vena
vena on Hacker News
it uses MQTT, FTP, and RTSP. the key and serial are the credentials.
oh good, didn’t know if it would do that/force a cache invalidation for clients
did you fully log out/in or just lock/unlock?
iirc locking with BW doesn’t do what one might expect wrt encryption state.
this is a proposed ban for the US.
the US doesn’t really import natgas.
They're a lot more ubiquitous than some burner's art projects. While I wouldn't necessarily fret over a light switch crashing, expressif chips are popping up in home security products like SimpliSafe. Likely safe in a home from the WPA2 Enterprise hijack, simply crashing SimpliSafe base stations might lead to fun times.
i can't help but read this as "node-e-o's"
i just don't understand why they named the OS after the API it's restricted to, something consumers will never encounter. the end result of WinRT is just Metro, something marketable and relatable. why the hell don't you just call it Windows Metro, Microsoft?
fwiw, you don't need to turn it off to install unsigned apps, it can be overridden on a case-by-case basis by right clicking the app and opening it there. you are never prompted again for that app.
i can see the argument for "burying" this ability, as users will tend to just get used to clicking "OK" blindly if you give them the ability to dismiss a prompt like this, much like i find myself doing with UAC on Windows.
the same issue is present in the current Firefox Aurora build.
> Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines?
Because the restrictions placed on Microsoft were a reaction to several anti-competitive business practices in which MS was effectively forcing OEMs to prop up a Windows+IE monopoly. OEMs were not allowed to remove IE, and as previously noted in US v MS, were often not allowed to install any other browser. OEMs were charged more for Windows licenses were they to offer any machine without Windows as well as mandating OEMs pay fees for each computer sold whether or not it was sold with Windows pre-installed in order to retain their license. This along with market pressure induced OEMs to focus production on Windows-only offerings, creating an anti-competitive environment in the larger, general-use OS market.
To the second point and this...
> Why is it not anti-competitive for Apple to ship their hardware with a completely locked bootloader?
Apple is the OEM. As far as iOS devices are concerned, they own the lot. I presume you didn't intend for them to be included here, but for their x86 devices (iMac, etc), you can install any compatible OS you want.
> How is it legal for the Kindle Fire and Nook to ship with locked bootloaders?
Simply put, Amazon and Barnes & Noble are not in the OS business. They don't stand to gain an unfair advantage from excluding another OS from their device and they are not forcing a third-party business to act on their behalf to support such an advantage. IMHO, Amazon is more likely to find trouble in areas such as their redirection of requests to market.android.com to their own app store though they still let you side-load apps and download them directly through the browser.
Samsung is the factory contractor for the A5, Apple designed it and Apple owns it outright. Foxconn assembles Apple products and provides some off-the-shelf parts. Apple does not levy such licensing restrictions against another company's own product to run only Apple software.
It very much changes the issue. That is not an OS developer requiring third-party hardware OEMs prevent loading another OS as part of their licensing agreement.
This is fairly specific anti-competitive behaviour, it's not an issue of locking devices in general.
They're not locked down by Google.
Apple produces their own hardware, and the various locked Android devices are not being locked down by Google.
i don't really see the point. i can't imagine the transfer protocol matters. otherwise, putting ads that have less capability than web streams (because they're contained in a local file) seems like a red herring. content companies have tried streaming and they've simply decided they don't like the internet.
it seems to me that content available online experiences immediate devaluation. why am i going to pay more to place an ad during your content when i can target the same audience for pennies elsewhere online? why am i going to pay the same for syndication or for physical media?
streaming license costs will continue to rise until they reach equilibrium with existing revenue streams with the corresponding rise in access costs, or decent quality streaming will cease to exist (legally). likely the latter will happen simply as a result of the former.
"These stats are based on the add-ons hosted with AMO only, and don’t include personas and add-ons bundled with other software."
When you see the breaks, the three little black reveals that interrupt the band, in photographs, you could be forgiven for assuming you're seeing three separate strips of metal with gaps in between; but in fact it's all one piece.from the internal photos at ifixits iphone 4 teardown[1] this doesn't appear to actually be true... or am i crazy? ( i am fully prepare to be called crazy/blind :) )
[1] http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-4-Teardown/3130/1
It's the same way Google Chrome extensions are built, isn't it? I just assumed this is Apple blessing what's really just a part of WebKit...
Can anyone give any opinions on this vs Appcelerator?
Why is it Google's responsibility to keep PR news wires in business?
so, can those of us writing in interpreted languages still fight about this?
the pricing issue is very interesting, but there's not a lot of meat to the story here. i'd like to see the developer find a way to interview the people who bought the increasingly pricey app and try to actually get some data to go with the conjecture.
otherwise, in a competitive marketplace you need to differentiate and promote your product constantly, i would think that's a given and not really a fault of the app store. is there a design decision which can help that? i'm not sure. i'm sure we don't want Apple to be MORE selective of which apps they allow in some kind of attempt to separate the chaff, though, and that means your awesome app may always be outnumbered by crap.
would they really need such a thing? street lights tend to point downwards, don't they?
I've always found that browser stats matter most for the site they belong to.
And Einstein would possibly have agreed with that to some extent, as evidenced by his reply in 1936 to the rejection of the only paper of his ever even subject to peer review, even then a new concept in fields unrelated to medicine. This has literally nothing to do with his inability to find work after he graduated university or the hiring process of science institutions in general. This emotional argument doesn't just not reflect Einstein on any level deeper than a Wikipedia summary of a bio, but lacks any historical perspective as well.
Einstein's 1905 works, specifically the Annus Mirabilis papers, lacked the formal review process we understand today, but were certainly reviewed by the two Nobel prize-winning physicists who selected them for publication in their journal. The formal review panel concept simply did not exist at the time outside of the medical fields, but that is not to say there was no stringent editorial control or gatekeeping in physics journals, and certainly not in Annalen der Physik. If anything, Einstein was subject to a far less fair and inclusive process.
Which is about 1/10th of what your post is implying. You might want to read something deeper than a wikipedia summary.
I really don't think you should take your understanding of Einstein's early career from Yahoo Serious movies.
i suppose the author recently read The Pragmatic Programmer?
as with the same argument presented in that book, i have a little trouble with this since i've been under the impression the broken windows hypothesis was discredited...