Wow, that comes off as angry, snarky, and generally trollish for putting words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about 'turn off all ICMP'?
Windows uses ICMP for traceroute, Linux uses UDP packets, a few separate utilities use TCP. None of which trace very far with that disabled and active iptables firewall on the router. It disables echo, maybe traceroute, not ICMP in general. Using a variety of ICMP, UDP, and TCP online tools (I don't have a handy unix shell available right now, try again tomorrow), tracing to my public IP, with it allowed gets everything right quickly. Switch that one thing off, not one of the traces completes, some trace to completely different IPs and 'fall off'. All take a long time (1 to 25 minutes).
Can I get other, useful ICMP types? Yes. Do I have any reliability, latency, or speed issues with ICMP, TCP, or UDP, of any variety whatsoever? No. The only other ICMP message which security implications (as far as I'm aware) is redirect, which is scarcely used for anything good anymore, at least on residential ISPs. Some ISPs block ICMP echo altogether upstream due to worms of the past using it as a popular technique (and congesting everything to hell). Other than that, for IPV4, aren't only Unreachable and Time Exceeded generally used anymore for actual usage? Probably won't get "Header Parameter Problem" unless you're experimenting with the IP stack itself. I don't know -as- much about ICMPv6, but it looks like there are 4 useful error messages, and 7 useful information messages, not counting echo; it's useful for infrastructure and servers to have echo on, not for home users who don't need to be pinged directly to see if they are alive.
DoS attacks are illegal, very obvious, and ISPs don't like it. I don't know what brought on THAT comment. I'm not particularly concerned about that, because I can be pretty sure they won't be getting access to my information if they're flooding theirs, and that tends to get law enforcement involved really quickly. If somebody keeps my piddly little desktop offline for a day, they get to go to jail. Even if my ISP might possibly be too dumb to filter it at the edge of the network (or at the source if in-network)... jail for them, a mild inconvenience for me. Somehow, I'm okay with somebody that stupid not being my problem.
Google collected a lot of data. It's beyond inane to assume they couldn't (or wouldn't) have obtained other details, when -I- can do so with a commodity bargain router and a few utilities (all of which can run on the router itself and don't involve 'breaking' or accessing anything, just passively listening). On open networks, everything's transmitted in the clear. YOU don't have to log in, if you can watch somebody else do so. I don't think Google cares that much, and isn't that nefarious. But it's purely naive to assume that just because Google got away with it, others aren't interested in information you transmit.
This is frigging Slashdot, isn't it common knowledge to secure your data (as best as possible) over a completely untrusted, and insecure network, notoriously vulnerable to external snooping from anyone with a $5 USB plug and a computer from the last 10 years? It's not some kind of national security thing, but I don't exactly feel comfortable with a hotel manager (or someone in the neighborhood if I were dumb enough to run an unsecured router for my own use) reading my personal correspondence with relatives and friends. That's a very basic privacy and trust issue, not one of location finding. It's also common sense.
There are a number of proofs of concept (http://samy.pl/mapxss/ for instance) showing that you can use javascript to determine public MAC information, and street address, using Google's own tools, but not requiring any sort of 'privileged' access to anything whatsoever. More than one person I knew had been able to locate their exact street address because their router had at one time been broadcasting. That one doesn't use a public IP address, but the MAC address. Assuming
Well, my router has defaulted to NOT respond to pings in the default configuration for years. Finally, there's a good reason not to, but seriously, even the known TCP/UDP traceroutes require an open inbound port on both the end host, and the same(?) on every intermediate host. There's no good reason to have ping (and hence traceroute) enabled. You're far more likely to have your IP address and/or your MAC address located by street address via Google, because 'everyone' tends to have unsecured wifi now. Ignoring the facts of fast GPU-driven encryption cracking for wifi purposes, don't use unsecured wifi, and don't use your real MAC address for wifi. It seems like RFID, they ignored predictions on technology advancement, so now anyone with enough hard drive space (by far the limiting factor, last I checked) and a $5 wifi adapter can can crack any 'encrypted' wifi (except apparently RADIUS, maybe)., but spending a few hundred dollars, is 'easy' if you're interested in looking at everyone's stuff, whether for creepy personal motives or profit. Another reason to only use SSL or SSL+tor when on wifi.
"Everybody" uses Ubuntu, then complains about the bugs Ubuntu has had for a long time, and doesn't seem to be much of an issue for any other distribution. Perhaps diversity is a good thing, no matter how much Ubuntu tries to package and sell Unity (in more ways than two).
Hardware and software support is directly a function of the linux distribution, not because of availability 'in the wild', but which ones manage to screw up the good deal that's already happened worse than others.
You can have fine-tuned death machine of acid and fire that you jigsawed together and quite probably can't reproduce again later, or you can a nicely pre-packaged steaming pile that takes most of the useful stuff away, tries to prevent you from installing things it doesn't happen to like, and introduces bugs by using an excessive number of 'custom' patches and self-advertising branding to every possible application, library, and utility. To date, there haven't been many exceptions. Many...actually, are there any? Can't name any off-hand that are both powerful, flexible, and LSB/posix/upstream compliant, but also have nice easy-install easy-setup easy-everything. (Sabayon doesn't count, since it's pre-packaged unflexible Gentoo, hence without the Gentoo part.)
Tens of billions (or more) invested into what they already have. The notion of "looking stupid" is pretty powerful as far as what companies will and won't do. Something has to have a lot of momentum and stick around long enough to start moving the granite boulder.
On a serious note, a lot of 'projects' seem to come out like this one, but very few ever seem to make it to commercial scale and distribution, let alone success and continued survival. "Alternative" tech never seems to sell, quite possibly because it's 'alternative', and the big boys have enough cash to make most things go away that would cut into their profits, like that pesky cold fusion.
Speaking of pretentious... If GNU/Linux is a "jail", and you have to "get out of jail" by only using non-free software...then perhaps I'll just use Linux Linux. Linux is just a kernel, and GNU tends to be nearly the worst toolchain/base tools on any OS. BSD base tools are at least clean, efficient, and actually follow the unix pholosophy, instead of building a private copy of "sort" into every command.
The "Libre" version of the kernel has gone so far (at least last year, when it was on lwn) as to 'forbid' you from running any kind of non-GPL drier or blob.
The LK itself wasn't even initially GPL, for a few versions. Linux, and other software, is available because people were free to choose to be able to do it and pursue it, not because the GNU foundation exists and heavily advertises its own worth. GNU also tends to 'frown' upon non-GPL, but otherwise 'more liberal' open source software because it allows more choice, and hence 'evil proprietary software can choose it too! bad! shame!' (I can imagine Stallman saying that out loud, that verbatim...I really can).
"I'm just doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, it won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." ^ GNU would have a lot more credibility, if Hurd was an operating system people knew about as well as NetBSD...or even the L4/Fiasco Microkernel. It's been in Development Hell since 1986. Their initial option was to use a 4.4BSD kernel (circa 1987) and rework it, but they weren't getting extensive bend-over-backwards do-it-for-us support from the Berkley guys, so wanted 'Mach' instead...waited 3 years for them to change the license for them...
The common factor about the "rejections" on the "Free Linux" thing, like for Debian, is that all a distribution has to do is offer the "option" to install non-free, even if it's disintegrated with the project, not 'easily available' in the software, or easily linked from websites or main pages, but that it's merely not-impossible to search for it on the internet, find it, and install it. Woo. "FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system."
If you can't trust *administrators* to make their own logical choices, even if 99% of their software is free, then you shouldn't be promoting Linux. The GNU philosophy is, and always has been, a 'walled garden' of supposed luxury and extravagance that tends to fall short and piss people off because they're just taking choices, options, and 'stuff' away from you. The lovely thing is, it appears to predate the Apple notion of that by at least two decades.... I wonder if that's where Apple got the idea.
But it's very classic Soviet style/Stalinist, to talk about "the freedom of the people", while ordering them by threat of death not to think of anything on the non-approved list.
I'm always going to run proprietary stuff, because I like my video card to operate, I like OpenCL, I like video playback. The 'license restrictions' per-distro, tends to mean at least one of those is not available via 'normal' means.
And as various Linux foundations and organizations have done, encouraging developers, and "scary proprietary people" to release their program/utility/game/driver source code under a free license, eventually, is easier by making them -like- Linux, instead of feel threatened by it. If it's turned into religious dogma (which Stallman seems rather proud of), then you're going to have at least two diametrically opposed camps who will never get along, and will essentially try to "kill" each other over time.
I've always found it amusing that the "linux" community seems to think itself much superior to and isolated from their *BSD second-cousins, but what people should perhaps be more worried about, are all of the greedy corporations, and corporate takeovers, that threaten decently sane and objective policy making. Fedora at least got 'spun off' from Redhat, and they for the most part, haven't been trying to burn anythin
"I don't need to use the phone, so I am looking for an unlocked phone" Well, there's your problem right there.
Also, the android SDK has emulators for all of their phone API levels. If you're planning to get a phone, "but not a phone", it would obviously be cheaper to use that, especially if you aren't planning to use any sort of advanced features (like for 'flash'). You could then just ask someone you know to test things on their phone to make sure it looks like what you see on the SDK.
Otherwise, if you're looking for a phone...that can make phone calls, I hear that Android and iPhone are actually pretty bad at it!
TFA uses http://jsbenchmark.celtickane.com/Run.aspx which is a joke. A useful benchmark is Futuremark's Peacekeeper, really, since it tests a wide variety of common tasks. On my machine, Chrome's the fastest at raw JS, but (by far) slowest at rendering...besides Firefox, which is actually slowest at -every- benchmark -every- time (by a typical margin of 5-10x or more; 4 RC is even slower than everything else on its own benchmarks like Kraken). Even Opera (with no hardware acceleration at all) beats Chrome at complex graphics and rendering on canvas. Chrome is also the only accelerated browser to get incorrect rendering/redraw on many of the various Canvas acceleration tests/demos. IE9 is the fastest at rendering complex stuff, while still keeping up with the pack on regular JS, which I dare say is a useful area to be #1 in. If the browser compiles all of your JS really fast, but then takes a lot of extra time to actually display it, you're still bottlenecking as if you had an incredibly slow JS engine, just at a different part in the average case.
If you do HPC in your web browser via JS, Chrome is definitely the way to go, though.
They let you select the classic Slashdot style before, instead of the awful and slow abomination that replaced it...if they're getting rid of both for this pile of crap,with no way to select the classic classic, personally, I'll be finding some other way to get vaguely sane/interesting news..-. That's rather depressing, since the first thing I've done for the last decade (at least) on installing/reinstalling any browser is switch the homepage to slashdot.org.
It's depressing to know that most 'web designers', at least those of the '2.0' variety, have absolutely zero sense for aesthetics or usability.
It's an area where Firefox was never meant to be optimized. Mozilla Suite 1.7 and 1.8 at least worked fine (as did Seamonkey 1.x). The difference is that Firefox has XUL for its entire UI, and a purely single threaded javascript engine. There've been bug reports about it since before Firefox 1.0, and they've all been closed with "it's by design". Other modern browsers don't have much issue with this because A( they don't put the UI in the javascript engine, B( Chrome and Opera work by one process/VM per tab respectively, they work independently of each other.
Firefox has done this since the beginning, which was one of the main differences to Mozilla Suite. Any sufficient load (which in single core processors was quite minimal) would lock up the browser, refuse to let the UI do anything, since it uses the same single-threaded Javascript engine thanks to XUL.
It used to be 'real fun' to have to hunt down which tab was secretly using 100% of the CPU to do nothing because of javascript, especially when the UI was nearly unresponsive as a result.
From TFA: "Philippine Daily Inquirer" "The Inquirer is withholding the identities of the parties involved so as not to intrude on their privacy."
Where the hell is THEIR original citation? Usually various international case information is picked up by various law services (far as I know). Searching for most of the relevant terms of this article (like the presiding judge) in combination with other relevant terms of the article, only produce this, and things linking to it (mostly in the Philippines, of course).
Given the lack of reference here, there also appears to be no actual evidence that the OSG was citing wikipedia, aside from the ex-wife's brief.
But, given that I'm not a lawyer...I just prefer Associated Press, or failing that, a meaningful chain to follow in national/international news reports.
Here, we have absolutely nothing to go on, but a single foreign newspaper publishing something on their website. I'm sure anyone who COULD figure out where the hell this came from would get free mod points, but...it looks half-baked to me.
They're called statutory damages for a reason. It's precalculated by a statute (hence the name) or a law. Given that the lawyer's fees were so low...likely Blizzard wasn't considering asking for so much (especially given likely inability to repay such an amount), but was given little to no say in it, given that it was a DEFAULT judgement (defendant never responded despite being served/summoned), and hence not argued "in trial".
It was a lengthy, boring series of motions that was never once contested.
The difference here seems to be that they were explicitly soliciting money for in-game stuff, rather than accepting donations purely to offset hosting costs. (Eg, most private servers aren't going to be needing 3 million dollars just to host it.)
Some of the language that Activision/Blizzard uses in the briefs are unnerving (such as 'unauthorized client' and 'you must be connected to blizz servers onlien to patch, not use blizz-provided offline patcher files').
If you also RTFA, it was a default judgment, meaning scapegaming was served, and chose not to respond at any point during the whole proceedings.
Contact email on the press release is chevrolet@mischiefpr.com.
If a Slashdot contributor gets taken for a line with that one, and editorial staff allows it through as a Science (not Idle) story, while nobody bothers to do even the slightest amount of digging, it might be high time to revise standards and practices, since Slashdot is starting to descend to a less-timely, less-informed, more gullible version of reddit.
I remember when Slashdot was THE place for techie/geeky news, and the comments were considerably more often than not insightful. Nowadays, people seem happier to quibble over minor semantics in an article while missing the big picture. I'm not trying to put Slashdot, one of my favorite sites, down but I'd rather it retain or improve level of quality, not slip toward the same plateau as Slashdot Parody Sites[tm].
If you're going to accept PR advertisements, at least put them in the ad box in the corner and accept payment, so people can opt out.
That sounds an awful lot like the space combat system in Star Wars Galaxies. In fact...it sounds identical. You can take shuttles around, but it's considerably cheaper to use your own starship, fly it around via hyperspace, and land at a planet.
And you can have 'epic space battles', and 'space combat levels' are independant compared to your 'ground combat levels'. *sniff* I was on the edge of qualifying for experimental light cruiser, too.
So all they're doing here is attempting to refine it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_synchronization before tryinig to come up with something better.
After further inspection, it isn't an Opera bug, but that case does appear different, here's why.
Inspecting the elements in Opera vs. Chrome (FF and IE don't have 'built in' stuff), suggests that Opera defaults to a 10px margin-right, while Chrome defaults to a 40px margin-right, on the CSS regarding the blockquote, at least on 7chan/hi/. Live-editing the CSS to 40px (lovely Opera feature), makes it render identical.
The 'user agent style sheet' is explicitly left up to the browser, and most things say if you -don't- want the margins and padding left up to the browser, you're supposed to reset with margin:0, padding: 0.
For sites where small layout elements are emphasized in such a way...did nobody notice (or report this to the site owners) in the last 6+ years or so?
The specification doesn't mandate that a browser do anything other than accept the tag. It doesn't specify how, when, or why it does or doesn't render it. The site(s) in question should be relying on browser-independent behavior, including -probably- not using blockquotes in such a way, when it's deprecated.
Tested on FF, Opera, Chrome, and IE8. The only difference in rendering the blockquote appears to be based on font and relative sizing, determining at which point the text wraps and how far over it is when it does so.
Opera 10.60 is still roughly twice as fast as Firefox 4.0b1, and less aggressive gobbling memory than either Firefox or Chrome (the hog) on average.
You generally only need extensions if something's already broken; on Opera, you can load up an ad blocking filter+CSS element hider, enable/disable both per-site, enable cookies/JS/etc on a per-site basis, and run many but-not-all user javascript. All of which require 'extensions' on Firefox.
It's also widely accepted to be the most standards compliant browser on virtually any comparative time frame, and also typically gives equal treatment to all supported OSes, so there are lots of reasons to use it and enjoy it.
People seem to like to complain about Opera, like they like to complain about XP x64. They heard about it once and so it just must absolutely be horrible, because giving it a real chance is too much work.
The last time I had any rendering/formatting problems was with old buggy javascript layout in 2006. Those were with Opera 9 beta(ish) I think? By 9.5 the problems (on minor, entirely non-public code) were gone again. And now (as in, for all of recent memory), like most browsers, you can report websites that don't work directly (and can post code snippets on the forums, IIRC).
BitTorrent sites do not have the movie files on them. Users share them at their own expense and risk. They use blockable advertising to offset hosting costs.
Streaming sites obviously do have the files on them, and by using ads embedded into the stream, they were presumably attempting to directly make a notable profit off of the movies and TV shows.
So why were BT sites traditionally the main target instead of profiteering streaming sites? Nevermind how numerous and over-the-top most of the streaming sites seem.
An issue with the default settings/software (which is almost never 'upstream' default settings/software), as has cropped up on Ubuntu and OpenSuSE many times over the years, is much more likely than random, sudden, otherwise asymptomatic hardware failure.
Sometimes if you're just doing everything right, some guy who thinks he's a real genius programmer has added a bizarre, buggy, dubious patch to glibc or the distro's kernel which causes problems for some software for some users (at best).
Random utility/security software used to be an issue (in particular; in some cases still is), but that's true of any non-mainstream, non-workstation edition of Windows as well.
Drivers were more of an issue -before- Vista came out, since people were still trying to figure out x64 drivers in general. About the same time Vista/WDDM x64 drivers stopped flaking out constantly, so did 64-bit XP drivers.
I wouldn't want to try to connect a random WLAN USB plug to XP x64 (or Vista, for that matter), mind. I never had issues with 'drivers in general', though. Everything I've tried to run with it that was supported by Server 2003 and/or Vista has been well supported on the 64-bit version too. Why, there was even one odd ancient analog brooktree TV tuner that strangely worked fine on XP x64 (using direct capture) but not on Vista (using anything). (And strangely, all of my video playback software insists on internally/externally using NV12 on Vista/W7 instead of RGB32, sure makes screenshots unhappy.)
Vista advertising (for x64) was virtually mandated. To get almost anything certified (of which seemingly all companies have to care about), you had to support it. And if you had to support it, of course you're going to loudly trumpet the fact that you're cool and hip and on the cutting edge of innovation in OS support. People are predictable, and Microsoft knew what it was doing. XP x64 was merely an OEM product, so while it didn't have the mainstream coverage, it certainly wasn't XP Embedded.
I'm glad Vista/etc work for you. For me, it actually loses track of memory during runtime (not boot), on a remarkably standard classification gaming machine. Having 4GB of RAM, and having to consult Available memory table to be able to run anything more than basic IM (and still going OOM frequently on games, web browsers, etc) was enough for XP x64 to reclaim its old spot, and make me consider buying a CRT (and conversion) just to avoid the rock and hard place of "windows classic" LCD issues vs. "windows new-style" memory "disappearing" issues.
But, at any rate, every time the mere version is mentioned, people seem to get some kind of complex about how horrible it -must- be, when it's merely middle ground somewhere somewhere between running XP SP3 and Vista x64 SP2. All available RAM, without having to spend at least 800MB-1GB of it (more in my case) on services just booting to the desktop.
Consistent, unremarkable behavior tends to be considered a feature that most OSes strive for in new and improved versions.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that comes off as angry, snarky, and generally trollish for putting words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about 'turn off all ICMP'?
Windows uses ICMP for traceroute, Linux uses UDP packets, a few separate utilities use TCP. None of which trace very far with that disabled and active iptables firewall on the router. It disables echo, maybe traceroute, not ICMP in general. Using a variety of ICMP, UDP, and TCP online tools (I don't have a handy unix shell available right now, try again tomorrow), tracing to my public IP, with it allowed gets everything right quickly. Switch that one thing off, not one of the traces completes, some trace to completely different IPs and 'fall off'. All take a long time (1 to 25 minutes).
Can I get other, useful ICMP types? Yes. Do I have any reliability, latency, or speed issues with ICMP, TCP, or UDP, of any variety whatsoever? No.
The only other ICMP message which security implications (as far as I'm aware) is redirect, which is scarcely used for anything good anymore, at least on residential ISPs. Some ISPs block ICMP echo altogether upstream due to worms of the past using it as a popular technique (and congesting everything to hell).
Other than that, for IPV4, aren't only Unreachable and Time Exceeded generally used anymore for actual usage? Probably won't get "Header Parameter Problem" unless you're experimenting with the IP stack itself.
I don't know -as- much about ICMPv6, but it looks like there are 4 useful error messages, and 7 useful information messages, not counting echo; it's useful for infrastructure and servers to have echo on, not for home users who don't need to be pinged directly to see if they are alive.
DoS attacks are illegal, very obvious, and ISPs don't like it. I don't know what brought on THAT comment. I'm not particularly concerned about that, because I can be pretty sure they won't be getting access to my information if they're flooding theirs, and that tends to get law enforcement involved really quickly. If somebody keeps my piddly little desktop offline for a day, they get to go to jail. Even if my ISP might possibly be too dumb to filter it at the edge of the network (or at the source if in-network)... jail for them, a mild inconvenience for me. Somehow, I'm okay with somebody that stupid not being my problem.
Google collected a lot of data. It's beyond inane to assume they couldn't (or wouldn't) have obtained other details, when -I- can do so with a commodity bargain router and a few utilities (all of which can run on the router itself and don't involve 'breaking' or accessing anything, just passively listening). On open networks, everything's transmitted in the clear. YOU don't have to log in, if you can watch somebody else do so. I don't think Google cares that much, and isn't that nefarious. But it's purely naive to assume that just because Google got away with it, others aren't interested in information you transmit.
This is frigging Slashdot, isn't it common knowledge to secure your data (as best as possible) over a completely untrusted, and insecure network, notoriously vulnerable to external snooping from anyone with a $5 USB plug and a computer from the last 10 years? It's not some kind of national security thing, but I don't exactly feel comfortable with a hotel manager (or someone in the neighborhood if I were dumb enough to run an unsecured router for my own use) reading my personal correspondence with relatives and friends. That's a very basic privacy and trust issue, not one of location finding. It's also common sense.
There are a number of proofs of concept (http://samy.pl/mapxss/ for instance) showing that you can use javascript to determine public MAC information, and street address, using Google's own tools, but not requiring any sort of 'privileged' access to anything whatsoever. More than one person I knew had been able to locate their exact street address because their router had at one time been broadcasting. That one doesn't use a public IP address, but the MAC address. Assuming
Well, my router has defaulted to NOT respond to pings in the default configuration for years. Finally, there's a good reason not to, but seriously, even the known TCP/UDP traceroutes require an open inbound port on both the end host, and the same(?) on every intermediate host.
There's no good reason to have ping (and hence traceroute) enabled.
You're far more likely to have your IP address and/or your MAC address located by street address via Google, because 'everyone' tends to have unsecured wifi now.
Ignoring the facts of fast GPU-driven encryption cracking for wifi purposes, don't use unsecured wifi, and don't use your real MAC address for wifi.
It seems like RFID, they ignored predictions on technology advancement, so now anyone with enough hard drive space (by far the limiting factor, last I checked) and a $5 wifi adapter can can crack any 'encrypted' wifi (except apparently RADIUS, maybe)., but spending a few hundred dollars, is 'easy' if you're interested in looking at everyone's stuff, whether for creepy personal motives or profit.
Another reason to only use SSL or SSL+tor when on wifi.
"Everybody" uses Ubuntu, then complains about the bugs Ubuntu has had for a long time, and doesn't seem to be much of an issue for any other distribution.
Perhaps diversity is a good thing, no matter how much Ubuntu tries to package and sell Unity (in more ways than two).
Hardware and software support is directly a function of the linux distribution, not because of availability 'in the wild', but which ones manage to screw up the good deal that's already happened worse than others.
You can have fine-tuned death machine of acid and fire that you jigsawed together and quite probably can't reproduce again later, or you can a nicely pre-packaged steaming pile that takes most of the useful stuff away, tries to prevent you from installing things it doesn't happen to like, and introduces bugs by using an excessive number of 'custom' patches and self-advertising branding to every possible application, library, and utility. To date, there haven't been many exceptions. Many...actually, are there any? Can't name any off-hand that are both powerful, flexible, and LSB/posix/upstream compliant, but also have nice easy-install easy-setup easy-everything. (Sabayon doesn't count, since it's pre-packaged unflexible Gentoo, hence without the Gentoo part.)
That was Xbox (Pentium 3 Coppermine), not Xbox 360 (PowerPC Xenon).
Tens of billions (or more) invested into what they already have. The notion of "looking stupid" is pretty powerful as far as what companies will and won't do.
Something has to have a lot of momentum and stick around long enough to start moving the granite boulder.
Bullet Proof Banana Hammocks Made Out of Bananas.
On a serious note, a lot of 'projects' seem to come out like this one, but very few ever seem to make it to commercial scale and distribution, let alone success and continued survival. "Alternative" tech never seems to sell, quite possibly because it's 'alternative', and the big boys have enough cash to make most things go away that would cut into their profits, like that pesky cold fusion.
Speaking of pretentious...
If GNU/Linux is a "jail", and you have to "get out of jail" by only using non-free software...then perhaps I'll just use Linux Linux. Linux is just a kernel, and GNU tends to be nearly the worst toolchain/base tools on any OS. BSD base tools are at least clean, efficient, and actually follow the unix pholosophy, instead of building a private copy of "sort" into every command.
The "Libre" version of the kernel has gone so far (at least last year, when it was on lwn) as to 'forbid' you from running any kind of non-GPL drier or blob.
The LK itself wasn't even initially GPL, for a few versions. Linux, and other software, is available because people were free to choose to be able to do it and pursue it, not because the GNU foundation exists and heavily advertises its own worth. GNU also tends to 'frown' upon non-GPL, but otherwise 'more liberal' open source software because it allows more choice, and hence 'evil proprietary software can choose it too! bad! shame!' (I can imagine Stallman saying that out loud, that verbatim...I really can).
"I'm just doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, it won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones."
^ GNU would have a lot more credibility, if Hurd was an operating system people knew about as well as NetBSD...or even the L4/Fiasco Microkernel.
It's been in Development Hell since 1986. Their initial option was to use a 4.4BSD kernel (circa 1987) and rework it, but they weren't getting extensive bend-over-backwards do-it-for-us support from the Berkley guys, so wanted 'Mach' instead...waited 3 years for them to change the license for them...
The common factor about the "rejections" on the "Free Linux" thing, like for Debian, is that all a distribution has to do is offer the "option" to install non-free, even if it's disintegrated with the project, not 'easily available' in the software, or easily linked from websites or main pages, but that it's merely not-impossible to search for it on the internet, find it, and install it. Woo. "FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system."
If you can't trust *administrators* to make their own logical choices, even if 99% of their software is free, then you shouldn't be promoting Linux. ... I wonder if that's where Apple got the idea.
The GNU philosophy is, and always has been, a 'walled garden' of supposed luxury and extravagance that tends to fall short and piss people off because they're just taking choices, options, and 'stuff' away from you.
The lovely thing is, it appears to predate the Apple notion of that by at least two decades.
But it's very classic Soviet style/Stalinist, to talk about "the freedom of the people", while ordering them by threat of death not to think of anything on the non-approved list.
I'm always going to run proprietary stuff, because I like my video card to operate, I like OpenCL, I like video playback. The 'license restrictions' per-distro, tends to mean at least one of those is not available via 'normal' means.
And as various Linux foundations and organizations have done, encouraging developers, and "scary proprietary people" to release their program/utility/game/driver source code under a free license, eventually, is easier by making them -like- Linux, instead of feel threatened by it.
If it's turned into religious dogma (which Stallman seems rather proud of), then you're going to have at least two diametrically opposed camps who will never get along, and will essentially try to "kill" each other over time.
I've always found it amusing that the "linux" community seems to think itself much superior to and isolated from their *BSD second-cousins, but what people should perhaps be more worried about, are all of the greedy corporations, and corporate takeovers, that threaten decently sane and objective policy making. Fedora at least got 'spun off' from Redhat, and they for the most part, haven't been trying to burn anythin
"I don't need to use the phone, so I am looking for an unlocked phone"
Well, there's your problem right there.
Also, the android SDK has emulators for all of their phone API levels. If you're planning to get a phone, "but not a phone", it would obviously be cheaper to use that, especially if you aren't planning to use any sort of advanced features (like for 'flash'). You could then just ask someone you know to test things on their phone to make sure it looks like what you see on the SDK.
Otherwise, if you're looking for a phone...that can make phone calls, I hear that Android and iPhone are actually pretty bad at it!
TFA uses http://jsbenchmark.celtickane.com/Run.aspx which is a joke.
A useful benchmark is Futuremark's Peacekeeper, really, since it tests a wide variety of common tasks. On my machine, Chrome's the fastest at raw JS, but (by far) slowest at rendering...besides Firefox, which is actually slowest at -every- benchmark -every- time (by a typical margin of 5-10x or more; 4 RC is even slower than everything else on its own benchmarks like Kraken).
Even Opera (with no hardware acceleration at all) beats Chrome at complex graphics and rendering on canvas. Chrome is also the only accelerated browser to get incorrect rendering/redraw on many of the various Canvas acceleration tests/demos.
IE9 is the fastest at rendering complex stuff, while still keeping up with the pack on regular JS, which I dare say is a useful area to be #1 in.
If the browser compiles all of your JS really fast, but then takes a lot of extra time to actually display it, you're still bottlenecking as if you had an incredibly slow JS engine, just at a different part in the average case.
If you do HPC in your web browser via JS, Chrome is definitely the way to go, though.
Yes.
They let you select the classic Slashdot style before, instead of the awful and slow abomination that replaced it...if they're getting rid of both for this pile of crap,with no way to select the classic classic, personally, I'll be finding some other way to get vaguely sane/interesting news. .-. That's rather depressing, since the first thing I've done for the last decade (at least) on installing/reinstalling any browser is switch the homepage to slashdot.org.
It's depressing to know that most 'web designers', at least those of the '2.0' variety, have absolutely zero sense for aesthetics or usability.
It's an area where Firefox was never meant to be optimized. Mozilla Suite 1.7 and 1.8 at least worked fine (as did Seamonkey 1.x). The difference is that Firefox has XUL for its entire UI, and a purely single threaded javascript engine. There've been bug reports about it since before Firefox 1.0, and they've all been closed with "it's by design". Other modern browsers don't have much issue with this because A( they don't put the UI in the javascript engine, B( Chrome and Opera work by one process/VM per tab respectively, they work independently of each other.
10.62 is 'old'? It's less than a week old. Probably your 'not the most recent' build of 10.70 is older than that.
And comparing to the results up top are meaningless. Different hardware, different OS, different software config.
On my config(3ghz C2Q, 4gb ram, XP x64), I'm seeing:
FF nightly: 12630.2ms +/- 2.8%
Opera 10.62: 11888.4ms +/- 0.6%
Chrome dev: 14925.4ms +/- 0.5%
And like other comments are pointing out, Opera and Chrome remain responsive throughout the testing, FF might as well have locked up.
Firefox has done this since the beginning, which was one of the main differences to Mozilla Suite. Any sufficient load (which in single core processors was quite minimal) would lock up the browser, refuse to let the UI do anything, since it uses the same single-threaded Javascript engine thanks to XUL.
It used to be 'real fun' to have to hunt down which tab was secretly using 100% of the CPU to do nothing because of javascript, especially when the UI was nearly unresponsive as a result.
From TFA: "Philippine Daily Inquirer"
"The Inquirer is withholding the identities of the parties involved so as not to intrude on their privacy."
Where the hell is THEIR original citation? Usually various international case information is picked up by various law services (far as I know). Searching for most of the relevant terms of this article (like the presiding judge) in combination with other relevant terms of the article, only produce this, and things linking to it (mostly in the Philippines, of course).
Given the lack of reference here, there also appears to be no actual evidence that the OSG was citing wikipedia, aside from the ex-wife's brief.
But, given that I'm not a lawyer...I just prefer Associated Press, or failing that, a meaningful chain to follow in national/international news reports.
Here, we have absolutely nothing to go on, but a single foreign newspaper publishing something on their website. I'm sure anyone who COULD figure out where the hell this came from would get free mod points, but...it looks half-baked to me.
Nevermind elsewhere on the site, stories written by "DJ Yap" (I'm sorry, but even if someone's name was changed, newspapers would hire them and publish it why?): http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/metro/view/20100830-289493/House-painter-gets-14-years-for-drug-possession
They're called statutory damages for a reason. It's precalculated by a statute (hence the name) or a law. Given that the lawyer's fees were so low...likely Blizzard wasn't considering asking for so much (especially given likely inability to repay such an amount), but was given little to no say in it, given that it was a DEFAULT judgement (defendant never responded despite being served/summoned), and hence not argued "in trial".
It was a lengthy, boring series of motions that was never once contested.
The difference here seems to be that they were explicitly soliciting money for in-game stuff, rather than accepting donations purely to offset hosting costs. (Eg, most private servers aren't going to be needing 3 million dollars just to host it.)
Some of the language that Activision/Blizzard uses in the briefs are unnerving (such as 'unauthorized client' and 'you must be connected to blizz servers onlien to patch, not use blizz-provided offline patcher files').
If you also RTFA, it was a default judgment, meaning scapegaming was served, and chose not to respond at any point during the whole proceedings.
This isn't the kind of thing you expect from Slashdot, or Slashdot submitters/readers.
It's a PR stunt, but it's filed under 'science'.
It's also linking to a third party blog, 11 days after it was news.
Press release containing contact info: http://media.gm.com/content/media/gb/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.html/content/Pages/news/gb/en/2010/CHEVROLET/07_15_perfect_hand_shake
Original (as far as I know) blog entry mentioning it: http://jalopnik.com/5588201/this-is-the-formula-for-the-perfect-handshake
Contact email on the press release is chevrolet@mischiefpr.com.
If a Slashdot contributor gets taken for a line with that one, and editorial staff allows it through as a Science (not Idle) story, while nobody bothers to do even the slightest amount of digging, it might be high time to revise standards and practices, since Slashdot is starting to descend to a less-timely, less-informed, more gullible version of reddit.
I remember when Slashdot was THE place for techie/geeky news, and the comments were considerably more often than not insightful. Nowadays, people seem happier to quibble over minor semantics in an article while missing the big picture. I'm not trying to put Slashdot, one of my favorite sites, down but I'd rather it retain or improve level of quality, not slip toward the same plateau as Slashdot Parody Sites[tm].
If you're going to accept PR advertisements, at least put them in the ad box in the corner and accept payment, so people can opt out.
That sounds an awful lot like the space combat system in Star Wars Galaxies. In fact...it sounds identical. You can take shuttles around, but it's considerably cheaper to use your own starship, fly it around via hyperspace, and land at a planet.
And you can have 'epic space battles', and 'space combat levels' are independant compared to your 'ground combat levels'. *sniff* I was on the edge of qualifying for experimental light cruiser, too.
It seems like this was already done in 1989 to ~25 millisecond accuracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Algorithm
So all they're doing here is attempting to refine it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_synchronization before tryinig to come up with something better.
After further inspection, it isn't an Opera bug, but that case does appear different, here's why.
Inspecting the elements in Opera vs. Chrome (FF and IE don't have 'built in' stuff), suggests that Opera defaults to a 10px margin-right, while Chrome defaults to a 40px margin-right, on the CSS regarding the blockquote, at least on 7chan/hi/.
Live-editing the CSS to 40px (lovely Opera feature), makes it render identical.
The 'user agent style sheet' is explicitly left up to the browser, and most things say if you -don't- want the margins and padding left up to the browser, you're supposed to reset with margin:0, padding: 0.
For sites where small layout elements are emphasized in such a way...did nobody notice (or report this to the site owners) in the last 6+ years or so?
The specification doesn't mandate that a browser do anything other than accept the tag. It doesn't specify how, when, or why it does or doesn't render it. The site(s) in question should be relying on browser-independent behavior, including -probably- not using blockquotes in such a way, when it's deprecated.
Tested on FF, Opera, Chrome, and IE8. The only difference in rendering the blockquote appears to be based on font and relative sizing, determining at which point the text wraps and how far over it is when it does so.
Opera 10.60 is still roughly twice as fast as Firefox 4.0b1, and less aggressive gobbling memory than either Firefox or Chrome (the hog) on average.
You generally only need extensions if something's already broken; on Opera, you can load up an ad blocking filter+CSS element hider, enable/disable both per-site, enable cookies/JS/etc on a per-site basis, and run many but-not-all user javascript. All of which require 'extensions' on Firefox.
It's also widely accepted to be the most standards compliant browser on virtually any comparative time frame, and also typically gives equal treatment to all supported OSes, so there are lots of reasons to use it and enjoy it.
People seem to like to complain about Opera, like they like to complain about XP x64. They heard about it once and so it just must absolutely be horrible, because giving it a real chance is too much work.
The last time I had any rendering/formatting problems was with old buggy javascript layout in 2006. Those were with Opera 9 beta(ish) I think? By 9.5 the problems (on minor, entirely non-public code) were gone again. And now (as in, for all of recent memory), like most browsers, you can report websites that don't work directly (and can post code snippets on the forums, IIRC).
BitTorrent sites do not have the movie files on them. Users share them at their own expense and risk. They use blockable advertising to offset hosting costs.
Streaming sites obviously do have the files on them, and by using ads embedded into the stream, they were presumably attempting to directly make a notable profit off of the movies and TV shows.
So why were BT sites traditionally the main target instead of profiteering streaming sites? Nevermind how numerous and over-the-top most of the streaming sites seem.
An issue with the default settings/software (which is almost never 'upstream' default settings/software), as has cropped up on Ubuntu and OpenSuSE many times over the years, is much more likely than random, sudden, otherwise asymptomatic hardware failure.
Sometimes if you're just doing everything right, some guy who thinks he's a real genius programmer has added a bizarre, buggy, dubious patch to glibc or the distro's kernel which causes problems for some software for some users (at best).
Random utility/security software used to be an issue (in particular; in some cases still is), but that's true of any non-mainstream, non-workstation edition of Windows as well.
Drivers were more of an issue -before- Vista came out, since people were still trying to figure out x64 drivers in general. About the same time Vista/WDDM x64 drivers stopped flaking out constantly, so did 64-bit XP drivers.
I wouldn't want to try to connect a random WLAN USB plug to XP x64 (or Vista, for that matter), mind. I never had issues with 'drivers in general', though. Everything I've tried to run with it that was supported by Server 2003 and/or Vista has been well supported on the 64-bit version too. Why, there was even one odd ancient analog brooktree TV tuner that strangely worked fine on XP x64 (using direct capture) but not on Vista (using anything).
(And strangely, all of my video playback software insists on internally/externally using NV12 on Vista/W7 instead of RGB32, sure makes screenshots unhappy.)
Vista advertising (for x64) was virtually mandated. To get almost anything certified (of which seemingly all companies have to care about), you had to support it. And if you had to support it, of course you're going to loudly trumpet the fact that you're cool and hip and on the cutting edge of innovation in OS support. People are predictable, and Microsoft knew what it was doing. XP x64 was merely an OEM product, so while it didn't have the mainstream coverage, it certainly wasn't XP Embedded.
I'm glad Vista/etc work for you. For me, it actually loses track of memory during runtime (not boot), on a remarkably standard classification gaming machine.
Having 4GB of RAM, and having to consult Available memory table to be able to run anything more than basic IM (and still going OOM frequently on games, web browsers, etc) was enough for XP x64 to reclaim its old spot, and make me consider buying a CRT (and conversion) just to avoid the rock and hard place of "windows classic" LCD issues vs. "windows new-style" memory "disappearing" issues.
But, at any rate, every time the mere version is mentioned, people seem to get some kind of complex about how horrible it -must- be, when it's merely middle ground somewhere somewhere between running XP SP3 and Vista x64 SP2.
All available RAM, without having to spend at least 800MB-1GB of it (more in my case) on services just booting to the desktop.
Consistent, unremarkable behavior tends to be considered a feature that most OSes strive for in new and improved versions.