There are about a million other solutions, the first of which is not looking for "their entertainment" and the second of which is downloading it somewhere that it's actually legal (downloads aren't illegal).
Nobody has to be without it. However, if that is the choice, I guarantee they will download it as a result. That's where it comes from: treating your customers like shit. Nice try though.
HTML5 video is already gaining market share. Do you actually suppose flash is going to remain when Adobe is dropping support for it? Microsoft already dropped support for silverlight entirely (not that it had any originally)
the issue isn't if you know there's infringement. The issue is, is it actual infringement? the answer is "there's no clear cut answer for this" and that a judge will have to decide before it warrants any action from the first party.
Or did you forget about the current viacom vs youtube?
Hosting competitors attack ads highlights how desperate microsoft is getting, to be using youtube's platform as their soapbox.
Umm, microsoft still filters results about things involving google and microsoft so that they are favorable to microsoft. This has nothing to do with "IP protection status", and considering that such a phrase doesn't exist, please don't make such a claim.
DMCA protection has nothing to do with choosing to filter content in any way.
W3C released the spec, it didn't mean they implemented it.
Microsoft harped on everyone about oh you must implement this! And everyone said "hey, guess what, we don't give a fuck because this doesn't fix anything". Now microsoft goes "how dare they use our broken implementation" and focuses on google?
fucking please. I'm not excusing google's behavior or any other party, but you don't hear microsoft talking about preventing facebook from abusing their P3P implementation either. Trying to call attention to one or the other and not the issue at hand (via Microsoft's standard FUD campaign) is what is the problem - turning this into a political issue and not focusing on any form of technical solution.
Microsoft's FRAND terms and apple's on firewire have already been found discriminatory - kinda rich for them to be going after google for not asking for FRAND, which isn't compatible with open source.
It's even coming from a company that charges 3x as much for it's "patented technology" and claims it covers all technology without outlining what "all technology" is defined as.
I don't know that I understand entirely or have read it this fast, but basically no. He used algorithms stored into arrays and some database engineering voodoo.
This is equivalent to allowing a buffer overflow, the question is not about whether they made it or not.
If P3P is being violated, then they should be making sure P3P is enforced, not calling into question google who they see as a competitor simply for purposes of fud.
I seriously hate sense. After using golauncher, launcherpro, custom roms, I prefer AOSP to any of the above - mostly because sense is so strongly embedded into the UI that even if you use something else you're still suck with memory guzzling sense components. It's not that sense does or doesn't work, but that it's embedded in android far more than AOSP or touchwiz.
The only part of sense I've ever liked is how they do contacts and the dialer. Bad: launcher, dropdown toggles, lockscreen.
The UI with ice cream sandwich or the UI from Cyanogenmod? Curious, because I've heard nothing but positive reports about CM9 and ICS's default interface in general.
as in, why would HP suddenly start making microsoft-esque misstatements and spew FUD about android? Does this mean they have given up? something else? The timing of post-acquisition is curious, unless HP has been making money off patent settlements on android.
the TLDR of what they've done is basically refuse to spend on upgrades when their profits weren't up.
The reality is that this is backwards finances when it comes to infrastructure, because you should always spend if possible when your company is down to increase efficiencies and save when your company is up for when it is eventually down again. ATT's executives are about as smart and up with the times as the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
There are about a million other solutions, the first of which is not looking for "their entertainment" and the second of which is downloading it somewhere that it's actually legal (downloads aren't illegal).
Nobody has to be without it. However, if that is the choice, I guarantee they will download it as a result. That's where it comes from: treating your customers like shit. Nice try though.
HTML5 video is already gaining market share. Do you actually suppose flash is going to remain when Adobe is dropping support for it? Microsoft already dropped support for silverlight entirely (not that it had any originally)
copying without permission?
If you have to ask permission to copy something, there's a problem with the laws that exist.
Creating an uncertainty of "can I copy something?" is what burdens entire societies and creates unnecessary costs. see: united states.
Uh, no.
the issue isn't if you know there's infringement. The issue is, is it actual infringement? the answer is "there's no clear cut answer for this" and that a judge will have to decide before it warrants any action from the first party.
Or did you forget about the current viacom vs youtube?
Hosting competitors attack ads highlights how desperate microsoft is getting, to be using youtube's platform as their soapbox.
Umm, microsoft still filters results about things involving google and microsoft so that they are favorable to microsoft. This has nothing to do with "IP protection status", and considering that such a phrase doesn't exist, please don't make such a claim.
DMCA protection has nothing to do with choosing to filter content in any way.
W3C released the spec, it didn't mean they implemented it.
Microsoft harped on everyone about oh you must implement this! And everyone said "hey, guess what, we don't give a fuck because this doesn't fix anything". Now microsoft goes "how dare they use our broken implementation" and focuses on google?
fucking please. I'm not excusing google's behavior or any other party, but you don't hear microsoft talking about preventing facebook from abusing their P3P implementation either. Trying to call attention to one or the other and not the issue at hand (via Microsoft's standard FUD campaign) is what is the problem - turning this into a political issue and not focusing on any form of technical solution.
What the fuck do you make up? Go back to microsoft-imaginationland please. This is not how it works.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120213092754823
Microsoft's FRAND terms and apple's on firewire have already been found discriminatory - kinda rich for them to be going after google for not asking for FRAND, which isn't compatible with open source.
It's even coming from a company that charges 3x as much for it's "patented technology" and claims it covers all technology without outlining what "all technology" is defined as.
I'd bet that you have a nice idea, but it's quite hard to say if it's accurate or not - as in, not even remotely.
Have any studies been done on how far back people are relying on stable releases of distros?
I don't know that I understand entirely or have read it this fast, but basically no. He used algorithms stored into arrays and some database engineering voodoo.
"if Oracle Wins"?
You do realize that they might not even get a settlement - this is assuming the judge even lets this go to trial.
Then again, it's not like they had a case in the first place.
Please.
Microsoft created the standard *AND* implemented it. It's their own fault if they allow loopholes.
see: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114753028665775786510/posts/fuLZoEkJZNs
and NYT criticism of basically creating security loopholes: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/a-loophole-big-enough-for-a-cookie-to-fit-through/
google's fault? none, really.
title: "If you rely on Microsoft’s Internet Explorer’s privacy settings to control cookies on your computer, you may want to rethink that strategy."
Really?
Why don't you take a look at where this P3P comes form.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/114753028665775786510/posts/fuLZoEkJZNs
Hint: Microsoft. So they created the issue and raised the flag about it.
So your focus on "ohhhh, the privacy!" is a false focus in comparison.
This is equivalent to allowing a buffer overflow, the question is not about whether they made it or not.
If P3P is being violated, then they should be making sure P3P is enforced, not calling into question google who they see as a competitor simply for purposes of fud.
Well it's not like they have a contract with facebook as Microsoft does, to do what google does to IE anyway, right? Right?
Too soon?
The question that should be asked is: Why does IE have some part of their framework in place which can be simply ignored/violated?
hmm. It goes both ways - it's not just shield them from interruptions and protecting staff from scope creep.
It's also the staff themselves making sure people are aware of the project scope and not allowing the scope creep.
thus - not just the high level manager, but the staff. they need people to say "wait, this isn't in scope".
We know you're a shill dude.
Why even try to deny it? Why do you even bother first posting.
You are so fast to shit on google that I sincerely wish upon you cancer.
Where was an actual violation? Not "we're concerned"? Not "this is not a good thing"? I'm legitimately interested because you have no fucking answer.
thanks for providing a useful and informative reply. I can clearly see your opinion is very useful, and should be modded somewhere between 0 and -1.
I mean it's not like they're a convicted monopolist more than twice over or anything, right?
Really? As a personal anecdotal opinion:
I seriously hate sense. After using golauncher, launcherpro, custom roms, I prefer AOSP to any of the above - mostly because sense is so strongly embedded into the UI that even if you use something else you're still suck with memory guzzling sense components. It's not that sense does or doesn't work, but that it's embedded in android far more than AOSP or touchwiz.
The only part of sense I've ever liked is how they do contacts and the dialer. Bad: launcher, dropdown toggles, lockscreen.
CM9 alphas are being tested in various forms, they do have pictures of the ui and videos ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP1us70sZjo ) and all that.
The UI with ice cream sandwich or the UI from Cyanogenmod? Curious, because I've heard nothing but positive reports about CM9 and ICS's default interface in general.
Except for the fact that nobody lives 120 years, meaning that this statement is about as factual as anything else in the bible.
I thought (not an expert in apache licensing) that apache would simply let you change the license downstream, not remove it from the existing stuff?
hahaha. This now calls into question "why?"
as in, why would HP suddenly start making microsoft-esque misstatements and spew FUD about android? Does this mean they have given up? something else? The timing of post-acquisition is curious, unless HP has been making money off patent settlements on android.
the TLDR of what they've done is basically refuse to spend on upgrades when their profits weren't up.
The reality is that this is backwards finances when it comes to infrastructure, because you should always spend if possible when your company is down to increase efficiencies and save when your company is up for when it is eventually down again. ATT's executives are about as smart and up with the times as the RIAA.