That's exactly what I'd have expected. Virtually no one thinks, "wouldn't it be a great idea to censor X?". They think, "You know, this is probably bad for our kids. I don't think it's helping our society. Let's see what can be done about it." That's what the Chinese government are trying to do, and that's what the chinese people are voting for. The whole "censorship" notion is just western bias, by idiots who don't realise that our own cultures do exactly the same thing.
SSL Monopolies, SubCAs, PKI use, and supply/demand
on
Choosing an SSL Provider?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I could be wrong about this, but I think the problem is that PKI was intended to be much more hierarchical, like DNS.
In other words, I think the idea was probably that ISPs or other organisations would purchase bigISP.com certs, that allowed them to be certificate authorities too.
Then, an ISP's customers could go to THEM for certs. The customer's site cert would be signed by their CA; the ISP, and the ISP's in turn would be signed by the big names.
I think that does work. If so, then the problem is almost certainly that ISPs and such just don't buy those big certs, because so few people use SSL on their sites.
BUT... note that CA certs could be used much more widely than they are -- for email signing/encryption, server/client authentication in WANs, etc.
I think its great that they are going to support 3rd party, they are in no way obligated to.
Of course they are. Sure, it's a commercial organisation, but that doesn't give them the right to do what they want. Cinemas are commercial organisations, but they can't tell disabled people not to come in because they can't be bothered making things work for them.
It's the same with anything that becomes a part of society: once some people have and enjoy it, the rest are entitled to participate to. That applies to other companies who might make add-ons as well: if there's a good ecosystem of products built up around something, that benefits everyone. If there's a product which has the vast majority of gamer's attention, and no one else is able to develop add-ons for it, then it becomes a monopoly, which hurts everyone... except that company who will rake in profits for a while and then ditch the whole product in favour of a newer one that can make more cash still.
There's no legal obligation, perhaps. But there is definitely an ethical obligation there, for people who choose to acknowledge it.
There's nothing wrong with widescreen. It's more suited to our eyes for watching movies, and it forces developers to consider how their app looks and feels when tiled on the screen and used in conjunction with other on-screen apps (ie, *gasp* multitasking) instead of being maximised all the time as if it where the only app.
Widescreen is also great for developers, artists, designers, writers, and many other professionals, since you can rotate the screens and get a vertical, page-oriented layout.
BUT, the problem is that rotation is rarely supported -- not on laptops, or on monitor stands. On graphics cards, it's "supported" usually, but without acceleration, which sucks. How hard can it be to rotate 90% before applying an operation on today's super-fast graphics cards?
Now, however, Wizards has stated that any company hoping to publish products for their new edition must agree to discontinue any currently open licensed products and produce no further open products at all Dungeons & Dragons related or not.
With "Wizards has stated" linked to where they said this.
Can people please go read about Hypertext? You know, as in Hypertext Transfer Protocol, or HTTP?
Hypertext works by linking concepts to further information about those concepts. So, for example, if you're writing a sentence about Ford Mustangs, and you have a page with further information on Ford Mustangs, then the words "Ford Mustang" are what you actually link. You do NOT link "Here is a page about..." or (God, help us), "Here". If you link it at all, "Here" should only link to "#". And no, please don't link "page" either, unless you're defining what a page is.
Which in no way invalidates the fact that microsoft has been convicted of crimes. The fact that they have also been involved in civil suits makes their situation (not to mention their harm to society) worse, not better.
You might need to dumb this down a shade for me, but from what I (think I) understand of it, it sounds like 0x8000000 is used as a kind of internal salt during bytecode compilation/execution for structure offsets so that the unchecked user code can't arbitrarily access structures?
If so... why would they do that? Why not simply ensure that offsets can't go above, say, 0xffff, and then make sure program code/data is well above that?
I'd say we all win when a strong message is sent to large corporations that says "we will not tolerate illegal behavior from you, and we will stand by this principle even if this means we must make some sacrifices". It's called having a spine.
Well said. I mean, come on... public money vs. convicted criminal organisation... it doesn't take a lot of ethics to work out that Microsoft products shouldn't be bought by our governments.
This assumes there really is a major cost issue. When monopolies are involved, it's hard to tell if that's really the problem, or if it's mainly one of profiteering.
Yes. Meaning BT Wholesale, in the UK. BT Wholesale also charges a fortune for the main pipe connecting an ISP to their systems, so it's not just a matter of owning the last mile.
If BT Wholesale's prices dropped, streaming video wouldn't be an issue at all.
we never expected MS to disclose 14k pages of anything but contracts.
Without clarity over patents involved, those pages amount to a contract anyway. By using that stuff, you're signing the contract. The only thing is, you aren't getting to read the contract yet, until the patent issues are disclosed.
Same gods "we" do? There are thousands of religions on earth, some of which have no gods at all. Even the ones that have "a god" often mostly just share the word due to word importation into other languages.
Most religions DO seem to share a common sense of decency though (see the golden rule, for instance) -- at least amongst practitioners who really study that religion (as opposed to sunday-go-to-churchers who just grow up religion and think they know it because their father/grandmother did).
So that would be one of my first questions regarding an alien species -- do they (or any of them) share that same idea of ethics, compassion, selflessness, humility, or reverence for life and the wold around them that we often have? Because if not, and their tech is superior, we're really, really screwed.
A more realistic virus concern with this might be getting a virus whilst downloading 3d plans for the latest holywood films' merchandise, or that extra CD rack you wanted.
I'm sad to say it, but if this Hatch Act is a law against military or government propagandising its own people, it's a law that doesn't amount to squat, given the evidence lately.
Damn it Scotty, I need 6000 lumens on the side of this mountain playing Moulin Rouge.
As if Kirk doesn't get his own way often enough, with mountains that play Moulin Rouge!
Seriously though... I thing projectors on phones is a great idea. And yes, it'll draw power, but phones have been drawing ever-increasing power for a while now. They're (eventually) destined to be the next PC, remembering that the P is for "Personal", and that "Desktop" is what most of us now call our main workstation machine.
And for a little more future prediction... who's betting one of the most common lighttones will be "Help me Obi Wan --- you're my only hope!"?
From the description of what it can do, it sounds like the answer to a lot of NASA's terrain negotiation problems. Anyone have an idea if this (perhaps on a larger scale) would suit them?
While I'm glad for FreeBSD they're showing good numbers again, their testing of PostgreSQL in this study is rather odd.
Agreed, on both points. What I want to know though, is where this performance improvement, and 7.0 in general, leaves Dragonfly BSD... do they still feel that Dragonfly's choice to split off at 4x and start making radical changes is paying off? Is dragonfly making progress towards better performance, in general, or on particular workloads?
I saw what Matt Dillon did back in Amiga days. I saw what Amigas themselves could do. If Amigas inspired Dragonfly towards a more lightweight model, I'd love to see that fork making more progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Because that's how popular-with-the-uninformed things work.
Sorry, no. Please refer to my earlier explanation, re: popular-with-the-uninformed things.
That's exactly what I'd have expected. Virtually no one thinks, "wouldn't it be a great idea to censor X?". They think, "You know, this is probably bad for our kids. I don't think it's helping our society. Let's see what can be done about it." That's what the Chinese government are trying to do, and that's what the chinese people are voting for. The whole "censorship" notion is just western bias, by idiots who don't realise that our own cultures do exactly the same thing.
I could be wrong about this, but I think the problem is that PKI was intended to be much more hierarchical, like DNS.
In other words, I think the idea was probably that ISPs or other organisations would purchase bigISP.com certs, that allowed them to be certificate authorities too.
Then, an ISP's customers could go to THEM for certs. The customer's site cert would be signed by their CA; the ISP, and the ISP's in turn would be signed by the big names.
I think that does work. If so, then the problem is almost certainly that ISPs and such just don't buy those big certs, because so few people use SSL on their sites.
BUT... note that CA certs could be used much more widely than they are -- for email signing/encryption, server/client authentication in WANs, etc.
Sure. It has a sign attached, which hangs in your line of sight, and has scores:
Linux + "good": +2
Linux + "sucks": -2
Windows: -2
Complicated argument: -4
Women: +5, funny
Women + Geek lack of sex: +5 insightful
Yes. I believe he said something like, "What the HELL are you doing? Stop that right now you freak, or I'm leaving."
Of course they are. Sure, it's a commercial organisation, but that doesn't give them the right to do what they want. Cinemas are commercial organisations, but they can't tell disabled people not to come in because they can't be bothered making things work for them.
It's the same with anything that becomes a part of society: once some people have and enjoy it, the rest are entitled to participate to. That applies to other companies who might make add-ons as well: if there's a good ecosystem of products built up around something, that benefits everyone. If there's a product which has the vast majority of gamer's attention, and no one else is able to develop add-ons for it, then it becomes a monopoly, which hurts everyone... except that company who will rake in profits for a while and then ditch the whole product in favour of a newer one that can make more cash still.
There's no legal obligation, perhaps. But there is definitely an ethical obligation there, for people who choose to acknowledge it.
There's nothing wrong with widescreen. It's more suited to our eyes for watching movies, and it forces developers to consider how their app looks and feels when tiled on the screen and used in conjunction with other on-screen apps (ie, *gasp* multitasking) instead of being maximised all the time as if it where the only app.
Widescreen is also great for developers, artists, designers, writers, and many other professionals, since you can rotate the screens and get a vertical, page-oriented layout.
BUT, the problem is that rotation is rarely supported -- not on laptops, or on monitor stands. On graphics cards, it's "supported" usually, but without acceleration, which sucks. How hard can it be to rotate 90% before applying an operation on today's super-fast graphics cards?
With "Wizards has stated" linked to where they said this.
Can people please go read about Hypertext? You know, as in Hypertext Transfer Protocol, or HTTP?
Hypertext works by linking concepts to further information about those concepts. So, for example, if you're writing a sentence about Ford Mustangs, and you have a page with further information on Ford Mustangs, then the words "Ford Mustang" are what you actually link. You do NOT link "Here is a page about..." or (God, help us), "Here". If you link it at all, "Here" should only link to "#". And no, please don't link "page" either, unless you're defining what a page is.
Which in no way invalidates the fact that microsoft has been convicted of crimes. The fact that they have also been involved in civil suits makes their situation (not to mention their harm to society) worse, not better.
n/t
You might need to dumb this down a shade for me, but from what I (think I) understand of it, it sounds like 0x8000000 is used as a kind of internal salt during bytecode compilation/execution for structure offsets so that the unchecked user code can't arbitrarily access structures?
If so... why would they do that? Why not simply ensure that offsets can't go above, say, 0xffff, and then make sure program code/data is well above that?
Are you mad? Samba fought long and hard to get those documents. MS fought back in all but appearance, to the best of my knowledge.
You might find How Samba was Written interesting.
Well said. I mean, come on... public money vs. convicted criminal organisation... it doesn't take a lot of ethics to work out that Microsoft products shouldn't be bought by our governments.
This assumes there really is a major cost issue. When monopolies are involved, it's hard to tell if that's really the problem, or if it's mainly one of profiteering.
Yes. Meaning BT Wholesale, in the UK. BT Wholesale also charges a fortune for the main pipe connecting an ISP to their systems, so it's not just a matter of owning the last mile.
If BT Wholesale's prices dropped, streaming video wouldn't be an issue at all.
Without clarity over patents involved, those pages amount to a contract anyway. By using that stuff, you're signing the contract. The only thing is, you aren't getting to read the contract yet, until the patent issues are disclosed.
It's not your point if you leave it for someone else do all the work ;)
Further study has revealed that most of these black holes are caused by namespace collisions, such as overuse of the words "blackhole" and "hubble".
Same gods "we" do? There are thousands of religions on earth, some of which have no gods at all. Even the ones that have "a god" often mostly just share the word due to word importation into other languages.
Most religions DO seem to share a common sense of decency though (see the golden rule, for instance) -- at least amongst practitioners who really study that religion (as opposed to sunday-go-to-churchers who just grow up religion and think they know it because their father/grandmother did).
So that would be one of my first questions regarding an alien species -- do they (or any of them) share that same idea of ethics, compassion, selflessness, humility, or reverence for life and the wold around them that we often have? Because if not, and their tech is superior, we're really, really screwed.
A more realistic virus concern with this might be getting a virus whilst downloading 3d plans for the latest holywood films' merchandise, or that extra CD rack you wanted.
That's because, as the article says:
The other 40% is Windows.
I'm sad to say it, but if this Hatch Act is a law against military or government propagandising its own people, it's a law that doesn't amount to squat, given the evidence lately.
As if Kirk doesn't get his own way often enough, with mountains that play Moulin Rouge!
Seriously though... I thing projectors on phones is a great idea. And yes, it'll draw power, but phones have been drawing ever-increasing power for a while now. They're (eventually) destined to be the next PC, remembering that the P is for "Personal", and that "Desktop" is what most of us now call our main workstation machine.
And for a little more future prediction... who's betting one of the most common lighttones will be "Help me Obi Wan --- you're my only hope!"?
From the description of what it can do, it sounds like the answer to a lot of NASA's terrain negotiation problems. Anyone have an idea if this (perhaps on a larger scale) would suit them?
Agreed, on both points. What I want to know though, is where this performance improvement, and 7.0 in general, leaves Dragonfly BSD... do they still feel that Dragonfly's choice to split off at 4x and start making radical changes is paying off? Is dragonfly making progress towards better performance, in general, or on particular workloads?
I saw what Matt Dillon did back in Amiga days. I saw what Amigas themselves could do. If Amigas inspired Dragonfly towards a more lightweight model, I'd love to see that fork making more progress.