You don't have a right to privacy in a public place and you never have.
I suggest if you don't want to be 'spied on' that you stop leaving the house. You don't want those crazy neighbours and citygoers looking at you with their eyes, do you!
The summary is completely wrong and the blog isn't that much better. I can summarise it with:
- Complaining that CCTV is being used to witness crimes (yes, littering and fouling are crimes) - Complaining that the crimes that CCTV is being used to witness aren't important enough - Complaining that a law which specifically states that surveillance can be used to solve crimes is being cited when people want to use surveillance to solve crimes
Of course, the submitter takes an incident where CCTV was used to witness littering, and a case where RIPA was invoked to monitor someone suspected of fraud, and manage to blur the line to "ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS USED ON DOGSHIT".
Does Vista still allow Remote Registry editing by hackers over the internet? Only with the admin password, and seeing as no user runs as full admin now that's a social engineering issue, same as on Linux.
Does Vista still have ActiveX? Yes, but with restricted permissions that doesn't allow it to make system modifications.
Does Vista still allow people to remotely run processes under a different user's credentials? Once again, only as admin. If somebody knows of an exploit available for Vista that allows privilege escalation then please let me know, as I'm not aware of one.
Vista also released a huge security vulnerability
I know you can do the same with a Knoppix CD So Linux Live CDs are huge security vulnerabilities waiting to happen? Nice to know.
I'll give you the complexity of the document, because it is complex - and I don't think anyone is here to argue against that.
Unfortunately the incompatibility of GPL3 with Microsoft's patent promise has been subject to a bollock-load of FUD from the start, especially because as the Wikipedia article on it notes:
The limitations of a one-sided patent promise only applying to covered specifications is also present in the IBM Interoperability Specifications Pledge (ISP) and Sun Microsystems' OpenDocument Patent Statement. So the 'problems' with FOSS implementations of OOXML also extend to any and all implementations of ODF that Sun themselves don't author.
I can't find any references to flagging or fixing in TFA, and a vague reference to an ongoing slashdot debate is hardly authoritative. A quote or a link might be helpful. Are you serious? You're too lazy to read all the comments on the Slashdot post that you're commenting on?
Sounds like you're not complaining because OOXML is a bad standard, but because Microsoft has achieved ubiquity.
So, instead of allowing a documented standard to go through and let you open these documents with any implemented standard, you're standing tall and obstructing something that could actually solve pretty much everything you've complained about.
Now, can people please stop pretending that this stuff doesn't exist? Probably at about the same time that other people will stop pretending that it hasn't been fixed.
Isn't it amazing how often threads involving twitter get hijacked by drones accusing everyone of being Twitter. Fixed it for you. I think you'll find that it's because twitter shoots for first post on every single Microsoft article.
Why would you think, at this point, that I would be any more receptive to your pathetic bullshit than I was when I exposed your sockpuppetry to the rest of Slashdot?
Fuck off, Twitter, and take your idiocy with you.
(I accept that this is a troll and should be modded as such. I just enjoy putting Twitter back in his box.)
For example, I can search in Outlook but it calls up this primitive search selection box where I have to select which field (one at a time), text, other options, some other brain damaged stuff that I can't remember now since I never use it and then it goes through some search and usually doesn't find what I want since I didn't specify it just right. I don't even know what you're using, because it's certainly not Outlook. When I search in Outlook, I select the folder I want to search, type my search in the search box, then press return.
I'm sorry, but your post smacks of someone who doesn't use Outlook and just wants to bitch that his favourite solution isn't the preferred one. You'd have much more luck if you complained about something that was actually wrong with it.
How did this get modded insightful?
searching, filtering, categorizing, All of those are so easy to do in Outlook that I can only assume you're trolling.
"Microsoft today lifted the lid on 14,000 pages of sketchy versions of tech documentation for core software code. On show for the first time in public are underlying protocols for Office 2007, Office SharePoint Server 2007 and Exchange Server 2007."
No. They totally missed the point before, and it sounds like now they're just trying to latch on to an idea that helped others. The point of being a musician, or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with expecting to make some money off of it, but that should not be the focus. At the same time, if you're trying to push that viewpoint to the masses as the way music should be, would it not be pragmatic to support them?
Yes, they were dickheads before, but if they're really going to shift to this business model that's a fucking big name endorsing it.
Or, and here's a thought, you could just treat as it is, a little bit of exaggeration to add some spice to what would otherwise be a fairly boring news piece.
Just because it's not rigourously defined it doesn't mean you can't use it. You clearly know what they intended, and that's what is important here.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have a right to privacy in a public place and you never have.
I suggest if you don't want to be 'spied on' that you stop leaving the house. You don't want those crazy neighbours and citygoers looking at you with their eyes, do you!
Let me know when Google Maps is either journalism or art.
The summary is completely wrong and the blog isn't that much better. I can summarise it with:
- Complaining that CCTV is being used to witness crimes (yes, littering and fouling are crimes)
- Complaining that the crimes that CCTV is being used to witness aren't important enough
- Complaining that a law which specifically states that surveillance can be used to solve crimes is being cited when people want to use surveillance to solve crimes
Of course, the submitter takes an incident where CCTV was used to witness littering, and a case where RIPA was invoked to monitor someone suspected of fraud, and manage to blur the line to "ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS USED ON DOGSHIT".
Yawn.
Absolutely agree with you. My answer was a mild parody of original poster's assumption that Windows is the only OS which can be 'hacked' that way.
Ohnoes! I didn't spoonfeed you freely available information, someone else did, and therefore you win the internets!
Grow up.
Unfortunately the incompatibility of GPL3 with Microsoft's patent promise has been subject to a bollock-load of FUD from the start, especially because as the Wikipedia article on it notes: The limitations of a one-sided patent promise only applying to covered specifications is also present in the IBM Interoperability Specifications Pledge (ISP) and Sun Microsystems' OpenDocument Patent Statement. So the 'problems' with FOSS implementations of OOXML also extend to any and all implementations of ODF that Sun themselves don't author.
Jeez.
Except, as pointed out by people in comments on this article, those items have been flagged and fixed as per the comments raised on the initial draft.
Here, from all of about 6 posts up the page.
Actually, Office 2007 only errors at that level against the 'strict' specification requested by all those who ratified the standard.
Against the 'transitional' specification, it only produces errors against one part where the flag was changed from 'on' to 'true'.
Sounds like you're not complaining because OOXML is a bad standard, but because Microsoft has achieved ubiquity.
So, instead of allowing a documented standard to go through and let you open these documents with any implemented standard, you're standing tall and obstructing something that could actually solve pretty much everything you've complained about.
Good job, sport.
Of course I stalk you. It's not like you're the ninth post down on the article and modded up.
Under any other circumstance I would never have spotted your post at all - it must be that I track you around Slashdot, like an animal.
Actually, it's not. It's already been fixed.
Are you completely delusional?
Why would you think, at this point, that I would be any more receptive to your pathetic bullshit than I was when I exposed your sockpuppetry to the rest of Slashdot?
Fuck off, Twitter, and take your idiocy with you.
(I accept that this is a troll and should be modded as such. I just enjoy putting Twitter back in his box.)
I'm sorry, but your post smacks of someone who doesn't use Outlook and just wants to bitch that his favourite solution isn't the preferred one. You'd have much more luck if you complained about something that was actually wrong with it.
How is Candy Land this time of year?
Microsoft discloses 14,000 pages of coding secrets
"Microsoft today lifted the lid on 14,000 pages of sketchy versions of tech documentation for core software code. On show for the first time in public are underlying protocols for Office 2007, Office SharePoint Server 2007 and Exchange Server 2007."
I semi-agree - I fucking hate Metallica.
I still don't think people should have to beg forgiveness in perpituity for a single crime, though.
Yes, they were dickheads before, but if they're really going to shift to this business model that's a fucking big name endorsing it.
From an ex-user of Panda Antivirus, take what they say with a pinch of salt.
Or, and here's a thought, you could just treat as it is, a little bit of exaggeration to add some spice to what would otherwise be a fairly boring news piece.
Just because it's not rigourously defined it doesn't mean you can't use it. You clearly know what they intended, and that's what is important here.