Well that is true, but it's not a material thing that's being taken but rather an idea. Perhaps that is stealing, perhaps it's not - either way, I stand by my point that doing it is just good business.
Companies steal - all companies do it. Apple stole from Android, Android stole from iOS, Windows stole from OSX, OSX stole from Windows - it's a never ending circle. Twitter and facebook have both stole from each other, Linux has stole from Unix and so on and so forth. The companies that don't steal don't innovate either, they just piss off their users because company X has a great feature and the users want it. Eventually those users leave for company X.
If it's a good idea and you're not doing it, then you're doing it wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending BT or the government here - I fully support the idea of wiring up every single villiage and out-of-the-way house there is. I don't see why it should be any more difficult to lay fibre to these places than it is to lay water pipes or electricity - it's essentially just a different type of cable. An expensive one perhaps, but never the less fibre is the future. I was simply explaining to the poster above me who seemed to think that it shouldn't cost that much. I stand that the Government should spend a hell of a lot more money on this - how about fucking off that £30billion train line from birmingham to london and instead blanket the country in fibre?
The problem isn't the places that have cables near them already, it's the ones that don't. Most major cities these days are fine and by 2015 probably will have some form of cable, FTTC or both, but it's the small towns and villiages (of which there are many) that are miles away and only have a few residents. If there's only 30 people there and the nearest telephone exchange is 5 miles away, then how much is it going to cost to lay that much cable and blanket the area in wireless? Now split that cost up by 30 and suddenly it's quite expensive.
Is that they're typically a lot bigger and capable of carrying heavy loads. I wonder, using similar technology, how far a jet such as a 747 could go if it was filled with batteries instead of cargo/passengers. I know that's relatively pointless, but it'd be interesting to know.
Do you not think it's more because IPv6 is a pretty important feature and should have been in the "NEEDS to be implemented before shipping" category?
Sure, IPv6 isn't popular now, nor is it about to explode any time soon but it's stupid decision like this that cause it.
The switch to IPv6 seems to be marred in much the same way the switch to 64bit OS's was - people focus on just one aspect of it (for IPv6 it's the number of addresses, for 64bit it was the amount of RAM you could use) and declare that there's no need for such quantities just yet - we're fine for a few years. The problem is there are plenty of other benefits of switching that people who aren't that technically minded don't "get" so don't see a need for.
I don't think it's possible to get RMS's stamp of approval on anything. You still have to buy a Raspberry Pi from someone, which means you have to use a web browser, probably with cookies enabled and enter in all sorts of personal information - like a shipping address.
The kindle works very much like how a book does - you can read it in the same conditions, with the benefit of a consistent size, portability and of course the ability to carry many "books" with you at the same time. There's a plethora of itty-bitty book lights and similar reading aids out there that work just as well for the kindle as any book. You can also get cases with lights built into them specifically designed for the kindle. This is a welcome addition, but seems more evolutionary than revolutionary.
Trojans and virsuses, at least their definitions, only differentiate the behaviour and are not mutually exclusive.
A virus is "a segment of self-replicating code planted illegally in a computer program, often to damage or shut down a system or network." Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virus?s=t
A trojan is a program that gives remote access to a compromised machine. There's nothing to say that Viruses and Trojans can't do both. Of course, many people will say that the difference between virsuses and Trojans are that Trojans do not spread by themselves, but at the same time there's nothing to say that a Virus has to grant remote access to any machine it infects - so does that mean that a trojan is a virus that doesn't spread? That wouldn't make sense, given the name.
Viruses spread by themselves, they are self replicating. A virus that has no other payload other than to spread itself further is still a virus.
A Trojan grants remote access to a machine. It may download other malware, but the principal is there - it gives compromised administrative access. If it didn't give this access, it wouldn't be a Trojan, it would be some other form of malware.
So what if you have a virus that downloads other viruses, or grants remote access? Or a trojan that spreads itself? Wait, aren't they now the same thing?
Don't apologise for being a Facebook user. Also don't apologise for being a Windows user, or an IE user. Don't make excuses for it, just use what works best for you. Anyone that disagrees can go suck a fat one - Technology is about making our lives easier, about seamlessly connecting with other people around the planet and about having the choice in which way you want to do it.
I do believe (but I could be wrong) that for Microsoft's WHQL certification when it comes to Vista/7, drivers have to be produced in 32bit and 64bit variants. If you have anything vaguely recent that doesn't have a 64bit driver, it probably doesn't have a WHQL certified 32bit driver either.
The summary, as you might expect, is a little off. What's happening here is that Gawker is switching from its own account system to using the accounts of existing social services (Google, Facebook or twitter). This is not them asking for your account but rather asking you to AUTHORISE gawker's access to your account details. If this is an issue, please go talk to Disqus or even Twitter/Facebook/Google themselves, who also let you "link" accounts from other services, as well as a bunch of other sites. This is the way the web is going and is nothing new.
The interesting thing is that this does actually give certain known PSP/PS3 hackers the power to remove ANY game from the PSN. All they have to do is say "New exploit found in x" and poof, it's gone. Sony isn't removing these games when the exploit is released, they're removing them as soon as it's mentioned what game it is.
I think it's more to do with Sony's draconian policies. If certain known hacker types mention a game, Sony immediately pulls it from the PSN. The thing is, even if the game was "hacked", it doesn't actually allow piracy, it just allows some simple homebrew. The floodgates to piracy, perhaps, but any vaguely intelligent company would see it as an opportunity and give people more access to the hardware, allowing them to legitimately run homebrew.
Actually I'm pretty sure the loudest cry was from various people who had lost access to OtherOS and wanted it back. The difference is, they were cries of laughter.
Every now and then, Sony completely and utterly fucks up in some catastrophic way. Each time it happens, they piss off a whole bunch of people in the process. Like many here, I'm shocked that people even bother with them but they do happen to make somewhat compelling products.
This seems to be the norm these days - a company that was formerly massively successful begins to die down and fade away, so in a last ditch attempt to cling to live they sue anyone and everyone that has ever done anything remotely similar to them.
Going by this logic, it does also mean that Apple must be ready to die soon. I mean, they can't have that much money, can they?
That's another valid point, I'm always asking questions on/. regarding things I simply don't understand. You often get called an idiot, but that's just standard forum/comment behaviour. But you always get someone knowledgeable that explains it properly. I strongly believe in asking questions rather than getting stuff wrong and slashdot is great for that.
Agreed. I come to slashdot for the discussions, not the articles which I tend to find on other sites before/. posts them. The discussions are brilliant here, even amongst the trolls and idiots.
Why should Google have to censor its search results? All Google is doing is indexing and displaying stuff that's already on the internet. It should be the people who posted it that have to take it down, not Google. Trying to censor Google, for whatever reason, completely undermines one of the things that makes the internet as brilliant as it is.
However, if it pleases you, feel free to think about it as a euphemism for trickle-down economics. By posting links, I get moderated positively for being helpful. Likewise, by those posting the unobfuscated links below me, they also get a share of some moderation points. Everybody wins!
Apologies, I did that stupid thing of right clicking and getting the target of the search result rather than clicking the link and THEN getting the URL. Still, both links will take you to the same place.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that is true, but it's not a material thing that's being taken but rather an idea. Perhaps that is stealing, perhaps it's not - either way, I stand by my point that doing it is just good business.
Companies steal - all companies do it. Apple stole from Android, Android stole from iOS, Windows stole from OSX, OSX stole from Windows - it's a never ending circle. Twitter and facebook have both stole from each other, Linux has stole from Unix and so on and so forth.
The companies that don't steal don't innovate either, they just piss off their users because company X has a great feature and the users want it. Eventually those users leave for company X.
If it's a good idea and you're not doing it, then you're doing it wrong.
Sounds like there's a lot of evidence to the contrary. At some point, it just stops being a coincidence.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending BT or the government here - I fully support the idea of wiring up every single villiage and out-of-the-way house there is. I don't see why it should be any more difficult to lay fibre to these places than it is to lay water pipes or electricity - it's essentially just a different type of cable. An expensive one perhaps, but never the less fibre is the future.
I was simply explaining to the poster above me who seemed to think that it shouldn't cost that much. I stand that the Government should spend a hell of a lot more money on this - how about fucking off that £30billion train line from birmingham to london and instead blanket the country in fibre?
But alas, I digress.
The problem isn't the places that have cables near them already, it's the ones that don't. Most major cities these days are fine and by 2015 probably will have some form of cable, FTTC or both, but it's the small towns and villiages (of which there are many) that are miles away and only have a few residents. If there's only 30 people there and the nearest telephone exchange is 5 miles away, then how much is it going to cost to lay that much cable and blanket the area in wireless? Now split that cost up by 30 and suddenly it's quite expensive.
Is that they're typically a lot bigger and capable of carrying heavy loads. I wonder, using similar technology, how far a jet such as a 747 could go if it was filled with batteries instead of cargo/passengers. I know that's relatively pointless, but it'd be interesting to know.
Do you not think it's more because IPv6 is a pretty important feature and should have been in the "NEEDS to be implemented before shipping" category?
Sure, IPv6 isn't popular now, nor is it about to explode any time soon but it's stupid decision like this that cause it.
The switch to IPv6 seems to be marred in much the same way the switch to 64bit OS's was - people focus on just one aspect of it (for IPv6 it's the number of addresses, for 64bit it was the amount of RAM you could use) and declare that there's no need for such quantities just yet - we're fine for a few years. The problem is there are plenty of other benefits of switching that people who aren't that technically minded don't "get" so don't see a need for.
I don't think it's possible to get RMS's stamp of approval on anything. You still have to buy a Raspberry Pi from someone, which means you have to use a web browser, probably with cookies enabled and enter in all sorts of personal information - like a shipping address.
RMS wouldn't have it.
The kindle works very much like how a book does - you can read it in the same conditions, with the benefit of a consistent size, portability and of course the ability to carry many "books" with you at the same time. There's a plethora of itty-bitty book lights and similar reading aids out there that work just as well for the kindle as any book. You can also get cases with lights built into them specifically designed for the kindle. This is a welcome addition, but seems more evolutionary than revolutionary.
Trojans and virsuses, at least their definitions, only differentiate the behaviour and are not mutually exclusive.
A virus is "a segment of self-replicating code planted illegally in a computer program, often to damage or shut down a system or network." Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virus?s=t
A trojan is a program that gives remote access to a compromised machine. There's nothing to say that Viruses and Trojans can't do both. Of course, many people will say that the difference between virsuses and Trojans are that Trojans do not spread by themselves, but at the same time there's nothing to say that a Virus has to grant remote access to any machine it infects - so does that mean that a trojan is a virus that doesn't spread? That wouldn't make sense, given the name.
Viruses spread by themselves, they are self replicating. A virus that has no other payload other than to spread itself further is still a virus.
A Trojan grants remote access to a machine. It may download other malware, but the principal is there - it gives compromised administrative access. If it didn't give this access, it wouldn't be a Trojan, it would be some other form of malware.
So what if you have a virus that downloads other viruses, or grants remote access? Or a trojan that spreads itself? Wait, aren't they now the same thing?
Give me your CC number and I'll let you know if it's one of the compromised ones.
>_>
If it competently sends and receives email, it'll be an improvement over BB9.
Don't apologise for being a Facebook user. Also don't apologise for being a Windows user, or an IE user. Don't make excuses for it, just use what works best for you. Anyone that disagrees can go suck a fat one - Technology is about making our lives easier, about seamlessly connecting with other people around the planet and about having the choice in which way you want to do it.
I do believe (but I could be wrong) that for Microsoft's WHQL certification when it comes to Vista/7, drivers have to be produced in 32bit and 64bit variants.
If you have anything vaguely recent that doesn't have a 64bit driver, it probably doesn't have a WHQL certified 32bit driver either.
The summary, as you might expect, is a little off.
What's happening here is that Gawker is switching from its own account system to using the accounts of existing social services (Google, Facebook or twitter). This is not them asking for your account but rather asking you to AUTHORISE gawker's access to your account details. If this is an issue, please go talk to Disqus or even Twitter/Facebook/Google themselves, who also let you "link" accounts from other services, as well as a bunch of other sites. This is the way the web is going and is nothing new.
The interesting thing is that this does actually give certain known PSP/PS3 hackers the power to remove ANY game from the PSN. All they have to do is say "New exploit found in x" and poof, it's gone. Sony isn't removing these games when the exploit is released, they're removing them as soon as it's mentioned what game it is.
I think it's more to do with Sony's draconian policies. If certain known hacker types mention a game, Sony immediately pulls it from the PSN. The thing is, even if the game was "hacked", it doesn't actually allow piracy, it just allows some simple homebrew. The floodgates to piracy, perhaps, but any vaguely intelligent company would see it as an opportunity and give people more access to the hardware, allowing them to legitimately run homebrew.
Fuck me, I'd love to see your reaction if he'd called is a "Virii".
Actually I'm pretty sure the loudest cry was from various people who had lost access to OtherOS and wanted it back. The difference is, they were cries of laughter.
Every now and then, Sony completely and utterly fucks up in some catastrophic way. Each time it happens, they piss off a whole bunch of people in the process. Like many here, I'm shocked that people even bother with them but they do happen to make somewhat compelling products.
This seems to be the norm these days - a company that was formerly massively successful begins to die down and fade away, so in a last ditch attempt to cling to live they sue anyone and everyone that has ever done anything remotely similar to them.
Going by this logic, it does also mean that Apple must be ready to die soon. I mean, they can't have that much money, can they?
That's another valid point, I'm always asking questions on /. regarding things I simply don't understand. You often get called an idiot, but that's just standard forum/comment behaviour. But you always get someone knowledgeable that explains it properly. I strongly believe in asking questions rather than getting stuff wrong and slashdot is great for that.
Agreed. I come to slashdot for the discussions, not the articles which I tend to find on other sites before /. posts them. The discussions are brilliant here, even amongst the trolls and idiots.
Why should Google have to censor its search results? All Google is doing is indexing and displaying stuff that's already on the internet. It should be the people who posted it that have to take it down, not Google. Trying to censor Google, for whatever reason, completely undermines one of the things that makes the internet as brilliant as it is.
However, if it pleases you, feel free to think about it as a euphemism for trickle-down economics. By posting links, I get moderated positively for being helpful. Likewise, by those posting the unobfuscated links below me, they also get a share of some moderation points. Everybody wins!
Here's a link to explain what I'm talking about: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CD4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTrickle-down_economics&ei=7qxwT8jVF8Hq8QPjzLG_DQ&usg=AFQjCNEKrPDk6MfpMhBcd_9VTKBTjnqj_w
Apologies, I did that stupid thing of right clicking and getting the target of the search result rather than clicking the link and THEN getting the URL. Still, both links will take you to the same place.