what part of embrace extend extinguish does "attempts to play nicely with open source" fit in again?
oh yes, clearly, we must be ignorant and have forgotten? Surely the leopard has changed their spots, huh?
Has anyone seen MS ever do something pro open source/pro free software? The answer is no, and it never will happen either. All they do is try to cover their tail when they screw up, as is common.
uh, no, you are incorrect. They have you sign something giving them that right.
They don't just "have it", it's more like "You're giving it away". That's what all of those "you have no right to privacy" things are about. You do have a right to privacy, they're saying that you're giving it away. That's a significant difference.
Meanwhile, blocking SSL/HTTPS? It's not going to help anything, it's just going to cause the people who know how to use it to look for other solutions.
let me try this very very simply. It honestly amazes me you don't get it yet.
he disclosed the exploit, but this doesn't mean that a: he created it or b: he's responsible for it. In that sense, who created it? Microsoft. It's also a hell of a lot easier to figure out an exploit when there is a proof of concept. I could claim that xgui is an exploit, but it's kinda hard to show proof without a proof of concept, as the name implies. These kinds of things are very regular.
Yes, 5 days is a little short, but if this was critical MS could have said to him "please don't release it". Simple as that. However, does any of that matter? no.
What does matter beyond you being sidetracked? That I still don't hear of a hotfix or patch from MS.. Somehow point fingers at google all day, but you can't see the forest for the trees.
As I understand small amounts of law but I'm not a super-law genius, how would preemption apply to this? Isn't this just adding regulations as opposed to overriding federal ones and/or being overrided by federal ones?
yes, but this implies that he created the exploit - just because he found it belies the fact that he wasn't the only one to know of it. The fact that he told MS before releasing anything means, that well, MS's team knew about it. They could have asked him not release it, and guess what? He probably wouldn't have. Clearly though a large quantity of people are more interested in distributing blame because it's google as opposed to because it's microsoft, which is amazingly backwards.
yes, lets blame the guy who finds the exploit. clearly your efforts must be focused the right way. Instead of that we still don't have a patch. Patch tuesday stuff is prepared in advance, so it's not even remotely an excuse.
its still not a zero day exploit, and if MS felt it was critical they could have devoted teams to take care of it. MS of all companies certainly doesn't have an absence of programming talent.
that's not at all voluntary. ever heard of "homework"?
If they won't let people use their own personal laptops at school, that also creates it's own problem.
If I had a school say you must have (mac/linux/windows), it'd be a school that neither me nor my kids will be going. Most teachers don't even care, they just want to be able to open whatever paper you write.
not just that. They pay for bulk usage. What do they care how much people use in specific?
They purchase, say a 500ZB/month data transfer. The amount they are paying for is exponentially more than people use in case of usage spikes. So what do they care that overall usage goes up? It's always going to go up.
I do think it's a bit overboard to say flash MUST be on any phone. However, it's nice to actually have the option, not unlike a computer (including apple pc's) and quite unlike the direct jab at iphone/ipod.
it's alright, the math assumes that nobody is nearsighted. Since nearsightedness is very common, the article's comments don't hold true at all.
Some people can see magnitudes smaller arcmin than.6 up close, in fact like.2 or so. Anyone with 20/10 vision (which is common with correction such as eyeglasses or contacts) is going to still see plenty of pixelation.
It's still a substantial improvement in pixels, but the article is incorrect.
yes, clickstream data, etc. Remind me again what does this have to do with other people being able to harness the patent information itself, which was the purpose?
google already owns the search share, whether you open a patent link or not they already know what you are searching for. It's not exactly a whole lot of extra information.
Now your concept of using that data to determine patents, etc? What makes you think google even cares? It's the courts that matter. If they really need something invalidated they'll just fight it tooth and nail in court, or just wait for the court system to determine, such as bilski.
The rest of what you are saying is so off the grid that I can't find it at all even remotely logical. You're seriously stretching logic on this in ways that do not seem based on anything. You can search for patents on bing too! oh no! what will we do!/sheesh.
I should add, since when was data for paying customers ever free? "free for personal use, pay for corporate use" has been the motto of most licenses/software for significantly more years than it should be.
how could a company not index google's data? It's not like it's hidden. Google even lets people search within PDFs and things that don't explicitly have text data.
This sounds less like a paywall and a lot more like "here's a book. go read it"
Slashdot Mirror
and yet in probably 5-10 years even 100 gb/s will probably not be fast enough.
what part of embrace extend extinguish does "attempts to play nicely with open source" fit in again?
oh yes, clearly, we must be ignorant and have forgotten? Surely the leopard has changed their spots, huh?
Has anyone seen MS ever do something pro open source/pro free software? The answer is no, and it never will happen either. All they do is try to cover their tail when they screw up, as is common.
he just wants some time to cash out his stocks. I bet he has done that right about now.
uh, no, you are incorrect. They have you sign something giving them that right.
They don't just "have it", it's more like "You're giving it away". That's what all of those "you have no right to privacy" things are about. You do have a right to privacy, they're saying that you're giving it away. That's a significant difference.
Meanwhile, blocking SSL/HTTPS? It's not going to help anything, it's just going to cause the people who know how to use it to look for other solutions.
you're way to optimistic for them. chapter 7 and GTFO.
so who wants to be the one to sponsor zuckerburg a 1 way ticket to pakistan?
let me try this very very simply. It honestly amazes me you don't get it yet.
he disclosed the exploit, but this doesn't mean that a: he created it or b: he's responsible for it. In that sense, who created it? Microsoft. It's also a hell of a lot easier to figure out an exploit when there is a proof of concept. I could claim that xgui is an exploit, but it's kinda hard to show proof without a proof of concept, as the name implies. These kinds of things are very regular.
Yes, 5 days is a little short, but if this was critical MS could have said to him "please don't release it". Simple as that. However, does any of that matter? no.
What does matter beyond you being sidetracked? That I still don't hear of a hotfix or patch from MS.. Somehow point fingers at google all day, but you can't see the forest for the trees.
Do you get the difference?
As I understand small amounts of law but I'm not a super-law genius, how would preemption apply to this? Isn't this just adding regulations as opposed to overriding federal ones and/or being overrided by federal ones?
yes, but this implies that he created the exploit - just because he found it belies the fact that he wasn't the only one to know of it. The fact that he told MS before releasing anything means, that well, MS's team knew about it. They could have asked him not release it, and guess what? He probably wouldn't have. Clearly though a large quantity of people are more interested in distributing blame because it's google as opposed to because it's microsoft, which is amazingly backwards.
whoopty do.
so keeping it secret keeps it safer how exactly? when both the malware developers already know about it and are exploiting it?
Does it make you feel safer?
It sure doesn't give you any real safety.
Before this was disclosed, it may have been well known and exploited already. So how is this any different?
yes, lets blame the guy who finds the exploit. clearly your efforts must be focused the right way. Instead of that we still don't have a patch. Patch tuesday stuff is prepared in advance, so it's not even remotely an excuse.
its still not a zero day exploit, and if MS felt it was critical they could have devoted teams to take care of it. MS of all companies certainly doesn't have an absence of programming talent.
So far, they sure are silent, aren't they.
hey, enjoy all the relevance you want. I prefer no ads. There is no reason to *have* to see ads.
they don't even own the domain name. Yet another fumble by MS.
that's not at all voluntary.
ever heard of "homework"?
If they won't let people use their own personal laptops at school, that also creates it's own problem.
If I had a school say you must have (mac/linux/windows), it'd be a school that neither me nor my kids will be going. Most teachers don't even care, they just want to be able to open whatever paper you write.
No, I'd say that O2 doesn't, considering O2 is the parent of Tmobile, who operates out of the UK. Maybe they pay the EC or the EC's FCC equivalent.
Meanwhile, spectrum usage and bandwidth usage are independent of eachother, so you are incorrect.
not just that. They pay for bulk usage. What do they care how much people use in specific?
They purchase, say a 500ZB/month data transfer. The amount they are paying for is exponentially more than people use in case of usage spikes. So what do they care that overall usage goes up? It's always going to go up.
hahaha. nice post.
I do think it's a bit overboard to say flash MUST be on any phone. However, it's nice to actually have the option, not unlike a computer (including apple pc's) and quite unlike the direct jab at iphone/ipod.
as would a large amount of the population, in contrast to the retina claims.
things look more pixelated up close, especially with nearsighted individuals. In other news, water is wet. Ric Romero reporting.
I have no idea. I have my opinions (disclaimer) but I am not an opthalmologist.
However, mine has said that it's common to end up with 20/10 even if the lenses are intended to correct to 20/20.
So honestly? I have no clue. Go see an eye doctor and ask.
it's alright, the math assumes that nobody is nearsighted. Since nearsightedness is very common, the article's comments don't hold true at all.
Some people can see magnitudes smaller arcmin than .6 up close, in fact like .2 or so. Anyone with 20/10 vision (which is common with correction such as eyeglasses or contacts) is going to still see plenty of pixelation.
It's still a substantial improvement in pixels, but the article is incorrect.
yes, clickstream data, etc. Remind me again what does this have to do with other people being able to harness the patent information itself, which was the purpose?
google already owns the search share, whether you open a patent link or not they already know what you are searching for. It's not exactly a whole lot of extra information.
Now your concept of using that data to determine patents, etc? What makes you think google even cares? It's the courts that matter. If they really need something invalidated they'll just fight it tooth and nail in court, or just wait for the court system to determine, such as bilski.
The rest of what you are saying is so off the grid that I can't find it at all even remotely logical. You're seriously stretching logic on this in ways that do not seem based on anything. You can search for patents on bing too! oh no! what will we do! /sheesh.
I should add, since when was data for paying customers ever free? "free for personal use, pay for corporate use" has been the motto of most licenses/software for significantly more years than it should be.
wha?
how could a company not index google's data? It's not like it's hidden. Google even lets people search within PDFs and things that don't explicitly have text data.
This sounds less like a paywall and a lot more like "here's a book. go read it"