Doesn't answer the question at all - choose whether or not you believe Microsoft is an evil monopolist NOW.
Try again - If Microsoft "used to be" and not "are", the evil monopolist that doesn't use monopoly in one area to gain advantage over another, where is the real open specification of MS office. And if not, why do you claim they "used to be" ?
Did I ever say they were? Are you mentally retarded or something? What I am saying is that they should not be allowed to prevent Microsoft from writing an app, which is what they are doing now. This is equivalent to Microsoft preventing Chrome from running on Windows. Wonder what Google would have said.
Ok, so you don't understand so much, that it is mind boggling. For the first and last time, I explain this to you, but the spoon feeding is getting too much :
People using Youtube app use Google's resources, costing Google money. Google has to see value in letting its resources being used, and control the way it is used so that not only it brings revenue but doesn't expose loopholes as Microsoft are abusive with permissions e.g. the earlier episode of letting people download videos.
People running chrome on windows pay Microsoft money to buy Windows licenses and then on NO cost to Microsoft, run chrome on their OWN computers.
If Google chrome ever makes available a very good decompilation of Microsoft's Windows source code, Microsoft will be well within its rights to disable Chrome for next version based on this distrust inculcated.
I want to write the MS office on my own dime and time. I just want clarifications on "open specifications" like tableLikeWord97 etc. If Microsoft "used to be" and not "are", the evil monopolist that doesn't use monopoly in one area to gain advantage over another, where is the real open specification of MS office. And if not, why do you claim they "used to be" ?
Ok, see the contradiction : You : monopolist... Microsoft used to be You again : monopolist (which Microsoft is
Having a de-facto monopoly doesn't mean you are compelled to write or even help write applications of any kind
Ok, so Google is not compelled to write Youtube application. They are going by your logic exactly, you should be happy.
What it does though is ban you from putting obstacles in the way of a competitor
Microsoft's refusal to help me write MS office for my Linux tablet has put obstacles in my path, even with such an advocate with such good offices with Microsoft as you have, where I am a potential competitor.
Nobody (not even Microsoft) is asking Google to help them do anything
Wrong, refuted in your own next sentence, bold in my quote.
they are asking Google to not put roadblocks in the way
Like my 9 year old son, Google is being cautious with Microsoft after Microsoft showed it is not to be trusted. You should be happy about it.
Ok, so you forgot your own post. Reminding you for the first and last time.
"The appropriate term is "utilizing a de-facto monopoly in one area to crush competition in another area". It is illegal. It is evil. It is what Microsoft used to be. It is what Google is now".
I live in such a society, and your considerations are true. But retirement is equally valid and it is definitely considered. Hell, there are LAWS against not caring for your parents in old age.
The appropriate term is "utilizing a de-facto monopoly in one area to crush competition in another area". It is illegal. It is evil. It is what Microsoft used to be
Used to be? Thank God. I have a tablet platform that I want to sell, and I want MS office on it. Could you use your good offices with Microsoft to persuade them to help me write MS office for my platform? The platform can nearly accurately be described as GNU/Linux.
Ok, so MS are given permission by Google to write a YouTube app. MS goes ahead and allows users to download videos. When a 7th grader knows this is against Google's TOS.
When my 9 year old son shares his toys with a "friend", and that friend damages the toys, my son is more restrictive in sharing the toys with that "friend" in the future. Of course, being my son, he's a genius, but Google isn't bad here either.
and there's numerological proof - the entire hoax is spelt out in encrypted text: take the ASCII value of first letter of the third word of every seventh paragraph of every page in the bible, and decrypt it with gpg.
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. gpg: decrypt_message failed: eof
it only serves to drive out existing residents and businesses
And. like the GP said, every neighbourhood changes over time. Some of the changes are not good for existing residents. Nothing special about buses or poverty or social involvement. ANY type of change may or may not suit existing residents.
Chose a barren area to live because you don't like trees? Suddenly landscape "improvement" project plants lots of trees in the area? Tough luck. Nothing illegal/immoral in planting trees, actually extraordinarily moral. Nothing illegal/immoral in transporting employees in buses, actually extraordinarily moral.
I wouldn't want to live somewhere without painters, musicians, chefs, doctors, poets, scientists, writers, actors, students, and even lawyers, politicians, and public servants.
So don't live in such areas. Good for you. But if they move away tomorrow, leaving all plumbers for your company? For some morally and legally justifiable reason? You could move again, accepting the situation. Or you could crib about how "unfair" it is to you since these worthies have left your city.
Yes, Linux could have been one saviour of AMD. And how does AMD treat Linux? By crashy, poor performance drivers. Intel started merging into Linux codeline for haswell support a year before releasing the chip. AMD starts to provide reasonable open source drivers a year after releasing the chip, and it reaches Intel driver quality in maybe 5 years.
Power problems of 5 year old AMD chips have recently been fixed, with mixed results.
And there will be accounts which you will use rarely. E.g. when most of your finances are "automated" like they should be, logging on to banking website may be rare - say once a month. There could be some important email accounts which are used rarely.
A password used once, a month ago, is not very likely to be recalled easily.
MD5 is still a very good and inexpensive hash. Just doesn't stand up to active attacks very well, but sometimes hashes are used for purposes where active attacks are not relevant.
E.g. MD5 is great for use in organizing / backing up / verifying / recovering from accidental damage etc. for your personal files.
While SeaMonkey is fine, I don't understand the javascript disabling disabling issue. There are 3 kinds of users:
1. Don't care or understand. For them, javascript always on is the only usable option.
2. Want to keep it always disabled for all websites. While lynx is better for them, I can understand why they might choose firefox instead. Such people can easily find the option in about:config, and since they will never change it again, occupying space in preferences for this doesn't make sense.
3. Want to customize when and for which websites javascript is enabled. Such users are extremely likely to use RequestPolicy and NoScript, and the "Enable Javascript" checkbox in firefox preferences earlier was JUST the WRONG solution for their problem.
4th, the mysterious kind of user : Want to globally enable and disable javascript frequently. I don't understand what purpose this serves. Could you elaborate?
Will they understand when websites break because of a disabled javascript?
And would it be easy for them to follow the instructions given by the website to re-enable javascript? Assuming the website bothers to give specific instructions for their version of firefox in their firefox's language at all.
Read "Made in Japan", by Akio Morita, one of the founders of Sony. Sony's corporate DNA is evil. He proudly declares Sony refused to get into price wars under his leadership, and has been, ever since. Dealers were prohibited from selling Sony devices for cheap when nobody wanted to buy them, to give people an illusion of "premium" device.
Price war is one of the prime ways for companies to create value in a capitalist society . A company refusing to do that is, by definition, evil.
Sync sometimes involves data coming towards a device. Educated people call it "download". When you move to second shill class, they might tell this to you.
It's implementation might be a background download in that case. But you are not downloading.
I never said "I" or "you" am or are downloading (explicitly). Read again.Even in the last post, I said "iCloud could download (the file) to the device". Download happens, as you now admit.
Your posts are worthless, so bye.
You've been proven wrong so many times, it is pitiful. Send your supervisor shill.
I know you shills just HAVE to come in - but this was extreme. While asking me to stop comparing iCloud to SD card -you are yourself comparing them. Hope they fire you soon - much better shills have been sent to Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't answer the question at all - choose whether or not you believe Microsoft is an evil monopolist NOW.
Try again - If Microsoft "used to be" and not "are", the evil monopolist that doesn't use monopoly in one area to gain advantage over another, where is the real open specification of MS office. And if not, why do you claim they "used to be" ?
Did I ever say they were? Are you mentally retarded or something? What I am saying is that they should not be allowed to prevent Microsoft from writing an app, which is what they are doing now. This is equivalent to Microsoft preventing Chrome from running on Windows. Wonder what Google would have said.
Ok, so you don't understand so much, that it is mind boggling. For the first and last time, I explain this to you, but the spoon feeding is getting too much :
People using Youtube app use Google's resources, costing Google money. Google has to see value in letting its resources being used, and control the way it is used so that not only it brings revenue but doesn't expose loopholes as Microsoft are abusive with permissions e.g. the earlier episode of letting people download videos.
People running chrome on windows pay Microsoft money to buy Windows licenses and then on NO cost to Microsoft, run chrome on their OWN computers.
If Google chrome ever makes available a very good decompilation of Microsoft's Windows source code, Microsoft will be well within its rights to disable Chrome for next version based on this distrust inculcated.
on their own dime and time
I want to write the MS office on my own dime and time. I just want clarifications on "open specifications" like tableLikeWord97 etc. If Microsoft "used to be" and not "are", the evil monopolist that doesn't use monopoly in one area to gain advantage over another, where is the real open specification of MS office. And if not, why do you claim they "used to be" ?
Well, even a 9 year old behaves sensibly, like Google did. If you routinely do favours for people who harm you, you would be dumber than a 9 year old.
s/Google is not compelled to write Youtube application/Google is not compelled to help MS write Youtube application/
No, I did not
Ok, see the contradiction : ... Microsoft used to be
You : monopolist
You again : monopolist (which Microsoft is
Having a de-facto monopoly doesn't mean you are compelled to write or even help write applications of any kind
Ok, so Google is not compelled to write Youtube application. They are going by your logic exactly, you should be happy.
What it does though is ban you from putting obstacles in the way of a competitor
Microsoft's refusal to help me write MS office for my Linux tablet has put obstacles in my path, even with such an advocate with such good offices with Microsoft as you have, where I am a potential competitor.
Nobody (not even Microsoft) is asking Google to help them do anything
Wrong, refuted in your own next sentence, bold in my quote.
they are asking Google to not put roadblocks in the way
Like my 9 year old son, Google is being cautious with Microsoft after Microsoft showed it is not to be trusted. You should be happy about it.
Ok, so you forgot your own post. Reminding you for the first and last time.
"The appropriate term is "utilizing a de-facto monopoly in one area to crush competition in another area". It is illegal. It is evil. It is what Microsoft used to be. It is what Google is now".
I know. That is why the next paragraph has a reference to "future". Read all the three sentences of this post before replying.
I live in such a society, and your considerations are true. But retirement is equally valid and it is definitely considered. Hell, there are LAWS against not caring for your parents in old age.
The appropriate term is "utilizing a de-facto monopoly in one area to crush competition in another area". It is illegal. It is evil. It is what Microsoft used to be
Used to be? Thank God. I have a tablet platform that I want to sell, and I want MS office on it. Could you use your good offices with Microsoft to persuade them to help me write MS office for my platform? The platform can nearly accurately be described as GNU/Linux.
thanks
Ok, so MS are given permission by Google to write a YouTube app. MS goes ahead and allows users to download videos. When a 7th grader knows this is against Google's TOS.
When my 9 year old son shares his toys with a "friend", and that friend damages the toys, my son is more restrictive in sharing the toys with that "friend" in the future. Of course, being my son, he's a genius, but Google isn't bad here either.
and there's numerological proof - the entire hoax is spelt out in encrypted text: take the ASCII value of first letter of the third word of every seventh paragraph of every page in the bible, and decrypt it with gpg.
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: decrypt_message failed: eof
it only serves to drive out existing residents and businesses
And. like the GP said, every neighbourhood changes over time. Some of the changes are not good for existing residents. Nothing special about buses or poverty or social involvement. ANY type of change may or may not suit existing residents.
Chose a barren area to live because you don't like trees? Suddenly landscape "improvement" project plants lots of trees in the area? Tough luck. Nothing illegal/immoral in planting trees, actually extraordinarily moral. Nothing illegal/immoral in transporting employees in buses, actually extraordinarily moral.
I wouldn't want to live somewhere without painters, musicians, chefs, doctors, poets, scientists, writers, actors, students, and even lawyers, politicians, and public servants.
So don't live in such areas. Good for you. But if they move away tomorrow, leaving all plumbers for your company? For some morally and legally justifiable reason? You could move again, accepting the situation. Or you could crib about how "unfair" it is to you since these worthies have left your city.
Yes, Linux could have been one saviour of AMD. And how does AMD treat Linux? By crashy, poor performance drivers. Intel started merging into Linux codeline for haswell support a year before releasing the chip. AMD starts to provide reasonable open source drivers a year after releasing the chip, and it reaches Intel driver quality in maybe 5 years.
Power problems of 5 year old AMD chips have recently been fixed, with mixed results.
Yup, the bully getting his way is no surprise. An underdog (trying to) ordering people around is always funny.
ATI drivers? Desktops ? People here are talking about servers. Learn what servers are, try to keep up with the discussion before jumping in.
Do you routinely put the onus of proof on the wrong party, especially in the realm of information security?
And there will be accounts which you will use rarely. E.g. when most of your finances are "automated" like they should be, logging on to banking website may be rare - say once a month. There could be some important email accounts which are used rarely.
A password used once, a month ago, is not very likely to be recalled easily.
If a user understands that disabling JavaScript is important to preserve their privacy, how is the user "non technical"?
MD5 is still a very good and inexpensive hash. Just doesn't stand up to active attacks very well, but sometimes hashes are used for purposes where active attacks are not relevant.
E.g. MD5 is great for use in organizing / backing up / verifying / recovering from accidental damage etc. for your personal files.
While SeaMonkey is fine, I don't understand the javascript disabling disabling issue. There are 3 kinds of users:
1. Don't care or understand. For them, javascript always on is the only usable option.
2. Want to keep it always disabled for all websites. While lynx is better for them, I can understand why they might choose firefox instead. Such people can easily find the option in about:config, and since they will never change it again, occupying space in preferences for this doesn't make sense.
3. Want to customize when and for which websites javascript is enabled. Such users are extremely likely to use RequestPolicy and NoScript, and the "Enable Javascript" checkbox in firefox preferences earlier was JUST the WRONG solution for their problem.
4th, the mysterious kind of user : Want to globally enable and disable javascript frequently. I don't understand what purpose this serves. Could you elaborate?
Will they understand when websites break because of a disabled javascript?
And would it be easy for them to follow the instructions given by the website to re-enable javascript? Assuming the website bothers to give specific instructions for their version of firefox in their firefox's language at all.
Then benchmark the docked usage.
Read "Made in Japan", by Akio Morita, one of the founders of Sony. Sony's corporate DNA is evil. He proudly declares Sony refused to get into price wars under his leadership, and has been, ever since. Dealers were prohibited from selling Sony devices for cheap when nobody wanted to buy them, to give people an illusion of "premium" device.
Price war is one of the prime ways for companies to create value in a capitalist society . A company refusing to do that is, by definition, evil.
You don't download with iCloud. It syncs
Sync sometimes involves data coming towards a device. Educated people call it "download". When you move to second shill class, they might tell this to you.
It's implementation might be a background download in that case. But you are not downloading.
I never said "I" or "you" am or are downloading (explicitly). Read again.Even in the last post, I said "iCloud could download (the file) to the device". Download happens, as you now admit.
Your posts are worthless, so bye.
You've been proven wrong so many times, it is pitiful. Send your supervisor shill.
I know you shills just HAVE to come in - but this was extreme. While asking me to stop comparing iCloud to SD card -you are yourself comparing them. Hope they fire you soon - much better shills have been sent to Slashdot.