This is the problem with the open-source system, even though people don't want to hear it. As soon as there's some disagreement, rather than find compromises, everyone just decides to split apart and do it their own way. Somebody takes their ball and goes home. Well, users can't support both resulting products, so you immediately cut your user base. Even if it's 50/50, which is rare, then you still just lost half your users, as well as potential developers contributing to what you do (whether directly or indirectly depending on the project). But usually it's not, and if it's, say, 70/30, that's fine for the side which has 70%, but what about the other side? Who says their product or methodology is worse, rather than the other side simply being in some better position to promote themselves? Or maybe a particular prominent developer decides to back that side? That's not to say that it's always the worst fork which succeeds, because that's obviously not true, but forking has never been a successful way of dealing with controversy from a user's standpoint. Users don't win when there's yet another competing product to detract developers towards, rather than focusing in a single direction with everybody on board.
Quite frankly, I think LibreOffice is a stupid name. OpenOffice was perfect for marketing as an alternative to commercial products. And now community support has apparently surrounded LibreOffice, which does nothing to help the average user who might now see that name mentioned and not give it a second thought. Or they might have heard of OpenOffice sometime in the past, but when they decide to look into it, they see the project is dying or dead and figure that's the end of it.
Forking is inevitable in some situations, but I really think it should be frowned upon more by the open-source community, particularly if they ever intend to go in any specific direction long enough to compete as strongly.
I'm not referring to simply being demanding. I'm referring to all of the other rather inexcusable things, verified by people who knew him (including Woz himself in various cases). Such as screaming at and belittling employees (at both Apple and NeXT), not acknowledging his child under false claims of being sterile, parking his plateless Mercedes in handicap spaces, being rude to fans and journalists, taking advantage of Woz for monetary gain (which yes even Woz admits, such as with the Breakout debacle), nearly getting Woz arrested one time (while selfishly attempting to not get arrested himself) and almost shot another, very public feuds with companies who didn't meet his arguably unrealistic expectations (IBM and Adobe being the most well-known), not being charitable (with either Apple's money or his own), etc.
He was simply not a swell guy. There is more than enough evidence and witnesses to back that up. While Woz still considered Jobs his friend (since Woz is a genuinely nice guy), that doesn't mean Woz hasn't also repeatedly admitted the things that Jobs did. That's because it's wrong to portray a man as something he's not. If Woz can tell the truth about his long-time friend, fans should be able to accept and admit it as well.
Basically, he can have been a total jerk and still have accomplished things which certain people can admire him for.
I don't think a single incident 30 years ago is why most people who dislike Steve Jobs feel the way they do. That's certainly the case for me. I can give him credit for being a good business man, but my opinion on him as a person will likely never change. Similarly, I will likely never see him as this visionary inventor that the media and fans have built him up to be, either. There are people who believe Jobs built the Apple I and II with his bare hands because of all that mess, when his hands had nothing to do with building either one. It'd ridiculous the way they trumped him up as such a great person, with countless tributes as if a saint had died, when he wasn't even charitable, let alone nice.
But much as I've done my homework on Jobs over the years, I have for Woz as well, and there isn't a single thing that comes to mind that he ever did or said which makes me think negatively of the guy. That's the difference between them.
So it's simply a matter of not wanting to like them both. Those who want to overlook his flaws are certainly welcome, though, since everyone is entitled to an opinion.
So you offer two absolutes on whether my post is useful or not, complete with sarcasm, and apparently never considered the usefulness of your own post.
Sounds like a) somebody needs to feel important by replying to comments which got marked a certain score, and/or b) you love Steve Jobs a little too much and it bothers you when somebody else has justifiable reasons not to.
And everybody knows Tommy was the best Power Ranger.
Wow, lots of unexpected harsh comments regarding Woz here.
Woz is just a nice guy. He likes to talk to people, especially when they share similar interests (Apple products in this case). This is the same guy who was so into computers that he regularly attended the Homebrew Computer Club, and sought out people who knew things he didn't (like about the phone system). It's also the same guy who works with young people to get them interested in programming and computers. He's a people person, even if he can seemingly be a bit shy sometimes.
So why do people have to insert some kind of agenda into the guy's actions? He makes like $400 a month from Apple to not do anything, so he isn't exactly working for their marketing department. Whether his appearance makes a 30-second spot on the local evening news (which going by the media's interest in Woz compared to Jobs, maybe not), and if he's lucky sells a few more iPhones in his town to fans who were probably on the fence about buying it anyway, doesn't benefit him personally. And Woz standing in a line simply isn't going to generate any significant sales nationally either to make any noticeable impact on Apple's bottom line. Especially when you consider that the average Apple fan these days quite frankly (and sadly) may have no idea who the guy is.
Jobs wasn't a very nice person. Not only do I understand peoples' dislike of the guy, I share it. But I honestly can just never understand any strong negative feelings about Woz. I personally have no interest in Apple or their products these days, but Woz is still a role model to someone like myself who's interested in programming and electronics. And I love to hear about his pranks, since I've been known to pull one here or there as well. People can blow Steve Jobs up into a visionary or Jesus or whatever other nonsense and I'll still never respect the guy. But Woz will always have my respect.
Seriously, how many respectable role models are even left out there anymore, especially for young people?
I don't understand how technologies like this, which already exists in various forms, become popular simply because Apple releases their own version. Is it because they made it prettier? Is society really that vain?
It will become a novelty function to the majority of users, much like most of the other iterations on other devices/platforms. Most people know what kind of answer they're looking for so they'll go straight to the source to find it, knowing it will be accurate the first time.
So exactly how much closer is Ubuntu now to OSX? Because Shuttleworth is trying awfully damn hard to mimic it.
Even when you set the window control buttons back to the right and switch back to a standard GUI instead of one that makes my PC look like a glorified netbook, dialog buttons are still backwards to me, and I don't believe there's a way to change that short of recompiling with a flag set. Or, you know, use a different distro, but that's not the point. What next, are we going to make file menus go right-to-left too? How about putting window controls at the bottom, just to really throw people for a loop?
Ubuntu is starting to feel like Windows to me in a way. People (like myself) want to use it because that's where the majority of users seem to be, and that encourages developers to support a particular platform and make a better OS overall which is more likely work out of the box with everything I want. But at the same time, the company in charge of Ubuntu makes design decisions I don't like, so I'm either left dealing with it and going to trouble to straighten their mess out, or switching to a less popular distro which might result in more effort to make other things work as seamlessly in the future.
I run Debian on servers, where personally I feel it's better suited than a desktop. But at this rate, I may end up going back to it for desktops as well, despite their dislike of proprietary software (aka software everyone needs if they intend to have a modern computing experience).
It depends on how much money you want/expect the world to spend trying to revamp the entire outdated system, for starters.
The fact is, spam filtering these days is pretty doggone good. I know people complain about Google and privacy issues, but I pipe all my POP3 mail into my Gmail inbox, and I rarely ever get unwanted emails. But I get literally dozens of spams a day in the spam folder.
I also have my "catch all" account from a server I administer directed to a different Gmail account. And considering 99% of that mail is also spam, it catches hundreds a day, and passes through the very few random emails which were legitimately (and sometimes accidentally) addressed to someone at the domain. In fact, I've also witnessed emails come in from companies directed at people who are apparently engaged in fraudulent purchases. Receipts for hotels and airlines and such. It's interesting to see what shows up from time to time.
The only way you're going to really change the system is if you come up with an entirely new one which is inherently secure but also exciting and different enough to encourage people to switch. Trying to make people enable particular settings in cryptic configuration files of current software when there are countless sysadmins who barely know how to make email work to begin with is a waste of time and effort.
Why exactly are they testing something which can disrupt the operation of civilian and commercial equipment when there is a GPS band dedicated solely to military operations? NATO has access to L2.
Each band only needs a single frequency to operate, so using the military band would provide an almost identical test. The only real difference is encryption and accuracy, but that has no bearing on actual signal quality. Granted, they operate at different frequencies, which can have an impact on signal propagation, but it would still allow for testing the technology and then factoring the difference into your presumed range.
Looks to me more like the military wanted to keep their own band working while they tested on the one which didn't matter to their operations as much.
I used Opera for years before switching to Chrome, so I still have a fondness of the company and their innovations. More power to them if they want to try it. They always allow users to disable their new features, so it shouldn't be a problem. I know a guy who disables tabbed browsing and uses his browser old-fashioned, so Opera still lets him do it how he wants, too.
Whenever they implement this technique on Opera Mobile, it might even make me seriously reconsider using Dolphin if it works out as good as they think. There's still situations where scrolling a big page doesn't always work great on a phone.
Why does everyone fall back on attacking Microsoft for press releases like this? Statistically, IE HAS been safer than other browsers in certain respects nowadays. It's silly to dismiss their complete turnaround in taking security seriously just because it's fun to hate on the company.
Of course there's going to be some marketing thrown into it as well. But what company doesn't? Why isn't everyone attacking Apple when they claim Safari is the fastest and safest browser? Or Mozilla, which has made the same claims for years too? It's not true for either of those, and they certainly can't both be right at the same time. Everyone lets that slide, because it's not cool to hate on them, despite their own terrible histories with security/vulnerability problems.
I haven't used IE for years (stopped for security reasons, in fact), but that doesn't change the fact that I can still offer them kudos for helping keep the web a safer place, especially when they still provide the dominant browser. The less infected machines on the internet is beneficial to ALL of us.
It's kind of ironic how out of control this "no photos" thing is nowadays, because cameras can be so small, either part of your phone or just slip right in your pocket, that people should be able to capture more spontaneous moments, to post on all of the social media or online photo sites that are available today. Instead, people are going to have to worry about getting their freaking phones confiscated.
And then, to make matters worse, police are apparently also allowed to nose around in your phone without a warrant. So even though your Facebook and Twitter and all that are normally password-protected accounts for your data and would require an official request to get access, police can just click the icon on your phone and look as they please.
The thing you have to remember is that Wozniak loved technology, and loved to learn how things worked. It's no surprise that he would want to build a blue box and explore the telephone system.
Steve Jobs, on the other hand, was an opportunist. He didn't care about how it worked. He cared that people wanted to make illegal phone calls. So he convinced Wozniak that they should sell the things, something which Woz would have never decided to do on his own. That's a move which almost got them both arrested on one occasion, and nearly shot by a criminal wanting their boxes on another. And I certainly remember how Woz phrased the arrest scenario, where when the cop showed up while they were using the box on a pay phone, Jobs shoved it on Woz so that he wouldn't be caught with it. What a real weasel.
Inspiration is a funny thing. It might take two people in a similar direction, but that doesn't mean they have the same motives.
Well I certainly credit him as a business man, and obviously without Jobs pushing Woz, he would have stayed at HP making calculators and possibly never become very successful (other than having a cushy job at HP). I also don't disregard the fact that Jobs would have had some amount of influence over products at Apple, even if he never invented them. Although as I originally said, much of that influence was rather.. harsh.
But I think it's both absurd and even unfair to his history to credit him with things he simply did not do (especially when others deserve that credit), just the same as it is to make him out as a saint when he was obviously a very difficult individual to deal with. In fact, if he were alive to see all this wishy-washy and outlandish coverage of him, I bet that he'd tell everyone to stop being such a bunch of saps and get on with it. That's Steve Jobs. Short and blunt. That's how he should be remembered, for better or for worse.
While there is definitely a growing income divide in the country, and the banks are finding more opportunities to screw people to earn bigger bonuses, I don't think protesting will do a lot to stop it. Especially when a lot of the people out there are part of the problem to begin with. People carrying around iPads and shit, bought from companies who don't care what they have to do to turn a profit, and probably bought with credit cards, since in modern society being in debt is the norm.
The pig won't stop getting fat until you quit feeding it.
Passphrase-protect your certs? You really need to treat your phone like something that could be stolen at any moment, by the police or by your run-of-the-mill thief.
I really can't understand these people who put all sorts of sensitive information on their phone. Banking passwords? Naked pictures? Unless your phone is attached to your sternum by a titanium chain, you're making a huge mistake.
Oh trust me, I would never leave password-less access to any server I operate on a phone or portable device, for the reasons you mention. But I was posing an important question regarding personal privacy, because I should be able to do such a thing if I chose without worrying about police unlawfully accessing it just because they have the phone.
So does this mean if I had an SSH client on my phone, with a certificate installed to automatically log me in to a private server at my home, that police can search my home computer via my phone as well?
I think it's fair to make the same comparison of them looking at my Facebook or Twitter account as well, because that's private data which is password-protected. The fact that my phone is automatically logged into those services does not change that fact. Much the same as if they went to my house and my door was unlocked. They're not allowed inside, regardless.
Computer laws in this country, and lack there-of, is definitely a concern.
Yes yes, I have seen that video multiple times. However, I have also read Woz's book, and watched countless speeches and talks he's given. It's very evident when you listen to how he words things that there's a hint of bitterness of the past, as well as an acknowledgement that he was the one who designed everything from the start. He's simply too humble and kind of a man to ever start any kind of crap over it.
Seriously, would you not have at least a small grudge against someone who you later found out basically lied to you and ripped you off on occasions, when you're the person who made him mega rich later on? You can't hardly blame the guy.
Asking how many patents I hold is an easy way to tell that somebody has no counter argument. Effectively a "NO U" response.
The fact that you might have a 20-year-old Mac that works is irrelevant. I have a 30-year-old PC which still boots. I have a 30-year-old C64 which still boots. I have a 30-year-old Atari 800 which still boots. I have lots of vintage equipment (including Apple/Mac), as well as more modern PCs which still do as well. What's your point? Old computers still work if they're taken care of.
Also, shoddy != second-class. I wasn't referring to production quality, I was referring to popularity. The Mac wasn't, isn't, and will never be a dominant platform. And iOS is already being outsold by Android, so its 15 minutes of fame are over as well. So yes, Steve Jobs has largely sold second-class products throughout his life (especially when you throw NeXT into the equation as well.) It's just a fact, you don't have to desperately try to argue against it. Somebody has to come in second.
As for shoddy products, however, maybe you weren't actually around 20 years ago when Apple was in its darkest years, but they did in fact make a lot of really shitty machines. I have a Performa 6200CD in the closet which I bought at a yard sale once. It is, quite literally, one of the worst production machines ever built. It and its sister machine, the 5200 (which had a built-in monitor) were so crippled by Apple cheaping out on hardware that it is almost unusable. So much was channeled through a single interrupt, for example, that when the hard drive was being accessed, the mouse didn't work. That is simply unacceptable. Even Mac fanatics universally declare that series to be the worst Macs of all time. Others argue it's the worst computer of all time, since no PC was ever designed that way.
You can like Apple and Steve Jobs and still acknowledge that he wasn't Jesus.
How can a man who lived his life being a total jerk to everyone, from his friends, his family, his employees, his fans, journalists covering him or his products, etc, still be treated like a saint when he dies, and yet then everyone condemns anyone who has enough objectivity or honesty to speak their mind against the person? Stallman may be an easy target for criticism himself, but that doesn't change anything in this case.
No matter who you like or which platform you prefer, let's engage OBJECT-O VISION.
Steve Jobs was a business man. A man who spent his life making, largely, second-class products. The Apple II may have been a huge piece of history, but the truth is that Steve Jobs played no part in its design or construction. That was all Woz, just like with the Apple I. Jobs simply played the business man and got it onto the market. The computers Jobs did have a hand in helping to design, the Apple Lisa and Apple III, were total flops (partially due to not listening to Woz's advice), and part of why Steve Jobs was canned from the company (the other part being dreadful personality.) As for the Mac, while it was mildly successful early on, it was and is still not the dominant computer platform, making up a small fraction of the marketshare even today. Then there's NeXT, where both the hardware and the operating system were never a commercial success. And Pixar already existed before Steve Jobs ever bought it, so he simply threw money at an already very successful group of people who would have very likely still done fine without him.
Returning to Apple, which by that point was an absolute failure as a company, they were able to rebrand a failed operating system (NeXTstep/Openstep) with a colorful interface, put it on colorful machines which were essentially no different than the beige boxes the company previously sold, and then poured coal in the marketing engine. And, since Steve Jobs was a good business man, this worked. Even if this is akin to a car salesman putting paint on a rusty car to make a sale, you still have to acknowledge that sales improved.
The iPod was certainly nothing that hadn't already been done, it was just marketed very well. Same with the iPhone, and the iPad. They took already existing devices on the market and made them look very pretty, and since consumers are suckers for that, they will pay anything to have it. And in this society of credit card-fueled impulse purchases, that's what happened. iTunes helped all of this too, of course, but again, that's thanks to Steve's business side being able to bring record companies into the fold.
The thing that nobody wants to really admit though is that Apple, much like all other large companies, designs products by committee. Steve Jobs did not personally invent or design any of them. Apple's product engineers made products, and Steve simply yelled at them until they made one he liked. This is still an objective statement, because it's very well documented by employees (and not just at Apple.)
OBJECT-O VISION is over.
Let's also not forget that Steve cut out Apple's philanthropic programs when he returned to Apple, citing budget considerations. But then when Apple was rolling in the dough, they were never re-instated. And of course there's all the classic tales of him being a jerk to others, which are too many to list here. But it's worth reminding everyone that he wasn't above screwing over even Woz, the man who would later make him filthy rich.
Steve Jobs was not an inventor, an engineer, an innovator, or any of these outlandish labels being applied to him. He was not another Edison. He was not another Einstein. He was not Henry Ford, Princess Diana, or any other historical figure by which you might try to one-up the last comparison with. You might could call him a visionary, but I think that was largely centered around increasing his ego and his bottom line rather than benefiting people. Steve was not a humanitarian by any definition of the word. He didn't even contribute to
Is there any info on how Comcast plans to actually measure bandwidth usage? There's so many potential loopholes to their proposed plan which would make it no better than it is now, hardly.
Say they sample your bandwidth usage at specific intervals. Well, if you're browsing the web, maybe doing homework or research or just Youtubing or whatever, then you might very well be at "peak usage" each time it samples. Though your bandwidth isn't in constant use, it's just periodic. But if it happens to sample you each time you're active, then after 15 minutes, bam. Throttled. Consistently.
FCC should just knock this bullshit out totally. Comcast seems to be the only ISP adamantly saying this is "necessary" enough to be implementing anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the problem with the open-source system, even though people don't want to hear it. As soon as there's some disagreement, rather than find compromises, everyone just decides to split apart and do it their own way. Somebody takes their ball and goes home. Well, users can't support both resulting products, so you immediately cut your user base. Even if it's 50/50, which is rare, then you still just lost half your users, as well as potential developers contributing to what you do (whether directly or indirectly depending on the project). But usually it's not, and if it's, say, 70/30, that's fine for the side which has 70%, but what about the other side? Who says their product or methodology is worse, rather than the other side simply being in some better position to promote themselves? Or maybe a particular prominent developer decides to back that side? That's not to say that it's always the worst fork which succeeds, because that's obviously not true, but forking has never been a successful way of dealing with controversy from a user's standpoint. Users don't win when there's yet another competing product to detract developers towards, rather than focusing in a single direction with everybody on board.
Quite frankly, I think LibreOffice is a stupid name. OpenOffice was perfect for marketing as an alternative to commercial products. And now community support has apparently surrounded LibreOffice, which does nothing to help the average user who might now see that name mentioned and not give it a second thought. Or they might have heard of OpenOffice sometime in the past, but when they decide to look into it, they see the project is dying or dead and figure that's the end of it.
Forking is inevitable in some situations, but I really think it should be frowned upon more by the open-source community, particularly if they ever intend to go in any specific direction long enough to compete as strongly.
I'm not referring to simply being demanding. I'm referring to all of the other rather inexcusable things, verified by people who knew him (including Woz himself in various cases). Such as screaming at and belittling employees (at both Apple and NeXT), not acknowledging his child under false claims of being sterile, parking his plateless Mercedes in handicap spaces, being rude to fans and journalists, taking advantage of Woz for monetary gain (which yes even Woz admits, such as with the Breakout debacle), nearly getting Woz arrested one time (while selfishly attempting to not get arrested himself) and almost shot another, very public feuds with companies who didn't meet his arguably unrealistic expectations (IBM and Adobe being the most well-known), not being charitable (with either Apple's money or his own), etc.
He was simply not a swell guy. There is more than enough evidence and witnesses to back that up. While Woz still considered Jobs his friend (since Woz is a genuinely nice guy), that doesn't mean Woz hasn't also repeatedly admitted the things that Jobs did. That's because it's wrong to portray a man as something he's not. If Woz can tell the truth about his long-time friend, fans should be able to accept and admit it as well.
Basically, he can have been a total jerk and still have accomplished things which certain people can admire him for.
I don't think a single incident 30 years ago is why most people who dislike Steve Jobs feel the way they do. That's certainly the case for me. I can give him credit for being a good business man, but my opinion on him as a person will likely never change. Similarly, I will likely never see him as this visionary inventor that the media and fans have built him up to be, either. There are people who believe Jobs built the Apple I and II with his bare hands because of all that mess, when his hands had nothing to do with building either one. It'd ridiculous the way they trumped him up as such a great person, with countless tributes as if a saint had died, when he wasn't even charitable, let alone nice.
But much as I've done my homework on Jobs over the years, I have for Woz as well, and there isn't a single thing that comes to mind that he ever did or said which makes me think negatively of the guy. That's the difference between them.
So it's simply a matter of not wanting to like them both. Those who want to overlook his flaws are certainly welcome, though, since everyone is entitled to an opinion.
So you offer two absolutes on whether my post is useful or not, complete with sarcasm, and apparently never considered the usefulness of your own post.
Sounds like a) somebody needs to feel important by replying to comments which got marked a certain score, and/or b) you love Steve Jobs a little too much and it bothers you when somebody else has justifiable reasons not to.
And everybody knows Tommy was the best Power Ranger.
Wow, lots of unexpected harsh comments regarding Woz here.
Woz is just a nice guy. He likes to talk to people, especially when they share similar interests (Apple products in this case). This is the same guy who was so into computers that he regularly attended the Homebrew Computer Club, and sought out people who knew things he didn't (like about the phone system). It's also the same guy who works with young people to get them interested in programming and computers. He's a people person, even if he can seemingly be a bit shy sometimes.
So why do people have to insert some kind of agenda into the guy's actions? He makes like $400 a month from Apple to not do anything, so he isn't exactly working for their marketing department. Whether his appearance makes a 30-second spot on the local evening news (which going by the media's interest in Woz compared to Jobs, maybe not), and if he's lucky sells a few more iPhones in his town to fans who were probably on the fence about buying it anyway, doesn't benefit him personally. And Woz standing in a line simply isn't going to generate any significant sales nationally either to make any noticeable impact on Apple's bottom line. Especially when you consider that the average Apple fan these days quite frankly (and sadly) may have no idea who the guy is.
Jobs wasn't a very nice person. Not only do I understand peoples' dislike of the guy, I share it. But I honestly can just never understand any strong negative feelings about Woz. I personally have no interest in Apple or their products these days, but Woz is still a role model to someone like myself who's interested in programming and electronics. And I love to hear about his pranks, since I've been known to pull one here or there as well. People can blow Steve Jobs up into a visionary or Jesus or whatever other nonsense and I'll still never respect the guy. But Woz will always have my respect.
Seriously, how many respectable role models are even left out there anymore, especially for young people?
I don't understand how technologies like this, which already exists in various forms, become popular simply because Apple releases their own version. Is it because they made it prettier? Is society really that vain?
It will become a novelty function to the majority of users, much like most of the other iterations on other devices/platforms. Most people know what kind of answer they're looking for so they'll go straight to the source to find it, knowing it will be accurate the first time.
When I first saw this, I thought you said "we're gonna need a bigger goat." Which at the time also made total sense!
So exactly how much closer is Ubuntu now to OSX? Because Shuttleworth is trying awfully damn hard to mimic it.
Even when you set the window control buttons back to the right and switch back to a standard GUI instead of one that makes my PC look like a glorified netbook, dialog buttons are still backwards to me, and I don't believe there's a way to change that short of recompiling with a flag set. Or, you know, use a different distro, but that's not the point. What next, are we going to make file menus go right-to-left too? How about putting window controls at the bottom, just to really throw people for a loop?
Ubuntu is starting to feel like Windows to me in a way. People (like myself) want to use it because that's where the majority of users seem to be, and that encourages developers to support a particular platform and make a better OS overall which is more likely work out of the box with everything I want. But at the same time, the company in charge of Ubuntu makes design decisions I don't like, so I'm either left dealing with it and going to trouble to straighten their mess out, or switching to a less popular distro which might result in more effort to make other things work as seamlessly in the future.
I run Debian on servers, where personally I feel it's better suited than a desktop. But at this rate, I may end up going back to it for desktops as well, despite their dislike of proprietary software (aka software everyone needs if they intend to have a modern computing experience).
It depends on how much money you want/expect the world to spend trying to revamp the entire outdated system, for starters.
The fact is, spam filtering these days is pretty doggone good. I know people complain about Google and privacy issues, but I pipe all my POP3 mail into my Gmail inbox, and I rarely ever get unwanted emails. But I get literally dozens of spams a day in the spam folder.
I also have my "catch all" account from a server I administer directed to a different Gmail account. And considering 99% of that mail is also spam, it catches hundreds a day, and passes through the very few random emails which were legitimately (and sometimes accidentally) addressed to someone at the domain. In fact, I've also witnessed emails come in from companies directed at people who are apparently engaged in fraudulent purchases. Receipts for hotels and airlines and such. It's interesting to see what shows up from time to time.
The only way you're going to really change the system is if you come up with an entirely new one which is inherently secure but also exciting and different enough to encourage people to switch. Trying to make people enable particular settings in cryptic configuration files of current software when there are countless sysadmins who barely know how to make email work to begin with is a waste of time and effort.
I guess it depends on the t-rex's midi-chlorian count.
Why exactly are they testing something which can disrupt the operation of civilian and commercial equipment when there is a GPS band dedicated solely to military operations? NATO has access to L2.
Each band only needs a single frequency to operate, so using the military band would provide an almost identical test. The only real difference is encryption and accuracy, but that has no bearing on actual signal quality. Granted, they operate at different frequencies, which can have an impact on signal propagation, but it would still allow for testing the technology and then factoring the difference into your presumed range.
Looks to me more like the military wanted to keep their own band working while they tested on the one which didn't matter to their operations as much.
Good thing George Lucas didn't make Jurassic Park, or he'd be re-releasing the movie every time we found out something new about a dinosaur.
I used Opera for years before switching to Chrome, so I still have a fondness of the company and their innovations. More power to them if they want to try it. They always allow users to disable their new features, so it shouldn't be a problem. I know a guy who disables tabbed browsing and uses his browser old-fashioned, so Opera still lets him do it how he wants, too.
Whenever they implement this technique on Opera Mobile, it might even make me seriously reconsider using Dolphin if it works out as good as they think. There's still situations where scrolling a big page doesn't always work great on a phone.
Why does everyone fall back on attacking Microsoft for press releases like this? Statistically, IE HAS been safer than other browsers in certain respects nowadays. It's silly to dismiss their complete turnaround in taking security seriously just because it's fun to hate on the company.
Of course there's going to be some marketing thrown into it as well. But what company doesn't? Why isn't everyone attacking Apple when they claim Safari is the fastest and safest browser? Or Mozilla, which has made the same claims for years too? It's not true for either of those, and they certainly can't both be right at the same time. Everyone lets that slide, because it's not cool to hate on them, despite their own terrible histories with security/vulnerability problems.
I haven't used IE for years (stopped for security reasons, in fact), but that doesn't change the fact that I can still offer them kudos for helping keep the web a safer place, especially when they still provide the dominant browser. The less infected machines on the internet is beneficial to ALL of us.
I'm going to play devil's advocate/troll here, and throw back the same line that I always hear from other developers when I have a complaint.
If you don't like it, why don't you fix it yourself?
It's kind of ironic how out of control this "no photos" thing is nowadays, because cameras can be so small, either part of your phone or just slip right in your pocket, that people should be able to capture more spontaneous moments, to post on all of the social media or online photo sites that are available today. Instead, people are going to have to worry about getting their freaking phones confiscated.
And then, to make matters worse, police are apparently also allowed to nose around in your phone without a warrant. So even though your Facebook and Twitter and all that are normally password-protected accounts for your data and would require an official request to get access, police can just click the icon on your phone and look as they please.
I hate where all of this is leading.
The thing you have to remember is that Wozniak loved technology, and loved to learn how things worked. It's no surprise that he would want to build a blue box and explore the telephone system.
Steve Jobs, on the other hand, was an opportunist. He didn't care about how it worked. He cared that people wanted to make illegal phone calls. So he convinced Wozniak that they should sell the things, something which Woz would have never decided to do on his own. That's a move which almost got them both arrested on one occasion, and nearly shot by a criminal wanting their boxes on another. And I certainly remember how Woz phrased the arrest scenario, where when the cop showed up while they were using the box on a pay phone, Jobs shoved it on Woz so that he wouldn't be caught with it. What a real weasel.
Inspiration is a funny thing. It might take two people in a similar direction, but that doesn't mean they have the same motives.
Well I certainly credit him as a business man, and obviously without Jobs pushing Woz, he would have stayed at HP making calculators and possibly never become very successful (other than having a cushy job at HP). I also don't disregard the fact that Jobs would have had some amount of influence over products at Apple, even if he never invented them. Although as I originally said, much of that influence was rather.. harsh.
But I think it's both absurd and even unfair to his history to credit him with things he simply did not do (especially when others deserve that credit), just the same as it is to make him out as a saint when he was obviously a very difficult individual to deal with. In fact, if he were alive to see all this wishy-washy and outlandish coverage of him, I bet that he'd tell everyone to stop being such a bunch of saps and get on with it. That's Steve Jobs. Short and blunt. That's how he should be remembered, for better or for worse.
While there is definitely a growing income divide in the country, and the banks are finding more opportunities to screw people to earn bigger bonuses, I don't think protesting will do a lot to stop it. Especially when a lot of the people out there are part of the problem to begin with. People carrying around iPads and shit, bought from companies who don't care what they have to do to turn a profit, and probably bought with credit cards, since in modern society being in debt is the norm.
The pig won't stop getting fat until you quit feeding it.
Passphrase-protect your certs? You really need to treat your phone like something that could be stolen at any moment, by the police or by your run-of-the-mill thief.
I really can't understand these people who put all sorts of sensitive information on their phone. Banking passwords? Naked pictures? Unless your phone is attached to your sternum by a titanium chain, you're making a huge mistake.
Oh trust me, I would never leave password-less access to any server I operate on a phone or portable device, for the reasons you mention. But I was posing an important question regarding personal privacy, because I should be able to do such a thing if I chose without worrying about police unlawfully accessing it just because they have the phone.
So does this mean if I had an SSH client on my phone, with a certificate installed to automatically log me in to a private server at my home, that police can search my home computer via my phone as well?
I think it's fair to make the same comparison of them looking at my Facebook or Twitter account as well, because that's private data which is password-protected. The fact that my phone is automatically logged into those services does not change that fact. Much the same as if they went to my house and my door was unlocked. They're not allowed inside, regardless.
Computer laws in this country, and lack there-of, is definitely a concern.
Yes yes, I have seen that video multiple times. However, I have also read Woz's book, and watched countless speeches and talks he's given. It's very evident when you listen to how he words things that there's a hint of bitterness of the past, as well as an acknowledgement that he was the one who designed everything from the start. He's simply too humble and kind of a man to ever start any kind of crap over it.
Seriously, would you not have at least a small grudge against someone who you later found out basically lied to you and ripped you off on occasions, when you're the person who made him mega rich later on? You can't hardly blame the guy.
Asking how many patents I hold is an easy way to tell that somebody has no counter argument. Effectively a "NO U" response.
The fact that you might have a 20-year-old Mac that works is irrelevant. I have a 30-year-old PC which still boots. I have a 30-year-old C64 which still boots. I have a 30-year-old Atari 800 which still boots. I have lots of vintage equipment (including Apple/Mac), as well as more modern PCs which still do as well. What's your point? Old computers still work if they're taken care of.
Also, shoddy != second-class. I wasn't referring to production quality, I was referring to popularity. The Mac wasn't, isn't, and will never be a dominant platform. And iOS is already being outsold by Android, so its 15 minutes of fame are over as well. So yes, Steve Jobs has largely sold second-class products throughout his life (especially when you throw NeXT into the equation as well.) It's just a fact, you don't have to desperately try to argue against it. Somebody has to come in second.
As for shoddy products, however, maybe you weren't actually around 20 years ago when Apple was in its darkest years, but they did in fact make a lot of really shitty machines. I have a Performa 6200CD in the closet which I bought at a yard sale once. It is, quite literally, one of the worst production machines ever built. It and its sister machine, the 5200 (which had a built-in monitor) were so crippled by Apple cheaping out on hardware that it is almost unusable. So much was channeled through a single interrupt, for example, that when the hard drive was being accessed, the mouse didn't work. That is simply unacceptable. Even Mac fanatics universally declare that series to be the worst Macs of all time. Others argue it's the worst computer of all time, since no PC was ever designed that way.
You can like Apple and Steve Jobs and still acknowledge that he wasn't Jesus.
How can a man who lived his life being a total jerk to everyone, from his friends, his family, his employees, his fans, journalists covering him or his products, etc, still be treated like a saint when he dies, and yet then everyone condemns anyone who has enough objectivity or honesty to speak their mind against the person? Stallman may be an easy target for criticism himself, but that doesn't change anything in this case.
No matter who you like or which platform you prefer, let's engage OBJECT-O VISION.
Steve Jobs was a business man. A man who spent his life making, largely, second-class products. The Apple II may have been a huge piece of history, but the truth is that Steve Jobs played no part in its design or construction. That was all Woz, just like with the Apple I. Jobs simply played the business man and got it onto the market. The computers Jobs did have a hand in helping to design, the Apple Lisa and Apple III, were total flops (partially due to not listening to Woz's advice), and part of why Steve Jobs was canned from the company (the other part being dreadful personality.) As for the Mac, while it was mildly successful early on, it was and is still not the dominant computer platform, making up a small fraction of the marketshare even today. Then there's NeXT, where both the hardware and the operating system were never a commercial success. And Pixar already existed before Steve Jobs ever bought it, so he simply threw money at an already very successful group of people who would have very likely still done fine without him.
Returning to Apple, which by that point was an absolute failure as a company, they were able to rebrand a failed operating system (NeXTstep/Openstep) with a colorful interface, put it on colorful machines which were essentially no different than the beige boxes the company previously sold, and then poured coal in the marketing engine. And, since Steve Jobs was a good business man, this worked. Even if this is akin to a car salesman putting paint on a rusty car to make a sale, you still have to acknowledge that sales improved.
The iPod was certainly nothing that hadn't already been done, it was just marketed very well. Same with the iPhone, and the iPad. They took already existing devices on the market and made them look very pretty, and since consumers are suckers for that, they will pay anything to have it. And in this society of credit card-fueled impulse purchases, that's what happened. iTunes helped all of this too, of course, but again, that's thanks to Steve's business side being able to bring record companies into the fold.
The thing that nobody wants to really admit though is that Apple, much like all other large companies, designs products by committee. Steve Jobs did not personally invent or design any of them. Apple's product engineers made products, and Steve simply yelled at them until they made one he liked. This is still an objective statement, because it's very well documented by employees (and not just at Apple.)
OBJECT-O VISION is over.
Let's also not forget that Steve cut out Apple's philanthropic programs when he returned to Apple, citing budget considerations. But then when Apple was rolling in the dough, they were never re-instated. And of course there's all the classic tales of him being a jerk to others, which are too many to list here. But it's worth reminding everyone that he wasn't above screwing over even Woz, the man who would later make him filthy rich.
Steve Jobs was not an inventor, an engineer, an innovator, or any of these outlandish labels being applied to him. He was not another Edison. He was not another Einstein. He was not Henry Ford, Princess Diana, or any other historical figure by which you might try to one-up the last comparison with. You might could call him a visionary, but I think that was largely centered around increasing his ego and his bottom line rather than benefiting people. Steve was not a humanitarian by any definition of the word. He didn't even contribute to
Is there any info on how Comcast plans to actually measure bandwidth usage? There's so many potential loopholes to their proposed plan which would make it no better than it is now, hardly.
Say they sample your bandwidth usage at specific intervals. Well, if you're browsing the web, maybe doing homework or research or just Youtubing or whatever, then you might very well be at "peak usage" each time it samples. Though your bandwidth isn't in constant use, it's just periodic. But if it happens to sample you each time you're active, then after 15 minutes, bam. Throttled. Consistently.
FCC should just knock this bullshit out totally. Comcast seems to be the only ISP adamantly saying this is "necessary" enough to be implementing anyway.