ALL speculation on your part, based on UNPROVEN claims made by SkyHook, who may not even have had a version of their service that was compatible with Android or Goolge Maps (or other location enabled services), regarding a contract that may not have been affected at all (how is it affected? This contract was in place before Android phones shipped... so, was it affected because Android ate away at the marketshare of the phones that SkyHook's stuff worked on? That's not Google's fault... that's SkyHook's for backing the wrong horse... just like Verizon's gamble on KIN).
Come back and make that claim again, when ANYTHING has been proven in court. Until then, it's all speculation, based on claims - many of which dont even make sense.
Oh, please, the asshats at BSA and Microsoft tried strongarming me into compliance, into being audited and more (including all sorts of threats for fines, lawsuits, extra licensing fees, etc). Interestingly, over a dozen systems, ALL with legitimate, provable Windows licenses, TWO DOZEN other unused, uninstalled licenses in our shop, and out of ALL of those systems, ONLY ONE was actually running Windows - the rest were reformatted and running OS/2 (alongside a couple Macs).
It took threats of legal action, threats of having any of their auditors being arrested for tresspass if they even so much as entered our business, and (probably the clincher) exposing their nonsense, including every letter and threat they sent, on the web.
Recently, we reported a system that came in the shop for having an obviously pirated copy of Windows. They charged OUR credit card for it (and then some... $300 for a $100 copy of Windows). Took some threats to get that dealt with. VERY fucking nice "thank you" for reporting piracy to them. Fuck the losers.
Their idiotic guesstimates on piracy are just that... idiotic and guesstimates.
Re-read OP's post. They are discussing IE9, which does not run on those things (unlike various other versions of IE). So... the 60% marketshare stat you provide is irrelevant to their premise.
In addition, read MSDN's post. It says...
(translated)"HEY!!!! We're FINALLY first with SOMETHING!!!! Let's rub it in everyone else's faces!!!!!!! Maybe they wont notice the fact that once again we wont be compliant with web standards!!!"
(in MS Marketing Speak) "We’re excited that other browsers have started to use hardware to accelerate graphics performance. With different implementations starting to become available, now’s a good time to blog about the difference between full and partial hardware acceleration."
"Google had the first mapping API and continues to keep its lead by adding useful new features. "
I suspect the government and the various contractors and outside programmers who worked with them or with their data had the first mapping API. It was used for the TigerLINE data that all the rest of this data is originally based off of. It wasnt some internal govt only project, but something anyone could either download (free) or purchase and use. There are a variety of such tools (various with their own APIs), numerous ancient (Win95/98 era) which far predates Google's tools and APIs.
Good point. Make the lighted area well lit, but the big screens on the wall, make them 12 - 15 feet away and the area they are in is not lighted (to reduce glare, improve contrast, reduce eye strain)
Problem with lighting too well is it supposedly causes eye strain. A darkened room is supposedly better for long term LCD/CRT viewing, hence you will find that most large, professional sit rooms like this have lower lighting.
The better alternative is to use zone/pool lighting to keep eye strain down, while providing areas of brightness more appropriate to other activities.
apart from the state sharing in liability for accidents while speeding with permission...
Technically, (as this would become law) they wouldn't be speeding (unless they exceeded 90mph, or were driving over the regular limit after their 24 hour period expired). Though I suspect the state may be sued on other grounds.
actually its only 52% and dropping rapidly. If nothing else, at least MS is having to make a modern standards complaint browser. I for one, don't think it'll be enough to gain back much lost market share, but at least it'll make it easier on us web developers.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer#Market_adoption_and_usage_share
I'd mod you "+1 Damn, I've been dreaming of that day for ages!!" but apparently slashdot doesnt have such a mod.
Odd... (1) I got the offer to opt in (not the need to opt out), (2) I actually read the settings page, (3) I got the offer/option to turn it off completely when I opted in,
Maybe I got invited to it while it was in closed beta? That's the only thing I can think of that would make my experience so vastly different than yours.
Please explain why GOOGLE can see it then? Did Facebook provide them a blanket superuser account? Or wait! No, the truth is, the information was made PUBLIC.
Viewing my profile as someone else would see it shows my picture. None of the rest of my information. A google search (or searching likes on Facebook), since all my likes have turned into PUBLIC subscriptions (WITH my full name) to "Likes _____" (Music/Sports/etc) pages, makes virtually everything public.
(Makes one wonder)...why Facebook wasnt sued out of existence ages ago? Even now, it either ignores privacy settings I choose, or, via it's "likes" pages, makes them irrelevant. My full name shows up on "Favorite Bands are Iron Maiden" even though my likes are supposedly hidden.
Even assuming Google needs to keep that license (with the current state of their pagerank algorithm), you'd need to know the details of that agreement - which may include things such as a clause allowing Google to extend the agreement for a certain amount of time (a year? a decade? forever?). Many such agreements come with such clauses, and due to the nature of the creation of PageRank, I'd suspect the agreement may come with such a clause (or one similar, such as Google being allowed first offer, and failing their interest, Stanford gets to shop it elsewhere).
Good old Google! They would NEVER consider biasing things in their favor! They just love us all so much - and we need them so badly - NOT!
Ummm... what? I dont see the need for them to do so. They simply include their links at top as sponsored links. Why would they need to skew the actual search results when they've got the guaranteed first spot via the "Sponsored Links" section with a lot less work?
By myself and most of my friends. The very small remainder, sadly, actually think that Beck is a journalist and that he and O'Reilly are fair and balanced.
Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann and the like are not "serious" journalist the editorialize and entertain (well they entertain some people they disgust me). John Stewart and Stephen Colbert do the same thing with some jokes thrown in... Reporters who stick to the facts, that's real journalism my friend and you and I don't know their names because they are all "AP contributor" and the like.
"AP Contributor" is one of my favorite journalists! I wish s/he'd write more pieces.
Also, Colbert is a comedian, he makes fun of everyone. I watch his shows and he makes fun of the Tea Party as much as he does anyone else but I don't think he's actually against the Tea Party or would "point out the absurdity of the Tea Party"
Uh, what? He points out their absurdity all the time. If you haven't noticed that, then perhaps you dont understand his humor and sarcasm and wit.
I couldn't care less about the Tea Party or Colbert. It isn't real news. It certainly isn't for nerds.
Considering how some of the plans of the Tea Party will affect us geeks, I care. Considering that Beck's numerous hate speeches affect either my friends or myself, I care.
What exactly is funny about it? I'm no Glenn Beck fan, he's a delusional religious nut. But I don't get what's deep about what basically amounts to "Durr, let's do a mock rally". Seriously, the idea to lampoon somebody is original or clever?
He won't do it because anybody with half a brain sees how unoriginal, dreary, obvious, and boring the idea is. I don't watch his show, but going for the obvious tack doesn't seem his style.
Well, when three times the people show up, it will give me hope for our society, as it means the smart people will outnumber the brain-dead Beck followers 3:1. Of course, if the opposite happens, I'm stocking up on ammo and finding an underground bunker to move into.
"Colbert" is in fact a persona not a real person, that is the personality on screen is not as he is in real life. The whole thing is a sarcastic cynical look at Fox News talk shows and other self important talking heads. That's why some people think it's funny, others (without a sense of humor) are offended.
True, but "Colbert" on the other hand is a real person and not a persona. I think the real person "Colbert" is genius, and the persona "Colbert" is a great way of showing how idiotic the gang at Fox is.
You just mentioned a real threat. Don't let us digg it up. So there is a malware that meets all of these requirements:
a) Infects a system by simply visiting a webpage and clicking harmless looking buttons and links in a recent browser
I mentioned past real threats. Some recent, some within a year, some a few years ago. There is a list in my post right after this one, and it is far from all inclusive.
b) Circumvents the users restricted rights and gains administrative / system rights
See list in post below - and then you can dig for more if you are still interested.
c) Infects the machine without any user interaction
I never made such a point. There were ones where all a user had to do was surf to the wrong choice of websites though. That is a form of user interaction. But there was no further interaction needed (such as click a prompt to OK an install, "OK" a UAC box, etc)
d) is not detected by AV software
Whistler wasnt until a month+ of it being out. It's happened in other cases, and it will happen again. Maybe since I do this for a living, I see a bunch of these beasties early. After the first Whistler infection came in, it was 17 days before an AV software (list below) recognized parts of it. It was over a month before any recognized all of it. Maybe our customer had some weird, never seen before variant. Regardless, it took that long. Which AV and removal tools am I talking about? Let's see: AVG (Full and Free and Rootkit scan), Sophos, MS Security Essentials, NOD32, SuperAntiSpyware, MalwareBytes, Spyware Terminator, ClamAV, GMR, ComboFix (and related tools), Norton Internet Security, McAfee Internet Security. There may have been more, but those are the ones we ran. First times? Nothing found. A few days later, ONE part found. *17* days later before the more serious parts were found, over a month before all were found (including the rootkit infection that came along in the malware package).
Yes? No? Which threat is it, I'd like to know, please provide a link. Or maybe... you are a little bit blinded by your hatred against everything Microsoft?
No, I dont hate MS - I get a lot of business thanks to them. Partially because of the security holes that take a while to fix. Partially because, even the "should be less dangerous ones" generate a TON of work because most people log in as admins, partially because the ease of use of their OS and software (regardless of the other issues) has caused the PC market to grow to the point where virtually everyone has a PC. What I hate is when they make erroneous statements about Windows security or about magical patches that protect people "regardless of the attack vector". (MS09-054). What I hate is when, by choice, I ensure that I do not have any.NET or WPF stuff running in Firefox, and they sneak in a plugin in a NEEDED, CRITICAL fix for.NET, and finally, I hate it when, with such an abysmal track record, and exploits having existed and having been used in the past, people dont believe that it will happen again. I heard that from Microsoft apologists on the day that Vista came out "It's impossible, because of all these neat security features!" - they were wrong. And wrong again with each new patch that came out to fix new vulnerabilities that were found.
Software is NOT perfect, and I understand that. Windows is complex, and I understand that. There are bound to be flaws in it, and I understand that. But when people, very vocally, love to claim that there are none, or "this time, they all really are fixed" (REPEATEDLY, EACH TIME A NEW FIX COMES OUT), that annoys the hell out of me. It's been THREE years of watching an exploit and a fix and then "OH, it's secure now! You just hate Microsoft! It's all fixed now!!!" and then watching it be repeated AGAIN AND AGAIN.
NO, it is NOT all fixed now. YES, more exploits WI
Slashdot Mirror
ALL speculation on your part, based on UNPROVEN claims made by SkyHook, who may not even have had a version of their service that was compatible with Android or Goolge Maps (or other location enabled services), regarding a contract that may not have been affected at all (how is it affected? This contract was in place before Android phones shipped... so, was it affected because Android ate away at the marketshare of the phones that SkyHook's stuff worked on? That's not Google's fault... that's SkyHook's for backing the wrong horse... just like Verizon's gamble on KIN).
Come back and make that claim again, when ANYTHING has been proven in court. Until then, it's all speculation, based on claims - many of which dont even make sense.
Oh, please, the asshats at BSA and Microsoft tried strongarming me into compliance, into being audited and more (including all sorts of threats for fines, lawsuits, extra licensing fees, etc). Interestingly, over a dozen systems, ALL with legitimate, provable Windows licenses, TWO DOZEN other unused, uninstalled licenses in our shop, and out of ALL of those systems, ONLY ONE was actually running Windows - the rest were reformatted and running OS/2 (alongside a couple Macs).
It took threats of legal action, threats of having any of their auditors being arrested for tresspass if they even so much as entered our business, and (probably the clincher) exposing their nonsense, including every letter and threat they sent, on the web.
Recently, we reported a system that came in the shop for having an obviously pirated copy of Windows. They charged OUR credit card for it (and then some... $300 for a $100 copy of Windows). Took some threats to get that dealt with. VERY fucking nice "thank you" for reporting piracy to them. Fuck the losers.
Their idiotic guesstimates on piracy are just that... idiotic and guesstimates.
Fringe? It's still 60% of the browser usage:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0
Re-read OP's post. They are discussing IE9, which does not run on those things (unlike various other versions of IE). So... the 60% marketshare stat you provide is irrelevant to their premise.
In addition, read MSDN's post. It says...
(translated)"HEY!!!! We're FINALLY first with SOMETHING!!!! Let's rub it in everyone else's faces!!!!!!! Maybe they wont notice the fact that once again we wont be compliant with web standards!!!"
(in MS Marketing Speak) "We’re excited that other browsers have started to use hardware to accelerate graphics performance. With different implementations starting to become available, now’s a good time to blog about the difference between full and partial hardware acceleration."
"Google had the first mapping API and continues to keep its lead by adding useful new features. "
I suspect the government and the various contractors and outside programmers who worked with them or with their data had the first mapping API. It was used for the TigerLINE data that all the rest of this data is originally based off of. It wasnt some internal govt only project, but something anyone could either download (free) or purchase and use. There are a variety of such tools (various with their own APIs), numerous ancient (Win95/98 era) which far predates Google's tools and APIs.
Good point. Make the lighted area well lit, but the big screens on the wall, make them 12 - 15 feet away and the area they are in is not lighted (to reduce glare, improve contrast, reduce eye strain)
Problem with lighting too well is it supposedly causes eye strain. A darkened room is supposedly better for long term LCD/CRT viewing, hence you will find that most large, professional sit rooms like this have lower lighting.
The better alternative is to use zone/pool lighting to keep eye strain down, while providing areas of brightness more appropriate to other activities.
apart from the state sharing in liability for accidents while speeding with permission...
Technically, (as this would become law) they wouldn't be speeding (unless they exceeded 90mph, or were driving over the regular limit after their 24 hour period expired). Though I suspect the state may be sued on other grounds.
actually its only 52% and dropping rapidly. If nothing else, at least MS is having to make a modern standards complaint browser. I for one, don't think it'll be enough to gain back much lost market share, but at least it'll make it easier on us web developers. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer#Market_adoption_and_usage_share
I'd mod you "+1 Damn, I've been dreaming of that day for ages!!" but apparently slashdot doesnt have such a mod.
Fortunately, I dont care that much... especially since "the whole world" knows Iron Maiden is my favorite band... ;-)
Odd... (1) I got the offer to opt in (not the need to opt out), (2) I actually read the settings page, (3) I got the offer/option to turn it off completely when I opted in,
Maybe I got invited to it while it was in closed beta? That's the only thing I can think of that would make my experience so vastly different than yours.
The auto-follow still exposed information without my consent.
It doesn't matter how easily it was to undo, data was still exposed where it shouldn't have been.
That does not match my experiences, nor their text on the matter. I didnt say disable parts of Buzz. I said Turn off (as in entirely) Buzz.
Please explain why GOOGLE can see it then? Did Facebook provide them a blanket superuser account? Or wait! No, the truth is, the information was made PUBLIC.
Viewing my profile as someone else would see it shows my picture. None of the rest of my information. A google search (or searching likes on Facebook), since all my likes have turned into PUBLIC subscriptions (WITH my full name) to "Likes _____" (Music/Sports/etc) pages, makes virtually everything public.
Facebook hides behind the almighty TOS.
Hey, I love Star Trek too, but I dont hide behind it... ;-)
I wouldn't call it "opt-in" when Buzz automatically followed frequent contacts.
This, in fact, is why I blocked everyone (even good friends) and promptly deleted my public profile.
WOW! I simply decided to use the "TURN OFF BUZZ!" option.
I guess the AC was VERY correct with this: "...mainly by people who just didn't understand how the service worked"
(Makes one wonder)...why Facebook wasnt sued out of existence ages ago? Even now, it either ignores privacy settings I choose, or, via it's "likes" pages, makes them irrelevant. My full name shows up on "Favorite Bands are Iron Maiden" even though my likes are supposedly hidden.
Even assuming Google needs to keep that license (with the current state of their pagerank algorithm), you'd need to know the details of that agreement - which may include things such as a clause allowing Google to extend the agreement for a certain amount of time (a year? a decade? forever?). Many such agreements come with such clauses, and due to the nature of the creation of PageRank, I'd suspect the agreement may come with such a clause (or one similar, such as Google being allowed first offer, and failing their interest, Stanford gets to shop it elsewhere).
Good old Google! They would NEVER consider biasing things in their favor! They just love us all so much - and we need them so badly - NOT!
Ummm... what? I dont see the need for them to do so. They simply include their links at top as sponsored links. Why would they need to skew the actual search results when they've got the guaranteed first spot via the "Sponsored Links" section with a lot less work?
By myself and most of my friends. The very small remainder, sadly, actually think that Beck is a journalist and that he and O'Reilly are fair and balanced.
Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann and the like are not "serious" journalist the editorialize and entertain (well they entertain some people they disgust me). John Stewart and Stephen Colbert do the same thing with some jokes thrown in... Reporters who stick to the facts, that's real journalism my friend and you and I don't know their names because they are all "AP contributor" and the like.
"AP Contributor" is one of my favorite journalists! I wish s/he'd write more pieces.
I dunno if spun was aiming for the Funny mod, but had my mod points not expired, I would have modded him insightful.
"Why is this on Slashdot?"
This is the only Insightful comment on here
Also, Colbert is a comedian, he makes fun of everyone. I watch his shows and he makes fun of the Tea Party as much as he does anyone else but I don't think he's actually against the Tea Party or would "point out the absurdity of the Tea Party"
Uh, what? He points out their absurdity all the time. If you haven't noticed that, then perhaps you dont understand his humor and sarcasm and wit.
Should the dark side be somewhere in the chain of reasoning?
Glenn Beck was already mentioned numerous times above...
Why is this on Slashdot?
I couldn't care less about the Tea Party or Colbert. It isn't real news. It certainly isn't for nerds.
Considering how some of the plans of the Tea Party will affect us geeks, I care. Considering that Beck's numerous hate speeches affect either my friends or myself, I care.
What exactly is funny about it? I'm no Glenn Beck fan, he's a delusional religious nut. But I don't get what's deep about what basically amounts to "Durr, let's do a mock rally". Seriously, the idea to lampoon somebody is original or clever?
He won't do it because anybody with half a brain sees how unoriginal, dreary, obvious, and boring the idea is. I don't watch his show, but going for the obvious tack doesn't seem his style.
Well, when three times the people show up, it will give me hope for our society, as it means the smart people will outnumber the brain-dead Beck followers 3:1. Of course, if the opposite happens, I'm stocking up on ammo and finding an underground bunker to move into.
"Colbert" is in fact a persona not a real person, that is the personality on screen is not as he is in real life. The whole thing is a sarcastic cynical look at Fox News talk shows and other self important talking heads. That's why some people think it's funny, others (without a sense of humor) are offended.
True, but "Colbert" on the other hand is a real person and not a persona. I think the real person "Colbert" is genius, and the persona "Colbert" is a great way of showing how idiotic the gang at Fox is.
You just mentioned a real threat. Don't let us digg it up. So there is a malware that meets all of these requirements:
a) Infects a system by simply visiting a webpage and clicking harmless looking buttons and links in a recent browser
I mentioned past real threats. Some recent, some within a year, some a few years ago. There is a list in my post right after this one, and it is far from all inclusive.
b) Circumvents the users restricted rights and gains administrative / system rights
See list in post below - and then you can dig for more if you are still interested.
c) Infects the machine without any user interaction
I never made such a point. There were ones where all a user had to do was surf to the wrong choice of websites though. That is a form of user interaction. But there was no further interaction needed (such as click a prompt to OK an install, "OK" a UAC box, etc)
d) is not detected by AV software
Whistler wasnt until a month+ of it being out. It's happened in other cases, and it will happen again. Maybe since I do this for a living, I see a bunch of these beasties early. After the first Whistler infection came in, it was 17 days before an AV software (list below) recognized parts of it. It was over a month before any recognized all of it. Maybe our customer had some weird, never seen before variant. Regardless, it took that long. Which AV and removal tools am I talking about? Let's see: AVG (Full and Free and Rootkit scan), Sophos, MS Security Essentials, NOD32, SuperAntiSpyware, MalwareBytes, Spyware Terminator, ClamAV, GMR, ComboFix (and related tools), Norton Internet Security, McAfee Internet Security. There may have been more, but those are the ones we ran. First times? Nothing found. A few days later, ONE part found. *17* days later before the more serious parts were found, over a month before all were found (including the rootkit infection that came along in the malware package).
Yes? No? Which threat is it, I'd like to know, please provide a link. Or maybe... you are a little bit blinded by your hatred against everything Microsoft?
No, I dont hate MS - I get a lot of business thanks to them. Partially because of the security holes that take a while to fix. Partially because, even the "should be less dangerous ones" generate a TON of work because most people log in as admins, partially because the ease of use of their OS and software (regardless of the other issues) has caused the PC market to grow to the point where virtually everyone has a PC. What I hate is when they make erroneous statements about Windows security or about magical patches that protect people "regardless of the attack vector". (MS09-054). What I hate is when, by choice, I ensure that I do not have any .NET or WPF stuff running in Firefox, and they sneak in a plugin in a NEEDED, CRITICAL fix for .NET, and finally, I hate it when, with such an abysmal track record, and exploits having existed and having been used in the past, people dont believe that it will happen again. I heard that from Microsoft apologists on the day that Vista came out "It's impossible, because of all these neat security features!" - they were wrong. And wrong again with each new patch that came out to fix new vulnerabilities that were found.
Software is NOT perfect, and I understand that. Windows is complex, and I understand that. There are bound to be flaws in it, and I understand that. But when people, very vocally, love to claim that there are none, or "this time, they all really are fixed" (REPEATEDLY, EACH TIME A NEW FIX COMES OUT), that annoys the hell out of me. It's been THREE years of watching an exploit and a fix and then "OH, it's secure now! You just hate Microsoft! It's all fixed now!!!" and then watching it be repeated AGAIN AND AGAIN.
NO, it is NOT all fixed now. YES, more exploits WI