> This seems reasonable. So it wasn't a devious attempt to block a competitor, just a very > rigid safety feature that is unmotivated to integrate competitive products.
Yes, it's always best to have a plausible cover story, isn't it?
> Because the cost to the ISP isn't based on how much I use.
No. Their last mile capacity depends on your peak uasage but as soon as you get far enough upstream to be dealing with the aggregation of a significant number of users it depends on average usage. There is no ISP that would not have problems if all its customers maxed out their connections at once.
When elections are being held, there's something rather reassuring to see a (usually rather dented) black box padlocked shut with a small hole at the top, and a large number of people queuing up to put their slip of paper in. I
It's worked quite well for the last 300 years.
> Further on, they state Retain your customers by keeping your brand top-of-mind through > consistent, relevant and interactive email communications. Yeah, good luck with that. I > know four companies that have just lost my repeat business.
Did you tell them why? They won't stop doing this unless a) they lose business because of it and b) they know they are losing business becuase of it.
Prediction: lots of people will complain loudly about this to everyone but the companies involved, and almost all will continue to do business with those companies. They may even do more business with them: after all, they will be "top of mind".
In order for anything to appear on Wikileaks its secrecy must already have been compromised. Wikileaks merely makes this fact public. Thus when one of the very few things that should legitimately be kept secret appears there it is evidence that someone is incompetent; not that Wikileaks is irresponsible.
The number one problem being that in order to have some of the other problems described all traffic must be going through proxies, leaving users vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks.
But I suppose the government might consider that a feature.
The "Detailed Description" describes what looks like a crippled version of Cron-apt built into each application. It completely ignores shared libraries and other dependencies and so would be useful only for monolithic programs.
The claims, on the other hand, look rather as if someone at Apple was observing Apt development and taking notes.
Slashdot Mirror
> ...Government Ministers for CRIA, CMPDA, and Microsoft...
Canada has a Minister for Microsoft?
> This seems reasonable. So it wasn't a devious attempt to block a competitor, just a very
> rigid safety feature that is unmotivated to integrate competitive products.
Yes, it's always best to have a plausible cover story, isn't it?
> It's boorish at best and plainly poor software testing at worst.
We already know it's a Microsoft product.
In the Free Software world we don't eat each other.
> This could have been a real PR coup for NASA but they screwed up.
Yes. They really wimped out by not naming the toilet after him.
The word you are looking for is "rhetoric".
> Still, I'm sure the biometrics crowd are just working their way up to suggesting colonic
> maps.
Well, at least that one isn't publically accessible (at least not for most people).
> When I bought a prepaid sim card in Switzerland last year, they wouldn't give it to me
> unless they got my passport information etc.
Whereas here in the horrible, oppressive USA I can buy a Tracfone and card for cash in most any store with no id required.
> My only question is, where is Vista SP2? Last I checked, it was not yet released.
Which is what makes it so secure.
...unbreakable Oracle.
> Phorm listens in on this, records it and classifies that user as a website-W sort of
> person - phorm pays your ISP to let them do this.
Why doesn't it pay the user?
> Or horse porn adverts, if that's what your other family members get up to.
Why doesn't each of your family members have a seperate account on the machine?
> Phorm does NOT replace adverts on websites...
Yet.
I've never seen his show. I learned everything I know about him from Slashdot.
Land toilet -> crapper, ship's toilet -> head, space toilet -> colbert
Let's start a campaign. From now on a space toilet shall be a "colbert".
> Because the cost to the ISP isn't based on how much I use.
No. Their last mile capacity depends on your peak uasage but as soon as you get far enough upstream to be dealing with the aggregation of a significant number of users it depends on average usage. There is no ISP that would not have problems if all its customers maxed out their connections at once.
"300 years"? Really. What, then, did the ballot act of 1872 do?
And then there is the matter of numbered ballots...
> Further on, they state Retain your customers by keeping your brand top-of-mind through
> consistent, relevant and interactive email communications. Yeah, good luck with that. I
> know four companies that have just lost my repeat business.
Did you tell them why? They won't stop doing this unless a) they lose business because of it and b) they know they are losing business becuase of it.
Prediction: lots of people will complain loudly about this to everyone but the companies involved, and almost all will continue to do business with those companies. They may even do more business with them: after all, they will be "top of mind".
"Reward"?
Someone incompetent entrusted the secret to the irresponsible one.
In order for anything to appear on Wikileaks its secrecy must already have been compromised. Wikileaks merely makes this fact public. Thus when one of the very few things that should legitimately be kept secret appears there it is evidence that someone is incompetent; not that Wikileaks is irresponsible.
> Imagine a gigantic cell phone or laptop battery blowing up. Yikes!
Imagine twenty gallons of gasoline blowing up. Yikes!
Heres's how: SOHO
> The technology has all sorts of problems...
The number one problem being that in order to have some of the other problems described all traffic must be going through proxies, leaving users vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks.
But I suppose the government might consider that a feature.
The "Detailed Description" describes what looks like a crippled version of Cron-apt built into each application. It completely ignores shared libraries and other dependencies and so would be useful only for monolithic programs.
The claims, on the other hand, look rather as if someone at Apple was observing Apt development and taking notes.
That's part of the abstract, not a claim. Read the claims to find out what is actually claimed (I haven't done so).