Assange is out of control. Wikileaks needs to oust him and go back to their original mission, of actually being a whistleblower, rather than just leaking things and hurting national and global security.
Julian Assange should go to jail for a very long time.
Usually NDAs prevent disclosure of information revealed to them.
NDAs don't prevent someone from implementing a technology.
They probably would not have made Microsoft sign an agreement stating they wouldn't implement the very thing they were trying to sell to Microsoft so they could implement
They have patents and copyrights for their software, which Microsoft as a company who relies on patents and copyrights should respect.
Can't they sue Microsoft on other grounds, such as breach of trust or violation of their NDA?
Maybe. I assume their lawyers advised them to pursue the complaints most likely to succeed that would pay the highest damages.
It is possible there was no NDA if they were relying on their patent protection.
'Breach of trust' whatever that means could be harder to establish in a court of law
'It would be like forcing car manufacturers to take responsibility for bad drivers.'"
No. it would be like making the DMV take responsibility for bad drivers on the highway, because the DMV issues the papers required for drivers to use the road.
The thing comparable "forcing car manufacturers to take responsibility",
would be trying to force Dell, HP to take responsibility.
It should probably be noted that car manufacturers can be responsible for drivers going around in defective cars that have a high tendency to malfunction causing an accident unless the driver is an expert professional driver.
So it could make sense to hold Microsoft responsible for an OS with a horrible security record
So Canadian Court says pay money, so you go above them to the US Supreme Court, aka, Court of the World?
The Company and its people are Canadian, but i4i came to the US to sue Microsoft in the US District court of Eastern Texas.
Note, this is one of those cases of true alleged evil.
i4i is not a patent troll. They developed software. They showed Microsoft the software, in the hopes of Microsoft licensing it.
Microsoft reviewed the technology, apparently decided to not license it / not incorporate the technology.
The next version of Word included Microsoft's own copycat implementation of exactly the technology.
And came to the market competing against i4i's product instead of properly licensing i4i's product.
IOW, this is not a bunk "obvious method" software patent.
This is exactly the type of things patents are designed to prevent.
Wholesale stealing of a significant invention.
And the allegation of willful infringement appeared to be a reasonable allegation for i4i to make.
I normally go against software patents, but only because often the things that are patented are not inventions,
or attempts are made to apply the patent to things simpler or more fundamental than the invention.
In this case, however, I would not object to i4i enforcing this patent and that succeeding
If you can't stand either MS or patents, who do you root for here?"
The only side certain to win this.
You can hope the patent and patents like it get invalidated, by the way.
The patent can get invalidated with Microsoft still being liable.
There are outcomes that satisfy anyone, unless you hate lawyers and multi-million dollar settlements with big corporations too, in which case, you are boned.
If each of them buys the apple.com name in a different root, which one's "right"
We just need a 'mutual exclusion' policy.
An agreement between the 'roots' to publish a list of active registered domains and check the other roots' list of domains when any registration is requested.
And deny new registration requests if the domain is already in a list.
Good luck convincing the existing gTLD operators to go along with that.
Alternatively your "alternate.COM registry" could have a policy of paying an ICANN registrar to register the domain, and requiring that registration go through, before your alternate root will register the domain.
And why didn't ICANN start the process of "firing" VeriSign immediately after the incident?
That was what was going to happen. Instead, something very strange happened. The final outcome was that ICANN SETTLED with VeriSign.
But this was kind of like the Google books settlement, in that the settlement was EXTREMELY FAVORABLE to VeriSign.
Prior to this settlement, the.COM /.NET registry was a FOR BID contract that would come up for bidding and renewal every 6 years.
The registry price was capped at $6 per domain per year under the contract at the time.
In the settlement ICANN agreed to guarantee to renew their contract at the end of the term, unless it is proven that VeriSign substantially breaches the new contract, they have the contract perpetually.
[paraphrasing], "For the sake of Internet stability" (as ICANN people put it)
The settlement from the SECSAC process also Gave NSOL the right to raise prices.
The settlement gave them the right to raise prices 7% 4 out of 6 years of every contract term after 2007, with no cost justification needed.
The VeriSign/Network Solutions Internic can raise prices all 6 years of the contract term, if they provide a cost justification for 2 of those years.
In 2010 they raised prices for.COM and.NET domains, and publicly someone indicated a cost justification of "Increased number of DNS lookups being performed" (against.COM and.NET registry servers)
I think 5 years from now,.COM and.NET TLDs will be prices by the registry at
approximately $12 instead of approximately $8.
We can look forward to paying $100 per year to the cheapest registries to renew.COMs, within this decade or the next,
just like it used to be before competitive registrars.
Oh right... "competitive registrars" doesn't matter much, when there is a for-profit global
registry everyone has to pay who has a guaranteed right to raise prices,
and a guaranteed right to not get fired, because a legal settlement means ICANN legally cannot bring the contract up for bid,
unless NSol screws up.
If redirecting NXDOMAIN to partnered search results pages and killing a bunch of anti-spam scripts
You mean an anti-spam technique (of fairly limited effectiveness) of reverse path validation, through making extra domain lookups for the forward DNS hostname of the Return Envelope, not called for by the SMTP RFCs, which also place extra (unwanted) load on DNS servers?
Please don't confuse ICANN with Network Solutions / Verisign (Sitefinder).
By the way, the SiteFinder Fiasco you refer to ended when ICANN was going to file a lawsuit Network Solutions over "sitefinder" and reached a settlement. Settlement: ICANN agreed to discontinue the sitefinder service / stop wildcard resolving immediately, and will seek permission under ICANN rules before introducing any new service such as that.
But, in Exchange, as part of this settlement, NSol's contract to be operator for the.COM /.NET TLDs was changed so ICANN guarantees to renew the contract perpetually at the end of every contract term (Unless there is a proven breach),
AND, also, the settlement gave Network Solutions a right to increase prices 7%
every 4 out of the 6 years of every contract term after 2007, with no justification.
NSol can increase prices in 6 out of 6 years, if a cost justification is given in 2 of those years.
Note that back in 2007,.NET and.COM prices were capped by the registry at $6.
Today they are approximately $8. Domain prices per-domain are getting more expensive,
and the stated justification is "higher volume of DNS queries", what do you think about that?
So the whole 'sitefinder thing' was a win win win for Network solutions, because ICANN essentially got themselves a free perpetual contract, which ICANN justifies on the basis of "A perpetual contract provides greater stability for the Internet";
neverminding the fact the contract becomes less favorable for the community every year NSol chooses to raise prices.
Still... things are "stable", and doesn't matter that much that NSol got rewarded for their attempted sitefinder moneygrab does it?
Apparently it wasn't that 'stupid'... I mean, someone had to pay $50,000 just to apply,
and put significant capital down to have a registry that would meet ICANN's minimal technical standards for a stable registry.
The letters in the TLD are just one factor; the decision to 'add a TLD' or not are almost all about the technical aspects of a proposed TLD and how many sites and domain registrars are interested in the TLD.
complying with a Department of Homeland Security request to remove a bunch of domains that contained material that infringes copyright should be the nail in the coffin for the useless stuffed shirts at ICANN.
ICANN just defines the rules and contracts the registry services, I believe you are again blaming ICANN for an individual registrar and US government thing
ICANN is really a perfect example of where a bunch of wise-beard Unix hacker types could do a better job than the corporate whores currently doing it could. Or better yet, a proper distributed alternative to DNS.
Now there's something we can agree on. Unix hacker types could do better, if only they could get the financing, and backing from the corporate types.
It would probably be good enough though to have an association serving a different group of corporate whores....
for example, ISPs instead of the WIPO, RIAA, registrar, pro-squatter , and pro-advertising/pro-marketing folks.
Your conclusion is wrong. An app that had the sole purpose of advertising the Android platform was banned.
This is just the argument that "because users have access to a web browser, or can download a PDF on their computer and upload it to the iPad for manual viewing of a static PDF, no content is really censored" all over again. News flash, reducing the fidelity of the experience, removing the ability to have special enhancements/extensions that are only efficient when done natively, or making content harder to get, even by people searching, is a form of exclusion.
I don't know or care about Zino, I frankly, shouldn't have to, and do not think it can be as good as a native reader application taylored to the publication. Apple sells their product as a reading device, and they provide the app store for the purpose of obtaining their content, so they should provide what's advertised.
No. An app for subscribers of the Android magazine was banned.
What you are trying to repeat is essentially the already discredited argument that banning the app doesn't ban the content.
This is the same as the argument that banning the Google Voice app doesn't effect users, because they can just load the web page up in Safari, and Google can write their extension in HTML, instead of tayloring and optimizing a native application to run the UI consistently, fast, convenient, and providing the seamless experience expected by iOS users.
In case you haven't noticed, the iOS content model is an app per publication, and multiple apps per publisher, for example Twitter has an App, Facebook has an App, ESPN Magazine has an app, the New York Times has an App, CNN has an App, WIRED Magazine has an App, IETF has an App, SIGGRAPH has an App, Cisco has a news app, iCreate has an App, Vanity Fair has an app, Glamour Magazine has an app, MacUser has an app, Slate has an app, there are hundreds of apps that are just books about Microsoft Windows.
Tech talk and Technews also appear to have apps, though for some reason, Slashdot doesn't seem to.
By all rights Twitter and Facebook apps should be banned next, because they compete with Ping.
What would you think of that?:)
Your reply is equivalent to arguing that people should be able to leave their houses completely open and unlocked, because it's wrong to steal.
No.. my argument is lock manufacturers should not have to drop some master keying system, just because the local hardware store might make an unauthorized modification to the lock (in the form of keying everyone's lock so the hardware company has a master key that opens all locks).
No... my argument is equivalent to stating that door lock manufacturers should not be forced to stop making thumbturn locks.
Since thumbturn locks can be circumvented by door manufacturers who could include an unauthorized addon to the lockset in the form of an additional hole bored in the door that cannot be secured.
Resulting in easy bypass of the lock, unless there are keyholes on both sides of the door (no thumbturns)
I hate to break it to you, but there are worse people than Microsoft, Google, and Apple out there.
Yes, there are. And those people couldn't care two cents about the ability to add extensions to Firefox.
They think in broader terms... capture account information from the computer.
Hint: keylogger.
Hint: COM Objects
Hint: Internet Explorer Hacks
Hint: Forcing user to use whatever browser the malware author wants
Hint: Modifying firefox itself in.EXE or in memory, without the need to use any bloody "addon libraries" the browser has control to approve or that Mozilla could add to the blacklist.
Yes. The other intriguing thing is you can buy a Nook directly from Amazon's website.
And Barnes and Nobles has books about Amazon.com for sale.
Not that I am claiming Amazon, B-N, and WM are Model citizens, but they do prove taking underhanded jabs against your "competitors" are not necessary to sell your products.
Besides, there's nothing mutually exclusive about Android/Apple.
Many people could have good reasons to own different types of devices running both platforms.
Reason: They are biased. Apple censors / reject publications that Apple does not like, publications that assist developers and users who need to work on competing platforms,.
Any publications that promote or discuss platforms Apple believes are the competition
I am relieved, thank you Apple for making my decision for eBook reader an easy one.
I now know that iPad is a bad choice
I'm sorry - but do we now insist that WalMart have Best Buy employees in their store? Maybe we should make Borders put up an Amazon order kiosk?
No, well, this equivalent to Amazon refusing to sell books about Barnes and Nobles, like this one.
If someone writes a book about Barnes and Noble; you can be sure Amazon will carry it, or if they don't, the reason they won't is not because it's a book about the competition.
Android is the one real competitor to Apple's iPhone product, so apple is taking on this anticompetitive behavior, by removing information about competitors from the market.
This would be like Google censoring search keywords like Bing and Yahoo.
IMNSHO, the FTC should take severe punitive action against Apple for this.
Mozilla needs to add a global configuration directive which must be set to enable plugins through any method other than XPInstall.
That would take care of home users, who don't need to deploy plugins "globally".
Quick plugin deployment is a developer / sysadmin feature.
Unless enabled, the user when they start the browser should be prompted one time to approve/reject each new plugin found in the directory.
A Mozilla whitelist/blacklist should be checked before prompting.
And a list of plugins approved/disapproved should be part of the encrypted portion of each user profile.
Unauthorized deployments of plugins by OS vendors (instead of sysadmins), unless they use an approved mechanism
to offer the user "approval based" activation of plugins, should result in blacklisting.
Mozilla is Open source, but that means YOU can modify your browser.
Not, Everyone from the OS vendor on down to the PC manufacturer is allowed to do whatever extensions they want to your browser
Because they shouldn't have to?
Due to understood ownership of the application's own files by that application and the system admin?
Apple, Google, Microsoft should list their plugins in the Addons directory, just like everyone else has to.
If they think users will strongly benefit from a plugin and want to make things easy, they should at least prompt first, before messing with a different application's files.
Because the functionality Microsoft/Google/Apple are abusing is important useful functionality for system administrators to deploy plugins system-wide or network-wide.
Or install a plugin once globally, without each user needing to maintain and update their own copy of every popular plugin that is needed.
Just because Microsoft has no business using this functionality as an underhanded way to try to hoc their own plugins does not mean the easy deployment of browser
with plugins pre-loaded should not be allowed.
Regardless of what you install there's no guaranteed way to stop your kid from stumbling upon boobs on the internet. Plus who's to say it's something to worry about at all. They certainly didn't traumatize me.
It occurs the gender and personality of the child matters. If the 4 year old is a girl... stumbling upon boobs might be even less a thing to be concerned about.
Some renditions of the female breasts are artistic, and shouldn't be kept hidden from children of either gender anyways.
It's obscene stuff that should be avoided, and mandating use of Google search with Safe Search enabled and Safe Search locked with a permanent non-expiring cookie setup can go a long way.
Perhaps parental supervision and limited/zero internet access allowed when parent not present is a better defense than any 'web filtering' program that won't protect against chat rooms where creative code languages are used.
As for software... children find the most use of games, I think. Most "educational" games suck.
Most of the decent ones are ancient Apple II games, I think.
Look for real time strategy games, and puzzle games like Tetris that require fast thinking and are accessible to almost anyone.
And of course single-player RPGs are a great idea, some text being involved can be an encouragement for the child to learn to read faster, no addictive MMOG stuff.
Reading the description of the forms
offered for sale here
He does some CYA, it states, No warranty is made as to the content of these documents.
Graham W. Syfert is not acting as your attorney.
;
Pursuant to rules of ethics, no assistance can be given in filling out these forms, unless a separate contract with the signature of an
attorney and the client exists.
WARNING - LEGAL FORMS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE EXPERIENCE AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL
Purchase of these forms is not intended to create an attorney client
relationship, and by using these forms, no attorney-client relationship
will be formed. Instead, you are representing yourself in any legal
matter you undertake through these forms.
Slashdot Mirror
These things have been available for years.
Hence the need for the patent. To prevent copycats, or litigate / force them into paying royalties if there are already copycats.
Jail for what? Guess what: US law doesn't apply worldwide! Incredible, I know!
International treaties say otherwise.
And US law was violated by people in the United States, who were aided and abeted by Assage.
Assange is out of control. Wikileaks needs to oust him and go back to their original mission, of actually being a whistleblower, rather than just leaking things and hurting national and global security.
Julian Assange should go to jail for a very long time.
They're getting very well paid, on both sides of the case.
Indeed... in a way, chances are, they have already won.
Of course, the longer they can drag this case out, the more earnings they (and their pals representing the opposition) will make.
violation of their NDA?
Usually NDAs prevent disclosure of information revealed to them.
NDAs don't prevent someone from implementing a technology.
They probably would not have made Microsoft sign an agreement stating they wouldn't implement the very thing they were trying to sell to Microsoft so they could implement
They have patents and copyrights for their software, which Microsoft as a company who relies on patents and copyrights should respect.
Can't they sue Microsoft on other grounds, such as breach of trust or violation of their NDA?
Maybe. I assume their lawyers advised them to pursue the complaints most likely to succeed that would pay the highest damages.
It is possible there was no NDA if they were relying on their patent protection. 'Breach of trust' whatever that means could be harder to establish in a court of law
'It would be like forcing car manufacturers to take responsibility for bad drivers.'"
No. it would be like making the DMV take responsibility for bad drivers on the highway, because the DMV issues the papers required for drivers to use the road.
The thing comparable "forcing car manufacturers to take responsibility", would be trying to force Dell, HP to take responsibility.
It should probably be noted that car manufacturers can be responsible for drivers going around in defective cars that have a high tendency to malfunction causing an accident unless the driver is an expert professional driver.
So it could make sense to hold Microsoft responsible for an OS with a horrible security record
So Canadian Court says pay money, so you go above them to the US Supreme Court, aka, Court of the World?
The Company and its people are Canadian, but i4i came to the US to sue Microsoft in the US District court of Eastern Texas.
Note, this is one of those cases of true alleged evil.
i4i is not a patent troll. They developed software. They showed Microsoft the software, in the hopes of Microsoft licensing it.
Microsoft reviewed the technology, apparently decided to not license it / not incorporate the technology.
The next version of Word included Microsoft's own copycat implementation of exactly the technology. And came to the market competing against i4i's product instead of properly licensing i4i's product.
IOW, this is not a bunk "obvious method" software patent. This is exactly the type of things patents are designed to prevent.
Wholesale stealing of a significant invention.
And the allegation of willful infringement appeared to be a reasonable allegation for i4i to make.
I normally go against software patents, but only because often the things that are patented are not inventions, or attempts are made to apply the patent to things simpler or more fundamental than the invention.
In this case, however, I would not object to i4i enforcing this patent and that succeeding
If you can't stand either MS or patents, who do you root for here?"
The only side certain to win this.
You can hope the patent and patents like it get invalidated, by the way. The patent can get invalidated with Microsoft still being liable.
There are outcomes that satisfy anyone, unless you hate lawyers and multi-million dollar settlements with big corporations too, in which case, you are boned.
If each of them buys the apple.com name in a different root, which one's "right"
We just need a 'mutual exclusion' policy.
An agreement between the 'roots' to publish a list of active registered domains and check the other roots' list of domains when any registration is requested.
And deny new registration requests if the domain is already in a list.
Good luck convincing the existing gTLD operators to go along with that.
Alternatively your "alternate .COM registry" could have a policy of paying an ICANN registrar to register the domain, and requiring that registration go through, before your alternate root will register the domain.
their refusal too cooperate with domain owners who want to reliable provide reverse DNS
What the heck are you talking about? What is your beef with their reverse DNS handling?
This is a IANA / RIR function, and I have never seen any issues or mishandling of RDNS by the registry.
And why didn't ICANN start the process of "firing" VeriSign immediately after the incident?
That was what was going to happen. Instead, something very strange happened. The final outcome was that ICANN SETTLED with VeriSign. But this was kind of like the Google books settlement, in that the settlement was EXTREMELY FAVORABLE to VeriSign.
Prior to this settlement, the .COM / .NET registry was a FOR BID contract that would come up for bidding and renewal every 6 years.
The registry price was capped at $6 per domain per year under the contract at the time.
In the settlement ICANN agreed to guarantee to renew their contract at the end of the term, unless it is proven that VeriSign substantially breaches the new contract, they have the contract perpetually. [paraphrasing], "For the sake of Internet stability" (as ICANN people put it)
The settlement from the SECSAC process also Gave NSOL the right to raise prices. The settlement gave them the right to raise prices 7% 4 out of 6 years of every contract term after 2007, with no cost justification needed.
The VeriSign/Network Solutions Internic can raise prices all 6 years of the contract term, if they provide a cost justification for 2 of those years. In 2010 they raised prices for .COM and .NET domains, and publicly someone indicated a cost justification of "Increased number of DNS lookups being performed" (against .COM and .NET registry servers)
I think 5 years from now, .COM and .NET TLDs will be prices by the registry at
approximately $12 instead of approximately $8.
We can look forward to paying $100 per year to the cheapest registries to renew .COMs, within this decade or the next,
just like it used to be before competitive registrars.
Oh right... "competitive registrars" doesn't matter much, when there is a for-profit global registry everyone has to pay who has a guaranteed right to raise prices, and a guaranteed right to not get fired, because a legal settlement means ICANN legally cannot bring the contract up for bid, unless NSol screws up.
If redirecting NXDOMAIN to partnered search results pages and killing a bunch of anti-spam scripts
You mean an anti-spam technique (of fairly limited effectiveness) of reverse path validation, through making extra domain lookups for the forward DNS hostname of the Return Envelope, not called for by the SMTP RFCs, which also place extra (unwanted) load on DNS servers?
Please don't confuse ICANN with Network Solutions / Verisign (Sitefinder). By the way, the SiteFinder Fiasco you refer to ended when ICANN was going to file a lawsuit Network Solutions over "sitefinder" and reached a settlement. Settlement: ICANN agreed to discontinue the sitefinder service / stop wildcard resolving immediately, and will seek permission under ICANN rules before introducing any new service such as that. .COM / .NET TLDs was changed so ICANN guarantees to renew the contract perpetually at the end of every contract term (Unless there is a proven breach),
AND, also, the settlement gave Network Solutions a right to increase prices 7%
every 4 out of the 6 years of every contract term after 2007, with no justification.
But, in Exchange, as part of this settlement, NSol's contract to be operator for the
NSol can increase prices in 6 out of 6 years, if a cost justification is given in 2 of those years.
Note that back in 2007, .NET and .COM prices were capped by the registry at $6.
Today they are approximately $8. Domain prices per-domain are getting more expensive,
and the stated justification is "higher volume of DNS queries", what do you think about that?
So the whole 'sitefinder thing' was a win win win for Network solutions, because ICANN essentially got themselves a free perpetual contract, which ICANN justifies on the basis of "A perpetual contract provides greater stability for the Internet"; neverminding the fact the contract becomes less favorable for the community every year NSol chooses to raise prices.
Still... things are "stable", and doesn't matter that much that NSol got rewarded for their attempted sitefinder moneygrab does it?
endorsing ridiculously stupid shit like .eco, .xxx, .jobs and .tel happen
Apparently it wasn't that 'stupid'... I mean, someone had to pay $50,000 just to apply, and put significant capital down to have a registry that would meet ICANN's minimal technical standards for a stable registry. The letters in the TLD are just one factor; the decision to 'add a TLD' or not are almost all about the technical aspects of a proposed TLD and how many sites and domain registrars are interested in the TLD.
complying with a Department of Homeland Security request to remove a bunch of domains that contained material that infringes copyright should be the nail in the coffin for the useless stuffed shirts at ICANN.
ICANN just defines the rules and contracts the registry services, I believe you are again blaming ICANN for an individual registrar and US government thing
ICANN is really a perfect example of where a bunch of wise-beard Unix hacker types could do a better job than the corporate whores currently doing it could. Or better yet, a proper distributed alternative to DNS.
Now there's something we can agree on. Unix hacker types could do better, if only they could get the financing, and backing from the corporate types.
It would probably be good enough though to have an association serving a different group of corporate whores.... for example, ISPs instead of the WIPO, RIAA, registrar, pro-squatter , and pro-advertising/pro-marketing folks.
Your conclusion is wrong. An app that had the sole purpose of advertising the Android platform was banned.
This is just the argument that "because users have access to a web browser, or can download a PDF on their computer and upload it to the iPad for manual viewing of a static PDF, no content is really censored" all over again. News flash, reducing the fidelity of the experience, removing the ability to have special enhancements/extensions that are only efficient when done natively, or making content harder to get, even by people searching, is a form of exclusion.
I don't know or care about Zino, I frankly, shouldn't have to, and do not think it can be as good as a native reader application taylored to the publication. Apple sells their product as a reading device, and they provide the app store for the purpose of obtaining their content, so they should provide what's advertised.
No. An app for subscribers of the Android magazine was banned.
What you are trying to repeat is essentially the already discredited argument that banning the app doesn't ban the content.
This is the same as the argument that banning the Google Voice app doesn't effect users, because they can just load the web page up in Safari, and Google can write their extension in HTML, instead of tayloring and optimizing a native application to run the UI consistently, fast, convenient, and providing the seamless experience expected by iOS users.
In case you haven't noticed, the iOS content model is an app per publication, and multiple apps per publisher, for example Twitter has an App, Facebook has an App, ESPN Magazine has an app, the New York Times has an App, CNN has an App, WIRED Magazine has an App, IETF has an App, SIGGRAPH has an App, Cisco has a news app, iCreate has an App, Vanity Fair has an app, Glamour Magazine has an app, MacUser has an app, Slate has an app, there are hundreds of apps that are just books about Microsoft Windows. Tech talk and Technews also appear to have apps, though for some reason, Slashdot doesn't seem to.
By all rights Twitter and Facebook apps should be banned next, because they compete with Ping. What would you think of that? :)
Your reply is equivalent to arguing that people should be able to leave their houses completely open and unlocked, because it's wrong to steal.
No.. my argument is lock manufacturers should not have to drop some master keying system, just because the local hardware store might make an unauthorized modification to the lock (in the form of keying everyone's lock so the hardware company has a master key that opens all locks).
No... my argument is equivalent to stating that door lock manufacturers should not be forced to stop making thumbturn locks.
Since thumbturn locks can be circumvented by door manufacturers who could include an unauthorized addon to the lockset in the form of an additional hole bored in the door that cannot be secured.
Resulting in easy bypass of the lock, unless there are keyholes on both sides of the door (no thumbturns)
I hate to break it to you, but there are worse people than Microsoft, Google, and Apple out there.
Yes, there are. And those people couldn't care two cents about the ability to add extensions to Firefox.
They think in broader terms... capture account information from the computer. Hint: keylogger. .EXE or in memory, without the need to use any bloody "addon libraries" the browser has control to approve or that Mozilla could add to the blacklist.
Hint: COM Objects
Hint: Internet Explorer Hacks
Hint: Forcing user to use whatever browser the malware author wants
Hint: Modifying firefox itself in
Yes. The other intriguing thing is you can buy a Nook directly from Amazon's website. And Barnes and Nobles has books about Amazon.com for sale.
Not that I am claiming Amazon, B-N, and WM are Model citizens, but they do prove taking underhanded jabs against your "competitors" are not necessary to sell your products.
Besides, there's nothing mutually exclusive about Android/Apple.
Many people could have good reasons to own different types of devices running both platforms.
iPAD is not an EBOOK / MAGAZINE READING PLATFORM
Reason: They are biased. Apple censors / reject publications that Apple does not like, publications that assist developers and users who need to work on competing platforms,.
Any publications that promote or discuss platforms Apple believes are the competition
I am relieved, thank you Apple for making my decision for eBook reader an easy one. I now know that iPad is a bad choice
I'm sorry - but do we now insist that WalMart have Best Buy employees in their store? Maybe we should make Borders put up an Amazon order kiosk?
No, well, this equivalent to Amazon refusing to sell books about Barnes and Nobles, like this one.
If someone writes a book about Barnes and Noble; you can be sure Amazon will carry it, or if they don't, the reason they won't is not because it's a book about the competition.
Android is the one real competitor to Apple's iPhone product, so apple is taking on this anticompetitive behavior, by removing information about competitors from the market.
This would be like Google censoring search keywords like Bing and Yahoo.
IMNSHO, the FTC should take severe punitive action against Apple for this.
Mozilla needs to add a global configuration directive which must be set to enable plugins through any method other than XPInstall. That would take care of home users, who don't need to deploy plugins "globally". Quick plugin deployment is a developer / sysadmin feature.
Unless enabled, the user when they start the browser should be prompted one time to approve/reject each new plugin found in the directory. A Mozilla whitelist/blacklist should be checked before prompting.
And a list of plugins approved/disapproved should be part of the encrypted portion of each user profile.
Unauthorized deployments of plugins by OS vendors (instead of sysadmins), unless they use an approved mechanism to offer the user "approval based" activation of plugins, should result in blacklisting.
Mozilla is Open source, but that means YOU can modify your browser. Not, Everyone from the OS vendor on down to the PC manufacturer is allowed to do whatever extensions they want to your browser
so why doesn't Mozilla simply make it impossible?
Because they shouldn't have to? Due to understood ownership of the application's own files by that application and the system admin?
Apple, Google, Microsoft should list their plugins in the Addons directory, just like everyone else has to. If they think users will strongly benefit from a plugin and want to make things easy, they should at least prompt first, before messing with a different application's files.
Because the functionality Microsoft/Google/Apple are abusing is important useful functionality for system administrators to deploy plugins system-wide or network-wide. Or install a plugin once globally, without each user needing to maintain and update their own copy of every popular plugin that is needed.
Just because Microsoft has no business using this functionality as an underhanded way to try to hoc their own plugins does not mean the easy deployment of browser with plugins pre-loaded should not be allowed.
You do know you can mail live bees?
Perfect... Warning: Fragile: Contains Live Bees.
Make sure your package contains some visible holes on the exterior, such as handle holes on the carton, air vents.
Regardless of what you install there's no guaranteed way to stop your kid from stumbling upon boobs on the internet. Plus who's to say it's something to worry about at all. They certainly didn't traumatize me.
It occurs the gender and personality of the child matters. If the 4 year old is a girl... stumbling upon boobs might be even less a thing to be concerned about. Some renditions of the female breasts are artistic, and shouldn't be kept hidden from children of either gender anyways. It's obscene stuff that should be avoided, and mandating use of Google search with Safe Search enabled and Safe Search locked with a permanent non-expiring cookie setup can go a long way.
Perhaps parental supervision and limited/zero internet access allowed when parent not present is a better defense than any 'web filtering' program that won't protect against chat rooms where creative code languages are used.
As for software... children find the most use of games, I think. Most "educational" games suck. Most of the decent ones are ancient Apple II games, I think.
Look for real time strategy games, and puzzle games like Tetris that require fast thinking and are accessible to almost anyone.
And of course single-player RPGs are a great idea, some text being involved can be an encouragement for the child to learn to read faster, no addictive MMOG stuff.
Reading the description of the forms offered for sale here
He does some CYA, it states, No warranty is made as to the content of these documents. Graham W. Syfert is not acting as your attorney. ; Pursuant to rules of ethics, no assistance can be given in filling out these forms, unless a separate contract with the signature of an attorney and the client exists.
WARNING - LEGAL FORMS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE EXPERIENCE AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL
Purchase of these forms is not intended to create an attorney client relationship, and by using these forms, no attorney-client relationship will be formed. Instead, you are representing yourself in any legal matter you undertake through these forms.