I used to buy Sony almost exclusively. Every MD player I bought was Sony, as well as corresponding earbuds (E-888) and headphones. Every TV. I even had a PS2. And the recommendations I made to friends and family were often Sony products. Hell, even the CD's I used to buy were all put out by Sony Classical Records.
I've refused to purchase Sony branded stuff for many years now. It was one fiasco after another. The rootkit in their music CD's is the most memorable of their PR disasters, but my boycott started even before that.
Today, anything they make, I can easily find a competitor that makes something comparable or even better. And if not, well, I'll deal. I can do without spending another grand, and Sony's lawyers can do without my extra grand in their pockets.
Whom this benefits are international patent holders who can now automatically claim those patents as prior art.
I really don't see how your scenario in Russia is different to the situation right now, where two parties fight it out in court as to who invented it first.
With this new system, if IBM files for a patent in Europe and Microsoft files for the same patent in the US for the same thing, but at a later date, then the courts can easily look at the file date of IBM's patent, and then Microsoft's patent, and determine immediately which one came first.
As opposed to the current system and I guess in Russia, where it looks like you'd have to go through a protracted court battle to determine who actually "invented" it first.
Besides, the paradigm these days isn't to sit on an invention, develop it until it's ready, but to patent an idea--any idea--as quickly as humanly possible. In some cases, people patent before the product is ready, and then separately patent whatever turns the idea into an actual product. In today's patent paradigm, the first to file system is always superior.
I think most people here are getting tripped up by the fact that Microsoft is supporting the bill.
No, app has traditionally been shorthand for application. Not so long ago, people rarely vocalized the whole word "application" because it's long and "app" is much shorter while conveying the same meaning.
I'm not sure there's actually a difference between application and app. App and application both mean standalone pieces of code, as opposed to a library (a collection of shared pieces of code), a header (a description of how to use a library), or bundle (a collection of apps). There's also suite, but that usually comes in the form of "suite of applications" rather than just plain "suite".
The little square things you press/click/touch to launch an app in iOS are probably better called links, represented by icons. "Icon" is a UI term for the picture that represents the link. So is "widget" which is dynamic as opposed to the static picture that is an icon. Since these links don't go anywhere or do anything but execute one application, it's fair to skip the link part and call the icon an app.
I'm not sure where Google's going with their usage of "app", but if by clicking on an icon brings up a web app, it can be called an app, short for a link to a web app. Now, bookmark is a link to a destination that's online. If these icons can go to a plain web page (non-interactive pages, or pages that do not interface into an application), then they're probably bookmarks. Otherwise, the "bookmark" part is also implied.
I'm sure you're right for certain scenarios. But as per some of the other comments, if your firewall isn't good enough to handle data coming down your pipe, you're doing it wrong.
Now, as to having to process the packets and forward them on, your server's NIC would have to do the same, and then waste server resources trying to process whatever the packet's requesting. Your NIC handling your poor flooded pipe would be nothing compared to what your server would be trying to do.
But there's a difference between DoS and DDoS. With a DoS, a firewall can be configured to do some basic QoS. That means that while someone can fill up your pipe going in, your firewall can drop misbehaving packets immediately, instead of overloading your server and having it do the overhead filtering on top of serving the information that legitmate packets request.
Of course, that's what a firewall is: a server dedicated to managing the incoming traffic. Your actual server is presumably doing something more complicated, like spitting out web pages or videos or running map reduce operations.
For a DDoS, a firewall doesn't make a damn difference. You need a distributed solution where you can distribute your legitimate load to servers located elsewhere while funneling the attacking IPs to one point of failure. And you'll need an analysis tool to figure out which IPs are bad and which are not.
Being willing to violate their patents isn't going to do a damned thing if everybody's too adverse to doing so to begin with. Copying blueprints is just a copyright violation. You actually have to build something to violate a patent.
Off topic, but with this new layout, GP is modded 2, while parent is modded 5, but GP shows up minimized and parent (modded 5!) doesn't even show up without first expanding GP.
These are the default settings (the slider even says 1 full), but none of the comments are showing up as full.
It's all about the new hotness vs. the old and busted. Nokia is the latter. Apparently, the former was once Apple, but it might now be Google (technically, everybody-else-but-Microsoft uses Android on their handsets, so as Google doesn't make their own phone anymore, it could also fall under Other).
Of course, Nokia's smartphone offerings have always been a bit on the weak side. They've only made their hardware features fancier as the phones got more expensive, whereas iOS and Android are being sold primarily on software extensions (apps).
They're still leader in overall market share. But they're on the decline as more people move to smartphones, and they struggle to play catch up with Apple and Google.
But that's not what an AV is for, despite the industry trying to market it as such. Antivirus software is reactionary. The company has to receive an unknown virus and analyze it before they can put the virus in the next definition file update. And any heuristics module included is typically useless against all but the most basic attacks.
AV is at best a catch-all for uncontrolled or uncontrollable situations. Office computers, shared family home machines, etc. that are subject to illogical users' whims would benefit from AV. But AV cannot stop zero-day exploits, cannot prevent malicious JS, and is completely useless against a determined attacker with physical access to a machine.
Proper computer security addresses each attack vector separately. A properly-configured software firewall will take care of most of the threats though the network. In fact, hiding behind a NAT will take care of 99% of the zero-day threats; whitelisting outbound traffic is just good security practice. Noscript and safe surfing habits will guard against anything coming in through the browser. Obviously, preventing unauthorized physical access to the system requires physical security.
All AV will do is maybe stop that infected autorun from your kid's buddy's flash drive, or delete that exe file you accidentially downloaded from a questionable site you were surfing. But that's what's it's really there for:all the cases you don't really know or expect to have to guard against.
Yeah, but until the population as a whole learns to think critically, these so-called journalists are going to continue to spew their nonsense, and their readers are going to lap it all up.
The problem with that is, you need Widget X that you don't manufacture to do your job. Where will you get Widget X? Or, you make Widget X. Where you will find people who want to buy and use your Widget X in their product?
The internet levels the playing field a little. But there's only so much Walmart sells. The rest comes from small- and mid-sized businesses that, if they even have an online presence, is in the internet equivalent of the yellow pages.
Even with the internet, you need to schmooze with the "press" (blogs) to get your name on their page. If you don't, you'll still not get anywhere.
-It is one syllable. -It is an archaic English spelling of "fair", which means honest, legitimate, and good-looking. -It brings up connotations of "laissez faire." -Faire in French means "to do". -Faire is French. Faire Office sort of mean "replacement" in French. -It is easy on the tongue (much easier than "OpenOffice" or the god-awful "LibreOffice").
They could have bought another company whose mobile OS wasn't built on Java.
It's possible the decision to purchase Android instead of a different phone software company was somehow influenced by its use of Java.
I still don't think Eric Schmidt's resignation from his CEO position is a result of this, but it's possible the it does have something to do with the lawsuit, perhaps how he wants to handle it. After all, the timing is pretty supicious.
What applies at the microcosmic level wouldn't necessarily scale.
An extensive level of knowledge about one particular location's needs and wants does not at all imply the same level of knowledge about the needs and wants of all areas. This is true for the majority of people, most of whose knowledge is limited to their local area, which is both why only a minority are in leadership positions, and why there exists a clear heirarchy among leaders.
The actual issue is the way branching works (or more accurately, doesn't work). The idea that a branch is no more than another directory is far too simplistic for any merge tracking.
The other issue is that files and directories are treated completely differently. Treating directories and files the same would go a long way to making branching more dynamic.
Fix these two core design issues, and branching and merging will be a piece of cake.
The one thing forking will help overcome: backwards compatibility issues.
Seems Subversion is being bitten by the same thing that bit Microsoft for new versions of Windows and Office. I say do the massive changes necessary in one go and offer a compatibility layer afterwards. After all, nobody's going to be migrating their clients to 2.x if their server is still at 1.x.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and buying PS3 games means Sony continues to get to charge game developers more for their kit.
And using their online services still gives them yet more clout against other companies like Netflix.
If you're dead serious about not giving your money to Sony, you'll need to suck it up and just not get a PS3. Otherwise, it's just talk.
Don't forget that Sony is a member of the RIAA.
The other three of the big four are EMI, Warner, and Universal.
I used to buy Sony almost exclusively. Every MD player I bought was Sony, as well as corresponding earbuds (E-888) and headphones. Every TV. I even had a PS2. And the recommendations I made to friends and family were often Sony products. Hell, even the CD's I used to buy were all put out by Sony Classical Records.
I've refused to purchase Sony branded stuff for many years now. It was one fiasco after another. The rootkit in their music CD's is the most memorable of their PR disasters, but my boycott started even before that.
Today, anything they make, I can easily find a competitor that makes something comparable or even better. And if not, well, I'll deal. I can do without spending another grand, and Sony's lawyers can do without my extra grand in their pockets.
Whom this benefits are international patent holders who can now automatically claim those patents as prior art.
I really don't see how your scenario in Russia is different to the situation right now, where two parties fight it out in court as to who invented it first.
With this new system, if IBM files for a patent in Europe and Microsoft files for the same patent in the US for the same thing, but at a later date, then the courts can easily look at the file date of IBM's patent, and then Microsoft's patent, and determine immediately which one came first.
As opposed to the current system and I guess in Russia, where it looks like you'd have to go through a protracted court battle to determine who actually "invented" it first.
Besides, the paradigm these days isn't to sit on an invention, develop it until it's ready, but to patent an idea--any idea--as quickly as humanly possible. In some cases, people patent before the product is ready, and then separately patent whatever turns the idea into an actual product. In today's patent paradigm, the first to file system is always superior.
I think most people here are getting tripped up by the fact that Microsoft is supporting the bill.
No, app has traditionally been shorthand for application. Not so long ago, people rarely vocalized the whole word "application" because it's long and "app" is much shorter while conveying the same meaning.
I'm not sure there's actually a difference between application and app. App and application both mean standalone pieces of code, as opposed to a library (a collection of shared pieces of code), a header (a description of how to use a library), or bundle (a collection of apps). There's also suite, but that usually comes in the form of "suite of applications" rather than just plain "suite".
The little square things you press/click/touch to launch an app in iOS are probably better called links, represented by icons. "Icon" is a UI term for the picture that represents the link. So is "widget" which is dynamic as opposed to the static picture that is an icon. Since these links don't go anywhere or do anything but execute one application, it's fair to skip the link part and call the icon an app.
I'm not sure where Google's going with their usage of "app", but if by clicking on an icon brings up a web app, it can be called an app, short for a link to a web app. Now, bookmark is a link to a destination that's online. If these icons can go to a plain web page (non-interactive pages, or pages that do not interface into an application), then they're probably bookmarks. Otherwise, the "bookmark" part is also implied.
I'm sure you're right for certain scenarios. But as per some of the other comments, if your firewall isn't good enough to handle data coming down your pipe, you're doing it wrong.
Now, as to having to process the packets and forward them on, your server's NIC would have to do the same, and then waste server resources trying to process whatever the packet's requesting. Your NIC handling your poor flooded pipe would be nothing compared to what your server would be trying to do.
But there's a difference between DoS and DDoS. With a DoS, a firewall can be configured to do some basic QoS. That means that while someone can fill up your pipe going in, your firewall can drop misbehaving packets immediately, instead of overloading your server and having it do the overhead filtering on top of serving the information that legitmate packets request.
Of course, that's what a firewall is: a server dedicated to managing the incoming traffic. Your actual server is presumably doing something more complicated, like spitting out web pages or videos or running map reduce operations.
For a DDoS, a firewall doesn't make a damn difference. You need a distributed solution where you can distribute your legitimate load to servers located elsewhere while funneling the attacking IPs to one point of failure. And you'll need an analysis tool to figure out which IPs are bad and which are not.
Makes you wonder what people'll laugh about in 100 years time when they look back at the products we use and take for granted everyday now.
And I bet most of those same gamers are male, under 30, and childless.
Being willing to violate their patents isn't going to do a damned thing if everybody's too adverse to doing so to begin with. Copying blueprints is just a copyright violation. You actually have to build something to violate a patent.
At least, this was true while GGP was still at 2.
Off topic, but with this new layout, GP is modded 2, while parent is modded 5, but GP shows up minimized and parent (modded 5!) doesn't even show up without first expanding GP.
These are the default settings (the slider even says 1 full), but none of the comments are showing up as full.
It's all about the new hotness vs. the old and busted. Nokia is the latter. Apparently, the former was once Apple, but it might now be Google (technically, everybody-else-but-Microsoft uses Android on their handsets, so as Google doesn't make their own phone anymore, it could also fall under Other).
Of course, Nokia's smartphone offerings have always been a bit on the weak side. They've only made their hardware features fancier as the phones got more expensive, whereas iOS and Android are being sold primarily on software extensions (apps).
They're still leader in overall market share. But they're on the decline as more people move to smartphones, and they struggle to play catch up with Apple and Google.
The promotion system is so-so...and the actual search system is very primitive.
That's rather surprising, considering it's Google. You know there's a big problem when Google's having trouble with ranking and search.
But that's not what an AV is for, despite the industry trying to market it as such. Antivirus software is reactionary. The company has to receive an unknown virus and analyze it before they can put the virus in the next definition file update. And any heuristics module included is typically useless against all but the most basic attacks.
AV is at best a catch-all for uncontrolled or uncontrollable situations. Office computers, shared family home machines, etc. that are subject to illogical users' whims would benefit from AV. But AV cannot stop zero-day exploits, cannot prevent malicious JS, and is completely useless against a determined attacker with physical access to a machine.
Proper computer security addresses each attack vector separately. A properly-configured software firewall will take care of most of the threats though the network. In fact, hiding behind a NAT will take care of 99% of the zero-day threats; whitelisting outbound traffic is just good security practice. Noscript and safe surfing habits will guard against anything coming in through the browser. Obviously, preventing unauthorized physical access to the system requires physical security.
All AV will do is maybe stop that infected autorun from your kid's buddy's flash drive, or delete that exe file you accidentially downloaded from a questionable site you were surfing. But that's what's it's really there for:all the cases you don't really know or expect to have to guard against.
Yeah, but until the population as a whole learns to think critically, these so-called journalists are going to continue to spew their nonsense, and their readers are going to lap it all up.
A lot of life is luck. It's always better to be lucky than to be good.
Of course, it's always practical to not rely on luck. But you'll still need it, even if only a little.
The problem with that is, you need Widget X that you don't manufacture to do your job. Where will you get Widget X? Or, you make Widget X. Where you will find people who want to buy and use your Widget X in their product?
The internet levels the playing field a little. But there's only so much Walmart sells. The rest comes from small- and mid-sized businesses that, if they even have an online presence, is in the internet equivalent of the yellow pages.
Even with the internet, you need to schmooze with the "press" (blogs) to get your name on their page. If you don't, you'll still not get anywhere.
I'd personally perfer FaireOffice.
-It is one syllable.
-It is an archaic English spelling of "fair", which means honest, legitimate, and good-looking.
-It brings up connotations of "laissez faire."
-Faire in French means "to do".
-Faire is French. Faire Office sort of mean "replacement" in French.
-It is easy on the tongue (much easier than "OpenOffice" or the god-awful "LibreOffice").
How much more appropriate can a name get?
They could have bought another company whose mobile OS wasn't built on Java.
It's possible the decision to purchase Android instead of a different phone software company was somehow influenced by its use of Java.
I still don't think Eric Schmidt's resignation from his CEO position is a result of this, but it's possible the it does have something to do with the lawsuit, perhaps how he wants to handle it. After all, the timing is pretty supicious.
Maybe that's what the current class A owners should do.
You didn't buy the right one
What applies at the microcosmic level wouldn't necessarily scale.
An extensive level of knowledge about one particular location's needs and wants does not at all imply the same level of knowledge about the needs and wants of all areas. This is true for the majority of people, most of whose knowledge is limited to their local area, which is both why only a minority are in leadership positions, and why there exists a clear heirarchy among leaders.
That's probably how "death panels" and other fancies of the illiterate come about.
The actual issue is the way branching works (or more accurately, doesn't work). The idea that a branch is no more than another directory is far too simplistic for any merge tracking.
The other issue is that files and directories are treated completely differently. Treating directories and files the same would go a long way to making branching more dynamic.
Fix these two core design issues, and branching and merging will be a piece of cake.
The one thing forking will help overcome: backwards compatibility issues.
Seems Subversion is being bitten by the same thing that bit Microsoft for new versions of Windows and Office. I say do the massive changes necessary in one go and offer a compatibility layer afterwards. After all, nobody's going to be migrating their clients to 2.x if their server is still at 1.x.