Well for example I'm logged into facebook right now. As I'm jumping from site-to-site in Tab #2, one of them could hijack the Tab #1 and make it look like a legitimate facebook login screen.
Not exactly. From his page on this "exploit"...
You can try it out on this very website (I've only tested it in Firefox). Click away to another tab for at least five seconds. Flip to another tab. Do whatever. Then come back to this tab.
It's hard to find, isn't it? It looks exactly like Gmail. I was lazy and took a screenshot of Gmail which loads slowly. It would be better to recreate the page in HTML.
So his "exploit" is to wait until you are away from HIS tab and then alter HIS tab to look like it is a different site.
I use both NoScript and RequestPolicy. I am thinking that those two would make such an attack rather difficult, even if I was too lazy to pay attention to the URL before submitting login information.
scientists are citizens too, you know. amateur scientists are not scientists, however.
Generally the difference between a skilled amateur and a professional is that the professional is getting paid. Of course there are unskilled amateurs, but for that matter there are also unskilled professionals.
Anyone who follows and correctly applies the scientific method is a scientist. Money changing hands has nothing to do with it. Think about it, if it were otherwise then why would NASA bother to solicit the input of amateurs for a scientific project?
I'm sorry,but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all. It's now called Urectum.
Reminds me of the game Mass Effect 2. They had a little Easter egg in there.
You had to harvest planets for mineral resources in order to have the raw materials for upgrading your equipment. You harvest a planet by orbiting it and sending robotic probes to the surface that presumably bring back the raw materials from their landing sites. When you send a probe down to any planet, your ship's computer (an AI) says things like "launching probe" or "probe launched".
You can visit the Solar System in this game. If you orbit Uranus and launch a probe there, the computer voice says "Now Probing Uranus". It says that only once and it's the only time it says anything other than the standard phrase.
Not to be nit-picky but this situation calls for it: saying it "has" (present tense) a slow development cycle is not a claim that this has always been the case since its inception.
You think the situation calls for being nit-picky? Wonderful, sir. Then let us pick the nit in context:
It depends on how sound and useful the initial design was. The POSIX standard has a slow development cycle. So does the X Windowing Protocol.
Saying that "[i]t depends on how sound and useful the initial design was" is an explicit invocation of the case at the inception. And so the state of your examples at their respective inceptions is plainly relevant to evaluating your statement.
First of all, the X protocol of which I spoke has been around since Project Athena (MIT) in 1984. That's about 26 years. The first 3 years of those 26 years constitutes 11.5% of its history and only the earliest part thereof. The point you think you are making hinges on a small minority of its overall history that has nothing to do with the present-day case of which I explicitly spoke.
You failed to properly understand the last two paragraphs of my initial post in this thread, where I said that the way I word things is not a product of random chance, that if I do not explicitly claim a thing, it is because I don't wish to. I did not claim that the X protocol has never had frequent revisions during its early history. If you think I claimed that, provide an HTML link to the post in which I have done so and quote the relevant text of that post. There's no way you can do this because it didn't happen.
I claimed that the X protocol is currently a stable protocol. It certainly could have experienced massive revisions during its early history and still become a stable protocol today. That is not a contradiction.
You then proceeded to read into my post what was not there. X has been around for many years and I claimed only that (present tense) it currently has a slow development cycle. You indirectly claim that the first three of those many years determined the truth or falsehood of what I describe as its present-day status. That's patently false.
The rest is some need of yours to save face by continuing to bicker after first ignoring my initial post, committing the very mistake it described, and then trying to cover it up. That's your problem; as such you are free to deal with it as you will.
The POSIX standard has a slow development cycle. So does the X Windowing Protocol.
The X Windowing Protocol went through 11 incompatible versions in its first three-and-a-half years. So by comparison, Android is downright stodgy.
Not to be nit-picky but this situation calls for it: saying it "has" (present tense) a slow development cycle is not a claim that this has always been the case since its inception.
The flash runtime has experienced the same problems as it was a developing platform. Flash 8,9 and 10 are all still in use today and have different feature sets and programming models.
With Flash I doubt that the features added between Version 8 and Version 10 were natural progressions and refinements of the concepts and principles on which that system is based. Instead, I see them as "we gotta give our customers a reason to buy the latest version so let's add more bloat!"
We as geeks bemoan long development cycles and slow progress.
It depends on how sound and useful the initial design was. The POSIX standard has a slow development cycle. So does the X Windowing Protocol. I haven't seen many fundamental innovations for the TCP protocol lately either. I have seen bugfixes and things of that nature, but not much bloat and feature creep. For those things, the design closely matched the intended purpose and philosophy and there was little or no marketing pressure to always have something new to sell. I think it's precisely because those things are the concern of geeks and are the "under the hood" type of thing that average end-users wouldn't directly work with. Things like Flash animations and iPhones are much more visible and immediately practical for average users and there we see marketing pressures and faster developments.
Adobe has realized this and their rate of development has slowed as they have stabilized on where they want the platform to go.
I think what Adobe has realized is that the proposed video functions of HTML5 could be a direct threat to their little proprietary standard fiefdom and that vendors like Apple have some good (business) reasons not to use their products. I think that would get them to concentrate on something more substantial than more bells and whistles and put pressure on them to produce a good, solid runtime. The only thing I wonder is whether they are prepared to address the absolute joke that Flash has been when it comes to security. It's easily up there with Sendmail and BIND so far as track records are concerned.
Give android a year or so, and once Google realizes where it wants android to go, the iterations should slow down dramatically, and fragmentation will be a thing of the past.
I hope so. The closed nature of Apple's products is my biggest single problem with them. Most users don't care so there is little reason for Apple to see this as a problem. Therefore, what it would take to change that would be another company (like Google) who can give them serious competition without such tactics.
I realize the analog is slightly different as android is an OS and not a runtime, but the fact remains that progress requires this.
Conscious or subconscious, that looks to me like what you realize is that some Slashdotters love to attack you based on things you never actually claimed. Had you omitted that line, I could see them now, the follow-up posts saying "huh huh, an OS is not a runtime, therefore you don't know what you're talking about and you're wrong and I'm right so hah!" The way I explain it is that if I didn't explicitly outright claim something, it's for a reason and is not the product of random chance.
My approach to those would-be killjoys for whom feeling superior to somebody is more important than reading comprehension is different. I refuse to add little disclaimers like that because for more nuanced posts, those would be longer than the point I am making. I also refuse to do it because I won't cater to maladaptive behavior that disguises itself as useful critique. Instead, I let them try that on me and then show them why it was useless.
These "growing pains" need to be worked out, but app developers will quickly learn to check versions at runtime to make sure most of their features will work in older (or newer) versions of Android.
Apple took care very well from the start, but they've had lots of consumer software experience. Goole & Android will get their act together... it will just take a little time.
I thought Apple's approach was to strictly control both the hardware platform and the developer's tools, both to ensure they will work together and also to make it highly inconvenient for developers to port their apps to other platforms like Android. That sounds like marketing and vendor lock-in experience. The term "software experience" seems to suggest that they have tackled the complexity involved with developing for diverse systems instead of avoiding it.
Depending on the server's job, a moderately long wait generally isn't a problem unless you feel that you need to watch the compiler messages go by. I have a pentium pro with 128 megs of ram running a file server (no X); to update the machine I start an emerge inside a screen session and disconnect. Even for heavy updates it's done within a few hours.
With a little tweaking Gentoo can be a surprisingly trim installation. And if speed of compiling really is an issue then you can use distcc to distribute the load or offload the compile to another box entirely.
It's just rather trendy to complain about compile times whenever Gentoo is mentioned. Like marching in lockstep, if you say the magic word "Gentoo" somebody will whine about compilation times. Because of its predictability, I regard it as noise rather than signal unless other errors were made in the post. In a way it's a convenience, as you normally have to listen to someone for quite a while before you can ascertain whether they have anything worthwhile and non-redundant to say.
Never does it occur to these folks that if you care that much about having to do your own compiles, it's because you are not in Gentoo's target audience and should be using one of the many binary distros. That, or it's a religious issue with them in the sense that because they hate compilation, you should too (in their minds).
Gentoo is a pretty poor choice for old hardware, because it's so slow compiling everything.
Which is completely irrelevant because LFS is also a source-based distribution. Please be familiar with what you're commenting on.
To reiterate: you compile your software for both Gentoo and LFS. One has a package manager, the other doesn't. That's the main difference between them.
I have been using Gentoo (and love it) for several years now. I have not actually tried LFS although I am familiar with its basic concepts. Can you advise why you would prefer LFS over Gentoo? It seems you'd be giving up the ease of long-term administration that Portage offers, and so far as I know Gentoo does support the ARM platform.
David Carr writes that headlines in newspapers and magazines were once written with readers in mind, to be clever or catchy or evocative, but now headlines are just there to get the search engines to notice.
... is that not because search engines are a good way to reach readers?
I think the police finally had enough of people playing (loud mind you) a certain old song by NWA. Anyone else remember "Fuck the police"?
I have and know other people who got pulled over and everything was looked at by the police if they had that song playing. I asked the police for an inspection sticker since they basically just performed one. Word of advice, don't do that. The police keep you pulled over even longer. I never got a ticket. I was pulled over for the song being played. This was in NJ and Philadelphia.
So by pulling people over for doing something that is not illegal, they wish to demonstrate that the song is not entirely fictional and there are reasons why someone might not like the cops? "Hey, they're playing a song suggesting they don't like us because we're cops. I know! Let's make sure they have a good reason to feel that way. Let's hassle them!" I bet cops wonder why they're not as highly respected as they once were.
Besides that, I never understood the argument about "limited vocabulary" anyway. For instance, I'm sure the word "computer" appears a lot. Now, there are lots of synonyms for "computer" than can be used, and there are lots of flowery phrases that are possible. But we don't complain that someone has a "limited vocabulary" because he says "computer" instead of replacing the word with some kind of phrase that's more creative. Why should this be a legitimate complaint about swear words? Sure, they're not creative. Neither is calling your computer a computer or using the word "the" (one of the most unoriginal words in common use). Unless you're judging a creative writing competition, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Because when prudish people feel a desire to tell others how they may speak, what they may listen to, or what they may watch, they have to come up with an excuse that sounds at least faintly legitimate. Otherwise their desire to control other people and make them submit to their approval would be too obvious. The funny thing is that by doing it this way, they are tacitly acknowledging that their desire to enforce their beliefs on others does need to be justified.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense because the purpose is to provide an excuse, not to demonstrate a logical conclusion. That's why they're so damned selective about when the creative use of vocabulary is important to them.
I think that in and of itself is sufficient reason to not use a cloud solution.
What's your reasoning behind this? Entrusting your documents to large corporations basically is business. Do you think you'll get better results with a small business or something?
I think the intended contrast was between entrusting your documents to large corporations or entrusting your documents to your own solution (developed in-house or purchased) that runs on equipment you administer and fully control.
Yes, if a corporation dares to choose a widely-used product with a large install base, which fits their use requirements, as opposed to a relatively new, only moderate install base with different features available (no Firefox/Opera with H.264, no Safari/iPhone with Theora, no Internet Explorer period), which does not fit their use requirements on even one browser, then they must be 'in cahoots' with the company who makes that product.
I know you were going for a better-than-average first post without too much thought, but really, stop listening to Apple. Adobe is not a conspiracy.
What we have here might be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. HTML5 would have a larger installed base if there were more content available. In turn, there'd be more content available if HTML5 had a larger, more established installed base.
No, the original poster had it right - there simply isn't consistent browser support yet to make HTML5 more than an interesting sideline.
... but there likely would be if there were tons of content that demanded consistent browser support. I don't see how anything you are saying contradicts me.
Customers can take their business elsewhere; consumers must go to particular providers (i.e. copyright holders of shows) if they want a particular product.
That was true until the time of significant broadband penetration and the rise of peer-to-peer sharing. Even if the "pirates" are an insignificant percentage of "consumers", they are the wolves at the door that are a force to keep the bastards in check somewhat.
That is a really interesting statement because I have a reason to agree with it and I have a reason to disagree with it. I will withhold judgment as to which one is more valid.
You're absolutely right about the effect of piracy. It's a check against excessive industry control. It's a bit like civil disobedience, except of course that those who engaged in old-fashioned civil disobedience fully expected to do the time for the crime. Pirates, by contrast, tend to rely on the statistical unlikelihood of any one of them getting caught. Other than this level of commitment, the effect against a controlling force is the same. The industry knows, even it it doesn't want to admit it, that they more they piss off their customers the more piracy will happen.
My reason for disagreement may sound cynical. With apologies to Voltaire, if there were no pirates I wonder if it would be necessary for the copyright holders to create them. It would be hard to justify much recent copyright legislation and proposals if there were not the big scary phantom pirates behind every corner greedily disrupting those poor hardworking content creators who enjoy 100+ year monopolies on each work. Without the emotional knee-jerk of "PIRACY ZOMG!!" and the fuzzy accounting practices it excuses (every download = a lost sale? really?!) then they might be forced to resort to providing logical reasons for new legislation. I don't believe that would be nearly so effective at getting them what they want.
I really don't know which of those reasons is the stronger. The only thing I can safely say is that piracy is a double-edged sword.
It's quite simple. Customers are the ones who pay. If you're not paying anything, you're not a customer.
I agree. That's exactly why I dispute the use of "consumer" to describe paying customers as though the terms were interchangable. This discussion where the distinction between customer and consumer is relevant is what brought up this subject.
This is overly complex for whom? You and your ability to handle a small amount of complexity? You and your unwillingness to see that these developments are not random but are in fact carefully engineered and deployed? Your inability to find the slightest fascination in this because you long ago gave up your natural curiosity and desire to understand the world around you? Your need to berate me because you would have given this a more superficial treatment? I take it I am supposed to believe that you have found a flaw with me rather than showing me a flaw in you.
Yes, if a corporation dares to choose a widely-used product with a large install base, which fits their use requirements, as opposed to a relatively new, only moderate install base with different features available (no Firefox/Opera with H.264, no Safari/iPhone with Theora, no Internet Explorer period), which does not fit their use requirements on even one browser, then they must be 'in cahoots' with the company who makes that product.
I know you were going for a better-than-average first post without too much thought, but really, stop listening to Apple. Adobe is not a conspiracy.
Note: here, I am ignoring the specifics of Hulu like their need to track advertising and enforce "content protection" etc. in an effort to describe a bigger picture.
What we have here might be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. HTML5 would have a larger installed base if there were more content available. In turn, there'd be more content available if HTML5 had a larger, more established installed base. Adoption by major players is one way of solving this. Incorporation as a standard feature into mainstream browsers is another approach. Both approaches are complimentary and assuming HTML5 is a good standard, should be used in tandem.
Adobe is not a conspiracy.
For that matter, Adobe does not manufacture automobiles. Stating the obvious of what Adobe isn't does not really advance the discussion. The point is, if Adobe could wave a magic wand and get anything it wanted, it would have a lot more control over Internet content because that's how they make money. That and the proprietary standards used to achieve it are in their interests but are not in my interests. I just described not only Adobe but practically every for-profit corporation in existence.
All of them would love to have total dominance of the markets in which they participate and none of them would benefit many others by succeeding. They are limited by what they can and cannot do, not so much by what they will and will not do. What they can do includes becoming adopted as a de facto "gold standard" by companies like Hulu as part of their overall strategy of becoming entrenched and raising the barrier to entry for new competing standards. In fact, many would say that they are not shrewd and lack business acumen if they did not attempt such things.
Honesty in this case - admitting that "our customers" (plus their needs) and their users aren't the same thing...
Indeed. For any sort of no-cost-to-view "broadcaster" the actual customers are the advertisers. The correct use of the term "consumer" describes those who watch the programs for free in exchange for having to view advertisements. Customers as individual entities and small groups have barganing power while consumers only matter in very large numbers and thus the "broadcaster" relates to them in more of a "take it or leave it" fashion by comparison. Customers can take their business elsewhere; consumers must go to particular providers (i.e. copyright holders of shows) if they want a particular product.
I have always regarded it as a form of Newspeak that a term indicative of diminished power and significance in the marketplace that comes from the jargon of one particular industry suddenly became applied to all customers in all economic transactions. One day about five to seven years ago it became in vogue to use "customer" and "consumer" interchangably as though they were the same thing. In conformance to the usual pattern, all the talking heads in the media suddenly adopted this usage and parroted each other as though they had always spoken this way. Always such Newspeak is in the form of using the degrading term to cover both cases and never in the form of using the elevating term to cover both cases.
Observe this pattern once and understand it and you will then see it everywhere.
Er, no. Hanlon may have, but not the poster, who merely quoted the line and acknowledged the source.
And did he do that randomly for no purpose whatsoever, or did he do that because he agrees with it and it supports the point he was trying to make? I don't see where he is contesting Hanlon...
Congratulations for failing to notice that something was quoted and attributed, in a discussion on plagarism and lack of attribution...
That's immaterial to a discussion about whether malice should be discounted in favor of incompetence when strong evidence of either is not forthcoming. That is a matter of general principle applicable to many issues and is not limited to plagarism. Therefore, the discussion about plagarism is an instance of this greater theme and not worthy of the fixation you are showing. In other words, I doubt he failed to notice and instead I believe he rightly regarded that as trivial in the face of a much larger issue.
Hey, this is Slashdot, remember? The atmosphere here tends to be seriously skeptical of the stronger notions of legal protection of "intellectual property."
Seriousl skepticism is a virtue for any rational subject. That is, it's the wrong tool for questions like "do you love this person" but the absolutely correct tool for questions like "should this group enjoy stronger special legal protections?" If the concept is valid, it will survive skepticism because its merits will be demonstrable. The skepticism you witness here towards the stronger notions of IP law are due to a simple fact: they benefit a small minority of business interests at the expense of the rest of society. That does not constitute demonstrable merit; it is mere selfishness and exploitation and is unworthy of our support.
Given it's an unwritten requirement for being a politician, I would suspect almost all of them to be like that, regardless of state or country. Every now and then you get a humane politician that sucks horribly at these unwritten requirements... but not very often.
I'd go so far as to say that the purpose of entrenched political parties without whom you have no chance of election, party primary systems, and the inability to even get on the ballot without a great deal of sponsorship is simple. The purpose is to make sure that such humane politicians never make it through the system, since whoring themselves and their beliefs and principles to the highest bidder is anathema to them. Yet watching which way the wind blows and committing yourself to it wholeheartedly, as though the trend of the day was always your most deeply cherished belief, and always knowing on which side your bread is buttered is a requirement of advancing through this system. Thus, the political and monied interests who have the most to lose from a change in the status quo are also the gatekeepers deciding who does and does not stand a chance of holding public office.
It's why nothing ever really changes because "change" has been redefined to mean "becoming more so" or "advancing further down the path we were already on". Again I wish I could attribute that saying about our politics becoming more polar and divisive while our parties become more homogeneous, for this is more evidence of what I am saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly. From his page on this "exploit"...
So his "exploit" is to wait until you are away from HIS tab and then alter HIS tab to look like it is a different site.
I use both NoScript and RequestPolicy. I am thinking that those two would make such an attack rather difficult, even if I was too lazy to pay attention to the URL before submitting login information.
since when did citizen mean amateur?
scientists are citizens too, you know. amateur scientists are not scientists, however.
Generally the difference between a skilled amateur and a professional is that the professional is getting paid. Of course there are unskilled amateurs, but for that matter there are also unskilled professionals.
Anyone who follows and correctly applies the scientific method is a scientist. Money changing hands has nothing to do with it. Think about it, if it were otherwise then why would NASA bother to solicit the input of amateurs for a scientific project?
I'm sorry,but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all. It's now called Urectum.
Reminds me of the game Mass Effect 2. They had a little Easter egg in there.
You had to harvest planets for mineral resources in order to have the raw materials for upgrading your equipment. You harvest a planet by orbiting it and sending robotic probes to the surface that presumably bring back the raw materials from their landing sites. When you send a probe down to any planet, your ship's computer (an AI) says things like "launching probe" or "probe launched".
You can visit the Solar System in this game. If you orbit Uranus and launch a probe there, the computer voice says "Now Probing Uranus". It says that only once and it's the only time it says anything other than the standard phrase.
Not to be nit-picky but this situation calls for it: saying it "has" (present tense) a slow development cycle is not a claim that this has always been the case since its inception.
You think the situation calls for being nit-picky? Wonderful, sir. Then let us pick the nit in context:
It depends on how sound and useful the initial design was. The POSIX standard has a slow development cycle. So does the X Windowing Protocol.
Saying that "[i]t depends on how sound and useful the initial design was" is an explicit invocation of the case at the inception. And so the state of your examples at their respective inceptions is plainly relevant to evaluating your statement.
First of all, the X protocol of which I spoke has been around since Project Athena (MIT) in 1984. That's about 26 years. The first 3 years of those 26 years constitutes 11.5% of its history and only the earliest part thereof. The point you think you are making hinges on a small minority of its overall history that has nothing to do with the present-day case of which I explicitly spoke.
You failed to properly understand the last two paragraphs of my initial post in this thread, where I said that the way I word things is not a product of random chance, that if I do not explicitly claim a thing, it is because I don't wish to. I did not claim that the X protocol has never had frequent revisions during its early history. If you think I claimed that, provide an HTML link to the post in which I have done so and quote the relevant text of that post. There's no way you can do this because it didn't happen.
I claimed that the X protocol is currently a stable protocol. It certainly could have experienced massive revisions during its early history and still become a stable protocol today. That is not a contradiction.
You then proceeded to read into my post what was not there. X has been around for many years and I claimed only that (present tense) it currently has a slow development cycle. You indirectly claim that the first three of those many years determined the truth or falsehood of what I describe as its present-day status. That's patently false.
The rest is some need of yours to save face by continuing to bicker after first ignoring my initial post, committing the very mistake it described, and then trying to cover it up. That's your problem; as such you are free to deal with it as you will.
The POSIX standard has a slow development cycle. So does the X Windowing Protocol.
The X Windowing Protocol went through 11 incompatible versions in its first three-and-a-half years. So by comparison, Android is downright stodgy.
Not to be nit-picky but this situation calls for it: saying it "has" (present tense) a slow development cycle is not a claim that this has always been the case since its inception.
With Flash I doubt that the features added between Version 8 and Version 10 were natural progressions and refinements of the concepts and principles on which that system is based. Instead, I see them as "we gotta give our customers a reason to buy the latest version so let's add more bloat!"
It depends on how sound and useful the initial design was. The POSIX standard has a slow development cycle. So does the X Windowing Protocol. I haven't seen many fundamental innovations for the TCP protocol lately either. I have seen bugfixes and things of that nature, but not much bloat and feature creep. For those things, the design closely matched the intended purpose and philosophy and there was little or no marketing pressure to always have something new to sell. I think it's precisely because those things are the concern of geeks and are the "under the hood" type of thing that average end-users wouldn't directly work with. Things like Flash animations and iPhones are much more visible and immediately practical for average users and there we see marketing pressures and faster developments.
I think what Adobe has realized is that the proposed video functions of HTML5 could be a direct threat to their little proprietary standard fiefdom and that vendors like Apple have some good (business) reasons not to use their products. I think that would get them to concentrate on something more substantial than more bells and whistles and put pressure on them to produce a good, solid runtime. The only thing I wonder is whether they are prepared to address the absolute joke that Flash has been when it comes to security. It's easily up there with Sendmail and BIND so far as track records are concerned.
I hope so. The closed nature of Apple's products is my biggest single problem with them. Most users don't care so there is little reason for Apple to see this as a problem. Therefore, what it would take to change that would be another company (like Google) who can give them serious competition without such tactics.
Conscious or subconscious, that looks to me like what you realize is that some Slashdotters love to attack you based on things you never actually claimed. Had you omitted that line, I could see them now, the follow-up posts saying "huh huh, an OS is not a runtime, therefore you don't know what you're talking about and you're wrong and I'm right so hah!" The way I explain it is that if I didn't explicitly outright claim something, it's for a reason and is not the product of random chance.
My approach to those would-be killjoys for whom feeling superior to somebody is more important than reading comprehension is different. I refuse to add little disclaimers like that because for more nuanced posts, those would be longer than the point I am making. I also refuse to do it because I won't cater to maladaptive behavior that disguises itself as useful critique. Instead, I let them try that on me and then show them why it was useless.
These "growing pains" need to be worked out, but app developers will quickly learn to check versions at runtime to make sure most of their features will work in older (or newer) versions of Android. Apple took care very well from the start, but they've had lots of consumer software experience. Goole & Android will get their act together ... it will just take a little time.
I thought Apple's approach was to strictly control both the hardware platform and the developer's tools, both to ensure they will work together and also to make it highly inconvenient for developers to port their apps to other platforms like Android. That sounds like marketing and vendor lock-in experience. The term "software experience" seems to suggest that they have tackled the complexity involved with developing for diverse systems instead of avoiding it.
Depending on the server's job, a moderately long wait generally isn't a problem unless you feel that you need to watch the compiler messages go by. I have a pentium pro with 128 megs of ram running a file server (no X); to update the machine I start an emerge inside a screen session and disconnect. Even for heavy updates it's done within a few hours.
With a little tweaking Gentoo can be a surprisingly trim installation. And if speed of compiling really is an issue then you can use distcc to distribute the load or offload the compile to another box entirely.
It's just rather trendy to complain about compile times whenever Gentoo is mentioned. Like marching in lockstep, if you say the magic word "Gentoo" somebody will whine about compilation times. Because of its predictability, I regard it as noise rather than signal unless other errors were made in the post. In a way it's a convenience, as you normally have to listen to someone for quite a while before you can ascertain whether they have anything worthwhile and non-redundant to say.
Never does it occur to these folks that if you care that much about having to do your own compiles, it's because you are not in Gentoo's target audience and should be using one of the many binary distros. That, or it's a religious issue with them in the sense that because they hate compilation, you should too (in their minds).
Gentoo is a pretty poor choice for old hardware, because it's so slow compiling everything.
Which is completely irrelevant because LFS is also a source-based distribution. Please be familiar with what you're commenting on.
To reiterate: you compile your software for both Gentoo and LFS. One has a package manager, the other doesn't. That's the main difference between them.
And if all else fails, you can always try here. Only problem you'll have then might be the drivers, although in that case there still may be help for you.
I have been using Gentoo (and love it) for several years now. I have not actually tried LFS although I am familiar with its basic concepts. Can you advise why you would prefer LFS over Gentoo? It seems you'd be giving up the ease of long-term administration that Portage offers, and so far as I know Gentoo does support the ARM platform.
I think the police finally had enough of people playing (loud mind you) a certain old song by NWA. Anyone else remember "Fuck the police"?
I have and know other people who got pulled over and everything was looked at by the police if they had that song playing. I asked the police for an inspection sticker since they basically just performed one. Word of advice, don't do that. The police keep you pulled over even longer. I never got a ticket. I was pulled over for the song being played. This was in NJ and Philadelphia.
So by pulling people over for doing something that is not illegal, they wish to demonstrate that the song is not entirely fictional and there are reasons why someone might not like the cops? "Hey, they're playing a song suggesting they don't like us because we're cops. I know! Let's make sure they have a good reason to feel that way. Let's hassle them!" I bet cops wonder why they're not as highly respected as they once were.
Besides that, I never understood the argument about "limited vocabulary" anyway. For instance, I'm sure the word "computer" appears a lot. Now, there are lots of synonyms for "computer" than can be used, and there are lots of flowery phrases that are possible. But we don't complain that someone has a "limited vocabulary" because he says "computer" instead of replacing the word with some kind of phrase that's more creative. Why should this be a legitimate complaint about swear words? Sure, they're not creative. Neither is calling your computer a computer or using the word "the" (one of the most unoriginal words in common use). Unless you're judging a creative writing competition, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Because when prudish people feel a desire to tell others how they may speak, what they may listen to, or what they may watch, they have to come up with an excuse that sounds at least faintly legitimate. Otherwise their desire to control other people and make them submit to their approval would be too obvious. The funny thing is that by doing it this way, they are tacitly acknowledging that their desire to enforce their beliefs on others does need to be justified.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense because the purpose is to provide an excuse, not to demonstrate a logical conclusion. That's why they're so damned selective about when the creative use of vocabulary is important to them.
That wasn’t Slashdot censoring, it was samzenpus self-censoring. He could’ve said fucking if he’d wanted.
Voluntary censorship == censorship.
Forced censorship == censorship.
It's not so much a concern with who decided to censor it or for what purpose. It's the fact that it happened.
I think that in and of itself is sufficient reason to not use a cloud solution.
What's your reasoning behind this? Entrusting your documents to large corporations basically is business. Do you think you'll get better results with a small business or something?
I think the intended contrast was between entrusting your documents to large corporations or entrusting your documents to your own solution (developed in-house or purchased) that runs on equipment you administer and fully control.
Yes, if a corporation dares to choose a widely-used product with a large install base, which fits their use requirements, as opposed to a relatively new, only moderate install base with different features available (no Firefox/Opera with H.264, no Safari/iPhone with Theora, no Internet Explorer period), which does not fit their use requirements on even one browser, then they must be 'in cahoots' with the company who makes that product.
I know you were going for a better-than-average first post without too much thought, but really, stop listening to Apple. Adobe is not a conspiracy.
What we have here might be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. HTML5 would have a larger installed base if there were more content available. In turn, there'd be more content available if HTML5 had a larger, more established installed base.
No, the original poster had it right - there simply isn't consistent browser support yet to make HTML5 more than an interesting sideline.
... but there likely would be if there were tons of content that demanded consistent browser support. I don't see how anything you are saying contradicts me.
Customers can take their business elsewhere; consumers must go to particular providers (i.e. copyright holders of shows) if they want a particular product.
That was true until the time of significant broadband penetration and the rise of peer-to-peer sharing. Even if the "pirates" are an insignificant percentage of "consumers", they are the wolves at the door that are a force to keep the bastards in check somewhat.
That is a really interesting statement because I have a reason to agree with it and I have a reason to disagree with it. I will withhold judgment as to which one is more valid.
You're absolutely right about the effect of piracy. It's a check against excessive industry control. It's a bit like civil disobedience, except of course that those who engaged in old-fashioned civil disobedience fully expected to do the time for the crime. Pirates, by contrast, tend to rely on the statistical unlikelihood of any one of them getting caught. Other than this level of commitment, the effect against a controlling force is the same. The industry knows, even it it doesn't want to admit it, that they more they piss off their customers the more piracy will happen.
My reason for disagreement may sound cynical. With apologies to Voltaire, if there were no pirates I wonder if it would be necessary for the copyright holders to create them. It would be hard to justify much recent copyright legislation and proposals if there were not the big scary phantom pirates behind every corner greedily disrupting those poor hardworking content creators who enjoy 100+ year monopolies on each work. Without the emotional knee-jerk of "PIRACY ZOMG!!" and the fuzzy accounting practices it excuses (every download = a lost sale? really?!) then they might be forced to resort to providing logical reasons for new legislation. I don't believe that would be nearly so effective at getting them what they want.
I really don't know which of those reasons is the stronger. The only thing I can safely say is that piracy is a double-edged sword.
Wow. Talk about over-complicating things.
It's quite simple. Customers are the ones who pay. If you're not paying anything, you're not a customer.
I agree. That's exactly why I dispute the use of "consumer" to describe paying customers as though the terms were interchangable. This discussion where the distinction between customer and consumer is relevant is what brought up this subject.
This is overly complex for whom? You and your ability to handle a small amount of complexity? You and your unwillingness to see that these developments are not random but are in fact carefully engineered and deployed? Your inability to find the slightest fascination in this because you long ago gave up your natural curiosity and desire to understand the world around you? Your need to berate me because you would have given this a more superficial treatment? I take it I am supposed to believe that you have found a flaw with me rather than showing me a flaw in you.
Yes, if a corporation dares to choose a widely-used product with a large install base, which fits their use requirements, as opposed to a relatively new, only moderate install base with different features available (no Firefox/Opera with H.264, no Safari/iPhone with Theora, no Internet Explorer period), which does not fit their use requirements on even one browser, then they must be 'in cahoots' with the company who makes that product.
I know you were going for a better-than-average first post without too much thought, but really, stop listening to Apple. Adobe is not a conspiracy.
Note: here, I am ignoring the specifics of Hulu like their need to track advertising and enforce "content protection" etc. in an effort to describe a bigger picture.
What we have here might be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. HTML5 would have a larger installed base if there were more content available. In turn, there'd be more content available if HTML5 had a larger, more established installed base. Adoption by major players is one way of solving this. Incorporation as a standard feature into mainstream browsers is another approach. Both approaches are complimentary and assuming HTML5 is a good standard, should be used in tandem.
For that matter, Adobe does not manufacture automobiles. Stating the obvious of what Adobe isn't does not really advance the discussion. The point is, if Adobe could wave a magic wand and get anything it wanted, it would have a lot more control over Internet content because that's how they make money. That and the proprietary standards used to achieve it are in their interests but are not in my interests. I just described not only Adobe but practically every for-profit corporation in existence.
All of them would love to have total dominance of the markets in which they participate and none of them would benefit many others by succeeding. They are limited by what they can and cannot do, not so much by what they will and will not do. What they can do includes becoming adopted as a de facto "gold standard" by companies like Hulu as part of their overall strategy of becoming entrenched and raising the barrier to entry for new competing standards. In fact, many would say that they are not shrewd and lack business acumen if they did not attempt such things.
I can't attribute it unfortunately, but the applicable saying is:
"I've always considered statesmen to be more expendable than soldiers." As in, there's plenty more where those came from.
Honesty in this case - admitting that "our customers" (plus their needs) and their users aren't the same thing...
Indeed. For any sort of no-cost-to-view "broadcaster" the actual customers are the advertisers. The correct use of the term "consumer" describes those who watch the programs for free in exchange for having to view advertisements. Customers as individual entities and small groups have barganing power while consumers only matter in very large numbers and thus the "broadcaster" relates to them in more of a "take it or leave it" fashion by comparison. Customers can take their business elsewhere; consumers must go to particular providers (i.e. copyright holders of shows) if they want a particular product.
I have always regarded it as a form of Newspeak that a term indicative of diminished power and significance in the marketplace that comes from the jargon of one particular industry suddenly became applied to all customers in all economic transactions. One day about five to seven years ago it became in vogue to use "customer" and "consumer" interchangably as though they were the same thing. In conformance to the usual pattern, all the talking heads in the media suddenly adopted this usage and parroted each other as though they had always spoken this way. Always such Newspeak is in the form of using the degrading term to cover both cases and never in the form of using the elevating term to cover both cases.
Observe this pattern once and understand it and you will then see it everywhere.
Doesn't Argentina have like a free pass to take any IP that they want?
Like, totally.
And did he do that randomly for no purpose whatsoever, or did he do that because he agrees with it and it supports the point he was trying to make? I don't see where he is contesting Hanlon...
That's immaterial to a discussion about whether malice should be discounted in favor of incompetence when strong evidence of either is not forthcoming. That is a matter of general principle applicable to many issues and is not limited to plagarism. Therefore, the discussion about plagarism is an instance of this greater theme and not worthy of the fixation you are showing. In other words, I doubt he failed to notice and instead I believe he rightly regarded that as trivial in the face of a much larger issue.
Seriousl skepticism is a virtue for any rational subject. That is, it's the wrong tool for questions like "do you love this person" but the absolutely correct tool for questions like "should this group enjoy stronger special legal protections?" If the concept is valid, it will survive skepticism because its merits will be demonstrable. The skepticism you witness here towards the stronger notions of IP law are due to a simple fact: they benefit a small minority of business interests at the expense of the rest of society. That does not constitute demonstrable merit; it is mere selfishness and exploitation and is unworthy of our support.
Given it's an unwritten requirement for being a politician, I would suspect almost all of them to be like that, regardless of state or country. Every now and then you get a humane politician that sucks horribly at these unwritten requirements... but not very often.
I'd go so far as to say that the purpose of entrenched political parties without whom you have no chance of election, party primary systems, and the inability to even get on the ballot without a great deal of sponsorship is simple. The purpose is to make sure that such humane politicians never make it through the system, since whoring themselves and their beliefs and principles to the highest bidder is anathema to them. Yet watching which way the wind blows and committing yourself to it wholeheartedly, as though the trend of the day was always your most deeply cherished belief, and always knowing on which side your bread is buttered is a requirement of advancing through this system. Thus, the political and monied interests who have the most to lose from a change in the status quo are also the gatekeepers deciding who does and does not stand a chance of holding public office.
It's why nothing ever really changes because "change" has been redefined to mean "becoming more so" or "advancing further down the path we were already on". Again I wish I could attribute that saying about our politics becoming more polar and divisive while our parties become more homogeneous, for this is more evidence of what I am saying.