@Linux in a VM
While you're completely right, doesn't this miss the point?
Why get OS A to run a VM for OS B? why not just get OS B and lose the overhead?
131 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Feb 2010
I can (almost) see a zealous sysadmin spending time authorising and approving hundreds of DLLs. Once. but on tens or hundreds of servers? or do we then have to share trusted information between servers? new attack vector?
And that's not to mention an end-user who has trouble understanding what a program is let alone DLLs
What annoys me is that what they were doing was illegal and they knew it was illegal - And yet not only do they get off with some flimsy promises they can break tomorrow, the don't even have to admit wrongdoing - compare that with some guy who pickpockets £50 or similar - The punishment in no way reflects the crime
When I did an ICT A-Level, the exam paper included the following question:
Explain how computers have helped in any 2 of the following areas: Home life, manufacturing, healthcare, finance, <some others>
Frankly, the ICT course had sweet F-A to do with using a computer - It was all the boring stuff associated with it (and no, the DPA 1998 ISN'T interesting enough to study for 2 weeks when you're 17)
or at least the end of the beginning.
Most of the ppl I know with an iPhone 4 are now embarrassed to admit it. if anything goes wrong, all they hear is "You're holding it wrong" or Death Grip jokes.
For the first time, Apple's customers have actually started to realise that it's just a good UI on a mediocre product ("lipstick on a pig" springs to mind)
From now on, I suspect Apple will have to compete on how their products work - They've lost the ability to trade on "It's Apple ergo it's the best" - Which should be interesting. Hopefully they'll be pushed to a new range of products worth owning.
There will of course be a few die-hard fans who will buy anything from them but everyone has those.
Agreed, the Laws of physics are unbreakable (as we understand them) but that doesn't mean you don't engineer it to mitigate their effects.
That's like saying a car shaped like a brick can't go very fast due to the air resistance and that's the laws of physics so we can't improve it - Obviously that's false as in fact the solution is to redesign the car to be more aerodynamic - You're not breaking the laws of physics, merely changing how they apply
IANAL but as I understand it, it's actually a 7 days after receipt (cooling off period for distance selling regulations) which is generally accepted to be 14 days to allow for slow delivery.
( http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1073792577&type=RESOURCES )
There's also the sale of goods act which says products can be returned/replaced if they are not fit for purpose (as I understand it, this is a long-term option - potentially years later if the product would be expected to last that long)
again, IANAL but from my limited knowledge, I would be surprised if UK owners couldn't force a free refund one way or another.
What really irritates me is that at present, I'm not paying to use the internet for any particular service, I'm paying for an internet connection with a certain speed/quality (50MB, low contention). What I choose to do with it should be up to me - Note I have no objection to paying a bit more for a good connection but once I've paid for it, that should be it - if I want to watch videos, play games, multicast video of my pet gerbil [not sure where that came from], Then I should be able to do so.
If the company can't support the product it has sold me then it should either have not sold me it in the first place or charged more.
Perhaps I'm missing something here but isn't this like saying you can pay for a dishwasher but we may decide not to let you wash cutlery only plates? And this is good for competition as those who want to wash cutlery too can pay more for a machine that does both? Of course, if you want to wash glasses as well....
Frankly, I can't see this as anything other than a major win for the ISPs - sell the same thing twice or more. Pay for "the internet" and then pay again to use it.
It's an interesting one - I'm certainly very strongly against Google scooping up all that data but conversely, ppl have been wardriving for years - It's hardly secret information. On top of that, if you're broadcasting it from your house in an unprotected, unencrypted way - Well, wht do you expect?
I think the meaning in terms of this article is less techy and more human-centric - If the US Gov't started making broad-reaching changes that affect the fundamental nature of the web, most providers (irrespective of scale) would choose to implement alternate methods of achieving the original goal.
Eg have a (centrally maintained?) blocklist of US-b0rked servers and disregard routings which include them.
I have to admit my knowledge of the underlying infrastructure is only that of an interested hobbyist as it's quite outside my normal field but that's how I read it...
I agree that personally, I'd prefer zero ad providers too - eg the flash ads on reg hardware are really starting to get annoying especially when they cover the whole bloody background.
At the same time, advertising is a fact of life - unfortunately. - Your assertion that developers should be more happy - Why? because they have no chance of finding a provider offering a better revenue share? Because they have limited choices in how they can display the ads? because it's "Jobs' way or the highway"?
The same surely holds true elsewhere - The more browsers there are for the phone, the more developers will try to differentiate their product with innovative ideas (think Opera) - But Apple will only allow others into the field as long as they're no threat - Hence no further competition (And before you point at the Opera browser, remember what they had to go through to get on the phone?)
As to the Fanboi comment - well, If you'd given some reasoned arguments or discussed pros/cons, I wouldn't have made the comment - You didn't, you just said you were happy for developers to be put out and will accept whatever Steve thinks best - If you don't like the response you got, try forming your own opinion before posting. Until then, I'll continue to take posts like yours as Apple worship and give them little weight.
Lastly, I find it hard to take you seriously when you're posting AC. If you believe that strongly, why hide?
That means that developers who don't like iAd will go elsewhere meaning less apps for you - And that's better how?
Or to put it another way, how does limiting ad providers improve your customer experience in any way?
You're re-enforcing the "fanboi" image and saying you'll love whatever Jobs deigns to throw your way - Surely as a consumer you have an opinion on what you actually want other than "whatever I'm told to want"?
So the solution to lousy inter-app file system access on the iPad is to not use the iPad file system at all and use cloud-based storage instead?
I like cloud-based as an alternative, especially if I want to sync stuff but that seems a little backwards to me...
Anyone remember how Keith Entegrul lost the plot towards the end, with more and more outlandish claims that Phorm was being mis-represented in the press and nobody "got it".
Jobs' words remind me of that - So I may just sit back and grab some popcorn, this could be interesting :)
Ignoring for a moment how Google got the data, I can understand that they're in a difficult situation - Hand over data as requested by the government (so they can potentially prosecute you and in doing so break another law) or refuse to hand over the data (and probably be prosecuted for that too)
Rock - meet hard place.
Taking into account how they got the data I find their current predicament to be -er- delicious :D
I was going to go with Paris 'cos she's delicio.... -er- no.
(And I should really have double-checked the spelling on that title but it's home time)
I can't wait until the whole patent system collapses - It does nothing to inspire new development / invention - It simply means that nobody dare use anything nowadays -even if it's widely used elsewhere - As a patent troll might appear and target you specifically.
I'd prefer a complete overhaul of patenting (especially in the US - WTF you patent the concept not the idea?). Failing that, some sort of use it or lose it system - If you don't assert patent rights within 2 years of learning about an infringement, tough shite.
I've got AndroOrb running on my G1 mobile and can quite happily stream full-length films (over Wifi) from my PC. I've managed to get Audio streams going over 3G with minimal buffering but video is just not smooth enough.
Having a good home connection helps but since it's recoded before transmission, using a mobile-sized screen saves on bandwidth :)
I can accept that some software may have been put into place by accident - But lets be realistic, if you captured (say) 10,000 SSID/MACs and the data file is much more than 10,000 x the average row length then SOMEONE should've noticed.
Also, assuming the data was captured in error on the computer in the car - It either had to be transmitted / copied to central servers. Are they telling us they accidentally copied the data too?
So the trend hasn't gone the way we expected - In fact it looks like Piracy isn't quite as bad as we've been telling you all, so we'll just say this is all due to "sustained momentum from years of anti-piracy programmes and for the jump in netbook shipments to nearly 20 percent of the market".
So... Prove it.