If you're going to choose between two apps for the same task, many people will choose the free-as-in-beer app supported by ads instead of shelling out $5-$20 for the non-ad-supported app.
This might be a good thing, though, since then people will have more choices. It might suck for some devs, though, since they'll see fewer users and less cash unless they too put ads in their products.
did you first get into computing and technology in order to consume more advertising and to have someone else tell you which software to run? Or did you turn to technology and computing in rejection of advertising and lockdowns
Neither.
I got into computing and technology because it was fricking fun to write and play 3000-line adventure games with my friends in BASIC on a PET2001 -- which, by the way, just worked.
I personally don't care about advertising. It doesn't bother me one bit in the grand scheme of things, since I'm capable of tuning them out. If the ads in a particular context bother me, then I avoid that context.
When you first got into computing and technology did you learn more from the gear that you had to fiddle with or the gear that "just worked"?
Seems to me like your core issue is the idea of a computer as an appliance.
Why not use computer appliances for what they're designed for, and scratch your tinkering itch somewhere else? It's not like Apple is the alpha and omega of computing.
There's plenty of room for tech consumers and tech tinkerers alike in this world. Do Apple's offerings really limit your ability to tinker and learn?
Supposedly they are putting in more equipment to deal with the volume... over 60% of my condo association has switched to Fios in the year it's been available as per the survey we did in December. I don't think they expected that.
It might also be important to mention that most of the condos are owned by 30-somethings and there are a lot of short-term (2-3 year) business transfer owners/renters... not sure if we use more bandwidth on average.
It also bothers me how little science has gone into researching plants.
Speak for yourself. We know *exactly* how plants produce O2 and hydrocarbons (more or less) from H2O, CO2, and sunlight. We know the structure of the proteins involved, etc.
It's just ridiculously impractical for us to do it on a large scale -- it's very complex (read: expensive).
Because if it's the former, I might start seeding large sets of prime numbers labeled as "Natalie Portman sex tape" through my noisy neighbor's unsecured wifi network connected to his Verizon FIOS.
Did you notice the extra latency the past couple nights? Just thought you should know I started to copy your traffic and will view more of it at my leisure... provided I can stomach the thought of seeing more scat videos.
As far as I know, there are no caps on FiOS, and have never been any caps. It's one of the unstated selling points of their network. And you do pay a premium for that.
No caps... but plenty of other speed issues. Like getting throttled when your neighbors are also online.
I don't know if Verizon didn't properly plan for how many people would drop cable service and sign up for Fios[1], but my Fios service slows to a crawl in the evenings (when I'm most likely to want to use it) and on the weekends. Really, really slow... like wishing-I-had-lightning-fast-in-comparison-DSL slow.
[1] Funny thing about that... Our local cable provider actually sends a dude around once a month to knock on doors in my neighborhood and beg people to come back. It's really funny, because diminishing returns must apply... I usually invite him in for a beer, I feel bad for the number of times doors get slammed in his face (which, incidentally, is what I did the first time he showed up).
Lets improve the webexperience, I need 20 tabs open with image galleries of high resolution, flashmovies and heavy AJAX websites which now sortof lock up frequently.
Your porn consumption preferences are impressive.
I trust that you have at least four monitors set up for a panoramic experience... otherwise you're wasting that browser power.
It is patently absurd for two sixteen-year-olds to rape each other.
... at the same time. Could be sequential, you know, a revenge rape or something.
Unless, of course, both want to be pitchers and neither wants to be a catcher. And they are fighting over it. Then they could be raping each other at the same time.
It's times like this that I wonder why I was cursed with a vivid imagination.
I'm not aware of any jurisdictions where two people under the age of consent having sex is statutory.,/blockquote>I'm not sure, and unwilling to google on the topic at my office, but I think that some states have an age difference metric that applies. So if a 12-yo and a 15-yo have relations, the 15-yo can be charged even though she or he is under the age of consent.
But you can look that up if you like, or hopefully someone with intima^H^H^H^H^H^Hbetter knowledge of the law can chime in.
Who said anything about charging them as adults? They could be charged as juveniles.
And to continue the devil's advocacy, the act of charging them with a crime is immaterial. In the eyes of the law, they would be seeking out victimization, which is what we're discussing in re: the mind of this AG.
Thanks for the fairly level-headed response, they seem to be few and far between on slashdot nowadays.
EVERY sandboxing scheme attempted to date has failed, some more messy than others, some more publicly than others, but ALL have failed.
Hmmm... I wasn't aware that virtualization was a security failure, and that every instance of VM implementation failed to maintain security of the host OS. Do you know where I might get some good reading on the subject?
Just to play devil's advocate... what about consensual rape? I mean, juveniles aren't capable of legally consenting in the eyes of the law... so even though *in reality* they are consenting, in the eyes of the law they are victims of a crime (like statutory rape).
IF (and that's a big if) graphic sex ed does lead to greater incidence of sexual activity among kids under the age of consent, then he's probably technically correct.
I do think he's most likely grandstanding for political reasons, though.
I mean he's actually saying that teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim?! HOW?!
I don't think that's what he's saying. I think what he's saying is one of the following three things:
1. Kids who receive graphic sex ed will catch the sexy cooties and flaunt their nether regions, thus tempting those with no self control.
2. Kids who receive graphic sex ed will be consumed with desire for the rest of their lives and will grow up to be rapists of children.
3. Derp derp derp!
Now, as for 1 & 2, I think this guy could be one of those people who has issues with his own self-control, and projects that onto others, so that the only reasonable course of action is to make all women wear burkas so that the men helpless to overcome their sexual desire are not tempted. This would explain his rationale if either 1 or 2 were true.
Another possibility is that this guy sees himself as a politician on the rise, and is trying to score points with social conservatives.
But somehow, #3 holds the most promise as a valid explanation in my opinion.
You can get one just to check that theres not any law being broken, instead of having some evidence or probably cause.
Reasonable suspicion is required, is it not?. Different courts have different requirements for establishing reasonable suspicion, but AFAIK, there has not been a successful attempt to make fishing expeditions legal (despite your claims that they are).
In my opinion a court order should be the minimum requirement in the US too.
A subpoena is almost always a court order.
Also, a lot of data is actually disclosed even without subpoena
We do not know if that is the case with Google; given their past actions wrt requests for data, I tend to think that maybe your statement is false.
and like with this news US government probably has some hidden backdoor service like with some ISP's.
And this one adds the fact it doesn't even try to secure the apps, it tries to stop misbehaving apps (like SELinux) from accessing things it shouldn't
Well, that's the point. If an app is sandboxed, it doesn't matter if that app is insecure... your OS won't get hosed by that app.
If history shows anything, giving an attacker any access to run code locally gives them all they need to leverage it into root eventually.
This is an implementation issue, not a theoretical issue. If the virtualized locations are truly sandboxed, it's not an issue at all. I think what history shows is that attempts to stratify permissions don't work well, because there are too many workarounds in the interest of operability. It's these workarounds that get abused (aside from the occasional chunk of shoddy code design that accidentally permits privilege escalation).
But I still don't think this is completely relevant to the concept of sandboxing via virtualization. Who cares if they escalate to root in one of the virtual machines? Nothing of consequence is done in that machine, so no important data is vulnerable. Do all your banking, for example, from a different virtual machine, and aside from the usual user-stupidity issues (hello, at phishing site! I'll gladly give you my login details and passwords!), the banking information is secure from any kind of exploits that may exist in a different virtual machine.
Maybe I'm completely mistaken here... if so, please help me understand... but how would root access in one of the virtual machines allow the attacker to have root access on any of the other machines?
*Please note I'm referring to virtual machines when likely that isn't the right term. I'm not an expert on this, and I'm hoping I learn something from this exchange.
You clearly don't understand the concept of a natural monopoly.
Go ahead, look it up.
It may be difficult for you to understand, but sometimes regulation is NEEDED to promote a free market. Telco is one of those areas, due to the exorbitant cost of rolling out infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that what they're calling it these days? Somehow I find that particular combination of words to be... arousing.
I think I parsed that as 'trying to donate some DNA while $SEX_VERBING my friends' -- in which case, I'm all for it, whatever it is.
That's only because every time I use an iPhone an Apple "Genius" masturbates.
Good point.
If you're going to choose between two apps for the same task, many people will choose the free-as-in-beer app supported by ads instead of shelling out $5-$20 for the non-ad-supported app.
This might be a good thing, though, since then people will have more choices. It might suck for some devs, though, since they'll see fewer users and less cash unless they too put ads in their products.
Neither.
I got into computing and technology because it was fricking fun to write and play 3000-line adventure games with my friends in BASIC on a PET2001 -- which, by the way, just worked.
I personally don't care about advertising. It doesn't bother me one bit in the grand scheme of things, since I'm capable of tuning them out. If the ads in a particular context bother me, then I avoid that context.
Seems to me like your core issue is the idea of a computer as an appliance.
Why not use computer appliances for what they're designed for, and scratch your tinkering itch somewhere else? It's not like Apple is the alpha and omega of computing.
There's plenty of room for tech consumers and tech tinkerers alike in this world. Do Apple's offerings really limit your ability to tinker and learn?
I'm in central NJ in a condo complex.
Supposedly they are putting in more equipment to deal with the volume... over 60% of my condo association has switched to Fios in the year it's been available as per the survey we did in December. I don't think they expected that.
It might also be important to mention that most of the condos are owned by 30-somethings and there are a lot of short-term (2-3 year) business transfer owners/renters... not sure if we use more bandwidth on average.
Speak for yourself. We know *exactly* how plants produce O2 and hydrocarbons (more or less) from H2O, CO2, and sunlight. We know the structure of the proteins involved, etc.
It's just ridiculously impractical for us to do it on a large scale -- it's very complex (read: expensive).
Did you notice the extra latency the past couple nights? Just thought you should know I started to copy your traffic and will view more of it at my leisure... provided I can stomach the thought of seeing more scat videos.
No caps... but plenty of other speed issues. Like getting throttled when your neighbors are also online.
I don't know if Verizon didn't properly plan for how many people would drop cable service and sign up for Fios[1], but my Fios service slows to a crawl in the evenings (when I'm most likely to want to use it) and on the weekends. Really, really slow... like wishing-I-had-lightning-fast-in-comparison-DSL slow.
[1] Funny thing about that... Our local cable provider actually sends a dude around once a month to knock on doors in my neighborhood and beg people to come back. It's really funny, because diminishing returns must apply... I usually invite him in for a beer, I feel bad for the number of times doors get slammed in his face (which, incidentally, is what I did the first time he showed up).
Your porn consumption preferences are impressive.
I trust that you have at least four monitors set up for a panoramic experience... otherwise you're wasting that browser power.
Unprovoked? Hardly.
Why not bother reading some history books instead of repeating nationalistic tripe that doesn't reflect reality?
That's ridiculous.
The truth is, God simply didn't have time to whittle away the last bit of the penis when he carved Eve from Adam's rib.
Just a small oversight, not intentional design. This is why true God-fearing women are to endure, not enjoy, sex.
... at the same time. Could be sequential, you know, a revenge rape or something.
Unless, of course, both want to be pitchers and neither wants to be a catcher. And they are fighting over it. Then they could be raping each other at the same time.
It's times like this that I wonder why I was cursed with a vivid imagination.
Farking fark fark.
Stupid iPad touchscreen and stupid fat fingers.
Please apply the HTML closing tag in your mind when reading the above post. We all parse HTML natively in our brains here, right?
Who said anything about charging them as adults? They could be charged as juveniles.
And to continue the devil's advocacy, the act of charging them with a crime is immaterial. In the eyes of the law, they would be seeking out victimization, which is what we're discussing in re: the mind of this AG.
Hmmm... I wasn't aware that virtualization was a security failure, and that every instance of VM implementation failed to maintain security of the host OS. Do you know where I might get some good reading on the subject?
Just to play devil's advocate... what about consensual rape? I mean, juveniles aren't capable of legally consenting in the eyes of the law... so even though *in reality* they are consenting, in the eyes of the law they are victims of a crime (like statutory rape).
IF (and that's a big if) graphic sex ed does lead to greater incidence of sexual activity among kids under the age of consent, then he's probably technically correct.
I do think he's most likely grandstanding for political reasons, though.
I don't think that's what he's saying. I think what he's saying is one of the following three things:
1. Kids who receive graphic sex ed will catch the sexy cooties and flaunt their nether regions, thus tempting those with no self control.
2. Kids who receive graphic sex ed will be consumed with desire for the rest of their lives and will grow up to be rapists of children.
3. Derp derp derp!
Now, as for 1 & 2, I think this guy could be one of those people who has issues with his own self-control, and projects that onto others, so that the only reasonable course of action is to make all women wear burkas so that the men helpless to overcome their sexual desire are not tempted. This would explain his rationale if either 1 or 2 were true.
Another possibility is that this guy sees himself as a politician on the rise, and is trying to score points with social conservatives.
But somehow, #3 holds the most promise as a valid explanation in my opinion.
It's not too late.
Did you know that it's possible to get a condom over someone's head and that this will deprive them of air?
Reasonable suspicion is required, is it not?. Different courts have different requirements for establishing reasonable suspicion, but AFAIK, there has not been a successful attempt to make fishing expeditions legal (despite your claims that they are).
A subpoena is almost always a court order.
We do not know if that is the case with Google; given their past actions wrt requests for data, I tend to think that maybe your statement is false.
Pure speculation.
FWIW, you are limiting the scope of what a corporation is.
Most corporations are a financial interest, since a corporate entity is the best vehicle for many types of financial interests.
But if you check the bylaws of most states, you'll see that nowhere is "financial interest" a requirement for a corporation.
For example, many 501(c)3 are corporations... and yet their interests are not financial (else they couldn't register as a 501(c)3).
Well, that's the point. If an app is sandboxed, it doesn't matter if that app is insecure... your OS won't get hosed by that app.
This is an implementation issue, not a theoretical issue. If the virtualized locations are truly sandboxed, it's not an issue at all. I think what history shows is that attempts to stratify permissions don't work well, because there are too many workarounds in the interest of operability. It's these workarounds that get abused (aside from the occasional chunk of shoddy code design that accidentally permits privilege escalation).
But I still don't think this is completely relevant to the concept of sandboxing via virtualization. Who cares if they escalate to root in one of the virtual machines? Nothing of consequence is done in that machine, so no important data is vulnerable. Do all your banking, for example, from a different virtual machine, and aside from the usual user-stupidity issues (hello, at phishing site! I'll gladly give you my login details and passwords!), the banking information is secure from any kind of exploits that may exist in a different virtual machine.
Maybe I'm completely mistaken here... if so, please help me understand... but how would root access in one of the virtual machines allow the attacker to have root access on any of the other machines?
*Please note I'm referring to virtual machines when likely that isn't the right term. I'm not an expert on this, and I'm hoping I learn something from this exchange.
You clearly don't understand the concept of a natural monopoly.
Go ahead, look it up.
It may be difficult for you to understand, but sometimes regulation is NEEDED to promote a free market. Telco is one of those areas, due to the exorbitant cost of rolling out infrastructure.
If the mod who modded that troll bothered to follow the link, he would have understood the context of the way I worded that post.
There sure seems to be a deficiency of humor here...
OK thanks... I was thrown off by the "offshore" part, since offshore workers are not guest workers & both descriptors were used...
:)
That's why I apologized in advance at the end in case you mean onshore guest workers