Until (if ever) someone comes up with a social platform that actually respects the user's wishes for privacy, "everyone" won't be on Facebook or anywhere else, for that matter.
Are you willing to pay for one?
It will have the benefit of being ad-free, but you'll likely have to pay for your usage(and no, not for the size of your network, but for the services you use, perhaps for each message you send to other members, or how many hits on your profile page).
If it had been all open from the start, 70% or more of FB users would have made an account for the novelty, then google+ would have had enough userbase to warrant continued use.
Except that Google's clients, the advertisers, wouldn't have had the certitude that only the snobbish first adopters were on it.
The main problem with google+ and facebook is that the users are not the customers.
That's the main problem with them, and it will not go away.
I see where you're going with this, and I mostly agree, for one, the protesters are far too short term to actually even "damage" even one proxy, let alone all of them, so no lasting change will be done. Second, those proxies are all identified in some some of amorphous mass.
One form of protest that might work would include:
1) identify one proxy 2) drive him totally ouf ot business out of a mixture of a) class action lawsuit b) boycott c) social censure
repeat
But that's not glitzy enough for the 99% crowd, and it is FAR beyond the attention span of the facebook crowd.
If you identify those 1% as your enemies(and that's the vibe I got when I first heard of this) you have to harry them until they go down...
So far, I don't think this is anywhere on the scale of the protests in libya.
And yes, This is much the same thing, except:
Libya was the government, not a proxy
It was the same majority flexing its muscle and seeing change done, however.
And it doesn't really matter if the 1% see it or not, it's whether or not when the 99% stop their action, change has been done or not.
If I punch your face, and you keep singing la la la while I do it.
You can still sing la la la
If I burst your skin or not is what matters, not your singing ability at that point.
The same with the 1%, their inaction at the 99% is a sign of their apathy, getting the 99% moving, and keeping them moving, would do a lot more lasting effect, regardless...
I'm not saying IBM is chicken, I'm saying IBM isn't throwing their weight around at patent trolls to dissuade them from doing anything we might not like(the global citizenly "We")
This isnt a patent anyways, just copyright on this one database. Any other database with timezones would do, or just paying ACS for their copy. Or paying Apple, Sun, Oracle or anyone else who pays ACS for their copy.
Unless they WANT to fight this in court, they're not that threatening, and most of the big iron unix have a history of settling. SCO got beat by novell, not IBM, and IBM didn't dance on SCO's grave, so we don't get the impression that challenging IBM is that bad.
Apple does mind when someone steps on their iphone, usually by making a lookalike product, but they've not gone around and said "You threaten us, you die" yet either...
Your monitoring system doesn't stop your web site from going down either... It's to give you a whack in the head at 3am so you're fired up to do something about it...
Same here, management didn't do anything, IT didn't do anything, risk management was either hamstrung incompetent or complacent or a mixture of all three...
This is worse, as a "rogue" trader is, at least to this speaker of english as a second language, someone who deliberately did wrong.
He was not "making mistakes" he was trying to game the system.
As I posted earlier in this thread, at the very least, he should have been sandboxed/honeypotted, with someone replaying any transactions he made that had value(so he'd NOT know he was being audited for being a crook and facing jail time).
The biggest problems with false positives in most antiviruses isn't the false positives, it's that you can't do anything about them until they issue a fix. If you could just tell them "I know what I'm doing, this particular file is ok"without "disable yourself, you're fucked and need a doctor" it would be a lot more tolerable. It would also make accusations of "you're doing this to make people switch" a lot less believable.
The point is that Microsoft is making money NOT marketing android phones, by that perspective, IBM making 23Billions in software doesn't mean they marketed that software either.
1) commercially blast those who make walled gardens back into the stone age 2) punish those more closed solutions until they are much cheaper than the open ones
Since being open runs risks(if you are open, you are open to competition) that means until the cost of being closed is larger than the costs of those risks, you(the market)'re punishing people for being open.
There's no risk of the open going away, the risk is that open will quickly become much more expensive, and a niche market, whereas in liberal free-market democracies, closed markets shouldn't be the majority.
And Microsoft makes more per samsung android handset than Google does, potentially even more than samsung(I don't have hard numbers). Does that mean Microsoft is marketing android phones?
Well in this case, since it's about a future version, it says "start expecting that in five years we will stop issuing patches for SUA". That some people chose to use windows... I think we can call either self-inflicted, or at least, not Microsoft's fault ONLY.
The other problem is that the name SFU doesn't convey posix as much as "interoperability with unix". Way back when, unix had a bunch of standards associated with it, posix was the original, since then, they've added a several "unix" standards.
Having Posix checked isn't as useful as it was.
On the other hand, all those posix-compliant linux servers that got soldm claim greater unix compatibility, are all very interoperable in the first place, at least, more interoperable for the money, than Microsoft's offerings. Microsoft doesn't appear to have had as much traction in its strategy to bind nis to AD as they hoped, so now they don't want to support SFU(adding new features,etc...) since it's mostly customers who if they buy windows, buy it at sufferance, and would not seriously consider replacing their unix with windows servers.
On the other hand, careful SFU management tuning and sizing might help people buy less windows, and run linux/unix alternatives in a couple of scenarios I can think of, so I'm not surprised Microsoft wants to stop subsidising something that doesn't meet its main goal(more windows server licenses with lock-in) and a risk of loosening the lock for highly technical clients.
a) negotiable or b) negotiated on your behalf by a consumer association of some kind
right now, eulas are written by the lawyers of the firm in question, with the very minimum to make them legal(if that much) and you have to waive a bunch of what's basic consumer rights, just to enter into business with those firms.
Why is it that whenever someone points a flaw in the system, the answer always is "go away, cuz noone will fix it"
And, just like the famous "US Courts don't care how you got in front of the court, as long you you there there..."
HOW isn't important.
The law doesn't say the FBI can't swipe your phone for an identical one and use it record you. It only says if they get CAUGHT doing it, it's NOT proof that you commited a crime.
They can still ask you to post yourself the results of your gps data, manually, and it can be irreceivable as entrapment.
A lot of the laws about evidence revolve a lot more about preventing the police going around, with "this crime has been committed, who can I indict for it" than with "who can I convict for this crime?" because, if they can really indict you for it, honest to god, you're really caught.
It's not havoc, it's just more work. Just revoke all the "root" certs in current use, and you're back to the basic: VERIFY (once, and then once they expire) every trusted cert you use, and sign them with your own key. Others in this thread mention validating the keys offline, which, for your bank, might make a lot more sense than trusting a third party.
If Apache doesn't return an error code it will have to keep the connection open, and you're back at the "consuming so many resources it's denying legitimate traffic" part of the denial of service.
They get more efficient... for the same amount of computing power. However, we ain't stopped needing more/faster computing power recently, quite the opposite. I would have expected Microsoft to make a proposal about power plants with computing power, not mere "smarter" buildings though.
I wish people would accept that a company can be a hardware company, a software company, AND a company that takes design and marketing seriously.
Apple is a hardware company, except when it's a software services company.
The trick to figure out is very simple.
Apple is a hardware company when it sacrifices selling software, to sell hardware(Not selling mac os X without mac hardware).
They are a software marketing company when they want to get a big piece(30%) of very very numerous transactions about software(the app store, for either macs or iphones/ipods), they aren't a software company, in the traditional sense, as they do not get most of their revenue either from software they wrote that people use.
If apple was a software company, it wouldn't sell hardware, or at least, wouldn't sacrifice software to hardware. They would be more like Microsoft is if they were, who is a "true" software company.
Google is a software service company, with the 15$/handset Microsoft is making on every android handset, I would be surprised if Microsoft, who contributed nothing to android, but holds patents, made more money from every android handset sold/distributed than google, up until a certain cut-off point, where enough use of the platform would generate ad revenue.
The distinction is simple, and it's Apple that's making it.
I feel I just HAVE to correct you. Apple's app store and steam ARE competing. EA isn't competing, EA is asking you to load some bloat onto your pc to send you to a web site on their server so you can load third parties of various dubious quality to buy DLC and downloadable game, and has seperate, incomptatible lobbies for each game, on top of that.
Steam and Apple understand the new reality of downloading content and online multiplayer. EA would have trouble finding it if it bit them in the ass.
To ea I suggest: make a partnership with gamespy or openid or facebook, allow people to use some NON-EA login to a single integrated lobby, purchasing portal and dlc area. Your job, as the store/portal is to make sure that once the publisher has marked it gold, you get the right version onto my pc, after making sure I properly paid for it. Then you let me interact with my friends in all the currently approved(and I don't suggest you stop there) online methods.
Only, the problem is, EA wants the control of the new platform, but none of the costs. Apple's 50% of the profits works, as long as they take up all the publisher's worries(which is why, whenever they censor an app, it raises a hue and cry, they're refusing business that's not strictly just theirs),
EA's involvement with distribution and publishing has never been akin to steam's "you make a good game, we'll take care of the rest".
So saying EA's a contender to steam is like saying that because ea takes credit cards, it's competing with amazon.
It also might mean they don't fancy going against a router model made up of bsd and linux software-based routers on appliance hardware in the home market. (Some of those risks can be lessened by default configurations, proper web based configurators and the like). And the last slashdot discussion of ipv6 lef me with the certitude that LTE at least, was IPv6 based.
On the other hand, it could just mean that IPv6 has failed, as it's the first time the IPv6 model has been presented as "not good enough for the home". Whereas the addressing always implied "one ipv6 for each of your devices"(almost like rfid for bluetooth devices, on the internet, all the time), they didn't figure out the firewalling ?
Slashdot Mirror
Until (if ever) someone comes up with a social platform that actually respects the user's wishes for privacy, "everyone" won't be on Facebook or anywhere else, for that matter.
Are you willing to pay for one?
It will have the benefit of being ad-free, but you'll likely have to pay for your usage(and no, not for the size of your network, but for the services you use, perhaps for each message you send to other members, or how many hits on your profile page).
If it had been all open from the start, 70% or more of FB users would have made an account for the novelty, then google+ would have had enough userbase to warrant continued use.
Except that Google's clients, the advertisers, wouldn't have had the certitude that only the snobbish first adopters were on it.
The main problem with google+ and facebook is that the users are not the customers.
That's the main problem with them, and it will not go away.
I see where you're going with this, and I mostly agree, for one, the protesters are far too short term to actually even "damage" even one proxy, let alone all of them, so no lasting change will be done. Second, those proxies are all identified in some some of amorphous mass.
One form of protest that might work would include:
1) identify one proxy
2) drive him totally ouf ot business out of a mixture of
a) class action lawsuit
b) boycott
c) social censure
repeat
But that's not glitzy enough for the 99% crowd, and it is FAR beyond the attention span of the facebook crowd.
If you identify those 1% as your enemies(and that's the vibe I got when I first heard of this) you have to harry them until they go down...
So far, I don't think this is anywhere on the scale of the protests in libya.
And yes, This is much the same thing, except:
Libya was the government, not a proxy
It was the same majority flexing its muscle and seeing change done, however.
And it doesn't really matter if the 1% see it or not, it's whether or not when the 99% stop their action, change has been done or not.
If I punch your face, and you keep singing la la la while I do it.
You can still sing la la la
If I burst your skin or not is what matters, not your singing ability at that point.
The same with the 1%, their inaction at the 99% is a sign of their apathy, getting the 99% moving, and keeping them moving, would do a lot more lasting effect, regardless...
I'm not saying IBM is chicken, I'm saying IBM isn't throwing their weight around at patent trolls to dissuade them from doing anything we might not like(the global citizenly "We")
This isnt a patent anyways, just copyright on this one database. Any other database with timezones would do, or just paying ACS for their copy.
Or paying Apple, Sun, Oracle or anyone else who pays ACS for their copy.
So?
Unless they WANT to fight this in court, they're not that threatening, and most of the big iron unix have a history of settling. SCO got beat by novell, not IBM, and IBM didn't dance on SCO's grave, so we don't get the impression that challenging IBM is that bad.
Apple does mind when someone steps on their iphone, usually by making a lookalike product, but they've not gone around and said "You threaten us, you die" yet either...
Your monitoring system doesn't stop your web site from going down either... It's to give you a whack in the head at 3am so you're fired up to do something about it...
Same here, management didn't do anything, IT didn't do anything, risk management was either hamstrung incompetent or complacent or a mixture of all three...
This is worse, as a "rogue" trader is, at least to this speaker of english as a second language, someone who deliberately did wrong.
He was not "making mistakes" he was trying to game the system.
As I posted earlier in this thread, at the very least, he should have been sandboxed/honeypotted, with someone replaying any transactions he made that had value(so he'd NOT know he was being audited for being a crook and facing jail time).
They detected him
They let him run 2 billion in bad trades
They didn't honeypot him
They didn't stop him at a lower amount...
This is supposed to be good how?
The biggest problems with false positives in most antiviruses isn't the false positives, it's that you can't do anything about them until they issue a fix. If you could just tell them "I know what I'm doing, this particular file is ok"without "disable yourself, you're fucked and need a doctor" it would be a lot more tolerable. It would also make accusations of "you're doing this to make people switch" a lot less believable.
The point is that Microsoft is making money NOT marketing android phones, by that perspective, IBM making 23Billions in software doesn't mean they marketed that software either.
It's not surprising, the consumers don't:
1) commercially blast those who make walled gardens back into the stone age
2) punish those more closed solutions until they are much cheaper than the open ones
Since being open runs risks(if you are open, you are open to competition) that means until the cost of being closed is larger than the costs of those risks, you(the market)'re punishing people for being open.
There's no risk of the open going away, the risk is that open will quickly become much more expensive, and a niche market, whereas in liberal free-market democracies, closed markets shouldn't be the majority.
And Microsoft makes more per samsung android handset than Google does, potentially even more than samsung(I don't have hard numbers). Does that mean Microsoft is marketing android phones?
You also can't prove something that hasn't happened yet, or someone else's intent. Logic just doesn't work that way.
Well in this case, since it's about a future version, it says "start expecting that in five years we will stop issuing patches for SUA". That some people chose to use windows... I think we can call either self-inflicted, or at least, not Microsoft's fault ONLY.
The other problem is that the name SFU doesn't convey posix as much as "interoperability with unix". Way back when, unix had a bunch of standards associated with it, posix was the original, since then, they've added a several "unix" standards.
Having Posix checked isn't as useful as it was.
On the other hand, all those posix-compliant linux servers that got soldm claim greater unix compatibility, are all very interoperable in the first place, at least, more interoperable for the money, than Microsoft's offerings. Microsoft doesn't appear to have had as much traction in its strategy to bind nis to AD as they hoped, so now they don't want to support SFU(adding new features,etc...) since it's mostly customers who if they buy windows, buy it at sufferance, and would not seriously consider replacing their unix with windows servers.
On the other hand, careful SFU management tuning and sizing might help people buy less windows, and run linux/unix alternatives in a couple of scenarios I can think of, so I'm not surprised Microsoft wants to stop subsidising something that doesn't meet its main goal(more windows server licenses with lock-in) and a risk of loosening the lock for highly technical clients.
There'd be a better solution is eulas were
a) negotiable or
b) negotiated on your behalf by a consumer association of some kind
right now, eulas are written by the lawyers of the firm in question, with the very minimum to make them legal(if that much) and you have to waive a bunch of what's basic consumer rights, just to enter into business with those firms.
Why is it that whenever someone points a flaw in the system, the answer always is "go away, cuz noone will fix it"
And, just like the famous "US Courts don't care how you got in front of the court, as long you you there there..."
HOW isn't important.
The law doesn't say the FBI can't swipe your phone for an identical one and use it record you. It only says if they get CAUGHT doing it, it's NOT proof that you commited a crime.
They can still ask you to post yourself the results of your gps data, manually, and it can be irreceivable as entrapment.
A lot of the laws about evidence revolve a lot more about preventing the police going around, with "this crime has been committed, who can I indict for it" than with "who can I convict for this crime?" because, if they can really indict you for it, honest to god, you're really caught.
It's not havoc, it's just more work.
Just revoke all the "root" certs in current use, and you're back to the basic:
VERIFY (once, and then once they expire) every trusted cert you use, and sign them with your own key.
Others in this thread mention validating the keys offline, which, for your bank, might make a lot more sense than trusting a third party.
Imagine what happens if a teacher asks his students for an essay on "Naked Gun" without checking the banned list first.
Seems to me a word list is counterproductive.
Or was the goal to block a whole bunch of essay titles too?
James Blunt is also blocked? What about, as other said, biology, but for "kentucky blue glass"?
History essays without fights are also gonna be a bit... original.
If Apache doesn't return an error code it will have to keep the connection open, and you're back at the "consuming so many resources it's denying legitimate traffic" part of the denial of service.
They get more efficient... for the same amount of computing power. However, we ain't stopped needing more/faster computing power recently, quite the opposite.
I would have expected Microsoft to make a proposal about power plants with computing power, not mere "smarter" buildings though.
I wish people would accept that a company can be a hardware company, a software company, AND a company that takes design and marketing seriously.
Apple is a hardware company, except when it's a software services company.
The trick to figure out is very simple.
Apple is a hardware company when it sacrifices selling software, to sell hardware(Not selling mac os X without mac hardware).
They are a software marketing company when they want to get a big piece(30%) of very very numerous transactions about software(the app store, for either macs or iphones/ipods), they aren't a software company, in the traditional sense, as they do not get most of their revenue either from software they wrote that people use.
If apple was a software company, it wouldn't sell hardware, or at least, wouldn't sacrifice software to hardware. They would be more like Microsoft is if they were, who is a "true" software company.
Google is a software service company, with the 15$/handset Microsoft is making on every android handset, I would be surprised if Microsoft, who contributed nothing to android, but holds patents, made more money from every android handset sold/distributed than google, up until a certain cut-off point, where enough use of the platform would generate ad revenue.
The distinction is simple, and it's Apple that's making it.
I feel I just HAVE to correct you.
Apple's app store and steam ARE competing. EA isn't competing, EA is asking you to load some bloat onto your pc to send you to a web site on their server so you can load third parties of various dubious quality to buy DLC and downloadable game, and has seperate, incomptatible lobbies for each game, on top of that.
Steam and Apple understand the new reality of downloading content and online multiplayer. EA would have trouble finding it if it bit them in the ass.
To ea I suggest: make a partnership with gamespy or openid or facebook, allow people to use some NON-EA login to a single integrated lobby, purchasing portal and dlc area. Your job, as the store/portal is to make sure that once the publisher has marked it gold, you get the right version onto my pc, after making sure I properly paid for it. Then you let me interact with my friends in all the currently approved(and I don't suggest you stop there) online methods.
Only, the problem is, EA wants the control of the new platform, but none of the costs. Apple's 50% of the profits works, as long as they take up all the publisher's worries(which is why, whenever they censor an app, it raises a hue and cry, they're refusing business that's not strictly just theirs),
EA's involvement with distribution and publishing has never been akin to steam's "you make a good game, we'll take care of the rest".
So saying EA's a contender to steam is like saying that because ea takes credit cards, it's competing with amazon.
It also might mean they don't fancy going against a router model made up of bsd and linux software-based routers on appliance hardware in the home market. (Some of those risks can be lessened by default configurations, proper web based configurators and the like). And the last slashdot discussion of ipv6 lef me with the certitude that LTE at least, was IPv6 based.
On the other hand, it could just mean that IPv6 has failed, as it's the first time the IPv6 model has been presented as "not good enough for the home". Whereas the addressing always implied "one ipv6 for each of your devices"(almost like rfid for bluetooth devices, on the internet, all the time), they didn't figure out the firewalling ?