I would be more hesitant to use Java to write software after this lawsuit and be more tempted to use.NET if I were a developer. Oracle is killing its goose with the golden egg, and giving Microsoft tons and tons of FUD to spread. Remember what happened with the SCO scare? Many banks no longer run Linux or GNU for fear of litigation.
So your going to trade one PITA for another? Same thing can happen to.NET if MS decided. It's no better, just from a known monopoly abuser.
If you really want to avoid that kind of stuff you'd move to C/C++/Pascal/Ada/Python/Perl/take-your-pick. Languages that are not beholden to one entity are a lot better, more flexible, and easier to get good, functional tools for.
A fair point, but I would say that the number is at least one, maybe two orders of magnitude too low. $7000 is pocket change, probably less than the red team paid to fly there (wherever 'there' was). It says that a sysadmin would sell out what must be viewed as a multimillion dollar asset (not to mention their self-respect) for pennies on the dollar. To me it means that the sysadmins had no respect for their jobs, their profession, their responsibilities. If you're going to be a sleazebag crook, at least do it for what it's worth. If you steal a Mercedes you don't sell it for $100.
Or that those sys-admins feel like Peter Gibbons in office-space so they see it as an opportunity to cash in.
Just saying...and there are a lot of thieves that would sell the Mercedes for $100 if it means easy out of the situation.
Most people will probably continue to have one ISP connected by a firewall. Instead of NAT which inherently does stateful firewalling, they'll just have a simpler stateful firewall and skip the address translation tables.
I'd rather have no separate firewall and have the security on the hosts. Since we can't expect home users to go round configuring their firewall box, either we let incoming connections through or limit the kind of applications people can use. I suppose you could adapt UPnP, but why bother? If you don't want the connections, simply don't open a listening port.
I'd much rather provide a secure network on which I can plug anything - laptops, game consoles (Wii), desktops, etc. - than allow anyone to do anything to any device on my network. When guests come over they are afforded access to my generally secure network. And my ISP knows no different - whether 1 computer or 50. So I don't see address translation tables going away any time soon.
IPv6 mostly bugs me in the inability to assign IPv6 addresses deterministically to hosts coming into my network. My IPv4 clients all receive dynamic addresses by default, though I also assign known computers to static IPv4 addresses. Guests come in the first time and it gets logged and assigned a static; often then second time they come over it'll be a static and they'll get a nice DNS entry in my private TLD as well.
While Linux/BSD/etc may be able to do this (don't know about Mac) to some degree, from what I've read (from Microsoft) Windows won't ever do static IPv6 assignment; or at least, not with their current IPv6 stack. May be that changed with Vista 7, but I doubt it. They seem to be pretty much just doing the Local Link and adding the Network info to it (which is auto-discovered only) to get their IPv6 addresses.
Until I can do that with IPv6, I see no reason to switch.
At least I would beg to differ. There is nothing in networking that requires a machine to have a name to participate in a network; it only needs an address. A name, or more properly a host name, is just a human convenience for the real network address - whether IPv4 or IPv6.
Now granted, Windows likes having a machine name for participation in NetBIOS/CIFS/SMB/IPX networks, and in those cases the host name is defined as the address - unlike IP networks; but then there is also nothing preventing two machines from taking the same host name. There are plenty of systems on most networks that do not have an assigned host name, and are only known by their IP address.
Windows has been doing this for years, thats how you end up with a 169.whatever address. Its the address space reserved for hosts without using auto configuration. If you setup a router at whatever the RFC says the machine will use for default then the machine will be fully capable of communicating in its own little world, just like IPv6.
And if you ever noticed, when you get that 169.x.x.x private address then you have no network access at all under Windows. At that point, it'd be better to just mark the connection as disabled since it's functionally disabled even though its configuration looks like it shouldn't be. Very deceptive; and a bad way of doing configurations.
Not sure if it's true, but I've heard that DSL Internet is more reliable than Cable Internet. Why? DSL gives a dedicated phone line for every home, where cable has a shared line (broadcast to everyone). So if the kid next door starts downloading a Bluray, that will slow your cable internet too.
I know I've always had 7Mbit/s DSL just as advertised, without any slowdown. My cable friends can't make the same claim.
Yes, Cable is shared - it's a basic Ring Network. However, it's typically more reliable than DSL exactly for that reason as they allocate more bandwidth (i) on the local loop and (ii) a bit more at the hubs (e.g. Central Office) for the loop than their DSL counterparts. So while at peak you might get a lot less on the local loop, at non-peak you will be able to get a lot more than you XXX Mbit/s.
Which is also why you never see 600+ mph cars turning, or stopping using anything short of parachutes.
They use a lot more than parachutes; though parachutes are the main stopping force from their top speeds. They also have brakes too which work alone (for low speeds - e.g. rolling around the yard) and in conjunction with the parachute (when stopping at the end of the track). There are also the other various air-brake contraptions built into the body - e.g. the reversible on the roof in case they spin around, etc.
A lot of us still do that here in Canada. Even with a FWD vehicle (my car lacks anti-lock brakes, nevermind traction control), you can still wind up with an unpleasant oversteer on icy roads.
I wish I could have gotten extra weight over my wheels on my FWD Mazda3 for icy roads when I lived up north. Problem was, I couldn't, and the front end was so light I couldn't get good traction in snow; making going up hill a pain - if I didn't have enough speed, or the road was too steep I just couldn't go up it. Sadly, my house at that time was in the middle of such a hill; fortunately another road was available otherwise I wouldn't have been able to get home.
Don't you mean the Clinton years? While there was certainly a lot that happened between 2000 and 2008, there was at least as much between 1992 and 2000. Point being - which party is in power doesn't matter.
Yeah, those horrible Clinton years when we had peace and prosperity, a budget surplus over 218 Billion dollars, poverty at an all time low, and income at an all time high.
A pseudo-budget surplus. It was really just playing the numbers around, and including other monies (e.g. Social Security) in ways to make it look like a surplus. Yeah for fudging the numbers.
Add to that the fact that there were many jobs that were split in two, each with half the salary of the original; forcing people to work two or three jobs to make the same money. Sure, Clinton created jobs, but at what cost? Now we're reaping the seeds sown then - cut down the number of jobs b/c they're redundant, keep the pay low b/c to save the money, and yet people are not making enough to survive b/c they NEEDED those secondary and tertiary jobs to make what they were making under before 1992.
Poverty was hardly at an all time low; and thanks to the dotCom boom it seemed to be at an all-time high. Bubbles have a way of doing that. Then again, we went from manageable debt levels in the 1980's and early 1990's to the drowning levels of debt we have now - at all levels: federal, state, business, and personal - even before the recession started (so no, the recession is not to blame!).
What!? Widespread consolidation of ownership of everything that happened during the Bush years wasn't good for consumer choices? And the supposedly omnipotent free market actually does nothing in this situation because no start up can compete against established monopolies and cartels? (sarcasm)
I live in a rural area. I have one realistic choice for high speed (a WISP that bought up all the surrounding WISPS in the last 5 years.) This company already prioritizes it's voip solution's traffic, to the detriment of my connection's bandwidth and latency. Under current law it will only get worse. What incentive do they have in ensuring my voip solution's traffic has even baseline QOS? NONE. What recourse do I have? NONE. The article is blatant astroturf meant to capitalize on current tea-bagger idiocy.
Don't you mean the Clinton years? While there was certainly a lot that happened between 2000 and 2008, there was at least as much between 1992 and 2000. Point being - which party is in power doesn't matter.
Well, I use TB3 daily at work and have no problems with it there (WinXP SP3, with a number of extensions including Lightening). However, I also run it at home (again with a number of extensions) where my folders are significantly larger - my personal e-mail presently has ~5k email in it and that's just the last couple months; I have probably several GB of text email (so each message is relatively small) at home, where TB3 runs under Gentoo Linux (x86). For the most part, it's not a problem at home; until I try to move 1k of messages around (e.g. moving from one folder to another manually, not via a filter), then TB3 locks up for a while and after several attempts finally moves the messages - but you kind of have to expect that when moving 1k of messages around.
My only real qualm with TB is that I can't do very complex filters - namely a A+B do C, A+D do E; for example: if message from list A and has word X then move to place Y and mark as read; if message from list A and does not have word X then just move to place Y. Yeah, I could probably simulate this by putting filters on every single folder (e.g. master filter just "if message from list A then move to place Y", then on place Y put another filter of "if message has word X mark as read"), but that's pretty cumbersome when it could be easily resolved in the master filter list when checking an e-mail account.
My point is that whether you pay for healthcare directly via taxes or you pay for it in a roundabout way through hospitals making up for their losses by overcharging private health insurers and medicare/medicaid, you're still paying for it as long as your mandate hospitals have to care for those in need even if they can't afford it. You might as well suck it up, it's already happening.
The better reform would have been to regulate the overcharging on the hospital/doctor side, and require insurance provides to pay out the actual services covered by the policies. The problem is not needing more insurance providers, but making existing ones pay out against the policies - in all insurance sectors, not just health insurance - where right now they try to weasel out of every payment they can.
And yes - welfare, social security, medicare, medicaide, etc. can all go away. We'll save a good bit of the budget right there; and alleviate quite a few problems governmental problems. The programs have by and large outlived their usefulness, and are far and wide abused.
Problem is that most services (currently) that can communicate with FB users requires that you have a FB account--so that it knows WHICH FB users to communicate with.
However, FB seems to be integrating with a number of various services, e.g. Yahoo!, so that you can access all from one location. Now I haven't tried to tie Yahoo! and FB together (not that I would ever want to) so I am not sure if it requires a FB account, or if it can create one for you (if you don't have one) using your Yahoo! login automatically - thereby centralizing everything out to other sources. Essentially, FB is seems to be going more towards an OpenID (though not using OpenID necessarily) route for integration. So it will likely be that at some point they will get rid of the FB accounts and just use a generic account provided by a third-party - which they may already be somewhat doing. It's just a matter of time.
Should that ever happen, things like what the article mentions could provide a quick and easy substitute to FB. Or, for that matter, if they go now and use things like OpenID they could still beat FB out of the market since there are a lot of services (e.g. Yahoo!) that use OpenID still. So just b/c FB has 500 million users does not mean it can't be toppled quickly by openly operated systems like what the article brings to light.
Why do you say that? A 10 megapixel photo could do a 3'x4' print suitable for most purposes. With 10 megapixels you are at least in the realm of 35mm film - half at worst.
You do realize that 35mm film at a DPI level is about equivalent to somewhere at or above 24-36 megapixels, not 10. They are just starting to produce 24 megapixel gear, and not even for the professional community - the extreme highend. So may be in another couple years, they'll get 24-36 at the consumer end.
I can easily go to an event and shoot up several gigabytes worth of photos.
Agreed. You are not the same use case as the OP's uncle with a "hundred" photos found in the attic. I'd wager that those old photos were shot with a compact, perhaps even fixed-focus, camera... not the pro or semi-pro gear you are talking about.
My family has also done the same - redoing hundreds of photos from slides in the attic. A few CDs for each individual that received them, or probably 1 DVD now. It is still quite a bit of work, diskspace, etc. And there is a lot more to it as well as you also have to through to:
Make sure each photo scanned correctly
Touch them up for aging on an individual basis - no, software cannot do this automatically as it's too specific to each photo.
So ultimately for each photo you push from film into the computer you don't end up with 1 copy at 6 MB. You end up with 4-5 copies at 6 MB, one of which is the final version. Now, multiply that by 100 photos - and you are now at 3600 MBs (1 photo, 6 copies, 6 MB each). Granted, you are only going to distribute 100 photos (600 MB); but if you really cared about the photos you'd be keeping the Work-in-progress as well in case you or someone else can do better in the future.
I'm going to call shenanigans on you here:) A cheap film camera will probably not get exposure right, so you loose the improved dynamic range advantage. It will have a tiny lens, maybe even plastic and fixed-focus - so your enlargement will look uneven and fuzzy. True, a properly-exposed 35mm film from a decent SLR or nice compact will have more blowup potential than a digital camera of the same spec - but what's the use case here? How often do you blow up beyond 8x10, even given some cropping? I get plenty of resolution and sharpness from my S90 for 8x10 - all I'm missing is a bit of dynamic range, which isn't usually an issue in snapshots.
I'll give you the low end; and true - not many people do. But at the same time you never know until after the fact.
For instance, one of my cousins took a photo of my grandfather windsurfing with a relatively cheap camera (e.g. not an SLR). They later had it enlarged to a 3'x4' wall photo. If it had been today, the digital camera would not have produced anywhere near as good an photo. Even a DSLR wouldn't have done as good.
So while it might not be often, when it is - it can be important, significant, and well after the fact - so you can't go and just take the picture again with a better camera or film.
Now add the long after-the-fact discoveries made from film photos where they enlarged the photos to find things. Digital loses that; and they've especially had issue as many people will just delete the photos instantaneously if they didn't like it, thereby loosing a lot of information - e.g. police investigations getting photos from people standing by after a crime, people that didn't necessarily knew a crime had happened.
But you still can't get even a top-grade professional camera that matches Film at the DPI level.
While this is true, it's not an issue for most people who are not doing poster-sized enlargements. I'd argue the bigger advantage of film is in dynamic range.
And yet there are a lot of Wedding photographers that use only DSLRs, that must then blow up for photos much larger than 8"x10". Yeah, they're "professional" all right.
As a semi-amateur photographer, it is not quite that easy. I can easily go to an event and shoot up several gigabytes worth of photos. I use my SLR for all the important shots, and then my digital (with a Lumix lense) for a lot of the rest.
Yet all digital photos are not nearly as good as the ones from my SLR. Digital photography is just not there yet - and you loose so much.
Film has a lot of data recorded in it that can be very expansively blown up if desired; didn't matter if you used an SLR or a cheap throw-away camera. It still contains a lot of data; expensive SLRs just made taking good pictures that much easier if you knew how. (Easier as in getting everything setup right, focusing correctly, etc.)
Digital has a hard limit based on the hardware of the camera. Zoom too much and it'll pixellate on you. On top of that you have format loss if you use a lossy format to store the image in, further reducing what you might be able to get out of it.
Now, don't get me wrong - digital cameras are nice. They do take a lot of the work out of it for you. But you still can't get even a top-grade professional camera that matches Film at the DPI level. It's still a few years away.
Katherine Noyes writes at LinuxInsider that it may be time for Linus Torvalds to share more of the responsibility for Linux that he's been shouldering. 'If Linux wants to keep up with the competition there is much work to do, more than even a man of Linus's skill [can] accomplish,' argues one user. The 'scalability of Linus' is the subject of a post by Jonathan Corbet wondering if there might there be a Linus scalability crunch point coming. 'The Linux kernel development process stands out in a number of ways; one of those is the fact that there is exactly one person who can commit code to the "official" repository,' Corbet writes.
The problem with this is that there are a lot of people in a structured hierarchy around Linus. He maintains the very top of the hierarchy as "Supreme Dictator" and (i) uses his tools (e.g. git) and (ii) the hierarchy underneath him to manage it all.
A problem with that scenario is the potential for repeats of what Corbet calls 'the famous "Linus burnout" episode of 1998' when everything stopped for a while until Linus rested a bit, came back, and started merging patches again. 'If Linus is to retain his central position in Linux kernel development, the community as a whole needs to ensure that the process scales and does not overwhelm him,' Corbet adds. But many don't agree. 'Don't be fooled that Linus has to scale — he has to work hard, but he is the team captain and doorman. He has thousands doing most of the work for him. He just has to open the door at the appropriate moment,' writes Robert Pogson, adding that Linus 'has had lots of practice and still has fire in his belly.'"
After that 1998 experience, he learned the lesson and setup the hierarchy. After nearly having a similar experience during the 2.4/2.5 series development he wised up some more and expanded the hierarchy even further.
Linus might be the only one that can commit to his official branch of the tree, but it is one of many - all of which he draws from as the patches make their way up the hierarchy. Want to change a device? Submit the patch to the appropriate sub-tree, and wait for it to filter up to Linus. Any outside party cannot submit directly to Linus any more - it must go through his Lieutenants first, and their Lieutenants before them. All of this keeps the level of work that any one person does to a rather reasonable level so no one necessarily gets burned out - other than for politics.
Sure, Linus may go away some day; but there are probably enough people that have administrative permissions to his tree to be able to hand it off to someone else as well if he wasn't able to before he left (e.g. Bus Factor). Even then, there are several parallel trees (e.g. -mm) that are of equal quality run by one of the Lieutenants.
I'm surprised AT&T hasn't caught on with you yet- I had originally done the same with my Nexus One. I was on the $10 Medianet plan with AT&T, until they either got ahold of IMEI numbers for the N1 or figured out that my data usage (about a gig/month) must have come from a smartphone. In April, I received an email from AT&T telling me that "for my convenience" they switched me to the correct smartphone plan. Now I'm stuck paying ~$100/month for the cheapest voice plan plus unlimited data and texts and not much else.
Got my N1 in April/May for my line; just switched the SIM card over from my Motorola v180. My AT&T account still has the v180 listed as my phone (you can check on-line); and no such e-mail has come to me either. And IF they tried, I'd be calling them saying that is not what I want; with court action if need be. They have no right to change that without my consent.
The HTC Incredible is practically the same phone on Verizon.
I've looked at a number of Android phones; however, none are as sleek as the N1. Most are thicker, and bulkier; where as my N1 is as sleek as a iPhone.
and then you switch the keyboard layout (via the Systray/etc icon)
Provided that such a layout switch is present in the taskbar of the computer that you're using at the moment, and that it works the same way as the one on the operating system on the computer that you use at home.
Doesn't matter - however it works on the computer you are using. Windows supports it via Systray. Various DEs for Linux/Unix/etc. provide a similar kind of method via their equivalent. But regardless, if the computer does it differently than it does it differently and just a matter of figuring out how - for example, setting the default keyboard layout under most Linux environments is an environment variable; so you set it for one value for global usage, and another as part of user login.
My point was simply that you can switch the layouts to achieve the same thing. How doesn't matter.
I don't see your point. Are you implying that somehow two-factor is worse for primary authentication than one-factor? How is it, since "the other factor" on such a two-factor system can be exactly the same factor as for one-factor?
Think locked account. Corporate environment with IT department, not so much a problem. Home? Or companies without an IT department? A lot bigger problem since they don't necessarily have a way to re-enable access. And in such situations, one-factor is easier for them to resolve than two-factor.
"The problem comes when they loose the USB stick."
Basically as much a problem as when they forget their password.
Not quite. Loosing the USB stick means someone else could gain access. Where if they lost their password someone else can gain access if and only if they wrote it down somewhere, but then they're not as likely to have forgotten it.
Two-factor mitigates the issue, but still doesn't solve it - especially for primary authentication methods (e.g. local computer login). Two-factor is fine for secondary authentication (e.g. websites, VPN, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
So your going to trade one PITA for another? Same thing can happen to .NET if MS decided. It's no better, just from a known monopoly abuser.
If you really want to avoid that kind of stuff you'd move to C/C++/Pascal/Ada/Python/Perl/take-your-pick. Languages that are not beholden to one entity are a lot better, more flexible, and easier to get good, functional tools for.
It's pretty much that way for nearly every state in the U.S of A.
A fair point, but I would say that the number is at least one, maybe two orders of magnitude too low. $7000 is pocket change, probably less than the red team paid to fly there (wherever 'there' was). It says that a sysadmin would sell out what must be viewed as a multimillion dollar asset (not to mention their self-respect) for pennies on the dollar. To me it means that the sysadmins had no respect for their jobs, their profession, their responsibilities. If you're going to be a sleazebag crook, at least do it for what it's worth. If you steal a Mercedes you don't sell it for $100.
Or that those sys-admins feel like Peter Gibbons in office-space so they see it as an opportunity to cash in.
Just saying...and there are a lot of thieves that would sell the Mercedes for $100 if it means easy out of the situation.
Most people will probably continue to have one ISP connected by a firewall. Instead of NAT which inherently does stateful firewalling, they'll just have a simpler stateful firewall and skip the address translation tables.
I'd rather have no separate firewall and have the security on the hosts. Since we can't expect home users to go round configuring their firewall box, either we let incoming connections through or limit the kind of applications people can use. I suppose you could adapt UPnP, but why bother? If you don't want the connections, simply don't open a listening port.
I'd much rather provide a secure network on which I can plug anything - laptops, game consoles (Wii), desktops, etc. - than allow anyone to do anything to any device on my network. When guests come over they are afforded access to my generally secure network. And my ISP knows no different - whether 1 computer or 50. So I don't see address translation tables going away any time soon.
IPv6 mostly bugs me in the inability to assign IPv6 addresses deterministically to hosts coming into my network. My IPv4 clients all receive dynamic addresses by default, though I also assign known computers to static IPv4 addresses. Guests come in the first time and it gets logged and assigned a static; often then second time they come over it'll be a static and they'll get a nice DNS entry in my private TLD as well.
While Linux/BSD/etc may be able to do this (don't know about Mac) to some degree, from what I've read (from Microsoft) Windows won't ever do static IPv6 assignment; or at least, not with their current IPv6 stack. May be that changed with Vista 7, but I doubt it. They seem to be pretty much just doing the Local Link and adding the Network info to it (which is auto-discovered only) to get their IPv6 addresses.
Until I can do that with IPv6, I see no reason to switch.
So you can identify a network that way, yippee. That's just like saying you don't need 192.168.0.4, just 192.168.255.255.
To identify specific computers you can only use the colon notations to clear a series of zeros. That's it. Please read your own link.
At least I would beg to differ. There is nothing in networking that requires a machine to have a name to participate in a network; it only needs an address. A name, or more properly a host name, is just a human convenience for the real network address - whether IPv4 or IPv6.
Now granted, Windows likes having a machine name for participation in NetBIOS/CIFS/SMB/IPX networks, and in those cases the host name is defined as the address - unlike IP networks; but then there is also nothing preventing two machines from taking the same host name. There are plenty of systems on most networks that do not have an assigned host name, and are only known by their IP address.
And if you ever noticed, when you get that 169.x.x.x private address then you have no network access at all under Windows. At that point, it'd be better to just mark the connection as disabled since it's functionally disabled even though its configuration looks like it shouldn't be. Very deceptive; and a bad way of doing configurations.
Yes, Cable is shared - it's a basic Ring Network. However, it's typically more reliable than DSL exactly for that reason as they allocate more bandwidth (i) on the local loop and (ii) a bit more at the hubs (e.g. Central Office) for the loop than their DSL counterparts. So while at peak you might get a lot less on the local loop, at non-peak you will be able to get a lot more than you XXX Mbit/s.
Which is also why you never see 600+ mph cars turning, or stopping using anything short of parachutes.
They use a lot more than parachutes; though parachutes are the main stopping force from their top speeds. They also have brakes too which work alone (for low speeds - e.g. rolling around the yard) and in conjunction with the parachute (when stopping at the end of the track). There are also the other various air-brake contraptions built into the body - e.g. the reversible on the roof in case they spin around, etc.
A lot of us still do that here in Canada. Even with a FWD vehicle (my car lacks anti-lock brakes, nevermind traction control), you can still wind up with an unpleasant oversteer on icy roads.
I wish I could have gotten extra weight over my wheels on my FWD Mazda3 for icy roads when I lived up north. Problem was, I couldn't, and the front end was so light I couldn't get good traction in snow; making going up hill a pain - if I didn't have enough speed, or the road was too steep I just couldn't go up it. Sadly, my house at that time was in the middle of such a hill; fortunately another road was available otherwise I wouldn't have been able to get home.
Don't you mean the Clinton years? While there was certainly a lot that happened between 2000 and 2008, there was at least as much between 1992 and 2000. Point being - which party is in power doesn't matter.
Yeah, those horrible Clinton years when we had peace and prosperity, a budget surplus over 218 Billion dollars, poverty at an all time low, and income at an all time high.
A pseudo-budget surplus. It was really just playing the numbers around, and including other monies (e.g. Social Security) in ways to make it look like a surplus. Yeah for fudging the numbers.
Add to that the fact that there were many jobs that were split in two, each with half the salary of the original; forcing people to work two or three jobs to make the same money. Sure, Clinton created jobs, but at what cost? Now we're reaping the seeds sown then - cut down the number of jobs b/c they're redundant, keep the pay low b/c to save the money, and yet people are not making enough to survive b/c they NEEDED those secondary and tertiary jobs to make what they were making under before 1992.
Poverty was hardly at an all time low; and thanks to the dotCom boom it seemed to be at an all-time high. Bubbles have a way of doing that. Then again, we went from manageable debt levels in the 1980's and early 1990's to the drowning levels of debt we have now - at all levels: federal, state, business, and personal - even before the recession started (so no, the recession is not to blame!).
Still think they're not the same in the end?
What!? Widespread consolidation of ownership of everything that happened during the Bush years wasn't good for consumer choices? And the supposedly omnipotent free market actually does nothing in this situation because no start up can compete against established monopolies and cartels? (sarcasm)
I live in a rural area. I have one realistic choice for high speed (a WISP that bought up all the surrounding WISPS in the last 5 years.) This company already prioritizes it's voip solution's traffic, to the detriment of my connection's bandwidth and latency. Under current law it will only get worse. What incentive do they have in ensuring my voip solution's traffic has even baseline QOS? NONE. What recourse do I have? NONE. The article is blatant astroturf meant to capitalize on current tea-bagger idiocy.
Don't you mean the Clinton years? While there was certainly a lot that happened between 2000 and 2008, there was at least as much between 1992 and 2000. Point being - which party is in power doesn't matter.
Well, I use TB3 daily at work and have no problems with it there (WinXP SP3, with a number of extensions including Lightening). However, I also run it at home (again with a number of extensions) where my folders are significantly larger - my personal e-mail presently has ~5k email in it and that's just the last couple months; I have probably several GB of text email (so each message is relatively small) at home, where TB3 runs under Gentoo Linux (x86). For the most part, it's not a problem at home; until I try to move 1k of messages around (e.g. moving from one folder to another manually, not via a filter), then TB3 locks up for a while and after several attempts finally moves the messages - but you kind of have to expect that when moving 1k of messages around.
My only real qualm with TB is that I can't do very complex filters - namely a A+B do C, A+D do E; for example: if message from list A and has word X then move to place Y and mark as read; if message from list A and does not have word X then just move to place Y. Yeah, I could probably simulate this by putting filters on every single folder (e.g. master filter just "if message from list A then move to place Y", then on place Y put another filter of "if message has word X mark as read"), but that's pretty cumbersome when it could be easily resolved in the master filter list when checking an e-mail account.
My point is that whether you pay for healthcare directly via taxes or you pay for it in a roundabout way through hospitals making up for their losses by overcharging private health insurers and medicare/medicaid, you're still paying for it as long as your mandate hospitals have to care for those in need even if they can't afford it. You might as well suck it up, it's already happening.
The better reform would have been to regulate the overcharging on the hospital/doctor side, and require insurance provides to pay out the actual services covered by the policies. The problem is not needing more insurance providers, but making existing ones pay out against the policies - in all insurance sectors, not just health insurance - where right now they try to weasel out of every payment they can.
And yes - welfare, social security, medicare, medicaide, etc. can all go away. We'll save a good bit of the budget right there; and alleviate quite a few problems governmental problems. The programs have by and large outlived their usefulness, and are far and wide abused.
Problem is that most services (currently) that can communicate with FB users requires that you have a FB account--so that it knows WHICH FB users to communicate with.
However, FB seems to be integrating with a number of various services, e.g. Yahoo!, so that you can access all from one location. Now I haven't tried to tie Yahoo! and FB together (not that I would ever want to) so I am not sure if it requires a FB account, or if it can create one for you (if you don't have one) using your Yahoo! login automatically - thereby centralizing everything out to other sources. Essentially, FB is seems to be going more towards an OpenID (though not using OpenID necessarily) route for integration. So it will likely be that at some point they will get rid of the FB accounts and just use a generic account provided by a third-party - which they may already be somewhat doing. It's just a matter of time.
Should that ever happen, things like what the article mentions could provide a quick and easy substitute to FB. Or, for that matter, if they go now and use things like OpenID they could still beat FB out of the market since there are a lot of services (e.g. Yahoo!) that use OpenID still. So just b/c FB has 500 million users does not mean it can't be toppled quickly by openly operated systems like what the article brings to light.
You do realize that 35mm film at a DPI level is about equivalent to somewhere at or above 24-36 megapixels, not 10. They are just starting to produce 24 megapixel gear, and not even for the professional community - the extreme highend. So may be in another couple years, they'll get 24-36 at the consumer end.
My family has also done the same - redoing hundreds of photos from slides in the attic. A few CDs for each individual that received them, or probably 1 DVD now. It is still quite a bit of work, diskspace, etc. And there is a lot more to it as well as you also have to through to:
So ultimately for each photo you push from film into the computer you don't end up with 1 copy at 6 MB. You end up with 4-5 copies at 6 MB, one of which is the final version. Now, multiply that by 100 photos - and you are now at 3600 MBs (1 photo, 6 copies, 6 MB each). Granted, you are only going to distribute 100 photos (600 MB); but if you really cared about the photos you'd be keeping the Work-in-progress as well in case you or someone else can do better in the future.
I'll give you the low end; and true - not many people do. But at the same time you never know until after the fact.
For instance, one of my cousins took a photo of my grandfather windsurfing with a relatively cheap camera (e.g. not an SLR). They later had it enlarged to a 3'x4' wall photo. If it had been today, the digital camera would not have produced anywhere near as good an photo. Even a DSLR wouldn't have done as good.
So while it might not be often, when it is - it can be important, significant, and well after the fact - so you can't go and just take the picture again with a better camera or film.
Now add the long after-the-fact discoveries made from film photos where they enlarged the photos to find things. Digital loses that; and they've especially had issue as many people will just delete the photos instantaneously if they didn't like it, thereby loosing a lot of information - e.g. police investigations getting photos from people standing by after a crime, people that didn't necessarily knew a crime had happened.
And yet there are a lot of Wedding photographers that use only DSLRs, that must then blow up for photos much larger than 8"x10". Yeah, they're "professional" all right.
As a semi-amateur photographer, it is not quite that easy. I can easily go to an event and shoot up several gigabytes worth of photos. I use my SLR for all the important shots, and then my digital (with a Lumix lense) for a lot of the rest.
Yet all digital photos are not nearly as good as the ones from my SLR. Digital photography is just not there yet - and you loose so much.
Film has a lot of data recorded in it that can be very expansively blown up if desired; didn't matter if you used an SLR or a cheap throw-away camera. It still contains a lot of data; expensive SLRs just made taking good pictures that much easier if you knew how. (Easier as in getting everything setup right, focusing correctly, etc.)
Digital has a hard limit based on the hardware of the camera. Zoom too much and it'll pixellate on you. On top of that you have format loss if you use a lossy format to store the image in, further reducing what you might be able to get out of it.
Now, don't get me wrong - digital cameras are nice. They do take a lot of the work out of it for you. But you still can't get even a top-grade professional camera that matches Film at the DPI level. It's still a few years away.
The problem with this is that there are a lot of people in a structured hierarchy around Linus. He maintains the very top of the hierarchy as "Supreme Dictator" and (i) uses his tools (e.g. git) and (ii) the hierarchy underneath him to manage it all.
After that 1998 experience, he learned the lesson and setup the hierarchy. After nearly having a similar experience during the 2.4/2.5 series development he wised up some more and expanded the hierarchy even further.
Linus might be the only one that can commit to his official branch of the tree, but it is one of many - all of which he draws from as the patches make their way up the hierarchy. Want to change a device? Submit the patch to the appropriate sub-tree, and wait for it to filter up to Linus. Any outside party cannot submit directly to Linus any more - it must go through his Lieutenants first, and their Lieutenants before them. All of this keeps the level of work that any one person does to a rather reasonable level so no one necessarily gets burned out - other than for politics.
Sure, Linus may go away some day; but there are probably enough people that have administrative permissions to his tree to be able to hand it off to someone else as well if he wasn't able to before he left (e.g. Bus Factor). Even then, there are several parallel trees (e.g. -mm) that are of equal quality run by one of the Lieutenants.
I'm surprised AT&T hasn't caught on with you yet- I had originally done the same with my Nexus One. I was on the $10 Medianet plan with AT&T, until they either got ahold of IMEI numbers for the N1 or figured out that my data usage (about a gig/month) must have come from a smartphone. In April, I received an email from AT&T telling me that "for my convenience" they switched me to the correct smartphone plan. Now I'm stuck paying ~$100/month for the cheapest voice plan plus unlimited data and texts and not much else.
Got my N1 in April/May for my line; just switched the SIM card over from my Motorola v180. My AT&T account still has the v180 listed as my phone (you can check on-line); and no such e-mail has come to me either. And IF they tried, I'd be calling them saying that is not what I want; with court action if need be. They have no right to change that without my consent.
The HTC Incredible is practically the same phone on Verizon.
I've looked at a number of Android phones; however, none are as sleek as the N1. Most are thicker, and bulkier; where as my N1 is as sleek as a iPhone.
The how doesn't matter. My point was that was a way you could achieve the same result.
and then you switch the keyboard layout (via the Systray/etc icon)
Provided that such a layout switch is present in the taskbar of the computer that you're using at the moment, and that it works the same way as the one on the operating system on the computer that you use at home.
Doesn't matter - however it works on the computer you are using. Windows supports it via Systray. Various DEs for Linux/Unix/etc. provide a similar kind of method via their equivalent. But regardless, if the computer does it differently than it does it differently and just a matter of figuring out how - for example, setting the default keyboard layout under most Linux environments is an environment variable; so you set it for one value for global usage, and another as part of user login.
My point was simply that you can switch the layouts to achieve the same thing. How doesn't matter.
Think locked account. Corporate environment with IT department, not so much a problem. Home? Or companies without an IT department? A lot bigger problem since they don't necessarily have a way to re-enable access. And in such situations, one-factor is easier for them to resolve than two-factor.
"The problem comes when they loose the USB stick."
Basically as much a problem as when they forget their password.
Not quite. Loosing the USB stick means someone else could gain access. Where if they lost their password someone else can gain access if and only if they wrote it down somewhere, but then they're not as likely to have forgotten it.
Two-factor mitigates the issue, but still doesn't solve it - especially for primary authentication methods (e.g. local computer login). Two-factor is fine for secondary authentication (e.g. websites, VPN, etc.).