That was exactly my thought, though I was thinking a little more graphically. What I wanted to create an anti-abortion campaign that involves photos and videos of pre-and-post abortion fetuses? Really graphic stuff that will make you violently ill... does that mean a company supports abortions just because they won't put their name at the front of my video?
I reckon if I was going to place it somewhere, I'd try and find a nice seaside connection, ensure the case was super water proof, then just dump it a few hundred metres offshore...
I was wondering how the update 'update' process would work from within Firefox, then realised that we were all talking about the 'Windows Genuine Advantage' code.
Still, I think my point still stands: the more their sites support other browsers, the more they will begin to see exactly what their market share is like.
My first thoughts were quite the opposite, to be honest.
Before, when IE was the only browser that could be used to update, they didn't really know how many people were using Firefox. Well, I guess they did with microsoft.com and the other sites, so I take that back.
Anywho, my point is this: now they don't have to worry about relying on other surveys to determine how many people are using Firefox. They can work it out themselves and from there, determine the actual threat to their browser base.
Having said all of that, I would hazard a guess and say that non-IE users are more likely to check for updates and the like, so I don't really know. Alternatively, they've scrapped the source base for IE7 and skinned Firefox, so they need it to work for IE7 to work:)
The problem I see is that all that will end up happening, then, is that all forms of people will start creating sites in.mobi that aren't for consumption through a mobile phone.
Hundreds of ringtone sites will pop up overnight, but only a few will actually be for use through a phone. Every other one will just be like all the ones we have now.
Then you'll have phone manufacturers setting sites there and so on, and then soon the.mobi name loses its meaning and more importantly, value for sites that are actually developed for the original target market.
How many of those, though, were really just multiple parts of a 'conversation'?
I know I can rack up dozens of emails when I start using it like an IM service. However I doubt Einstein would write something like "So, what time do you want me to come around on Friday?" and then wait for a reply before continuing with "and do you want me to bring anything?"
This isn't an AJAX vulnerability: it's XSS that uses AJAX to do its thing. The vulnerability itself is entirely a server side issue. Well, as far as I understand it, anyway...
But one shareholder who holds 51% of the shares isn't a majority of the shareholders: they are a holder of the majority of shares. It's an important distinction to make and I was under the impression that there were rules for both types of majorities.
Having said all that, I think that you missed a couple of steps. Now, I could be wrong, but aren't there rules about becoming a majority share holder? I mean, I was under the impression that you weren't able to go and buy 51% of the shares without making this effort public knowledge. Basically, as you say, you are getting control of certain aspects of the company and to a point, I'd have thought that you could legally introduce the ruling that you gave as an example above.
In fact, I was lead to believe that that was how a lot of dot-com companies got to be public during the boom... there were lots of little mining companies that had floated but were worth nothing. Dot-company directors / owners bought enough of these penny-stocks that they were able to get these publicly floated companies to buy their IT interests and then run with that instead of mining...
Are they required "by law" to maximise profit, or only to do "as desired by the shareholders"?
I mean take a hypothetical: a majority of the shareholders decide to donate all income to an orphanage. Now are you saying that by law they can't do this, as this would not maximise profits?
Surely so long as they are doing what the majority of shareholders want, then there is no requirement to make a profit, right?
Totally offtopic, but something funny I got my mailbox this morning.
You said: "Come over here and try to, OK?"
I say: "Good luck them finding you!"
This is from an Australian 'satire news' show a year or two ago.
Mods: I know it's offtopic and maybe taking too much of the piss out of SOME Americans, but I reckon we all need to have a chuckle right now (especially as all those in the non-American UN nations might not be able to get to it soon!).
When I see people talking about companies putting their documents on some 'unknown' server, I disagree with the direction of thinking (no offence:) ).
Naturally my company would not allow that. The trust value is too high. However, if they were able to lease a server that they stored in-house, then I think it could be a possibility. This way they get the benefits of a browser-based application (no need for licences of any particular OS, no need for rolling out the latest version, no need for huge system specs) but they also get the benefits of having total control over the environment (bandwidth, server uptimes, file security).
That's the way I see these sorts of systems working. Storing everything on and running everything from a local server, basically.
I dunno guys... I still prefer JDiskReport. Admittedly it's not open source but it is freeware.
Either way this form of application is a lifesaver. I couldn't even begin to count how many times it's helped me find some weird temp file that got dumped somewhere and is now taking up a few hundred meg...
Nova FM in Australia do the same thing: no more than two ads in a row. I actually read something, somewhere, about it once... as you said, more people are willing to sit through the ads and so advertisers are paying more for the commercials.
On top of that, they actually get to run more commercials than most other stations (again, because people don't mind listening to them in short bursts).
Don't know about you, but (not having actually heard the line, and only reading it here) "G-G-G-G-G-G-UNIT" sounds like a poor take on "T-U-R-T-L-E-Power"...
My laptop has a built-in microphone 'somewhere' near my keyboard. I don't know if this is too close to actually get anything from, though: it alls sounds quite similar to me, when I happen to be talking via VoIP with a friend who refuses to: a) get a standalone mic; and b) stop coding while he's talking to me...
Just a quick note about word processors. Now obviously I'd want to save my files, but people are probably getting used to the idea of storing data away from their computer (the most obvious of these is webmail services). Why shouldn't Google (just pulling a company that seems fairly experimental) take something like the FCKEditor and offer that for your word processing? It already does server side saving (from what I can see) and should be fairly capable of doing most things that people really need.
It's funny that you should mention Java: the Australian Tax Office has had a client-side application for businesses (the "ECI Client") since the introduction of the GST (around 2000?).
They're only buying the wine over the internet: it's not like they're all of a sudden not drinking it with friends!
Not that I have this problem in Australia, but I can give you one beauty of buying wine over the internet: corporate liquidation (no pun intended) auctions. We have a company here that deals with a lot of corporate failures that was (is still?) auctioning a fair whack of wine. I bought a dozen bottles of something (for the price, I wasn't picky!) that had a RRP of $25 each bottle and the dozen cost me around $60, including delivery.
Yep, I'm thankful for internet sales of alcohol, especially seeing as I can take care of it all while at work...
Not knowing the exact problem, I would guess that it was twenty thousand by ten thousand, where the library that handles the image would then allocate a huge amount of memory to read the image into...
I know that this is going off topic, but I was under the impression that exported Fosters' are actually Crownies... is this true?
I have to admit, it does taste a lot better overseas than here. Then again, when you're craving an Aussie beer, you do what you can. I still remember spending a night drinking $6 stubbies of VB at The Flying Emu in Calgary...
Firstly, they're not trying to sell a few extra copies to government agencies. They're trying to stop entire agencies defecting. There is a difference between selling (x + 1) licences next upgrade (where x is the current number of licences) and selling 0 licences.
The argument has been made time and again that unless they can compete with the pirated copies, what's the use? Let's face it... everyone is already admitting that it's not working against the pirated copies. Surely they knew this was going to be the case: who in their right mind would buy a lesser version for 6x the cost, especially when pirating is such a way of life?
It's not just a matter of "can we keep the governments purchasing?". Quite a few countries are going 'e-government' where citizens are encouraged to communicate through various electronic systems.
This is how I see Microsoft seeing the field of play: 1) Governments want to save money through electronic systems 2) Governmens can't make citizens use expensive systems 3) Governments decide to use other, more accessible systems: that way, they allow everyone access 4) Governments then realise savings of electronic systems, and want more people to be using them 5) Governments begin encouraging (through either giving away or at least teaching in schools) other systems 6) People drop Microsoft systems altogether
That's the way I see it. Naturally, a lot of people don't, but hey, that's their prerogative.
The beauty of this argument is that no-one will ever really know the reason they decided to do it, so we can still all argue that we're right...
I don't even think it's really about that, to be honest. I think it's more about cutting off the argument that some governments are starting to use which is "why should we use a product that our citizens can't even afford?"
I believe that governments are starting to see the problem in using products for their day to day work that are not interoperable and not affordable to any citizens. How can you expect them to communicate with you when they can't afford the tools to do so?
So, governments begin to think "well, maybe we should use what our people are (or at least should be) using". Naturally, this leads to Microsoft having to make a decision: do they let that government switch, or do they ensure that the citizens can afford to keep in contact with their government and so stop the government itself switching?
XP Starter Edition, I believe, is a pre-emptive move by Microsoft to try and stop the argument of "our citizens can't afford to use it, and so we can't use it ourselves."
Slashdot Mirror
That was exactly my thought, though I was thinking a little more graphically. What I wanted to create an anti-abortion campaign that involves photos and videos of pre-and-post abortion fetuses? Really graphic stuff that will make you violently ill... does that mean a company supports abortions just because they won't put their name at the front of my video?
I reckon if I was going to place it somewhere, I'd try and find a nice seaside connection, ensure the case was super water proof, then just dump it a few hundred metres offshore...
I'm an idiot.
I was wondering how the update 'update' process would work from within Firefox, then realised that we were all talking about the 'Windows Genuine Advantage' code.
Still, I think my point still stands: the more their sites support other browsers, the more they will begin to see exactly what their market share is like.
My first thoughts were quite the opposite, to be honest.
:)
Before, when IE was the only browser that could be used to update, they didn't really know how many people were using Firefox. Well, I guess they did with microsoft.com and the other sites, so I take that back.
Anywho, my point is this: now they don't have to worry about relying on other surveys to determine how many people are using Firefox. They can work it out themselves and from there, determine the actual threat to their browser base.
Having said all of that, I would hazard a guess and say that non-IE users are more likely to check for updates and the like, so I don't really know. Alternatively, they've scrapped the source base for IE7 and skinned Firefox, so they need it to work for IE7 to work
Just throwing it out there...
I think that that's only a valid argument if you watch the movie once, and listen to the song only once, too.
I know that I'll watch a movie a few times, then not again for years. Listening to songs on the other hand...
The problem I see is that all that will end up happening, then, is that all forms of people will start creating sites in .mobi that aren't for consumption through a mobile phone.
.mobi name loses its meaning and more importantly, value for sites that are actually developed for the original target market.
Hundreds of ringtone sites will pop up overnight, but only a few will actually be for use through a phone. Every other one will just be like all the ones we have now.
Then you'll have phone manufacturers setting sites there and so on, and then soon the
That would be my guess, anyway.
How many of those, though, were really just multiple parts of a 'conversation'?
I know I can rack up dozens of emails when I start using it like an IM service. However I doubt Einstein would write something like "So, what time do you want me to come around on Friday?" and then wait for a reply before continuing with "and do you want me to bring anything?"
This isn't an AJAX vulnerability: it's XSS that uses AJAX to do its thing. The vulnerability itself is entirely a server side issue. Well, as far as I understand it, anyway...
But one shareholder who holds 51% of the shares isn't a majority of the shareholders: they are a holder of the majority of shares. It's an important distinction to make and I was under the impression that there were rules for both types of majorities.
Having said all that, I think that you missed a couple of steps. Now, I could be wrong, but aren't there rules about becoming a majority share holder? I mean, I was under the impression that you weren't able to go and buy 51% of the shares without making this effort public knowledge. Basically, as you say, you are getting control of certain aspects of the company and to a point, I'd have thought that you could legally introduce the ruling that you gave as an example above.
In fact, I was lead to believe that that was how a lot of dot-com companies got to be public during the boom... there were lots of little mining companies that had floated but were worth nothing. Dot-company directors / owners bought enough of these penny-stocks that they were able to get these publicly floated companies to buy their IT interests and then run with that instead of mining...
Are they required "by law" to maximise profit, or only to do "as desired by the shareholders"?
I mean take a hypothetical: a majority of the shareholders decide to donate all income to an orphanage. Now are you saying that by law they can't do this, as this would not maximise profits?
Surely so long as they are doing what the majority of shareholders want, then there is no requirement to make a profit, right?
Totally offtopic, but something funny I got my mailbox this morning.
You said: "Come over here and try to, OK?"
I say: "Good luck them finding you!"
This is from an Australian 'satire news' show a year or two ago.
Mods: I know it's offtopic and maybe taking too much of the piss out of SOME Americans, but I reckon we all need to have a chuckle right now (especially as all those in the non-American UN nations might not be able to get to it soon!).
When I see people talking about companies putting their documents on some 'unknown' server, I disagree with the direction of thinking (no offence :) ).
Naturally my company would not allow that. The trust value is too high. However, if they were able to lease a server that they stored in-house, then I think it could be a possibility. This way they get the benefits of a browser-based application (no need for licences of any particular OS, no need for rolling out the latest version, no need for huge system specs) but they also get the benefits of having total control over the environment (bandwidth, server uptimes, file security).
That's the way I see these sorts of systems working. Storing everything on and running everything from a local server, basically.
I dunno guys... I still prefer JDiskReport. Admittedly it's not open source but it is freeware.
Either way this form of application is a lifesaver. I couldn't even begin to count how many times it's helped me find some weird temp file that got dumped somewhere and is now taking up a few hundred meg...
Sorry mate... she's in the US for as long as they're willing to keep her :)
Nova FM in Australia do the same thing: no more than two ads in a row. I actually read something, somewhere, about it once... as you said, more people are willing to sit through the ads and so advertisers are paying more for the commercials.
On top of that, they actually get to run more commercials than most other stations (again, because people don't mind listening to them in short bursts).
Don't know about you, but (not having actually heard the line, and only reading it here) "G-G-G-G-G-G-UNIT" sounds like a poor take on "T-U-R-T-L-E-Power"...
Are you sure you're not thinking of Kiwis??
This is a Maori.
This is a Kiwi.
My laptop has a built-in microphone 'somewhere' near my keyboard. I don't know if this is too close to actually get anything from, though: it alls sounds quite similar to me, when I happen to be talking via VoIP with a friend who refuses to:
a) get a standalone mic; and
b) stop coding while he's talking to me...
Just a thought, anyway.
It's funny that you should mention Java: the Australian Tax Office has had a client-side application for businesses (the "ECI Client") since the introduction of the GST (around 2000?).
That application was written in Java back then...
They're only buying the wine over the internet: it's not like they're all of a sudden not drinking it with friends!
Not that I have this problem in Australia, but I can give you one beauty of buying wine over the internet: corporate liquidation (no pun intended) auctions. We have a company here that deals with a lot of corporate failures that was (is still?) auctioning a fair whack of wine. I bought a dozen bottles of something (for the price, I wasn't picky!) that had a RRP of $25 each bottle and the dozen cost me around $60, including delivery.
Yep, I'm thankful for internet sales of alcohol, especially seeing as I can take care of it all while at work...
Not knowing the exact problem, I would guess that it was twenty thousand by ten thousand, where the library that handles the image would then allocate a huge amount of memory to read the image into...
I know that this is going off topic, but I was under the impression that exported Fosters' are actually Crownies... is this true?
I have to admit, it does taste a lot better overseas than here. Then again, when you're craving an Aussie beer, you do what you can. I still remember spending a night drinking $6 stubbies of VB at The Flying Emu in Calgary...
Firstly, they're not trying to sell a few extra copies to government agencies. They're trying to stop entire agencies defecting. There is a difference between selling (x + 1) licences next upgrade (where x is the current number of licences) and selling 0 licences.
The argument has been made time and again that unless they can compete with the pirated copies, what's the use? Let's face it... everyone is already admitting that it's not working against the pirated copies. Surely they knew this was going to be the case: who in their right mind would buy a lesser version for 6x the cost, especially when pirating is such a way of life?
It's not just a matter of "can we keep the governments purchasing?". Quite a few countries are going 'e-government' where citizens are encouraged to communicate through various electronic systems.
This is how I see Microsoft seeing the field of play:
1) Governments want to save money through electronic systems
2) Governmens can't make citizens use expensive systems
3) Governments decide to use other, more accessible systems: that way, they allow everyone access
4) Governments then realise savings of electronic systems, and want more people to be using them
5) Governments begin encouraging (through either giving away or at least teaching in schools) other systems
6) People drop Microsoft systems altogether
That's the way I see it. Naturally, a lot of people don't, but hey, that's their prerogative.
The beauty of this argument is that no-one will ever really know the reason they decided to do it, so we can still all argue that we're right...
I don't even think it's really about that, to be honest. I think it's more about cutting off the argument that some governments are starting to use which is "why should we use a product that our citizens can't even afford?"
I believe that governments are starting to see the problem in using products for their day to day work that are not interoperable and not affordable to any citizens. How can you expect them to communicate with you when they can't afford the tools to do so?
So, governments begin to think "well, maybe we should use what our people are (or at least should be) using". Naturally, this leads to Microsoft having to make a decision: do they let that government switch, or do they ensure that the citizens can afford to keep in contact with their government and so stop the government itself switching?
XP Starter Edition, I believe, is a pre-emptive move by Microsoft to try and stop the argument of "our citizens can't afford to use it, and so we can't use it ourselves."