If you want to get that technical about it, nothing is ever free, there's always some sort of a cost that comes with it. Whether it be bandwidth, opportunity cost or just taking possession.
In practice, it's a tiny bit of your budget ultimately and is there whether or not you use it.
Probably similar to the way that it works on Nook. You can lend a book once for a max period of time. And if they want to keep reading after that, they have to buy a copy.
I think the concern is that one person could buy an electronic copy once and lend it indefinitely. There is some validity to that concern as ebooks don't wear out or go missing. Ultimately even with things like this where there aren't new copies being spawned, it would still hurt the publishers.
That being said, those are the 6 largest publishers, smaller publishers aren't necessarily on the same page with them.
You have that backwards. People who are more well off tend to get diagnosed less frequently because they have the means to avoid such diagnoses. The poor students though, end up needing to get diagnosed and having less control over it than the well off do.
As opposed to the proposed system where if the manufacturer fucks it up there's pretty much no escape? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that, it seems far more likely that you'd have trouble under the proposed system than the one I'm pushing for.
Just tell that to people whose firmware has gotten infected with malware because some people that never update their BIOS don't want to open their case and flip a switch to do so.
In the past it might have been sufficient, but I'm not sure that's really the case anymore.
It's sort of like iPod redux, it's not really any better than the competition, and in some ways is noticeably worse, but it's an Apple product, so the fanbois have to support it no matter how poorly engineered it is. At least this time it isn't also double the cost of the nearest competitor for less.
As a general rule, if I'm sitting a few feet away from somebody and can hear them jabbering away on their cell phone, I instantly recognize them as too dumb to properly operate a cell phone. Cell phones have microphones sensitive enough to pick up what folks around you can't. If you're talking loud enough for others to hear, it's because you're too stupid to recognize that fact.
Yelling louder into a microphone does not increase reception and in most cases it just pisses off the people around you.
When your computer won't boot because it panics during hardware initialization, I'm not really sure how it's not lock in. Even in more moderate cases where some hardware just doesn't work, it's still somewhat hard to justify how that isn't lock in. Most people, myself included, don't like paying for hardware that doesn't work.
When they do it by including undocumented workarounds for a known standard, yes it certainly is evil. And in the case of ACPI, it didn't just affect people that wanted to have pure code, it also affected all the other projects that depended upon the code being implemented to standards. It took years to sort that out and ultimately, just served to benefit MS.
Had MS actually implemented the standard that everybody else was using, the one that Intel provided a validator for, it wouldn't have been an issue.
If you do that, you'll end up with a computer that won't boot./bin must be on the root partition otherwise you're never going to get that computer to boot up.
Doubtful, the most reasonable explanation is that like feminists, they refuse to listen to anybody with a counter argument and end up going more and more nuts over time. It happens whenever you discard one side of the argument immediately and without consideration.
Indeed, a while back I had a Vista install go tits up because I had added new partitions and had accidentally run bootrec forgetting about what that would do to the partition labeling. And MS doesn't provide proper tools to handle a situation like that without loading up a recovery disc. By the time I had that mostly sorted out, the profiles wouldn't load.
Right, now Linux is largely impervious to that sort of thing, so obviously, the thing to do is find ways of making it pervious to that stuff.
The difference is that MS is requiring secure boot for a special logo, but not telling manufacturers whether or not to allow other oses to be installed. In practice, I wouldn't be surprised if some vendors opted not to allow people to turn it off or provide alternate keys.
At that point, you might as well ditch it completely and just have a special boot chip that can be made writable via jumper and most of the time set to read only. It would solve the problem without the need for such a scary possibility as the vendor being able to lock you out of your OS of choice.
He's probably technically correct that it isn't a plot to lock out Linux. In practice though, I'd be surprised if it didn't end up like ACPI early on, where MS' implementation was the only one that many vendors bothered with, opting not to fix bugs that MS had a workaround for.
They were requiring him to pay his way back to Sweden for the questioning that they had originally declined. I'm curious where exactly he was expected to get the money from to travel back to Sweden given that the Wikileaks accounts had been frozen.
If they really thought he had done something, they should have just questioned him when he was still in the area.
And that still doesn't explain Interpol's involvement, they don't get involved in cases like this under normal circumstances.
Good for justice? They let him leave Sweden without being questioned because the allegations were completely without base. I'm not sure how exactly this is good for justice. If there were any possibility at all that a law had been violated, wouldn't you think that they would have accepted his offer to come in for questioning when he was still in Sweden? Or at very least told him he couldn't leave the country?
Everything about these proceedings has been marred by irregularities from letting him leave without question to having Interpol issue the warrant.
If he steps down, then the US government wins. If you've been paying attention, the whole thing smacks of government conspiracy. There mysteriously wasn't enough evidence to justify his being questioned while he was still in Sweden, there wasn't enough to justify him being required to stay in the country, but suddenly when he leaves there's enough evidence to justify abusing Interpol to get him arrested and extradited back to Sweden.
What I'm curious about is, what sort of a person could Wikileaks find that is completely impervious to this sort of obvious character assassination? The fact that so many tools around here have turned on him is pretty indicative that anybody that takes that job is probably going to suffer a similar fate.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to get that technical about it, nothing is ever free, there's always some sort of a cost that comes with it. Whether it be bandwidth, opportunity cost or just taking possession.
In practice, it's a tiny bit of your budget ultimately and is there whether or not you use it.
Probably similar to the way that it works on Nook. You can lend a book once for a max period of time. And if they want to keep reading after that, they have to buy a copy.
I think the concern is that one person could buy an electronic copy once and lend it indefinitely. There is some validity to that concern as ebooks don't wear out or go missing. Ultimately even with things like this where there aren't new copies being spawned, it would still hurt the publishers.
That being said, those are the 6 largest publishers, smaller publishers aren't necessarily on the same page with them.
No, well off people have been more likely to get their kids vaccinated, duh.
You have that backwards. People who are more well off tend to get diagnosed less frequently because they have the means to avoid such diagnoses. The poor students though, end up needing to get diagnosed and having less control over it than the well off do.
As opposed to the proposed system where if the manufacturer fucks it up there's pretty much no escape? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that, it seems far more likely that you'd have trouble under the proposed system than the one I'm pushing for.
Just tell that to people whose firmware has gotten infected with malware because some people that never update their BIOS don't want to open their case and flip a switch to do so.
In the past it might have been sufficient, but I'm not sure that's really the case anymore.
Humans don't look at any of that data, unless you yourself flag it as inaccurate.
In honor of Steve Jobs, Apple is finally taking steps to remove the affront to St. Steve that is the keyboard. With all those buttons.
It's sort of like iPod redux, it's not really any better than the competition, and in some ways is noticeably worse, but it's an Apple product, so the fanbois have to support it no matter how poorly engineered it is. At least this time it isn't also double the cost of the nearest competitor for less.
As a general rule, if I'm sitting a few feet away from somebody and can hear them jabbering away on their cell phone, I instantly recognize them as too dumb to properly operate a cell phone. Cell phones have microphones sensitive enough to pick up what folks around you can't. If you're talking loud enough for others to hear, it's because you're too stupid to recognize that fact.
Yelling louder into a microphone does not increase reception and in most cases it just pisses off the people around you.
When your computer won't boot because it panics during hardware initialization, I'm not really sure how it's not lock in. Even in more moderate cases where some hardware just doesn't work, it's still somewhat hard to justify how that isn't lock in. Most people, myself included, don't like paying for hardware that doesn't work.
When they do it by including undocumented workarounds for a known standard, yes it certainly is evil. And in the case of ACPI, it didn't just affect people that wanted to have pure code, it also affected all the other projects that depended upon the code being implemented to standards. It took years to sort that out and ultimately, just served to benefit MS.
Had MS actually implemented the standard that everybody else was using, the one that Intel provided a validator for, it wouldn't have been an issue.
If you do that, you'll end up with a computer that won't boot. /bin must be on the root partition otherwise you're never going to get that computer to boot up.
Doubtful, the most reasonable explanation is that like feminists, they refuse to listen to anybody with a counter argument and end up going more and more nuts over time. It happens whenever you discard one side of the argument immediately and without consideration.
Indeed, a while back I had a Vista install go tits up because I had added new partitions and had accidentally run bootrec forgetting about what that would do to the partition labeling. And MS doesn't provide proper tools to handle a situation like that without loading up a recovery disc. By the time I had that mostly sorted out, the profiles wouldn't load.
Right, now Linux is largely impervious to that sort of thing, so obviously, the thing to do is find ways of making it pervious to that stuff.
The difference is that MS is requiring secure boot for a special logo, but not telling manufacturers whether or not to allow other oses to be installed. In practice, I wouldn't be surprised if some vendors opted not to allow people to turn it off or provide alternate keys.
At that point, you might as well ditch it completely and just have a special boot chip that can be made writable via jumper and most of the time set to read only.
It would solve the problem without the need for such a scary possibility as the vendor being able to lock you out of your OS of choice.
He's probably technically correct that it isn't a plot to lock out Linux. In practice though, I'd be surprised if it didn't end up like ACPI early on, where MS' implementation was the only one that many vendors bothered with, opting not to fix bugs that MS had a workaround for.
They were requiring him to pay his way back to Sweden for the questioning that they had originally declined. I'm curious where exactly he was expected to get the money from to travel back to Sweden given that the Wikileaks accounts had been frozen.
If they really thought he had done something, they should have just questioned him when he was still in the area.
And that still doesn't explain Interpol's involvement, they don't get involved in cases like this under normal circumstances.
Well, that can mean anything except one thing. Today isn't opposite day.
lol reverse goatse.
Doesn't make it any less true.
Good for justice? They let him leave Sweden without being questioned because the allegations were completely without base. I'm not sure how exactly this is good for justice. If there were any possibility at all that a law had been violated, wouldn't you think that they would have accepted his offer to come in for questioning when he was still in Sweden? Or at very least told him he couldn't leave the country?
Everything about these proceedings has been marred by irregularities from letting him leave without question to having Interpol issue the warrant.
If he steps down, then the US government wins. If you've been paying attention, the whole thing smacks of government conspiracy. There mysteriously wasn't enough evidence to justify his being questioned while he was still in Sweden, there wasn't enough to justify him being required to stay in the country, but suddenly when he leaves there's enough evidence to justify abusing Interpol to get him arrested and extradited back to Sweden.
What I'm curious about is, what sort of a person could Wikileaks find that is completely impervious to this sort of obvious character assassination? The fact that so many tools around here have turned on him is pretty indicative that anybody that takes that job is probably going to suffer a similar fate.
I'm sorry, you're going to need to give us a troll car analogy.