Every person is first of all about self-preservation. Then anything else. Stay alive to fight another day.
Your statement is that a soldier should never take cover from enemy gunfire, but just expose his chest and fire on. Because that is all a soldier is about. It almost never happens in real life - soldiers have to take cover to protect themselves temporarily to ATTACK LATER. Few exceptions to this, prove the rule.
You've never lost something, have you?
Look, 400 GB can not contain ALL of NSA's secrets. It is important for NSA to know which of the secrets are in the leaked 400 GB. Is it even true? Or just
Depending on their security system, it can also narrow down the list of potential leakers if they find out what was leaked. This is even more important than getting at the leaked data itself because it has to do with future leaks too.
Actually, it might be a good test of whether NSA has the ability to beat AES encryption. In that case, the decrypted files have information that will lead to some obvious action from NSA or Government at large, which will prove they beat encryption without the key.
I think NSA can't beat AES, but how can I be sure?
Confirming that will be a great service to mankind.
Again, "reasonable" for Microsoft to block something is when they stand to lose money or their business model. Like when Google chrome publishes Microsoft's source code (somehow).
Youtube lost money or their business model because of Microsoft's recent malicious behaviour.
Read again and then answer : People using Youtube app use Google's resources, costing Google money. Google has to see value in letting its resources being used, and control the way it is used so that not only it brings revenue but doesn't expose loopholes as Microsoft are abusive with permissions e.g. the earlier episode of letting people download videos.
Doesn't answer the question at all - choose whether or not you believe Microsoft is an evil monopolist NOW.
Try again - If Microsoft "used to be" and not "are", the evil monopolist that doesn't use monopoly in one area to gain advantage over another, where is the real open specification of MS office. And if not, why do you claim they "used to be" ?
Did I ever say they were? Are you mentally retarded or something? What I am saying is that they should not be allowed to prevent Microsoft from writing an app, which is what they are doing now. This is equivalent to Microsoft preventing Chrome from running on Windows. Wonder what Google would have said.
Ok, so you don't understand so much, that it is mind boggling. For the first and last time, I explain this to you, but the spoon feeding is getting too much :
People using Youtube app use Google's resources, costing Google money. Google has to see value in letting its resources being used, and control the way it is used so that not only it brings revenue but doesn't expose loopholes as Microsoft are abusive with permissions e.g. the earlier episode of letting people download videos.
People running chrome on windows pay Microsoft money to buy Windows licenses and then on NO cost to Microsoft, run chrome on their OWN computers.
If Google chrome ever makes available a very good decompilation of Microsoft's Windows source code, Microsoft will be well within its rights to disable Chrome for next version based on this distrust inculcated.
on their own dime and time
I want to write the MS office on my own dime and time. I just want clarifications on "open specifications" like tableLikeWord97 etc. If Microsoft "used to be" and not "are", the evil monopolist that doesn't use monopoly in one area to gain advantage over another, where is the real open specification of MS office. And if not, why do you claim they "used to be" ?
Well, even a 9 year old behaves sensibly, like Google did. If you routinely do favours for people who harm you, you would be dumber than a 9 year old.
s/Google is not compelled to write Youtube application/Google is not compelled to help MS write Youtube application/
No, I did not
Ok, see the contradiction :
You : monopolist
You again : monopolist (which Microsoft is
Having a de-facto monopoly doesn't mean you are compelled to write or even help write applications of any kind
Ok, so Google is not compelled to write Youtube application. They are going by your logic exactly, you should be happy.
What it does though is ban you from putting obstacles in the way of a competitor
Microsoft's refusal to help me write MS office for my Linux tablet has put obstacles in my path, even with such an advocate with such good offices with Microsoft as you have, where I am a potential competitor.
Nobody (not even Microsoft) is asking Google to help them do anything
Wrong, refuted in your own next sentence, bold in my quote.
they are asking Google to not put roadblocks in the way
Like my 9 year old son, Google is being cautious with Microsoft after Microsoft showed it is not to be trusted. You should be happy about it.
Ok, so you forgot your own post. Reminding you for the first and last time.
"The appropriate term is "utilizing a de-facto monopoly in one area to crush competition in another area". It is illegal. It is evil. It is what Microsoft used to be. It is what Google is now".
I know. That is why the next paragraph has a reference to "future". Read all the three sentences of this post before replying.
I live in such a society, and your considerations are true. But retirement is equally valid and it is definitely considered. Hell, there are LAWS against not caring for your parents in old age.
The appropriate term is "utilizing a de-facto monopoly in one area to crush competition in another area". It is illegal. It is evil. It is what Microsoft used to be
Used to be? Thank God. I have a tablet platform that I want to sell, and I want MS office on it. Could you use your good offices with Microsoft to persuade them to help me write MS office for my platform? The platform can nearly accurately be described as GNU/Linux.
thanks
Ok, so MS are given permission by Google to write a YouTube app. MS goes ahead and allows users to download videos. When a 7th grader knows this is against Google's TOS.
When my 9 year old son shares his toys with a "friend", and that friend damages the toys, my son is more restrictive in sharing the toys with that "friend" in the future. Of course, being my son, he's a genius, but Google isn't bad here either.
Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.
