And yet since a capital is definitively defined as "the place a country's law says it is", having Congress pass a law stating that Henderson, Nevada is the capital of the United States of America would make it true. What's your point?
The point is that people don't want to buy them for the wrong reasons. I mean, I once gave my iPhone, Android and Windows Phone to my mother and asked which was easier to use. To be honest even I was surprised that apparently the Windows Phone was the most intuitive of the three.
They're also roughly the same price as Android devices, and with hardware on par with the Android equivalents. In this case, I actually feel it's more down to shitty marketing than anything else (perhaps they should hire Apple to do it, since they're a marketi... er, computer company).
Except that Windows Phone actually isn't bad. The only reason people aren't going for it is that retailers don't push it, and everyone's got this "OMG Microsoft! They killed my dog!" mentality.
You know, when I read posts by you, I read them in a voice of a hysterical doomsayer yelling on a street corner, because that's how you write. That and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint that counters your own because god forbid you actually consider what someone else says and say "you know what? I'm going to look into this before I shoot my mouth off".
Basically, you sound like a rabid dog, and harm your credibility with every post.
Plus, it doesn't help that cold fjord agrees with you, and he has the credibility of Glenn Beck.
Hosting the website locally is a big red lag that someone doesn't know what they are doing and puts patients at risk.
Uh, bullshit. There's no reason at all that the website couldn't be hosted locally behind a DMZ with no access to the internal network barring administrative access by designated website administrators. This doesn't put anyone at risk at all.
I'm pretty sure Occupy Wall Street managed to increase exposure of a problem without burning down some buildings too. Attacking infrastructure to draw attention to your cause does nothing but cement your status as a criminal and harm sympathy for your cause.
Actually, there's failsafes and safeguards in place for stuff like that - redundant connections, generators, that kind of thing. However when someone intentionally attempts to take a facility offline, they attack the safeguards as well (e.g. flooding the redundant link too). And that affects thousands more than the intended target.
Of course they'll just dismiss that as "guilty by association. Shouldn't host with such places that host criminals" (ignoring the fact that they themselves are the criminals).
Which is why people who DDoS need to get a life and cut that shit out.
Your post is a bunch of crap. Forensic computer scientists looked at the MS-DOS source code and compared it to CP/M code back during the Digital Research trial and verified that it was not stolen. And your rant about that second grade university student (second grade? WTF?) is obviously a pile of shit.
I know it's trendy to hate Microsoft (Old Microsoft, not to be confused with New Microsoft), but you can do it with actual facts instead of made up bullshit.
No, it's irrelevant. Noone uses OS X server in a datacenter as their client PC. The web server that OS X uses in the server context is Apache - so... OpenSSL.
iTunes doesn't have a subscription, and charges $3 per episode. Amazon only lets you stream less than a third of their library with a subscription, and requires you pay $3 an episode for the rest.
I don't think we'll ever see downloads without streaming - that requires a whole new category of rights from the rights-holders (no, seriously) which cost more to get.
In terms of recently aired episodes, you would see them probably a day after the last US state gets to see them; and there's already a service that lets you do that, it's called Hulu Plus. I don't think Netflix is really aiming for the "recent episode catch up" market like Hulu is.
Actually, an asymmetrical relationship does hold problems for a provider actually - and it's a big one. When a provider is being flooded with traffic by a "nett sender" who isn't paying for it, they face the problem where they are receiving traffic for which they have no adequately prepared and built capacity for, and are receiving no funds with which to increase capacity. Hence, why they then demand that the nett sender make payment to transit that traffic. Where the amounts transiting are roughly symmetrical, the capacity they already built out to handle their traffic is generally sufficient to handle the return traffic from the peer (since it's generally in response to their own traffic).
It's NOT a "bizarre holdover" it's a very real, very reasonable, requirement. In fact, it's also the very same principle applied in global telephone network agreements. When an AT&T customer in the US calls a Vodafone customer in Australia, for example, no payment changes hands between AT&T and Vodafone so long as their traffic remains roughly symmetrical (the so-called "Bill and Keep" arrangement - now try work out why international phone calls cost more than local ones). As soon as that traffic becomes "lop-sided" the nett receiver will start making noises about implementing a termination agreement (or outright blocking communications from the sender - it's why Clickatell and similar low-cost SMS providers find themselves unable to route to some networks so frequently).
You don't understand the industry at all. Customer symmetry is irrelevant - at the peering points, data is meant to be equal and symmetrical. Basically, (example) Comcast and Verizon connect at peering point A. Comcast's customers download X from Verizon's customers, and Verizon's customers download Y from Comcast's customers. It evens out. But, when Cogent routes 90% of their traffic via Asia in order to benefit from cheap transit (which they do) it jeopardises the whole thing. It also means Cogent's traffic is cheap and nasty - there's a reason high grade hosting providers make a big deal of "No Cogent!" as a selling point.
Looking around where I work, where there are several openly gay people and noone gives a shit, I would say it won't change at all (well, apart from making it harder for intolerant dickheads).
Are you even aware of the post I was responding to? (Hint: the answer is clearly no. I suggest reading up before shooting off).
Assertion from post I replied to: "Theo has ultimate responsibility for everything that happens with OpenSSL, including Heartbleed" Response from my post: "OpenBSD has nothing to do with OpenSSL, and [Theo] de Raadt has no responsibility for whatever happens with the OpenSSL base tree"
You would literally not last 30 minutes where I work - you'd be fired by the end of the day.
The application is the important part of the puzzle, not the OS. The OS is an easily replaceable cog that can be spun up on another VM in 30 seconds flat if there's an issue, the application is a behemoth that requires deployment, configuration, and all manner of babysitting.
Your "update the OS, fuck the application" approach is patently dangerous to business continuity, and is the sort of thing that results in pretty rapid disciplinary action in a real enterprise environment (where it's clear you've never worked).
Well in that case it's a good thing they're not giving money to a company founded by Hitler or anything. (Hint: companies are not evil. No company in existence can actually have that moniker applied to them - they are at best amoral, probably even ethically impaired. But evil most definitely is far too hyperbolic).
Slashdot Mirror
Which would most certainly result in international retribution. The United States cannot continue to act like it is not accountable forever.
And yet since a capital is definitively defined as "the place a country's law says it is", having Congress pass a law stating that Henderson, Nevada is the capital of the United States of America would make it true. What's your point?
The point is that people don't want to buy them for the wrong reasons. I mean, I once gave my iPhone, Android and Windows Phone to my mother and asked which was easier to use. To be honest even I was surprised that apparently the Windows Phone was the most intuitive of the three.
They're also roughly the same price as Android devices, and with hardware on par with the Android equivalents. In this case, I actually feel it's more down to shitty marketing than anything else (perhaps they should hire Apple to do it, since they're a marketi... er, computer company).
To think, that'a probably the most intelligible part of that verbal diatribe.
Can confirm, I have/had an S60 mobile. Terribly slow UI, constantly crashing, but at least the apps had a consistent(ly bad) design.
The phone also randomly rebooted in the middle of phone calls. That was cool too.
Except that Windows Phone actually isn't bad. The only reason people aren't going for it is that retailers don't push it, and everyone's got this "OMG Microsoft! They killed my dog!" mentality.
You know, when I read posts by you, I read them in a voice of a hysterical doomsayer yelling on a street corner, because that's how you write. That and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint that counters your own because god forbid you actually consider what someone else says and say "you know what? I'm going to look into this before I shoot my mouth off".
Basically, you sound like a rabid dog, and harm your credibility with every post.
Plus, it doesn't help that cold fjord agrees with you, and he has the credibility of Glenn Beck.
Hosting the website locally is a big red lag that someone doesn't know what they are doing and puts patients at risk.
Uh, bullshit. There's no reason at all that the website couldn't be hosted locally behind a DMZ with no access to the internal network barring administrative access by designated website administrators. This doesn't put anyone at risk at all.
I'm pretty sure Occupy Wall Street managed to increase exposure of a problem without burning down some buildings too. Attacking infrastructure to draw attention to your cause does nothing but cement your status as a criminal and harm sympathy for your cause.
Actually, there's failsafes and safeguards in place for stuff like that - redundant connections, generators, that kind of thing. However when someone intentionally attempts to take a facility offline, they attack the safeguards as well (e.g. flooding the redundant link too). And that affects thousands more than the intended target.
Of course they'll just dismiss that as "guilty by association. Shouldn't host with such places that host criminals" (ignoring the fact that they themselves are the criminals).
Which is why people who DDoS need to get a life and cut that shit out.
Your post is a bunch of crap. Forensic computer scientists looked at the MS-DOS source code and compared it to CP/M code back during the Digital Research trial and verified that it was not stolen. And your rant about that second grade university student (second grade? WTF?) is obviously a pile of shit.
I know it's trendy to hate Microsoft (Old Microsoft, not to be confused with New Microsoft), but you can do it with actual facts instead of made up bullshit.
True. But the discount still doesn't make it anywhere near as cheap as a Netflix subscription.
No, it's irrelevant. Noone uses OS X server in a datacenter as their client PC. The web server that OS X uses in the server context is Apache - so... OpenSSL.
iTunes doesn't have a subscription, and charges $3 per episode. Amazon only lets you stream less than a third of their library with a subscription, and requires you pay $3 an episode for the rest.
I don't think we'll ever see downloads without streaming - that requires a whole new category of rights from the rights-holders (no, seriously) which cost more to get.
In terms of recently aired episodes, you would see them probably a day after the last US state gets to see them; and there's already a service that lets you do that, it's called Hulu Plus. I don't think Netflix is really aiming for the "recent episode catch up" market like Hulu is.
Actually, an asymmetrical relationship does hold problems for a provider actually - and it's a big one. When a provider is being flooded with traffic by a "nett sender" who isn't paying for it, they face the problem where they are receiving traffic for which they have no adequately prepared and built capacity for, and are receiving no funds with which to increase capacity. Hence, why they then demand that the nett sender make payment to transit that traffic. Where the amounts transiting are roughly symmetrical, the capacity they already built out to handle their traffic is generally sufficient to handle the return traffic from the peer (since it's generally in response to their own traffic).
It's NOT a "bizarre holdover" it's a very real, very reasonable, requirement. In fact, it's also the very same principle applied in global telephone network agreements. When an AT&T customer in the US calls a Vodafone customer in Australia, for example, no payment changes hands between AT&T and Vodafone so long as their traffic remains roughly symmetrical (the so-called "Bill and Keep" arrangement - now try work out why international phone calls cost more than local ones). As soon as that traffic becomes "lop-sided" the nett receiver will start making noises about implementing a termination agreement (or outright blocking communications from the sender - it's why Clickatell and similar low-cost SMS providers find themselves unable to route to some networks so frequently).
Because OSX uses Apple's SSL implementation?
I believe the competitor offering the old price is Netflix as the price rise is for new customers only.
You don't understand the industry at all. Customer symmetry is irrelevant - at the peering points, data is meant to be equal and symmetrical. Basically, (example) Comcast and Verizon connect at peering point A. Comcast's customers download X from Verizon's customers, and Verizon's customers download Y from Comcast's customers. It evens out. But, when Cogent routes 90% of their traffic via Asia in order to benefit from cheap transit (which they do) it jeopardises the whole thing. It also means Cogent's traffic is cheap and nasty - there's a reason high grade hosting providers make a big deal of "No Cogent!" as a selling point.
The problem is that if they did, 3 episodes would be more than the cost of a subscription.
Looking around where I work, where there are several openly gay people and noone gives a shit, I would say it won't change at all (well, apart from making it harder for intolerant dickheads).
Irrelevant, since the issue is the client implementation.
Are you even aware of the post I was responding to? (Hint: the answer is clearly no. I suggest reading up before shooting off).
Assertion from post I replied to: "Theo has ultimate responsibility for everything that happens with OpenSSL, including Heartbleed"
Response from my post: "OpenBSD has nothing to do with OpenSSL, and [Theo] de Raadt has no responsibility for whatever happens with the OpenSSL base tree"
You would literally not last 30 minutes where I work - you'd be fired by the end of the day.
The application is the important part of the puzzle, not the OS. The OS is an easily replaceable cog that can be spun up on another VM in 30 seconds flat if there's an issue, the application is a behemoth that requires deployment, configuration, and all manner of babysitting.
Your "update the OS, fuck the application" approach is patently dangerous to business continuity, and is the sort of thing that results in pretty rapid disciplinary action in a real enterprise environment (where it's clear you've never worked).
Well in that case it's a good thing they're not giving money to a company founded by Hitler or anything. (Hint: companies are not evil. No company in existence can actually have that moniker applied to them - they are at best amoral, probably even ethically impaired. But evil most definitely is far too hyperbolic).