Posts by Jodo Kast 201 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Jul 2008
Paragraph 1 has nothing to do with Paragraph 2:
P1: Davidson specifically denied a report in The New York Times that any MCX member who used an alternative payment system to CurrentC would face a heavy fine. The paper said it spoke to multiple members of the group who confirmed the arrangement, but Davidson insisted this was not the case.
P2: "Merchants make their own choices about their commitment to MCX and make their own choices about other forms of payment," he said, adding that MCX members can also leave the organization at any time with no penalties.
Translation: It is true that their relationship with CurrentC is exclusive, which has nothing to do with the fact that they could choose any additional payment vendors. Admit the exclusivity to CurrentC or don't but Paragraph 2 does not do that.
What is the deal with Microsoft's comment "We can't have 3 OS's"?
A smartphone is a totally different device than a notebook or desktop computer. iOS and OSX for example.
They want a *bloated* OS that also runs on old-school computers on a tablet PC? No wonder they are failing so hard.
Gee, let me count the ways I can access your PHP code. If it's Windows anything, I can just login to the server and xcopy it. Just boot into Safe Mode on most machines, no account required.
Seems like paranoia. Say if an employee copies it and hides his tracks? Sure it seems like 'magical' access, but it's not.
In other words, it sounds more like social engineering than anything else.
... the point is, access of this type to their systems was "Unauthorized Access".
If you want to access areas that are marked "Unauthorized", no matter how simple or complex your script, you should be ready to address the consequences.
These guys went after data for the purpose of 're-purposing' the data for their own short-term monetary gains, it even shows up in their child-like chat logs.
These two should have the book thrown at them. Caught red-handed. They weren't trying to do anything righteous, that's just a smoke screen.
I think we're coming along nicely. Back in 2004 when Web 2.0 really exploded, everyone talked about having one login and one profile.
Now we have LinkedIn profiles for business and Facebook profiles for friends and family and Twitter for fun. I can't wait to see the software innovations over the next 10 years.
Also we now have Captain Picard's iPad.
Why do you care if someone is a fan of Microsoft or Apple or some other company's products? Then there are the folks who work for those companies: obvious fans!
So when you say you "long for the days when the foolishness of brand loyalty goes away", you sound like a child. Why do you care if someone works for or is an admirer of a company's products, and ignores a few problems that others see as show stoppers?
It's because you are immature. Try to live your own life, find the products that you enjoy, and get over the fact that everyone doesn't like what you like.
I long for the days when most internet users grow up and stop acting like selfish, clueless children.
Correct. Right now it is definitely my 'personal pad'.
I can't lock it up with a K-Lock, so I keep it in my briefcase. It's like handing someone my wallet, there is no need to hand someone my iPad.
True, I'm sure Captain Picard's PADD had 'user profiles' but guess what? Folks today are not graduates of Starfleet Academy, so I think it works best.
It would not be fun to deal with useless profiles and user accounts on the iPad. But if you want profiles and accounts, create a web application that does that. Require users to login, etc.
As far as developers are concerned, we cannot use any type of browser plugin with the new SDK, except those provided by the WebKit engine.
Right now, there are many WebKit/Safari browser plugins that are supported 'natively'. So, if Apple wanted to, they could allow an Objective-C-based Safari plugin to run Flash SWF files, just like they allow the browser to run a native PDF viewer plugin to display PDF files.
What I find surprising is Adobe and Apple just can't seem to work together to give the users what they want: Flash on the iPad. For now the closest we can get is Flash on the MacBook Air.
I recommend Win7 when possible and Windows XP when required.
It's easy to tell if you 'require' Windows XP. Your hardware might not be upgradeable and you want to use the system resources for applications vs. the operating system.
For home PCs, Windows XP Media Centers are still running fine with hardware replacements. For some people, this is their TIVO, so they really don't want to mess with it when it's working.
At some point they might want HD, or they get Windows 7 on a notebook and are ready to upgrade to Windows 7 on their home server/TIVO system.
Anytime Microsoft or other parties (like commenters) start getting pushy, it's because they want to sell more product. Makes sense, but it's a buyer's market right now.
Why are you baiting the trolls? Who cares if your comment gets downvoted?
Have you entered the real world or you still love in your mum's basement? Why worry about such trivialities? It doesn't make sense.
I don't buy it. I say you're trolling for info that could easily be found by searching the net.
That is why I would never buy an Apple iPhone. That is also why I would however, buy an Apple computer (like a MacBook or an iMac).
If they let me run the operating system I want, and they let me run software that I write, then I will use it. If there are problems with that (like the App Store Approval Board denying you to run the software you write) then why should I bother?
Windows Mobile could lock us out the same way from developing our own applications, but why would they do that? It doesn't make sense to lock someone out of their own hardware for any reason.
(XBox is not the same: the banned modified boxes are great for development, but you can't expect to play licensed games in an online environment with a development machine.)
especially @AC: Can't you troll elsewhere?
Only kids complain about their OS. If you don't like it, change it. There's no need to 'defend Microsoft' if someone doesn't like Windows.
Drama queens are upset no one is crying? Please give us a break! There should be moderation on these comments.
Google is making money off of these links. Sounds like someone is unhappy with the terms.
One partner should not be struggling to keep employees while the other is trying to find places to hide billions.
Google is as much of a bully as any large corporation. No one is going to do anything about it. (Some might, those are the courageous few.)
I was wondering who would defend an operating system it is so riddled with security holes that they just had their biggest patch Tuesday ever.
Then I recalled the 'Windows Fan Boy' thing. They do seem like apologists for an insecure operating system.
The fact is: if you want to do secure online banking, don't use Windows. If you dispute the fact, look at the numbers for clarification.
Excuses for why the numbers are coming up so bad for Windows are just excuses. Sure there are lots of excuses that research will find, but it doesn't change the facts much.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
