Fair use is defined in US copyright law as an arguable defence, not an absolute defined limit to what the copyright holder can claim.
It is nowhere near as clear cut as the grandparent makes out, he would have to make that argument in front of a judge, clarifying why he thinks it classifies as fair use under the provisions given in the law, and the judge will make the decision. It's not a situation where you can point to the clause in the law and say "there you go, I'm legal" and walk out of the court room.
No evidence one way or the other, just accusations thrown quite wildly. You can't say anything positive about MS these days without risking a "shill!" label.
I disagree that they are implying anything untruthful, I think (and this is a very very common issue) is that people just love to assume something. Their statement didn't say anything about encryption based on individual accounts, it was those who made an assumption that acted all put out when the story broke.
The topic had been covered in the Dropbox Help Centre for a long time prior to it becoming a public issue.
One of the reasons I don't frequent the forums any more is simply due to the huge number of users who seem to make wildly inaccurate assumptions about the service they were expecting to get (really, do they really think that $10 a month gets them unlimited bandwidth for their "distribute 1GB to 100,000 people every month" intended usage?) - assumptions seem to be the standard these days, even when the answers to their questions are readily available via either the help centre or in past forum posts, but you will be surprised just how outraged people can become when their assumptions are proven completely wrong.
Nope, they have several times clarified on the forum that blocks are encrypted with the Dropbox key before they are stored in S3 - it was the whole "so you aren't encrypting using individual keys" that was the highlighted issue.
They have never made false claims about security - that's a trumped up argument. A logical block to employees accessing your files is what they claimed to have in place, and is perfectly valid - however, someone assumed something else and voila - we have a "security issue". How they operated was known to forum users from the first day they went public, and was completely within what they claimed in the T&Cs at the time.
It was a trumped up argument who wanted to get some page views.
Also, the FTP argument is facetious as well as their major cockup (removing authentication check) could easy be done by an FTP service as well - transfers etc are done via encrypted connections (apart from some metadata on the mobile apps), so it's instantly more secure than FTP.
I'm a huge advocate of Dropbox, but their customer facing side is really quite bad - very little employee interaction on the forums, VoteBox basically completely ignored, support tickets are hit and miss (either it gets handled right away or you wait days - even for similar requests), and their product development is glacially slow (their first new feature in over 6 months is something no one was expecting and wasn't being asked for - a photo importer fr the desktop app).
They may be profitable, but they are losing customer focus.
Heh, the comment is completely on topic, interesting and factual and yet we still have fucktards insisting that any mention of MS must have been paid for.
Jesus did die, he rose from the grave by conquering death - according to the Bible, it's one of the key tenants of Christianity. Now, how would copyright law handle that?
Is it still possible for another "IE 6" to happen?
That is a browser that doesn't follow W3 standards, a browser that becomes incompatible with later versions of itself and such a browser that is kept in use by big orgs because zillions of lines of code were written to work with THAT BROWSER only?
Yup, been happening for a while - there are loads of web apps being written for Mobile Safari which won't work on anything else, as they are tightly bound to the iOS web app framework.
You can port most of these apps fairly trivially to Androids WebKit, but even then you lose a fair amount of functionality in the process.
The same story was making the rounds in 2002 about war games with Iraq as the defender, with a similar outcome - allied forces couldn't even gain a foothold until Iraqi forces were ordered to withdraw by the moderators.
Pretty sure that story wasn't true, and I'm pretty sure the updated version isn't either.
What about this makes them evil? They are entitled to withdraw a service, that doesn't make them evil at all. Just because the third party replacement service isn't ready doesn't oblige them to do anything.
It is, but webapps on iOS run into similar performance issues as highlighted in this story - Apple don't accelerate the version of WebKit which is used by webapps that are launched from icons on the desktop as much as the version of WebKit which their Safari browser uses, and its pretty noticeable.
The "story" here is that everything in WebOS is WebKit based - there is no Dalvik or Cocoa equivalent (I'm not sure as to the validity of that statement as I'm not interested in WebOS, but everything I have read indicates that it is correct), which are much closer to the metal and thus have a performance advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair use is defined in US copyright law as an arguable defence, not an absolute defined limit to what the copyright holder can claim.
It is nowhere near as clear cut as the grandparent makes out, he would have to make that argument in front of a judge, clarifying why he thinks it classifies as fair use under the provisions given in the law, and the judge will make the decision. It's not a situation where you can point to the clause in the law and say "there you go, I'm legal" and walk out of the court room.
Thanks. That shows that you haven't administrated a decent sized corporate network.
Fine, script the installer.
Now update the home screen, and add new bookmarks to already deployed installs.
That's where GPO carries on and your solution ends.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/09/uk-borders-constructive-dismissal-lawyers
Quite a prominent one as well.
So posting informative, on topic and well presented posts is "manipulating the system" now?
In that case, fuck that, I don't want to be part of any of your systems.
Uhm, that's the point...
No evidence one way or the other, just accusations thrown quite wildly. You can't say anything positive about MS these days without risking a "shill!" label.
Am I free then to point out thousands of accounts that seem to be shills for Linux, Gnu, RMS etc etc?
I disagree that they are implying anything untruthful, I think (and this is a very very common issue) is that people just love to assume something. Their statement didn't say anything about encryption based on individual accounts, it was those who made an assumption that acted all put out when the story broke.
The topic had been covered in the Dropbox Help Centre for a long time prior to it becoming a public issue.
One of the reasons I don't frequent the forums any more is simply due to the huge number of users who seem to make wildly inaccurate assumptions about the service they were expecting to get (really, do they really think that $10 a month gets them unlimited bandwidth for their "distribute 1GB to 100,000 people every month" intended usage?) - assumptions seem to be the standard these days, even when the answers to their questions are readily available via either the help centre or in past forum posts, but you will be surprised just how outraged people can become when their assumptions are proven completely wrong.
Oh look, another fucktard claiming "Shill! Shill!" against an informative post, just because they don't like MS! How unusual...
Nope, they have several times clarified on the forum that blocks are encrypted with the Dropbox key before they are stored in S3 - it was the whole "so you aren't encrypting using individual keys" that was the highlighted issue.
They have never made false claims about security - that's a trumped up argument. A logical block to employees accessing your files is what they claimed to have in place, and is perfectly valid - however, someone assumed something else and voila - we have a "security issue". How they operated was known to forum users from the first day they went public, and was completely within what they claimed in the T&Cs at the time.
It was a trumped up argument who wanted to get some page views.
Also, the FTP argument is facetious as well as their major cockup (removing authentication check) could easy be done by an FTP service as well - transfers etc are done via encrypted connections (apart from some metadata on the mobile apps), so it's instantly more secure than FTP.
I'm a huge advocate of Dropbox, but their customer facing side is really quite bad - very little employee interaction on the forums, VoteBox basically completely ignored, support tickets are hit and miss (either it gets handled right away or you wait days - even for similar requests), and their product development is glacially slow (their first new feature in over 6 months is something no one was expecting and wasn't being asked for - a photo importer fr the desktop app).
They may be profitable, but they are losing customer focus.
Oh go fuck yourself. You are a prime example of everything that is wrong with slashdot these days.
Complete and utter bollocks. I'm referring to your comment, just to make sure there is no doubt.
Heh, the comment is completely on topic, interesting and factual and yet we still have fucktards insisting that any mention of MS must have been paid for.
Get a life.
Twas an uncaught iPad autocorrection :(
Jesus did die, he rose from the grave by conquering death - according to the Bible, it's one of the key tenants of Christianity. Now, how would copyright law handle that?
I've read the linked pages, it's not a vulnerability in MSSQL, it's injected code which targets MSSQL so the blame lies with the application.
One office, two staff members, to receive a commercial income of at least $35Million a year. Sure they will be around in six years.
Maybe not with an actual product, but they *will* be around.
Is it still possible for another "IE 6" to happen?
That is a browser that doesn't follow W3 standards, a browser that becomes incompatible with later versions of itself and such a browser that is kept in use by big orgs because zillions of lines of code were written to work with THAT BROWSER only?
Yup, been happening for a while - there are loads of web apps being written for Mobile Safari which won't work on anything else, as they are tightly bound to the iOS web app framework.
You can port most of these apps fairly trivially to Androids WebKit, but even then you lose a fair amount of functionality in the process.
The same story was making the rounds in 2002 about war games with Iraq as the defender, with a similar outcome - allied forces couldn't even gain a foothold until Iraqi forces were ordered to withdraw by the moderators.
Pretty sure that story wasn't true, and I'm pretty sure the updated version isn't either.
What about this makes them evil? They are entitled to withdraw a service, that doesn't make them evil at all. Just because the third party replacement service isn't ready doesn't oblige them to do anything.
Then you haven't been looking at all, and its obvious that you haven't.
It is, but webapps on iOS run into similar performance issues as highlighted in this story - Apple don't accelerate the version of WebKit which is used by webapps that are launched from icons on the desktop as much as the version of WebKit which their Safari browser uses, and its pretty noticeable.
The "story" here is that everything in WebOS is WebKit based - there is no Dalvik or Cocoa equivalent (I'm not sure as to the validity of that statement as I'm not interested in WebOS, but everything I have read indicates that it is correct), which are much closer to the metal and thus have a performance advantage.
And the facts say that the Patrot is nowhere near as successful as it has ever been claimed.
Sorry, but your pet isn't as good as you think it is.