In fact if you try to change the security settings for the document you'll notice it can be changed to 'no security'. No password will be asked for as it is blank ! The documents original security settings don't make much sense.
"I think I'm going to invent a new term. Googlesniping" As opposed to Googlesainting : trying to convince the world that something is suddenly good simply because Google has started doing it.
Not a direct comment on ReinoutS answer but when using Mandriva PLF - Penguin Liberation Front is a must. If you lookup Easy urpmi it will give everything you need to get a proper Mandriva Update setup. Then you can just enjoy a better Mandriva;) .
From Europa Rapid Press release Document IP/04/382 24 March 2004 "The European Commission has concluded, after a five-year investigation, that Microsoft Corporation broke European Union competition law by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems (OS) onto the markets for work group server operating systems(1) and for media players(2). Because the illegal behaviour is still ongoing, the Commission has ordered Microsoft to disclose to competitors, within 120 days, the interfaces(3) required for their products to be able to 'talk' with the ubiquitous Windows OS. Microsoft is also required, within 90 days, to offer a version of its Windows OS without Windows Media Player to PC manufacturers (or when selling directly to end users). In addition, Microsoft is fined 497 million for abusing its market power in the EU." IP/05/1215 5th October 2005 "The European Commission has appointed Professor Neil Barrett, a computer scientist, as the Trustee who will provide technical advice to the Commission on issues relating to Microsoft's compliance with the Commission's 2004 Decision " IP/05/1695 22nd December 2005 "The European Commission has issued a Statement of Objections against Microsoft for its failure to comply with certain of its obligations under the March 2004 Commission decision (the "March 2004 Decision", see IP/04/382). That decision found Microsoft to have infringed the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82) by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems onto the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players. One of the remedies imposed by the decision was for Microsoft to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. The Statement of Objections indicates that the Commission's preliminary view, supported by two reports from the Monitoring Trustee (see IP/05/1215), is that Microsoft has not yet provided complete and accurate specifications for this interoperability information. After giving Microsoft an opportunity to reply to the Statement of Objections, the Commission may impose a daily penalty."........... "Since the 24(1) Decision, Microsoft has revised the interoperability information that it is obliged to disclose. However, the Commission takes the preliminary view that this information is incomplete and inaccurate. This view is supported by the report of the Monitoring Trustee, which concludes that, "any programmer or programming team seeking to use the Technical Documentation for a real development exercise would be wholly and completely unable to proceed on the basis of the documentation. The Technical Documentation is therefore totally unfit at this stage for its intended purpose." The report also states that, "the documentation appears to be fundamentally flawed in its conception, and in its level of explanation and detail... Overall, the process of using the documentation is an absolutely frustrating, time-consuming and ultimately fruitless task. The documentation needs quite drastic overhaul before it could be considered workable."
Professor Neil Barrett, the Monitoring Trustee, is a computer science expert appointed by the Commission (see IP/05/1215) on the basis of a shortlist of candidates submitted by Microsoft. He provides impartial technical advice to the Commission on issues relating to Microsoft's compliance with the Commission's March 2004 Decision." MEMO/06/49 25th January 2006 "The European Commission will study carefully the announcement made by Microsoft on 25th January once it has received the full details.
The Commission is looking forward to receiving, no later than 15th February 2006, Microsoft's reply to the Statement of Objections sent by the Commission on 21st December 2005 (see IP/05/1695). The Commission sent the Statement of Objections because of Microsoft's failure to disclose complete and accurate interface docu
As a matter of fact there is. If you check section 3 you'll find "The EPLA would be an optional litigation system common to those EPC States that choose to adhere to it." and "The EPLA would set up a European Patent Court which would have jurisdiction over the validity and infringements of European patents (including actions for a declaration of noninfringement, actions or counterclaims for revocation, and actions for damages or compensation derived from the provisional protection conferred by a published European patent application). National courts would retain jurisdiction to order provisional and protective measures, and in respect of the provisional seizure of goods as security."
The EPO has already granted more than 40,000 software patents but it doesn't have a legal standing yet. This step would set up a judicial body (European Patent Court - EPC) that has jurisdiction on the validity of those patents. Even considering the optional adherence for member states as soon as you get into a situation where one member state that recognises the EPC validates a patent and another member state not adhering to the EPC has it's national judiciary invalidate the same patent you will see a legislative initiative that will allow the EPC to become an appeals court against national rulings in the greater interests of a unified Europe. The last sentence from the quote is also quite interesting. The EPC would have jurisdiction over the validity and infringements of European patents, but national courts would retain jurisdiction in enforcing infringement liabilities. No word on retaining jurisdiction on validity...
I would say you are using Firefox with the option network.prefetch-next set to true. Set it to false in about:config and you should stop the 'feature'.
You could even do a practical test and jump over to this site and read or reread the Little Red Book. If anyone knocks on your door a few hours later then maybe your theory is wrong.;)
Well if you really want to know how it was 'in the old days' (TM) you can slide over to Evolt.org and download your own copy of these ancient browsers. It's much more fun.
Slashdot Mirror
The cited article is indeded locked behind a pay site but it is availble on arxiv just try this link http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2299
In fact if you try to change the security settings for the document you'll notice it can be changed to 'no security'. No password will be asked for as it is blank ! The documents original security settings don't make much sense.
"I think I'm going to invent a new term. Googlesniping"
As opposed to Googlesainting : trying to convince the world that something is suddenly good simply because Google has started doing it.
Not a direct comment on ReinoutS answer but when using Mandriva PLF - Penguin Liberation Front is a must. If you lookup Easy urpmi it will give everything you need to get a proper Mandriva Update setup. Then you can just enjoy a better Mandriva ;) .
Ummm indeed... You may want to check before trying to correct..
From Europa Rapid Press release ...........
Document IP/04/382 24 March 2004
"The European Commission has concluded, after a five-year investigation, that Microsoft Corporation broke European Union competition law by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems (OS) onto the markets for work group server operating systems(1) and for media players(2). Because the illegal behaviour is still ongoing, the Commission has ordered Microsoft to disclose to competitors, within 120 days, the interfaces(3) required for their products to be able to 'talk' with the ubiquitous Windows OS. Microsoft is also required, within 90 days, to offer a version of its Windows OS without Windows Media Player to PC manufacturers (or when selling directly to end users). In addition, Microsoft is fined 497 million for abusing its market power in the EU."
IP/05/1215 5th October 2005
"The European Commission has appointed Professor Neil Barrett, a computer scientist, as the Trustee who will provide technical advice to the Commission on issues relating to Microsoft's compliance with the Commission's 2004 Decision "
IP/05/1695 22nd December 2005
"The European Commission has issued a Statement of Objections against Microsoft for its failure to comply with certain of its obligations under the March 2004 Commission decision (the "March 2004 Decision", see IP/04/382). That decision found Microsoft to have infringed the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82) by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems onto the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players. One of the remedies imposed by the decision was for Microsoft to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. The Statement of Objections indicates that the Commission's preliminary view, supported by two reports from the Monitoring Trustee (see IP/05/1215), is that Microsoft has not yet provided complete and accurate specifications for this interoperability information. After giving Microsoft an opportunity to reply to the Statement of Objections, the Commission may impose a daily penalty."
"Since the 24(1) Decision, Microsoft has revised the interoperability information that it is obliged to disclose. However, the Commission takes the preliminary view that this information is incomplete and inaccurate. This view is supported by the report of the Monitoring Trustee, which concludes that, "any programmer or programming team seeking to use the Technical Documentation for a real development exercise would be wholly and completely unable to proceed on the basis of the documentation. The Technical Documentation is therefore totally unfit at this stage for its intended purpose." The report also states that, "the documentation appears to be fundamentally flawed in its conception, and in its level of explanation and detail... Overall, the process of using the documentation is an absolutely frustrating, time-consuming and ultimately fruitless task. The documentation needs quite drastic overhaul before it could be considered workable."
Professor Neil Barrett, the Monitoring Trustee, is a computer science expert appointed by the Commission (see IP/05/1215) on the basis of a shortlist of candidates submitted by Microsoft. He provides impartial technical advice to the Commission on issues relating to Microsoft's compliance with the Commission's March 2004 Decision."
MEMO/06/49 25th January 2006
"The European Commission will study carefully the announcement made by Microsoft on 25th January once it has received the full details.
The Commission is looking forward to receiving, no later than 15th February 2006, Microsoft's reply to the Statement of Objections sent by the Commission on 21st December 2005 (see IP/05/1695). The Commission sent the Statement of Objections because of Microsoft's failure to disclose complete and accurate interface docu
As a matter of fact there is.
If you check section 3 you'll find "The EPLA would be an optional litigation system common to those EPC States that choose to adhere to it." and "The EPLA would set up a European Patent Court which would have jurisdiction over the validity and infringements of European patents (including actions for a declaration of noninfringement, actions or counterclaims for revocation, and actions for damages or compensation derived from the provisional protection conferred by a published European patent application). National courts would retain jurisdiction to order provisional and protective measures, and in respect of the provisional seizure of goods as security."
The EPO has already granted more than 40,000 software patents but it doesn't have a legal standing yet. This step would set up a judicial body (European Patent Court - EPC) that has jurisdiction on the validity of those patents.
Even considering the optional adherence for member states as soon as you get into a situation where one member state that recognises the EPC validates a patent and another member state not adhering to the EPC has it's national judiciary invalidate the same patent you will see a legislative initiative that will allow the EPC to become an appeals court against national rulings in the greater interests of a unified Europe.
The last sentence from the quote is also quite interesting. The EPC would have jurisdiction over the validity and infringements of European patents, but national courts would retain jurisdiction in enforcing infringement liabilities. No word on retaining jurisdiction on validity...
The statement you qoute is no longer present in the faq
I would say you are using Firefox with the option network.prefetch-next set to true. Set it to false in about:config and you should stop the 'feature'.
You could even do a practical test and jump over to this site and read or reread the Little Red Book. If anyone knocks on your door a few hours later then maybe your theory is wrong. ;)
Well if you really want to know how it was 'in the old days' (TM) you can slide over to Evolt.org and download your own copy of these ancient browsers. It's much more fun.