If P3P is being violated, then they should be making sure P3P is enforced, not calling into question google
Isn't that what they're doing? Google is essentially violating the standard by claiming their cookies have no privacy implications, and Microsoft is trying to call them out on it.
Since I'm retarded and posted my reply to the wrong post, here it is again in all its original glory:
I agree, but missiles are vulnerable to getting attacked. Unless the missiles are armored... and maybe you could add additional weapons, so that they could attack multiple targets.
It definitely sounds backwards, and may be only like that so that when it was implemented that everything would continue to work like it already did. But, I disagree that an empty P3P header is the same as a missing P3P header, or "no stated privacy implications" != "No privacy implications". An empty P3P header implies that the server is responding to a request for P3P information, and has no implications to disclose (which is the correct response if that is true). A missing P3P header would mean that the server is not even responding to P3P requests. Google should have left out the header, not supplied a header that had human-readable text which told browsers that there are no privacy implications. The cookies would have been blocked if there was no header, so this is Google's way of not restricting any cookies based on the user's IE settings. I was faced with the same problem, but unlike Google I actually took the time to research what the P3P keywords meant and put together a policy that reasonably described our cookie usage.
I agree, but missiles are vulnerable to getting attacked. Unless the missiles are armored... and maybe you could add additional weapons, so that they could attack multiple targets.
Right. It makes all kinds of sense in the weightlessness of space, though. Of course, there's not much of a reason to launch an assembled ship if you can launch parts and assemble many ships in orbit. Small, fast, armored drones are the way to go.
In this case, "ignoring undefined policies" means that there are no stated privacy implications. If the P3P policy is blank then the site is saying there are no privacy implications for its cookies.
The "large" in "large guns" was not from my post. I used the word "guns". Unless, and until armored ships appear on the scene, a standard.30 caliber machine gun will be devastating to almost any spaceship.
I think it's fair to assume that armor will be standard from day 1. A.30-cal doesn't do a whole lot against an Abrams, so there's no reason to build a big, expensive ship that doesn't have enough armor to block a bullet.
My question is, why does everyone ignore the guns? Guns will work wonderfully in space.
The main issue with using large guns in space is the recoil. A missile, for example, could be just tossed away from the ship with minimal impulse, and it fires up its own propulsion and goes on its way. Also, you really don't need the massive kinetic impact of a gun in space. Making a little pinhole in the side of a ship with a laser would be pretty effective in space and lasers would offer several other advantages over guns, including less recoil.
R&D is great, but it doesn't matter how good the R&D department is when management still wants to shit all over their customers. I don't have problems with the engineers working at Sony, I have problems with the decision-makers. Along with Phillips, Sony R&D invented the compact disc, but it was management that decided to put a rootkit on one.
I was thinking the same thing. The rootkit thing put me off of Sony immediately. Since then, I've seen several stories (like the removal of the PS3 "OtherOS" option, PSN getting hacked, etc) where people have been asking "should we boycott Sony?" I'm wondering how far those people have to be pushed before they decide that they can make do without Sony products. Living without Sony products is really not a problem. They aren't an essential company in any way.
That's weird, you mean not everyone sees that? When I put on my polarized shades in the car my window tinting has those little spots all over it (at least, as far as I can see). I just assumed that's the way it was for everyone.
I presume that one would observe it when it used to be a lot closer, shortly after the big bang, when the universe was much smaller. At least, you would observe the light which left that object when it used to be closer and has only now overtaken us as we move outward.
The Chinese arm of the company is filing the lawsuit. Not sure witch is the parent company. I would assume the Tiawan based one since that is who Apple paid.
Both companies are subsidiaries of a larger parent company.
Proview International, which owns subsidiaries Proview Technology in Shenzhen and Proview Electronics in Taiwan, originally registered the name 'iPad' in Taiwan in 2000 and mainland China in 2001.
Apple bought the trademark from Proview Electronics, and they are now being sued by Proview Technology. Both companies are owned by Proview International, which is based in Hong Kong.
That wasn't a knitting needle, that was apparently something called a Nitten needle. Either that, or it's easier to learn the skills to be an astronaut than it is to figure out how to pronounce English words.
From what I understand the search warrant has already been served and completed. Once it's completed that's it, if they want more data they need another warrant against the 2 companies hosting the data (neither of which is Megaupload).
In the roughly 18 hours since you posted it looks like about 8,000 more people have signed. Right now if I refresh every few minutes the number changes by over 100, so a lot of people are signing it. As I post this, there are 19,782 signatures. I'm still waiting for my confirmation email to create my account.
Slashdot Mirror
Javascript is a baby language for unskilled and sloppy programmers, so it'll fit right in.
Just out of curiosity, which language do you prefer when you're creating interactive web application interfaces?
If P3P is being violated, then they should be making sure P3P is enforced, not calling into question google
Isn't that what they're doing? Google is essentially violating the standard by claiming their cookies have no privacy implications, and Microsoft is trying to call them out on it.
Since I'm retarded and posted my reply to the wrong post, here it is again in all its original glory:
I agree, but missiles are vulnerable to getting attacked. Unless the missiles are armored... and maybe you could add additional weapons, so that they could attack multiple targets.
Thanks, but it was more of a riff on the fact that he used "weight", and inertia refers to mass. That's why I said "weightlessness". Happy to help.
It definitely sounds backwards, and may be only like that so that when it was implemented that everything would continue to work like it already did. But, I disagree that an empty P3P header is the same as a missing P3P header, or "no stated privacy implications" != "No privacy implications". An empty P3P header implies that the server is responding to a request for P3P information, and has no implications to disclose (which is the correct response if that is true). A missing P3P header would mean that the server is not even responding to P3P requests. Google should have left out the header, not supplied a header that had human-readable text which told browsers that there are no privacy implications. The cookies would have been blocked if there was no header, so this is Google's way of not restricting any cookies based on the user's IE settings. I was faced with the same problem, but unlike Google I actually took the time to research what the P3P keywords meant and put together a policy that reasonably described our cookie usage.
I agree, but missiles are vulnerable to getting attacked. Unless the missiles are armored... and maybe you could add additional weapons, so that they could attack multiple targets.
Right. It makes all kinds of sense in the weightlessness of space, though. Of course, there's not much of a reason to launch an assembled ship if you can launch parts and assemble many ships in orbit. Small, fast, armored drones are the way to go.
In this case, "ignoring undefined policies" means that there are no stated privacy implications. If the P3P policy is blank then the site is saying there are no privacy implications for its cookies.
The "large" in "large guns" was not from my post. I used the word "guns". Unless, and until armored ships appear on the scene, a standard .30 caliber machine gun will be devastating to almost any spaceship.
I think it's fair to assume that armor will be standard from day 1. A .30-cal doesn't do a whole lot against an Abrams, so there's no reason to build a big, expensive ship that doesn't have enough armor to block a bullet.
My question is, why does everyone ignore the guns? Guns will work wonderfully in space.
The main issue with using large guns in space is the recoil. A missile, for example, could be just tossed away from the ship with minimal impulse, and it fires up its own propulsion and goes on its way. Also, you really don't need the massive kinetic impact of a gun in space. Making a little pinhole in the side of a ship with a laser would be pretty effective in space and lasers would offer several other advantages over guns, including less recoil.
However, the moment you say "at our option we may charge you for things you did not request" you set up all sorts of nasty incentives.
Right. Just look at the phone company.
They probably cheated by putting more than 96 NAND dies in their device. 96 NAND dies should be enough for anyone. (sorry)
R&D is great, but it doesn't matter how good the R&D department is when management still wants to shit all over their customers. I don't have problems with the engineers working at Sony, I have problems with the decision-makers. Along with Phillips, Sony R&D invented the compact disc, but it was management that decided to put a rootkit on one.
And who on /. gives a fuck about Whitney Houston?
1st: that's not really the issue, is it?
2nd: anyone who appreciates vocal talent.
I was thinking the same thing. The rootkit thing put me off of Sony immediately. Since then, I've seen several stories (like the removal of the PS3 "OtherOS" option, PSN getting hacked, etc) where people have been asking "should we boycott Sony?" I'm wondering how far those people have to be pushed before they decide that they can make do without Sony products. Living without Sony products is really not a problem. They aren't an essential company in any way.
If this is how TSA officers get off that's pretty sad.
It is, and it is.
That's weird, you mean not everyone sees that? When I put on my polarized shades in the car my window tinting has those little spots all over it (at least, as far as I can see). I just assumed that's the way it was for everyone.
I presume that one would observe it when it used to be a lot closer, shortly after the big bang, when the universe was much smaller. At least, you would observe the light which left that object when it used to be closer and has only now overtaken us as we move outward.
Maybe they need a sexier name than "nuclear steam powered light gas gun filled with electrolyzed hydrogen".
The Chinese arm of the company is filing the lawsuit. Not sure witch is the parent company. I would assume the Tiawan based one since that is who Apple paid.
Both companies are subsidiaries of a larger parent company.
Proview International, which owns subsidiaries Proview Technology in Shenzhen and Proview Electronics in Taiwan, originally registered the name 'iPad' in Taiwan in 2000 and mainland China in 2001.
Apple bought the trademark from Proview Electronics, and they are now being sued by Proview Technology. Both companies are owned by Proview International, which is based in Hong Kong.
That wasn't a knitting needle, that was apparently something called a Nitten needle. Either that, or it's easier to learn the skills to be an astronaut than it is to figure out how to pronounce English words.
From what I understand the search warrant has already been served and completed. Once it's completed that's it, if they want more data they need another warrant against the 2 companies hosting the data (neither of which is Megaupload).
In the roughly 18 hours since you posted it looks like about 8,000 more people have signed. Right now if I refresh every few minutes the number changes by over 100, so a lot of people are signing it. As I post this, there are 19,782 signatures. I'm still waiting for my confirmation email to create my account.
The New York Times claims that the hot new trend among teenagers in love is to share passwords to their email and Facebook accounts
That is what is actually occurring. Once they change your email password you're sort of screwed.
What stops you from changing password upon break-up?
What stops you is the other person logging in and changing your password before you can.