You don't need cookies to make a fully functioning web site.
How do you link a cart with an HTTP request then? And please, no url rewriting nonsense that blows caches away and exposes your security policy to every website you link to with the referer field.
I don't know which world you live in, but in mine, 99+% of the hits on my webserver have a referer. And I am pretty sure less than 1% is bogus, because it all matches stuff that makes sense. For instance, if I let a link to my website in a forum, I suddenly see many referers from this forum.
It's more about "user experience" than anything else. They don't want to allow OSX to run on anything other than their hardware, because some cheap chipset might make the whole thing malfunction and users would be fast to blame apple for a bad product... Even though it would be the user at fault for not respecting the hardware specifications...
That's a policy that have been enforcing for a long time now.
The admin interface is not supposed to be open from the internet. You can configure it that way, but out of the box the admin interface is only accessible from your LAN.
At some point, you have to trust that your users aren't morons.
They may not be morons, but they sure are highly unqualified for "administering the phone in the first place" as you put it. Hence, giving them a root access is letting them walk into a minefield.
Nope. Culture, information, we should never approve of shackles on these things. We should reject claims of ownership of ideas or data.
Overgeneralization maybe. Your words got carried away I presume. But I guess we can't hold you responsible for it since you should reject claim of ownership on your own words.
My point still stand. When a coal plant blows up, accidentally or intentionally, it does far less damage than a nuclear plant. The fact that it didn't blow up accidentally isn't really relevant here. It blew up.
Apart from being pathetically ridiculous, this clearly shows how the top management at AT&T thinks backwards. Instead of trying to provide a better service for their customers, since there is a strong demand, they just try to avoid having to face the demand. Wow...
Let's hope that the FCC will not be influenced by this.
Mobile providers are an area where free market is rarely seen thriving, since it is so expensive to deploy a decent infrastructure. This is not to say that they could not be competitive, but just that the money involved to invest in a more robust infrastructure is so high that they prefer pocketing the benefits and restricting the service provided.
Right on spot. But now there's one more reason to switch to OO.org! Who wants to see blinking flashing ads while composing a document?
No matter what they do, they always end up helping the competition every time they try to compete with it. They are really ridiculous in this matter. The only thing they know how to do is to market their crap using their already established monopolies as a leverage tool.
Well, one would think the DMCA gave the site owner the right to get proof thet the plaintiff is the actual copyright holder before doing anything. I don't think the DMCA is the problem here.
That said, you get a point in that any other website would do the same. And it's a problem between these sites and the contents publishers.
I remember a story in europe where a magazine did get free blog hosting from ~40 providers. They published a novel by Victor Hugo - ie: In the public domain for centuries. There was a note at the bottom of the page stating this.
Then they contacted formally all of the hosting companies demanding that the BLOG be shut off because it infringed their copyright. The results: 1 hosting company did its job, read the copyright notice, double checked the fact and sent an email back saying it was bullsh*t. 7 did ask for more proof, the rest did just shut the blog down, no questions asked.
That said, if MySpace decides to remove content every time a party comes and claim copyright to the content, it's a MySpace problem, nothing more.
We all know the Majors care about their artists, not THE artists, and only because it makes money. They don't give a rat's *ss about art, music or any concept like this. They care about their wallet, art and artists be damned.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need cookies to make a fully functioning web site.
How do you link a cart with an HTTP request then? And please, no url rewriting nonsense that blows caches away and exposes your security policy to every website you link to with the referer field.
I don't know which world you live in, but in mine, 99+% of the hits on my webserver have a referer. And I am pretty sure less than 1% is bogus, because it all matches stuff that makes sense. For instance, if I let a link to my website in a forum, I suddenly see many referers from this forum.
Probably a troll anyways.
What you are suggesting is enormously complicated. You're suggesting that every single time a user clicks a link they have a Get/Post
It is already the case. It's how http works.
Who defended Apple exactly? I was just stating their position.
Not reading the story, it's OK. Not reading the summary, we're getting used to it. But the comment you reply to? Come on....
As you put it, it's embarrassing.
It's more about "user experience" than anything else. They don't want to allow OSX to run on anything other than their hardware, because some cheap chipset might make the whole thing malfunction and users would be fast to blame apple for a bad product... Even though it would be the user at fault for not respecting the hardware specifications...
That's a policy that have been enforcing for a long time now.
The admin interface is not supposed to be open from the internet. You can configure it that way, but out of the box the admin interface is only accessible from your LAN.
That's for Linksys routers at least.
At some point, you have to trust that your users aren't morons.
They may not be morons, but they sure are highly unqualified for "administering the phone in the first place" as you put it. Hence, giving them a root access is letting them walk into a minefield.
But by default your router doesn't take connections from the internet.
Nope. Culture, information, we should never approve of shackles on these things. We should reject claims of ownership of ideas or data.
Overgeneralization maybe. Your words got carried away I presume. But I guess we can't hold you responsible for it since you should reject claim of ownership on your own words.
Soon they will patent greed.
What !!!! It's not patented yet !??!
Off I go...
Once the iPhones will have all flown away, Nokia will be left with noone to sue !!!
I recently flew from LA to Fiji. On the way forward, you land two days after departure, on the way back, you land at the same time you departed...
It's pretty disturbing.
My point still stand. When a coal plant blows up, accidentally or intentionally, it does far less damage than a nuclear plant. The fact that it didn't blow up accidentally isn't really relevant here. It blew up.
Apart from being pathetically ridiculous, this clearly shows how the top management at AT&T thinks backwards. Instead of trying to provide a better service for their customers, since there is a strong demand, they just try to avoid having to face the demand. Wow...
Let's hope that the FCC will not be influenced by this.
Mobile providers are an area where free market is rarely seen thriving, since it is so expensive to deploy a decent infrastructure. This is not to say that they could not be competitive, but just that the money involved to invest in a more robust infrastructure is so high that they prefer pocketing the benefits and restricting the service provided.
I can't really see how it is even relevant in a discussion about nuclear safety.
Because it was a nuclear plant and it blew up?
IIRC, Tchernobyl hasn't done all of its damage yet.
Nothing, it is that multiple https sites have a hard time living on the same IP.
And why would that be? I have no issue at home...
Did you mean http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/10/fetch-as-googlebot-and-malware-details.html ? Your link got garbled by some evil force...
What? Where's this damn Publish button.... Ouch! Waitaminute....
All of you guys were tight all along, slashd0t new UI really suxs.. You can't imagine how hard it is to post from a black hole on this crap!.
But what will it change? I mean, other than having to open an account at Battle.net, what is the news exactly?
We will all mourn your sense of humour. What a pity...
Oh well, you can adopt another one. It will never be the same, but it'll be there when you need it!
Who says they're ignoring it?
The GP.
Right on spot. But now there's one more reason to switch to OO.org! Who wants to see blinking flashing ads while composing a document?
No matter what they do, they always end up helping the competition every time they try to compete with it. They are really ridiculous in this matter. The only thing they know how to do is to market their crap using their already established monopolies as a leverage tool.
Oh well...
Well, one would think the DMCA gave the site owner the right to get proof thet the plaintiff is the actual copyright holder before doing anything. I don't think the DMCA is the problem here.
That said, you get a point in that any other website would do the same. And it's a problem between these sites and the contents publishers.
I remember a story in europe where a magazine did get free blog hosting from ~40 providers. They published a novel by Victor Hugo - ie: In the public domain for centuries. There was a note at the bottom of the page stating this.
Then they contacted formally all of the hosting companies demanding that the BLOG be shut off because it infringed their copyright. The results: 1 hosting company did its job, read the copyright notice, double checked the fact and sent an email back saying it was bullsh*t. 7 did ask for more proof, the rest did just shut the blog down, no questions asked.
Customer service is a thing of the past....
That said, if MySpace decides to remove content every time a party comes and claim copyright to the content, it's a MySpace problem, nothing more.
We all know the Majors care about their artists, not THE artists, and only because it makes money. They don't give a rat's *ss about art, music or any concept like this. They care about their wallet, art and artists be damned.