Why would Microsoft want to fix these bugs, when their existence doesn't seem to be losing them much. True, Firefox is slowly gaining steam, but it seems to be that a good percentage of that switchover comes simply from the fact that Firefox offers tabbed browsing. My girlfriend's parents think that Firefox is what's causing problems with their computer (Windows XP Home with NO spyware protection or AV) With the launch of IE7, how many users will simply revert to their integrated browser?
Especially in the marketplace, no body is accountable until they are held as such. If Microsoft were held (financially) accountable, then they would patch everything they needed to, or provide something new altogether.
Corporations have a responsibility to one thing, and one thing only.
A google browser would really be the ultimate surfing habits collection tool for them. They already have my email, and searching habits. They tried to collect my surfing habits with their proxy, but I reformatted, and when I tried to download it for a second time, there was a message about how they had reached their maximum user limit.
In any case, I wonder what slashdotters think about the privacy implications associated with this. I would venture to say that at this point, google is not going to be abusing our information that they hold. But all it takes is one evil board of directors, right?
They are a public corporation now. They actually have a legal responsibility to maximize their profits, in any way that they can.
I wouldn't normally reply to something like this, but this is rather offensive language, and you really shouldn't use it. It is degrading to everybody who uses this forum, and really has no place anywhere (when used in this context, obviously).
"My property doesn't have a fence around it, so in theory, anyone can come up to my garbage can and put things in it. People without trash service could, in theory, drive up to my house with their garbage bags and place them in my trash can. Then, when my trash service comes to collect the trash, they take the other person's trash away."
You're right, in one sense. You shouldn't be required to lock your house in order to prevent intruders. But, broadcasting a wireless network seems different than that. Being inside a network is quite a bit different than being inside a house.
Firstly, houses are clearly deemed by society as private places, where nobody is welcome, except invitees. This holds true accross virtually all places of residence, and most other establishments (other than retail locations). That line is not clear when it comes to wireless networks. Especially since the ability to close the network is present (and widely used/understood), when I see an open AP, I assume that I am welcome to use the network.
Secondly, if the door to your house is unlocked, nobody can tell from the street. To determine its status, they would have to actually walk over to it, and try to open it. An open AP, on the other hand, is obviously visible from the street -- this seems to me to be an invitation of sorts.
Since open wifi "hot-spots" are such the mode in our immediate world, it seems a little bit troublesome to deem it necessary to actually see the little sign that says "hot-spot" here, to know that its okay to use a wireless network.
Imagine a bike share program where you can use any bike you see in the city. All the bikes in the program look identical, and are left unlocked. Someone buys the same bike, and leaves it sitting unlocked on a rack somewhere. Someone else comes, and rides away on it, not thinking much of it. Should they be penalized?
Does everything free need a giant sign on it with flashing lights? If you're american...sure does, I guess.
James Golick
Slashdot Mirror
Why would Microsoft want to fix these bugs, when their existence doesn't seem to be losing them much. True, Firefox is slowly gaining steam, but it seems to be that a good percentage of that switchover comes simply from the fact that Firefox offers tabbed browsing. My girlfriend's parents think that Firefox is what's causing problems with their computer (Windows XP Home with NO spyware protection or AV) With the launch of IE7, how many users will simply revert to their integrated browser?
Especially in the marketplace, no body is accountable until they are held as such. If Microsoft were held (financially) accountable, then they would patch everything they needed to, or provide something new altogether.
Corporations have a responsibility to one thing, and one thing only.
And it ain't us.
A google browser would really be the ultimate surfing habits collection tool for them. They already have my email, and searching habits. They tried to collect my surfing habits with their proxy, but I reformatted, and when I tried to download it for a second time, there was a message about how they had reached their maximum user limit.
In any case, I wonder what slashdotters think about the privacy implications associated with this. I would venture to say that at this point, google is not going to be abusing our information that they hold. But all it takes is one evil board of directors, right?
They are a public corporation now. They actually have a legal responsibility to maximize their profits, in any way that they can.
James
"I can only assume you are a retard."
I wouldn't normally reply to something like this, but this is rather offensive language, and you really shouldn't use it. It is degrading to everybody who uses this forum, and really has no place anywhere (when used in this context, obviously).
"My property doesn't have a fence around it, so in theory, anyone can come up to my garbage can and put things in it. People without trash service could, in theory, drive up to my house with their garbage bags and place them in my trash can. Then, when my trash service comes to collect the trash, they take the other person's trash away." You're right, in one sense. You shouldn't be required to lock your house in order to prevent intruders. But, broadcasting a wireless network seems different than that. Being inside a network is quite a bit different than being inside a house. Firstly, houses are clearly deemed by society as private places, where nobody is welcome, except invitees. This holds true accross virtually all places of residence, and most other establishments (other than retail locations). That line is not clear when it comes to wireless networks. Especially since the ability to close the network is present (and widely used/understood), when I see an open AP, I assume that I am welcome to use the network. Secondly, if the door to your house is unlocked, nobody can tell from the street. To determine its status, they would have to actually walk over to it, and try to open it. An open AP, on the other hand, is obviously visible from the street -- this seems to me to be an invitation of sorts. Since open wifi "hot-spots" are such the mode in our immediate world, it seems a little bit troublesome to deem it necessary to actually see the little sign that says "hot-spot" here, to know that its okay to use a wireless network. Imagine a bike share program where you can use any bike you see in the city. All the bikes in the program look identical, and are left unlocked. Someone buys the same bike, and leaves it sitting unlocked on a rack somewhere. Someone else comes, and rides away on it, not thinking much of it. Should they be penalized? Does everything free need a giant sign on it with flashing lights? If you're american...sure does, I guess. James Golick