Now it's everyone talking at once, sharing all of their knowledge, opinions, and experiences with the whomever will listen. Just for your information, these activities took place on Usenet back in the 1980's already. And if you say that masses didn't have access to it, then remember then second half of the 1990s? There were things called forums (web-based) and chat rooms. These things which you would call "Web 1.0" allowed you to do exactly what you said only "Web 2.0 psychology" brought: "everyone talking at once, sharing all of their knowledge, opinions, and experiences with the whomever will listen".
You ultimately proven what most of us here knew alread: Web 2.0 is yet another empty buzzword.
Actually, no. If you open a SSL connection (you know, the https thing), the URLs you request from the server are encrypted (so your ISP donesn't know what files or documents you download from the server).
> It marks the date when Microsoft finally started to worry about Firefox.
I keep reading that, but there is no evidence for that. There is more simple explanation, why IE7 is released in 2006, and it is supported by evidence. MS has released a major new version of IE with each new major version of Windows. Vista + IE7. Simple.
If you know at least something about copyright law, you should know that the term "product derived from" means also the original product with modifications regardless of whether the modifications are minor or major.
In other words, if I take a copyrighted work, modify it very slightly and release it, I am releasing a derived product.
You're looking at the new version of the license. But I want to derive from an older version of Apache, so I have to adhere to the previous version of license:
5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
The Mozilla.com folks are using trademark law to enforce that no versions of Firefox can be modified and still called "Firefox".
1) Read the Apache License, PHP License and other Free Software licenses. They all forbid names of derivative works to contain the name of the original work (i.e., Apache, PHP, etc.). This is perfectly compatible with Free Software and Open Source.
2) Let's not mix apples with oranges. Software is protected by copyright, brands are protected by trademarks. Keep in mind that it's Free Software, not Free Brand.
Suppose for a minute that you're NOT a spammer but a white-hat small business and Spamhaus puts you on their list. Your emails won't be delivered to your customers. You ask Spamhaus to stop blocking you and provide evidence that you're not a spammer. Spamhaus says they won't remove you from the list. Now your the only thing you can do is sue them. And again, I'm talking generally, I'm not commenting on this e360 entity in question.
I wonder how you would like your own idea if you actually were NOT a spammer and needed to sue to them so that they remove you from their list. (And I'm not commenting specificly on the "e360" entity in question).
If the phone screens weren't so tiny and low-DPI and if most sites that matter didn't suck big time when displayed on those mini-screens, then, yes, maybe you would be right.
They can tell the customers a myriad of reasons why he's not avaliable. He may be ill or whatever. However, AFAIK the restriction applies only to mass media not to "ordinary" entities.
Seems to me to be a too harsh limitation on freedom of press and freedom of speech.
It does, until you are (for example) falsely accused of a serious crime and you make into the press and on TV. Nobody will care if the jury finds you not guilty. You have been seen on TV as the murderer, rapist, you name it. Your life is ruined. Game over man.
You're totally right. The cops should really think what impact on the children it will have. If there's no real evidence (just circumstantial) they should not arrest him, let alone tell his kids about it. I'm afraid it will be devastating for the kids.
Yes, that's why in the UK the media are forbidden to inform about any person or case until his or her trial ends with the verdict of "guilty".
All civilised countries should adopt such laws quickly. I myself live in the EU, but not in the UK, and would love the EU to require all member countries to adopt such law.
> Firefox: free, no commercial interests involved.
You are kidding right? Google pays milions monthly to the Mozilla Corp for the search querries coming from the in-built search box in the Firefox GUI (top right corner). Why do you think Mozilla Foundation wasn't enough? Why did they need to establish the Mozilla Corporation if "commercial interests are involved"? They pretty much fooled you.
It was you who said that the "news" about Firefox were fabricated. I'm telling you what's real: I've never come across a post/article saying that Opera or IE6 hog CPU or RAM, but I keep reading that Firefox is a CPU and RAM hogger. This striking difference is real, and not fabricated news. If the "bug" is hard to reproduce, it suggests sloppy and low-quality code (in such cases it's often better to dump the code completely and start from scratch).
Slashdot Mirror
Now it's everyone talking at once, sharing all of their knowledge, opinions, and experiences with the whomever will listen.
Just for your information, these activities took place on Usenet back in the 1980's already. And if you say that masses didn't have access to it, then remember then second half of the 1990s? There were things called forums (web-based) and chat rooms. These things which you would call "Web 1.0" allowed you to do exactly what you said only "Web 2.0 psychology" brought: "everyone talking at once, sharing all of their knowledge, opinions, and experiences with the whomever will listen".
You ultimately proven what most of us here knew alread: Web 2.0 is yet another empty buzzword.
Actually, no. If you open a SSL connection (you know, the https thing), the URLs you request from the server are encrypted (so your ISP donesn't know what files or documents you download from the server).
If you mean tabs, then they actually mimic a different browser. FYI, Mozilla/Firefox was not the first browser that to have them.
> It marks the date when Microsoft finally started to worry about Firefox.
I keep reading that, but there is no evidence for that. There is more simple explanation, why IE7 is released in 2006, and it is supported by evidence. MS has released a major new version of IE with each new major version of Windows. Vista + IE7. Simple.
If you know at least something about copyright law, you should know that the term "product derived from" means also the original product with modifications regardless of whether the modifications are minor or major.
In other words, if I take a copyrighted work, modify it very slightly and release it, I am releasing a derived product.
And by the way, both license are approved by the Free Software Foundation as Free Software Licenses. Do your homework, zealot. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
You're looking at the new version of the license. But I want to derive from an older version of Apache, so I have to adhere to the previous version of license:
5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
And the license is OSI-certified: http://opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php
As is the latest PHP license (Apache sister project): http://opensource.org/licenses/php.php
which says the same thing.
The Mozilla.com folks are using trademark law to enforce that no versions of Firefox can be modified and still called "Firefox".
1) Read the Apache License, PHP License and other Free Software licenses. They all forbid names of derivative works to contain the name of the original work (i.e., Apache, PHP, etc.). This is perfectly compatible with Free Software and Open Source.
2) Let's not mix apples with oranges. Software is protected by copyright, brands are protected by trademarks. Keep in mind that it's Free Software, not Free Brand.
Eh?
Suppose for a minute that you're NOT a spammer but a white-hat small business and Spamhaus puts you on their list. Your emails won't be delivered to your customers. You ask Spamhaus to stop blocking you and provide evidence that you're not a spammer. Spamhaus says they won't remove you from the list. Now your the only thing you can do is sue them. And again, I'm talking generally, I'm not commenting on this e360 entity in question.
I wonder how you would like your own idea if you actually were NOT a spammer and needed to sue to them so that they remove you from their list. (And I'm not commenting specificly on the "e360" entity in question).
it is easy to obtain certificates if you're a black hat.
Oh really? How? If this was true, banks could dump SSL altogether right now.
If the phone screens weren't so tiny and low-DPI and if most sites that matter didn't suck big time when displayed on those mini-screens, then, yes, maybe you would be right.
I went to tag this article and when the tag dialog pulled down I saw that one of the suggested tags was "humor". Man, WTF?!
They can tell the customers a myriad of reasons why he's not avaliable. He may be ill or whatever. However, AFAIK the restriction applies only to mass media not to "ordinary" entities.
Seems to me to be a too harsh limitation on freedom of press and freedom of speech.
It does, until you are (for example) falsely accused of a serious crime and you make into the press and on TV. Nobody will care if the jury finds you not guilty. You have been seen on TV as the murderer, rapist, you name it. Your life is ruined. Game over man.
In case you didn't know it, all the keywords or phrases you search for are in the URL. So it can be found in your browser's History. Look:
n um=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&c2coff=1&btnG=Search&as_e pq=&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=did+you+get+it&
You're totally right. The cops should really think what impact on the children it will have. If there's no real evidence (just circumstantial) they should not arrest him, let alone tell his kids about it. I'm afraid it will be devastating for the kids.
Yes, that's why in the UK the media are forbidden to inform about any person or case until his or her trial ends with the verdict of "guilty".
All civilised countries should adopt such laws quickly. I myself live in the EU, but not in the UK, and would love the EU to require all member countries to adopt such law.
Alex Pontin writes,
"This article from the BBC shows how vulnerable XP Home really is.
Dear submitter, Alex, this article did not show how vulnerable XP was, it showed how many ATTEMPTED attacks were detected.
And BTW, I fail to see what commercial interests are there in the freeware IE6.
> Firefox: free, no commercial interests involved.
You are kidding right? Google pays milions monthly to the Mozilla Corp for the search querries coming from the in-built search box in the Firefox GUI (top right corner). Why do you think Mozilla Foundation wasn't enough? Why did they need to establish the Mozilla Corporation if "commercial interests are involved"? They pretty much fooled you.
It was you who said that the "news" about Firefox were fabricated. I'm telling you what's real: I've never come across a post/article saying that Opera or IE6 hog CPU or RAM, but I keep reading that Firefox is a CPU and RAM hogger. This striking difference is real, and not fabricated news. If the "bug" is hard to reproduce, it suggests sloppy and low-quality code (in such cases it's often better to dump the code completely and start from scratch).
By your logic I could now say that the link to the Opera forum leads to a "fabricated" post.
I just wonder why I never read about IE6/Opera hogging CPU and memory but I read it about Firefox all the time. Just makes me wonder.
Hard to rerpoduce bugs may suggest low-quality underlying code. Opera doesn't have these problems (hell even IE6 doesn't). Go figure.
It would be easy to blame it on some "bad" extensions. However, people report Firefox consumes 650 MB of RAM after 3 hours of usage without any extensions installed. See eg. http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199 593&cid=16345589