They're merely capitalising on the realities of the relationships that we give them. Blaming them each and every time a new feature is added that is simple common sense and intelligent programming/design/utilisation of the information we permit they use is childish; if we didn't use these tools then they wouldn't feel obliged to innovate and refresh their featureset.
Why do they have to have or at least exercise this feature of the ToS?
Why couldn't they just get a list of those who have it installed (surely they know that?) and then email them? Beats this draconian/big brother approach in my opinion...
Not only do I think this is a little sick on the part of the blackhats, but it does pose some other concerns.
Firstly, are the media going to pick up on this and if they do, will they spin it as an opportunity to bad-mouth the Web and its communities, as well as encourage talk of "tougher rules" and the like.
Since this is a JS vulnerability, I'd certainly like to see more discussion and thought around how seriously we take JS integration on the web and how we approach it as a core target for evil-doers to exploit. Could more be done?
Lastly, how are the web search engines going to react? Could more things like this call for censorship of Google, Yahoo etc; or at least more claims for 'responsibility of the search engines'?
It really frustrates me that a technology created and owned by someone (MPEG) and otherwise unrelated to the software created and distributed by another (Firefox) is by proxy restricting success and future adoption.
It is so utterly archaic and unfair that this is allowed to continue; MPEG-LA have the industry by its consumers by their collective balls.
I write in Java, Python, Perl, SQL, Unix Bash, Javascript, (then the usual markup languages). Nowhere do I mention any languages nor the dreaded PHP.
10 years in Fortran programming 30 years ago doesn't amount to anything when the platform and its consumers are so different. Concepts may transcend the barrier, as may approaches to the actual programming, but the rest does not translate or relate.
I work for a large insurance company in the UK. I'm a 'senior developer' if you like. One of my biggest gripes? The notion that work on the website - for a purist such as myself (and web designers and editors that also work on the site) - is subject to zero requirements, the 'customers' want everything for nothing, time-based 'estimates' that are taken as the law of the land. Every approach the customer wants you to implement is never in the right frame of mind for how the web works (noone understands the medium in which they're presenting to the customer outside). Your work is governed, oriented and OK'd by people who have no interest in how to do things properly. Fat-cat bosses who think their 10 years experience in Fortran 30 years ago makes for true understanding of how a website should work. Their way, no matter how stupid it seems to you the unenlightened one, is the right way. Trust me, I'm a fat-cat!
What ends up giving way? Quality. And it pisses me off. I can't do my job properly. Code reviews, unit/mock/functional testing, analysis, UML *all* have to give way because of all the above and just to get it out on time. Maintenance costs increase, but as long as it's out of the door it's OK. Would you build a house without blueprints? Would you remove an accountant's calculator from their desk because *you* don't work that way? Nope. [Excuse the crude analogies, they still get the point across]
The following sums it up well:
Your ticket to the promised land begins with this: No one inside your company is your customer.[snip]
When IT is a business, selling to its internal customers, its principal product is software that "meets requirements." This all but ensures a less-than-optimal solution, lack of business ownership, and poor acceptance of the results.
I've always hated this is approach to web development and steering change on websites. It's backwards. Archaic. Frustrating.
I was just thinking about how this is Google's answer to "acquire and assimilate" business practices. When Oracle or Microsoft do it it's murder, but when Google do it they Open Source the product then abandon the original.
TrackMeNot for Firefox is useful for masking your real search engine queries with randomised search terms. That's a start. Not sure if there's a Chrome equivalent.
Is Chrome that much of a necessity? Firefox does the job (though it freezes far too often for me).
Otherwise, why not exercise some self-constraint and try products from Yahoo, or even host your own?
(First post?:P)
What are you talking about? Of course there's an API on consoles, at the very lowest level at least. There has to be an OS that exposes the hardware and provides access both securely and in a uniform manner. You can't provide hardware to development studios and expect them all to write low-level code and for it all to work.
Your post screams of unfounded bullshit. Can you back up any of what you're saying?
True, but it almost renders the video tag useless. Each browser will have to either implement all or none of the codecs, and websites will be at a loss as to what they should use, ultimately giving up on support and sticking with Flash. This just fragments the requirements.
It's very much like what we have, and what MS wants, with Flash and Silverlight.
In the end Flash wins and we're all going to have to put up with a restricted web for a darn sight longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it related to this?
Happy? I don't think we should be praising Google for doing what they should be doing.
Am I the only one that thinks this is a really fucking bad idea?!
Sounds stupid to me. A company of Valve's wealth and size could attract and support enough talent for doing both game dev and steam dev, surely?
Bit like not wearing a watch - you feel somewhat naked?
meh.
Stop blaming facebook!
They're merely capitalising on the realities of the relationships that we give them. Blaming them each and every time a new feature is added that is simple common sense and intelligent programming/design/utilisation of the information we permit they use is childish; if we didn't use these tools then they wouldn't feel obliged to innovate and refresh their featureset.
So 83% are finding jobs within 6 months? That sounds suprisingly good if you ask me...Better than I would expect.
I hate statistics, they're so over and incorrectly used.
Why do they have to have or at least exercise this feature of the ToS?
Why couldn't they just get a list of those who have it installed (surely they know that?) and then email them? Beats this draconian/big brother approach in my opinion...
Not only do I think this is a little sick on the part of the blackhats, but it does pose some other concerns.
Firstly, are the media going to pick up on this and if they do, will they spin it as an opportunity to bad-mouth the Web and its communities, as well as encourage talk of "tougher rules" and the like.
Since this is a JS vulnerability, I'd certainly like to see more discussion and thought around how seriously we take JS integration on the web and how we approach it as a core target for evil-doers to exploit. Could more be done?
Lastly, how are the web search engines going to react? Could more things like this call for censorship of Google, Yahoo etc; or at least more claims for 'responsibility of the search engines'?
Which is like doing the following:
"Hey dude, I did something really cool!"
"Oh yeah, what's that?"
"Not telling! Tee hee!"
It really frustrates me that a technology created and owned by someone (MPEG) and otherwise unrelated to the software created and distributed by another (Firefox) is by proxy restricting success and future adoption.
It is so utterly archaic and unfair that this is allowed to continue; MPEG-LA have the industry by its consumers by their collective balls.
Profession? Rubbish. Some do it properly.
And I'm well aware of how common my situation is.
You're crazy. I didn't agree with it at all. Please re-read.
I write in Java, Python, Perl, SQL, Unix Bash, Javascript, (then the usual markup languages). Nowhere do I mention any languages nor the dreaded PHP.
10 years in Fortran programming 30 years ago doesn't amount to anything when the platform and its consumers are so different. Concepts may transcend the barrier, as may approaches to the actual programming, but the rest does not translate or relate.
By requirements I'm referring to the standard "requirements building phase" of the standard development lifecycle.
It rarely happens.
I work for a large insurance company in the UK. I'm a 'senior developer' if you like. One of my biggest gripes? The notion that work on the website - for a purist such as myself (and web designers and editors that also work on the site) - is subject to zero requirements, the 'customers' want everything for nothing, time-based 'estimates' that are taken as the law of the land. Every approach the customer wants you to implement is never in the right frame of mind for how the web works (noone understands the medium in which they're presenting to the customer outside). Your work is governed, oriented and OK'd by people who have no interest in how to do things properly. Fat-cat bosses who think their 10 years experience in Fortran 30 years ago makes for true understanding of how a website should work. Their way, no matter how stupid it seems to you the unenlightened one, is the right way. Trust me, I'm a fat-cat!
What ends up giving way? Quality. And it pisses me off. I can't do my job properly. Code reviews, unit/mock/functional testing, analysis, UML *all* have to give way because of all the above and just to get it out on time. Maintenance costs increase, but as long as it's out of the door it's OK. Would you build a house without blueprints? Would you remove an accountant's calculator from their desk because *you* don't work that way? Nope. [Excuse the crude analogies, they still get the point across]
The following sums it up well:
I've always hated this is approach to web development and steering change on websites. It's backwards. Archaic. Frustrating.
I was just thinking about how this is Google's answer to "acquire and assimilate" business practices. When Oracle or Microsoft do it it's murder, but when Google do it they Open Source the product then abandon the original.
Is this better?
TrackMeNot for Firefox is useful for masking your real search engine queries with randomised search terms. That's a start. Not sure if there's a Chrome equivalent. Is Chrome that much of a necessity? Firefox does the job (though it freezes far too often for me). Otherwise, why not exercise some self-constraint and try products from Yahoo, or even host your own? (First post? :P)
Privacy isn't about hiding a wrong.
But whatever, by his logic he'd be happy to share his credit card details and the key-code to his security at home?
Hence my quote of article 8 regarding privacy. IANAL though, and certainly no expert on the EU or ECHR (clearly).
Hey what about articles 5, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Aye, people don't like change.
Yet we knew that, and we're still astonished?
What are you talking about? Of course there's an API on consoles, at the very lowest level at least. There has to be an OS that exposes the hardware and provides access both securely and in a uniform manner. You can't provide hardware to development studios and expect them all to write low-level code and for it all to work.
Your post screams of unfounded bullshit. Can you back up any of what you're saying?
True, but it almost renders the video tag useless. Each browser will have to either implement all or none of the codecs, and websites will be at a loss as to what they should use, ultimately giving up on support and sticking with Flash. This just fragments the requirements.
It's very much like what we have, and what MS wants, with Flash and Silverlight.
In the end Flash wins and we're all going to have to put up with a restricted web for a darn sight longer.
That was supposed to be Us, not US