It would make measures like the Australian blacklist falderall all that much more difficult to actually pull off, and would render efforts like COICA similarly difficult.
No it wouldn't. Most blacklists work by hijacking the BGP announcements for blocked addresses, and therefore changing the route to the IP independent of the DNS records.
You missed one point completely - for once, Microsoft is on the same side as you here. You could probably point out to Microsoft legal that IBM has attempted to patent technology that's been in Windows since 2001, and see where that goes.
Remember, if you aren't large enough to get in the fight, just open the gate and let one of the bigger dogs do it.
Uh, no? Exchange only tells the device to remote wipe - it's up to the device to handle the implementation of that. It could simply nuke mail/contacts/calendars, it could nuke everything. But the Exchange server has no idea what gets done. This one's entirely down to Cupertino.
And any sane employer (mine is one) actually blocks "auto-forward outside the organisation" rules too - if we set up one of those it just transparently fails. But hey, thanks for pointing out that you, personally, are a corporate risk who should never be employed in any important capacity.
Nokia has actually released two dual-SIM phones, though they aren't the most awesome models out there. I'd provide a link, but Chrome has screwed up and refuses to paste - so look up the C2.
If they were to do that, they'd have a non-compliant EAS implementation. And if you don't implement a spec properly in MS world, they revoke your license.
When you're talking about governments (plural), you shouldn't go off onto a tangent about the US constitution. China, for example, couldn't give any less of a shit about said constitution. And saying "Microsoft is leading the charge" is a bit disingenuous - from memory, Apple and Nokia took the first swings in this battle.
No, redistribution isn't one of the criteria of "open source". Open source means exactly that - the product is comprised of source which is open. You should try an actual common sense and english language recognised definition, where it means exactly what it says.
Actually, it is YOU who should go invent your own phrase, and YOU who is wrong. Open has a clearly defined meaning in English, and the OSI and FSF have no mandate to redefine the language. What you refer to is more adequately called Free Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) because it doesn't try to redefine the common vernacular.
Funnily enough, music stores existed before iTunes. What would have happened is people would have continued to use their existing music stores, and iTunes never would have got off the ground. What really happened is that iPods shovelled iTunes usage, to the point that it reached critical mass and attained the weight necessary to force what Apple wanted. It never would have reached critical mass without the record labels agreeing to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Woah, as soon as I saw your post I was thinking Max Headroom - now I need to go buy or download it. Awesome series.
It would make measures like the Australian blacklist falderall all that much more difficult to actually pull off, and would render efforts like COICA similarly difficult.
No it wouldn't. Most blacklists work by hijacking the BGP announcements for blocked addresses, and therefore changing the route to the IP independent of the DNS records.
Actually, if the new registrant did so in bad faith, average joe could indeed complain and get it returned.
You can't protect a house if the owner keeps giving keys to everyone who asks for one.
You're right. So Microsoft should change Windows you can't log in. Ever. Can't give out the keys if you yourself don't have one.
Tags are determined by the readers.
So yes, Slashdot has a team of 12-year-old boys.
Huh. I thought that was just Chrome acting screwy yesterday. But no, it really doesn't work - ever!
You missed one point completely - for once, Microsoft is on the same side as you here. You could probably point out to Microsoft legal that IBM has attempted to patent technology that's been in Windows since 2001, and see where that goes.
Remember, if you aren't large enough to get in the fight, just open the gate and let one of the bigger dogs do it.
As I understand it, you're asking if it's possible, not if they've ever done it. In which case, yes. Google can wipe your phone.
Actually, yes.
Uh, no? Exchange only tells the device to remote wipe - it's up to the device to handle the implementation of that. It could simply nuke mail/contacts/calendars, it could nuke everything. But the Exchange server has no idea what gets done. This one's entirely down to Cupertino.
And any sane employer (mine is one) actually blocks "auto-forward outside the organisation" rules too - if we set up one of those it just transparently fails. But hey, thanks for pointing out that you, personally, are a corporate risk who should never be employed in any important capacity.
Nokia has actually released two dual-SIM phones, though they aren't the most awesome models out there. I'd provide a link, but Chrome has screwed up and refuses to paste - so look up the C2.
If they were to do that, they'd have a non-compliant EAS implementation. And if you don't implement a spec properly in MS world, they revoke your license.
Then you aren't connected to the AD environment. And, in fact, shouldn't be connected.
In NZ, they're used to tell you what cell tower you're connected to. Unless you're on 3G like, oh, everyone.
When you're talking about governments (plural), you shouldn't go off onto a tangent about the US constitution. China, for example, couldn't give any less of a shit about said constitution. And saying "Microsoft is leading the charge" is a bit disingenuous - from memory, Apple and Nokia took the first swings in this battle.
No, redistribution isn't one of the criteria of "open source". Open source means exactly that - the product is comprised of source which is open. You should try an actual common sense and english language recognised definition, where it means exactly what it says.
Actually, it is YOU who should go invent your own phrase, and YOU who is wrong. Open has a clearly defined meaning in English, and the OSI and FSF have no mandate to redefine the language. What you refer to is more adequately called Free Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) because it doesn't try to redefine the common vernacular.
Well, the source is open to you, therefore it is open source. Nothing else matters.
Actually, OSX does demand a password by default. And boy can it be annoying. What with the daily iTunes and Safari updates of late.
You forgot right click to paste.
Let's go take a look at Skype's SLA shall we? Oh wait...
And security... what sort of moronic business communicates mission critical information over a P2P network like Skype (which is basically Kazaa VoIP)?
In answer to what businesses should use instead... anything else.
Businesses don't use Skype. Period.
Microsoft has the same rule for the WP7 Marketplace.
Funnily enough, music stores existed before iTunes. What would have happened is people would have continued to use their existing music stores, and iTunes never would have got off the ground. What really happened is that iPods shovelled iTunes usage, to the point that it reached critical mass and attained the weight necessary to force what Apple wanted. It never would have reached critical mass without the record labels agreeing to it.
In most cases, the individual that you comment is not earning said money took a great personal risk to forge that company.