It would be a great time to develop a standards-based dock/charger platform so we could drop our phones/tablets into an adaptor and have them display on a large monitor and accept standard USB peripherals.
ad hominem is not a logical fallacy when used by either google or apple.
Microsoft is not a person.
What they are though, is an organisation that has repeatedly attacked competitors via proxy - Sco, attempting to sell Linux-relevant patents to trolls, stacking ISO to block ODF, etc, etc.
This effort though, seems too minor and too transparently fallacious to be a direct attack on Google. It's more likley they are furthering another agenda - perhaps establishing precedednt for their own actions.
Didn't they do that because they were dropping the whole idea of building dynamic languages on the CLR?
Releasing the project under a permissive license means they can let IronPython and IronRuby gradually fade away without taking responsibility for killing them off.
The more document formats we have available as users, the easier it is to find solutions. Or maybe not...
Computing is moving away from the desktop and onto mobile devices. Microsoft was built on vice-like control of the desktop computers, and as a result, the field has been stagnant for decades.
Do you really think they won't take any opportunity they can to gain the same level of control over portables?
So it's okay to exonerate Microsoft and absolve them of all blame.
Except they're just as guilty as the devilish third party applications.
No, this is a genuine Windows vulnerability. Microsoft is responsible, not third parties.
It's very similar to putting . in $PATH on Unix. Windows, as usual fails to learn from Unix and puts . in $PATH by default. Third party app developers are not guilty, and neither are users.
Except Manning wasn't a lowly clerk. He is/was an intelligence analyst, as in, one who is assigned and allowed to read all of the intelligence and analyze it.
So PFCs (which I understood to be Private, First Class) are high-ranking people in the US military, are they?
Therre have been and still are guerilla wireless networks, and as you say, we are the value in the Internet, but we are not valuable when we question and create the content ourselves.
In the early days of the internet, the freenet (yes, it has been around that long) was almost as valuable as the non-free one. Now though, expectations are different, and freenets can't grow fast enough to be anything more than a pallid and dated reflection of the main act.
Maybe if you call making an obvious incremental improvement of a competitor's existing product innovative.
It's not like there aren't other betterimplemented alternatives out there either. And those are real and working, not some recorded and edited demo with near infinite resources to make it look quick for the video...
This whole article is a Microsoft Marketing puff-piece. Even the (near identical) comments in most of the discussion forums have been orchestrated.
drsmithy has always shown wilful ignorance of Microsoft's flaws.
As far as what's lacking from Microsoft's security model, managed software repositories and good updating systems are the most obvious lacks.
In addition, Microsoft's need to leverage it's existing software stack means anyone who actually uses Windows instead of just ticking off feature lists will inevitably have to bypass or disable most of the recent security features. With the virtualisation tech they've bought, they had the opportunity to build an effective sandbox, but chose not to.
Slashdot Mirror
That would really shake up the Wintel alliance.
Can you at least give us an idea of which OS they use?
Most of these Adobe vulnerabilities only affect one Operating System...
True, from Christchurch.
They were actually aiming for a "Funny" mod, but the mouse pointer was bouncing all over the screen.
Microsoft is not a person.
What they are though, is an organisation that has repeatedly attacked competitors via proxy - Sco, attempting to sell Linux-relevant patents to trolls, stacking ISO to block ODF, etc, etc.
This effort though, seems too minor and too transparently fallacious to be a direct attack on Google. It's more likley they are furthering another agenda - perhaps establishing precedednt for their own actions.
Customers too.
Oh, and from ignoring both.
Releasing the project under a permissive license means they can let IronPython and IronRuby gradually fade away without taking responsibility for killing them off.
That's not very good evidence of a change of heart.
Sounds like it solved a lot of problems then?
Computing is moving away from the desktop and onto mobile devices. Microsoft was built on vice-like control of the desktop computers, and as a result, the field has been stagnant for decades.
Do you really think they won't take any opportunity they can to gain the same level of control over portables?
Except they're just as guilty as the devilish third party applications.
No, this is a genuine Windows vulnerability. Microsoft is responsible, not third parties.
It's very similar to putting . in $PATH on Unix. Windows, as usual fails to learn from Unix and puts . in $PATH by default. Third party app developers are not guilty, and neither are users.
Is it?
I thought Apple was already censoring the App store.
Though judging by their choice of censor, their level of hypocrisy will match that of our Australian politicians quite nicely.
To continue the picking and pedantry...
Nobody said it was, so now the weight of all that irony now rests squarely on your shoulders.
Yes.
Yep, impossible
No, very easy.
Where does all this FUD come from?
Do you have any evidence that it's Windows malware being served?
So PFCs (which I understood to be Private, First Class) are high-ranking people in the US military, are they?
I wish it were so...
Therre have been and still are guerilla wireless networks, and as you say, we are the value in the Internet, but we are not valuable when we question and create the content ourselves.
In the early days of the internet, the freenet (yes, it has been around that long) was almost as valuable as the non-free one. Now though, expectations are different, and freenets can't grow fast enough to be anything more than a pallid and dated reflection of the main act.
Sigh.
You should have told me that 10 minutes ago...
Prepare to be assimilated.
Ohm mani padme hum?
Maybe if you call making an obvious incremental improvement of a competitor's existing product innovative.
It's not like there aren't other better implemented alternatives out there either. And those are real and working, not some recorded and edited demo with near infinite resources to make it look quick for the video...
This whole article is a Microsoft Marketing puff-piece. Even the (near identical) comments in most of the discussion forums have been orchestrated.
Are you kidding?
drsmithy has always shown wilful ignorance of Microsoft's flaws.
As far as what's lacking from Microsoft's security model, managed software repositories and good updating systems are the most obvious lacks.
In addition, Microsoft's need to leverage it's existing software stack means anyone who actually uses Windows instead of just ticking off feature lists will inevitably have to bypass or disable most of the recent security features. With the virtualisation tech they've bought, they had the opportunity to build an effective sandbox, but chose not to.
Such as?
They're attached to the heads of our sharks.
Yes, but your experience at marketing Windows means you HAVE to say something else.
In the same way that "Windows" is plural? As well as being a Wonderland of Viruses, of course...