Hrm, what? It's pretty tough to fire someone who has majority voting power in the entire company.
Wait - s/tough/impossible/g - which means he'll (continue to) be the board's boss.
Seriously, though, it's highly unlikely that Zuckerberg will sell enough of his shares to ever lose majority control, so it really *is* his little piggybank to do with pretty much whatever the fuck he wants to.
I have a feeling both Instagram and Zuckerberg both know this was a $1bn purchase of a name (and idea), and had nothing to do with the technology. Facebook is already one of the best software developers in the world.
Glossing over the AC's response to your post... I very much agree with your sentiment. Like Ballmer and (to a lesser extent) Gates, Zuckerberg has also had very strong business sense to retain very tight control over his company.
Time has already told; Facebook is already part of history.
He was wildly lucky in terms of who he knew, how advanced the internet had become, and the subsequent progression of mobile technology. Genius? Eh.... Regardless, he's certainly been visionary in some capacity.
Meh, even at a complete loss that amount of money will barely affect either Facebook's or Zuckerberg's value. A one billion dollar mistake isn't that bad when he's made a few billion dollars of good decisions already.
Two quick things:
- Thanks for the Open Mesh link, I hadn't heard of it before and I'll definitely check it out.
- I'd be wary about running an open AP for the purposes of distributing a connection to your neighborhood; you may be violating your own ISP's terms of service (although not ethically an issue to me), and, far worse, you may open yourself up to people attempting to do illegal/unethical things, something that could fall back to you.
To me, access to my wireless AP should be treated like my own home's front door; I'd gladly give my trusted neighbors keys, but I'd do everything I reasonably could to protect myself from the rest of the world, who I do not implicitly trust as a group.
I think the line is drawn at the addition of content, versus modifying or removing content from the sites you visit. It's analogous to television; produced programs don't have control of the timing or content of the ads *added* during broadcast, but they know that their show's content won't be modified or edited out (simplification, of course, since networks obviously have ultimate editing power behind their own shows).
If (when?) ISPs at any level (since the hotel in this fashion is operating as an ISP to its patrons) start modifying or remove code/content from the sites they serve up, I think there may be more public outcry - I hope.
EDIT: QoS of traffic may already fit under this, since its very nature is to modify how content is served... maybe it's still 'ok' because it's still not actually changing the content? Dunno...
...that said, I think the person who said "Hint: That's not a word." totally derailed the conversation and took away from what TemplePilot was trying to say. (sorry for the double post)
Just like "ain't", I would never use "irregardless" in an serious writing. I also personally don't use it in other situations because I think its inception was born out of ignorance (versus convenience) and lowers the quality of my speech. There are obviously different levels of acceptance of nonstandard language, and I suspect most that know what "irregardless" is would heed M-W's advice: "It is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."
No, I very much do *not* want this. I also know exactly how it works (I've played around with fb connect and google authentication for my own web apps). You're confusing peoples' fear of a lack of privacy with a perceived lack of security.
Thankfully, I can vote with my feet and never visit gawker media sites.
Well, first off, I was using that to agree with your original comment, sooooooo
Second, I would disagree with your shooting analogy - as has been said, backup copies of digital media have been considered legal for quite some time before the DMCA came around (unlike shooting someone, which has been a no-no since before guns came around); that judgement is kinda wonky, but it takes into account both the DMCA, and pre-DMCA copy-related laws.
To be fair, a cease and desist from a company is quite a bit different than being arrested or charged with a crime.
...that said, a judge "ruled that the backup copies made with software such as DVD Decrypter are legal but that distribution of the software used to make them is illegal" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Decrypter)
No USB access of any kind when the phone is locked. It's a huge vulnerability.
Ehhhhhh... if you have physical access to any device (phone or not), it's really only a matter of time before you can compromise it. And if "your average traffic cop or border patrol agent" isn't easily able to snoop around your phone, but has a search warrant to legally do so, they'll simply find someone who can technically assist them.
While I suspect part of the intent is certainly for full encryption on the device, currently it seems to be focusing on call security (encrypted VOIP, all non-911 calls must go through a central server, SIP over a VPN, etc).
Yes - I did also originally hate the older Firefox for Android, but the newer incarnations work very well, as long as you've got a semi-decent phone. Some of the older Android phones may be bogged down a little, but anything recent should work well.
I have an HTC G2, and am pleased with the speed of the application, and haven't used the Android browser for months. Same goes for tablets - any of the newer/faster tablets run Firefox very well.
Slashdot Mirror
Why (honestly curious)?
It also makes it quite a bit easier to make a lot of money off of crapware.
Hrm, what? It's pretty tough to fire someone who has majority voting power in the entire company.
Wait - s/tough/impossible/g - which means he'll (continue to) be the board's boss.
Seriously, though, it's highly unlikely that Zuckerberg will sell enough of his shares to ever lose majority control, so it really *is* his little piggybank to do with pretty much whatever the fuck he wants to.
I have a feeling both Instagram and Zuckerberg both know this was a $1bn purchase of a name (and idea), and had nothing to do with the technology. Facebook is already one of the best software developers in the world.
Zuckerberg hates hipsters, and just bought Instagram to shut it down?
Glossing over the AC's response to your post... I very much agree with your sentiment. Like Ballmer and (to a lesser extent) Gates, Zuckerberg has also had very strong business sense to retain very tight control over his company.
Time has already told; Facebook is already part of history.
He was wildly lucky in terms of who he knew, how advanced the internet had become, and the subsequent progression of mobile technology. Genius? Eh.... Regardless, he's certainly been visionary in some capacity.
Meh, even at a complete loss that amount of money will barely affect either Facebook's or Zuckerberg's value. A one billion dollar mistake isn't that bad when he's made a few billion dollars of good decisions already.
Two quick things:
- Thanks for the Open Mesh link, I hadn't heard of it before and I'll definitely check it out.
- I'd be wary about running an open AP for the purposes of distributing a connection to your neighborhood; you may be violating your own ISP's terms of service (although not ethically an issue to me), and, far worse, you may open yourself up to people attempting to do illegal/unethical things, something that could fall back to you.
To me, access to my wireless AP should be treated like my own home's front door; I'd gladly give my trusted neighbors keys, but I'd do everything I reasonably could to protect myself from the rest of the world, who I do not implicitly trust as a group.
I think the line is drawn at the addition of content, versus modifying or removing content from the sites you visit. It's analogous to television; produced programs don't have control of the timing or content of the ads *added* during broadcast, but they know that their show's content won't be modified or edited out (simplification, of course, since networks obviously have ultimate editing power behind their own shows).
If (when?) ISPs at any level (since the hotel in this fashion is operating as an ISP to its patrons) start modifying or remove code/content from the sites they serve up, I think there may be more public outcry - I hope.
EDIT: QoS of traffic may already fit under this, since its very nature is to modify how content is served... maybe it's still 'ok' because it's still not actually changing the content? Dunno...
Yes, it would, but did you really have that much difficulty understanding TemplePilot's post with a nonstandard word in it?
...that said, I think the person who said "Hint: That's not a word." totally derailed the conversation and took away from what TemplePilot was trying to say. (sorry for the double post)
Just like "ain't", I would never use "irregardless" in an serious writing. I also personally don't use it in other situations because I think its inception was born out of ignorance (versus convenience) and lowers the quality of my speech. There are obviously different levels of acceptance of nonstandard language, and I suspect most that know what "irregardless" is would heed M-W's advice: "It is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."
Eh, personally, fuck that. If Gawker is too lazy to manage their own authentication system, I'm out.
No, I very much do *not* want this. I also know exactly how it works (I've played around with fb connect and google authentication for my own web apps). You're confusing peoples' fear of a lack of privacy with a perceived lack of security. Thankfully, I can vote with my feet and never visit gawker media sites.
Well, first off, I was using that to agree with your original comment, sooooooo
Second, I would disagree with your shooting analogy - as has been said, backup copies of digital media have been considered legal for quite some time before the DMCA came around (unlike shooting someone, which has been a no-no since before guns came around); that judgement is kinda wonky, but it takes into account both the DMCA, and pre-DMCA copy-related laws.
To be fair, a cease and desist from a company is quite a bit different than being arrested or charged with a crime.
...that said, a judge "ruled that the backup copies made with software such as DVD Decrypter are legal but that distribution of the software used to make them is illegal" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Decrypter)
Ehhhhhh... if you have physical access to any device (phone or not), it's really only a matter of time before you can compromise it. And if "your average traffic cop or border patrol agent" isn't easily able to snoop around your phone, but has a search warrant to legally do so, they'll simply find someone who can technically assist them.
I believe they simply boot their own firmware, which can be done without rooting the existing OS.
IANAL, but importing != actually using, so probably not illegal, no.
Also, it seems like the use of this could still be legal for law enforcement, assuming they have a valid warrant.
*4 and higher, since we're talking about cell phones. /pedantic jerk
Possibly, yes. The codename is "fishbowl" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishbowl_%28secure_phone%29), and according to the NSA spec document (PDF - http://www.nsa.gov/ia/_files/Mobility_Capability_Pkg_(Version_1.1U).pdf), "the system shall support encrypted SD cards for storage.".
While I suspect part of the intent is certainly for full encryption on the device, currently it seems to be focusing on call security (encrypted VOIP, all non-911 calls must go through a central server, SIP over a VPN, etc).
Ahh, that sucks... I, too, have cm7 (not a nightly, just the most recent stable), no overclocking, but have very decent performance.
Yes - I did also originally hate the older Firefox for Android, but the newer incarnations work very well, as long as you've got a semi-decent phone. Some of the older Android phones may be bogged down a little, but anything recent should work well. I have an HTC G2, and am pleased with the speed of the application, and haven't used the Android browser for months. Same goes for tablets - any of the newer/faster tablets run Firefox very well.
I know some aging queers that, when asked, were not too supportive of being sucked off by former patent trolls.