I for one did immediately. It was a movie that deserved to be much more popular. I'm not sure who wrote it, but they did a really good job of putting that sort of detail in without providing even the slightest hint as to how one used the sea shells.
Or the somewhat more explained rise of Taco Bell to rule over the restaurant industry.
Which is the problem. Rather than focusing on increasing the quality of the information that they're processing, they've focused on increasing the volume hoping that something will rise to the surface. The problem is that even as they get more and more materials the number of people available to analyse it hasn't increased by a similar amount. Leading to the unfortunate situation where there's a lot of intelligence information out there that isn't analysed, and a lot of people losing privacy needlessly.
Accountability for torture and various violations of the law don't seem to ever materialise at the levels necessary to prevent the abuses of power.
Those speeds aren't typical. Also, if you're talking about carrier, you're talking about cell phones and those are heavily capped, I think that T-Mobile and Sprint are the only ones left that don't cap and T-Mobile throttles it back significantly after 5gb.
For household internet connections with a more generous cap, I have a hard time believing that the kinds of speeds your citing are common in the US.
My Nook has had a web browser since shortly before that, and the policy with B&N was exactly the same. It's for use on WiFi only and they reserve the right to charge for data if you try to use the 3G for that.
I'm pretty sure that Amazon gets a bill from AT&T or Sprint for the amount of data used and that Amazon then pays the bill for it. The issue there is that the 3G is paid for via book purchases and if people are using the connection to go elsewhere Amazon isn't being paid for the data that they then have to pay the carrier for.
That surprises me, last time I checked the ToS specifically stated that 3G was only free when used to browse the Amazon bookstore or download from the same shop. And that any other uses could result in Amazon sending the user a bill for the extra data use. That was a while back, about the time that they introduced their web browser to Kindle.
Ultimately this is just a reversion to the way that things were at launch.
Amazon never permitted people to use the 3G for web browsing, if you read the ToS that came with your Kindle you'd know that the 3G is for the purpose of browsing their store and any other uses could result in them sending out a bill for the cost of service.
Just because they haven't been particularly vigilant in policing that point does not mean that this is a sudden change of policy. You were never supposed to be using 3G for browsing the web. What they're doing here is enforcing it before they need to start sending out bills.
Because they use the public right of way and are heavily subsidised by government dollars? Or the fact that they've set themselves up as an anti-competitive cartel preventing prices from dropping and quality from increasing. Around here the speeds haven't gotten any better in a decade while the price is still quite expensive.
In which case the FCC will recategorize the ISPs in a way that makes it clearly within their powers. It's personally surprising that they didn't just do it in the first place.
Doubtful, the GP is probably a troll. I haven't yet encountered a website with Firefox that won't render due to the browser itself. I have found a few that won't work correctly due to an extension, but that's hardly Firefox' fault.
Have a benchmark to back up that assertion? After 5 minutes Firefox had released nearly 300mb of RAM. The benchmark really should have had another data point out at 10 minutes to show how much of that RAM was ultimately released.
What you're also failing to take note of is that it's not just how quickly you release unneeded RAM, it's how efficiently you allocate it in the first place. Chrome had the advantage of being able to quickly release the RAM because it was wasting a lot of it in the first place. Each tab was it's own process, including RAM that was holding identical information for each tab. It would be terribly broken if that memory wasn't released pretty much immediately after the process is terminated. Unfortunately, that also means increased allocation in the first place.
But, nice trolling. I'd hate to think that anybody would think about this stuff critically.
Seems like just about every article that comes out about Firefox there's a dozen or so folks that keep complaining about how slow Firefox is and how much memory it leaks. Perhaps this will point out to them that it's really not that bad, it's actually quite good over all in that respect.
Or, they'll just keep posting it over and over again like a meme because it hasn't been about actual performance in a long time.
You can, but why should you have to? Entering a web page does not provide permission to be tracked by random companies just because the webmaster put the code into the page to make it so. There is no reasonable expectation that permission is being granted for such 3rd party tracking.
This is a bit like walking onto the premises of say Starbucks and being tracked by Walmart. You might be consenting to having Starbucks track transaction, but there's certainly no basis for Starbucks to believe that you're consenting to be tracked by Walmart.
I don't agree. Google keeps it's data to itself for the most part. The main reason is that it doesn't want people to know what algorithms its using to decide what ads to serve where. Plus, there's no reason for me to know what data there is that would be placing my ad in one place or another. The main thing that I would be caring about in that scenario is that it leads to enough click throughs to pay for the ads.
Most likely what will happen is that a few Democratic congress critters will decide that FB is a significant threat to privacy beyond what one can reasonably expect and try to regulate it. Then the GOP will go apoplectic about ZOMG we can't regulate businesses, and prevent it from being elected.
Of course that assumes that there are enough politicians in favor to get it past in the House or voted on in the Senate.
That was my first thought, even with normal eyes UV isn't good for them, but if the OP has lost a layer of protection, then he needs to be even more careful about exposure as there's that much less eyeball protecting the nerves in the back of the eye.
Had it been IR sensitivity that would have been cool. But because UV unlike IR is higher energy than light in the visible spectrum you're much more likely to have eye problems in the future.
And yet there's a lot of morons that will post about how if you don't like it don't buy it. Some people are morons and coddling and enabling them by pretending that they have a valid point just elevates their idiotic views to a level that's wholly unjustified.
It's why we have so many people bitching about how the President doesn't lead, leads us to socialism and is also a fascist.
Replacing the bootloader and system libraries is perfectly legal. If it wasn't, then we'd be in a heap of trouble over GRUB, LILO and all those other bootloaders. On top of that, there is no law saying that folks can't replace any libraries on their computer that they want.
As for your assertion about redistribution, last i heard those copies were pristine installed by the end user. If you're argument were correct, then there'd be no reason why Psystar couldn't keep distributing the patch set and machines with the end user left to procure a copy of OSX for themselves. This ruling goes way beyond that and bans the patchset as well as Psystar selling compatible software.
That personally troubles me a great deal due to things like the impact this will have on the mod community and the 1st amendment issues that had been settled when the DeCSS case went through the courts.
Thank you, for actually getting it. There's plenty of free market morons out there that will suggest that the solution is for people to just not buy OSX rather than the real free market solution to the problem which would be to tell Apple to shut up and accept that they sold a copy and that the buyer gets to do with it what he or she pleases. It might be that they opt to use it for skeet shooting or on unlicensed hardware.
That's how the companies frame it though. You don't generally see boxed software that's licensed, every part of the transaction up until the point where you can longer decline is handled as a sale, then you get the software home and find out that they've fraudulently sold you a license rather than a copy.
If they aren't selling you a copy, then if I were to go into a store and take a box, then I'm not sure how they can complain about me stealing the software, after all, I just stole the box and the disc, I mean it's not like they're selling the other components.
The courts backing that asinine notion are precisely why we can't have nice things.
To an extent yes, but first sale doctrine has always applied to matters like this. It's a rather radical reinterpretation of copyright law that you can't use a lawfully purchased copy because there's a mandatory license attached to it.
And what you're missing is that it doesn't matter whether you buy that copy from Psystar or directly from Apple, using the software in violation of the EULA is infringing upon Apple's copyright.
Because they're the ones that brought the case to court. There's a lot of bad things in EULAs in general, but Apple is the one that brought the case to court that ultimately settled the issue.
The nub of the case is that Apple licenses the software rather than sells it and has the right to control how the copy is used even after they sell it to the customer. Which is bullshit, bordering on fraud considering how the products are being advertised, but ultimately is now precedent.
The only upside to this is that if they're licensing the OS rather than selling it, those that lose their discs or where the discs are damaged should be able to make new copies from a friend to replace their disc or back up their discs for safe keeping as they're licensed rather than bought.
Slashdot Mirror
I for one did immediately. It was a movie that deserved to be much more popular. I'm not sure who wrote it, but they did a really good job of putting that sort of detail in without providing even the slightest hint as to how one used the sea shells.
Or the somewhat more explained rise of Taco Bell to rule over the restaurant industry.
Which is the problem. Rather than focusing on increasing the quality of the information that they're processing, they've focused on increasing the volume hoping that something will rise to the surface. The problem is that even as they get more and more materials the number of people available to analyse it hasn't increased by a similar amount. Leading to the unfortunate situation where there's a lot of intelligence information out there that isn't analysed, and a lot of people losing privacy needlessly.
Accountability for torture and various violations of the law don't seem to ever materialise at the levels necessary to prevent the abuses of power.
Those speeds aren't typical. Also, if you're talking about carrier, you're talking about cell phones and those are heavily capped, I think that T-Mobile and Sprint are the only ones left that don't cap and T-Mobile throttles it back significantly after 5gb.
For household internet connections with a more generous cap, I have a hard time believing that the kinds of speeds your citing are common in the US.
Actually, the burden of proof here is on you to prove that the FCC can't regulate the ISPs.
As for the subsidies the system was designed by the US government in the beginning and it still gets subsidized by tax dollars. Here's one example. http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/index.htm?job=funding
My Nook has had a web browser since shortly before that, and the policy with B&N was exactly the same. It's for use on WiFi only and they reserve the right to charge for data if you try to use the 3G for that.
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/2929-new-amazon-kindle-with-webkit-browser-and-free-3g-internet.html/comment-page-1
I'm pretty sure that Amazon gets a bill from AT&T or Sprint for the amount of data used and that Amazon then pays the bill for it. The issue there is that the 3G is paid for via book purchases and if people are using the connection to go elsewhere Amazon isn't being paid for the data that they then have to pay the carrier for.
That surprises me, last time I checked the ToS specifically stated that 3G was only free when used to browse the Amazon bookstore or download from the same shop. And that any other uses could result in Amazon sending the user a bill for the extra data use. That was a while back, about the time that they introduced their web browser to Kindle.
Ultimately this is just a reversion to the way that things were at launch.
Amazon never permitted people to use the 3G for web browsing, if you read the ToS that came with your Kindle you'd know that the 3G is for the purpose of browsing their store and any other uses could result in them sending out a bill for the cost of service.
Just because they haven't been particularly vigilant in policing that point does not mean that this is a sudden change of policy. You were never supposed to be using 3G for browsing the web. What they're doing here is enforcing it before they need to start sending out bills.
Because they use the public right of way and are heavily subsidised by government dollars? Or the fact that they've set themselves up as an anti-competitive cartel preventing prices from dropping and quality from increasing. Around here the speeds haven't gotten any better in a decade while the price is still quite expensive.
In which case the FCC will recategorize the ISPs in a way that makes it clearly within their powers. It's personally surprising that they didn't just do it in the first place.
The henhouses are fine. I do however fear for the hens' lives.
Doubtful, the GP is probably a troll. I haven't yet encountered a website with Firefox that won't render due to the browser itself. I have found a few that won't work correctly due to an extension, but that's hardly Firefox' fault.
Have a benchmark to back up that assertion? After 5 minutes Firefox had released nearly 300mb of RAM. The benchmark really should have had another data point out at 10 minutes to show how much of that RAM was ultimately released.
What you're also failing to take note of is that it's not just how quickly you release unneeded RAM, it's how efficiently you allocate it in the first place. Chrome had the advantage of being able to quickly release the RAM because it was wasting a lot of it in the first place. Each tab was it's own process, including RAM that was holding identical information for each tab. It would be terribly broken if that memory wasn't released pretty much immediately after the process is terminated. Unfortunately, that also means increased allocation in the first place.
But, nice trolling. I'd hate to think that anybody would think about this stuff critically.
Seems like just about every article that comes out about Firefox there's a dozen or so folks that keep complaining about how slow Firefox is and how much memory it leaks. Perhaps this will point out to them that it's really not that bad, it's actually quite good over all in that respect.
Or, they'll just keep posting it over and over again like a meme because it hasn't been about actual performance in a long time.
You can, but why should you have to? Entering a web page does not provide permission to be tracked by random companies just because the webmaster put the code into the page to make it so. There is no reasonable expectation that permission is being granted for such 3rd party tracking.
This is a bit like walking onto the premises of say Starbucks and being tracked by Walmart. You might be consenting to having Starbucks track transaction, but there's certainly no basis for Starbucks to believe that you're consenting to be tracked by Walmart.
I don't agree. Google keeps it's data to itself for the most part. The main reason is that it doesn't want people to know what algorithms its using to decide what ads to serve where. Plus, there's no reason for me to know what data there is that would be placing my ad in one place or another. The main thing that I would be caring about in that scenario is that it leads to enough click throughs to pay for the ads.
Most likely what will happen is that a few Democratic congress critters will decide that FB is a significant threat to privacy beyond what one can reasonably expect and try to regulate it. Then the GOP will go apoplectic about ZOMG we can't regulate businesses, and prevent it from being elected.
Of course that assumes that there are enough politicians in favor to get it past in the House or voted on in the Senate.
That was my first thought, even with normal eyes UV isn't good for them, but if the OP has lost a layer of protection, then he needs to be even more careful about exposure as there's that much less eyeball protecting the nerves in the back of the eye.
Had it been IR sensitivity that would have been cool. But because UV unlike IR is higher energy than light in the visible spectrum you're much more likely to have eye problems in the future.
And yet there's a lot of morons that will post about how if you don't like it don't buy it. Some people are morons and coddling and enabling them by pretending that they have a valid point just elevates their idiotic views to a level that's wholly unjustified.
It's why we have so many people bitching about how the President doesn't lead, leads us to socialism and is also a fascist.
Replacing the bootloader and system libraries is perfectly legal. If it wasn't, then we'd be in a heap of trouble over GRUB, LILO and all those other bootloaders. On top of that, there is no law saying that folks can't replace any libraries on their computer that they want.
As for your assertion about redistribution, last i heard those copies were pristine installed by the end user. If you're argument were correct, then there'd be no reason why Psystar couldn't keep distributing the patch set and machines with the end user left to procure a copy of OSX for themselves. This ruling goes way beyond that and bans the patchset as well as Psystar selling compatible software.
That personally troubles me a great deal due to things like the impact this will have on the mod community and the 1st amendment issues that had been settled when the DeCSS case went through the courts.
Thank you, for actually getting it. There's plenty of free market morons out there that will suggest that the solution is for people to just not buy OSX rather than the real free market solution to the problem which would be to tell Apple to shut up and accept that they sold a copy and that the buyer gets to do with it what he or she pleases. It might be that they opt to use it for skeet shooting or on unlicensed hardware.
That's how the companies frame it though. You don't generally see boxed software that's licensed, every part of the transaction up until the point where you can longer decline is handled as a sale, then you get the software home and find out that they've fraudulently sold you a license rather than a copy.
If they aren't selling you a copy, then if I were to go into a store and take a box, then I'm not sure how they can complain about me stealing the software, after all, I just stole the box and the disc, I mean it's not like they're selling the other components.
The courts backing that asinine notion are precisely why we can't have nice things.
To an extent yes, but first sale doctrine has always applied to matters like this. It's a rather radical reinterpretation of copyright law that you can't use a lawfully purchased copy because there's a mandatory license attached to it.
And what you're missing is that it doesn't matter whether you buy that copy from Psystar or directly from Apple, using the software in violation of the EULA is infringing upon Apple's copyright.
Because they're the ones that brought the case to court. There's a lot of bad things in EULAs in general, but Apple is the one that brought the case to court that ultimately settled the issue.
The nub of the case is that Apple licenses the software rather than sells it and has the right to control how the copy is used even after they sell it to the customer. Which is bullshit, bordering on fraud considering how the products are being advertised, but ultimately is now precedent.
The only upside to this is that if they're licensing the OS rather than selling it, those that lose their discs or where the discs are damaged should be able to make new copies from a friend to replace their disc or back up their discs for safe keeping as they're licensed rather than bought.