Just design it to be standards compliant, and let the browsers that can't follow the standards fail, hopefully gracefully.
But what is a standard? Is it what some organization like Acid3 decides? Or is it what most browsers support? The reason that IE6 didn't fall for lack of standards was because it was the standards. IE6, the dominant browser for quite a while, was the most standard browser in existence because it was the dominant browser.
What incentive does Microsoft have to be 100% standards compliant? It is the dominant browser. It can wright the standards. Whatever features Microsoft implements become the standards because web developers have to support IE.
Because that is illegal... the idea of this project is to get honest security researchers incentives to find bugs so that the people who would exploit them, cannot.
The US export laws were created to hurt the countries that have horrible diplomatic relations with the US. If the US and its allies don't trade with those countries, those countries' economies will fall (in theory) and they will have to negotiate with us.
However, these laws don't really transfer well to open source software. Yes, the people in those countries should be allowed to access sf software. But the law is the law and there isn't much that sf can do. It would also be very difficult to try to reform these laws to account for open source software, since there would be a ton of loopholes.
Also, this is not a first ammendment violation or any kind of censorship. These laws block exports of products to those countries. There is no problem allowing them to view your website or see information. But giving them software to download violates the export laws. For example, Wikipedia has no problems with the export law. It is allowed to teach the countries on the export list. But that is because Wikipedia is only giving them information, not software.
There are only 3 reasons why Google would ditch Mozilla in the future:
1. Nobody uses Firefox anymore (i.e. less than 1% share)
2. Mozilla is charging ridiculously high fees
3. There is a big scandal
Google has lots of incentives to keep this deal. Users are by default, lazy. Most do not change any options. That is of course why IE is the dominant browser (pre-installed on Windows). Because Google is the default search engine on FF, many users will use Google instead of a competitor.
This has nothing to do with patents...
Also, how can anything in the digital world survive without intellectual property laws? They are what makes pirating illegal. One company thinks of a brilliant idea, and suddenly all their competitors have copied it identically. There would be 0 reason to put any money into R&D.
I agree with you that patent law needs help. But you can't completely get rid of all intellectual property rights. Most companies innovate to make money. There is no economic reason to innovate if your competitors will get the same benefits and not have to spend any R&D money/time.
Most non-tech people don't think that they need offline backups of what is in the cloud. Sure, they know that they need to backup their word documents, but most non-tech people don't think they need to back up things such as email or contacts.
It is probably because they don't want some malicious third party developer to trick you into allowing access and then deleting all of your contacts.
Also, if a developer makes a syncing contacts application, what if it has a bug that screws up all of your contacts?
Disrupt other people's businesses???
So to be a "good guy", you can't be a competitive business? Are you saying that Mozilla is a "bad guy" because they disrupted Microsoft's IE business?
Then they must have pretty mild aspergers.
I also know several autism and aspergers kids. A friend of mine works at a special needs school and deals with those kinds of kids on a daily basis.
"The company says autistics have a talent for spotting imperfections, and thrive on predictable, monotonous work."
Sounds like manager material to me.
No... because people with autism are terrible at dealing with people. Their social skills are horrible.
I'll give you an example. Many autistic children have to be taught how to recognize and make facial expressions. They do not figure it out on their own.
Yes, high functioning autism people CAN be successful in the business world, but it is more of a exception rather than a rule. Not being able to communicate well or understand abstract ideas is a real problem in the business world.
It does impair them from doing complex work. Everything for an autism person MUST be concrete. I can see why this would lead to success in programming, but they would fail at many other professions.
That is because mental retardation was an umbrella diagnosis that didn't convey any useful information. Most people with any kind of mental disability were given that diagnosis. As we learned more about these kinds of disabilities, we began specifying different kinds of mental problems.
It's like the difference between calling a person educated and calling them a physicist.
This is a lot different than when Google went up against the email providers. This time, Google does not have the infrastructure (the cell towers) to give the service on their own. They must couple with an existing provider.
Yes, they need to find a new way to make money in the Internet age. But the question here is NOT whether they should attack piracy. This court case is debating whether ISPs should be responsible for fighting piracy.
I do not think that these plants would redirect a fresh water supply to feed into a salt water one. It said that these plants could be placed at the mouth of a river (where the fresh water mixes with the salt water, regardless of whether the plant exists).
So maybe $1 mil is a lot of money for the average blogger. But take a multi-billion dollar company such as Yahoo? I don't think that they would remove themselves from the #1 search engine for a mere $1 mil.
Since Apple's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware, the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.
Just because a company says that you can't use their product in some way, doesn't mean that they have the right to restrict you. Let's say you buy a music CD. The musician says that you are only authorized to play the CD on Sony CD players. If you play it on a Dell computer, it is unauthorized. But are they allowed to sue you? No. Because they don't have the right to restrict you to Sony CD players.
Slashdot Mirror
Just design it to be standards compliant, and let the browsers that can't follow the standards fail, hopefully gracefully.
But what is a standard? Is it what some organization like Acid3 decides? Or is it what most browsers support? The reason that IE6 didn't fall for lack of standards was because it was the standards. IE6, the dominant browser for quite a while, was the most standard browser in existence because it was the dominant browser.
Pissing off 4chan is probably the worst thing you can do on the Internet.
I disagree: http://xkcd.com/591/
What incentive does Microsoft have to be 100% standards compliant? It is the dominant browser. It can wright the standards. Whatever features Microsoft implements become the standards because web developers have to support IE.
Because that is illegal... the idea of this project is to get honest security researchers incentives to find bugs so that the people who would exploit them, cannot.
The US export laws were created to hurt the countries that have horrible diplomatic relations with the US. If the US and its allies don't trade with those countries, those countries' economies will fall (in theory) and they will have to negotiate with us. However, these laws don't really transfer well to open source software. Yes, the people in those countries should be allowed to access sf software. But the law is the law and there isn't much that sf can do. It would also be very difficult to try to reform these laws to account for open source software, since there would be a ton of loopholes. Also, this is not a first ammendment violation or any kind of censorship. These laws block exports of products to those countries. There is no problem allowing them to view your website or see information. But giving them software to download violates the export laws. For example, Wikipedia has no problems with the export law. It is allowed to teach the countries on the export list. But that is because Wikipedia is only giving them information, not software.
There are only 3 reasons why Google would ditch Mozilla in the future: 1. Nobody uses Firefox anymore (i.e. less than 1% share) 2. Mozilla is charging ridiculously high fees 3. There is a big scandal Google has lots of incentives to keep this deal. Users are by default, lazy. Most do not change any options. That is of course why IE is the dominant browser (pre-installed on Windows). Because Google is the default search engine on FF, many users will use Google instead of a competitor.
This has nothing to do with patents... Also, how can anything in the digital world survive without intellectual property laws? They are what makes pirating illegal. One company thinks of a brilliant idea, and suddenly all their competitors have copied it identically. There would be 0 reason to put any money into R&D. I agree with you that patent law needs help. But you can't completely get rid of all intellectual property rights. Most companies innovate to make money. There is no economic reason to innovate if your competitors will get the same benefits and not have to spend any R&D money/time.
They have a feature for this. In the top right of the contacts manager, there is a link titled "export".
Most non-tech people don't think that they need offline backups of what is in the cloud. Sure, they know that they need to backup their word documents, but most non-tech people don't think they need to back up things such as email or contacts.
It is probably because they don't want some malicious third party developer to trick you into allowing access and then deleting all of your contacts. Also, if a developer makes a syncing contacts application, what if it has a bug that screws up all of your contacts?
Disrupt other people's businesses??? So to be a "good guy", you can't be a competitive business? Are you saying that Mozilla is a "bad guy" because they disrupted Microsoft's IE business?
Lol. Google wasn't even around 15 years ago. It was founded in 1998.
I have a word of advice for you. Don't feed the troll
Then they must have pretty mild aspergers. I also know several autism and aspergers kids. A friend of mine works at a special needs school and deals with those kinds of kids on a daily basis.
"The company says autistics have a talent for spotting imperfections, and thrive on predictable, monotonous work."
Sounds like manager material to me.
No... because people with autism are terrible at dealing with people. Their social skills are horrible. I'll give you an example. Many autistic children have to be taught how to recognize and make facial expressions. They do not figure it out on their own.
Yes, high functioning autism people CAN be successful in the business world, but it is more of a exception rather than a rule. Not being able to communicate well or understand abstract ideas is a real problem in the business world. It does impair them from doing complex work. Everything for an autism person MUST be concrete. I can see why this would lead to success in programming, but they would fail at many other professions.
That is because mental retardation was an umbrella diagnosis that didn't convey any useful information. Most people with any kind of mental disability were given that diagnosis. As we learned more about these kinds of disabilities, we began specifying different kinds of mental problems. It's like the difference between calling a person educated and calling them a physicist.
This is a lot different than when Google went up against the email providers. This time, Google does not have the infrastructure (the cell towers) to give the service on their own. They must couple with an existing provider.
If they had to get $1000 per request, they would be profiting off of piracy. Many ISPs already forward the take down requests for free.
Yes, they need to find a new way to make money in the Internet age. But the question here is NOT whether they should attack piracy. This court case is debating whether ISPs should be responsible for fighting piracy.
I do not think that these plants would redirect a fresh water supply to feed into a salt water one. It said that these plants could be placed at the mouth of a river (where the fresh water mixes with the salt water, regardless of whether the plant exists).
So maybe $1 mil is a lot of money for the average blogger. But take a multi-billion dollar company such as Yahoo? I don't think that they would remove themselves from the #1 search engine for a mere $1 mil.
Google checks your robots.txt file every time it indexes your site. If it denies something that Google has already indexed, Google will unindex that.
Search: I am One of the suggestions: "I am extremely terrified of chinese people"
Since Apple's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware, the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.
Just because a company says that you can't use their product in some way, doesn't mean that they have the right to restrict you. Let's say you buy a music CD. The musician says that you are only authorized to play the CD on Sony CD players. If you play it on a Dell computer, it is unauthorized. But are they allowed to sue you? No. Because they don't have the right to restrict you to Sony CD players.