is actually one of the rare exceptions. I allow ads from here, and click on them sometimes, because it's almost entirely discussion.
Most stuff out there could be served from home services. If they outgrow that, then rent a vhost (if it's worth it to you to talk to that audience). Outgrow that, vserver;... colo server;... multiple colo servers;... clusters/etc. I think things will shift back to that some, especially once all users have static IP's again, and the technology that makes those big sites slick becomes more accessible to the home user. Some things would still need central and/or distributed nodes for search and sharing and such, but that's where joining that network could involve a micropayment (or ISP's could start including that cost in their infrastructure, just like they did for basic services like email, nntp, etc)....this post is too long:-)
There are far too many inherent issues with the existing system that would prevent a technical solution. CID can be spoofed (and needs to be technically possible for multiple lines, ported numbers, 800 numbers, etc), and ANI is only known between immediate neighbor hops. One can dig back through and figure it out with the right level of access (eg. feds), so just make reporting the violations easier, and then target big offenders.
On a side note, I think we should throw in debt collectors. If they can't provide proof and contact information for both their company and the parent company, they should be investigated and either forced to comply or shut down. FWIW, there are some legitimate debt collections, but I believe the previous sentence will allow them to continue operating... and I think those rules are already in place. There should be an easier way to report those based only on the call.
Just got an ASUS M5A99X for that very reason - ECC support, USB 3.0, eSATA, SATA 6Gb/s, 3x PCI-E x16 slots, etc. Chose a (slow) FX-4100 quad core for its TDP, but x6 is only $10 more, and phenom II x4 965 is $10 less.
I wanted to go with the A series (did that for my HTPC), but I can't stand the quirks with the graphic drivers. If/when the drivers get much better, it'll be a very good option for most anyones desktop. Intels graphics can't compare, and adding a separate nvidia card uses significantly more power and adds another cost... it's sitting right in the sweet spot IMO, I just don't like the driver support. For a laptop or desktop with a single screen, I'd recommend the A series to anyone.
The point is that given that we must tax some things in order to have a society, we should prefer to tax stuff we want less of, as opposed to stuff we want more of.
The problem with that is that we rely on that tax money. The taxes go up (ex. tobaco), and usage goes down, and we will need that tax money from somewhere, so the tax continues to go up to obscene levels that is well beyond recouping the cost to society, and the cycle continues. Look at the tax difference between tobaco and .
I'm perfectly fine with sin taxes that equal the normal tax plus an amount that justifies the health impacts that society will have to foot later (ex. smoking -> lung problems/cancer -> healthcare for those people when they hit that age), but that extra money should be going directly to that cause, and it's not, and it's too high.
IMO, the "we shoudl prefer to tax stuff we want less of" statement is awful. It includes a morality/judement call that shouldn't be handled with taxes. It's descriminatory. Depending on who is in control, it could easily target something you (and many others) want more of, or do not want less of. What if it were straight edge vegans making that decision? (or, for you vegans, what if Adkins was deciding the taxes with this mantra?)
To answer your second question, we should tax more on luxury items, if needed. We shouldn't be taking the tax out of the poor, who already have barely enough to live on, and little for luxury items. Take it out of those that have the money to burn... if someone wants to be a space tourist, stick a giant tax on that (and that even fits into stuff that's harming us, because that's an enourmous amount of fuel to burn just to look at stuff for a few hours).
I also think the first $N dollars you make shouldn't be taxed. It makes not sense. Or, or say that differently, let's redefine minimum wage as the amount one makes AFTER tax, so we're at least being fair about it and so that tax laws don't hijack anyones income (ie. extend that to all wages... define wages as after tax wages). The logistics of changing that system are too great, so I don't think that'll ever happen, but it'd make more sense that way.
Slashdot Mirror
So what does Ubuntu phone offer that is compelling. Especially compelling to OEMs (eg, HTC, Sony, Samsung) and compelling to mobile operators (AT&T, Verizon, etc)? And what is compelling to end users that the competition cannot easily replicate?
I rag on Unity just about any time there's a chance, but I'm actually excited about this.
IMO, after you get the radios working, the apps out there for phones are really really simple. My phone (an HTC EVO Shift 4g) is often sluggish, and the OS and mandatory apps take up a ton of the available space. Something like this has the potential to provide a very full featured and light weight OS/apps that are nice and snappy. This matters a LOT in the mobile area. The less power you need, the less batter you use up. You can't simply keep throwing more power into the phones to accommodate things, because it comes at a big cost.
What's the matter to OEMs? They'll (potentially) be able to produce a feature comparable device for less money, or tweak out more speed and free space and free ram from the same hardware.
This is similar to what Meego and Symbian had going for them. The Nokia / MS thing killed much of that momentum. It *could* be picked back up (there is at least one company trying to do so), but so could this. IMO, something like this is a very very good thing.
There are plenty of things i can NOT do with my android that I would (likely) be able to do with a phone that is more purely GNU. A bunch of that could be resolved by rooting my phone, but that still leaves things, and it's not as easy to port things to it.
I think there's plenty of room in the market for this (or something very similar). The poor reception of Windows 8 phones is not an indicator that this will fail. There are also many other price, performance, market, control, customization ability, etc differences. This would be a better comparison to Nokia's previous phones, but more advanced, and those were profitable.
What? There's nothing here about OS. It's a browser feature, and both of the browsers listed run on Microsoft and Apple platforms.
GP was right. This is unlikely to kill Skype for the vast majority of users, which means it won't really kill it for non-MS non-Apple users either.
That's because all the companies that still use Exchange and AD and run Windows damn near everywhere will still be forcing their employees to use things like Lync, Skype, etc. And Apple users will mostly be using iChat and unable to talk to non-Apple users. Safarri may not even pick up this tech, and IE will probably be using MS's twist on it, CU-RTC-Web. So, even if these other browsers work there, many users won't have them. So they're just as likely to use some other application, which has been possible for ages and ages (video chat isn't anything new... not by a long shot).
This is neat stuff, but it's just formalizing a way to do something that's been done in lots of ways for a long time, some of which were also standards.
I'd like to see a Skype killer, but IMAP + IMAP-push + ical + caldav + etc etc hasn't killed Exchange & friends, and they've been free and prevalent for a long long time. If "Skype" dies, it'll probably be by MS's own hand.
I was on board with you there until you claimed that you don't cure a hangover by drinking more alcohol. That works so incredibly well, I'm starting to think the gov't did the right thing! :-)
Maybe something like 100% skype
Yeah, that's what we need to do, trust Microsoft to solve the problem. They eliminated viruses and malware so quickly, I'm sure they could solve this problem too ...
I didn't say "Microsoft". When I said, "something like 100% skype", I meant something like that technology (which wasn't started at MS) but without the tie in to the PSTN (so robocallers on the existing phone network couldn't access it). Ideally, the directory service and everything about it would be open, with some way to accurately identify and locate users (possibly something based on XMPP and jabber servers). Might take forever to get everyone moved over to it. Many would be disenfranchised during the transition, unless there was a tie in to the old system... and if there was, then it won't solve the robocalling problem. Bit of a chicken-and-egg problem.
[Title.]First.[MI.]Last[Increment]@domain.tldr
I've seen a lot of posts now advocating an OPTIONAL increment appended. Or, optional middle, and when there's a conflict, and optional other thing jacked in.
My only suggestion - whatever format you go with, don't have optional parts.
For example, you should not end up with: ...etc...
john@domain.tld
john.smith@domain.tld
john.a.smith@domain.tld
john.a.smith2@domain.tld
If you expect a large user base, go with the full format for the auto-generated. The above list would then be:
john.a.smith101@domain.tld
john.a.smith102@domain.tld
john.a.smith103@domain.tld
john.a.smith104@domain.tld
Then there's no complaints from one to the other. Even better, people emailing those people won't get to the wrong person when they email "john@domain.tld", because that address won't exist.
After the auto-generated email is handed you, then you can allow "special" people to reserve or alias other names. For example, if one of the VP's is a "john.a.smith", then give him it without the number, and with a 1. Notice, the numbering above started at 101... that reserves 100 low numbers for somewhat special people to make them feel more important :-)
(personally, I'd drop the middle initial. Too many people don't have one, or have two, etc... and you end up with odd series of dots and/or concatenated names)
If I could simply tell the phone company that I'm not willing to accept numbers which don't match their origin, that would kill off all of the crap I get. And I don't care about the legitimate ones, because by masking their real phone number they're no better than the scammers.
This. +1 pseudo mod point.
No No No. It's a non-starter. That ability doesn't exist due to the design of the phone system. The only known hop is the one immediately before you.
Someday, hopefully, that'll all get replaced because the resulting routing due to costs (LCR) + wholesale voip + intra/inter state taxes and termination fees etc etc etc ends up being horribly inefficient. Routing over pure voip would be far more efficient as far as the routes and miles of cables and number of routers/switches/etc involved, even if it does chew up more bandwidth for the same quality.
If you want what you're describing, you'll have to move to an entirely different system. Maybe something like 100% skype and deny all landline access to it.
It's sad, but attacking this issue after the fact is the only possibility right now (ie. after an infringement has happened, then attack it). They can track down these people, especially because these outfits are not just going after a single recipient - they're always calling many people. They (FTC) just have to do it.
What part of I hate licenses isn't clear here? I neither want to keep rights not give them away. I just want to open the source of certain projects up to people that want to read and learn from it. And that's what I've done. Lots of people have said thanks. There's a whole big world out there that don't care about GPL, BSD or Public Domain.
The part that isn't clear is your words... like these you said in the previous comment:
I post code to the internet for others to learn from. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine.
But your software is not open source. It is fully copyrighted to you, and no exceptions have been made because you didn't explicitly make them.
You're welcome to hate licenses, and you're welcome to pick whatever you want. The issue is that your stated goals don't match your (lack of) actions, except that you hate licenses and are not going to explicitly use one (which means you are implicitly under the default, which is not something people can use for snippets etc).
This is like taking a stance against the 2 party system in the US by not voting.
I've had friends that took this same stance (hated the licensing aspect). Any time anyone talked about it, they would just zone out and ignore everything that was said. They simply weren't interested in knowing anything about it (not saying you're in that exact same boat), so they ended up ignorant and making decisions from ignorance. They'd pick (or not pick) licenses that didn't suit what they verbalized that they wanted. I don't get it.. people are honestly trying to provide helpful and targeted advice that suits your stated desires, and your response is just "I hate licenses". That's too bad, but you don't have to think about it... say what you want out of your code release, and someone will tell you which license you need to cp/paste into it. You don' t have to enjoy it or even do much of anything.
None of this requires licenses. And I hate licenses. Why would I want to use one or invent one.
Then take just the little tiny tiny little action that is needed to declare that on your work: mark it public domain. I'll even make it easy for you... paste this into a file called "license.txt" in the base of your repository:
"I, the author, hereby agree to waive all claim of copyright (economic and moral) in all content contributed by me, the user, and immediately place any and all contributions by me into the public domain, unless otherwise noted. I grant anyone the right to use my work for any purpose, without any conditions, to be changed or destroyed in any manner whatsoever without any attribution or notification."
(that's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Large/Licencing)
That pretty much sums up what you were saying, but more clearly, and explicitly. Without that (or something similar, since you live where you do (and yes, I'm making an assumption about where you live)), you are not giving a gift to anyone. You are not allowing anyone to take snippets, or the whole thing. You are not allowing anyone to make a copy or distribute it. Sorry, but that's life, and there's a really REALLY easy way to make it like you want - just paste that little bit of text in a file and check it in. There's really no point to me even suggesting the other option, because you're too lazy or ignorant to state your real intents in your code. That other option is to get the law changed - and that's very very unlikely to happen, because it's so damn easy to create something and explicitly put it in the public domain (or anywhere else you want).
There is no problem with open source licensing here. The problem is a general ignorance of readily available licenses.
SELinux and "UNIX multi-user security" are not referring to the same thing. This doesn't "fly in the face" of anything. I'm 99.9% sure "Unix multi-user security" is referring to user/group/world permission bits per file/directory. That doesn't help all that much in the realm of embedded systems, as they said. SELinux is an entirely different beast, and achieves many of the same results as signed executables and sandboxing, and some more (and vice-versa).
Interesting links, but an awful summary.
I can think of a couple of apps recently where I had serious issues. The first was "virt-manager"...
Just a guess, cause I'm running virtualbox instead of virt-manager, but does it display a thumbnail of the vm's state? If so, that'd likely explain it, because it's essentially doubling the rdp/x11 traffic.
Second one was....filezilla of all things. I was at work and needed to test an external service. So I ssh into my home box, and fire up filezilla from there. I ended up packing up and driving home to do the test, it was THAT slow.
First, the upload speed on cable (typical home access) is often horrible. That'll probably hit bandwidth constraints right there with most apps (partially because most apps these days use bitmapped graphics for drawing all their ui elements, as opposed to something like mwm or xwm and apps using the x11 toolkit).
Second, since you fired up filezilla from home, I'm guessing you may have been using it to do other ftp type operations. If that was another upload, that'll completely choke off your upload bandwidth, and your x11 session will suffer. Put some QoS on your home link, giving ssh highest priority, and it might help.... but QoS also costs some bandwidth (you have to set a maximum rateup that is less than your absolute max in order for it to work well).
All that said, I've seen similar things quite often, and newer UI toolkits and applications seem to be consistently worse than their elder counterparts.
On top of it all, the ssh tunnel itself will add some lag. Might be worth risking a direct connect sans tunnel.
The bias against spinny storage is just mindless iCult nonsense.
I own the rMBP I'm getting 450MB/sec which is faster than many good quality spinning RAID systems. I'd love to have more space, and I'd prefer something like the fusion drive. But no it isn't just mindless iCult nonsense.
...and you need 450MB/sec on an iPod for what exactly? (I know you didn't say iPod, but GP did)
Flash storage has it's places, and fast disk access is one (very useful on a laptop that is rebooted frequently; random access is good for desktops). It's good on tablets and such not because of speed, but because of reliability. You can drop it and the heads won't smash against the platters. It's also good for size reasons (it's not a 2.5" drive in there). All that said, I'd like to see spinny storage options on some tablets and iPod sized devices... that is the part we've been conned out of, and conned into thinking that, if you need > 64gb storage, the next step is 128gb of flash, and that's the max. Why not pop in a 2.5" drive at that point?
Things in space and really cold stuff makes perfect sense. Both articles even point to that for the most part.
The night vision thing is only mentioned in the dumbed down txchnologist piece, and only once, and via a small quote from someone that wasn't even involved in the project:
“The big potential users of this cooling technology are night-vision goggles, and infrared cameras on satellites, where weight is very important and you would not want the motors and pumps and vibrations that come with regular coolers if you can,” says Richard Epstein, a University of New Mexico physicist and CEO at technology startup ThermoDynamic Films, who did not take part in this research.
I'd love to know the rest of the context for that comment, because it seems absolutely crazy to me that night-vision goggles and infrared cameras on satellites are _THE_ big potential users of one given cooling technology... those are VERY different applications. There are optics involved in each of them, but otherwise they are very different beasts. It'd make a lot more sense if "goggles" were simply dropped from the sentence, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was some editor jacking in "goggles" after he read "night-vision", and messing up the quote.
There are so many comments on this page about night vision goggles, and yet my hunch is that is the single most incorrect or out of place phrase on that article. This is a good progression of laser cooling, and could have useful applications, but night vision goggles? There's gotta be better and more exciting uses than that!? (if that would even be useful there in the least)
Presumably the system would be completely self contained. Neither the laser nor the fluorescing being visible. Maybe we can think of the fluorescing as a mechanism to conduct heat from the electronic components to the case of the NVG. Of course that would heat up the NVG case but perhaps it is not emitting in the iR anymore than the person's face underneath it. More info is needed.
I've seen multiple posts like this one, and they all seem to be missing a huge point (maybe I'm getting trolled? ... or maybe I'm completely wrong).
From the article (sorry, I read it):
"...starting from 290 kelvin. We use a pump laser with a wavelength of 514 nanometres, and obtain an estimated cooling efficiency of about 1.3 per cent and an estimated cooling power of 180 microwatts."
Where the hell is all the heat going if you stick this thing inside some goggles with the direct purpose of cooling something inside said goggles? That question has nothing to do with the above quote... it's there to drive it home - look at how inefficient this process is!?! I'm sure it's extremely useful and interesting for a great many cases, but I don't see (pun) how this is good for night vision goggles.
I keep picturing a guy on a sailboat blowing really hard on his sail.
Been through this myself. In my case, she was open to gaming and even enjoyed watching me play some things, though I'm not a hard core gamer by any means. But it's been tough to find games we can both enjoy together.
Borderlands 2 isn't a bad idea. I found that it's a bit too complicated (the controls) for her. She manages and does ok, and she hasn't tried the new mech class yet, but it can still be a bit tough.
One game that we LOVED playing through: Lord of the Rings : War in the North (and neither of us are LotR fans).
One series that I'd live to do with her, which is only on PS2 (I own the game but not the console), is the Baldur's gate series:
Baldur's Gate: Dark Aliance
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II
Champions of Norrath
Champions: Return to Arms
I had to look those up to get the names cause it's been so long. In doing so, I just learned that, besides BG:DAII, they were all developed by or with Snowblind Studios. So, just a note: I'm not associated with them in ANY way... guess I just like their games.
If any one of those works out, you'll probably enjoy all of them. I wish they'd do some more, and/or re-release those things for the PS3.
Then how do so many popular shared hosting providers get away with not offering HTTPS?
1. SNI (Server Name Indication) is somewhat new. The operators may not know about it, may not know enough about it, or their tools (deployment/config/etc) may not support it (yet, or at the version they bought).
2. SSL incures more overhead. They're trying to run cheap, and this runs counter to cheap. They can offer slightly more expensive plans including SSL.
3. (most likely, IMO) because SNI isn't 100% supported. They could care less about what your users experience is, but your experience (their direct customer) could cause a SIGNIFICANT increase in support costs. Imagine a user getting a vhost that says they include support for HTTPS (with an asterisk pointing to fine print saying it's via SNI), and then when the user goes to their new HTTPS site, they end up on someone elses site, or a generic placeholder page... "WTH! Where's my HTTPS site?!?".
IMHO, SNI should be an opt-in option from all/most shared hosting providers. IE, they shouldn't offer it by default, and should make it clear what the limitations are. For the biggest and cheapest of shared hosting providers, especially those where the service is secondary to their primary service (ex. GoDaddy), it doesn't surprise me in the least that they don't offer it.
Filters don't stop his free speech. He can still speak. We have the right to filter him out and listen to only that speech we want.
WE have that right... but should the carriers? Back in the day of dial-up internet access, I'd argue that all those ISP's had the right to provide spam filtering services for their users. Users could easily go somewhere else if they wanted. I'm not so sure now, since there's only a handful of choices for high speed access.
At some point, it hits common carrier level. If the NAP's were fighting to put content filtering in the NAP's (network access points, like MAE East, MAE West, Sprint NAP, Ameritech NAP (chi), Pac Bell), I strongly believe the consensus would go the other way... to "NO! Get all filtering out of there!!!"
He has no right to force us to listen to his speech. That's what he's asking of the government.
That's not what he's asking. He's asking that filtering at the common carrier level be removed, and the onus put on the user. We could still filter locally. There would also likely be some qualification for network size, so small operators could offer SMS spam filtering to their users.
IMO, the right compromise would be to have it disabled by default, and make it an opt-in service for users. When someone creates a new account with a cell provider, they'd just have to tick a box to turn it on.
FWIW, I hate spam with a passion, and think that charging users for receiving sms's is silly. This is a case where the sender can be identified, so I have much less of a problem with it... just don't charge me for being sent the stuff, and I'd be fine with doing the filtering myself.
Thank you. I miss three characters, and the whole point gets missed cause someone doesn't know anything about make ("make -j dinner", as dutchd00d below says, would do fine).
What you describe sounds a lot like "make".
$ cat Makefile
dinner: roast_meat bake lasagna boil_potatoes chop_salad
turn_off stove oven
wipe table
clean_table:
wipe table
prepare_meat: clean_table
cut meat
salt meat
set_meat_temp:
# make it fast
chtemp 800
roast_meat: prepare_meat set_temp_meat
ovenize meat
sleep 900
put_on_table meat
prepare_lasagna: clean_table chop_salad prepare_meat
remove_box lasagna
set_lasagna_temp: roast_meat
chtemp 500
bake_lasagna: prepare_lasagna set_lasagna_temp roast_meat
ovenize_lasagna
sleep 3600
put_on_table lasagna
prepare_potatoes:
wash potatoes
boil_potatoes: prepare_potatoes turn_on_burner1
put_on_burner1 pot water potatoes
sleep 1800
put_on_table potatoes
chop_salad: clean_table prepare_meat prepare_potatoes
put_on_table salad
$ make dinner
Why is it that everyone seems to be ignoring the possibility of using more than one drive!?!? Maybe it's been said, but I haven't seen it.
I did see one poster suggest getting a separate usb -rw drive and internal -r drive, but that's silly.
newegg has an external usb 2.0 cdrom for $15. Buy 6 or so of those, and do 6 disks at a time. Or buy internals (cheapest on newegg seems to be about $18). Or USB 3.0 drives at $30. Or get even more of them, or a mix of internal and external, etc.
Assuming he has a day job and can spend 4hr a day burning, and has 450 cd's:
5min/cd (old drive) * 450 = 37.5hr / 4hr = 10 days ...and buy different models, and some of those are bound to be faster. Probably get it down to 2-3 days. And if you're feeling dirty, return the drives afterwards... you'll have them less than a week, which is well within return periods. You could also get them used.
15min/cd (new drive) * 450 = 112.5hr / 4hr = 29 days
6drives 15min/cd * 450 = 18.75hr / 4hr = 5 days
That said, the question isn't really about how to do this better/faster/cheaper. He really just wants a good drive, and is using this to justify that research and purchase (IMO, of course). If it were really about speed, he could just stick the disk in and hit CDDB and click the button to buy it from amazon (or whereever) which would have good metadata as well (but wouldn't be FLAC).
If it's really about quality + FLAC + metadata + fast, get a bunch of cheap drives, and maybe a USB hub or SATA or IDE card. It's a one time process. Afterwards, 15min/disk using the new drive won't matter for the one off additions.
Veering off the point bit... you do understand that copyright was, has been, and is all about granting all of society free access to that work... after copyright expires.
Your morals are not the same as everyone else's, but using those, the third choice is to wait for copyright to expire. This is important because you *should* also feel that YOU have a moral right to access all content produced without charge... after copyright expires.
In this case, none of that even matters. They're not going after him for copying these works nor for watching them. They're going after him for making them more accessible than they already were. It's like if you asked me where you could score some weed, and I said I heard that some guy on the corner of 5th and Lex might have some, while wearing a sandwich board saying, "free information brought to you by Colgate". Why should that be wrong? And would shutting me down make a damn bit of difference WRT they guy that's (possibly) dealing?
If those sharing the protected works were directly paying the guy to send people their way, then there might be some ties to the actual wrongdoing. AFAICT, that wasn't the case.
They (MPAA, etc) should be going after the actual content providers. They went after him for the same reason his service was useful - it made it easy to find those copyrighted works. IMO, they should have just used the site like anyone else (followed the links), and busted all those serving the content. (to be entirely honest, I'd rather they just dry up and disappear... but if they're going to go on these hunts, they should go for the right targets at least)
If people want to make websites with ads, you've a simple "moral" choice: go there, or don't go there.
...but for a lot of the best content on the web there has to be some sort of revenue stream. ... The fact is that you're bragging about leeching off the current system so I hope you have a way to replace it.
The way to replace it is to go backwards just a little bit. The following would also cut down on a massive amount of useless noise.
It wasn't always just a couple handfuls of really big sites with content from loads of various sources, and the web was not originally intentioned for that behavior. Think about the sites that would really be hurt the most sans-ads, like hulu, youtube, facebook, pinterest, gmail, blogs, etc. They have one big "provider" servicing loads of content from lots of various content generators (people/companies). They're really only there because the infrastructure they have wins over what is available with ease to those that use those services (well, that and people have been lead like sheep to them). Even services like github fall into this category.
Let's take that last one as an example, github. Anyone can start a project, allocate space there, use those services, and not pay a dime for it. Users can access it similarly without paying a dime. As a developer myself, I'd gladly host that service on my personal vserver if that were easy to do. "github" doesn't really provide much service in the way of social interaction (there is a common userbase, but that can be worked around easily by using oauth or similar). The barrier to entry is just great enough that most just use github (or similar). Many projects could be culled from the herd - they don't need github level services, and could do just fine with a git repo on their desktop. Take away ads, and the others could justify sticking it on their own server (possibly at home, the way things were meant to be... static ipv6 would make this entirely possible). And the really big projects have funding enough for real servers.
Hulu, as another example, only exists because:
a) the studios are (or at least were) nearly braindead in this field
b) the platform is closed and would take significant effort for each studio to reproduce a comparable product
It could be replaced by a very low bandwidth search/mashup site of the various studio offerings.
Slashdot is actually one of the rare exceptions. I allow ads from here, and click on them sometimes, because it's almost entirely discussion.
Most stuff out there could be served from home services. If they outgrow that, then rent a vhost (if it's worth it to you to talk to that audience). Outgrow that, vserver; ... colo server; ... multiple colo servers; ... clusters/etc. I think things will shift back to that some, especially once all users have static IP's again, and the technology that makes those big sites slick becomes more accessible to the home user. Some things would still need central and/or distributed nodes for search and sharing and such, but that's where joining that network could involve a micropayment (or ISP's could start including that cost in their infrastructure, just like they did for basic services like email, nntp, etc). ...this post is too long :-)
Best idea I've seen yet!
There are far too many inherent issues with the existing system that would prevent a technical solution. CID can be spoofed (and needs to be technically possible for multiple lines, ported numbers, 800 numbers, etc), and ANI is only known between immediate neighbor hops. One can dig back through and figure it out with the right level of access (eg. feds), so just make reporting the violations easier, and then target big offenders.
On a side note, I think we should throw in debt collectors. If they can't provide proof and contact information for both their company and the parent company, they should be investigated and either forced to comply or shut down. FWIW, there are some legitimate debt collections, but I believe the previous sentence will allow them to continue operating... and I think those rules are already in place. There should be an easier way to report those based only on the call.
Just got an ASUS M5A99X for that very reason - ECC support, USB 3.0, eSATA, SATA 6Gb/s, 3x PCI-E x16 slots, etc.
Chose a (slow) FX-4100 quad core for its TDP, but x6 is only $10 more, and phenom II x4 965 is $10 less.
I wanted to go with the A series (did that for my HTPC), but I can't stand the quirks with the graphic drivers. If/when the drivers get much better, it'll be a very good option for most anyones desktop. Intels graphics can't compare, and adding a separate nvidia card uses significantly more power and adds another cost... it's sitting right in the sweet spot IMO, I just don't like the driver support. For a laptop or desktop with a single screen, I'd recommend the A series to anyone.
Wish I had mod points... this math seems much more accurate, and it's not even taking into account the very low energy rate the orig poster had
The point is that given that we must tax some things in order to have a society, we should prefer to tax stuff we want less of, as opposed to stuff we want more of.
The problem with that is that we rely on that tax money. The taxes go up (ex. tobaco), and usage goes down, and we will need that tax money from somewhere, so the tax continues to go up to obscene levels that is well beyond recouping the cost to society, and the cycle continues. Look at the tax difference between tobaco and .
I'm perfectly fine with sin taxes that equal the normal tax plus an amount that justifies the health impacts that society will have to foot later (ex. smoking -> lung problems/cancer -> healthcare for those people when they hit that age), but that extra money should be going directly to that cause, and it's not, and it's too high.
IMO, the "we shoudl prefer to tax stuff we want less of" statement is awful. It includes a morality/judement call that shouldn't be handled with taxes. It's descriminatory. Depending on who is in control, it could easily target something you (and many others) want more of, or do not want less of. What if it were straight edge vegans making that decision? (or, for you vegans, what if Adkins was deciding the taxes with this mantra?)
To answer your second question, we should tax more on luxury items, if needed. We shouldn't be taking the tax out of the poor, who already have barely enough to live on, and little for luxury items. Take it out of those that have the money to burn... if someone wants to be a space tourist, stick a giant tax on that (and that even fits into stuff that's harming us, because that's an enourmous amount of fuel to burn just to look at stuff for a few hours).
I also think the first $N dollars you make shouldn't be taxed. It makes not sense. Or, or say that differently, let's redefine minimum wage as the amount one makes AFTER tax, so we're at least being fair about it and so that tax laws don't hijack anyones income (ie. extend that to all wages... define wages as after tax wages). The logistics of changing that system are too great, so I don't think that'll ever happen, but it'd make more sense that way.