Don't bother. This guy's got such a case of head in the sand that if he ever took it out, he'd be coughing up dirt for months. Unless you're extolling the virtues of The Almighty Linux he's just going to tell you you're wrong.
No, they don't, they actually don't give a shit. You know why? Because XP Embedded (and Windows Embedded) is practically free, and easy to work with.
Face it, not everyone is so desperate to move to Linux that they will abandon decades of development and rewrite everything just because you think Microsoft is evil.
Microsoft has consistently refused to support ext(n) in any version of windows. (ext2/3 support is available from third parties, but Microsoft forces you to turn off driver signing in order to use it, and they refuse to allow third party ext drivers to be signed. )
Bullshit. In fact, the very link that you provided states in the feature list: "Includes drivers with a digital signature for Windows Vista x64"
Wait, wait.. so according to you Microsoft refuses to allow ext* drivers to be signed, and as evidence you link to a signed ext* driver?
Well, it won't be a problem for you, unless you install an old version of Tor as a Windows Service in a specific unlikely location on your computer that the Tor Project stated "no normal human ever would" and then disabled updating.
Or you could just read the fucking article. But god forbid people on slashdot actually miss a chance to bash Microsoft.
As far as I know Microsoft have never removed or updated Flash or Java even if it is insecure.
Since the people who write Tor are unlikely to sue them, I guess they decided it was OK.
Oooor... they actually talked to the people who write Tor maybe?
Since the Sefnit-caused Tor eruption in August, we have worked to curb this risk. In this process, we consulted with Tor project developers to help plan the cleanup.
Ah. So that's exactly what they did. But hey, feel free to keep painting them as evil monopolists.
At some point someone has to clean up the most violent murderers of society. Someone has to be willing to do what others won't in order to protect everyone - including those who would not make the effort to protect society from people like McGuire.
Nobody likes these things. We are not a pack blood thirsty mongrels waiting for another chance to harm someone under the guise of law and order. But at some point someone needs to make sure people like McGuire don't get a chance to practice their craft ever again.
Well, you'd best head down to your local military base and kill everyone then, because the military (all military) is essentially a pack of institutionalised murderers. After all, they kill people simply on the basis that they are in a military force under directions from people that they own directors don't like. You can say "they're only doing their job" but the reality is that the people on the other side are too.
You know what the problem with that is? The fact that it would require someone capable of holding a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger. That's the problem with all the stupid ideas being proposed in this thread, they require that the justice system quite literally employ psychopaths, whereas the barbaric chemical concoctions in use today simply allow someone who can give an injection or three and tell themselves that they aren't killing someone.
Ultimately, the only sane thing to do is get out of the stone age, join civilization, and stop the state from killing people.
No, but they can stake a claim to it as part of their business. So long as you are not pretending to be them, then there is no problem. The instant you decide to impersonate them specifically using your registration, that is when your usage of the domain becomes bad faith.
Also, it makes you a douche if you do it. So, there's that going for you.
Yup. It would definitely be a bad faith registration to impersonate someone else after registering a typographic variation of their name. It is certain that you would lose a UDRP under those cases. Plus, the owner of the correctly spelled domain, or the applicant you fooled, could just plain sue you in a court of law. So, there's that.
Also, it's clear you don't actually know how UDRP works, since you tried to claim two things. One; that only the law applies (it doesn't, the registrant agreement adds additional conditions on your domain usage) and two; that ICANN is in any way involved (it isn't, UDRP cases are progressed through WIPO, which is a part of the WTO).
The best part of it, though, is when I get CV/resumes from random job applicants trying to email the company. There's unlimited prank potential when you're dealing with someone who thinks you might offer them a real job.
Until you actually try it, at which point that multinational files a UDRP against you for using the domain in bad faith, and the domain is handed over to them with damages awarded against you.
You get a very rich platform that can grow big. After trying to learn Drupal it seems just like a big hack. Sure your Ruby on rails can do some cool things but can it do MVC, 3-tier SOA architecture, use Hibernate, linQ, or advanced data persistent frameworks for SQL databases that much Java Enterprise Edition or.NET?
Yes Ruby can do MVC. Yes it can do 3-tier. No, it can't use Hibernate but it has ActiveRecord which serves a similar purpose, and yes it can use data persistence frameworks. I think you're being a little hard on it, and I'm a dyed in the wool.NET Developer.
Stop linking that shit every time someone mentions DNS. If you actually research the writer, you'd never - EVER - lend any credibility to anything he ever wrote again. Basically some registrars cut him off for spam, child pornography, and in one case not paying the bill, and he complains that they're the corrupt ones? Yeah, nah.
Shibboleth? Hahahahaha... erm. I'll see myself out.
But seriously, as another person mentioned, to SUSE, NetIQ Access Manager isn't closed source - it's their own product (well, made my another company in the same group).
In terms of it being ridiculous that they were using a closed source bulletin board... why is that? They simply decided vBulletin was the best tool for the job, it's not like they were using vBulletin 5 or anything.
Of course a company can override the fiduciary duty if the overriding principle is enshrined in its constitution. Google's constitution does indeed contain a clause stating that their overriding principle is long term growth rather than short term profit, and this is how they justify making decisions that could lose money. In NZ we even have power companies which have clauses in their constitutions that they will do things that are known not to be in the company's or shareholders' best interests merely to meet the government's obligations under a treaty with the indigenous people.
Since that's where McAfee said it, I would imagine that it doesn't qualify as an "incorrect link".
The controversial founder of the security business, John McAfee, told the BBC he was overjoyed by the news.
"I am now everlastingly grateful to Intel for freeing me from this terrible association with the worst software on the planet. These are not my words, but the words of millions of irate users.
They created Impulse, then sold it to The Enemy of All PC Gaming, Gamestop. Then released all their future games on Steam, despite Steam being always online DRM which the Gamer's Bill of Rights was completely against.
Not always. In the Oceanic region for example, pretty much every machine is owned by a company called CC Amatil (who actually do have internet connected vending machines eeeeeeeeeverywhere).
Slashdot Mirror
Don't bother. This guy's got such a case of head in the sand that if he ever took it out, he'd be coughing up dirt for months. Unless you're extolling the virtues of The Almighty Linux he's just going to tell you you're wrong.
No, they don't, they actually don't give a shit. You know why? Because XP Embedded (and Windows Embedded) is practically free, and easy to work with.
Face it, not everyone is so desperate to move to Linux that they will abandon decades of development and rewrite everything just because you think Microsoft is evil.
Microsoft has consistently refused to support ext(n) in any version of windows. (ext2/3 support is available from third parties, but Microsoft forces you to turn off driver signing in order to use it, and they refuse to allow third party ext drivers to be signed. )
Bullshit. In fact, the very link that you provided states in the feature list: "Includes drivers with a digital signature for Windows Vista x64"
Wait, wait.. so according to you Microsoft refuses to allow ext* drivers to be signed, and as evidence you link to a signed ext* driver?
That's ... um ... some serious denial of reality.
Well, it won't be a problem for you, unless you install an old version of Tor as a Windows Service in a specific unlikely location on your computer that the Tor Project stated "no normal human ever would" and then disabled updating.
Or you could just read the fucking article. But god forbid people on slashdot actually miss a chance to bash Microsoft.
As far as I know Microsoft have never removed or updated Flash or Java even if it is insecure.
Since the people who write Tor are unlikely to sue them, I guess they decided it was OK.
Oooor... they actually talked to the people who write Tor maybe?
Since the Sefnit-caused Tor eruption in August, we have worked to curb this risk. In this process, we consulted with Tor project developers to help plan the cleanup.
Ah. So that's exactly what they did. But hey, feel free to keep painting them as evil monopolists.
At some point someone has to clean up the most violent murderers of society. Someone has to be willing to do what others won't in order to protect everyone - including those who would not make the effort to protect society from people like McGuire.
Nobody likes these things. We are not a pack blood thirsty mongrels waiting for another chance to harm someone under the guise of law and order. But at some point someone needs to make sure people like McGuire don't get a chance to practice their craft ever again.
Well, you'd best head down to your local military base and kill everyone then, because the military (all military) is essentially a pack of institutionalised murderers. After all, they kill people simply on the basis that they are in a military force under directions from people that they own directors don't like. You can say "they're only doing their job" but the reality is that the people on the other side are too.
You know what the problem with that is? The fact that it would require someone capable of holding a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger. That's the problem with all the stupid ideas being proposed in this thread, they require that the justice system quite literally employ psychopaths, whereas the barbaric chemical concoctions in use today simply allow someone who can give an injection or three and tell themselves that they aren't killing someone.
Ultimately, the only sane thing to do is get out of the stone age, join civilization, and stop the state from killing people.
No, but they can stake a claim to it as part of their business. So long as you are not pretending to be them, then there is no problem. The instant you decide to impersonate them specifically using your registration, that is when your usage of the domain becomes bad faith.
Also, it makes you a douche if you do it. So, there's that going for you.
That setting doesn't exist in Google Apps accounts, just in case you have one and are confused where it is.
There is an exception for Google Apps users. The box defaults to Off instead of On for us.
Yup. It would definitely be a bad faith registration to impersonate someone else after registering a typographic variation of their name. It is certain that you would lose a UDRP under those cases. Plus, the owner of the correctly spelled domain, or the applicant you fooled, could just plain sue you in a court of law. So, there's that.
Also, it's clear you don't actually know how UDRP works, since you tried to claim two things. One; that only the law applies (it doesn't, the registrant agreement adds additional conditions on your domain usage) and two; that ICANN is in any way involved (it isn't, UDRP cases are progressed through WIPO, which is a part of the WTO).
The best part of it, though, is when I get CV/resumes from random job applicants trying to email the company. There's unlimited prank potential when you're dealing with someone who thinks you might offer them a real job.
Until you actually try it, at which point that multinational files a UDRP against you for using the domain in bad faith, and the domain is handed over to them with damages awarded against you.
Exception is Google Apps, which considers f.m.last to be different from fm.last.
You get a very rich platform that can grow big. After trying to learn Drupal it seems just like a big hack. Sure your Ruby on rails can do some cool things but can it do MVC, 3-tier SOA architecture, use Hibernate, linQ, or advanced data persistent frameworks for SQL databases that much Java Enterprise Edition or .NET?
Yes Ruby can do MVC. Yes it can do 3-tier. No, it can't use Hibernate but it has ActiveRecord which serves a similar purpose, and yes it can use data persistence frameworks. I think you're being a little hard on it, and I'm a dyed in the wool .NET Developer.
Stop linking that shit every time someone mentions DNS. If you actually research the writer, you'd never - EVER - lend any credibility to anything he ever wrote again. Basically some registrars cut him off for spam, child pornography, and in one case not paying the bill, and he complains that they're the corrupt ones? Yeah, nah.
The frightening thing is that Microsoft has done more to fight botnets in any given month than the collective law enforcement of the world ever.
Fair enough, it appears I'm wrong on that.
Actually, I don't think redistribution rights are a requirement of Open Source, only of Free/Libre Software.
vBulletin comes with source. It does not utilise ionCube or Zend encoding.
Shibboleth? Hahahahaha... erm. I'll see myself out.
But seriously, as another person mentioned, to SUSE, NetIQ Access Manager isn't closed source - it's their own product (well, made my another company in the same group).
In terms of it being ridiculous that they were using a closed source bulletin board... why is that? They simply decided vBulletin was the best tool for the job, it's not like they were using vBulletin 5 or anything.
No it doesn't. All the other database drivers were phased out (source: I was the poor bastard that maintained MSSQL for it).
Of course a company can override the fiduciary duty if the overriding principle is enshrined in its constitution. Google's constitution does indeed contain a clause stating that their overriding principle is long term growth rather than short term profit, and this is how they justify making decisions that could lose money. In NZ we even have power companies which have clauses in their constitutions that they will do things that are known not to be in the company's or shareholders' best interests merely to meet the government's obligations under a treaty with the indigenous people.
Since that's where McAfee said it, I would imagine that it doesn't qualify as an "incorrect link".
The controversial founder of the security business, John McAfee, told the BBC he was overjoyed by the news.
"I am now everlastingly grateful to Intel for freeing me from this terrible association with the worst software on the planet. These are not my words, but the words of millions of irate users.
"My elation at Intel's decision is beyond words."
They created Impulse, then sold it to The Enemy of All PC Gaming, Gamestop. Then released all their future games on Steam, despite Steam being always online DRM which the Gamer's Bill of Rights was completely against.
Not always. In the Oceanic region for example, pretty much every machine is owned by a company called CC Amatil (who actually do have internet connected vending machines eeeeeeeeeverywhere).