Passport always communicates through the browser. The single sign-in service uses redirection technology, and the express purchase service uses a client-side JavaScript post. More specifically, when a Passport user wants to make a purchase, the Passport wallet server returns the wallet page to the browser, which posts back to our server. The server responds to the browser with a page that contains all the wallet data in hidden form fields and then runs client-side JavaScript that uses onload/submit to cause the browser to post it back to the merchant's server.
(emphasis added) - now, i don't claim to know much about security, but i have heard of security problems when trusting the client. can anyone more familiar with this topic shed some light on it?
Passport's business model is NOT based on reselling information learned from running the Passport service. Microsoft does not perform data mining or sell, rent, or lease any Passport data to any third parties. Moreover, Microsoft does not report Passport data at an individual level.
this makes it pretty plain that Microsoft does not plan to disseminate any of its customers personal info. the question then remains. are the signed up businesses granted enough control to do the data mining, etc. for themselves?
http://www.real.com/partners/bigbrother2/?src=cb sa ds
The live and on-demand content (the "Content") may contain elements offensive to some users and inappropriate for users under 21. Certain Content may be delayed, edited and/or blacked out at various times at our sole discretion. You agree that we shall have no liability whatsoever relating to the Content and you waive any claims you may have, now or in the future, against us relating to the Content. You agree to comply with our Terms of Service.
That's a pretty bold warning, i don't know how Katz missed THAT one... oh wait.
is by leaving the way for updates, upgrades, gutting, and redisigning of information systems wide open. having a free and clear migration path to other, better or more appropriate solutions is a great benefit of free/open source software that is not a common option in today's proprietary economy.
...the Supreme Court ruled that a technology designed to enable copying of copyrighted works -- the VCR -- could not serve as the basis for contributory infringement liability because it had substantial noninfringing uses...
"Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
GOP Rep. Earnest Istook of Oklahoma, who co-sponsored the amendment in the House, said some panel members are opposed to mandatory filters out of free-speech concerns.
he makes this sound like it was a BAD thing!
hahaha.. you puny americans.. *insert maniacal laughter here*
We need to enlist the media more effectively. Instead of releasing a program to decrypt the blocked list sites, release the blocked list to the New York Times or Washington Post. Those guys will defend their first amendment rights.
you'd think so, wouldn't you. anyone here see the film about the huge tobacco industry scandal a while back? (sorry, i don't recall the title). the meida is owned by corporations which are just as greedy as the non-media ones. if they even for a moment get the slightest idea that they would be losing money for something they print/publish they'll pull it.
besides that, i think it was foolish for the programmers to sign a contract with this american firm, it would seem that it now makes them vulnerable to the american legal system.
i think i disagree with your ideas here, and to quote the author of the original posting:
Artists, musicians, writers and other creators of intellectual property can still be paid fairly for their work. There are all sorts of options beyond conventional royalties. They can sign contracts with music distributors that draw revenue from Web site advertising or subscription fees, or that sell music and other cultural offerings in smaller, less costly units. They can offer contracts to cadres of music lovers who agree to pay for access if they're offered more choices at cheaper prices.
i hate to point this out to you and nitpick, but it seems that you've quite seamlessly contradicted yourself. on the one had you want to throw out such cases, but on the other you want to set precedents. which is it?
Slashdot Mirror
Passport always communicates through the browser. The single sign-in service uses redirection technology, and the express purchase service uses a client-side JavaScript post. More specifically, when a Passport user wants to make a purchase, the Passport wallet server returns the wallet page to the browser, which posts back to our server. The server responds to the browser with a page that contains all the wallet data in hidden form fields and then runs client-side JavaScript that uses onload/submit to cause the browser to post it back to the merchant's server.
(emphasis added) - now, i don't claim to know much about security, but i have heard of security problems when trusting the client. can anyone more familiar with this topic shed some light on it?
Passport's business model is NOT based on reselling information learned from running the Passport service. Microsoft does not perform data mining or sell, rent, or lease any Passport data to any third parties. Moreover, Microsoft does not report Passport data at an individual level.
this makes it pretty plain that Microsoft does not plan to disseminate any of its customers personal info. the question then remains. are the signed up businesses granted enough control to do the data mining, etc. for themselves?
http://www.real.com/partners/bigbrother2/?src=cb sa ds
The live and on-demand content (the "Content") may contain elements offensive to some users and inappropriate for users under 21. Certain Content may be delayed, edited and/or blacked out at various times at our sole discretion. You agree that we shall have no liability whatsoever relating to the Content and you waive any claims you may have, now or in the future, against us relating to the Content. You agree to comply with our Terms of Service.
That's a pretty bold warning, i don't know how Katz missed THAT one... oh wait.
is by leaving the way for updates, upgrades, gutting, and redisigning of information systems wide open. having a free and clear migration path to other, better or more appropriate solutions is a great benefit of free/open source software that is not a common option in today's proprietary economy.
this, in my opinion, is a great selling point.
"I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business."
the obvious thing to point out is that this gentleman cares more about his business than he does about humanity.
...the Supreme Court ruled that a technology designed to enable copying of copyrighted works -- the VCR -- could not serve as the basis for contributory infringement liability because it had substantial noninfringing uses...
:)
"Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
that made my day.
he makes this sound like it was a BAD thing!
hahaha.. you puny americans.. *insert maniacal laughter here*
i think if we are careful to read the WHOLE sentence there we see what this portion of the EULA is about..
Except as expressly provided herein, you shall not reproduce, make derivative works of, distribute, rent or lease the Software.
the "Except as expressly provided herein," is the key phrase.
'nuff said, no?
TRUST us!!??
he must be joking.
yes, it turns out to be a bug in ME. neeeed moooore sleeeeep! :)
i wonder if this comment is a bug in the slashcode or in the user? seems to me that it's a wee bit out of place.
We need to enlist the media more effectively. Instead of releasing a program to decrypt the blocked list sites, release the blocked list to the New York Times or Washington Post. Those guys will defend their first amendment rights.
you'd think so, wouldn't you. anyone here see the film about the huge tobacco industry scandal a while back? (sorry, i don't recall the title). the meida is owned by corporations which are just as greedy as the non-media ones. if they even for a moment get the slightest idea that they would be losing money for something they print/publish they'll pull it.
besides that, i think it was foolish for the programmers to sign a contract with this american firm, it would seem that it now makes them vulnerable to the american legal system.
i think i disagree with your ideas here, and to quote the author of the original posting:
Artists, musicians, writers and other creators of intellectual property can still be paid fairly for their work. There are all sorts of options beyond conventional royalties. They can sign contracts with music distributors that draw revenue from Web site advertising or subscription fees, or that sell music and other cultural offerings in smaller, less costly units. They can offer contracts to cadres of music lovers who agree to pay for access if they're offered more choices at cheaper prices.
i hate to point this out to you and nitpick, but it seems that you've quite seamlessly contradicted yourself. on the one had you want to throw out such cases, but on the other you want to set precedents. which is it?