Precisely, what they should have done was prevented Google from buying doubleclick in the first place. Most of the rest of this stuff isn't a particularly big deal comparatively speaking. And as you imply there isn't really any way of cutting up Google's advertising business the way that one could with physical media or even TV/Radio advertising.
The only problem with that is that you're not necessarily going to be able to get online in that fashion. True it is more secure, but by the same token if one needs to go online one is going to have to take some risks.
And since it wasn't clear, I don't personally visit banking sites like that nor do I log into sites where I don't have a OTP as part of the log in requirements.
It depends what you're doing. I shouldn't have implied that I'd be typing in passwords to such a machine because you are indeed correct about that. I also shouldn't have implied that I would be logging into a banking site like that. I load up my own web browser and don't log into any site where I'm not using an OTP as part of the set up.
I'm mostly worried about viruses on the odd occasion where I'm needing to check email at a cyber cafe.
It's usually a matter of poor management when these things happen. There are malware programs popping up all the time that aren't detectable, but those tend not to remain undetectable for years.
Yeah, that's not something that I ever do. I logged into my email one time from a random computer, but that's the only time. I did change my password shortly thereafter and didn't have any trouble.
These days what I do is run a virus scan from a write only thumbdrive before I do anything at all on a strange computer. (If anybody is curious, I'm using a kanguru flashblu 2 with a portable antivirurs program and it works just great for that)
Counter example, IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. They didn't/don't kill a large number of personnel, but they greatly add to the stress level and at least in theory make it harder to conduct operations.
I disagree, fear works quite well. Or at least it used to. Part of the problem is that it worked a lot better when you were dealing primarily with pitched battle. Marching through a forest of bodies impaled upon stakes was almost certainly going to cause a certain amount of soldiers to abandon the proceedings and flee in terror.
But in this day and age, where one can't just flee when things get to be too hairy, I don't think that it really has the same effect. You're better off going for confusion. At any rate the things you used to be able to do to scare the enemy are mostly war crimes.
I know your a troll, but people, myself included, do bitch about phones being locked down. It just turns out to be substantially less problematic and less likely to come up when it's only some of the phones rather than all of the phones. Which is the point, it was bad enough that MS was allowing for vendors to not include an off switch for the secure boot, but banning it from certified devices is going way over the line.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, MS doesn't know how to compete. They can't compete without these sorts of skeazy tactics and general cheating.
You're being obtuse. The point here is that MS is strongarming hardware manufacturers to develop devices that only work with Windows. The reality here is that there almost certainly won't be tablets released with Android to go along side the ones that have Win 8 on them. I say that with confidence because I don't see it happening very often with laptops or even desktops. But, with laptops and desktops one has the ability to install any OS with driver support for the hardware.
What's more, if one is restricted to using Android only or Linux only devices if one wants to run something other than Windows, then one is going to have a substantially smaller number of devices from which to choose.
As for your thing about percentages of consumers, it doesn't matter what the percentage is, it's one of the rights of ownership. The original owner might not care, but what happens when MS stops supporting the devices? Just because MS no longer provides patches doesn't mean that the device has failed.
As for your bit about the locked bootloader, it's completely different. If you're going to be so dense, I don't know why I'm even bothering to write this. The difference is that Google isn't forcing all manufacturers of Android devices to lock them down the Android only in order to gain full certification. That's a big fucking deal if one doesn't have the Win 8 certification one is going to be at a competitive disadvantage. Or have you forgotten about the Win Vista certification debacle where some of those computers weren't able to run Vista. God help you if you didn't get one that was even that well supported.
What I'm saying about the flop is that the government should step in to ensure that people can actually use the hardware that they're buying. It's pretty ridiculous that you can't see that this completely violates the typical ownership rights that come from making a purchase.
Whether one is or isn't technically forced to get full certification is really beside the point. Companies that don't go through the process aren't going to be able to charge as much for their hardware and in turn are going to be at a disadvantage. Certification up to a point is reasonable, but when it requires that the device be unusable by other OSes, that crosses the line.
In short, shills like you are why we can't have nice things. MS already fucked up both the desktop and laptop markets, I personally see no reason why they should be allowed to continue the same anticompetitive tactics that have so damaged the industry.
Actually in the US under the FLSA employers have to pay for all the time that employees spend working, regardless of when that happens. There are a few things which are excluded from that list, but answering email and phones is definitely something they're required to pay for. The problem though is that getting it enforced is quite cumbersome and employers are used to getting that work for free.
At the end of the day if they need people working outside of business hours they need to be going through the proper steps to ensure that the employees are exempted from those requirements.
It wasn't a shakedown, we live in a country of laws and where the laws are enforced in court. The appeals courts aren't necessarily always staffed by judges that are neutral on matters of law. Often times these courts are stuffed with people who are chosen because of ideology.
The original ruling probably would have stood had it ended up being heard by a more sympathetic venue.
It always astonishes me the number of MS shills around here.
First off, they don't require a monopoly in the tablet market to run afoul of antitrust laws. This is a pretty blatant example of MS abusing its certification process to hurt the competition and to ultimately hurt consumers
Secondly, I take it you haven't bought a laptop lately, the vast majority of models are either Apple or Windows laptops. The point of this move is to prevent people from buying a Windows tablet and opting to install something else on it at a later time. It's very clearly harmful to both competition and the end user to have such heavy handed licensing terms preventing them from making a switch of OS.
Thirdly, it is entirely different from buying an Android with a locked bootloader, Google doesn't require that the bootloader be locked, that's done at either the hardware manufacturer or carrier level. And it doesn't affect every Android device that one buys. Certainly not every one that's certified to use the market.
Lastly, the fact that this thing is likely to flop is a very compelling reason why MS ought not be allowed to use such heavy practices in forcing their OS to be the only one that can be loaded without cracking the thing. This isn't Apple where Apple is producing the iPad and the OS that goes onto it, this is MS trying to dictate the terms of the hardware in a way that's anti-competitive.
I doubt very much that the Apache version of OO.org is going to do much improving at this point. Virtually all of the developers have already jumped ship for Libreoffice and I have yet to find anything that Libreoffice can't do that OO.org can. The reality is that they sucked in most of the patches from Go-oo and at this stage it's a superset of what OO.org was able to do.
You seem to be underestimating the number of patches and the amount of work that wasn't allowed into OO.org when Sun was running things.
I'm mostly surprised that they're still getting performance improvements. It seems like they've done more over the last year than Sun did during the entire time it owned the project to unbloat it.
Yes, it's necessary, you make it sound like most homeless are doing it as a lifestyle choice. While there's no reason to force it on them, frostbite sucks and most of them would be in shelters if there were enough space.
As for vacant dwellings, we really don't have many of those. And the ones we do were condemned with good reason. The shelters themselves don't necessarily need to be permanent, plywood walls and a basic roof would do wonders.
Not really, I could have done that on FreeBSD years ago. You do realize that the loopback interface isn't necessarily IPv6 compliant, which is the whole point of this. They made it so that you could compile the kernel and the userland all without the use of IPv4.
But, then again, why bother with facts when you can post a smart ass comment.
You seem to be confused. Linux is a kernel, no more no less. A Linux distro is a Linux kernel with a 3rd party userland. The kernel itself really has very little to do with what protocols are ultimately offered to the userland as those all have the option of loading kernel modules if need be.
Honestly, it's not that complicated. Those userland programs are why Linux can't yet be IPv6 only yet. I believe that most of them can handle it, but there are still IPv4 only utilties left.
I don't even know how to replay to your poorly worded post.
It's the complete utility that's the problem, not just the output. It has to be able to handle IPv6 and be able to do something useful with it. Putting them together in one utility makes very little sense as the only people likely to still be using IPv4 in 10 years time are people in an enterprise environment and they'll likely to adding the IPv4 version to their install images. Well them and retrogamers, but they'd know how to install the package and use it if they really needed it anyways.
You don't write protocols based upon how they will or won't reuse existing utilities, doing that is extremely short sighted and I'd be shocked if they took this into consideration outside of the migration provisions. Ultimately it's up to the person who is typing the command to know what they're wanting, you're not going to create a program that knows that reliably. If you don't believe me, boot up a copy of Windows and see how many times it makes the completely wrong decision about what you're wanting.
Because Ping is almost 30 years old and changing it that substantially would break functionality in a huge number of OSes. Not to mention the fact that as long as IPv4 is in common use it's going to be damn confusing figuring out when it's safe to use ping in IPv4 versus IPv6.
In a few years time when we're hopefully all using IPv6 then it might be reasonable to switch it.
Indeed, but OTOH it's important to have the ability to use it as soon as the ISP supports it. What worries me is that at the rate my ISP is working on it that it won't be ready before the first few IPv6 only sites come online.
The point here is that FreeBSD functions completely without IPv4, and not just over the internet, but internally as well. It's actually a much tougher task with Linux as Linus only controls the kernel, he has to convince other projects to go IPv6 only as well.
Which is going to be really important as it can be really hard to verify that things are working on a dual stack system. I remember the last time I tried it I never could figure out if it was working as it should be or just falling back to IPv4 and quite honestly I had neither the time nor the inclination to dig too deeply into it.
I had a coworker briefly that was doing that. On what we were making I couldn't blame him for that, I'm sure he was a lot more comfortable that way than worrying about having money for rent, and with a job he had the option of staying in a motel during cold snaps.
The bigger question though is why in a country that's so wealthy we tolerate people living on the streets out of necessity. We have the money to ensure that those folks have at least rudimentary shelter and yet we choose to provide very little.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely, what they should have done was prevented Google from buying doubleclick in the first place. Most of the rest of this stuff isn't a particularly big deal comparatively speaking. And as you imply there isn't really any way of cutting up Google's advertising business the way that one could with physical media or even TV/Radio advertising.
The only problem with that is that you're not necessarily going to be able to get online in that fashion. True it is more secure, but by the same token if one needs to go online one is going to have to take some risks.
And since it wasn't clear, I don't personally visit banking sites like that nor do I log into sites where I don't have a OTP as part of the log in requirements.
It depends what you're doing. I shouldn't have implied that I'd be typing in passwords to such a machine because you are indeed correct about that. I also shouldn't have implied that I would be logging into a banking site like that. I load up my own web browser and don't log into any site where I'm not using an OTP as part of the set up.
I'm mostly worried about viruses on the odd occasion where I'm needing to check email at a cyber cafe.
It's usually a matter of poor management when these things happen. There are malware programs popping up all the time that aren't detectable, but those tend not to remain undetectable for years.
Yeah, that's not something that I ever do. I logged into my email one time from a random computer, but that's the only time. I did change my password shortly thereafter and didn't have any trouble.
These days what I do is run a virus scan from a write only thumbdrive before I do anything at all on a strange computer. (If anybody is curious, I'm using a kanguru flashblu 2 with a portable antivirurs program and it works just great for that)
Counter example, IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. They didn't/don't kill a large number of personnel, but they greatly add to the stress level and at least in theory make it harder to conduct operations.
I disagree, fear works quite well. Or at least it used to. Part of the problem is that it worked a lot better when you were dealing primarily with pitched battle. Marching through a forest of bodies impaled upon stakes was almost certainly going to cause a certain amount of soldiers to abandon the proceedings and flee in terror.
But in this day and age, where one can't just flee when things get to be too hairy, I don't think that it really has the same effect. You're better off going for confusion. At any rate the things you used to be able to do to scare the enemy are mostly war crimes.
I know your a troll, but people, myself included, do bitch about phones being locked down. It just turns out to be substantially less problematic and less likely to come up when it's only some of the phones rather than all of the phones. Which is the point, it was bad enough that MS was allowing for vendors to not include an off switch for the secure boot, but banning it from certified devices is going way over the line.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, MS doesn't know how to compete. They can't compete without these sorts of skeazy tactics and general cheating.
You're being obtuse. The point here is that MS is strongarming hardware manufacturers to develop devices that only work with Windows. The reality here is that there almost certainly won't be tablets released with Android to go along side the ones that have Win 8 on them. I say that with confidence because I don't see it happening very often with laptops or even desktops. But, with laptops and desktops one has the ability to install any OS with driver support for the hardware.
What's more, if one is restricted to using Android only or Linux only devices if one wants to run something other than Windows, then one is going to have a substantially smaller number of devices from which to choose.
As for your thing about percentages of consumers, it doesn't matter what the percentage is, it's one of the rights of ownership. The original owner might not care, but what happens when MS stops supporting the devices? Just because MS no longer provides patches doesn't mean that the device has failed.
As for your bit about the locked bootloader, it's completely different. If you're going to be so dense, I don't know why I'm even bothering to write this. The difference is that Google isn't forcing all manufacturers of Android devices to lock them down the Android only in order to gain full certification. That's a big fucking deal if one doesn't have the Win 8 certification one is going to be at a competitive disadvantage. Or have you forgotten about the Win Vista certification debacle where some of those computers weren't able to run Vista. God help you if you didn't get one that was even that well supported.
What I'm saying about the flop is that the government should step in to ensure that people can actually use the hardware that they're buying. It's pretty ridiculous that you can't see that this completely violates the typical ownership rights that come from making a purchase.
Whether one is or isn't technically forced to get full certification is really beside the point. Companies that don't go through the process aren't going to be able to charge as much for their hardware and in turn are going to be at a disadvantage. Certification up to a point is reasonable, but when it requires that the device be unusable by other OSes, that crosses the line.
In short, shills like you are why we can't have nice things. MS already fucked up both the desktop and laptop markets, I personally see no reason why they should be allowed to continue the same anticompetitive tactics that have so damaged the industry.
Actually in the US under the FLSA employers have to pay for all the time that employees spend working, regardless of when that happens. There are a few things which are excluded from that list, but answering email and phones is definitely something they're required to pay for. The problem though is that getting it enforced is quite cumbersome and employers are used to getting that work for free.
At the end of the day if they need people working outside of business hours they need to be going through the proper steps to ensure that the employees are exempted from those requirements.
It wasn't a shakedown, we live in a country of laws and where the laws are enforced in court. The appeals courts aren't necessarily always staffed by judges that are neutral on matters of law. Often times these courts are stuffed with people who are chosen because of ideology.
The original ruling probably would have stood had it ended up being heard by a more sympathetic venue.
It always astonishes me the number of MS shills around here.
First off, they don't require a monopoly in the tablet market to run afoul of antitrust laws. This is a pretty blatant example of MS abusing its certification process to hurt the competition and to ultimately hurt consumers
Secondly, I take it you haven't bought a laptop lately, the vast majority of models are either Apple or Windows laptops. The point of this move is to prevent people from buying a Windows tablet and opting to install something else on it at a later time. It's very clearly harmful to both competition and the end user to have such heavy handed licensing terms preventing them from making a switch of OS.
Thirdly, it is entirely different from buying an Android with a locked bootloader, Google doesn't require that the bootloader be locked, that's done at either the hardware manufacturer or carrier level. And it doesn't affect every Android device that one buys. Certainly not every one that's certified to use the market.
Lastly, the fact that this thing is likely to flop is a very compelling reason why MS ought not be allowed to use such heavy practices in forcing their OS to be the only one that can be loaded without cracking the thing. This isn't Apple where Apple is producing the iPad and the OS that goes onto it, this is MS trying to dictate the terms of the hardware in a way that's anti-competitive.
I doubt very much that the Apache version of OO.org is going to do much improving at this point. Virtually all of the developers have already jumped ship for Libreoffice and I have yet to find anything that Libreoffice can't do that OO.org can. The reality is that they sucked in most of the patches from Go-oo and at this stage it's a superset of what OO.org was able to do.
You seem to be underestimating the number of patches and the amount of work that wasn't allowed into OO.org when Sun was running things.
LIbreOffice hasn't been OO in well over a year. But nice try with the trolling.
I'm mostly surprised that they're still getting performance improvements. It seems like they've done more over the last year than Sun did during the entire time it owned the project to unbloat it.
Yes, it's necessary, you make it sound like most homeless are doing it as a lifestyle choice. While there's no reason to force it on them, frostbite sucks and most of them would be in shelters if there were enough space.
As for vacant dwellings, we really don't have many of those. And the ones we do were condemned with good reason. The shelters themselves don't necessarily need to be permanent, plywood walls and a basic roof would do wonders.
Not really, I could have done that on FreeBSD years ago. You do realize that the loopback interface isn't necessarily IPv6 compliant, which is the whole point of this. They made it so that you could compile the kernel and the userland all without the use of IPv4.
But, then again, why bother with facts when you can post a smart ass comment.
You seem to be confused. Linux is a kernel, no more no less. A Linux distro is a Linux kernel with a 3rd party userland. The kernel itself really has very little to do with what protocols are ultimately offered to the userland as those all have the option of loading kernel modules if need be.
Honestly, it's not that complicated. Those userland programs are why Linux can't yet be IPv6 only yet. I believe that most of them can handle it, but there are still IPv4 only utilties left.
I don't even know how to replay to your poorly worded post.
It's the complete utility that's the problem, not just the output. It has to be able to handle IPv6 and be able to do something useful with it. Putting them together in one utility makes very little sense as the only people likely to still be using IPv4 in 10 years time are people in an enterprise environment and they'll likely to adding the IPv4 version to their install images. Well them and retrogamers, but they'd know how to install the package and use it if they really needed it anyways.
You don't write protocols based upon how they will or won't reuse existing utilities, doing that is extremely short sighted and I'd be shocked if they took this into consideration outside of the migration provisions. Ultimately it's up to the person who is typing the command to know what they're wanting, you're not going to create a program that knows that reliably. If you don't believe me, boot up a copy of Windows and see how many times it makes the completely wrong decision about what you're wanting.
Because Ping is almost 30 years old and changing it that substantially would break functionality in a huge number of OSes. Not to mention the fact that as long as IPv4 is in common use it's going to be damn confusing figuring out when it's safe to use ping in IPv4 versus IPv6.
In a few years time when we're hopefully all using IPv6 then it might be reasonable to switch it.
In that case he'd probably wind up with a santorum.
Indeed, but OTOH it's important to have the ability to use it as soon as the ISP supports it. What worries me is that at the rate my ISP is working on it that it won't be ready before the first few IPv6 only sites come online.
The point here is that FreeBSD functions completely without IPv4, and not just over the internet, but internally as well. It's actually a much tougher task with Linux as Linus only controls the kernel, he has to convince other projects to go IPv6 only as well.
Which is going to be really important as it can be really hard to verify that things are working on a dual stack system. I remember the last time I tried it I never could figure out if it was working as it should be or just falling back to IPv4 and quite honestly I had neither the time nor the inclination to dig too deeply into it.
I had a coworker briefly that was doing that. On what we were making I couldn't blame him for that, I'm sure he was a lot more comfortable that way than worrying about having money for rent, and with a job he had the option of staying in a motel during cold snaps.
The bigger question though is why in a country that's so wealthy we tolerate people living on the streets out of necessity. We have the money to ensure that those folks have at least rudimentary shelter and yet we choose to provide very little.