Not IT, but whoever does policy enforcement. Most places have a personal cell phone use ban. So while he may not be violating anything IT-related, your friend is still probably violating his employment terms he signed when hired. If he's on it as much as you're implying, a simple spot check will catch him.
This got me to pull my C++ book (Stroustrup's) off of the bookshelf and looked this up as well. The book also says that it should throw an error. Admittedly, I've never thumbed through the specification and relied on the books (this one and others) to get it right for me. Go figure that his own book isn't even 100% right on this subject...
The fact that such a thing can compile is a glaring error.
Here's something interesting: Visual Studio wouldn't compile it for me (error C4716, complains about no return value, as you had expected), but it compiled on my FreeBSD box without any complaints. Perhaps this is more of a compiler problem than a C++ problem.
If you design a site correctly and with that graceful degradation/fallback in mind, you don't need duplicate copies in your system. Developers should be building sites with the lowest common denominator in mind, then enhancing it with javascript/flash/whatever features. Far, far too many times do I pull up a page with nearly no content because they dev decided it's all loaded via ajax, or open a link in a new window only to see a url of "javascript:load(...);", or a page with all of the content absolutely positioned in the top left because all styles and layout are applied via javascript.
Those are the type of fallback problems I'm referring to.
He's not saying don't use it. He's saying if you're building something for business purposes, don't spend the extra time and money to build an HTML5 version, build a series of workarounds for the various differences in HTML5 browsers, and the build a graceful fall back version for non-HTML5 devices. He's suggesting to use a spec that's matured.
You will still have the millions of other sites from hobbyists, pet projects, etc., out there who will use HTML5 and find its quirks and problems.
One more note from personal experience -
As long as people are putting in "safe" fall-backs, then this really isn't a problem
As someone who runs NoScript, I can safely say the people who put those "safe fall-backs" in are in the minority, and this is currently a problem, even without HTML5.
Then why do only 3% of Americans own guns? [...] Two in Five Americans Live in Gun-Owning Households
Living in a household with someone who owns a gun doesn't automatically grant me ownership that person's gun, so you're "simple Google search" didn't prove anything about his claim.
That's debatable since Bungie's Halo games pull in more cash in the course of a week than most game series see in their life-cycle (I think they said they're up to $200 million already). While Bungie may branch out and make some new games for other platforms, I wouldn't call it a stretch for them to come back and make another Halo game for the Xbox. Especially if 343 Studios doesn't do a particularly good job on the next one.
They've been returning to the IP one last time for a while now (Reach being the 3rd time by my count). I believe the orignal Halo was going to be stand-alone, but it did well enough to warrant a sequel. They decided instead of a sequel, they'd do a trilogy, and Halo 3 was going to be the last one (announced during Halo 2's development). Then ODST came out as a result of making an expansion pack to Halo 3 (which turned into its own stand alone game). And now we have Reach.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the games, but them quitting Halo is like Brett Favre retiring from football.
After reading those results, I'm thinking it's a lot more weighted than they claim. After all, I remember this story (from 2007) about the FTC praising the ESRB with some interesting stats of their own:
The FTC gave the games industry high marks in rising awareness levels of the ESRB system, with 87 percent of parents and 75 percent of children showing awareness of the ratings, up from 61 percent and 73 percent in 2000.
94 percent of parents said the ESRB system was easy to understand, up from 77 percent in 2000, and parental involvement in buying games was up 5 percent from 2000 to 89 percent. The number of parents actively restricting the games their children play was also up from 69 percent in 2000 to 85 percent this year.
So either the past three years have had parents drastically changing their outlook and knowledge, or the results are intentionally skewed.
No, he means places. In the US, most, if not all major retailers voluntarily abide by the ESRB's rating systems and card you when you buy a game. It's a self-regulated system that actually gets a lot of praise for being the most proactive of the major media types.
The debate is if it should be criminal to sell M-Rated games to minors.
This has absolutely nothing to do with network neutrality. Someone's account was shut down because it violated the terms of their hosting agreement. I don't see how that has anything to do with bandwidth throttling based on end-point services with paid tiers to increase that speed.
Truly spoken like someone who has never looked over the full PDF format specification. Here's a link to all 980 pages of version 1.4. It's a little outdated, but you get the idea of how complex it actually is.
Unless you can somehow explain how that site wasn't promoting hate speech, the site was in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy, and this is standard operating procedure. You could try to make a controversy out of the vagueness of "hate speech" being interpreted differently when its convenient to censor, sure maybe that. But, again, you have to convince the world that what the pastor was doing wasn't hate speech.
just stop using the free services provided on the internet
And if you quit using Google's free services, they still have other methods of tracking you. Namely, by offering Google Analytics to sites for "free" to help monitor their traffic. So, despite you telling Google "no thanks, I'll find an alternative to your services," they still track you. Or, instead of Analytics, by loading jQuery libraries? Or perhaps you e-mailed someone with a GMail account?
I think the real issue isn't making money. It's Google's omnipresence on the web, and their primary method of profit is tracking, collecting, profiling marketing information about users.
Rather than relying on AT&T to do the right thing, you could invest your own time into configuring your router to properly prioritize your traffic. Or, since you've already stated you're willing pay, have someone else come do it for you.
In general, high ping very, very rarely occur because of AT&T's network congestion between your router and their upstream. It's typically due to local traffic eating your bandwidth or connecting to a server that's far enough out, no prioritization will help (ie, US to EU connections).
I despise that entire idea (and I know I'm not alone). Basically, agree and install the update, letting them strip out features on your console. Or, refuse the EULA and the update, and they will strip out features on your console anyway. Plus, you won't be able to play some games if you refuse the EULA, so it's more than just the loss of PSN functionality if you refuse.
The kicker is that a judge sees it Sony's way. At least this was in Australia, so there's still some faint hope for the rest of us.
It's all signal to noise ratio. Maybe the majority of those attacks are for vulnerabilities they have already patched, or possibly even not even for their platform. Hell, even when I look at my server logs, there are tons of requests trying to exploit a vulnerability in some package I've never installed. Just a quick peek right now shows 2500+ 404 errors looking for phpMyAdmin.
Slashdot Mirror
How the heck can IT battle this?
Not IT, but whoever does policy enforcement. Most places have a personal cell phone use ban. So while he may not be violating anything IT-related, your friend is still probably violating his employment terms he signed when hired. If he's on it as much as you're implying, a simple spot check will catch him.
This got me to pull my C++ book (Stroustrup's) off of the bookshelf and looked this up as well. The book also says that it should throw an error. Admittedly, I've never thumbed through the specification and relied on the books (this one and others) to get it right for me. Go figure that his own book isn't even 100% right on this subject...
std::string somefunction(){}
The fact that such a thing can compile is a glaring error.
Here's something interesting: Visual Studio wouldn't compile it for me (error C4716, complains about no return value, as you had expected), but it compiled on my FreeBSD box without any complaints. Perhaps this is more of a compiler problem than a C++ problem.
If you design a site correctly and with that graceful degradation/fallback in mind, you don't need duplicate copies in your system. Developers should be building sites with the lowest common denominator in mind, then enhancing it with javascript/flash/whatever features. Far, far too many times do I pull up a page with nearly no content because they dev decided it's all loaded via ajax, or open a link in a new window only to see a url of "javascript:load(...);", or a page with all of the content absolutely positioned in the top left because all styles and layout are applied via javascript.
Those are the type of fallback problems I'm referring to.
You will still have the millions of other sites from hobbyists, pet projects, etc., out there who will use HTML5 and find its quirks and problems.
One more note from personal experience -
As long as people are putting in "safe" fall-backs, then this really isn't a problem
As someone who runs NoScript, I can safely say the people who put those "safe fall-backs" in are in the minority, and this is currently a problem, even without HTML5.
Just curious, but what are the sentences for those in the UK?
Then why do only 3% of Americans own guns?
[...]
Two in Five Americans Live in Gun-Owning Households
Living in a household with someone who owns a gun doesn't automatically grant me ownership that person's gun, so you're "simple Google search" didn't prove anything about his claim.
That's debatable since Bungie's Halo games pull in more cash in the course of a week than most game series see in their life-cycle (I think they said they're up to $200 million already). While Bungie may branch out and make some new games for other platforms, I wouldn't call it a stretch for them to come back and make another Halo game for the Xbox. Especially if 343 Studios doesn't do a particularly good job on the next one.
Bungie has returned to the IP one last time
They've been returning to the IP one last time for a while now (Reach being the 3rd time by my count). I believe the orignal Halo was going to be stand-alone, but it did well enough to warrant a sequel. They decided instead of a sequel, they'd do a trilogy, and Halo 3 was going to be the last one (announced during Halo 2's development). Then ODST came out as a result of making an expansion pack to Halo 3 (which turned into its own stand alone game). And now we have Reach.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the games, but them quitting Halo is like Brett Favre retiring from football.
The FTC gave the games industry high marks in rising awareness levels of the ESRB system, with 87 percent of parents and 75 percent of children showing awareness of the ratings, up from 61 percent and 73 percent in 2000.
94 percent of parents said the ESRB system was easy to understand, up from 77 percent in 2000, and parental involvement in buying games was up 5 percent from 2000 to 89 percent. The number of parents actively restricting the games their children play was also up from 69 percent in 2000 to 85 percent this year.
So either the past three years have had parents drastically changing their outlook and knowledge, or the results are intentionally skewed.
No, he means places. In the US, most, if not all major retailers voluntarily abide by the ESRB's rating systems and card you when you buy a game. It's a self-regulated system that actually gets a lot of praise for being the most proactive of the major media types.
The debate is if it should be criminal to sell M-Rated games to minors.
Here you go:
The obligatory taxpayer rip-off broadband story.
The sad part is that little rant applies just as much today as it did back then.
This has absolutely nothing to do with network neutrality. Someone's account was shut down because it violated the terms of their hosting agreement. I don't see how that has anything to do with bandwidth throttling based on end-point services with paid tiers to increase that speed.
PDF is not a highly complicated format
Truly spoken like someone who has never looked over the full PDF format specification. Here's a link to all 980 pages of version 1.4. It's a little outdated, but you get the idea of how complex it actually is.
Unless you can somehow explain how that site wasn't promoting hate speech, the site was in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy, and this is standard operating procedure. You could try to make a controversy out of the vagueness of "hate speech" being interpreted differently when its convenient to censor, sure maybe that. But, again, you have to convince the world that what the pastor was doing wasn't hate speech.
I hope you find out that your God isn't quite so accepting of hateful actions like that.
The Vatican already spoke out against this. So, short of God himself coming out and telling this asshat to quit, I don't think the pastor will listen.
The others have already responded to the claims, dumping the fault right back at BP. This is going to be interesting
just stop using the free services provided on the internet
And if you quit using Google's free services, they still have other methods of tracking you. Namely, by offering Google Analytics to sites for "free" to help monitor their traffic. So, despite you telling Google "no thanks, I'll find an alternative to your services," they still track you. Or, instead of Analytics, by loading jQuery libraries? Or perhaps you e-mailed someone with a GMail account?
I think the real issue isn't making money. It's Google's omnipresence on the web, and their primary method of profit is tracking, collecting, profiling marketing information about users.
The meme is far from dead. Any mention of Gran Turismo 5 on gaming sites usually yield a ton of "aka, 'Gran Turismo: Forever" comments.
then the 40m is clear profit?
You're neglecting Hollywood accounting when you think about this. On paper, I'm sure this movie lost the studio billions somehow.
Rather than relying on AT&T to do the right thing, you could invest your own time into configuring your router to properly prioritize your traffic. Or, since you've already stated you're willing pay, have someone else come do it for you.
In general, high ping very, very rarely occur because of AT&T's network congestion between your router and their upstream. It's typically due to local traffic eating your bandwidth or connecting to a server that's far enough out, no prioritization will help (ie, US to EU connections).
I despise that entire idea (and I know I'm not alone). Basically, agree and install the update, letting them strip out features on your console. Or, refuse the EULA and the update, and they will strip out features on your console anyway. Plus, you won't be able to play some games if you refuse the EULA, so it's more than just the loss of PSN functionality if you refuse.
The kicker is that a judge sees it Sony's way. At least this was in Australia, so there's still some faint hope for the rest of us.
It's all signal to noise ratio. Maybe the majority of those attacks are for vulnerabilities they have already patched, or possibly even not even for their platform. Hell, even when I look at my server logs, there are tons of requests trying to exploit a vulnerability in some package I've never installed. Just a quick peek right now shows 2500+ 404 errors looking for phpMyAdmin.
I am a law abiding citizen
Until they decide you aren't.