You are assuming that because it is from Microsoft, it must be very bad at preventing infections while giving other browsers the benefit of the doubt. It is a completely biased accusation made off baseless assumptions.
The type of content that were blocked were social engineering attacks where you are equally vulnerable on all browsers. Chrome or Firefox is not going to prevent a user from downloading FreeRingtones.exe and infect their computer with malware.
If Google Chrome was found to be the best at blocking malicious content, no one would doubt this study.
There is no reason why Microsoft can't have the safest browser on the market. If the Microsoft was smart, they would invest heavily in security to undo the years of damage IE6 caused to its reputation.
This still could be a flawed study, but people shouldn't be so quick to judge just because Microsoft is the winner.
Florian Mueller is an expert analysts when it comes to software intellectual property and he is not giving out specific legal advice in the article. He is just there to provide some context of what the decision means to the industry, an area where he specializes in.
I switched from Firefox to Chrome because Firefox became too bloated and slow. This was long before Firefox updated its UI.
I switched back from Chrome to Firefox recently because the recent updates gave the browser a modern update while fixing the many memory and performance issues.
It is mostly patents. First, Motorola has a better patent portfolio than Nortel.
Motorola is also a functioning company that can make profits. If you think that value of Motorola future cell phone business without its patents is $6 billion then the costs of the patent portfolio to Google is *only* $6.5 billion. If Google wanted to, they can sell the Motorola division off which they wouldn't be able to do with Nortel.
Try telling customers to develop unique passwords with special characters for every website they have an account with. They might care about security, but they care more about remembering their passwords so that they can log in.
The company that is focuses too much security is going to get fired for being behind schedule and making them lose money.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
The majority of childhood leukemia is cured by using chemotherapy alone. Chemotherapy is an effective treatment for the majority of cancers but it doesn't mean that it will cure all types of cancer. There are many types of cancer and each one has its specialized treatment with varying degrees of success.
This new treatment has the potential to help cure more people with more cancer, but it is extremely unlikely that it can be a universal cancer cure all.
Facebook would not be where it is today if people chose names like sexykitteh69 or RedskinsFan420.
Besides making it easier to find people you know, using a real name makes the site look more professional. If you want to hide your identity, use a fake name that sounds real so it gives the appearance that everyone uses their real name. Obviously fake names cheapen the site.
If you give out Linux, most people will think it is an inferior product because they don't know how to use it and they won't be able to install their preferred software. Chances are that they will use the computer less and end up just wanting to get something with Windows just like their friends and school have.
The only justification for using a Linux distribution if the kids are interested in learning IT or that you are willing to provide support to teach them how to use the new OS.
Ideas are cheap. It is the implementation of the idea that is so difficult.
There were natural barriers to entry into the industry which gave Apple a big advantage for 2 to 3 years. Developing a mobile OS that can compete with iOS is not easy to do and not cheap. Apple was able to crush the competition because it executed their platform better than anyone else without the need for patents.
It wasn't until Google and Microsoft finally came out with products that were in comparable quality to the iPhone that Apple started to get sue happy. Instead of out innovating the competition like in the past, they are just using the legal system to give themselves a competitive advantage while hurting innovation in the industry.
What evidence do you have that it doesn't result in less copying?
At least companies like Ubisoft can get more accurate number in regards to sales and pirated copies that it can use for its analysis. Maybe they are making faulty judgments, but the company wouldn't be reimplementing their DRM again if it was a total failure in the past.
The whole basis of the argument is that online only DRM take longer to crack, extending the window which the company can sell its game without being undercut by pirated versions. If they do a poor job implementing it, it could be crack in a day and create a lot of negative publicity with nothing to gain. If they devise a system that takes months to crack, then it could be worth the effort.
Previous DRM was consumer friendly but was largely ineffective at preventing piracy, which is why companies have resulted in taking more extreme DRM measures.
As Internet connections are becoming faster and more reliable and Ubisoft works out the bugs, less PC users will notice less and less of the DRM. The average Joe Gamer is probably just going to get the console version anyways so the effects on that demographic could be overstated.
There are obvious risks of negative PR and pissing off legitimate customers but Ubisoft is betting that the decrease in piracy would result in higher sales which could offset the effects. Only time will tell if they made the correct decision or not.
There will always be people out there that want it for free. Even if the price is reasonable they still want it for free. Those people are not your customers and they never will be. It's good to see that a lot of people are voting with their wallets here. Always on drm wouldn't be as big a deal if it's an online game but it still degrades your computer's performance.
Most people will want it for free. It is basic economics.
The DRM is targeted towards people who want the game for free, but will are willing to pay for it if there is no free option.
Right - to elaborate, some of the volunteer-tourism folks will, say, go over to Africa and do some carpentry work for free. Great, other than you've just put a local carpenter out of business because he can't compete with your free labor.
The tourist can't compete with $2 a day labor. Africans who have the money will hire an African.
Going over to Africa and volunteering your time that way is an inefficient use resources but does not harm the local economy. You are building projects that would never have been created without your resources instead of competing with the local labor market.
If you can't get a job with a Bachelor's degree, I don't see how spending two additional years at school will add value over someone with two years of real world experience.
ISPs and the MPAA's goal is not to be the biggest dick possible. Their goal is to make money. Record companies thought they could make more money issuing DRM with their CDs and MP3s to prevent piracy, but it backfired so now they sell DRM free MP3s and CDs.
Whatever system that is implemented will have a balance between preventing piracy while not pissing off its customers. If they make the policy too strict, then they will lose customers and lose money. Their anti-piracy policy is purposely lax to prevent most of these issues. It won't prevent all piracy, but it could be a deterrent to causal piracy which could translate in better movie/record sales, while not pissing off their ISP subscribers.
No, it isn't. First, they would have no "evidence", only the word of somebody in the "content industry", so it's hearsay at best. From past court cases, we have seen the quality of THEIR "evidence". And to say it tends to be weak is a gross understatement.
If the evidence is faulty then you can sue them over it and can possibly win in court. The ISP's will get a lot of negative publicity and customers will switch to a competitor who doesn't cut them off for no reason. Problem solved.
Precisely while freedom-lovers are pushing everybody to open their wi-fi, so that more people will have internet access. The thing is: network security is great, if you want it. But I am not legally required to "secure" my wifi. And I have some very strong reasons for not wanting to. Perfectly legal, ethical reasons.
You can let the public use your property for free, but if people start doing illegal things on it, then you can be held liable. Even if there was people are accessing your Internet to do criminal activities, you have 6 notifications that it is being done and you need to secure your internet before any action is taken.
Why would it be illegal? The analogy is more like a utility company shutting off your electricity because they have evidence of you growing marijuana indoors illegally.
The only way people will win a successful suit is that if they were a false positive. Trying to sue when you are actually committing copyright infringement will make you an easy target for the MPAA/RIAA.
If you claim that your neighbors are stealing your Wi-Fi and downloading illegal content, then the education will probably focus mostly on securing your network better, which isn't necessary a bad thing.
ISP's won't let the MPAA or RIAA abuse their customers. The ISP's will have discretion on how to enforce these copyright claims and won't do anything that will cause them to lose significant profits. If the MPAA abuses its power, the ISP will ignore the request because the agreement is voluntary.
Instead of defending the trademark, the lawyer is promoting the virtues of Bitcoin. He is probably just trying to generate publicity to pump up the price of Bitcoins that his wife is selling. I doubt the lawyer is stupid enough to think he can be successful trademark Bitcoin.
I bet the average Linux user cares about a video card more than the average Windows user. Although companies will promote Windows usage the most, offering Linux support can be profitable for the companies because of increase sales and positive PR with the open source community.
Slashdot Mirror
You are assuming that because it is from Microsoft, it must be very bad at preventing infections while giving other browsers the benefit of the doubt. It is a completely biased accusation made off baseless assumptions.
The type of content that were blocked were social engineering attacks where you are equally vulnerable on all browsers. Chrome or Firefox is not going to prevent a user from downloading FreeRingtones.exe and infect their computer with malware.
If Google Chrome was found to be the best at blocking malicious content, no one would doubt this study.
There is no reason why Microsoft can't have the safest browser on the market. If the Microsoft was smart, they would invest heavily in security to undo the years of damage IE6 caused to its reputation.
This still could be a flawed study, but people shouldn't be so quick to judge just because Microsoft is the winner.
Florian Mueller is an expert analysts when it comes to software intellectual property and he is not giving out specific legal advice in the article. He is just there to provide some context of what the decision means to the industry, an area where he specializes in.
I switched from Firefox to Chrome because Firefox became too bloated and slow. This was long before Firefox updated its UI.
I switched back from Chrome to Firefox recently because the recent updates gave the browser a modern update while fixing the many memory and performance issues.
Chrome is taking away Firefox's market share so Mozilla does have something to prove if they don't want to be the next Internet Explorer.
I bet 90% of the users don't care about the version number. They just want something that works.
If Firefox is updated automatically, then from the user perspective, a new version is no different than a new version of Facebook of Gmail.
It is mostly patents. First, Motorola has a better patent portfolio than Nortel.
Motorola is also a functioning company that can make profits. If you think that value of Motorola future cell phone business without its patents is $6 billion then the costs of the patent portfolio to Google is *only* $6.5 billion. If Google wanted to, they can sell the Motorola division off which they wouldn't be able to do with Nortel.
Try telling customers to develop unique passwords with special characters for every website they have an account with. They might care about security, but they care more about remembering their passwords so that they can log in.
Security is only one element of a quality product. Adding a new feature or improving ease can increase a products quality at the expense of security.
The company that is focuses too much security is going to get fired for being behind schedule and making them lose money.
The majority of childhood leukemia is cured by using chemotherapy alone. Chemotherapy is an effective treatment for the majority of cancers but it doesn't mean that it will cure all types of cancer. There are many types of cancer and each one has its specialized treatment with varying degrees of success.
This new treatment has the potential to help cure more people with more cancer, but it is extremely unlikely that it can be a universal cancer cure all.
Facebook would not be where it is today if people chose names like sexykitteh69 or RedskinsFan420.
Besides making it easier to find people you know, using a real name makes the site look more professional. If you want to hide your identity, use a fake name that sounds real so it gives the appearance that everyone uses their real name. Obviously fake names cheapen the site.
If you give out Linux, most people will think it is an inferior product because they don't know how to use it and they won't be able to install their preferred software. Chances are that they will use the computer less and end up just wanting to get something with Windows just like their friends and school have.
The only justification for using a Linux distribution if the kids are interested in learning IT or that you are willing to provide support to teach them how to use the new OS.
Ideas are cheap. It is the implementation of the idea that is so difficult.
There were natural barriers to entry into the industry which gave Apple a big advantage for 2 to 3 years. Developing a mobile OS that can compete with iOS is not easy to do and not cheap. Apple was able to crush the competition because it executed their platform better than anyone else without the need for patents.
It wasn't until Google and Microsoft finally came out with products that were in comparable quality to the iPhone that Apple started to get sue happy. Instead of out innovating the competition like in the past, they are just using the legal system to give themselves a competitive advantage while hurting innovation in the industry.
What evidence do you have that it doesn't result in less copying?
At least companies like Ubisoft can get more accurate number in regards to sales and pirated copies that it can use for its analysis. Maybe they are making faulty judgments, but the company wouldn't be reimplementing their DRM again if it was a total failure in the past.
The whole basis of the argument is that online only DRM take longer to crack, extending the window which the company can sell its game without being undercut by pirated versions. If they do a poor job implementing it, it could be crack in a day and create a lot of negative publicity with nothing to gain. If they devise a system that takes months to crack, then it could be worth the effort.
Previous DRM was consumer friendly but was largely ineffective at preventing piracy, which is why companies have resulted in taking more extreme DRM measures.
As Internet connections are becoming faster and more reliable and Ubisoft works out the bugs, less PC users will notice less and less of the DRM. The average Joe Gamer is probably just going to get the console version anyways so the effects on that demographic could be overstated.
There are obvious risks of negative PR and pissing off legitimate customers but Ubisoft is betting that the decrease in piracy would result in higher sales which could offset the effects. Only time will tell if they made the correct decision or not.
There will always be people out there that want it for free. Even if the price is reasonable they still want it for free. Those people are not your customers and they never will be. It's good to see that a lot of people are voting with their wallets here. Always on drm wouldn't be as big a deal if it's an online game but it still degrades your computer's performance.
Most people will want it for free. It is basic economics.
The DRM is targeted towards people who want the game for free, but will are willing to pay for it if there is no free option.
Right - to elaborate, some of the volunteer-tourism folks will, say, go over to Africa and do some carpentry work for free. Great, other than you've just put a local carpenter out of business because he can't compete with your free labor.
The tourist can't compete with $2 a day labor. Africans who have the money will hire an African.
Going over to Africa and volunteering your time that way is an inefficient use resources but does not harm the local economy. You are building projects that would never have been created without your resources instead of competing with the local labor market.
If you can't get a job with a Bachelor's degree, I don't see how spending two additional years at school will add value over someone with two years of real world experience.
ISPs and the MPAA's goal is not to be the biggest dick possible. Their goal is to make money. Record companies thought they could make more money issuing DRM with their CDs and MP3s to prevent piracy, but it backfired so now they sell DRM free MP3s and CDs.
Whatever system that is implemented will have a balance between preventing piracy while not pissing off its customers. If they make the policy too strict, then they will lose customers and lose money. Their anti-piracy policy is purposely lax to prevent most of these issues. It won't prevent all piracy, but it could be a deterrent to causal piracy which could translate in better movie/record sales, while not pissing off their ISP subscribers.
No, it isn't. First, they would have no "evidence", only the word of somebody in the "content industry", so it's hearsay at best. From past court cases, we have seen the quality of THEIR "evidence". And to say it tends to be weak is a gross understatement.
If the evidence is faulty then you can sue them over it and can possibly win in court. The ISP's will get a lot of negative publicity and customers will switch to a competitor who doesn't cut them off for no reason. Problem solved.
Precisely while freedom-lovers are pushing everybody to open their wi-fi, so that more people will have internet access. The thing is: network security is great, if you want it. But I am not legally required to "secure" my wifi. And I have some very strong reasons for not wanting to. Perfectly legal, ethical reasons.
You can let the public use your property for free, but if people start doing illegal things on it, then you can be held liable. Even if there was people are accessing your Internet to do criminal activities, you have 6 notifications that it is being done and you need to secure your internet before any action is taken.
Why would it be illegal? The analogy is more like a utility company shutting off your electricity because they have evidence of you growing marijuana indoors illegally.
The only way people will win a successful suit is that if they were a false positive. Trying to sue when you are actually committing copyright infringement will make you an easy target for the MPAA/RIAA.
If you claim that your neighbors are stealing your Wi-Fi and downloading illegal content, then the education will probably focus mostly on securing your network better, which isn't necessary a bad thing.
ISP's won't let the MPAA or RIAA abuse their customers. The ISP's will have discretion on how to enforce these copyright claims and won't do anything that will cause them to lose significant profits. If the MPAA abuses its power, the ISP will ignore the request because the agreement is voluntary.
Instead of defending the trademark, the lawyer is promoting the virtues of Bitcoin. He is probably just trying to generate publicity to pump up the price of Bitcoins that his wife is selling. I doubt the lawyer is stupid enough to think he can be successful trademark Bitcoin.
I bet the average Linux user cares about a video card more than the average Windows user. Although companies will promote Windows usage the most, offering Linux support can be profitable for the companies because of increase sales and positive PR with the open source community.