It was entirely about transitioning users to tablet interfaces and away from the traditional interface that people have used for years.
Sort of. But the reason they are forcing users over I think it is entirely about transitioning DEVELOPERS to tablet interfaces, to ensure that windows 7 tablets get application support. Otherwise, everything under the sun will just "require the traditional desktop" and the windows tablet experience will be abysmal indefinitely.
By forcing the paradigm shift on the desktop, it forces developers to write for it now, and the windows tablet ecosystem will benefit from a bunch of software being written in a way that is compatible with it. This is good for tablets. Really good. Critical even. Because using traditional windows applications with a tablet is even worse than using tablet applications on windows.
Now, there is definitely a subset of users who need and should have the tradition desktop paradigm, and I think its perfectly safe to say that it isn't going anywhere. It might take an iteration or service pack before the most glaring issues are fixed (although most are already covered by third party apps and tweaks and it hasn't even launched yet).
The whole promise of windows tablets is that they will be able to run windows software. The biggest issue I have with ios tablets is that they can't run osx software. But merely running it isn't enough, its got to be reworked a bit to support touch, and that isn't going to happen quickly if developers can just keep writing apps for Windows XP, and rely on backwards compatibility to make the app run in windows Vista, 7, and 8.
Vista was shithole primarily because 3rd party developers were really slow on the uptake at adjusting their software to run as "non-administrators" at not saving settings and data in the program file, etc. But if Vista hadn't forced the issue by turning UAC on by default, hiding away "administrator" and so on then a LOT of developers would never have fixed their code... even today.
Sometimes to make progress you have to break things to force them to get fixed properly.
So here I think MS is trying to force 3rd parties to support the tablet by making it the only option they have. Its not a bad move really, in the sense that I think it will actually work and be good for tablets.
I also think that desktop users will not be forced to use full on metro apps for everything any time ever, at least until metro has had enough time to sort out the issues that make it lousy at being a windows paradigm on large multimonitor desktops.
Actually no. In fact it wasn't meant to be a better analogy, it was meant to show how bad yours was.
Fascinating, so that's why you said your version would make the analogy "relevant"? Did you just realize you stuffed it up and don't feel like admitting it and are back peddling?
As far as the rest of the comment, it's obvious you like Gizmodo. Go enjoy their website in good health.
I've actually never read gizmodo; and have no real opinion about the site. Why do you think its "obvious" I like them? And would that same line of reasoning lead us to conclude its obvious you are an apple fanboi?
I freely admit I'm poking you with a stick a bit, but your condescending tone coupled with the glaring problems with your posts provoked it.
Now if you purchased it, took possession of said Big Mac, sat down to begin eating it, and out of the blue a McD employee snatched it from your hands and demanded you pay another $4.49 before he'll give it back, then your analogy would become relevant.
That's your idea of a better analogy?
Did Gizmodo steal the iphone prototype? No. Did Gizmodo demand apple pay full retail to get it back? No.
So how exactly is that a better analogy? Yet you have the audacity to say "one day I'll get the hang of it"? Give me a break, you're analogy falls apart far worse than mine did. Especially as mine was actually intended to be hyperbole while yours was actually intended to "fix" mine. I know its confusing sometimes. One day you'll get the hang of it.
Now seriously, my analogy was to point out that nothing like extortion actually takes place in a fast food transaction. You order, you pay, you get your food. That's how mcdonalds does business, the fact that they won't give you your food until you drive to the 2nd window after you've already paid for it, doesn't make it extortion. Even though its set up like this for their financial benefit (efficiency).
Meanwhile, Gizmodo obtained apple's prototype, and then offered to return it. The "conditions" they placed upon returning are exactly as onerous as the "conditions" placed on a customer at McDonalds.
So what exactly was the condition Gizmodo placed on Apple to return their phone?
That apple provide them a written claim it did in fact belong to them.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. The sort of thing a lawyer would even insist upon before you hand something valuable over to someone else.
Are you really sure you want to stick with the analogy of having a burger ripped out of your hands while you are eating it by the very people who sold it to you? And then having them demand you pay for it a 2nd time before they'll give it back to you?
That's the equivalent of having to claim something valuable is yours before they give it to you? You do realize that Gizmodo didn't steal it, right? They got it from some guy looking to unload it... now THAT guy might deserve some greif if he stole it instead of merely finding it as he claimed. But either way, that has nothing to do with Gizmodo.
...which doesn't list any support for Internet Explorer
So don't use internet explorer. If you can figure out how to edit your hosts file you can figure out how to use an an alternate browser.
or applications that embed Internet Explorer.
Who browses the web from the cheque layout editor in their accounting software?
You are right, of course, and my example was a bit tongue in cheek, but while I use several apps that embed IE for help, documention, etc... I've never had any cause to use any of them to browse the web. I'm not convinced its a legitimate issue.
The advantage of a hosts file is that it acts as a system-wide DNS filter no matter what application embeds a browser component,
Agreed. But if you want a DNS filter - get a dns filter. Using hosts to manually block hosts one at a time by redirecting the queries back to your own system is about the clumsiest way of doing it.
A proper dns filter has logging (so you can see what's going on, filters with wildcards so you don't need www.facebook.com, facebook.com, login.facebook.com, and anything else they might add in the future)
and it doesn't require researching and installing a third-party firewall.
Right, it requires researching and editing a text file deep within the windows folder.
So... you rejected the option of running an alternative browser (you said "but it doesn't work in Internet Explorer") and at the same time you embrace editting the hosts file. Exactly what sort of user is this? One that can't download firefox, but can edit the hosts file??
Or has Microsoft already begun to include such "a suitable firewall" with Windows?
It is actually very easy to add a custom blocking rule to the facebook ip addresses. But that is not a DNS filter.
If that sounds like extortion to you then so does this:
Me - Hi, I'd like a Big Mac combo McD - $4.49, please drive to the first window
Famous Me - So that's how it is then? Now that you know I'm hungry - you demand money (almost $5!) and services (you dictate where I drive and don't even compensate me for fuel!) And these demands are non-negotiable designed to generate you additional financial gain at my expense?! And Oh shit I can't even back up now because the lane behind me is blocked.
Famous Me - Drives to the first window, hands over a few bucks. McD - Thank you, please drive ahead to the second window!
What the FUCK!? I paid for the buger, now it belongs to me! And I have to jump through additional hoops before you give it to me? Another car trip?! You realize I now consider my Big Mac stolen property! And I bet you plan to have someone report on your blog that Famous Me ate here!! Generating even more benefits to you! And wait what's that? A security camera? You are recording this?!! So now what? You going to sell video of my insane outbursts in your drive through window to news organizations!
This is all Extortion! From start to finish! EXTORTION!
Wasn't that the premise of one of their commercials? An employee of coca-cola who was caught buying a pepsi? A can of coke recommending a Pepsi product sounds like a great marketing strategy.
That's pretty much been Pepsi's marketing premise for over 20 years now. Its either... "Hey look a Celebrity is drinking pepsi" or "Hey look, a Coke employee is drinking pepsi".
Coke commercials have been far more imaginative and entertaining over the years, and have never once mentioned pepsi.
You can tell which brand is the leader and which is the wannabe.:p
There's a big difference between FLOSS and freeware...The main one being you can assertain that FLOSS software is secure, and if the middleman is trustworthy...
And the people he's supporting are on Windows and OSX. If we're worried about issues with proprietary 3rd party software defeating the remote-support toolchain, then we've lost before we've even started.
Groups like teamviewer have some major enterprise customers. Their reputation for security is worth more than spying on your remote support session with your grandmother. I'm not saying its impossible for them to have back doors.
But unless you audit the FLOSS alternative yourself, and then compile and deploy the exact files you audited to clients and servers under your control, then you really haven't truly "ascertained" anything at all.
And honestly, I wouldn't be convinced an audit would necessarily find a backdoor if it was there anyway.
The issues with reverse VNC are that it requires the remote user to initiate a connection to you, which is more work for them. Less perhaps then setting up their router, but still more than something like teamviewer.
It also breaks if you can't conveniently port forward your own machine whenever you need to support them. Maybe you aren't always at home in your basement. I use teamviewer from my phone. From my laptop at on my break at work. Etc.
I even went to the next step, and ran a VNC repeater for a while, but you know what that got me to where I was with team viewer with a lot more effort, and vnc security is still generally pretty much worthless on its default settings. Planning on walking grandma through setting up vnc security before she initiates a connection to your repeater? Yeah... right.
Its not FOSS, and there is a middle man to negotiate things to get you connected.
It is however free for non-commercial use.
You can remote control -from- Windows, OSX, Linux, iphone, and android.
You can remote control -to- windows, OSX, Linux, and recently samsung androids.
It just works. The person you are trying to support can get connected to you by clicking the "Join Remote Support Session" URL, and running the quick support app. They don't have to install the software, or configure their firewall, or fiddle with various modes etc.
You can connect to pretty much anyone anywhere from pretty much anything anywhere.
How does it compare to the various VNCs? Its much easier to get a connection going, and you don't waste more time trying to get a remote session going than it takes to actually perform the remote support.
Now, VNC is great, and if you set up your own public VNC repeater, and bundle your own VNC client to use that repeater you can get most of the way towards what you get with teamviewer without any effort at all.
The guy asking for help hasn't spent 4 hrs walking grandma through downloading and configuring VNC over the phone so that he can get through the firewall to actually help her.
How can I check a site is up on a server with a certain domain name before I point DNS to it?
I guess you could add it to the hosts file the way you always did.
All they did was block redirecting certain high profile domains that were commonly attacked by phishing and url redirection attacks by malware writing to the hostsfile. You'll still be able to add your my-cat-fluffys-enterprise-weblog.com and it will still work.
Unless you happen to work on small handful of high profile websites that are commonly attacked by phishing/url redirection attacks, nothing has changed.
If you do happen to work for facebook, and you do happen to use your hosts file to point facebook.com at internal development servers and you happen to use Microsoft's Windows Defender on your development pc, then things got ever so slightly more complicated. You'll probably cope, though.
if you're an enterprise IT sysadmin, this is a nightmare.
Yes, a nightmare on the same scale as the Dairy Queen across town being out of my favorite flavor. The horror.
that's because addicts are more likely to commit crime to steal money to get their fix. some of us city folk figured this out in the 1980's.
So that's why my car is always being broken into by cigarette smokers and alcohol drinkers?
Get real.
The average pot smoker doesn't commit crime to buy weed either. And what few do would be even less likely to if they could get it legally for the same price as a pack of cigarettes.
Heroine is maybe a different scenario, but then people addicted to heroine ought to be treated as sick not criminals.
You don't get a "free pass" to commit espionage simply because you're sitting outside the country you're targeting
As it happens, I'm sitting in Canada, and I'm not aware of any Canadian law that prohibits committing espionage against other countries while sitting here. There's laws against committing espionage against Canada, but that's it.
So if I'm committing espionage against Brazil, and Brazil phones Canada and asks them to extradite me... Canada's attitude is pretty much "What he is doing is not illegal here".
For Canada to arrest and extradite me, they'd have to recognize what I was doing was criminal. And there isn't any Canadian law against "espionage against Brazil".
In this App's case, it would mean reworking his UI slightly to have users select folders with content in them, not individual movies.
Except that I play movies by finding them in finder, and double clicking them. I can't remember the last time I opened a movie from -within- an application's user interface.
So, no, reworking he UI would be pretty irrelevant.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
Where you happen to be sitting tends to be extremely important.
Yes it is. Among other things, he is a accused of having non-consensual sex with a sleeping woman. That is considered rape in the US, Australia, and all of the EU
And in the right context its also considered a good way to wake up in all of those same jurisdictions... either that or my wife and I have occasionally raped each other./sarcasm
Its not like she got drunk, crashed on someones bed at a party, and woke up to him having sex with her. Context should matter. Intent should matter.
The context is they'd already had consensual sex and were sleeping together. On top of that we have no physical evidence that it even occurred except that she said so.
So we're going to internationally extradite him on something that a lot of people are dubious is even really criminal, and which likely would be utterly impossible to prove in court.
I do think they will be pushing many many many of their customers to the Mac.
Mac's still don't run most windows software, and are still far weaker at being managed centrally.
And what does switching to Mac actually accomplish? They save having to teach their users a new Windows 8 UI for having to teach them the OSX UI on more expensive hardware, with a bunch of application compatibility conflicts?
However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that âoethe US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a yearâ.
The embassy identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.
Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully and narrowly drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US Constitution.
Sounds to me like there is more than just the one factoid you latched on to.
Facebook allows me to almost instantly contact whomever I want in my circle of friends without the need for dialing a phone.
So does email, SMS, Intant messenging. And what is wrong with a phone call anyway? You can't abide actually talking to your friends?
I WANT companies to know who I am and what my interests are.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
And really that is the least of your concerns.
I don't give a crap who knows what about me.
That's what a lot of people say until it bites them in the ass.
People have been fired from jobs, harrassed, physically attacked, stalked, had their homes robbed, and had their identities stolen thanks to that attitude.
Slashdot Mirror
It was entirely about transitioning users to tablet interfaces and away from the traditional interface that people have used for years.
Sort of. But the reason they are forcing users over I think it is entirely about transitioning DEVELOPERS to tablet interfaces, to ensure that windows 7 tablets get application support. Otherwise, everything under the sun will just "require the traditional desktop" and the windows tablet experience will be abysmal indefinitely.
By forcing the paradigm shift on the desktop, it forces developers to write for it now, and the windows tablet ecosystem will benefit from a bunch of software being written in a way that is compatible with it. This is good for tablets. Really good. Critical even. Because using traditional windows applications with a tablet is even worse than using tablet applications on windows.
Now, there is definitely a subset of users who need and should have the tradition desktop paradigm, and I think its perfectly safe to say that it isn't going anywhere. It might take an iteration or service pack before the most glaring issues are fixed (although most are already covered by third party apps and tweaks and it hasn't even launched yet).
The whole promise of windows tablets is that they will be able to run windows software. The biggest issue I have with ios tablets is that they can't run osx software. But merely running it isn't enough, its got to be reworked a bit to support touch, and that isn't going to happen quickly if developers can just keep writing apps for Windows XP, and rely on backwards compatibility to make the app run in windows Vista, 7, and 8.
Vista was shithole primarily because 3rd party developers were really slow on the uptake at adjusting their software to run as "non-administrators" at not saving settings and data in the program file, etc. But if Vista hadn't forced the issue by turning UAC on by default, hiding away "administrator" and so on then a LOT of developers would never have fixed their code... even today.
Sometimes to make progress you have to break things to force them to get fixed properly.
So here I think MS is trying to force 3rd parties to support the tablet by making it the only option they have. Its not a bad move really, in the sense that I think it will actually work and be good for tablets.
I also think that desktop users will not be forced to use full on metro apps for everything any time ever, at least until metro has had enough time to sort out the issues that make it lousy at being a windows paradigm on large multimonitor desktops.
Actually no. In fact it wasn't meant to be a better analogy, it was meant to show how bad yours was.
Fascinating, so that's why you said your version would make the analogy "relevant"? Did you just realize you stuffed it up and don't feel like admitting it and are back peddling?
As far as the rest of the comment, it's obvious you like Gizmodo. Go enjoy their website in good health.
I've actually never read gizmodo; and have no real opinion about the site. Why do you think its "obvious" I like them? And would that same line of reasoning lead us to conclude its obvious you are an apple fanboi?
I freely admit I'm poking you with a stick a bit, but your condescending tone coupled with the glaring problems with your posts provoked it.
Now if you purchased it, took possession of said Big Mac, sat down to begin eating it, and out of the blue a McD employee snatched it from your hands and demanded you pay another $4.49 before he'll give it back, then your analogy would become relevant.
That's your idea of a better analogy?
Did Gizmodo steal the iphone prototype? No.
Did Gizmodo demand apple pay full retail to get it back? No.
So how exactly is that a better analogy?
Yet you have the audacity to say "one day I'll get the hang of it"? Give me a break, you're analogy falls apart far worse than mine did. Especially as mine was actually intended to be hyperbole while yours was actually intended to "fix" mine. I know its confusing sometimes. One day you'll get the hang of it.
Now seriously, my analogy was to point out that nothing like extortion actually takes place in a fast food transaction. You order, you pay, you get your food. That's how mcdonalds does business, the fact that they won't give you your food until you drive to the 2nd window after you've already paid for it, doesn't make it extortion. Even though its set up like this for their financial benefit (efficiency).
Meanwhile, Gizmodo obtained apple's prototype, and then offered to return it. The "conditions" they placed upon returning are exactly as onerous as the "conditions" placed on a customer at McDonalds.
So what exactly was the condition Gizmodo placed on Apple to return their phone?
That apple provide them a written claim it did in fact belong to them.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. The sort of thing a lawyer would even insist upon before you hand something valuable over to someone else.
Are you really sure you want to stick with the analogy of having a burger ripped out of your hands while you are eating it by the very people who sold it to you? And then having them demand you pay for it a 2nd time before they'll give it back to you?
That's the equivalent of having to claim something valuable is yours before they give it to you? You do realize that Gizmodo didn't steal it, right? They got it from some guy looking to unload it ... now THAT guy might deserve some greif if he stole it instead of merely finding it as he claimed. But either way, that has nothing to do with Gizmodo.
...which doesn't list any support for Internet Explorer
So don't use internet explorer. If you can figure out how to edit your hosts file you can figure out how to use an an alternate browser.
or applications that embed Internet Explorer.
Who browses the web from the cheque layout editor in their accounting software?
You are right, of course, and my example was a bit tongue in cheek, but while I use several apps that embed IE for help, documention, etc... I've never had any cause to use any of them to browse the web. I'm not convinced its a legitimate issue.
The advantage of a hosts file is that it acts as a system-wide DNS filter no matter what application embeds a browser component,
Agreed. But if you want a DNS filter - get a dns filter. Using hosts to manually block hosts one at a time by redirecting the queries back to your own system is about the clumsiest way of doing it.
A proper dns filter has logging (so you can see what's going on, filters with wildcards so you don't need www.facebook.com, facebook.com, login.facebook.com, and anything else they might add in the future)
and it doesn't require researching and installing a third-party firewall.
Right, it requires researching and editing a text file deep within the windows folder.
So ... you rejected the option of running an alternative browser (you said "but it doesn't work in Internet Explorer") and at the same time you embrace editting the hosts file. Exactly what sort of user is this? One that can't download firefox, but can edit the hosts file??
Or has Microsoft already begun to include such "a suitable firewall" with Windows?
It is actually very easy to add a custom blocking rule to the facebook ip addresses. But that is not a DNS filter.
Sounds like extortion to me.
If that sounds like extortion to you then so does this:
Me - Hi, I'd like a Big Mac combo
McD - $4.49, please drive to the first window
Famous Me - So that's how it is then? Now that you know I'm hungry - you demand money (almost $5!) and services (you dictate where I drive and don't even compensate me for fuel!) And these demands are non-negotiable designed to generate you additional financial gain at my expense?! And Oh shit I can't even back up now because the lane behind me is blocked.
Famous Me - Drives to the first window, hands over a few bucks.
McD - Thank you, please drive ahead to the second window!
What the FUCK!? I paid for the buger, now it belongs to me! And I have to jump through additional hoops before you give it to me? Another car trip?! You realize I now consider my Big Mac stolen property! And I bet you plan to have someone report on your blog that Famous Me ate here!! Generating even more benefits to you! And wait what's that? A security camera? You are recording this?!! So now what? You going to sell video of my insane outbursts in your drive through window to news organizations!
This is all Extortion! From start to finish! EXTORTION!
I don't have one either, and probably despise facebook even more than you.
For blocking facebook, it doesn't get much simpler than a dedicated plugin like: (although I haven't used it myself)
http://webgraph.com/resources/facebookblocker/
Adding a custom filter rule or two to a more generic plug in like adblock pro or any of several site blockers is another option.
And for blocking in general system-wide, a suitable firewall and/or a filtering proxy server.
Wasn't that the premise of one of their commercials? An employee of coca-cola who was caught buying a pepsi? A can of coke recommending a Pepsi product sounds like a great marketing strategy.
That's pretty much been Pepsi's marketing premise for over 20 years now. Its either... "Hey look a Celebrity is drinking pepsi" or "Hey look, a Coke employee is drinking pepsi".
Coke commercials have been far more imaginative and entertaining over the years, and have never once mentioned pepsi.
You can tell which brand is the leader and which is the wannabe. :p
According to the site it supports:
Mac OS X 10.4 and later (including Mountain Lion)
I haven't tried it myself, but it seems likely that it does work.
There's a big difference between FLOSS and freeware...The main one being you can assertain that FLOSS software is secure, and if the middleman is trustworthy...
And the people he's supporting are on Windows and OSX. If we're worried about issues with proprietary 3rd party software defeating the remote-support toolchain, then we've lost before we've even started.
Groups like teamviewer have some major enterprise customers. Their reputation for security is worth more than spying on your remote support session with your grandmother. I'm not saying its impossible for them to have back doors.
But unless you audit the FLOSS alternative yourself, and then compile and deploy the exact files you audited to clients and servers under your control, then you really haven't truly "ascertained" anything at all.
And honestly, I wouldn't be convinced an audit would necessarily find a backdoor if it was there anyway.
You might be interested in this then:
http://www.teamviewer.com/images/pdf/TeamViewer_SecurityStatement.pdf
Should answer some of your questions on security.
The issues with reverse VNC are that it requires the remote user to initiate a connection to you, which is more work for them. Less perhaps then setting up their router, but still more than something like teamviewer.
It also breaks if you can't conveniently port forward your own machine whenever you need to support them. Maybe you aren't always at home in your basement. I use teamviewer from my phone. From my laptop at on my break at work. Etc.
I even went to the next step, and ran a VNC repeater for a while, but you know what that got me to where I was with team viewer with a lot more effort, and vnc security is still generally pretty much worthless on its default settings. Planning on walking grandma through setting up vnc security before she initiates a connection to your repeater? Yeah... right.
Its not FOSS, and there is a middle man to negotiate things to get you connected.
It is however free for non-commercial use.
You can remote control -from- Windows, OSX, Linux, iphone, and android.
You can remote control -to- windows, OSX, Linux, and recently samsung androids.
It just works. The person you are trying to support can get connected to you by clicking the "Join Remote Support Session" URL, and running the quick support app. They don't have to install the software, or configure their firewall, or fiddle with various modes etc.
You can connect to pretty much anyone anywhere from pretty much anything anywhere.
How does it compare to the various VNCs? Its much easier to get a connection going, and you don't waste more time trying to get a remote session going than it takes to actually perform the remote support.
Now, VNC is great, and if you set up your own public VNC repeater, and bundle your own VNC client to use that repeater you can get most of the way towards what you get with teamviewer without any effort at all.
the guy asking help told this is a downside.
The guy asking for help hasn't spent 4 hrs walking grandma through downloading and configuring VNC over the phone so that he can get through the firewall to actually help her.
TeamViewer is a good solution
You don't even have to turn it off unless you are staging for facebook.com or something like it.
How can I check a site is up on a server with a certain domain name before I point DNS to it?
I guess you could add it to the hosts file the way you always did.
All they did was block redirecting certain high profile domains that were commonly attacked by phishing and url redirection attacks by malware writing to the hostsfile. You'll still be able to add your my-cat-fluffys-enterprise-weblog.com and it will still work.
Unless you happen to work on small handful of high profile websites that are commonly attacked by phishing/url redirection attacks, nothing has changed.
If you do happen to work for facebook, and you do happen to use your hosts file to point facebook.com at internal development servers and you happen to use Microsoft's Windows Defender on your development pc, then things got ever so slightly more complicated. You'll probably cope, though.
if you're an enterprise IT sysadmin, this is a nightmare.
Yes, a nightmare on the same scale as the Dairy Queen across town being out of my favorite flavor. The horror.
The main problem I see is
That you didn't read the article and have no idea what you are talking about?
And it will still work, so what is the main problem you see again?
that's because addicts are more likely to commit crime to steal money to get their fix. some of us city folk figured this out in the 1980's.
So that's why my car is always being broken into by cigarette smokers and alcohol drinkers?
Get real.
The average pot smoker doesn't commit crime to buy weed either. And what few do would be even less likely to if they could get it legally for the same price as a pack of cigarettes.
Heroine is maybe a different scenario, but then people addicted to heroine ought to be treated as sick not criminals.
You don't get a "free pass" to commit espionage simply because you're sitting outside the country you're targeting
As it happens, I'm sitting in Canada, and I'm not aware of any Canadian law that prohibits committing espionage against other countries while sitting here. There's laws against committing espionage against Canada, but that's it.
So if I'm committing espionage against Brazil, and Brazil phones Canada and asks them to extradite me... Canada's attitude is pretty much "What he is doing is not illegal here".
For Canada to arrest and extradite me, they'd have to recognize what I was doing was criminal. And there isn't any Canadian law against "espionage against Brazil".
In this App's case, it would mean reworking his UI slightly to have users select folders with content in them, not individual movies.
Except that I play movies by finding them in finder, and double clicking them. I can't remember the last time I opened a movie from -within- an application's user interface.
So, no, reworking he UI would be pretty irrelevant.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
Where you happen to be sitting tends to be extremely important.
Yes it is. Among other things, he is a accused of having non-consensual sex with a sleeping woman. That is considered rape in the US, Australia, and all of the EU
And in the right context its also considered a good way to wake up in all of those same jurisdictions... either that or my wife and I have occasionally raped each other. /sarcasm
Its not like she got drunk, crashed on someones bed at a party, and woke up to him having sex with her. Context should matter. Intent should matter.
The context is they'd already had consensual sex and were sleeping together. On top of that we have no physical evidence that it even occurred except that she said so.
So we're going to internationally extradite him on something that a lot of people are dubious is even really criminal, and which likely would be utterly impossible to prove in court.
I do think they will be pushing many many many of their customers to the Mac.
Mac's still don't run most windows software, and are still far weaker at being managed centrally.
And what does switching to Mac actually accomplish? They save having to teach their users a new Windows 8 UI for having to teach them the OSX UI on more expensive hardware, with a bunch of application compatibility conflicts?
Its a complete joke.
Sounds to me like there is more than just the one factoid you latched on to.
Facebook allows me to almost instantly contact whomever I want in my circle of friends without the need for dialing a phone.
So does email, SMS, Intant messenging. And what is wrong with a phone call anyway? You can't abide actually talking to your friends?
I WANT companies to know who I am and what my interests are.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
And really that is the least of your concerns.
I don't give a crap who knows what about me.
That's what a lot of people say until it bites them in the ass.
People have been fired from jobs, harrassed, physically attacked, stalked, had their homes robbed, and had their identities stolen thanks to that attitude.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
And you ask how are you trolling? Good one.
Now looks like a good time to reflect on the options. What are the good torrent options on windows?
Even better what are the best OSS ones?