There is no technical reason that most of these applications cannot be uninstalled (e.g. phone or contacts on your PC). There is another subset like Cortana that cannot even be removed that way that are presumably are actually required by the OS.
I run Fedora on my laptop, unfortunately it doesn't do very well with high dpi screens. Gaming performance & variety under linux leave a lot to be desired.
The problem is that it isn't strong encryption because it has a very limited key space. Fake restrictions on how frequently and how often you can fail decryption isn't part of strong encryption.
What? Let's stop using a well-tested and mature platform because we found one big vulnerability for it, and instead use immature alternatives? Has everyone's brain fallen out completely or something?
Its a common problem in software development, we all look at existing code and think its a mess and there could be a simpler solution. Which is true if you forget all the edge cases and bugs that were fixed making it convoluted.
Given that the problem was in a low level library, if a similar problem occurred in the OpenBSD equivalent having a limited number of packages installed would probably still leave the system vulnerable. (Though it would probably still have fewer ways to attack it.)
We're talking about past actions and how they affect someones employment possibilities... If you want to talk about active drivers, there have been rapes by Uber drivers. (Of course there have been some by cab drivers too)
We don't really know what would be a red flag here though. I mean, if you used to drive a cab and robbed & raped passengers seems reasonable you wouldn't be allowed to drive again.
They don't say it would be too easy, they just say Firefox hasn't made significant security changes (e.g. in architecture). Probably doesn't hurt that they can hit Google, Apple and Microsoft for more money than they could get from Mozilla.
Some licenses allow anyone to create derivative works that build on the original product, while others reserve that right only for the owners of the original product.
Its pretty clear they're referring to the ability to make commercial works, not downstream OS projects.
Those biases seem to arise from an outdated view of the market for open source software. Students of history know that pioneers of new markets are able to command profit margins approaching 100 percent as long as they can behave as monopolists. As their markets becomes subject to fair competition, margins fall. Expecting 90 percent margins is probably not realistic, yet the authors clearly do:
He seems to be ignoring his own point from the next paragraph, most VC ventures fail. In order for them to see high returns they need the huge home run, if a business bunts into first and barely covers the investment they're still in the hole for the other 5 ventures that failed
Everything seems to be written with the assumption you know what it is already, and their own website refers to it as a "web framework" which is equally vague.
Sorry but its a threaded discussion starting from a single post. You can gussy it up with voting, checkmarks and gamification but its still a site that is over represented in search results.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no technical reason that most of these applications cannot be uninstalled (e.g. phone or contacts on your PC). There is another subset like Cortana that cannot even be removed that way that are presumably are actually required by the OS.
How would that spur any change? She should have jst used a pen name.
I saw something once suggesting that using powershell to remove uninstallable metro apps causes it.
I run Fedora on my laptop, unfortunately it doesn't do very well with high dpi screens. Gaming performance & variety under linux leave a lot to be desired.
Basically, its happened to me too. They also re-install their shitty metro apps you may have removed.
Yo Timmy, can you have them write me some firmware? I forgot my password.
The key used is a critical part of encryption. The reason they can't simply copy the flash is the user's key is mixed with one embedded on a chip.
The problem is that it isn't strong encryption because it has a very limited key space. Fake restrictions on how frequently and how often you can fail decryption isn't part of strong encryption.
If it were "possible" why wouldn't they simply reverse engineer the current firmware and remove the restrictions themselves.
Its shameless self promotion. MojoKid submits articles from HotHardware everyday, I wonder if he's a shill!
What? Let's stop using a well-tested and mature platform because we found one big vulnerability for it, and instead use immature alternatives? Has everyone's brain fallen out completely or something?
Its a common problem in software development, we all look at existing code and think its a mess and there could be a simpler solution. Which is true if you forget all the edge cases and bugs that were fixed making it convoluted.
Given that the problem was in a low level library, if a similar problem occurred in the OpenBSD equivalent having a limited number of packages installed would probably still leave the system vulnerable. (Though it would probably still have fewer ways to attack it.)
Obviously not, but I wouldn't be worried by a shoplifting incident years ago.
We're talking about past actions and how they affect someones employment possibilities... If you want to talk about active drivers, there have been rapes by Uber drivers. (Of course there have been some by cab drivers too)
We don't really know what would be a red flag here though. I mean, if you used to drive a cab and robbed & raped passengers seems reasonable you wouldn't be allowed to drive again.
Sounds more like Uber & Lyft are still pretending they aren't taxi companies and following the existing law.
They don't say it would be too easy, they just say Firefox hasn't made significant security changes (e.g. in architecture). Probably doesn't hurt that they can hit Google, Apple and Microsoft for more money than they could get from Mozilla.
Wind comes from windmills!
Some licenses allow anyone to create derivative works that build on the original product, while others reserve that right only for the owners of the original product.
Its pretty clear they're referring to the ability to make commercial works, not downstream OS projects.
Those biases seem to arise from an outdated view of the market for open source software. Students of history know that pioneers of new markets are able to command profit margins approaching 100 percent as long as they can behave as monopolists. As their markets becomes subject to fair competition, margins fall. Expecting 90 percent margins is probably not realistic, yet the authors clearly do:
He seems to be ignoring his own point from the next paragraph, most VC ventures fail. In order for them to see high returns they need the huge home run, if a business bunts into first and barely covers the investment they're still in the hole for the other 5 ventures that failed
Everything seems to be written with the assumption you know what it is already, and their own website refers to it as a "web framework" which is equally vague.
I think it happens automatically. Ultimately their DRM might require it.
Duh
Sorry but its a threaded discussion starting from a single post. You can gussy it up with voting, checkmarks and gamification but its still a site that is over represented in search results.
1.8 billion to checkout and compile Chromium ;)
The trouble with the blocklist plugins is that they simply remove the entries from the view and you don't get more results.