oh I know it does, I don't even want to live in this country anymore. I'm quite embarrassed to be associated with a country that 75-85% of the people not only are completely ignorant of what goes on day to day, but defend to the death ideals that they believe are religiously inspired or generally inspired by a lack of logic. However, we also push all our idiotic shit to every country in the world with saber rattling and international intimidation.
Nothing short of a violent bloody revolution would save this country, and yet I fear that if we had one we would almost certainly be left with a horrible dictatorship and be even worse off than things exist today. So I think this country is basically screwed.
hahah yeah okay, right. lets see, where do we begin. How about unintended consequences? You bet.
Or "whoops, your phone didn't receive the signal to re-enable the feature when it left", let alone other issues that would possibly make this questionable or only work on apple phones. Think that won't happen?
maybe you should have marked this idiocy or sarcasm or something, because it's about as offtopic as it gets. It's pretty disgusting to see such prosecutorial misconduct in the US, and yet the prosecutors aren't even getting a slap on the wrist.
Lack of vendor lock in doesn't mean you have to have vendor diversity. This is a complete and total focus on the wrong thing. You could go with redhat (single vendor), but you're not locked in from making changes to the OS. If Microsoft doesnt' want to patch a critical windows vulnerability then tough shit. If redhat doesnt' want to do something that you wish to do, then you can do it yourself, program it in with no limitations. GPLv3? Only matters if you're going to release your change. Nothing at all is preventing you from making changes internally. Vendor lock in refers to legal lock-in from being able to make changes to the software, not choice *of* vendors.
Meanwhile, if you think people don't have vendor diversity in organizations, I'd like to ask you again who exactly provides the backup software considered to be a best practice on windows server? Oh right, microsoft said "go to a third party" . In fact, they suggest/bar REQUIRE vendor diversity. Good luck storing things to DVD's that are over a DVD's size. Great! Might want to look into reality if you think vendor diversity is always a bad thing. Vendor diversity exists because one vendor has a gap in their solution. That's pretty natural considering that software is always being developed and changing over time. Trying to fight vendor diversity is an exercise in futility.
People going to XP from 7 is because they were doing things wrong originally on XP and are paying for it now. That's not exactly the fault of anything other than vista being complete shit for enterprise support. Nothing to do with server 08, or 08 R2 for that matter.
well, I was trying to be generous with two weeks:) Linux servers usually have an uptime of years, if it's run well. Considering most servers are now set up for patching without reboot, even moreso.
I see lots of shops running the hell away from windows 7, mostly because from a best practices perspective single vendor lock-in is not a good long term strategy, along with the lack of flexibility.
in a server environment every server OS should be able to handle an easy 2+ weeks of uptime without even the slightest issues.
However, in a desktop environment windows OS (in comparison to linux) can barely handle 2 weeks of uptime without a guarantee that a driver will have an issue when waking from sleep, or that a driver will become unresponsive spontaneously and corrupt itself until said service related to the driver is restarted.
In short, microsoft's problem is not MS, but how they interface with third parties. Who is to blame? MS for allowing this to continue. They started to try to enforce better policies with Win7 but didn't go anywhere near what it takes to fix any of that shit. So I'd blame them for not forcing the 3rd parties to stop being lazy fucks.
then who made the decision regarding asterisk? Hint: Microsoft. It doesn't take months or years for them to make heavy-handed management decisions that impact the company negatively.
we still have horribly crippled free versions. have you looked at what apps are today? It's not just "we made the free version the same as the paid cept you have ads".
When did you think that wouldn't happen? Do you think developers are actually altruistic or something?
pretty much my concern as well - security. I don't care about usability, improvements there are always good. However, making it harder to tell what site is linked - that is a giant issue.
That's not crippling the android ecosystem, that's a benefit and adds value to the system as a whole. All these developers who act like they magically never existed before they made ad-supported apps can shove it and go back to the reality of : ads were never welcome, and developers can live without ad revenue.
those costs have zero to do with the cost of distribution. Artists don't even get their fair share back from the RIAA, so acting like tehy have a fair price is a misnomer.
The costs of creating the music are ZERO. It is creativity. The support to create music these days costs around $1000 maximum. I can record a high quality record in my basement at an equivalent quality to what people pay for instruments.
Wake up ya shill. These costs are not astronomical or magically expensive anymore.
Lots of people care about the RIAA, want it gone, and refuse to buy music.
Getting something for nothing isn't how it works.
It's "getting nothing for nothing", because copying a digital file costs ya absolutely zero. you don't lose the original.
Your lack of understanding of reality in 2011 is atrocious. There aren't many people who haven't heard of what jackasses the RIAA/MPAA are in this year. They have done more to incite sharing of movies, music, etc than anyone else could do in a lifetime. They should pat themselve son the back, honestly.
The hilarity of this cracks me up. How can you not catch the obviousness here.
Anonymous has senior members/veterans? Since when? Especially when ANYONE can claim to be a member of anonymous or post on their pages? Guess what, I'm a seasoned veteran of anonymous because I've been with them for greater than 3 seconds. There, I'm a vet, senior member, quote me. etc.
full cooperation with the BSA would mean that open source is piracy. Since they've tried to claim that shit before, mostly because anything that is competition to them is worded as illegal or bad.
What I want is for Sony to stop being a dinosaur of a fucking company that supports the BSA, and start being a company that sticks to best practices. what the fuck kind of company stores old archived sensitive data on a networked server in 2011, and then proceeds to grandstand against how it must be anonymous and basically mislead the public in it's entirety?
People don't have the decision to retroactively fix the fact that they trusted a corporate identity with their information and that corporate entity just fucked them over bigtime.
Getting rid of the BSA would do wonders for local economies around the globe. If we didn't have this grandstanding of false piracy people could get on with their lives instead of watching as government lobbied by the BSA bends over for them and does their bidding, going directly against the desires of their constituents.
you know that SIP has been around for longer than skype, and does the same thing right?
I didn't want to have to mention it but figured I will since noone mentioned it.
That's not proprietary, and that's not "not as good". That's called "what everyone uses and you simply did not realize it or did not wish to acknowledge it".
as indicated, you're not going to be able to test those things in simulation environments because they simply are not going to occur.
As long as you have a way to take control of the vehicle immediately as needed, self driving cars on real roads is basically the requirement for this to go anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
oh I know it does, I don't even want to live in this country anymore. I'm quite embarrassed to be associated with a country that 75-85% of the people not only are completely ignorant of what goes on day to day, but defend to the death ideals that they believe are religiously inspired or generally inspired by a lack of logic. However, we also push all our idiotic shit to every country in the world with saber rattling and international intimidation.
Nothing short of a violent bloody revolution would save this country, and yet I fear that if we had one we would almost certainly be left with a horrible dictatorship and be even worse off than things exist today. So I think this country is basically screwed.
hahah yeah okay, right. lets see, where do we begin. How about unintended consequences? You bet.
Or "whoops, your phone didn't receive the signal to re-enable the feature when it left", let alone other issues that would possibly make this questionable or only work on apple phones. Think that won't happen?
maybe you should have marked this idiocy or sarcasm or something, because it's about as offtopic as it gets. It's pretty disgusting to see such prosecutorial misconduct in the US, and yet the prosecutors aren't even getting a slap on the wrist.
I believe the phrase is "not my mistake", not "not my problem", actually.
basically, this is a lack of an answer. It's not any different, it's just that it has to get to the courts to get settled.
what, you think they need FTC approval (even if they don't get it) to influence a corporate business decision? are you daft?
How is israel an apartheid state? Is it not the same middle eastern people that every other country surrounding them is?
Lack of vendor lock in doesn't mean you have to have vendor diversity. This is a complete and total focus on the wrong thing.
You could go with redhat (single vendor), but you're not locked in from making changes to the OS. If Microsoft doesnt' want to patch a critical windows vulnerability then tough shit. If redhat doesnt' want to do something that you wish to do, then you can do it yourself, program it in with no limitations. GPLv3? Only matters if you're going to release your change. Nothing at all is preventing you from making changes internally. Vendor lock in refers to legal lock-in from being able to make changes to the software, not choice *of* vendors.
Meanwhile, if you think people don't have vendor diversity in organizations, I'd like to ask you again who exactly provides the backup software considered to be a best practice on windows server? Oh right, microsoft said "go to a third party" . In fact, they suggest/bar REQUIRE vendor diversity. Good luck storing things to DVD's that are over a DVD's size. Great! Might want to look into reality if you think vendor diversity is always a bad thing. Vendor diversity exists because one vendor has a gap in their solution. That's pretty natural considering that software is always being developed and changing over time. Trying to fight vendor diversity is an exercise in futility.
People going to XP from 7 is because they were doing things wrong originally on XP and are paying for it now. That's not exactly the fault of anything other than vista being complete shit for enterprise support. Nothing to do with server 08, or 08 R2 for that matter.
well, I was trying to be generous with two weeks :) Linux servers usually have an uptime of years, if it's run well. Considering most servers are now set up for patching without reboot, even moreso.
I see lots of shops running the hell away from windows 7, mostly because from a best practices perspective single vendor lock-in is not a good long term strategy, along with the lack of flexibility.
in a server environment every server OS should be able to handle an easy 2+ weeks of uptime without even the slightest issues.
However, in a desktop environment windows OS (in comparison to linux) can barely handle 2 weeks of uptime without a guarantee that a driver will have an issue when waking from sleep, or that a driver will become unresponsive spontaneously and corrupt itself until said service related to the driver is restarted.
In short, microsoft's problem is not MS, but how they interface with third parties. Who is to blame? MS for allowing this to continue. They started to try to enforce better policies with Win7 but didn't go anywhere near what it takes to fix any of that shit. So I'd blame them for not forcing the 3rd parties to stop being lazy fucks.
then who made the decision regarding asterisk? Hint: Microsoft. It doesn't take months or years for them to make heavy-handed management decisions that impact the company negatively.
we still have horribly crippled free versions. have you looked at what apps are today? It's not just "we made the free version the same as the paid cept you have ads".
When did you think that wouldn't happen? Do you think developers are actually altruistic or something?
pretty much my concern as well - security. I don't care about usability, improvements there are always good. However, making it harder to tell what site is linked - that is a giant issue.
That's not crippling the android ecosystem, that's a benefit and adds value to the system as a whole. All these developers who act like they magically never existed before they made ad-supported apps can shove it and go back to the reality of : ads were never welcome, and developers can live without ad revenue.
so basically you like the complete lack of control over what info we can pull from your N1661? Specifically where you are, who you've talked to, etc?
the hilary is the comment of "owning" anything due to a patent. Tells you how out of wack intellectual property is as a concept.
those costs have zero to do with the cost of distribution. Artists don't even get their fair share back from the RIAA, so acting like tehy have a fair price is a misnomer.
The costs of creating the music are ZERO. It is creativity. The support to create music these days costs around $1000 maximum. I can record a high quality record in my basement at an equivalent quality to what people pay for instruments.
Wake up ya shill. These costs are not astronomical or magically expensive anymore.
Lots of people care about the RIAA, want it gone, and refuse to buy music.
Getting something for nothing isn't how it works.
It's "getting nothing for nothing", because copying a digital file costs ya absolutely zero. you don't lose the original.
Your lack of understanding of reality in 2011 is atrocious. There aren't many people who haven't heard of what jackasses the RIAA/MPAA are in this year. They have done more to incite sharing of movies, music, etc than anyone else could do in a lifetime. They should pat themselve son the back, honestly.
The hilarity of this cracks me up. How can you not catch the obviousness here.
Anonymous has senior members/veterans? Since when? Especially when ANYONE can claim to be a member of anonymous or post on their pages? Guess what, I'm a seasoned veteran of anonymous because I've been with them for greater than 3 seconds. There, I'm a vet, senior member, quote me. etc.
what a joke.
full cooperation with the BSA would mean that open source is piracy. Since they've tried to claim that shit before, mostly because anything that is competition to them is worded as illegal or bad.
So no, that wouldn't work.
What I want is for Sony to stop being a dinosaur of a fucking company that supports the BSA, and start being a company that sticks to best practices. what the fuck kind of company stores old archived sensitive data on a networked server in 2011, and then proceeds to grandstand against how it must be anonymous and basically mislead the public in it's entirety?
People don't have the decision to retroactively fix the fact that they trusted a corporate identity with their information and that corporate entity just fucked them over bigtime.
Getting rid of the BSA would do wonders for local economies around the globe. If we didn't have this grandstanding of false piracy people could get on with their lives instead of watching as government lobbied by the BSA bends over for them and does their bidding, going directly against the desires of their constituents.
you know that SIP has been around for longer than skype, and does the same thing right?
I didn't want to have to mention it but figured I will since noone mentioned it.
That's not proprietary, and that's not "not as good". That's called "what everyone uses and you simply did not realize it or did not wish to acknowledge it".
as indicated, you're not going to be able to test those things in simulation environments because they simply are not going to occur.
As long as you have a way to take control of the vehicle immediately as needed, self driving cars on real roads is basically the requirement for this to go anywhere.
There is no proof that manning has done anything.
where is his trial, where are the proof of facts?
Maybe you should think about that before you play this "manning is bad" shit.