Eg, do the most common browsers trust this cert issuers CA cert? If not, then you might as well just go with a self-signed cert - either way your visitors are going to get a 'big scary warning' from their browser. For securing your *own* access, to your *own* server/site, then a self-signed works just fine, you just have to add it to your browsers trust list the first time.
So lets say I wanted to use this 'free' service to run SSH to connect to my home server. How/where exactly are they going to display their advertising to me? Or will this not really be 'Internet' access, but restricted, Windows/IE-only 'WWW' access?
Users dont want software that allows website owners (or OS monopolists) to control how this function works (and consumer advocates wouldnt want such software forced on end-users without [in most cases] their knowledge or consent).
Users want software that allows *them* to control how (or wether) this function works.
The point is that Google isnt 'getting away' with anything. Google doesnt have a monopoly that they are able to abuse like MS does. (Wether they would abuse one if they had it, would be an entirely seperate question, but my personal belief is that they wouldnt)
Google is offering a service, which individuals, can *choose* to use, or not - users that arent aware of the toolbar, wont download it, and wont have pages modified.
Microsoft was abusing their monopoly power and forcing the behaviour on all of its users that werent knowledgable enough to choose to turn it off (assuming that was even possible). Users that werent aware of the function, would have pages modified by default, and most likely not even be aware of it.
Google does not have a monopoly. Google does not have the leverage to force consumer-PC-OEM's to preinstall its software or addons on PC's. Pretty much everyone that uses Google has actively *chosen* to do so, and is probably aware of their other choices. This is *NOT* the case with MS.
MS bundling a function like this, that is on by default with the browser that comes bundled with the OS that MS's contracts with OEM's pretty much absolutely require that they install, that is on by default, is an entirely different animal than Google *offering* to *allow* people to *choose* to add its software to their system, if they *want* to use it.
They put the things like milk (or ice cream) in the back on purpose, so if you are 'just stopping in to get a jug of milk', all the weak-willed people have to walk by all their center-aisle displays and whatnot.
They arent morons, they know *exactly* what they are doing.
Texas is the home of the well-known and 'willing to compete in a fair market' (as long as they have a 100% stranglehold on the resources necesarry to enter the market) SBC.
When companies spend millions to develop software, their goal is pretty much always to make money, and the software is just 'good enough' to convince PHB's to buy. When people write software becuase they want to fulfill their own needs (wether that be a need to write software, or to solve some problem), their goal is to write good software.
I dunno about you, but I know which one I'd prefer that the laws help. And to address the specific example, Microsoft has spent just as many millions commiting illegal acts to lock-in their monopoly. I don't see why they (yes, 'they', the entirety of the executive at MS) shouldnt be in jail, and not able to recover jack shit.
Yes, he is saying that watching what IBM does is a good barometer of the industry as a whole. If IBM makes a change, it is likely the rest of industry will too. So not only is IBM a barometer, its a barometer that may be able to see slightly into the future.
You are naive. You honestly beleive that there is really that much cost to develop software? Obviously you dont understand how Linux, FreeBSD, Apache, the Gimp, and countless others exist. The various *BSD's are among the *most* stable, secure, flexible, configurable Internet server platforms that exist, and it sure as hell didnt take '50 million dollars' to develop them.
Quite frankly, the world would be a better place if MS hadnt developed Windows. We might today not have the routine problems of spyware and trojans, multiple competeing developers of OS and applications might have been forced by industry to use standard file formats and protocols, and rebooting your PC everyday just to keep it from crashing might not be an everyday occurance.
Linux and *BSD, where *NOT* developed with the concept of making money - wether they still would have been developed or not I cannot say, but not being able to copyright them in itself wouldnt have prevented them from existing.
This only helps actual 'companies' that could afford to pay this membership fee, and completely screws over the individual developer starting an entirely new program in his own free time and giving it away at no cost.
Personally, I dont really buy (or listen) to that much music at all lately. But $10 still seems pretty steep. Personally, I think everyone would be better off if the RIAA companies went away all-together. Their function of promoting is becoming obsolete, and their function of distribution *is* obsolete. Perhaps if they just migrated into a 'proporter' status, where for an agreed-upon percentage of profit, they would handle that aspect, but the artists retained control over the distribution of their music, rather than signing it over lock&stock to a label.
The problem is that lots of PHB's that make these types of decisions dont quite understand what 'linking' means, perhaps they think it means that the other site is somehow connecting to their site, using its resources, copying its information.
A better analogy would be that linking is like giving out a phone number. What company would *NOT* want its phone number (at least their public one that they expect potential customers, investors, etc to call) given out?
Now I can see perhaps they wouldnt necesarrily want their internal extensions given out, but not even the stupident PHB would beleive that there was any legal precedent allowing his company to prohibit someone, having obtained a private exetnsion, from telling it to anyone they damn well want to.
Whats even funnier, is why they feel the need to put this in a T&C, or think that the T&C binds anyone who hasnt specifically arranged for services (eg signed up, etc). If I had a site, and I didnt want external sites to link to my internal pages, I'd take 2 minutes and throw together a restriction on referrer for those pages (perhaps redirecting to the 'main' page of my site, or if I wanted to be an ass about it, redirecting back to the referring page) . No chest pounding, no legal gobbledygook, just a glance at the logs and a smirk at anyone trying. (And yes, I know referer can be faked, but only bu the user controlling the browser/http client - not by a site publishing links for joe-average-enduser to click on.
The only way any of these buy-music-online services is *ever* going to storm the market is if they charge a *fair* price, *and* they allow you to convert the music to an open, non-DRM'ed format that you can play on any sort of device you want.
Until then, its all puffery, and the market for it isnt large enough to matter.
The "Free" in "Free software" has nothing to do with 'how much it costs' - it has to do with certain freedoms that users are allowed concerning the software.
I (and I'm sure others) would be interested to hear the details of your project. What the specific parts you used were, how your built it, how you connected it to a video signal, etc.
Re:Scrolling only partially works
on
Mapping Google Maps
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As funny as this may be, it *would* be very handy if they supported a way of first printing the textual directions, and then using their interface to select and zoom views of discrete chunks of the 'directions', and then being able to cleanly print each view that you select (just the map, not the text again each time)
What do you mean 'happened'? Did you read the article? Basically China has been pursuing the technology, and this article is an update - it looks like they are getting all their ducks (Peking and otherwise) in a row and will be going forward with the first commercial one..
For the clueless among us (eg me) WTF is a 'message queueing system' and what would one use it for? Something to do with email? Kernel API calls? Tech support ticket system?
1. Enter a person/companies name/address (and my account number, eg for electric/gas/etc type bills), and it will get set as a 'check' payee - if its a local or national company that my bank recognizes, the first time I order a payment to that payee they will match it up, and flip it to 'electronic', otherwise they mail a paper check - the check 'stub' that is included states that it is a 'customer bill payment', and advises the recipient to 'please contact us if you can accept electronic payments' - so theoretically a business receiving such a check could call my bank up and provide them their bank account info, and my bank could then transmit payment electronically - while obviously their bank account number would be part of that, I'm not sure how *my* account number with the business I was paying would get transferred - presumably they have some way to work that out.
2. I can specifically 'enter an ACH payee', and in addition to name/address/etc info, I provide the routing number as well as an account number, and I can use that to transmit money to any bank account at any US bank/CU I want.
I will note that when I first got this service, I tried sending money to another one of my accounts using both methods - I entered a normal check payee in my name, but with the other bank's mailing address (and my account number), and the money was deposited to my account - it took 4 or 5 days from my hitting go until it being available in the other account. When I do it using ACH, it's never taken more than two (business) days.
And yes I know it isnt something available everywhere (I have accounts at other institutions that have nothing equivalent, afaik)
I also know ACH isnt quite the same thing as a 'wire transfer', but (at least for domestic transfers, Im sure anything going international is more involved), the ability for a customer to initiate a transfer of money via ACH seems to obsolete the previous concept of 'wire transfer', and even the name seems to predate the modern banking system.
In any case, to respond to the original thread in this discussion, I think the company responsible for all but killing every possibility of competition (which could have fueled large strides of innovation in ways to prevent browsers from being vulnerable to spyware and whatnot) before it had a chance to leave the cradle, and the end-users (at least the ones that are *aware* of there being alternate choices) from using systems produced by that company.
I would consider blaming the banks for *allowing* software such as IE to be used with their online banking sites, but I suppose over the past years they havent had much choice either - monopolies hurt everyone. However now that alternate choices are not only becoming much more well known, but that various computer and government security agencies are actively recomending that users ditch IE in favor of alternatives, I will be looking forward to applauding the first banks that actually set up their sites to *NOT* support MSIE and to display a message to those using it to find a more secure replacement before they will be allowed access - and yes I recognize the irony of that, that being a 180 in many cases, where previously many such sites relied on IE-proprietary functions to work at all, and displaying a message to non-IE users.
I have an average personal checking account with an area bank, and have their personal, 'consumer' grade online banking, with a 'bill pay' service - I am able to create a bill pay payee that effects an ACH transfer to another financial institution (I just have to provide the routing number and account #), and I in fact use this to transfer money to an account I have with another bank. I could use it to send money to any one's account anywhere that is connected with the federal ACH. Everyone that has online banking with this bank has access to this.
I also have an account with a credit union, and while their online billpay doesnt support ACH payees, they did recently add a 'transfers to other institution function', which I can use to send money from that account to accounts at other banks, which works exactly the same way - routing #, account #, and it does an ACH transfer.
Wether this is typical or not, I don't know. But it is surely not quite as rare as I suspect you think.
Actually, most Internet services are provided by Unix and Linux servers. Yet they are still far more secure than the smaller portion of Windows based servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Eg, do the most common browsers trust this cert issuers CA cert? If not, then you might as well just go with a self-signed cert - either way your visitors are going to get a 'big scary warning' from their browser. For securing your *own* access, to your *own* server/site, then a self-signed works just fine, you just have to add it to your browsers trust list the first time.
So lets say I wanted to use this 'free' service to run SSH to connect to my home server. How/where exactly are they going to display their advertising to me? Or will this not really be 'Internet' access, but restricted, Windows/IE-only 'WWW' access?
Users dont want software that allows website owners (or OS monopolists) to control how this function works (and consumer advocates wouldnt want such software forced on end-users without [in most cases] their knowledge or consent).
Users want software that allows *them* to control how (or wether) this function works.
The point is that Google isnt 'getting away' with anything. Google doesnt have a monopoly that they are able to abuse like MS does. (Wether they would abuse one if they had it, would be an entirely seperate question, but my personal belief is that they wouldnt)
Google is offering a service, which individuals, can *choose* to use, or not - users that arent aware of the toolbar, wont download it, and wont have pages modified.
Microsoft was abusing their monopoly power and forcing the behaviour on all of its users that werent knowledgable enough to choose to turn it off (assuming that was even possible). Users that werent aware of the function, would have pages modified by default, and most likely not even be aware of it.
1. Go to www.google.com.
2. Click on "more "
3. Explain how doing that constitutes 'hard to find'
Google does not have a monopoly. Google does not have the leverage to force consumer-PC-OEM's to preinstall its software or addons on PC's. Pretty much everyone that uses Google has actively *chosen* to do so, and is probably aware of their other choices. This is *NOT* the case with MS.
MS bundling a function like this, that is on by default with the browser that comes bundled with the OS that MS's contracts with OEM's pretty much absolutely require that they install, that is on by default, is an entirely different animal than Google *offering* to *allow* people to *choose* to add its software to their system, if they *want* to use it.
They put the things like milk (or ice cream) in the back on purpose, so if you are 'just stopping in to get a jug of milk', all the weak-willed people have to walk by all their center-aisle displays and whatnot.
They arent morons, they know *exactly* what they are doing.
Texas is the home of the well-known and 'willing to compete in a fair market' (as long as they have a 100% stranglehold on the resources necesarry to enter the market) SBC.
When companies spend millions to develop software, their goal is pretty much always to make money, and the software is just 'good enough' to convince PHB's to buy. When people write software becuase they want to fulfill their own needs (wether that be a need to write software, or to solve some problem), their goal is to write good software.
I dunno about you, but I know which one I'd prefer that the laws help. And to address the specific example, Microsoft has spent just as many millions commiting illegal acts to lock-in their monopoly. I don't see why they (yes, 'they', the entirety of the executive at MS) shouldnt be in jail, and not able to recover jack shit.
Yes, he is saying that watching what IBM does is a good barometer of the industry as a whole. If IBM makes a change, it is likely the rest of industry will too. So not only is IBM a barometer, its a barometer that may be able to see slightly into the future.
You are naive. You honestly beleive that there is really that much cost to develop software? Obviously you dont understand how Linux, FreeBSD, Apache, the Gimp, and countless others exist. The various *BSD's are among the *most* stable, secure, flexible, configurable Internet server platforms that exist, and it sure as hell didnt take '50 million dollars' to develop them.
Quite frankly, the world would be a better place if MS hadnt developed Windows. We might today not have the routine problems of spyware and trojans, multiple competeing developers of OS and applications might have been forced by industry to use standard file formats and protocols, and rebooting your PC everyday just to keep it from crashing might not be an everyday occurance.
Linux and *BSD, where *NOT* developed with the concept of making money - wether they still would have been developed or not I cannot say, but not being able to copyright them in itself wouldnt have prevented them from existing.
This only helps actual 'companies' that could afford to pay this membership fee, and completely screws over the individual developer starting an entirely new program in his own free time and giving it away at no cost.
Personally, I dont really buy (or listen) to that much music at all lately. But $10 still seems pretty steep. Personally, I think everyone would be better off if the RIAA companies went away all-together. Their function of promoting is becoming obsolete, and their function of distribution *is* obsolete. Perhaps if they just migrated into a 'proporter' status, where for an agreed-upon percentage of profit, they would handle that aspect, but the artists retained control over the distribution of their music, rather than signing it over lock&stock to a label.
The problem is that lots of PHB's that make these types of decisions dont quite understand what 'linking' means, perhaps they think it means that the other site is somehow connecting to their site, using its resources, copying its information.
A better analogy would be that linking is like giving out a phone number. What company would *NOT* want its phone number (at least their public one that they expect potential customers, investors, etc to call) given out?
Now I can see perhaps they wouldnt necesarrily want their internal extensions given out, but not even the stupident PHB would beleive that there was any legal precedent allowing his company to prohibit someone, having obtained a private exetnsion, from telling it to anyone they damn well want to.
Whats even funnier, is why they feel the need to put this in a T&C, or think that the T&C binds anyone who hasnt specifically arranged for services (eg signed up, etc). If I had a site, and I didnt want external sites to link to my internal pages, I'd take 2 minutes and throw together a restriction on referrer for those pages (perhaps redirecting to the 'main' page of my site, or if I wanted to be an ass about it, redirecting back to the referring page) . No chest pounding, no legal gobbledygook, just a glance at the logs and a smirk at anyone trying. (And yes, I know referer can be faked, but only bu the user controlling the browser/http client - not by a site publishing links for joe-average-enduser to click on.
The only way any of these buy-music-online services is *ever* going to storm the market is if they charge a *fair* price, *and* they allow you to convert the music to an open, non-DRM'ed format that you can play on any sort of device you want.
Until then, its all puffery, and the market for it isnt large enough to matter.
Anyone else that thinks the parent makes a good point should take a good read over the following writing - it will clear up a lot of misconceptions.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The "Free" in "Free software" has nothing to do with 'how much it costs' - it has to do with certain freedoms that users are allowed concerning the software.
You should *definitely* read
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I (and I'm sure others) would be interested to hear the details of your project. What the specific parts you used were, how your built it, how you connected it to a video signal, etc.
As funny as this may be, it *would* be very handy if they supported a way of first printing the textual directions, and then using their interface to select and zoom views of discrete chunks of the 'directions', and then being able to cleanly print each view that you select (just the map, not the text again each time)
What do you mean 'happened'? Did you read the article? Basically China has been pursuing the technology, and this article is an update - it looks like they are getting all their ducks (Peking and otherwise) in a row and will be going forward with the first commercial one..
For the clueless among us (eg me) WTF is a 'message queueing system' and what would one use it for? Something to do with email? Kernel API calls? Tech support ticket system?
My options in bill pay are
1. Enter a person/companies name/address (and my account number, eg for electric/gas/etc type bills), and it will get set as a 'check' payee - if its a local or national company that my bank recognizes, the first time I order a payment to that payee they will match it up, and flip it to 'electronic', otherwise they mail a paper check - the check 'stub' that is included states that it is a 'customer bill payment', and advises the recipient to 'please contact us if you can accept electronic payments' - so theoretically a business receiving such a check could call my bank up and provide them their bank account info, and my bank could then transmit payment electronically - while obviously their bank account number would be part of that, I'm not sure how *my* account number with the business I was paying would get transferred - presumably they have some way to work that out.
2. I can specifically 'enter an ACH payee', and in addition to name/address/etc info, I provide the routing number as well as an account number, and I can use that to transmit money to any bank account at any US bank/CU I want.
I will note that when I first got this service, I tried sending money to another one of my accounts using both methods - I entered a normal check payee in my name, but with the other bank's mailing address (and my account number), and the money was deposited to my account - it took 4 or 5 days from my hitting go until it being available in the other account. When I do it using ACH, it's never taken more than two (business) days.
And yes I know it isnt something available everywhere (I have accounts at other institutions that have nothing equivalent, afaik)
I also know ACH isnt quite the same thing as a 'wire transfer', but (at least for domestic transfers, Im sure anything going international is more involved), the ability for a customer to initiate a transfer of money via ACH seems to obsolete the previous concept of 'wire transfer', and even the name seems to predate the modern banking system.
In any case, to respond to the original thread in this discussion, I think the company responsible for all but killing every possibility of competition (which could have fueled large strides of innovation in ways to prevent browsers from being vulnerable to spyware and whatnot) before it had a chance to leave the cradle, and the end-users (at least the ones that are *aware* of there being alternate choices) from using systems produced by that company.
I would consider blaming the banks for *allowing* software such as IE to be used with their online banking sites, but I suppose over the past years they havent had much choice either - monopolies hurt everyone. However now that alternate choices are not only becoming much more well known, but that various computer and government security agencies are actively recomending that users ditch IE in favor of alternatives, I will be looking forward to applauding the first banks that actually set up their sites to *NOT* support MSIE and to display a message to those using it to find a more secure replacement before they will be allowed access - and yes I recognize the irony of that, that being a 180 in many cases, where previously many such sites relied on IE-proprietary functions to work at all, and displaying a message to non-IE users.
I have an average personal checking account with an area bank, and have their personal, 'consumer' grade online banking, with a 'bill pay' service - I am able to create a bill pay payee that effects an ACH transfer to another financial institution (I just have to provide the routing number and account #), and I in fact use this to transfer money to an account I have with another bank. I could use it to send money to any one's account anywhere that is connected with the federal ACH. Everyone that has online banking with this bank has access to this.
I also have an account with a credit union, and while their online billpay doesnt support ACH payees, they did recently add a 'transfers to other institution function', which I can use to send money from that account to accounts at other banks, which works exactly the same way - routing #, account #, and it does an ACH transfer.
Wether this is typical or not, I don't know. But it is surely not quite as rare as I suspect you think.
Actually, most Internet services are provided by Unix and Linux servers. Yet they are still far more secure than the smaller portion of Windows based servers.