I'm wondering if their "countries where we have alternate business models" means Korea, and if so, it means they want to make it an expansion priced like a full-game there...?
Microsoft: Please Mister FTC, don't delineate what's "legal" so we won't get sued if we find a novel/barely legal/grey area way of selling/otherwise profiting from privacy data.
My answer to them: Please Mister FTC, if they don't have my permission, in writing, to use my data, for every client they sell it to, it should be illegal. Each time a client wants to use my data, I should know, and should explicitly allow it.
Who is Goldman competing against here? Are they trying to snatch these people up with huge bonuses because there are other financial firms (any major ones left?), or is it just Goldman's desire to grow their profits, or both?
The implication I got from the summary is that by working for these firms which have been working to "Game" the system in the past, those engineers are working against our collective interests, whereas normal engineers work for our collective interests(this is the common belief, one I won't comment on).
They would be competing against firms like IBM, Oracle, SAS, SAP, CSC, etc... Who "merely" charge a premium of 25-30% on a candidate's rate and bill the client.
I'd upgrade that to As long as the government views the biggest firms as untouchables, and pick one or two as examples/targets, this will continue on for some time....
Letting a few of them fail in the last debacle would have been better for the economy
Once you're intimidated, you definitely don't want to be quoted as an example.
The only time someone intimidated actually wants publicity is when that person failed to be intimidated and is suing the pants off the person who failed. In that case, there would likely be a trial.
On another note, TFA would be a good textbook case of why even if you fail to be intimidated, even if you think there's good standing for a trial, there likely won't be one: too much collateral damage to the victim even if he wins.
I would imagine their new datacenter expansions might require a bit of addresses(no idea how many would be actually needed without seeing their network design) to support windows phone 7 and related apps.
600k+ addresses is a bit much though, unless they have plans to offer natting/tunneling services for windows 7 phones, perhaps to ease ipv6 issues on the part of their partners?
If you want to have a tall building that consumes electricity, you can't say "produce it elsewhere"
which I personally find precious. We should be putting solar power in by default, and using other sources if solar fails, period. Because all of the other sources are stored solar power that's been converted, using the original source makes more sense.
Once we have one building doing this, we can have others.
We can also stop the nonsense about putting most of the solar power in deserts. We need to start to have urban power generation that doesn't generate smoke pollutants. Solar is ideal for that.
but that's more of an issue with bad business practices that affect consumers negatively, rather than a problem for app developers.
I'd say it becomes a platform problem if(or when, you pick) the bad business practices are rampant across most devices, up to the point where app developers need to take it into account when developing software, especially since the more fragmented markets seem to be the loud, highly visible, trend-setting north american markets.
I thought they already did need to take precautions for software, denials from google notwithstanding
Either that, or it's the new CEO getting rid of as much of his predecessor's legacy as possible(and since it's a sale, it looks like a + in the books) even to the long-term detriment of the company.
What you call suffocating innovation, I call code quality.
Or do you expect someone to package xorg just by creating a github repo, and then gnome, xfce and kde will all "just work" Perhaps this will clarify my point further. apt-get dist-upgrade working from debian 2.0 to 3.0 on a live, production server(in a maintenance window), the first time, is a metric of package quality for me. No other linux has had it, not for major version numbers, imho. If it doesn't work this good, I call it not working(I'm looking at both Fedora and RedHat here)
You're free to disagree I don't think the article has any meaning, myself, they're all important, for different reasons, to different people. And how many derivatives isn't as important as what they do(for myself ubuntu and knoppix are pretty important, in terms of what they enable/do, others have different needs, like oracle-on-linux for instance, haven't checked the debian state of support for it recently)
If you're Nokia, in North America, non-carrier dependant tethering is biting the hand that feeds you. Oh and the average consumer will NOT "refuse to buy a phone now because it's not open enough or has feature x that they want" Until that changes, you're preaching to a vocal elite about the virtues of elitism, while Nokia, with one hand tried to sooth that Elite, and with the other, completely ignored you, because you're not their consumer.
The worst thing might be that the nascent tablet platform gets written-off as a high-priced niche for people with more money than sense.
Why does the editor think that's a bad thing? Does he have tablets to sell?
Just because tablets are presented as a new and popular thing doesn't give them an intrinsic value.
Yes a portable touch-device is useful, but they have been predicted for so long, and never realized before now, it should have given us an inkling there might be some problems...
I've held off buying a tablet in part because of their "lose-ability" and I suspect I'm not the only one.
I wonder if anyone thought of forcing AAAA requests (dns IPv6 requests) for those sites only on ipv6 packets, and denying them if they are in ipv4 packets
There seems to be some confusion as the limits of the standard vs the limits the patents held, or believed to be held(and how many were tested in court instead of settled?) by members of MPEG-LA for H.264 and others.
No open standard can do what you say it can until the patents expire, no matter how open they are, unless they can PROVE IN COURT that the patent does not do what the patents in question restrict apply to them. That's why software patents are so harmful, they cannot be worked around in a technical manner. NO amount of clever will let you base your business on doing what is patented. No amount of clever will let you do it for free either, because the patent holder MUST either 1) sue you 2) collect royalties from you 3) get a contract from you that defends its patent I can't find examples of a 3) being applicable to open source/open ideas initiatives right now, although small "the library of Kerhampton, middle of nowhere" can use the software without license for perpetuity has happened.
They've been found to meet the specifications of those places. If you don't know those specifications it tells you little.
The legal troubles blackberry has had mostly indicate the one you care about is Canada, as Canada's privacy laws were a problem with the UAE, India and a few other countries. The solution was always for those countries to get blackberry servers/datacenters that they could seize, since the ones in Canada were out of reach. If you truly don't trust Canada's privacy laws, that's your business. If you find a better country for laws dealing with that, please let us know, I'm sure a few people on Slashdot want to move there.
If it's an enterprise-provided phone, you can bet your ass it'll be a fireable offense soon enough not to have it with you... Mandating being a covered area is trickier though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm wondering if their "countries where we have alternate business models" means Korea, and if so, it means they want to make it an expansion priced like a full-game there...?
The patent troll that dued them out of existence can. Let's get the bad business models out of the way now.
The need to be online to "install" will probably work, the rest has to go.
Cue the "well this never happened when they weren't owned by oracle" in 5..4..3
Those records apply to information generated inside the company, and to a lesser degree to customer information.
ISP-type information is not specifically covered, as it is a special case.
How I read the article:
Microsoft: Please Mister FTC, don't delineate what's "legal" so we won't get sued if we find a novel/barely legal/grey area way of selling/otherwise profiting from privacy data.
My answer to them:
Please Mister FTC, if they don't have my permission, in writing, to use my data, for every client they sell it to, it should be illegal.
Each time a client wants to use my data, I should know, and should explicitly allow it.
Thank you, have a nice day
Who is Goldman competing against here? Are they trying to snatch these people up with huge bonuses because there are other financial firms (any major ones left?), or is it just Goldman's desire to grow their profits, or both?
The implication I got from the summary is that by working for these firms which have been working to "Game" the system in the past, those engineers are working against our collective interests, whereas normal engineers work for our collective interests(this is the common belief, one I won't comment on).
They would be competing against firms like IBM, Oracle, SAS, SAP, CSC, etc... Who "merely" charge a premium of 25-30% on a candidate's rate and bill the client.
I'd upgrade that to
As long as the government views the biggest firms as untouchables, and pick one or two as examples/targets, this will continue on for some time....
Letting a few of them fail in the last debacle would have been better for the economy
Once you're intimidated, you definitely don't want to be quoted as an example.
The only time someone intimidated actually wants publicity is when that person failed to be intimidated and is suing the pants off the person who failed. In that case, there would likely be a trial.
On another note, TFA would be a good textbook case of why even if you fail to be intimidated, even if you think there's good standing for a trial, there likely won't be one: too much collateral damage to the victim even if he wins.
It's because Microsoft invented "embrace-and-extend" and apple perfected it.
Microsoft did all these shenanigans to stac, symantec, etc... Who started as Microsoft Partners...
Apple does the reverse... Letting the user choose to use the os they want, but making it out of the box easier to use theirs.
The end result: I've heard a LOT of mac fans touting the bootcamp feature to potential new converts...
The dirty secret: none of them would think of using it without parallels or fusion.
I would imagine their new datacenter expansions might require a bit of addresses(no idea how many would be actually needed without seeing their network design)
to support windows phone 7 and related apps.
600k+ addresses is a bit much though, unless they have plans to offer natting/tunneling services for windows 7 phones, perhaps to ease ipv6 issues on the part of their partners?
To say nothing of the
If you want to have a tall building that consumes electricity, you can't say "produce it elsewhere"
which I personally find precious. We should be putting solar power in by default, and using other sources if solar fails, period. Because all of the other sources are stored solar power that's been converted, using the original source makes more sense.
Once we have one building doing this, we can have others.
We can also stop the nonsense about putting most of the solar power in deserts. We need to start to have urban power generation that doesn't generate smoke pollutants. Solar is ideal for that.
but that's more of an issue with bad business practices that affect consumers negatively, rather than a problem for app developers.
I'd say it becomes a platform problem if(or when, you pick) the bad business practices are rampant across most devices, up to the point where app developers need to take it into account when developing software, especially since the more fragmented markets seem to be the loud, highly visible, trend-setting north american markets.
I thought they already did need to take precautions for software, denials from google notwithstanding
Either that, or it's the new CEO getting rid of as much of his predecessor's legacy as possible(and since it's a sale, it looks like a + in the books) even to the long-term detriment of the company.
What you call suffocating innovation, I call code quality.
Or do you expect someone to package xorg just by creating a github repo, and then gnome, xfce and kde will all "just work"
Perhaps this will clarify my point further.
apt-get dist-upgrade working from debian 2.0 to 3.0 on a live, production server(in a maintenance window), the first time, is a metric of package quality for me.
No other linux has had it, not for major version numbers, imho.
If it doesn't work this good, I call it not working(I'm looking at both Fedora and RedHat here)
You're free to disagree
I don't think the article has any meaning, myself, they're all important, for different reasons, to different people.
And how many derivatives isn't as important as what they do(for myself ubuntu and knoppix are pretty important, in terms of what they enable/do, others have different needs, like oracle-on-linux for instance, haven't checked the debian state of support for it recently)
The people who have used Linux the longest on slashdot would surely remember a time before Red Hat, let alone a late version like 5.2.
If you're Nokia, in North America, non-carrier dependant tethering is biting the hand that feeds you.
Oh and the average consumer will NOT "refuse to buy a phone now because it's not open enough or has feature x that they want"
Until that changes, you're preaching to a vocal elite about the virtues of elitism, while Nokia, with one hand tried to sooth that Elite, and with the other, completely ignored you, because you're not their consumer.
It ain't been killed till we have a new version of smtp without it, imho.
From the summary
The worst thing might be that the nascent tablet platform gets written-off as a high-priced niche for people with more money than sense.
Why does the editor think that's a bad thing? Does he have tablets to sell?
Just because tablets are presented as a new and popular thing doesn't give them an intrinsic value.
Yes a portable touch-device is useful, but they have been predicted for so long, and never realized before now, it should have given us an inkling there might be some problems...
I've held off buying a tablet in part because of their "lose-ability" and I suspect I'm not the only one.
I wonder if anyone thought of forcing AAAA requests (dns IPv6 requests) for those sites only on ipv6 packets, and denying them if they are in ipv4 packets
There seems to be some confusion as the limits of the standard vs the limits the patents held, or believed to be held(and how many were tested in court instead of settled?) by members of MPEG-LA for H.264 and others.
No open standard can do what you say it can until the patents expire, no matter how open they are, unless they can PROVE IN COURT that the patent does not do what the patents in question restrict apply to them. That's why software patents are so harmful, they cannot be worked around in a technical manner. NO amount of clever will let you base your business on doing what is patented. No amount of clever will let you do it for free either, because the patent holder MUST either
1) sue you
2) collect royalties from you
3) get a contract from you that defends its patent
I can't find examples of a 3) being applicable to open source/open ideas initiatives right now, although small "the library of Kerhampton, middle of nowhere" can use the software without license for perpetuity has happened.
Actually the best foil to the people on the "let the market decide" is this.
The carriers decide, then mandate the handset makers do this.
Having a restriction on the handset makers prevents anticompetitive behaviour, one-removed.
It's not necessarily good, but it's the best shot you got.
The US should do the same thing, if they actually could make consumer-friendly regulation.
I'm taking the same tack along a different angle.
Difficult quest handled better on platforms with more rabid, addicted gamers, while platforms with more of a history of casual gamers struggle.
Like most backwards compatibility ideas works great, except if you're the person having to troubleshoot it when things go wrong.
Those people will stop telling you to remove ipv6 WHEN ipv6 works better than ipv4.
And no, dual stack is not "better" it's just "both at once". I mean those sites will move, when they can say "disable ipv4, you won't need it."
You cannot use "is willing to help for free" as a measure of the acceptance of technology, it's more a measure of masochism.
They've been found to meet the specifications of those places. If you don't know those specifications it tells you little.
The legal troubles blackberry has had mostly indicate the one you care about is Canada, as Canada's privacy laws were a problem with the UAE, India and a few other countries. The solution was always for those countries to get blackberry servers/datacenters that they could seize, since the ones in Canada were out of reach. If you truly don't trust Canada's privacy laws, that's your business. If you find a better country for laws dealing with that, please let us know, I'm sure a few people on Slashdot want to move there.
If it's an enterprise-provided phone, you can bet your ass it'll be a fireable offense soon enough not to have it with you...
Mandating being a covered area is trickier though.