If you set Automatic Update to download automatically, then yes, it'll download everything... automatically. And it asks you whether you want to do this when you install Windows. So you have no excuse at all be downloading automatic updates if you don't want to.
And, surprisingly, there is a choice of automatic download and install, automatic download and manual install, manual download and install and, you guessed it, no automatic updates.
What the blocker does is block IE7 even if you have automatic on, and the Install/Don't Install/Ask Me Later option further clarifies after you've downloaded it and the installation runs if you don't want it.
I wonder how much the submitter got paid to, you know, submit it?
I'd like to know the going rate, because writing BS advertisements for a free-to-submit news site where the editors seem to be too stupid or too well paid to notice an advert when they see one seems like a profitable business to me.
They are talking about bids to computer vendors as advertising money, e.g. MS pays Dell 6 billion dollars to use Live.com and WMP. Microsoft won't see a penny of that, it all goes to Dell.
I'd call you an idiot but I know some nice idiots I wouldn't want to bring down to your level.
If you're unwilling to substantiate, and you don't care whether people believe you or not, then why did you bother posting it?
Also, if I had the flu but didn't realise because I wasn't showing symptoms, how does it make me ultimately responsible for spreading it? I couldn't have known I had it until people who I was in contact with got it too.
Even big sleazy companies do things accidentally sometimes.
Actually I am, but there are so many different ways you can be a genius it is possible to be one and still be wrong about something. Not that I'm wrong about this, of course.
If you're analysing the risks inherent in a communications infrastructure, and you find that one (and only one) outside party has access to the protocol, it makes perfect sense to drop the 'security by obscurity' part of the plan entirely, and to move to the next element of your defense-in-depth. In this case, open sourcing the protocol could have the effect of ensuring that others invest heavily in it, improving and expanding the service, making it harder for the Chinese authorities to justify blocking it.
Nope.
OSS is not a solution to every problem, and certainly not this one. China have already broken the protocol, so making it open now is completely irrelevant. In fact it's opening the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The only justification the Chinese government needs to block anything is that it can be used by dissidents to exchange information that is damaging to the Chinese government. Ergo, they already have justification to block because they otherwise would not have made the effort to break the protocol. Whether Skype expands or not, goes open source or not, they would have done this anyway because it's dangerous to them. The only thing that you achieve by making it open now is allowing others access to it, which Skype will not see being in their best interest. It would also piss off China, which is no-one's best interest.
Yes, but they say all that crap about not changing the address on your driver's license, and I haven't done that for 7 years. I haven't got government agents beating my door down fining me.
Several businesses in my area sell PCs without the OS pre-installed.
And why the hell is Joe Sixpack trying to run Linux anyway? If Joe Sixpack can't work out the colour-coded internals of a PC then he has no business trying to run Linux.
As shown by other posts on my same comment, just because you don't care doesn't mean everyone else doesn't care.
One would have imagined that if my point was something you found summarily disinteresting or completely pointless, you wouldn't have bothered trying to deny it. As it was, you did, and you gave it a point.
Next time, I'd ignore it instead of puffing up your chest and trying to make yourself sound important.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, probably. That lesson would include telling people that a lot of sarcasm requires tone of voice.
It's certainly not 'last week'. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that someone could update their IE knowledge in six freakin' months.
Stop arguing semantics and try to argue a point.
So Beta 2 did?
Which has been out for almost 6 months?
Or 6*9=42! ...
I'll get my coat.
Nothing like forcefeeding your new browser into people's machines.
Groucho sez: "And this is nothing like forcefeeding your new browser into people's machines."
Good comment, Misses-The-Point Man!
It still won't replace his default browsers whether Joe Average installs it or not.
So he has Firefox set as default, he accidentally installs IE7, and... the entire system still works exactly as it did before!
Now all we have to do is wait for the eventual cyber-squatting lawsuit, now that our old pal Scientology Sam has set precedent.
Have you not being paying attention?
The IE7 beta has been out for ages. Beta 1 was available at the end of July last year. The public beta started about 6 months ago.
Don't blame MS for them not knocking on your door and telling you.
If you set Automatic Update to download automatically, then yes, it'll download everything... automatically. And it asks you whether you want to do this when you install Windows. So you have no excuse at all be downloading automatic updates if you don't want to.
And, surprisingly, there is a choice of automatic download and install, automatic download and manual install, manual download and install and, you guessed it, no automatic updates.
What the blocker does is block IE7 even if you have automatic on, and the Install/Don't Install/Ask Me Later option further clarifies after you've downloaded it and the installation runs if you don't want it.
I wonder how much the submitter got paid to, you know, submit it?
I'd like to know the going rate, because writing BS advertisements for a free-to-submit news site where the editors seem to be too stupid or too well paid to notice an advert when they see one seems like a profitable business to me.
I take it you're not into intelligent design then!
Your point is a valid one, but doesn't explain how MySpace is culpable for it.
Not as stupid as you, apparently.
They are talking about bids to computer vendors as advertising money, e.g. MS pays Dell 6 billion dollars to use Live.com and WMP. Microsoft won't see a penny of that, it all goes to Dell.
I'd call you an idiot but I know some nice idiots I wouldn't want to bring down to your level.
Hate to say it
:P
No you didn't, you loved it
If you're unwilling to substantiate, and you don't care whether people believe you or not, then why did you bother posting it?
Also, if I had the flu but didn't realise because I wasn't showing symptoms, how does it make me ultimately responsible for spreading it? I couldn't have known I had it until people who I was in contact with got it too.
Even big sleazy companies do things accidentally sometimes.
And you, evidently, are not.
Actually I am, but there are so many different ways you can be a genius it is possible to be one and still be wrong about something. Not that I'm wrong about this, of course.
If you're analysing the risks inherent in a communications infrastructure, and you find that one (and only one) outside party has access to the protocol, it makes perfect sense to drop the 'security by obscurity' part of the plan entirely, and to move to the next element of your defense-in-depth. In this case, open sourcing the protocol could have the effect of ensuring that others invest heavily in it, improving and expanding the service, making it harder for the Chinese authorities to justify blocking it.
Nope.
OSS is not a solution to every problem, and certainly not this one. China have already broken the protocol, so making it open now is completely irrelevant. In fact it's opening the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The only justification the Chinese government needs to block anything is that it can be used by dissidents to exchange information that is damaging to the Chinese government. Ergo, they already have justification to block because they otherwise would not have made the effort to break the protocol. Whether Skype expands or not, goes open source or not, they would have done this anyway because it's dangerous to them. The only thing that you achieve by making it open now is allowing others access to it, which Skype will not see being in their best interest. It would also piss off China, which is no-one's best interest.
Thank you!
Saved me the bother.
So your solution to China cracking the protocol is to make it open-source.
You are a genius.
No, I don't want to hear about Jesus!
China are blocking something to prevent people talking about things they shouldn't?
Say it ain't so!
Yes, but they say all that crap about not changing the address on your driver's license, and I haven't done that for 7 years. I haven't got government agents beating my door down fining me.
You obviously have used Myspace, which disqualifies you from rational argument.
Several businesses in my area sell PCs without the OS pre-installed.
And why the hell is Joe Sixpack trying to run Linux anyway? If Joe Sixpack can't work out the colour-coded internals of a PC then he has no business trying to run Linux.
Get me a foolproof way to run all the games I play (WoW, Dungeon Siege II, FEAR, etc.) on the PC working on Linux and I'm not exactly a tough sale :P
Actually, it does.
As shown by other posts on my same comment, just because you don't care doesn't mean everyone else doesn't care.
One would have imagined that if my point was something you found summarily disinteresting or completely pointless, you wouldn't have bothered trying to deny it. As it was, you did, and you gave it a point.
Next time, I'd ignore it instead of puffing up your chest and trying to make yourself sound important.
Wow, you are absolutely, one-hundred percent full of yourself.
Congrats.