Doesn't help that the new tab page lives inside a protected "chrome://" namespace which extensions are almost entirely prevented from touching, and uses private APIs for things like showing the most used pages, meaning that anyone wanting to put it back how it was by writing an extension has to reimplement everything from scratch.
To protect their interest, they are trying to enforce laws that are currently being broken. Seems reasonable to me. Hopefully, this will deter the casual downloader who isn't particularly aware of the illegality of what they are doing.
It's a slippery slope though. How long before Ryan Giggs or someone like him demands that they block Twitter to protect his super injunction?
Disappointed that BT are rolling over on this. It's the thin end of the wedge, and once they make it known that they are willing to censor one site then every special interest group and their dog will be getting court orders to silence parts of the web they don't like - well in the UK at least.
the BBC isn't a public body in the sense that is, say, the British Army. The Army is funded by a general, compulsory taxes on income and other trade. The BBC is funded by a licence which you only need to pay if you choose to watch (possibly time-shifted) live broadcast television
A tax doesn't have to be universal, unless you're also going to argue that the tax on cigarettes and alcohol aren't really taxes because only smokers and drinkers pay them.
The licence fee is a compulsory tax on anyone who watches broadcast TV, whether or not they consume or even care about BBC services. Now I'm not saying that I don't enjoy BBC output, or even that I necessarily resent paying the licence fee, but please don't try to use weasel words and pretend it's something it isn't. It might be a special purpose tax and the money it generates might be ring fenced, but it's a tax and the BBC is a public body.
Look, we can all observe an assault undique to neuter and privatise the BBC.
We can? In case you hadn't noticed there's a recession on. Why should the BBC be exempt from making the same cost savings that all public bodies are having to make?
Furthermore, does anyone buy the argument about kids stumbling across pornography by accident? I've never seen teh boobies anywhere online except when I was looking for them.
To be honest I didn't even know they provided "contractual support" for OpenSolaris, but surely the fact that they won't support you in using it doesn't nesessarily imply that it's being canned. Maybe it'll just be an unsupported "unstable" version that you can play with before getting "real" Solaris.
the exact money figure is mostly a distraction from the issue. If he's done something *actually wrong*, then the fact that he can't pay the fine shouldn't mean that he gets off scot free.
No it should mean that the punishment reflects both the harm done and his ability to pay, unless you're saying that what he did really does merit the punishment of lifetime bankruptcy. It should cut the other way too: if he'd been rich he should have been fined more.
Microsoft may offer tools for volume license customers that prevent the Ballot Screen update from being installed on all computers covered by the license.
I'm still waiting for some confirmation on this. I do not want this thing appearing on my carefully locked down staff and lab desktops, which incidentally all use Firefox anyway in case you're thinking I'm an IE astroturfer.
Not that I ever used it to generate a completely new SID, but what I did find it invaluable for was to set a machine's SID back to its old value after a re-install. This did away with the need to change the ownership on all of the user's files still on the hard drive and meant that most of the time their user profile would just keep on working as if nothing had changed.
The browser ballot screen is a web page that will be shown to any European Windows user who has Internet Explorer set as their default browser. It will appear:
following a new installation of Windows 7 during the first automatic update
during a future automatic update of Vista and XP, and
whenever the user chooses to return to the web page.
...how and to what extent this "ballot screen" is going to be forced on people. I manage a lot of Windows computers at work and the last thing I want is an automatic update suddenly presenting my users with the invitation to choose a new browser, which they won't be able to take up anyway because they lack the administrative privileges to install one.
Here's hoping there's a quick and easy way to disable this with group policy or registry tweaks. What makes sense for Joe Sixpack or Granny Crabapple is not necessarily wanted in a corporate/managed environment.
Who gets to decide which browsers are included in this "ballot screen"? Based on what criteria?
If it's simply going to be the top 5 or whatever based on current market share then this is simply cementing the status quo rather than helping competition and innovation, and if any any every browser gets a look in then what's to stop SuperSpywareBrowser2009 from appearing in the choices?
What the fuck are you talking about? Solaris IS GPL.
Nope, OpenSolaris is released under the CDDL, a license similar to the Mozilla Public License and widely believed to have been deliberately selected for its incompatibility with the GPL.
Rogers, one of Canada's big ISPs, also chimed in and explained that new regulations might limit its ability to throttle P2P uploads
No. Net Neutrality ensures no discrimination based on traffic source or destination. This has nothing to do with Quality of Service filtering, which is discrimination based on traffic type. They can still throttle my P2P all they like, they just can't throttle my access to YouTube because YouTube didn't pony up some "high traffic site fee".
No it doesn't. If you install Vista with all the defaults then you are a member of the Administrators group. You still have to go out of your way if you want to start out with a plain old unprivileged user.
Anyway, Administrator accounts are the default and therefore what 99% of users are going to be using.
And only when Microsoft change this will Windows be half way towards being secure.
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Point is, managers manage people. You are there to code.. not them. The only technical details they need to do their job is: how long it will take, how many people can work on it efficiantly, what tasks are dependant on it, risks, and benifits.. and you are there to provide them with that info.
A manager who does not grasp at least the fundamentals of the job(s) that the people under him/her do may not believe or understand subordinates when they give estimates of time/manpower/risks/benefits/etc.
Someone who doesn't have a bit of knowledge of coding is more likely to say "yeah yeah, you can do that in half the time or I can hire this guy in India who says he can".
While not quite registry hacking, I'd say this isn't too far removed. Most non-technical users won't have heard of 'msconfig'. A well-written application should have the option to disable autostart/autoupdating amongst its normal configuration settings.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't help that the new tab page lives inside a protected "chrome://" namespace which extensions are almost entirely prevented from touching, and uses private APIs for things like showing the most used pages, meaning that anyone wanting to put it back how it was by writing an extension has to reimplement everything from scratch.
...and argue that it is, which a private individual rarely has the resources to do.
Got to love the legal system.
It's a slippery slope though. How long before Ryan Giggs or someone like him demands that they block Twitter to protect his super injunction?
Disappointed that BT are rolling over on this. It's the thin end of the wedge, and once they make it known that they are willing to censor one site then every special interest group and their dog will be getting court orders to silence parts of the web they don't like - well in the UK at least.
...we going to see an earthquate and tsunami in Germany to justify this fearmongering?
A tax doesn't have to be universal, unless you're also going to argue that the tax on cigarettes and alcohol aren't really taxes because only smokers and drinkers pay them. The licence fee is a compulsory tax on anyone who watches broadcast TV, whether or not they consume or even care about BBC services. Now I'm not saying that I don't enjoy BBC output, or even that I necessarily resent paying the licence fee, but please don't try to use weasel words and pretend it's something it isn't. It might be a special purpose tax and the money it generates might be ring fenced, but it's a tax and the BBC is a public body.
We can? In case you hadn't noticed there's a recession on. Why should the BBC be exempt from making the same cost savings that all public bodies are having to make?
Furthermore, does anyone buy the argument about kids stumbling across pornography by accident? I've never seen teh boobies anywhere online except when I was looking for them.
Choose your weapons!
To be honest I didn't even know they provided "contractual support" for OpenSolaris, but surely the fact that they won't support you in using it doesn't nesessarily imply that it's being canned. Maybe it'll just be an unsupported "unstable" version that you can play with before getting "real" Solaris.
Great... I can has cheap 3G data access now? Don't know what it's like in the US, but this side of the pond I'm looking at at least £1 per Mb.
No it should mean that the punishment reflects both the harm done and his ability to pay, unless you're saying that what he did really does merit the punishment of lifetime bankruptcy. It should cut the other way too: if he'd been rich he should have been fined more.
I'm still waiting for some confirmation on this. I do not want this thing appearing on my carefully locked down staff and lab desktops, which incidentally all use Firefox anyway in case you're thinking I'm an IE astroturfer.
Not that I ever used it to generate a completely new SID, but what I did find it invaluable for was to set a machine's SID back to its old value after a re-install. This did away with the need to change the ownership on all of the user's files still on the hard drive and meant that most of the time their user profile would just keep on working as if nothing had changed.
Well, according to what I read here:
...how and to what extent this "ballot screen" is going to be forced on people. I manage a lot of Windows computers at work and the last thing I want is an automatic update suddenly presenting my users with the invitation to choose a new browser, which they won't be able to take up anyway because they lack the administrative privileges to install one.
Here's hoping there's a quick and easy way to disable this with group policy or registry tweaks. What makes sense for Joe Sixpack or Granny Crabapple is not necessarily wanted in a corporate/managed environment.
So does that mean that if I break a web site's terms of service then my access is still 'authorized'? Authorized by whom?
Who gets to decide which browsers are included in this "ballot screen"? Based on what criteria?
If it's simply going to be the top 5 or whatever based on current market share then this is simply cementing the status quo rather than helping competition and innovation, and if any any every browser gets a look in then what's to stop SuperSpywareBrowser2009 from appearing in the choices?
Nope, OpenSolaris is released under the CDDL, a license similar to the Mozilla Public License and widely believed to have been deliberately selected for its incompatibility with the GPL.
No. Net Neutrality ensures no discrimination based on traffic source or destination. This has nothing to do with Quality of Service filtering, which is discrimination based on traffic type. They can still throttle my P2P all they like, they just can't throttle my access to YouTube because YouTube didn't pony up some "high traffic site fee".
No it doesn't. If you install Vista with all the defaults then you are a member of the Administrators group. You still have to go out of your way if you want to start out with a plain old unprivileged user.
And only when Microsoft change this will Windows be half way towards being secure.
A manager who does not grasp at least the fundamentals of the job(s) that the people under him/her do may not believe or understand subordinates when they give estimates of time/manpower/risks/benefits/etc.
Someone who doesn't have a bit of knowledge of coding is more likely to say "yeah yeah, you can do that in half the time or I can hire this guy in India who says he can".
While not quite registry hacking, I'd say this isn't too far removed. Most non-technical users won't have heard of 'msconfig'. A well-written application should have the option to disable autostart/autoupdating amongst its normal configuration settings.
Oh really?