I'm pretty sure Microsoft would have been quite happy to pay what they promised to pay - instead the municipality is trying to charge them three times the estimate (seriously - the consequence for overestimating power usage by $70,000 was $210,000. That is unjustifiable).
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your anti-Microsoft hate spewing.
I would assume it may also be to try and create good impressions of the company in people's minds. Someone who has to pay 4 times retail for a product because of scalpers will generally associate that with a negative experience, which may sour them on purchasing that product in future.
Our local council gets around this by making it very difficult to get permits, and making it nigh-on mandatory to ride off the back of anyone else digging up the accessways. It's why our fibre deployment is so slow - they're pretty much required to wait until the power company gets bored and rips up more footpath.
Common sense would dictate then that the fine would be basically the difference between the usage and the estimated usage - meaning that they do not benefit from the overestimation lowering their prices, but they are not incentivised to waste power simply to get usage up to the estimated level.
So, Microsoft is not unique in sucking at getting patches out promptly. It's pretty abundantly clear that "Marc" is just another anti-Microsoft shill ranting about how Microsoft perpetuated every evil in history. (Really, if Open Source is the paragon of transparency, why are all of the bug tracker entries detailing these now fixed bugs private?)
Except that you're talking shit. Microsoft has been credited with informing their competitors of vulnerabilities as often as Microsoft's competitors have been credited with informing them of vulnerabilities.
No you can't. Offhand I think Intel's compiler runs on pretty much every platform. They aren't referring to Microsoft.NET, where the compiler actually ships with the OS not the IDE.
That's odd. The vast majority of banks use Windows-based servers for their online banking environment. And they're perfectly secure. Almost like... holy shit... pretty much anything can be made secure if the person setting it up knows what they're doing?!? Well I never!
You apparently don't understand what you're replying to. Perhaps you should try to comprehend a post prior to making yourself look foolish by replying with something completely irrelevant.
You realise that the page is out of date right? The entry for Google Maps says "pre-installed on iPhone" which is quite clearly no longer the case. In fact, Google Maps is not available as an app on iPhone, only as a limited web application.
And for what it's worth, Turn-by-Turn is actually explicitly forbidden by the Google Maps API Terms. See section 10.2 paragraph C:
(c) No Navigation, Autonomous Vehicle Control, or Enterprise Applications. You must not use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or applications for or in connection with any of the following:
(i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device.
Nah, it's like if your Transit Authority produces a transit app with train/bus schedules and directions and sticks it on the (m)app store, Apple Maps will call out to that application to produce directions rather than doing it all itself. Presumably on the basis that Apple can't be arsed producing full fidelity directions for everywhere and has no intention of trying.
Here's a hint at how sneaky they are: in your 40+ page user agreement updated about 1-1.5 years ago, you agreed to allow them to use location based advertising -- even if location services are completely off. Before you go Google'ing the solution or rereading the EULA/ToS, find it first on your device. $100 says you can't.
Because it's not. It's on a website somewhere. (there's a big hint, and I'll bet you you still can't find it)
Settings > General > About > Legal > License. And it doesn't let them use location for advertising if it's turned off, although in Google's privacy policy located at Settings > General > About > Legal > Legal Notices, it does give Google permission to do that.
Also, you can opt out of tracking for advertising from Settings > General > About > Advertising.
What makes you think Google hasn't done this to a user at the request of a person who they thought was that user? It was a social engineering attack, Google's been hit by one or two of those in the past you know...
For the future developers coming into the fold, there are plenty of User Interface improvements that are perfect for getting your feet wet with the project. We welcome you aboard!
Let's hope so. The last time I looked at LibreOffice, I hated the UI. IT made the ribbon seem friendly with it's clunkiness. Then I opened the Options dialog and just got outright lost.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure Microsoft would have been quite happy to pay what they promised to pay - instead the municipality is trying to charge them three times the estimate (seriously - the consequence for overestimating power usage by $70,000 was $210,000. That is unjustifiable).
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your anti-Microsoft hate spewing.
I would assume it may also be to try and create good impressions of the company in people's minds. Someone who has to pay 4 times retail for a product because of scalpers will generally associate that with a negative experience, which may sour them on purchasing that product in future.
Our local council gets around this by making it very difficult to get permits, and making it nigh-on mandatory to ride off the back of anyone else digging up the accessways. It's why our fibre deployment is so slow - they're pretty much required to wait until the power company gets bored and rips up more footpath.
Except that Azure hosts a lot of stuff - including part of iCloud. The usage on it may not be static, but it would be high.
Common sense would dictate then that the fine would be basically the difference between the usage and the estimated usage - meaning that they do not benefit from the overestimation lowering their prices, but they are not incentivised to waste power simply to get usage up to the estimated level.
Locutus would never let a little thing like "facts" get in the way of his Microsoft-hate spewing.
Well, I had a quick look at some other CVEs for the hell of it.
Mozilla:
CVE-2012-3980 - 48 days - http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-3980 (Bugzilla entry concealed from public)
CVE-2012-3979 - 48 days - http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-3979 (Bugzilla entry concealed from public)
CVE-2012-3968 - 48 days - http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-3968 (Bugzilla entry concealed from public)
Google:
CVE-2012-2869 - 103 days - http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-2869 (Bug tracker issue concealed from public)
CVE-2012-2864 - 94 days - http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-2864 (Bug tracker issue concealed from public)
CVE-2012-2859 - 73 days - http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-2859 (Bug tracker issue concealed from public)
So, Microsoft is not unique in sucking at getting patches out promptly. It's pretty abundantly clear that "Marc" is just another anti-Microsoft shill ranting about how Microsoft perpetuated every evil in history. (Really, if Open Source is the paragon of transparency, why are all of the bug tracker entries detailing these now fixed bugs private?)
The component you speak of is WinInet. Chrome also uses CryptoAPI, so that's another surface.
Except that you're talking shit. Microsoft has been credited with informing their competitors of vulnerabilities as often as Microsoft's competitors have been credited with informing them of vulnerabilities.
No you can't. Offhand I think Intel's compiler runs on pretty much every platform. They aren't referring to Microsoft .NET, where the compiler actually ships with the OS not the IDE.
That's odd. The vast majority of banks use Windows-based servers for their online banking environment. And they're perfectly secure. Almost like... holy shit... pretty much anything can be made secure if the person setting it up knows what they're doing?!? Well I never!
It's called the USPTO - United States Patents and Trademarks Office. USPO doesn't exist.
Let's be serious, noone in the IT industry is going to vote for the pirate party - that's effectively voting for the abolition of your trade.
I really, really, can't see Winston agreeing with John Key on anything.
The GCSB reports to the office of the Prime Minister, so... he'll get right on that.
You apparently don't understand what you're replying to. Perhaps you should try to comprehend a post prior to making yourself look foolish by replying with something completely irrelevant.
I work at a hospital. Browsing our IP range contributions just scares me.
You realise that the page is out of date right? The entry for Google Maps says "pre-installed on iPhone" which is quite clearly no longer the case. In fact, Google Maps is not available as an app on iPhone, only as a limited web application.
And for what it's worth, Turn-by-Turn is actually explicitly forbidden by the Google Maps API Terms. See section 10.2 paragraph C:
(c) No Navigation, Autonomous Vehicle Control, or Enterprise Applications. You must not use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or applications for or in connection with any of the following:
(i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device.
Nah, it's like if your Transit Authority produces a transit app with train/bus schedules and directions and sticks it on the (m)app store, Apple Maps will call out to that application to produce directions rather than doing it all itself. Presumably on the basis that Apple can't be arsed producing full fidelity directions for everywhere and has no intention of trying.
Here's a hint at how sneaky they are: in your 40+ page user agreement updated about 1-1.5 years ago, you agreed to allow them to use location based advertising -- even if location services are completely off. Before you go Google'ing the solution or rereading the EULA/ToS, find it first on your device. $100 says you can't.
Because it's not. It's on a website somewhere. (there's a big hint, and I'll bet you you still can't find it)
Settings > General > About > Legal > License. And it doesn't let them use location for advertising if it's turned off, although in Google's privacy policy located at Settings > General > About > Legal > Legal Notices, it does give Google permission to do that.
Also, you can opt out of tracking for advertising from Settings > General > About > Advertising.
Where's my $100?
What makes you think Google hasn't done this to a user at the request of a person who they thought was that user? It was a social engineering attack, Google's been hit by one or two of those in the past you know...
Almost none, since they already have TomTom, Garmin, and a ton of other map apps on the store.
So does TomTom, and you don't see them rejecting that.
For the future developers coming into the fold, there are plenty of User Interface improvements that are perfect for getting your feet wet with the project. We welcome you aboard!
Let's hope so. The last time I looked at LibreOffice, I hated the UI. IT made the ribbon seem friendly with it's clunkiness. Then I opened the Options dialog and just got outright lost.
That's called Office 2007 "Product Activation Failed" Edition.