WRT the GPL, you used the terms "an unconditional grant of any and all permissions" - which is NOT what the GPL gives.
I did no such thing, you choose to read it that way. The GPL is more restrictive than the licenses given (unless you value patents more than source code in which case GPLv2 might win over Apache 2.0), however the licenses given are also more restrictive than "an unconditional grant of any and all permissions". There is no contradiction, try reading in context.
Strawman, I never claimed that. You haven't demonstrated why the specific restrictions upheld by the GPL, chiefly the provisions against binary-only distribution are problematic in particular, merely argued against restrictions in a nebulous way. Thus promoting other restrictive licenses, particularly ones with significant complexity and restrictions outside of the covered material (the latest Apache license), is hypocritical.
Don't be intentionally stupid, please. The GPL is still more restrictive than the ABM (Apache, BSD, MIT) licenses.
Don't be a hypocrite, the MIT, BSD and Apache licenses (in increasing order of restrictiveness) are still more restrictive than an unconditional grant of any and all permissions, Have you seen what the Apache 2.0 does with patents? Jackbooted thugs by your implied standards, no? BSD is copyleft on the file level on source level. That's right, the BSD actually restricts how you can distribute your software, it merely has an exception for binaries. That's not freedom, it's merely a conditional lift of copyright restrictions!
Yet the average researcher knows to use dobule blind testing fro drugs, tell me, is the average patient, doctor and researcher more prone to bias than the average person. If not, please reconcile that with your claim that a person has control over all of their preferences.
And then there are the double blind trials to considers, otherwise even with superb tracking all you have is correlation. Not to mention how absurdly reactive waiting for large scale effects to prove fraud is, it doesn't fix the problem, it just shifts it to the next wonderdrug.
I own a "stupidly oversized automobile" by your criteria, yet my extended-cab pickup has FAR better visibility in all directions and much better mirrors than my Elantra.
Have you ever actually checked how well you can see things directly in front and behind you of you? There's adults you wouldn't see in any mirror, much less kids.
I didn't say forcing DRM video, I said forcing DRM. If DRM becomes part of internet standards it can be mandated. Develop your DRM tech if you must, keeping it out of places it's not welcome isn't restricting your ability to do so. But hey, if we did take away your choice to receive DRM it's not a problem, since it's not a necessity of life, right?
They will attempt to keep the decryption keys from you. The best way to achieve it is to have more control over the computer than you do. They will attempt to get more control than you do. This is not a slipperly slope, it's an established pattern in DRM systems, if there is no system in place there is no expectation of protection, if there is a system in place and it's week it must be improved by any means necessary.
You are clearly reading something entirely different, then responding here. Whatever. Enjoy IE if a badly implemented security theater makes you feel better.
Google were breaking the spec here, in such a way that creates a valid P3P statement in the process which says "we won't be doing anything untoward with your cookies" - the field they use is not a text field and therefor the content they put into it is ignored, resulting in a zero length list of items they *will* do with the cookies...
At which point any conforming client shouldn't let them do set or read cookies...
A policy, whether malformed or not, is intended to convey what an organization will do with things like cookie data, not what they won't do.
Right, so why the fuck does IE send data if the policy didn't give a reason? Because it's broken, that's why. Everything else is secondary, fix your browser first because that's what is leaking the damn information then, AND ONLY THEN we can worry about what severs should and shouldn't do.
Did you even bother to do as you were advised earlier and read about how P3P works?
That's easy, it doesn't. The server promises you to do X with the info, but there is nothing that will prevent it from doing whatever it wants. That makes all of this charade even more stupid.
Of course you didn't, you'd rather to continue to post replies about something you have zero information on. Good job, fuckwad.
Insults don't change the fact that your rants ignore the point that IE is leaking data.
You deliberately ignored the point. If Google is sending a malformed policy (which I'm not disputing), IE shouldn't accept it, or at least not accept it in the most liberal way possible. Malformed data is a fact of life on the web and if they can't deal with undefined behavior they need to close shop and direct people to Firefox instead, because this is the lesser of the problems you get from that mindset. If MS wants to point out that Google are sending malformed headers that's what they should do (though they might need to clean up first), what they are doing however is blaming Google for IE being a piece of shit that can't be trusted on the web. I mean really, just about no website out there is completely to spec, if my browser sent my login password every time it encountered a non closed tag I'd blame the browser first and who ever compromised my system as a result second.
I do, but then again I happen to use my computer for such odd tasks as computer graphics.
I have never encountered a language that was harder to get things right in. Never.
Doesn't matter. There's enough people who can deal with it to bring unbiased rendering down to production timeframes. Throw in huge speedups to video and photo editing and there's a rather sizable market.
The American Express ads aren't targeted - they know absolutely nothing about me or my shopping habits from my credit rating, only that I have used a credit card in the past.
No different than Amazon offering every X in the world if you buy one. You use a credit card, ergo you are a person interested in having a credit card.
And yeah, I'm not happy that any company can look up my credit rating without my prior authorization either.
That's what you really should be upset about if ads per-se don't bother you. AmEx is not gathering the data and sharing it with god knows who without so much as attempting to verify it, AmEx should really be the least of your worries in this scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
I did no such thing, you choose to read it that way. The GPL is more restrictive than the licenses given (unless you value patents more than source code in which case GPLv2 might win over Apache 2.0), however the licenses given are also more restrictive than "an unconditional grant of any and all permissions". There is no contradiction, try reading in context.
Strawman, I never claimed that. You haven't demonstrated why the specific restrictions upheld by the GPL, chiefly the provisions against binary-only distribution are problematic in particular, merely argued against restrictions in a nebulous way. Thus promoting other restrictive licenses, particularly ones with significant complexity and restrictions outside of the covered material (the latest Apache license), is hypocritical.
Don't be a hypocrite, the MIT, BSD and Apache licenses (in increasing order of restrictiveness) are still more restrictive than an unconditional grant of any and all permissions, Have you seen what the Apache 2.0 does with patents? Jackbooted thugs by your implied standards, no? BSD is copyleft on the file level on source level. That's right, the BSD actually restricts how you can distribute your software, it merely has an exception for binaries. That's not freedom, it's merely a conditional lift of copyright restrictions!
Yet the average researcher knows to use dobule blind testing fro drugs, tell me, is the average patient, doctor and researcher more prone to bias than the average person. If not, please reconcile that with your claim that a person has control over all of their preferences.
And then there are the double blind trials to considers, otherwise even with superb tracking all you have is correlation. Not to mention how absurdly reactive waiting for large scale effects to prove fraud is, it doesn't fix the problem, it just shifts it to the next wonderdrug.
It's called situational awareness; it can be tremendously improved with extra information.
Have you ever actually checked how well you can see things directly in front and behind you of you? There's adults you wouldn't see in any mirror, much less kids.
You don't get to ignore significant factors in an estimate, well you do, but it makes the estimate worthless and deceptive if used as an argument.
You will see the same phenomena in any place with a high concentration of corporate headquarters. But it's not polite to acknowledge for some reason.
I didn't say forcing DRM video, I said forcing DRM. If DRM becomes part of internet standards it can be mandated. Develop your DRM tech if you must, keeping it out of places it's not welcome isn't restricting your ability to do so. But hey, if we did take away your choice to receive DRM it's not a problem, since it's not a necessity of life, right?
Oh, good. Then STFU instead of embarrassing yourself and misinforming others.
They will attempt to keep the decryption keys from you. The best way to achieve it is to have more control over the computer than you do. They will attempt to get more control than you do. This is not a slipperly slope, it's an established pattern in DRM systems, if there is no system in place there is no expectation of protection, if there is a system in place and it's week it must be improved by any means necessary.
Forcing DRM by force of law. A-OK. "Preventing" others (actually advocating avoidance) from using it. You're a monster?
DRM will be required by content providers. The img tag will never gain any market share without it.
You are clearly reading something entirely different, then responding here. Whatever. Enjoy IE if a badly implemented security theater makes you feel better.
At which point any conforming client shouldn't let them do set or read cookies...
We were so wrong to blame MS for istaowned windows and drive by trojans! Well, that or we can blame them for this as well. Take your pick.
Right, so why the fuck does IE send data if the policy didn't give a reason? Because it's broken, that's why. Everything else is secondary, fix your browser first because that's what is leaking the damn information then, AND ONLY THEN we can worry about what severs should and shouldn't do.
That's easy, it doesn't. The server promises you to do X with the info, but there is nothing that will prevent it from doing whatever it wants. That makes all of this charade even more stupid.
Insults don't change the fact that your rants ignore the point that IE is leaking data.
You're not up to date.
That's all well and good, except SCO paid Novell for Unix.
You deliberately ignored the point. If Google is sending a malformed policy (which I'm not disputing), IE shouldn't accept it, or at least not accept it in the most liberal way possible. Malformed data is a fact of life on the web and if they can't deal with undefined behavior they need to close shop and direct people to Firefox instead, because this is the lesser of the problems you get from that mindset. If MS wants to point out that Google are sending malformed headers that's what they should do (though they might need to clean up first), what they are doing however is blaming Google for IE being a piece of shit that can't be trusted on the web. I mean really, just about no website out there is completely to spec, if my browser sent my login password every time it encountered a non closed tag I'd blame the browser first and who ever compromised my system as a result second.
If it's not a policy IE shouldn't accept it as one.
I do, but then again I happen to use my computer for such odd tasks as computer graphics.
Doesn't matter. There's enough people who can deal with it to bring unbiased rendering down to production timeframes. Throw in huge speedups to video and photo editing and there's a rather sizable market.
No different than Amazon offering every X in the world if you buy one. You use a credit card, ergo you are a person interested in having a credit card.
That's what you really should be upset about if ads per-se don't bother you. AmEx is not gathering the data and sharing it with god knows who without so much as attempting to verify it, AmEx should really be the least of your worries in this scenario.
Like the investement into the Athlon? That paid off, didn't it?