Indeed - and they prevent people giving away Red Hat or free by invoking trademark protection on the name "Red Hat", hence the existence of CentOS, or "Red Hat without the Trademark Infringement".
You jest, but you just described a relatively effective system. I would exclude Wikileaks though, as they've demonstrated amply that they disseminate information and damn the consequences, whereas the ACLU or EFF (or similar localised entity) would be well placed to determine whether it's something to cry foul about or leave alone due a legitimate need for secrecy (for example, an actual terrorist). It would serve the needs of making it relatively painless to tap if there's a need, but still have that transparency and accountability while still maintaining secrecy if it's needed.
Wrong option. You need to click on "Account". If the Ajax continues to get in the way, right click on Account and select "Open in New Tab" or "Open in New Window".
I'll miss inline expansion and commenting, but by dammit that new style was beginning to piss me off.
Anyone who contributes is a positive contributor is likely the tack they're taking there (well, except maybe the toilet stall, goatse and frosty piss guys). It doesn't necessarily mean a popular contributor.
They don't link farm. Like StackOverflow, they actually have contributors who answer questions submitted by real people. The problem they have is their UI sucks and their advertising is abominable.
No it doesn't. Chrome OS is a privacy law violation to any emergency service (HIPAA to you Americans) - any OS which relies on Google to work is out. Instantly.
There's no such thing as an appropriate use for Chrome OS.
I tried implementing my own unified auto-update system on Windows, but I couldn't find documentation on how to interface the client with Windows updates, Logitech, HP, Dell, etc. A web scraping system worked for a while to handle all updates of all software (pushed out update scripts), But the websites and update managers all keep changing, so I gave up (on Windows). It's really too bad that in the MS world the vendors don't want to play together in the same repo, and opt instead to each have their own update agent. Glad to be rid of that update mess / security nightmare. Fortunately we use RHEL @ work.
It's called System Center Configuration Manager. Quit reinventing the wheel.
SharePoint 2007, yes. SharePoint 2010, no - Microsoft added Firefox as what they call "a First Class supported browser". And if it works in Firefox, odds are it works in Chrome/Safari/Opera too.
Windows Servers have no bearing on what clients you can use to access them. An ASP.NET website can just as easily be accessed using Firefox on Ubuntu as IE on Windows. In fact, it's all built to spit out valid XHTML and CSS, and uses jQuery nowadays rather than some proprietary library. And you can just as easily access Exchange with Thunderbird or Pine.
I was referring to the TV program "Friends". Look it up if you need to. Sort of tongue in cheek, since one of the main character's surnames was "Bing".
Bullshit. When you click on a link on Google search results, before actually forwarding you a piece of javascript will swap out the href of the link for one pointing to a Google redirect page which forwards you onto the real target. This isn't a theory, it's fact.
I'm actually confused now - I've read two different articles with conflicting opinions on that specific point. TFA says Amazon is under the gun, while the article I read (on NZ Herald, syndicated from Bloomberg) seemed to indicate noone could get a solid answer.
Ah, but you're wrong - the rule also exists that any product you sell via In App Purchase of any kind must also be offered via iTunes In-App Purchase. So yes, it sounds like that's exactly what Apple's telling them.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed - and they prevent people giving away Red Hat or free by invoking trademark protection on the name "Red Hat", hence the existence of CentOS, or "Red Hat without the Trademark Infringement".
You jest, but you just described a relatively effective system. I would exclude Wikileaks though, as they've demonstrated amply that they disseminate information and damn the consequences, whereas the ACLU or EFF (or similar localised entity) would be well placed to determine whether it's something to cry foul about or leave alone due a legitimate need for secrecy (for example, an actual terrorist). It would serve the needs of making it relatively painless to tap if there's a need, but still have that transparency and accountability while still maintaining secrecy if it's needed.
An exploit is an exploit. You don't get to pick and choose which are acceptable and which aren't - exploits are never acceptable.
Software can't be sideloaded to Windows Phone 7. It has to go via the Marketplace. Hence yes, there is that totalitarian oppression.
The GPL does not require "libraries ordinarily distributed with the operating system" to be opened - there's a special exception for that.
Wrong option. You need to click on "Account". If the Ajax continues to get in the way, right click on Account and select "Open in New Tab" or "Open in New Window".
I'll miss inline expansion and commenting, but by dammit that new style was beginning to piss me off.
Anyone who contributes is a positive contributor is likely the tack they're taking there (well, except maybe the toilet stall, goatse and frosty piss guys). It doesn't necessarily mean a popular contributor.
It does that. Could you at least read the fucking summary?
Google won't challenge domain squatters, because they themselves are one of the biggest.
They don't link farm. Like StackOverflow, they actually have contributors who answer questions submitted by real people. The problem they have is their UI sucks and their advertising is abominable.
No, that's the new shitty meta-mod system.
The old one allowed you to essentially undo moderation by presenting moderations and asking if you thought they were fair or unfair.
No it doesn't. Chrome OS is a privacy law violation to any emergency service (HIPAA to you Americans) - any OS which relies on Google to work is out. Instantly.
There's no such thing as an appropriate use for Chrome OS.
Using iOS, the OS that can be jailbroken by a web page, doesn't help your argument.
Governments have access to Windows source code. They can review it.
I tried implementing my own unified auto-update system on Windows, but I couldn't find documentation on how to interface the client with Windows updates, Logitech, HP, Dell, etc. A web scraping system worked for a while to handle all updates of all software (pushed out update scripts), But the websites and update managers all keep changing, so I gave up (on Windows). It's really too bad that in the MS world the vendors don't want to play together in the same repo, and opt instead to each have their own update agent. Glad to be rid of that update mess / security nightmare. Fortunately we use RHEL @ work.
It's called System Center Configuration Manager. Quit reinventing the wheel.
SharePoint 2007, yes. SharePoint 2010, no - Microsoft added Firefox as what they call "a First Class supported browser". And if it works in Firefox, odds are it works in Chrome/Safari/Opera too.
Idealist, no. Batshit crazy, yes.
Windows Servers have no bearing on what clients you can use to access them. An ASP.NET website can just as easily be accessed using Firefox on Ubuntu as IE on Windows. In fact, it's all built to spit out valid XHTML and CSS, and uses jQuery nowadays rather than some proprietary library. And you can just as easily access Exchange with Thunderbird or Pine.
I was referring to the TV program "Friends". Look it up if you need to. Sort of tongue in cheek, since one of the main character's surnames was "Bing".
So you're saying Pandora doesn't own the music, but they do own 30 second clips of it and the arrangement in a playlist? I think not.
Bullshit. When you click on a link on Google search results, before actually forwarding you a piece of javascript will swap out the href of the link for one pointing to a Google redirect page which forwards you onto the real target. This isn't a theory, it's fact.
Microsoft has spend a vomit inducing amount of money in advertising on network TV.
Microsoft produced Friends?!?
Not sure. But they might cite you.
I'm actually confused now - I've read two different articles with conflicting opinions on that specific point. TFA says Amazon is under the gun, while the article I read (on NZ Herald, syndicated from Bloomberg) seemed to indicate noone could get a solid answer.
That's forbidden by the SDK agreement. Everything must be the same price or less than it is available elsewhere.
Ah, but you're wrong - the rule also exists that any product you sell via In App Purchase of any kind must also be offered via iTunes In-App Purchase. So yes, it sounds like that's exactly what Apple's telling them.