The real problem is that Mozilla has some sort of mechanism to ask a plugin "can you be disabled?" Having that mechanism implies that it's okay for a plugin to say "no", and hence Microsoft was just using the API in the intended fashion.
No they don't. Plugins cannot be disabled if they were added via the Windows Registry (e.g. by a Group Policy or installer) rather than by placing them in a specific location. Blame Mozilla's sloppy coding there, not Microsoft's shitty practice. Microsoft also released an update months ago that restored the correct disable/uninstall functionality.
In this instance, I intended "distributor" to mean "retailer". The publisher is rarely ever the primary distributor, and I believe for eBooks no traditional distributor is ever involved.
Sure, but the publisher who holds the exclusive license to distribute is not bound by any such promise.
And where's the arguments like yours in relation to Microsoft's "Covenant Not to Sue", which according to Slashdot is worth less than the bits composing the text?
No, you're again claiming that the amount the distributor takes is pure profit. Servers are not free. Bandwidth is not free. Electricity is not free. Customer Support Staff are not free. Taxes are not free. Amenities are not free. Just because it's electronic, does not make it free.
$28 is probably a tad ridiculous, but the book isn't bloody free.
Actually, no, it was not. It was installed by.NET Framework 3.5 SP1, which required you to have.NET Framework 3.5 already installed. A later update allowed you to use the "Disable" and "Uninstall": buttons on it again.
Ah, but the question is - do you block people from entering just on the basis they have a phone/laptop, or do you advise them "please don't use those in here"? This is all about people not even being allowed in with these items - it makes perfect sense to ask them not to use them.
Incorrect. Notepad does not interpret LF or CR on their own as a line break, so you'd find it pretty obvious that the file is malformed when the whole damn thing shows up on a single line. Wordpad will transparently fix it though.
Incorrect. The zone file is hosted by Autonomica AB (who own the servers that are authoritative for the "se" domain according to the root servers).
If you were talking about a change to the NS records, you'd - I assume - be correct - Verisign operates a.root-servers.net (which I assume is the root)
Obviously you've neither looked at IE nor StartSSL in a year. StartSSL issues free certificates to individuals, recognised by all major browsers, for an entire year (at least, I'm pretty sure that's what "1 year validity" means). For companies, they charge $40 for a class 2 certificate (what Verisign charges $800 and Thawte charges $400 for) which is even valid for object signing (what Verisign charges an extra $400 for).
New person in the company? They get assigned a desk, a computer, given the CA cert and shown what to do with it. They're maybe issued a personal client certificate.
Person leaves the company? Personal certificate gets revoked, VPN server won't accept it anymore.
Out of the question! You have your group policy set to add your company CA cert to Trusted Root Certification Authorities on each client PC. No showing people what to do with it at all.
Blocked? Bullshit. Did IE somehow prevent you from seeing Google ads featuring Firefox or Opera? Did IE prevent you accessing Firefox.com or Opera.com? No.
And the number of people who take advantage of this is the same as the number of people who do so now: almost none. Because if the people somehow managed to miss tons of Google ads, the Google homepage itself, and the full page ad in the New York Times, then honestly there's no hope for them.
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem is that Mozilla has some sort of mechanism to ask a plugin "can you be disabled?" Having that mechanism implies that it's okay for a plugin to say "no", and hence Microsoft was just using the API in the intended fashion.
No they don't. Plugins cannot be disabled if they were added via the Windows Registry (e.g. by a Group Policy or installer) rather than by placing them in a specific location. Blame Mozilla's sloppy coding there, not Microsoft's shitty practice. Microsoft also released an update months ago that restored the correct disable/uninstall functionality.
Actually, yes, for the past several months.
A question with only one answer is a statement.
In this instance, I intended "distributor" to mean "retailer". The publisher is rarely ever the primary distributor, and I believe for eBooks no traditional distributor is ever involved.
Sure, but the publisher who holds the exclusive license to distribute is not bound by any such promise.
And where's the arguments like yours in relation to Microsoft's "Covenant Not to Sue", which according to Slashdot is worth less than the bits composing the text?
No, you're again claiming that the amount the distributor takes is pure profit. Servers are not free. Bandwidth is not free. Electricity is not free. Customer Support Staff are not free. Taxes are not free. Amenities are not free. Just because it's electronic, does not make it free.
$28 is probably a tad ridiculous, but the book isn't bloody free.
Actually, no, it was not. It was installed by .NET Framework 3.5 SP1, which required you to have .NET Framework 3.5 already installed. A later update allowed you to use the "Disable" and "Uninstall": buttons on it again.
I wouldn't claim that if I were you - that's where IE6 came from, Microsoft implementing a draft standard in whatever way they thought made sense.
Ah, but the question is - do you block people from entering just on the basis they have a phone/laptop, or do you advise them "please don't use those in here"? This is all about people not even being allowed in with these items - it makes perfect sense to ask them not to use them.
Incorrect. Notepad does not interpret LF or CR on their own as a line break, so you'd find it pretty obvious that the file is malformed when the whole damn thing shows up on a single line. Wordpad will transparently fix it though.
Incorrect. The zone file is hosted by Autonomica AB (who own the servers that are authoritative for the "se" domain according to the root servers).
If you were talking about a change to the NS records, you'd - I assume - be correct - Verisign operates a.root-servers.net (which I assume is the root)
Obviously you've neither looked at IE nor StartSSL in a year. StartSSL issues free certificates to individuals, recognised by all major browsers, for an entire year (at least, I'm pretty sure that's what "1 year validity" means). For companies, they charge $40 for a class 2 certificate (what Verisign charges $800 and Thawte charges $400 for) which is even valid for object signing (what Verisign charges an extra $400 for).
StartSSL was included in a recent Windows Update, actually. My XP machine at work has it.
Why? StartSSL's free certificates are recognised by the major browsers by default. Hell, you can even get $40 code signing certificates from them.
They do. If you subscribe to Slashdot, you have to option to browse it over TLS. Non-subscribers are bounced back to the unencrypted version though.
New person in the company? They get assigned a desk, a computer, given the CA cert and shown what to do with it. They're maybe issued a personal client certificate.
Person leaves the company? Personal certificate gets revoked, VPN server won't accept it anymore.
Out of the question! You have your group policy set to add your company CA cert to Trusted Root Certification Authorities on each client PC. No showing people what to do with it at all.
Speaking of lies...
What mythical version of Windows has Internet Explorer as part of the kernel?
Actually, the following browsers (at minimum) use Trident:
Internet Explorer, Maxthon, AOL, Avant Browser, Netscape 8.
Also, the following applications (at minimum) use it:
Windows Media Player, AOL Instant Messenger, Limewire, Steam, Google Talk.
Blocked? Bullshit. Did IE somehow prevent you from seeing Google ads featuring Firefox or Opera? Did IE prevent you accessing Firefox.com or Opera.com? No.
And the number of people who take advantage of this is the same as the number of people who do so now: almost none. Because if the people somehow managed to miss tons of Google ads, the Google homepage itself, and the full page ad in the New York Times, then honestly there's no hope for them.
GFWL is not a distribution platform - it doesn't hold a comparison to Steam at all, save that it is often used in combination with Steam nowadays.
Unless you're in Europe, because... you know... 1 Euro = 1US Dollar.
You'd break Deeplinking. Since that's Apple's latest and greatest new feature to make it appear they care about devs, that isn't going to happen.
I'm so, so sorry. I can not believe I fell for that.
Then again, the AC that replied to me was even more of a moron so I don't feel so stupid now.
Excellent! Penalise small inventors who don't have the money to go to market!
Dumbest idea ever. Reforms are needed, but your idea is "the non-wealthy need not apply".
Congratulations fucktard, you're proving the fact that developers do need to implement disgustingly restrictive DRM.
If you disagree with them, don't buy the game and don't pirate it either.