Ah yes, the "code as a weapon" argument. How did that work for DVD Jon?
Ah yes, the "code as a weapon" argument. How did that work for DVD Jon?
I understand that they are motivated by protecting the rights of the citizens here.
But the GP was suggesting that citizens be prohibited by those bureaucrats from running the computer software of their (potential) choice on computer hardware that they own. This is not something that I can accept as being compatible with the right of each citizen to determine what runs on his own machine.
Of course, citizens have the right to chose to run Linux or FreeBSD as well. Be careful of the future in which those options, too, are subject to the power of the State, even if those functionaries believe strongly they are protecting your rights.
The only way for the Privacy of EU Citizens to be assured of Privacy in the EU is for EU Governments to ban the Use of Windows 10. The entire OS is Spyware. Full stop.
Are you seriously claiming that that the citizens of the EU should prohibited from loading a particular piece of software on my personally owned computer?
Absolutely untrue. I work in a group that does low-level coding on a processor with 48k of RAM and 1MB of storage.
Yes, knowledge of C is essential. But so is Python. I would say that I write about 10x more Python than I do C, partially because there's so little code on the actual platform and so much test code, analysis code and framework code that needs to be written to validate that small amount of embedded code.
So this whole dichotomy is totally nuts.
Diamonds and oil are well known examples of large organizations being quite capable of agreeing to keep prices high, to avoid a competitive spiral.
Except there's tons of evidence that OPEC members cheat on their quotas as soon as prices rise. This is pretty much what you would expect from greedy members: first lie to the other members' faces and then grab as much of the excess profit as you can.
I think this is what's mistaken about the modern claim that because competitive entities are sociopathic, they must be restrained from outside. The counter-claim is that multiple sociopathic entities competing against one another to satisfy demand restrain each other. The cheating among OPEC members is a nice manifestation of this counter-claim.
[ And, of course, in reality the truth lies somewhere in the muddle. But for phone carriers where consumers can switch relatively easily (and port their phone numbers), the latter seems to deliver. ]
I can't afford a house because of how the mathematics of mortgages work
That's like saying I can't fill a bathtub by pissing it once because of the mathematics of how volume works.
I agree, there is a bright future for solar.
We will know that future is here when solar can deliver the same amount of power as existing fossil fuels for the same cost, counting both labor and materials. This article is emphatic proof that we are not there yet, given the enormous labor costs associated with solar.
I really do have every hope that some alternative form of energy gains traction and reaches the kind of efficiencies needed to displace the old methods. But that hope is not some blind cheerleading that is willing to celebrate before the underlying numbers justify it.
Jobs are the input of the industry, not the output. Producing the same amount of power with less labor is a good thing.
You might as well argue that we should build roads by having crews of men busting rocks with hammers because it will product 30 times more jobs than using modern heavy equipment.
So the 2015 numbers are 33% coal and 0.6% solar. Or in other words, about 50 times as much coal power nationwide. Normalizing it that way, the solar industry takes 100 times as many workers to produce the same every as coal.
Now, you can argue that solar is a nascent industry and that a lot of the labor is in the build-out. But for now, this is a pretty silly (and expensive) sideshow.
That would cost basically nothing. You just keep the older libraries in the package, facepalm.
Believe me, I get it. I develop and maintain software.
Software doesn't just keep working all by itself like that, it requires continuous QA, validation and regression testing. Otherwise people like you (rightly) scream down our throats every time a new release regresses something.
I can not even upgrade WhatsApp, because for that I would need to upgrade the OS first, which I'm not going to do.
You are welcome to keep running an insecure OS and not take security updates. I would not recommend such a thing.
Windows XP only supports SHA1 for TLS -- pretty much useless for the modern secure web (SHA1 is deprecated and it's against policy to even issue new certs with it).
WhatsApp and Skype also operate servers, and likely don't want to support every protocol baked into their older software versions.
I get that you think that your old machine with an old OS should work, but that doesn't consider that there are other parties required to support it, at least for anything server-based. You can operate forever just fine in your own disconnected universe. The rest of us have will have plans to announce upgrades, let people migrate and then decommission the old stuff in an orderly fashion.
Hardware follows the same rules -- it's announced, it's supported, then it's deprecated in an orderly fashion. Complain if it's done too fast, especially in the Android space where OEMs abandon phones willy-nilly, but it's still got to happen.
All told at some margin the $100 for you to replace an ancient phone with one that can run a modern operating system is cheaper than the engineering resources required to support, validate and certify it indefinitely. Maybe that comes after 3 years, maybe 5, but logically that point has to come eventually.
And for the same reason, at some point a software company is not going to expend engineering resources supporting and validating every release against every operating system. Again, you can debate the proper point in time deprecate, but you can't seriously argue that it's wise to expend effort supporting every OS indefinitely.
Stunt? Which is the orderly upgrade of software to newer versions followed later by deprecation of the older versions? Now in cases where the software (or enabling service) is paid, I can see complaining if the "later" comes sooner than is reasonable.
Legacy software incurs support costs, at some point it's reasonable for a company to spend finite engineering resources building new things. It's a balance thing, and nothing suggests that any of these companies are going to alienate too many customers by asking people to go to the app store and click "upgrade all".
Is there any fidelity lost plugged your corded headphone into the lightning-to-3.5mm dongle on the iPhone, or a similar one that Samsung would use?
My understanding as a non-audiophile was actually that moving the DAC further away from the other components would actually reduce certain types of electrical noise. But even without that, it should be no worse from an audio quality point of view.
The only pages that appear to be exempt from the throttling are those that play audio.
So every page is now going to play a silent audio track in a loop in order to work around this limitation?
This is a common trick in iOS applications to prevent the system from backgrounding you when off-screen. It won't take long to migrate to the web . . .
Competence, like truth, beauty, and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter