And in both cases they only care about majority of users. In neither case is the purpose to make some unbeatable system but make it hard enough for casual users and majority to overcome it. As long as that stays they really don't have any incentive to make their systems better.
And not only will it move banners to the site and same domain, there will be large increase in normal links used for advertising, hidden inside text or the content you want to read. It will only make advertisements more sneakier and you can't block those unless you want to block all normal links, up to a point where the actual content will be made with those ads in mind. Users with Adblock still have it good, but the more people they try to get to use it will just mean that the faster they will be unable to block any ads.
Well, apps allow for notifications and interface that can be loaded in the background while you browse the site. But largest part are the notifications and actual windows for chats, along with data or FB wall directly visible on your home screen. It makes for nicer experience because while now a days website interfaces are good, they still can't really beat native application.
And don't forget Google Analytics. Since you can't actually block the request, it will hit it and Google gains more and more data about everyone. In other browsers you can actually deny the whole request so it doesn't work.
Adblock only works because it's not widely used. If everyone would use it, then advertising networks would have to come up with better ways to deliver ads without possibility to block them. It's already done on sites that are for geeks, like Slashdot./. has ads, yes, but they also sell advertising spots on Ask Slashdot section and polls. By advertising Adblock (ironic, isn't it?) you're only giving webmasters and sites more reason to come up with hidden advertisements and things that really integrate into site. Google is already doing it on YouTube - they put some required components behind ad servers, so if you block video ads then the videos will stop working completely.
Where did I say Apple users are better people in general? It's just observation I've made, and I've studied the issue too. I don't even use iPhone or Android myself, I use old Windows Mobile.
Android apps and games are mostly free, and ad-supported. Mobile developers quickly learned that piracy on Android is much larger problem than on iPhone and that they couldn't just sell their software. That was the reason they started offering games for free and getting the revenue from advertisements. It goes well along the lines with Google too, who also recently bought the largest mobile advertising house AdMob.
This also means that people of course download way more apps too.
It's quite clear from the picture that it is in fact CNET's installer and the Nmap text is just the title to install. There is no trademark issue either, it's perfectly fine to tell user the name of the program he is about to install. Otherwise we would have to shut down all download sites on the internet, and probably slashdot too because/. mentions names of products in their summaries. Oh the horror.
Besides, Nmap author probably has given CNET permission to distribute the program at one point or another. Download sites rarely hunt for programs from the internet. Instead it works by authors either submitting their programs directly to CNET (in this case via https://upload.cnet.com/ ) or by using PAD files and distribution services that were specifically created for distributing software among websites and other services (see http://pad.asp-software.org/ ). In both cases the software authors also give full rights to distribute his software, so even if there would be trademark issues (there isn't), the authors would have given permission to use their softwares name.
Only if CNET changed anything in the program, and they didn't. They're just a distributor, like physical stores are. GPL doesn't require you to distribute source for other bundled software either. For example, Apple doesn't have to open source for the whole OSX when they bundle it with some GPL apps. If they make modifications to those GPL apps, then they need to provide source for those apps, but again not the whole thing. And only if they make modifications - otherwise you have to go ask for the source from original author.
It's clear it isn't used the way described in some RFC. It doesn't really matter what some RFC says if no one follows it. It's the same thing with the word "hacker" in media and normal peoples heads, even though any slashdotter always argues how they're again using it wrongly.
I doubt they will lock the desktop OS that way. Yes, there will be app store, but you will be able to run programs normally too. Desktop is completely different beast, and companies won't put up with it if they cant run their own code or software bought elsewhere. Not all software can be put to app store either. So it will be basically like package management in Linux is.
You can't allow unknown sources with all Android phones. Some operators also lock that feature out, so you have to jailbreak it. Which is the same situation for iPhone. For Windows phones, there's an $5 app that does let you run any app you want.
It's kind of sad actually, as the old Windows Mobiles always allowed you to install anything you wanted, just like the desktop Windows does. Apple can be blamed for this stuff too.
Windows phone interfaces (and Windows 8 tablet mode) is actually wildly different from iPhone. Android is copying iPhone more than Microsoft. WP7 interface is actually quite cool, and even better than iPhone.
It's still better than using cloud services or SaaS models like Google apps. If you get whole app it still works even without internet, and since you don't have internet, they can't kill it. With cloud services they can just stop offering the service and then it's gone. It has happened to many Google products too, and they don't even announce it that much in forward. It's usually instant or at max a few months.
In some places normal wage is $200-300 a month. I suspect it will be in US too once globalisation and troubles with dollar and euro really start to kick in.
They didn't incorporate the advertising in anyones installer. They only made application that downloads the installer for user, and before that gives the option to install their additional software (toolbar). After user chooses if he wants it or not, the cnet's installer downloads your installer and runs it. They didn't modify the original installer in any way.
You could make the same argument for advertising on websites. Is Slashdot depriving me of an undisclosed amount of revenue when I make interesting content for them (post comments) and they pay nothing to me? Would it be reasonable if Slashdot only took their fair share for hosting and paid off rest of the revenue to people who post comments?
But they didn't do anything illegal. They're basically just using their own download application that comes with extra stuff. In fact, Google does exactly the same with Chrome, so you should blame them too.
It doesn't change the fact that it is outright abuse..com isn't even meant to be U.S. TLD. Since U.S. seems to abuse their administrative rights for global TLD's, I say we take those rights away and let United Nations handle TLD's like.com,.net,.org and.info. U.S. companies can start using their.us if they can't play by the rules.
U.S. seizing domains of other nationals is bad as it is, but then they don't even research if there's actually anything illegal hosted? They just see mp3 downloads and assume it's copyright infringement and because it isn't big name site, just steal the domain without even contacting the owner. Is their tactic to make domain seizing look better by abusing things so much that the actual seizing part feels "light" compared to their other abuses?
If the content bothers U.S. so much, why don't they just create national firewall like China does? Why do they step on other nationals rights and speech?
Then why doesn't the front page of Twitter.com link to this page?
Because they want you to sign up. It's basically landing page for trying to get you to join. But everything still works even if you don't, so you can follow links to twitter, search etc.
The White House condemned the move, calling Iran's internet policies 'an electronic curtain of surveillance and censorship around its people.
Really? REALLY? F*UCK YOU U.S. You are EVERYTHING that is wrong with the world. Go f*cking away and stop crying about people why just want to live their lifes peacefully. You worthless pieces of shit who attack other countries and everyone who doesn't like your limited religious views. You are the scumbag of earth. Go eat your shit. You want to know why we dont like you? BECAUSE YOU TRY TO TELL US WHAT TO DO TO, YOU STUPID SCUMBAGS.
Slashdot Mirror
And in both cases they only care about majority of users. In neither case is the purpose to make some unbeatable system but make it hard enough for casual users and majority to overcome it. As long as that stays they really don't have any incentive to make their systems better.
And not only will it move banners to the site and same domain, there will be large increase in normal links used for advertising, hidden inside text or the content you want to read. It will only make advertisements more sneakier and you can't block those unless you want to block all normal links, up to a point where the actual content will be made with those ads in mind. Users with Adblock still have it good, but the more people they try to get to use it will just mean that the faster they will be unable to block any ads.
Well, apps allow for notifications and interface that can be loaded in the background while you browse the site. But largest part are the notifications and actual windows for chats, along with data or FB wall directly visible on your home screen. It makes for nicer experience because while now a days website interfaces are good, they still can't really beat native application.
And don't forget Google Analytics. Since you can't actually block the request, it will hit it and Google gains more and more data about everyone. In other browsers you can actually deny the whole request so it doesn't work.
Adblock only works because it's not widely used. If everyone would use it, then advertising networks would have to come up with better ways to deliver ads without possibility to block them. It's already done on sites that are for geeks, like Slashdot. /. has ads, yes, but they also sell advertising spots on Ask Slashdot section and polls. By advertising Adblock (ironic, isn't it?) you're only giving webmasters and sites more reason to come up with hidden advertisements and things that really integrate into site. Google is already doing it on YouTube - they put some required components behind ad servers, so if you block video ads then the videos will stop working completely.
Where did I say Apple users are better people in general? It's just observation I've made, and I've studied the issue too. I don't even use iPhone or Android myself, I use old Windows Mobile.
Android apps and games are mostly free, and ad-supported. Mobile developers quickly learned that piracy on Android is much larger problem than on iPhone and that they couldn't just sell their software. That was the reason they started offering games for free and getting the revenue from advertisements. It goes well along the lines with Google too, who also recently bought the largest mobile advertising house AdMob.
This also means that people of course download way more apps too.
It's quite clear from the picture that it is in fact CNET's installer and the Nmap text is just the title to install. There is no trademark issue either, it's perfectly fine to tell user the name of the program he is about to install. Otherwise we would have to shut down all download sites on the internet, and probably slashdot too because /. mentions names of products in their summaries. Oh the horror.
Besides, Nmap author probably has given CNET permission to distribute the program at one point or another. Download sites rarely hunt for programs from the internet. Instead it works by authors either submitting their programs directly to CNET (in this case via https://upload.cnet.com/ ) or by using PAD files and distribution services that were specifically created for distributing software among websites and other services (see http://pad.asp-software.org/ ). In both cases the software authors also give full rights to distribute his software, so even if there would be trademark issues (there isn't), the authors would have given permission to use their softwares name.
Only if CNET changed anything in the program, and they didn't. They're just a distributor, like physical stores are. GPL doesn't require you to distribute source for other bundled software either. For example, Apple doesn't have to open source for the whole OSX when they bundle it with some GPL apps. If they make modifications to those GPL apps, then they need to provide source for those apps, but again not the whole thing. And only if they make modifications - otherwise you have to go ask for the source from original author.
It's clear it isn't used the way described in some RFC. It doesn't really matter what some RFC says if no one follows it. It's the same thing with the word "hacker" in media and normal peoples heads, even though any slashdotter always argues how they're again using it wrongly.
I doubt they will lock the desktop OS that way. Yes, there will be app store, but you will be able to run programs normally too. Desktop is completely different beast, and companies won't put up with it if they cant run their own code or software bought elsewhere. Not all software can be put to app store either. So it will be basically like package management in Linux is.
You can't allow unknown sources with all Android phones. Some operators also lock that feature out, so you have to jailbreak it. Which is the same situation for iPhone. For Windows phones, there's an $5 app that does let you run any app you want.
It's kind of sad actually, as the old Windows Mobiles always allowed you to install anything you wanted, just like the desktop Windows does. Apple can be blamed for this stuff too.
Windows phone interfaces (and Windows 8 tablet mode) is actually wildly different from iPhone. Android is copying iPhone more than Microsoft. WP7 interface is actually quite cool, and even better than iPhone.
It's still better than using cloud services or SaaS models like Google apps. If you get whole app it still works even without internet, and since you don't have internet, they can't kill it. With cloud services they can just stop offering the service and then it's gone. It has happened to many Google products too, and they don't even announce it that much in forward. It's usually instant or at max a few months.
In some places normal wage is $200-300 a month. I suspect it will be in US too once globalisation and troubles with dollar and euro really start to kick in.
And Google for Android too. They've used it before to kill malware apps. It's a good feature to have, exactly for that reason.
They didn't incorporate the advertising in anyones installer. They only made application that downloads the installer for user, and before that gives the option to install their additional software (toolbar). After user chooses if he wants it or not, the cnet's installer downloads your installer and runs it. They didn't modify the original installer in any way.
You could make the same argument for advertising on websites. Is Slashdot depriving me of an undisclosed amount of revenue when I make interesting content for them (post comments) and they pay nothing to me? Would it be reasonable if Slashdot only took their fair share for hosting and paid off rest of the revenue to people who post comments?
Companies can't murder people. People can. And they're already prosecuted under current laws.
But they didn't do anything illegal. They're basically just using their own download application that comes with extra stuff. In fact, Google does exactly the same with Chrome, so you should blame them too.
It doesn't change the fact that it is outright abuse. .com isn't even meant to be U.S. TLD. Since U.S. seems to abuse their administrative rights for global TLD's, I say we take those rights away and let United Nations handle TLD's like .com, .net, .org and .info. U.S. companies can start using their .us if they can't play by the rules.
U.S. seizing domains of other nationals is bad as it is, but then they don't even research if there's actually anything illegal hosted? They just see mp3 downloads and assume it's copyright infringement and because it isn't big name site, just steal the domain without even contacting the owner. Is their tactic to make domain seizing look better by abusing things so much that the actual seizing part feels "light" compared to their other abuses?
If the content bothers U.S. so much, why don't they just create national firewall like China does? Why do they step on other nationals rights and speech?
Then why doesn't the front page of Twitter.com link to this page?
Because they want you to sign up. It's basically landing page for trying to get you to join. But everything still works even if you don't, so you can follow links to twitter, search etc.
The White House condemned the move, calling Iran's internet policies 'an electronic curtain of surveillance and censorship around its people.
Really? REALLY? F*UCK YOU U.S. You are EVERYTHING that is wrong with the world. Go f*cking away and stop crying about people why just want to live their lifes peacefully. You worthless pieces of shit who attack other countries and everyone who doesn't like your limited religious views. You are the scumbag of earth. Go eat your shit. You want to know why we dont like you? BECAUSE YOU TRY TO TELL US WHAT TO DO TO, YOU STUPID SCUMBAGS.