What the hell are you talking about? It's expected to write the loss from a single event into a single quarter - hell I don't even think you can legally spread losses. The reality is exactly as they claim - they bought something with hope of making it successful, and it failed so they wrote the loss down. I don't see how you can see that as some sort of conspiracy (unless you're a tinfoil-hat wearing schizophrenic) since it makes them look bad. Very bad.
No it wouldn't. Despite what that egotistical twat Stallman would have you believe, having one or two applications developed by you on the system does not give you some god-given right to have your name prepended (not even appended, prepended) onto the product name. Otherwise, every PC you buy from Dell would be running BonziBuddy/Norton/Windows. Personally, I don't even subscribe to the belief that Linux should be called GNU/Linux.
It sounds like you were looking at purchasing the wrong product anyway. If you're installing that many routers you should be installing Catalyst switches not Linksys SOHO crap.
Everyone remember counterfeit Cisco gear working its way into the market place, including the D.O.D? Now they're implementing absurd 'cloud services' for infrastructure gear that not only locks people out of their equipment, but updates IOS without user authorization?
No, no they're not. Cloud services are for Linksys shit not Cisco enterprise behemoths.
Besides, updating IOS without user authorisation? They won't update it without wallet authorisation!
Well actually you are a conspiracy theorist. The product Q&A you link to is specifically for a single device model - a Service Control device no less, specifically designed to control access to the internet. So, um, obviously it's discussing a solution to control your connection to the internet, since that's exactly what a "Cisco SCE 2000 Series Service Control Engine" is for.
Just be careful - I enquired with our consumer privacy watchdog and actually got a phone call(!) the next day(!!) to tell me that unfortunately if the company has no local presence, they have no ability to prosecute or even investigate (which is odd, since they did get in on that whole "investigate Google" bandwagon).
You do realise what that update was for right? It's the update that blocks the ability of malware to hijack your Windows Updates as a delivery mechanism. I think it's one of the few updates I'd see as a worthwhile use of that power. You'll also note they never use that ability to push shit like WGA or IE.
Cisco, not Linksys. Cisco switches don't get updates without direct crediting a year's procurement budget to Cisco, and they sure as hell won't force upgrade them (and I bet they'll never include Cloud shit either).
No, they're not two issues. It's one. The statement clearly says the VPN service must be provided by a trustworthy company. Period. So no, it cannot be a "self-built" option no matter where it's hosted because the service being provided wouldn't be by a trustworthy company if they did.
Oh yes. And the LI stuff exists in Juniper, Array Networks, and all other kind of expensive carrier grade shit too. Cisco's the only one which at least publishes specs on how their lawful intercept stuff works!
Unfortunately the US government mandates that providers of carrier grade ISP equipment build in this shit. Blame CALEA.
One of the main requirements I was given is that the company has to be trustworthy. And it has to be a company — computer in someone's closet hosting a VPN isn't acceptable to the Navy.
I dunno about the figures, but I kind of like WP7 personally. Of course I'm not the mass market, so my preferences have little effect on the market figures as a whole.
That could be difficult. As a general rule, everyone has Apple shares (usually via their retirement fund. I know I do). And if they don't, they either have Apple products, or star in World Vision ads.
No, they couldn't. I imagine they have a defined length on their supply contract, with heavy penalties for early termination without cause (and "you're suing us" doesn't count as cause - nothing short of "god smote all our factories" would count), and besides that even if it is the same physical company (it may be a subsidiary) the electronic component division would be separated by internal "walls" from the mobile division.
Also, the most told lie in the history of the world is likely "we apologise for the inconvenience" and/or "your call is important to us".
No, not at all. His first refutation is absolutely correct - "Smart Tags" have been a function of Word since Word 2000. Does Apple really want to challenge an angry Microsoft?
Of course to his fourth one, I contend that even Apple doesn't have that - it's almost fucking impossible to hit the "No, iOS, you're fucking wrong and stop correcting this perfectly valid word you dick" button.
At least patents actually expire! Then again, reform is still desperately needed. There's no excuse for granting patents on the fucking blindingly obvious.
We need that judge that told Apple and Samsung to get the fuck out to rule on this.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell are you talking about? It's expected to write the loss from a single event into a single quarter - hell I don't even think you can legally spread losses. The reality is exactly as they claim - they bought something with hope of making it successful, and it failed so they wrote the loss down. I don't see how you can see that as some sort of conspiracy (unless you're a tinfoil-hat wearing schizophrenic) since it makes them look bad. Very bad.
No it wouldn't. Despite what that egotistical twat Stallman would have you believe, having one or two applications developed by you on the system does not give you some god-given right to have your name prepended (not even appended, prepended) onto the product name. Otherwise, every PC you buy from Dell would be running BonziBuddy/Norton/Windows. Personally, I don't even subscribe to the belief that Linux should be called GNU/Linux.
You forgot to take a stab at Metro.
It sounds like you were looking at purchasing the wrong product anyway. If you're installing that many routers you should be installing Catalyst switches not Linksys SOHO crap.
Everyone remember counterfeit Cisco gear working its way into the market place, including the D.O.D? Now they're implementing absurd 'cloud services' for infrastructure gear that not only locks people out of their equipment, but updates IOS without user authorization?
No, no they're not. Cloud services are for Linksys shit not Cisco enterprise behemoths.
Besides, updating IOS without user authorisation? They won't update it without wallet authorisation!
Well actually you are a conspiracy theorist. The product Q&A you link to is specifically for a single device model - a Service Control device no less, specifically designed to control access to the internet. So, um, obviously it's discussing a solution to control your connection to the internet, since that's exactly what a "Cisco SCE 2000 Series Service Control Engine" is for.
Just be careful - I enquired with our consumer privacy watchdog and actually got a phone call(!) the next day(!!) to tell me that unfortunately if the company has no local presence, they have no ability to prosecute or even investigate (which is odd, since they did get in on that whole "investigate Google" bandwagon).
You do realise what that update was for right? It's the update that blocks the ability of malware to hijack your Windows Updates as a delivery mechanism. I think it's one of the few updates I'd see as a worthwhile use of that power. You'll also note they never use that ability to push shit like WGA or IE.
Yeah, it's like a billionth of the price and HP is just large enough that Cisco would balk at trying to buy them.
Cisco, not Linksys. Cisco switches don't get updates without direct crediting a year's procurement budget to Cisco, and they sure as hell won't force upgrade them (and I bet they'll never include Cloud shit either).
You know, I was honestly expecting it to end with "but then I tried MyCleanPC and it fixed all my problems with my slow gigabits this minuteness!"
No, they're not two issues. It's one. The statement clearly says the VPN service must be provided by a trustworthy company. Period. So no, it cannot be a "self-built" option no matter where it's hosted because the service being provided wouldn't be by a trustworthy company if they did.
Oh yes. And the LI stuff exists in Juniper, Array Networks, and all other kind of expensive carrier grade shit too. Cisco's the only one which at least publishes specs on how their lawful intercept stuff works!
Unfortunately the US government mandates that providers of carrier grade ISP equipment build in this shit. Blame CALEA.
One of the main requirements I was given is that the company has to be trustworthy. And it has to be a company — computer in someone's closet hosting a VPN isn't acceptable to the Navy.
I don't see how that's ambiguous.
I dunno about the figures, but I kind of like WP7 personally. Of course I'm not the mass market, so my preferences have little effect on the market figures as a whole.
Oh, I know it's in California somewhere - maybe even in Beverley Hills, but that's about it.
It all makes sense now! The Apple HQ is a Reaper!
Um, this entire article is about Apple acquiring patents undeservably on obvious non-innovation and litigating their competition out of existence.
Oh, of course. Samsung is Korean so therefore does not deserve to compete. America, Fuck Yeah!
Imperialistic twat.
That could be difficult. As a general rule, everyone has Apple shares (usually via their retirement fund. I know I do). And if they don't, they either have Apple products, or star in World Vision ads.
No, they couldn't. I imagine they have a defined length on their supply contract, with heavy penalties for early termination without cause (and "you're suing us" doesn't count as cause - nothing short of "god smote all our factories" would count), and besides that even if it is the same physical company (it may be a subsidiary) the electronic component division would be separated by internal "walls" from the mobile division.
Also, the most told lie in the history of the world is likely "we apologise for the inconvenience" and/or "your call is important to us".
IBM is pretty inept these days. They're only capable of preying on government customers.
No, not at all. His first refutation is absolutely correct - "Smart Tags" have been a function of Word since Word 2000. Does Apple really want to challenge an angry Microsoft?
Of course to his fourth one, I contend that even Apple doesn't have that - it's almost fucking impossible to hit the "No, iOS, you're fucking wrong and stop correcting this perfectly valid word you dick" button.
At least patents actually expire! Then again, reform is still desperately needed. There's no excuse for granting patents on the fucking blindingly obvious.
We need that judge that told Apple and Samsung to get the fuck out to rule on this.
It's like none of you even read. It specifically says it must be a reputable company. Building their own is not an option.
I'm outside the US, so iTunes, Netflix and Hulu think I'm in whatever the hell 90212 is.