This is basically true today (not sure about 18 months though). However, it wasn't when this video was shot (2003).
Media thugs????? I don't think you know what you think you know;-) Checkout the site again (this is actually the site of the guys who did the video). and look the other stuff they've done. They are artists/amature directors. Checkout the "Movies" section. I just found this site about a week ago and have watched most of them, they are pretty funny. These guys are MUCH closer to the "JackAss" guys then any type of media thugs.
They have a video about stealing bikes which is pretty funny. The gold fish one is good if you don't mind a little animal cruelty (they drain the fish tank and fill it with mountain dew it seems the fish is dead but then they refill it with water and shock it back to life with a 9v battery). Not exactly media thugs;-)
OK, we'll see. Anyway, on the topic of battery life checkout this site
Go to the movies section and watch the movie for "iPods dirty little secret". Its pretty funny, but really they are all awsome!!!! I espeically LOVE to one titled "Bike Thief"!!!! If you live in NYC you'll love it too!!!
Or he could just wait a few months. Checkout the link it is really good.
For all the shit we give MS$ here I'm just glad Apple never got the monopoly. Had they we would all be on iMacs, with an iMouse, an iKeyboard, with an iPod (which of course can only play music from iTunes), we would be connected to an iPrinter, which can only use iPaper, and of course it would all be plugged into iPower (as all devices would require speical electrical currents);-)
Despite how bad MS$ can be, the first think I do every morning and last think I do every night is thank Bill G for saving us from Steve J!;-)
Apple has been in talks with Nokia and others about this, but its not going well. The phone makers don't really want to share the wealth with Apple and really why should they?
What does Apple bring to the table? The ability to play music on a portable device???? Who cannot do that? Apple is trying to cash in on the iPod name, but really I don't think they'll have too much luck. I'm sure others will disagree, but iPod is just a fad. There are tons of cheaper, more inter-operable, devices that do the exact same thing out there. How long can iPod rule the market based on the design of the package?
Yes, it is a nice design (but so are others now) but it just reminds me of the talking Elmo doll a couple years ago or cabbage-patch kids before that. For a couple years marketing and "cool" factor can drive the masses to pay inflated prices for the same product, but eventually sanity returns.
There's only ONE advantage a company has in the tech field - better tech
I'm sure we all wish this was true, but in reality the company with the better tech winning is almost an exception instead of the rule. I won't give a history lesson here, but there are volumes written explaining cases where better tech lost.
The above is like saying "There's only ONE advantage someone in the music business has - more talent".
Again, I think we all wish this was true but wishing doesn't make is so.
OK, not sure of the exact cash reserves at time of the "one-time prop scheme" but the majority say it was over 56 billion so I'll use that. The "one-time prop scheme" isn't REALLY acurate as it was a package consisting a one-time bulk dividend, and doubling of annual dividend, as well as stock buy-back (the last two are over 4 years I believe). Anyway, MS said this total package COULD be as much as 75 billion (that will depend on performance), but the one-buy back is right around 30 billion for sure.
Anyway, MS net income has been slowly raising but to be a bit conservitive lets say they only average 10 billion a year over the next 4 years. BTW, if that were the case there wouldn't be the 75 billion going out as performance wouldn't warrent it (that is if things grow really well then that is the max). Anyway, ignoring that we'll still say they pay the total of 75 billion with only averaging 10 billion a year.
So we have:
56 billion - to start
+40 billion - net income over 4 years
----
96 billion
-75 billion - maximum payout
----
21 billion - total after all payouts
Not where they were, but still not bad. As comparison SAPs entire market cap is just around 50 billion.
OK, it sounds like you are talking about some sort of infinate, unstoppable advantage. I'm not sure such a think exists. Can you list some as I really cannot think of any (not trying to be a smart-ass here)?
Yes, any company can be brought down. Companies with these same advantages as MS have fallen in the past. However, the advantages I listed in combination are probably the most difficult set of advantages to over-come. Could it happen? Yes. Will it be VERY difficult and take a lot of time (which is of course relitive)? Certainly. Is it at all certain that MS will fall? No.
No. The real issue with IE wasn't the security that were found (this will ALWAYS be the case with ANY software), it was thier lax attitude about fixing the issues.
FireFox right out of the box proved to be a pretty solid browser (they had the chance to learn lessons from those browsers that came before). And when an issue does come up the take it seriously and try to fix it promptly.
I'd not only argue FireFox will never be IE (of a year or two ago), but I'd also bet IE (of today) will never be IE (of a year or two ago). XP SP2 had a lot of fixes and MS$ has been much more both pro-active and reactive about security (thanks to the kick in the pants from FireFox).
Please put down your torches and pitch-forks;-) I'm not saying IE is as good as FF, just saying MS$ has responded to the challenge and are doing better so I don't think any browser will be as lax as MS$ has been in the past.
That is however one of the issues with MS$. They have soooo much going on, there are times when a product (IE) will be such a low priority these things can happen. Over the last few years MS$ has been working on high-priority tasks like (new VS.NET, new SQL Server, XP SP2, and Longhorn) just to name a few. With those big core company projects happening, IE kind of fell through the cracks since they felt un-touchable in the browser market. Luckily, FireFox came around and woke them up. If you use IE or not, for the good of everyone it is good to see they have woken up a bit and lets hope it never happens again!
They don't get advertisers by saying "you are safe". All they are interested in is headlines like "A new insideous threat could be killing all your children today! Tune in tonight to hear all about it."
Yep, your right. I've never heard of a OSS project raising a stink if you make a good faith effert to correct the problem. Its just the pricks like CherryOS which rightfully feel the brunt of the OSS communities wrath;-)
Also, I'm not sure if my "is quite common" statement may have been misleading. I'm NOT saying GPLed code getting into a closed source app by the method described above is common. It may have happened, but if it has I don't know about it. I was just saying companies doing both open and closed source is common and companies having a central code repository is common.
Based on that, I was just trying to show that it *could* happen without evil intentions. The post I was replying to didn't think it could happen by accident and I just wanted to point out a way it *could* happen based on a fairly common practices many companies use (even though it wasn't done on purpose).
I'll again state I don't really agree with the premise of the GP post, but see my other reply in this thread to see how a simple and honest mistake "could" happen.
Once you've read that, you should consider what I think is the mostly likely reason a "boss" would be worried.
There can be "risks" associatied with doing OSS. Most managers are a bit risk adverse. Its easy to say they are stupid, just don't get it, etc but that doesn't really cover it. My previous post is just one simple sample of these risks, but there are certainly others. Any "boss" needs to try to look at these decisions from all sides without emotion leading them in a predefined direction (at least that is how it should work). For a "boss", it can be hard to quantify the benefits of making a project OSS. What is the "good-will" worth? Will be get more publicity? If so what is that worth? The positives of OSS can be a bit hard to quantify.
On the other hand, the "risks" of OSS are pretty easy to quantify. What would legal fees likely be from a GPL fight? What would the cost be if we have to pull the product while removing GPLed code? Then there are more difficult "risk" related questions as well. What would the bad publicilty cost us if we are found to have GPLed code in our closed source code?
These aren't easy questions and I can see how some people could choose against OSS. That said, I think personally think OSS would be worth it for most companies (I don't think it always makes sense) and it would be great for everyone. I think with a little care "risks" can be mitigated and the good name you make for your company would be WAY worth it. However, I do understand why this can be a difficult decision and I wouldn't call someone "retarded" for making either decision.
In small companies there is less risk as the "boss" can more closely monitor what is happening. In larger companies there may be more "risk". There ARE tons of variables which should be considered when making a decision and depending on the situation (company/product/customers/etc) it would be hard to fault some for being cautious. Obviously, some huge companies like IBM are successfully doning this and hopefully this will lead others to do the same. However, I don't expect it overnight and I won't insult those who choose not to for the time being.
OK, to begin I think articles like this are good and people should go after those breaking these licenses. Also, I don't agree with the original post saying this is harming OSS
However I'll play devils advocate, to show you how this type of mistake "could" happen. Consider this scenerio (which in my experiece is quite common). A company decides to create some products as open source while keeping others closed source. The company uses a common code repository so each product doesn't have to re-invent the wheel for common tasks. So for a simple example, lets say a developer is working on the open source product and needs a method for converting HTML to PDF. This develop grabs the code for this from an existing GPLed project. This makes sense this project he is working on will be GPLed anyway. Now this developer puts this into the companies common source repository since it could be useful in the future.
Now a developer working on the closed source projects has the need to convert HTML to PDF. Like he should, he first checks the common code repository to see if this already exists. Sure enough, he finds the code for this and puts it into the closed source app. He has just committed a very simple unitential mistake which violates the GPL of the project the code originally came from.
Now obviously, you should have corporate policies reguarding what goes into such a repository, or mark any GPLed code as such so this mistake won't happen, but it really just takes simple (and inocent) lapse of memory, procedure, etc to cause this type of issue.
Not really agreeing with the overall sentiment of the previous posts, but I could see this happening.
Very true and there isn't much Burt Rutan can do about this. The problem is one congressman will hold back support until there is money added to the project to buy "outer space safe" band-aids with special adhesive (for some reason) which of course only someone in his distract can make for about $10,000 per band-aid. Then another will hold back support until money is added to have all instruction manually "speically" printed by someone is his district which of course will cost $1,000 per page.
This will go on-and-on until everyone has a little piece. By time time its done it'll be a few billion for development and of course all these "special" items will need to be replaced for each launch so it'll be back to hundreds of millions for each launch as well.
Based on Scaled Composites history, I have full confidence they could do the job well. However, I have no doubt "pork politics" will drive up the price drastically. Of course, that assumes the congressmen with Boeing, Northrup Grumman, etc in thier districts would ever allow this to go forward which I wouldn't call a given.
I will offer $5,000 for the first person to build me a full scale fully functional DeathStar. I don't have the time or expertise to tell you how to do this so just watch SW and figure it out. To claim this bounty please deliver said DeathStar to low-earth orbit. BTW, I will also need a ride up there as my space cruiser is in the shop. I would like this no later than the end of this year.
If you accept this bounty but fail to deliver on time, I will use the power of the Force to crush your trechea!!!!!
Not sure what McDonalds is paying now, but last time I heard is was almost $9 an hour (though I think this varies by location). So that would be just over 144 hours work. Some of the roadmaps look like they are scheduled out until summer of 06. Without looking at more detailed specs, I wouldn't want to say for sure, but the high level specs look like it would be VERY difficult to get all those bounties done in under 150 hours.
So not trying to be an ass here, but I'd still think fastfood may be the way to go.
I think you are 100% correct. I don't see this release REALLY being aimed at RIM. There are some improved features and you can kind of see that in the next couple years they probably have plans to aim for RIM, but for now I don't think that is the main goal. Your comment on push exchange integration I think is probably right on and we may see it before long. Along with that they will also need (ok maybe not need but it would help) DELL or some other hardware vendor to create a small form device to house this functionailty. Maybe people will get used to using a PDA like a Blackberry, but for me PDAs are still a bit too big and fragile (though getting better) to just wear on my hip everywhere I go like I can (almost) do with a Blackberry.
That said, it seems this release is actually more aimed at Nokia than RIM. Article
My quote: the Firefox (client-side app) has had nothing done to it. The issue is still 100% there. Again not saying this will effect anyone, but to say the bug has been fixed is just WRONG. The bug is in client-side code and that client-side code will need to be fixed.
Your quote: Because there is no need to do anything to the client side version
Your quote directly referenced my comment about needing to fix the bug on the client side, so your saying nothing needed to be done I assumed was meant to refute my original comment (since you quoted at least part of it).
If your comment was meant to say you don't need to change any settings on the client side right now (even though Mozilla suggests it but again I'm not going to bother with it as they are just being VERY cautious), then then you were taking my quote out of context anyway as my comment was on the need to fix the bug on the client side.
I don't know why I even try explaining this to fanboys, but I'll try one last time.
Let me preface this by saying I have not looked at the code in question so if you have and feel you have a better understanding of the issue than Mozilla then please explain it to me. Until then I'll assume Mozilla themselves have the best understanding of this.
Mozilla has done a server-side fix to mitigate the risks posed by this bug for sites they control. For probably a fairly high percentage of FireFox users, this means they are now covered. However, there will be others who have added other sites to thier whitelist and could possibly still be at risk. This is why Mozilla themselves have suggested users removed any non-Mozilla sites for the whitelist and disable java script until a fix has been released.
OK, I'm not sure what more to say. Mozilla themselves admit there is still a bug and as of yet there is not a fix for it.
Now as I've stated earlier, I don't see this as a big deal. I have no plans to do either of Mozillas suggestions. Maybe that will come back to bite me, but I've looked at the facts and decided in my opionion the risk is so tiny that this will actually effect me that I'm not going to bother with Mozilla suggestions (especially the java script one as so many sites I visit us it).
Because there is no need to do anything to the client side version
Apparently Mozilla doesn't agree with you as they specifically say there are other things you should do on the client if you want to be 100% safe. Again, I've looked at it and have no plans to do these things but to lead others to think the bug has already been fixed or there is no longer ANY risk since Mozilla fixed thier sites is just a bold faced lie (or misunderstanding of the issue). Give people the honest facts and let them decide for themselves, don't just mislead them by saying its already fixed.
It sucks dealing with fanboys of any product. In this case at least if a MS$ fanboy said this shows FireFox is no more secure than IE, an arguement COULD be made for that. I don't think there is any evidence to support such a claim and personally wouldn't agree with it, but the arguement could be made without there being proof that it is just 100% wrong.
Those posting here argueing there is still a bug in the FireFox code cannot say that. To say there is no longer a bug or any risk (without implementing Mozillas suggestions) are just idiots or liars. Mozilla alert. This link tells you what you must do to be 100% safe. Even if you do this, there IS STILL A BUG in the FireFox code which will need to be fixed, but you should be 100% safe. Again, I don't plan to do this and I still think I'll be plenty safe (I'm a crazy risk taker;-), but there is no need to just blatantly lie about there being no bug! Its software, all software has bugs. Big deal!!!! Do you really need to lie or mislead about it????
Hey, I'm not saying this hole will be expoited by anyone. I'm just saying its not fixed. With your "one down" comment you seemed to imply this issue was fixed. It is not at all!
Mozilla has done a server-side workaround to mitigate this issue but the Firefox (client-side app) has had nothing done to it. The issue is still 100% there. Again not saying this will effect anyone, but to say the bug has been fixed is just WRONG. The bug is in client-side code and that client-side code will need to be fixed, not just a server-side workaround.
Again, most likely nothing will come of this, but I just thought viewers who saw your original comment would be misled into thinking the client-side bug was been fixed (which is not the case).
Slashdot Mirror
This is basically true today (not sure about 18 months though). However, it wasn't when this video was shot (2003).
;-) Checkout the site again (this is actually the site of the guys who did the video). and look the other stuff they've done. They are artists/amature directors. Checkout the "Movies" section. I just found this site about a week ago and have watched most of them, they are pretty funny. These guys are MUCH closer to the "JackAss" guys then any type of media thugs.
;-)
Media thugs????? I don't think you know what you think you know
They have a video about stealing bikes which is pretty funny. The gold fish one is good if you don't mind a little animal cruelty (they drain the fish tank and fill it with mountain dew it seems the fish is dead but then they refill it with water and shock it back to life with a 9v battery). Not exactly media thugs
OK, we'll see. Anyway, on the topic of battery life checkout this site
Go to the movies section and watch the movie for "iPods dirty little secret". Its pretty funny, but really they are all awsome!!!! I espeically LOVE to one titled "Bike Thief"!!!! If you live in NYC you'll love it too!!!
Or he could just wait a few months. Checkout the link it is really good.
;-)
;-)
For all the shit we give MS$ here I'm just glad Apple never got the monopoly. Had they we would all be on iMacs, with an iMouse, an iKeyboard, with an iPod (which of course can only play music from iTunes), we would be connected to an iPrinter, which can only use iPaper, and of course it would all be plugged into iPower (as all devices would require speical electrical currents)
Despite how bad MS$ can be, the first think I do every morning and last think I do every night is thank Bill G for saving us from Steve J!
Apple has been in talks with Nokia and others about this, but its not going well. The phone makers don't really want to share the wealth with Apple and really why should they?
What does Apple bring to the table? The ability to play music on a portable device???? Who cannot do that? Apple is trying to cash in on the iPod name, but really I don't think they'll have too much luck. I'm sure others will disagree, but iPod is just a fad. There are tons of cheaper, more inter-operable, devices that do the exact same thing out there. How long can iPod rule the market based on the design of the package?
Yes, it is a nice design (but so are others now) but it just reminds me of the talking Elmo doll a couple years ago or cabbage-patch kids before that. For a couple years marketing and "cool" factor can drive the masses to pay inflated prices for the same product, but eventually sanity returns.
There's only ONE advantage a company has in the tech field - better tech
I'm sure we all wish this was true, but in reality the company with the better tech winning is almost an exception instead of the rule. I won't give a history lesson here, but there are volumes written explaining cases where better tech lost.
The above is like saying "There's only ONE advantage someone in the music business has - more talent".
Again, I think we all wish this was true but wishing doesn't make is so.
OK, not sure of the exact cash reserves at time of the "one-time prop scheme" but the majority say it was over 56 billion so I'll use that. The "one-time prop scheme" isn't REALLY acurate as it was a package consisting a one-time bulk dividend, and doubling of annual dividend, as well as stock buy-back (the last two are over 4 years I believe). Anyway, MS said this total package COULD be as much as 75 billion (that will depend on performance), but the one-buy back is right around 30 billion for sure.
Anyway, MS net income has been slowly raising but to be a bit conservitive lets say they only average 10 billion a year over the next 4 years. BTW, if that were the case there wouldn't be the 75 billion going out as performance wouldn't warrent it (that is if things grow really well then that is the max). Anyway, ignoring that we'll still say they pay the total of 75 billion with only averaging 10 billion a year.
So we have:
56 billion - to start
+40 billion - net income over 4 years
----
96 billion
-75 billion - maximum payout
----
21 billion - total after all payouts
Not where they were, but still not bad. As comparison SAPs entire market cap is just around 50 billion.
OK, it sounds like you are talking about some sort of infinate, unstoppable advantage. I'm not sure such a think exists. Can you list some as I really cannot think of any (not trying to be a smart-ass here)?
Yes, any company can be brought down. Companies with these same advantages as MS have fallen in the past. However, the advantages I listed in combination are probably the most difficult set of advantages to over-come. Could it happen? Yes. Will it be VERY difficult and take a lot of time (which is of course relitive)? Certainly. Is it at all certain that MS will fall? No.
OK, I agree with almost everything you are saying but one part made me laugh ;-)
The stock market has a way of seeing through the BS because money is at stake
-Enron?
-WorldCom?
-Global Crossing?
Market share in almost every market they are in?
.............
Billions in thier war-chest?
Billions in R&D?
HUGE network of partners and providers?
Hey, not saying they are untouchable and couldn't fall but you really have to ask what thier advantages are???????
No. The real issue with IE wasn't the security that were found (this will ALWAYS be the case with ANY software), it was thier lax attitude about fixing the issues.
;-) I'm not saying IE is as good as FF, just saying MS$ has responded to the challenge and are doing better so I don't think any browser will be as lax as MS$ has been in the past.
FireFox right out of the box proved to be a pretty solid browser (they had the chance to learn lessons from those browsers that came before). And when an issue does come up the take it seriously and try to fix it promptly.
I'd not only argue FireFox will never be IE (of a year or two ago), but I'd also bet IE (of today) will never be IE (of a year or two ago). XP SP2 had a lot of fixes and MS$ has been much more both pro-active and reactive about security (thanks to the kick in the pants from FireFox).
Please put down your torches and pitch-forks
That is however one of the issues with MS$. They have soooo much going on, there are times when a product (IE) will be such a low priority these things can happen. Over the last few years MS$ has been working on high-priority tasks like (new VS.NET, new SQL Server, XP SP2, and Longhorn) just to name a few. With those big core company projects happening, IE kind of fell through the cracks since they felt un-touchable in the browser market. Luckily, FireFox came around and woke them up. If you use IE or not, for the good of everyone it is good to see they have woken up a bit and lets hope it never happens again!
We can only dream ;-)
They don't get advertisers by saying "you are safe". All they are interested in is headlines like "A new insideous threat could be killing all your children today! Tune in tonight to hear all about it."
Yep, your right. I've never heard of a OSS project raising a stink if you make a good faith effert to correct the problem. Its just the pricks like CherryOS which rightfully feel the brunt of the OSS communities wrath ;-)
Also, I'm not sure if my "is quite common" statement may have been misleading. I'm NOT saying GPLed code getting into a closed source app by the method described above is common. It may have happened, but if it has I don't know about it. I was just saying companies doing both open and closed source is common and companies having a central code repository is common.
Based on that, I was just trying to show that it *could* happen without evil intentions. The post I was replying to didn't think it could happen by accident and I just wanted to point out a way it *could* happen based on a fairly common practices many companies use (even though it wasn't done on purpose).
I'll again state I don't really agree with the premise of the GP post, but see my other reply in this thread to see how a simple and honest mistake "could" happen.
Once you've read that, you should consider what I think is the mostly likely reason a "boss" would be worried.
There can be "risks" associatied with doing OSS. Most managers are a bit risk adverse. Its easy to say they are stupid, just don't get it, etc but that doesn't really cover it. My previous post is just one simple sample of these risks, but there are certainly others. Any "boss" needs to try to look at these decisions from all sides without emotion leading them in a predefined direction (at least that is how it should work). For a "boss", it can be hard to quantify the benefits of making a project OSS. What is the "good-will" worth? Will be get more publicity? If so what is that worth? The positives of OSS can be a bit hard to quantify.
On the other hand, the "risks" of OSS are pretty easy to quantify. What would legal fees likely be from a GPL fight? What would the cost be if we have to pull the product while removing GPLed code? Then there are more difficult "risk" related questions as well. What would the bad publicilty cost us if we are found to have GPLed code in our closed source code?
These aren't easy questions and I can see how some people could choose against OSS. That said, I think personally think OSS would be worth it for most companies (I don't think it always makes sense) and it would be great for everyone. I think with a little care "risks" can be mitigated and the good name you make for your company would be WAY worth it. However, I do understand why this can be a difficult decision and I wouldn't call someone "retarded" for making either decision.
In small companies there is less risk as the "boss" can more closely monitor what is happening. In larger companies there may be more "risk". There ARE tons of variables which should be considered when making a decision and depending on the situation (company/product/customers/etc) it would be hard to fault some for being cautious. Obviously, some huge companies like IBM are successfully doning this and hopefully this will lead others to do the same. However, I don't expect it overnight and I won't insult those who choose not to for the time being.
OK, to begin I think articles like this are good and people should go after those breaking these licenses. Also, I don't agree with the original post saying this is harming OSS
However I'll play devils advocate, to show you how this type of mistake "could" happen. Consider this scenerio (which in my experiece is quite common). A company decides to create some products as open source while keeping others closed source. The company uses a common code repository so each product doesn't have to re-invent the wheel for common tasks. So for a simple example, lets say a developer is working on the open source product and needs a method for converting HTML to PDF. This develop grabs the code for this from an existing GPLed project. This makes sense this project he is working on will be GPLed anyway. Now this developer puts this into the companies common source repository since it could be useful in the future.
Now a developer working on the closed source projects has the need to convert HTML to PDF. Like he should, he first checks the common code repository to see if this already exists. Sure enough, he finds the code for this and puts it into the closed source app. He has just committed a very simple unitential mistake which violates the GPL of the project the code originally came from.
Now obviously, you should have corporate policies reguarding what goes into such a repository, or mark any GPLed code as such so this mistake won't happen, but it really just takes simple (and inocent) lapse of memory, procedure, etc to cause this type of issue.
Not really agreeing with the overall sentiment of the previous posts, but I could see this happening.
Very true and there isn't much Burt Rutan can do about this. The problem is one congressman will hold back support until there is money added to the project to buy "outer space safe" band-aids with special adhesive (for some reason) which of course only someone in his distract can make for about $10,000 per band-aid. Then another will hold back support until money is added to have all instruction manually "speically" printed by someone is his district which of course will cost $1,000 per page.
This will go on-and-on until everyone has a little piece. By time time its done it'll be a few billion for development and of course all these "special" items will need to be replaced for each launch so it'll be back to hundreds of millions for each launch as well.
Based on Scaled Composites history, I have full confidence they could do the job well. However, I have no doubt "pork politics" will drive up the price drastically. Of course, that assumes the congressmen with Boeing, Northrup Grumman, etc in thier districts would ever allow this to go forward which I wouldn't call a given.
I would like to offer my own "bounty"
I will offer $5,000 for the first person to build me a full scale fully functional DeathStar. I don't have the time or expertise to tell you how to do this so just watch SW and figure it out. To claim this bounty please deliver said DeathStar to low-earth orbit. BTW, I will also need a ride up there as my space cruiser is in the shop. I would like this no later than the end of this year.
If you accept this bounty but fail to deliver on time, I will use the power of the Force to crush your trechea!!!!!
Not sure what McDonalds is paying now, but last time I heard is was almost $9 an hour (though I think this varies by location). So that would be just over 144 hours work. Some of the roadmaps look like they are scheduled out until summer of 06. Without looking at more detailed specs, I wouldn't want to say for sure, but the high level specs look like it would be VERY difficult to get all those bounties done in under 150 hours.
So not trying to be an ass here, but I'd still think fastfood may be the way to go.
I think you are 100% correct. I don't see this release REALLY being aimed at RIM. There are some improved features and you can kind of see that in the next couple years they probably have plans to aim for RIM, but for now I don't think that is the main goal. Your comment on push exchange integration I think is probably right on and we may see it before long. Along with that they will also need (ok maybe not need but it would help) DELL or some other hardware vendor to create a small form device to house this functionailty. Maybe people will get used to using a PDA like a Blackberry, but for me PDAs are still a bit too big and fragile (though getting better) to just wear on my hip everywhere I go like I can (almost) do with a Blackberry.
That said, it seems this release is actually more aimed at Nokia than RIM. Article
I don't have any firm numbers, but Dell and HP have already announced they will let customers upgrade to this new version. Nothing against the post referenced originally but I think this one gives more info. With two big-boys doing this, I'd think most others would have to do the same.
So I think most PDAs will be able to be upgraded. I'd tend to think you are probably right when it comes to phones though.
No, that just makes it more secure sense more eyes will be looking at it ;-)
My quote: the Firefox (client-side app) has had nothing done to it. The issue is still 100% there. Again not saying this will effect anyone, but to say the bug has been fixed is just WRONG. The bug is in client-side code and that client-side code will need to be fixed.
;-)
Your quote: Because there is no need to do anything to the client side version
Your quote directly referenced my comment about needing to fix the bug on the client side, so your saying nothing needed to be done I assumed was meant to refute my original comment (since you quoted at least part of it).
If your comment was meant to say you don't need to change any settings on the client side right now (even though Mozilla suggests it but again I'm not going to bother with it as they are just being VERY cautious), then then you were taking my quote out of context anyway as my comment was on the need to fix the bug on the client side.
Just because you'd love to see me try
I don't know why I even try explaining this to fanboys, but I'll try one last time.
;-), but there is no need to just blatantly lie about there being no bug! Its software, all software has bugs. Big deal!!!! Do you really need to lie or mislead about it????
Let me preface this by saying I have not looked at the code in question so if you have and feel you have a better understanding of the issue than Mozilla then please explain it to me. Until then I'll assume Mozilla themselves have the best understanding of this.
Mozilla has done a server-side fix to mitigate the risks posed by this bug for sites they control. For probably a fairly high percentage of FireFox users, this means they are now covered. However, there will be others who have added other sites to thier whitelist and could possibly still be at risk. This is why Mozilla themselves have suggested users removed any non-Mozilla sites for the whitelist and disable java script until a fix has been released.
OK, I'm not sure what more to say. Mozilla themselves admit there is still a bug and as of yet there is not a fix for it.
Now as I've stated earlier, I don't see this as a big deal. I have no plans to do either of Mozillas suggestions. Maybe that will come back to bite me, but I've looked at the facts and decided in my opionion the risk is so tiny that this will actually effect me that I'm not going to bother with Mozilla suggestions (especially the java script one as so many sites I visit us it).
Because there is no need to do anything to the client side version
Apparently Mozilla doesn't agree with you as they specifically say there are other things you should do on the client if you want to be 100% safe. Again, I've looked at it and have no plans to do these things but to lead others to think the bug has already been fixed or there is no longer ANY risk since Mozilla fixed thier sites is just a bold faced lie (or misunderstanding of the issue). Give people the honest facts and let them decide for themselves, don't just mislead them by saying its already fixed.
It sucks dealing with fanboys of any product. In this case at least if a MS$ fanboy said this shows FireFox is no more secure than IE, an arguement COULD be made for that. I don't think there is any evidence to support such a claim and personally wouldn't agree with it, but the arguement could be made without there being proof that it is just 100% wrong.
Those posting here argueing there is still a bug in the FireFox code cannot say that. To say there is no longer a bug or any risk (without implementing Mozillas suggestions) are just idiots or liars. Mozilla alert. This link tells you what you must do to be 100% safe. Even if you do this, there IS STILL A BUG in the FireFox code which will need to be fixed, but you should be 100% safe. Again, I don't plan to do this and I still think I'll be plenty safe (I'm a crazy risk taker
Hey, I'm not saying this hole will be expoited by anyone. I'm just saying its not fixed. With your "one down" comment you seemed to imply this issue was fixed. It is not at all!
Mozilla has done a server-side workaround to mitigate this issue but the Firefox (client-side app) has had nothing done to it. The issue is still 100% there. Again not saying this will effect anyone, but to say the bug has been fixed is just WRONG. The bug is in client-side code and that client-side code will need to be fixed, not just a server-side workaround.
Again, most likely nothing will come of this, but I just thought viewers who saw your original comment would be misled into thinking the client-side bug was been fixed (which is not the case).
Wait!!!!
I just had a scary thought!
Are my porn sites Mozilla controlled??????
Because the Mozilla controlled sites have been fixed that is "one down"?
;-)
Are you aware that there are quite a few sites out there? I've heard there are even a few which Mozilla doesn't control!
But we'll call it fixed anyway sense who in thier right mind would ever download anything that wasn't on a Mozilla controled site