no, every article you linked is dribble that is TLDR before I even glance at the article. It doesn't matter if they're well written beyond my understanding.
Why?
::begin self promotion::
also b: by article title alone, you are wrong. Consoles hardware and console businesses are not catching up to PC's, and never have and never will. Consoles start out 6 months ahead and end up 2 years behind. Console business is not pc business. They are diametrically opposed, as console gaming is drm while pc gaming is not.
PC gaming is also not dying by any stretch, and neither is console gaming. They are separate industries and very rarely coincide.
If PC gaming is dying, then what is steam? what is blizzard? what is activision? What is EA? What is CCP? What is Mythic (beyond being kinda shitty lately)? Do I need to keep listing major companies that are doing strongly?
what is irrational? BSD is good for a public domain concept, and bad for anything where you'd like other people's contributions off your own work to benefit everyone.
Really, public domain is nice, but when it comes to software and/or for corporate use it leaves lots of things open to people with malicious intent. This is why I don't like BSD at all. People think BSD is the perfect solution for a corporate environment, as if a company would magically use BSD when they are not willing to consider open source in the first place.
do you have any idea how many multitudes of attack vectors involve simply having physical access to ethernet connected to the lan, let alone an authenticated session? Remember the rule: when physical access is gained, it's game over.
This stuff gives real IT security people nightmares. There is an infinitely large number of things that basically ensure that yes, all it takes is a single employee to fry your network. Hell, they don't even need to be infected. In a small office if their nic or wireless card go bad, or they have a bad ethernet cable that could make an entire office's lan useless until someone takes care of the resultant problem.
many companies basically say "deal with it" when it comes to hard disk encryption. Aka "Deal with it or leave the company". It's annoying and ads boot time, but overall it is a hell of a smart move in most scenarios.
Isn't there some kind of conditional licensing where if you have X license, then that is the minimum to be agreed to on any further license? I remembered reading about it for music - it's something like if you agree to 50c/song and a new agreement comes along, you can't ask for less than 50c/song.
I bet that's why apple crushed it after obtaining it - they probably were pissed that lala was giving the record company a better deal than apple was, or that lala was getting a better deal than apple.
I think the issue that people don't get, and understandably so when you're not an IT-minded person - I myself mix this up constantly too and I consider myself an IT person, is this:
you don't have, nor do you want, the same access,tools and control that you have at home. Different tools for different uses.
We all think from a personal perspective "oh, I have this at home, I should have it at work", but really, from a medical perspective it's like: are you going to keep a set of medical tools at home for use? It just doesn't fit the purpose.
I mean phones, ipods, etc, that cannot be reasonably controlled. However, personal laptops at work is asking for hippa, general confidentiality issues, and general security issues all around. If people are using personal laptops on the company network that's something worth informing IT/HR, as that's a huge risk.
All it takes is one employee with a virus and you're set for a lawsuit, or one employee with bad intentions and you've got a bunch of identity thefts.
windows 7 is better/an improvement/what vista should have been. Doesn't mean any of us care or intend to use it other than it being practically required for enterprise employees at the moment.
saying ea improved themselves is like saying microsoft suddenly became ethical. I'd give it a solid 20 years before companies this large would be expected to reasonably stop treating their customers like shit.
you know what? That's none of your business. I am at liberty to disclose whatever I want, but I don't need to be subjected to psychology, additionally by someone willing to comment only as an AC.
Harm by itself is not even at focus here. Who said a license does harm, or has done harm?
umm, you can fork and license under additional licenses that do not require or allow source code to be available.
Yes, BSD is more public domain styled. I absolutely agree. That is great for some scenarios, and bad for others. Yes, anyone can do whatever they want with it. However, they don't have to share whatever they do. It means they really don't have to contribute to the community. Most people have a preference one way or the other about this, and I myself am not excluded from that.
you can't remove source code access to something once it's been released via GPL. Even when forked. You can remove source code access to things that have been released via BSD.
If you obtain patents at any time and sue with them is different. You can obtain patents until you are blue in the face, but enforcing them is different altogether. How do you fail to understand this distinction? There is a significant difference between saber rattling and taking someone to court. Also, what does it matter? Bilski's about to invalidate most software patents, hopefully/thankfully.
In your opinion, you're not a lawyer, and you can read the rest off of http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/patents-and-gplv3.en.html if you bother to read it (which I know you wont). Your interpretations are incorrect, and you don't even have any standing in any way to imply otherwise.
Maybe a few quotes help. from the link above:
Patent retaliation means, if you sue somebody for patent infringement, then you lose the right to use this code.
wha? Your definition is not correct. BSD is "open source" but people can fork it proprietary. "The source code you release cannot be proprietary" is not all open source, again, BSD goes around this. Somehow they think it's better to let people take their own code and make it proprietary. Apple loves this. Apple can take a BSD programmer's code, and claim it as their own.
What you're talking about is "free and open source" commonly known as GPLv3.
note: I hate BSD, but I'm just saying that your definition and that most people know of open source are *not* aligned with BSD nor with GPL.
You can indeed spoof an IP and maintain a connection. ever heard of a: VPN or b: a proxy, c: I2P or d: tor?
Good luck with that. None of those are new techniques by any means.
It's also one thing to identify someone just being connected to a torrent. It's another to prove distribution. You will have to connect to identify someone. None of this stuff from this report says they connected to the individuals to verify the IP addresses.
You can (if an ISP chooses to share the data) tie an IP down to a physical address and a time. That doesn't tie it to a person by itself. That's like saying - X time on Y day at Z location something happened. Since it was near you, it must be you! (accusatory). Considering more than one person lives at a location, well, do the math. If you have a wireless connection unsecured? Again, do the math.
Get real. Anyone can collect the data, but taking it to the legal level for this is basically not going to happen. Police care about this, oh, zero, unless you're doing it commercially.
looks like something that won't work for those who understand that plenty of these IP addresses could be spoofed or not even uploading, or knows what I2P does, or uses VPN. This is just a list of IPs that they are assuming are 100% valid because they were listed in the tracker when the content went up. They're saying that if someone is listed on more than one tracker, it confirms who they are.
That= a bad study.
All they're saying is "We can tie an IP to a torrent", but that doesn't mean you can get anything more than that. Judges already don't accept an IP simply being tied to a torrent.
Maybe you don't understand. Memory starved phones in the first place, such as a G1, can only handle 2 or 3 apps in the background. With the magic "we'll close it when it hits 6", that doesn't work. Nor is it appropriate for phones that can handle more than 6 or less.
People need to have the option to determine this themselves, and google has not provided it. It could be as simple as "maximum performance/battery" = no more than 3 apps before it stops caching them, and "maximum apps" = maximum of 6 or 8.
How many phones does this apply to? Everything that has hardware less than what the N1/incredible has. Every other phone doesn't have the memory to support it.
not happen, happened. Lots of ISP's worldwide, not US only, want you to have a business connection just for daring to establish a VPN connection over it. Usually it ends up being somewhere between 10 and 40$ extra a month depending on country/currency/etc to do so.
right now however, in the us, comcast is staying away from that stuff, at least temporarily. Or if they do throttle, it's on the low end speeds. On my 22/10 they are not throttling anything, nor are they sending warnings and I use what comcast considers massive amounts of bandwidth per month for games/downloads/videos/netflix (>500GB).
Outside the us, these throttling attempts are quite regular. Especially rogers, etc.
sad but true, however I think it's the issue of "which resources".
You have a: serious lag on things loading (processor resource) without adblock and noscript. Meanwhile, you have b: serious ram implications over time if you do have them. I actually forsee the addons being a serious problem on android phones since google still doesn't think people need a "quit" button for their apps, even though most phones get starved on memory specifically because google doesn't understand that you need to give people by default a way to force closed a process.
However, the functionality is stuff that nobody else has down pat. I don't' see anyone else with gestures + adblock equivalent + noscript other than chrome. That and firefox runs more sights properly than chrome does. Safari isn't even worth mention, as it's so feature deprived that it simply runs fast but, well, you know, has no features. The adblock they have isn't even the same, a bit less userfriendly. No noscript available. So what alternatives do people have that are fully functional? none.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's try this way:
it's significantly less secure than what any of the alternatives can do. Performance is crap, and IE9 appears to fix, well, none of that.
how is that?
I'm glad for competition, as hopefully it will drive microsoft to compete more than the show they attempted with IE9. Competition is good for all.
jgreco's reply was quite appropriate.
no, every article you linked is dribble that is TLDR before I even glance at the article. It doesn't matter if they're well written beyond my understanding.
Why?
also b: by article title alone, you are wrong. Consoles hardware and console businesses are not catching up to PC's, and never have and never will. Consoles start out 6 months ahead and end up 2 years behind. Console business is not pc business. They are diametrically opposed, as console gaming is drm while pc gaming is not.
PC gaming is also not dying by any stretch, and neither is console gaming. They are separate industries and very rarely coincide.
If PC gaming is dying, then what is steam? what is blizzard? what is activision? What is EA? What is CCP? What is Mythic (beyond being kinda shitty lately)? Do I need to keep listing major companies that are doing strongly?
keep your blogshit out, thanks. That's all it is.
maybe they're trying to imply that 4.3 billion live in the us, and thus live with bad IP laws?
what is irrational? BSD is good for a public domain concept, and bad for anything where you'd like other people's contributions off your own work to benefit everyone.
Really, public domain is nice, but when it comes to software and/or for corporate use it leaves lots of things open to people with malicious intent. This is why I don't like BSD at all. People think BSD is the perfect solution for a corporate environment, as if a company would magically use BSD when they are not willing to consider open source in the first place.
do you have any idea how many multitudes of attack vectors involve simply having physical access to ethernet connected to the lan, let alone an authenticated session? Remember the rule: when physical access is gained, it's game over.
This stuff gives real IT security people nightmares. There is an infinitely large number of things that basically ensure that yes, all it takes is a single employee to fry your network. Hell, they don't even need to be infected. In a small office if their nic or wireless card go bad, or they have a bad ethernet cable that could make an entire office's lan useless until someone takes care of the resultant problem.
many companies basically say "deal with it" when it comes to hard disk encryption. Aka "Deal with it or leave the company". It's annoying and ads boot time, but overall it is a hell of a smart move in most scenarios.
Isn't there some kind of conditional licensing where if you have X license, then that is the minimum to be agreed to on any further license? I remembered reading about it for music - it's something like if you agree to 50c/song and a new agreement comes along, you can't ask for less than 50c/song.
I bet that's why apple crushed it after obtaining it - they probably were pissed that lala was giving the record company a better deal than apple was, or that lala was getting a better deal than apple.
I think the issue that people don't get, and understandably so when you're not an IT-minded person - I myself mix this up constantly too and I consider myself an IT person, is this:
you don't have, nor do you want, the same access,tools and control that you have at home. Different tools for different uses.
We all think from a personal perspective "oh, I have this at home, I should have it at work", but really, from a medical perspective it's like: are you going to keep a set of medical tools at home for use? It just doesn't fit the purpose.
no drm? Do you know what a disc check is? It's DRM. It's less of it, and it's much more sane, but it's still DRM.
yeah, that should raise red flags all over.
I mean phones, ipods, etc, that cannot be reasonably controlled. However, personal laptops at work is asking for hippa, general confidentiality issues, and general security issues all around. If people are using personal laptops on the company network that's something worth informing IT/HR, as that's a huge risk.
All it takes is one employee with a virus and you're set for a lawsuit, or one employee with bad intentions and you've got a bunch of identity thefts.
windows 7 is better/an improvement/what vista should have been. Doesn't mean any of us care or intend to use it other than it being practically required for enterprise employees at the moment.
saying ea improved themselves is like saying microsoft suddenly became ethical. I'd give it a solid 20 years before companies this large would be expected to reasonably stop treating their customers like shit.
yeah. signing a 10 year deal without some easy way to break the contract is never a good idea, no matter what business.
you know what? That's none of your business. I am at liberty to disclose whatever I want, but I don't need to be subjected to psychology, additionally by someone willing to comment only as an AC.
Harm by itself is not even at focus here. Who said a license does harm, or has done harm?
umm, you can fork and license under additional licenses that do not require or allow source code to be available.
Yes, BSD is more public domain styled. I absolutely agree. That is great for some scenarios, and bad for others. Yes, anyone can do whatever they want with it. However, they don't have to share whatever they do. It means they really don't have to contribute to the community. Most people have a preference one way or the other about this, and I myself am not excluded from that.
you can't remove source code access to something once it's been released via GPL. Even when forked. You can remove source code access to things that have been released via BSD.
If you obtain patents at any time and sue with them is different. You can obtain patents until you are blue in the face, but enforcing them is different altogether. How do you fail to understand this distinction? There is a significant difference between saber rattling and taking someone to court. Also, what does it matter? Bilski's about to invalidate most software patents, hopefully/thankfully.
In your opinion, you're not a lawyer, and you can read the rest off of http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/patents-and-gplv3.en.html if you bother to read it (which I know you wont). Your interpretations are incorrect, and you don't even have any standing in any way to imply otherwise.
Maybe a few quotes help. from the link above:
wha? Your definition is not correct. BSD is "open source" but people can fork it proprietary. "The source code you release cannot be proprietary" is not all open source, again, BSD goes around this. Somehow they think it's better to let people take their own code and make it proprietary. Apple loves this. Apple can take a BSD programmer's code, and claim it as their own.
What you're talking about is "free and open source" commonly known as GPLv3.
note: I hate BSD, but I'm just saying that your definition and that most people know of open source are *not* aligned with BSD nor with GPL.
You can indeed spoof an IP and maintain a connection. ever heard of a: VPN or b: a proxy, c: I2P or d: tor?
Good luck with that. None of those are new techniques by any means.
It's also one thing to identify someone just being connected to a torrent. It's another to prove distribution. You will have to connect to identify someone. None of this stuff from this report says they connected to the individuals to verify the IP addresses.
You can (if an ISP chooses to share the data) tie an IP down to a physical address and a time. That doesn't tie it to a person by itself. That's like saying - X time on Y day at Z location something happened. Since it was near you, it must be you! (accusatory). Considering more than one person lives at a location, well, do the math. If you have a wireless connection unsecured? Again, do the math.
Get real. Anyone can collect the data, but taking it to the legal level for this is basically not going to happen. Police care about this, oh, zero, unless you're doing it commercially.
looks like something that won't work for those who understand that plenty of these IP addresses could be spoofed or not even uploading, or knows what I2P does, or uses VPN. This is just a list of IPs that they are assuming are 100% valid because they were listed in the tracker when the content went up. They're saying that if someone is listed on more than one tracker, it confirms who they are.
That= a bad study.
All they're saying is "We can tie an IP to a torrent", but that doesn't mean you can get anything more than that. Judges already don't accept an IP simply being tied to a torrent.
Well, that sounds nice and all to you, but they can and will cut you off for that - it's stupid, but it's how they milk extra money, sadly.
Maybe you don't understand. Memory starved phones in the first place, such as a G1, can only handle 2 or 3 apps in the background. With the magic "we'll close it when it hits 6", that doesn't work. Nor is it appropriate for phones that can handle more than 6 or less.
People need to have the option to determine this themselves, and google has not provided it. It could be as simple as "maximum performance/battery" = no more than 3 apps before it stops caching them, and "maximum apps" = maximum of 6 or 8.
How many phones does this apply to? Everything that has hardware less than what the N1/incredible has. Every other phone doesn't have the memory to support it.
not happen, happened. Lots of ISP's worldwide, not US only, want you to have a business connection just for daring to establish a VPN connection over it. Usually it ends up being somewhere between 10 and 40$ extra a month depending on country/currency/etc to do so.
right now however, in the us, comcast is staying away from that stuff, at least temporarily. Or if they do throttle, it's on the low end speeds. On my 22/10 they are not throttling anything, nor are they sending warnings and I use what comcast considers massive amounts of bandwidth per month for games/downloads/videos/netflix (>500GB).
Outside the us, these throttling attempts are quite regular. Especially rogers, etc.
sad but true, however I think it's the issue of "which resources".
You have a: serious lag on things loading (processor resource) without adblock and noscript. Meanwhile, you have b: serious ram implications over time if you do have them. I actually forsee the addons being a serious problem on android phones since google still doesn't think people need a "quit" button for their apps, even though most phones get starved on memory specifically because google doesn't understand that you need to give people by default a way to force closed a process.
However, the functionality is stuff that nobody else has down pat. I don't' see anyone else with gestures + adblock equivalent + noscript other than chrome. That and firefox runs more sights properly than chrome does. Safari isn't even worth mention, as it's so feature deprived that it simply runs fast but, well, you know, has no features. The adblock they have isn't even the same, a bit less userfriendly. No noscript available. So what alternatives do people have that are fully functional? none.
ethical good and profitable good are not always aligned.