Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site April 24, 2014, 06:12:08 AM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
The N.A.N.Y. Challenge 2011! Download 30+ custom programs!
   
  Forum Home Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
      View this member's profile 
      donate to someone Donate to this member 
Pages: Prev 1 ... 232 233 234 235 236 [237] 238 239 240 241 242 ... 392 Next
5901  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy? on: April 05, 2011, 04:09:52 PM
the effort that's involved would be pretty substantial for little benefit

I think that's only true if you're looking at it from a purely technical perspective.

What makes OC a bellweather is its asking us to accept that a piece of software - provided by a third party and totally unrelated to the main app's function - should be allowed to scan and transmit data back to that third party without announcing itself or getting the user's permission before doing so.

Regardless of whether or not it's been happening in other places, this has not generally been considered acceptable behavior for a legitimate software product. Truth is, stealth and operating without permission has always been considered more in keeping with malware and quasi-maleware behaviors.

And with venture capital backing and several prominent software developers signing onto OC, I think we really need to see this as a company attempting to change the definition of what is considered acceptable. If it wasn't trying to do this, it wouldn't be causing some anti-malware products to flag its behaviors as suspicious.

Whether or not it's malicious, by the way it operates, OC shares cultural and technical similarities with software that is potentially dangerous.

And while so-called false positives may damage a product's reputation unfairly, we also need to consider that most anti-malware detection is based of behavioral analysis. And to have a legitimate product display such behaviors by design - and then insist the anti-malware detection methodology needs to be changed to accommodate it - creates an even bigger problem when it comes to continuing to be able detect truly malicious code that operates in a similar manner except for the payload.

I'll risk a clumsy analogy to illustrate my point:

***

Suppose in a certain city, several of the most notorious and violent street gangs were easily identified by the fact they wore green fedora hats and drove a certain model van. The police were aware of this behavior, so it was relatively easy for them to spot the gangs and intervene whenever they were seen racing around in their vehicles or entering buildings at a a run.

Now suppose that the EMTs in this same city decided to also adopt green fedoras and begin driving similar looking vehicles.

Now the police have a much harder time identifying potential trouble and preventing it.

Are those two green fedora wearing guys who just ran into that building going in to put a hit on somebody or rob the place? Or are they just EMTs responding to an emergency call? And is that van that just flew down the road fleeing a crime scene - or is it attempting to get a stroke victim to an Emergency Room in time to save someone's life?

When the EMTs are asked to stop wearing green hats and get different vehicles, they refuse, claiming it's not they who are doing anything wrong.

And when an EMT unit is inevitably pulled over in error, the EMTs all demand that the police stop profiling them as if they were criminals - because again, it's not they who are doing anything wrong despite the fact their appearance and behavior demonstrates strong similarities to those who are.

In the wake of this, the police now have a much harder job zeroing in on potential trouble.

And as a result, they are not as effective as they used to be when dealing with a certain criminal element.

***

So while it may be a large effort for small gain, in the larger cultural and technical arena, having something work like OC introduces issues that could easily be avoided if it was implemented differently.

And that is something they are apparently refusing to do even though it shouldn't present much in the way of a technical challenge for them change their software.

Just my 2¢
 smiley
5902  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Why I was wrong about Microsoft (by Glyn Moody) on: April 05, 2011, 02:58:34 PM
Like f0dder said: FUBAR, mate.

5903  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy? on: April 05, 2011, 02:33:36 PM
Trying to come up with a compromise that would suit both perspectives... Not sure if that would work.

Try to think "in principle" and not about OC. OC is just one example. There are others as well.

I think in light of what wraith808 was saying about how the DLL works in conjunction with the installer, it's kinda moot at this point. OC is active the minute the installer loads into RAM. No getting around it.

Probably the best you can do by way of compromise is go with your second idea where the installer splash screen directs the user to review the EULA for details about what OC is and what it's there for. (see below)

[attach]

Beyond that, there's not much else you (as a developer-partner) can do with the way OC currently is set up to work. Or at least nothing short of deciding not to use OC at all.

Besides, if people can't be bothered to at least look at the EULA, there's little to be done for them. Much as it galls me to say it, that's the sad truth of the matter. And life is way too short to get super hung-up trying to help people who don't really care about what you're trying to help them with. It's just "horses to water" at that point..

Onward! Thmbsup

--------

P.S. Nice splash screen design BTW. Really like that camera graphic. Thmbsup

5904  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy? on: April 05, 2011, 02:18:12 PM
I'm going to go back to your definition of installation (you knew that was going to happen... didn't you? Wink).  At the time that this dialog would be accessed, the open candy dll would already be in memory.  There's no way around it.  The installers don't dynamically link the DLLs so that they only load them on demand.  They decompress the payload, put it in a temp directory, and run with the bootstrapper linked to the resources in that directory.

Yeah. This is where OC's real 'innovation' lies IMO.

And from my perspective, that's what makes it unacceptable.

I'd be happier if OC provided the partner developers with a full installer that the devs could load their application into rather than the other way around.

But I doubt that will ever happen for a variety of technical, legal, and business reasons.

As a result, I'm probably never going to be able to agree with OC that theirs is a proper and acceptable way to do things. Fortunately for them, it's not my opinion that controls the marketplace.

So no problem. It's their decision and their product. They can do things however they think best. And if people are willing to go along with it...well...so be it.

smiley

5905  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Please kill me now - just bought an iPad off of eBay on: April 05, 2011, 01:59:32 PM
Just wear a black trash bag, and keep chanting Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! ... Se we can blend in when they take over...

Ah yes! Tekeli-li...The Chant of the Elder Penguins - creators of Linux!

(Have to get a white apron to complete the ensemble however...)

 Grin

[attach]

Little Cthullu. Not dead. Not dreaming. Just sleepy!

5906  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Ever Have a Download Site Blow You Away? on: April 05, 2011, 12:23:18 PM

Same thing as above, only written as above. (40Hz - don't click~! smiley )


  Grin

5907  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Fast/Responsive programs: An official SuperboyAC list on: April 05, 2011, 12:20:02 PM
@40hz: how do you rate Tomahawk / Tomahawk Gold against PolyEdit and Softmaker's TextMaker?

Not too familiar with PolyEdit.

I'd put Tomahawk on par with TextMaker for useful features. Either one should do fine for most people.

I have both. I like both.

I have a very slight preference for Tomahawk - although not for any good reason I can put my finger on. It's probably only because I've used it longer than TextMaker. I can be a putz like that at times. redface

Note: occasionally Softmaker puts their 'complete' office suite license on sale for about the same price as Tomahawk. If you want a nice spreadsheet to go with your wordprocessor, grab it when you see it hovering in the $35 range.

 Cool

5908  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Please kill me now - just bought an iPad off of eBay on: April 05, 2011, 11:48:39 AM
Every time someone buys a Fruit Pad Cthulhu eats a kitten.

 Sad

And another Shoggoth springs into existence in our dimension.

(If we don't knock it off, we're gonna be up to our asses in Shoggoths pretty soon...) undecided

@Stoic:


 Cool

5909  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Why I was wrong about Microsoft (by Glyn Moody) on: April 05, 2011, 09:04:30 AM
^ How's that old saying go? Something like: it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission- and a plea for forgiveness is also much more likely to be granted?

Looks like somebody found a business use for it's wisdom.  Grin
5910  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy? on: April 05, 2011, 06:41:57 AM
@JavaJones + Renegade

re:links

Soon as something is finalized I'll post links.

Or at least for the one that's a public site. (FYI: this site is where the rational discussion is taking place.)

The other is a 'company private' site so I likely won't be able to provide reachable links for that one. I will ask if it's ok to share the text of their site's policy when it's finished however.

As of right now it's still in the "draft for comment" phase at both places.

No ETA as to when it may be done. I'll update when I know more. smiley

5911  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy? on: April 05, 2011, 02:27:00 AM

I'm not sure I know what site you're talking about.

Did I miss something?

No. Sorry. I wasn't talking about here. (I have a life outside DoCo, although you'd probably never suspect it based on the amount of times I post here. Grin)

I'm involved with a few other websites where the OC question came up. One discussion has been very rational and displays admirable restraint despite opinions running very high. The other site has been a screaming free for all.

Makes me appreciate this place even more.

Quote
Any links?

Not yet. It's still going back and forth in both places. About the only thing that's sure is that the ruling consensus is that the presence of OC is not sufficient reason to have the containing product be seen as malware.

So that's a victory for OC and its partners. smiley
5912  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Movies I Love to Listen To: Dialects and Accents on: April 05, 2011, 01:56:50 AM
I'm gonna add In Bruges.

Excellent excellent excellent choice.


Chocolat is one of my all-time favourites. Strange how with just a little change in the direction it could have been a real chiller.

Wow! What an intriguing idea. And you're absolutely right. Just a tiny change would do it. Hmm...

Quote

What else?  Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, The African Queen. Any number of Thirties "screwball" comedies, but especially Bringing up Baby, His Girl Friday, and The Philadelphia Story. Scaramouche. Kiss Me Kate. West Side Story.

All superb. Love that stilted 30s pseudo-posh dialect and accent that AFAIK was never spoken by any American except while on the silver screen.

Bringing Up Baby is one of my all-time favs. The fictitious Riverdale was based on New Canaan CT, a few towns over from where I live too!

[attach]

I was just thinking, you could also add Desk Set. The dialog and diction in the exchanges between Hepburn and Tracy are priceless. Thmbsup



5913  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy? on: April 05, 2011, 12:10:54 AM
In the end, I don't think anyone is going to be persuaded by a few words, but by their own thoughts, if at all.  And if your own thoughts are towards one end of the spectrum or the other, it is less likely that introspection is to happen.  So I look at threads like this more for information sharing and debate.  And I just wanted to keep it that way.

Understood.

Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive because I've been in some very "introspective" (and occasionally yelling & screaming) discussions about OC in a few other places where I have administrative responsibilities.

Despite my misgivings about OC, I'm one of the people that voted against excluding "OC loaded" software from reviews, or otherwise banning it. Or at least so far I have.

FWIW, it looks like the policy is going to be that the developer gets asked up front if his/her installer uses Open Candy or any other marketing/advertising add-on.

If the answer is yes, we're going to require that the product's download page clearly states so, and require any additional product installation options be set to "no" by default.

We'll include our own "advisory" the product contains OC if the product is reviewed or listed on the site. After that, it's up to the visitor to decide whether or not they care. Either way, we did our part to let the public know. End of script.

If the developer lies about it, refuses to set the defaults appropriately, or plays any games after the fact - they're banned. First time gets a warning and an automatic shot at redemption. If changes aren't forthcoming, or the developer gets caught screwing around a second time, both they and their products (all of them) are permanently banned from site reviews and listings.

Doing it this way allows the site to maintain its software disclosure and education rule, and puts the ball squarely in the developers' court. After that, it's up to them to decide whether or not they still want to be listed and/or reviewed. End of script number two.

 smiley

5914  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy? on: April 04, 2011, 11:45:23 PM
which only goes to prove that I can be an idiot as well~!

I prefer to think you're just being "passionate" and "pithy" about something that's important to you. smiley

Welcome to the club! Thmbsup

 Grin


5915  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy? on: April 04, 2011, 11:42:53 PM
I have avoided the use of the word "ad". But not because I'm worried about "ads"; rather, I'm concerned about the perception of "adware" as it originally evolved. Which is why I prefer "ad supported".

Adware, when it first appeared, was malware.

Understood. It's a valid concern.

A lot of media coverage has done a lot of damage to the industry as well. The scareware industry and media seem to be only interested in hyping stories and creating scandal, even where none exists.

Agree with you on that point 100%.

It's important for word usage to properly and accurately describe what is being talked about. Muddying the waters and diluting meaning isn't helpful.

I don't take issue with "ad" at all. I do take issue with "malware", which is strongly associated to "adware". Virtually no discussion of the topic (adware) excludes the dark-side of the Internet. It's unfortunate.

When it comes to privacy and security issues, I think it's important to be clear about what is meant. With the term "adware", it is not clear.

It doesn't serve anyone's best interests to confuse issues.

Anyways, that's just my take on it.

I agree with you on most of what you're saying here.

My feeling, however, is that OC's approach of refusing to acknowledge the advertising aspect of their product; and being a little too surreptitious about how it gets installed and run, is likely to backfire.

If it just popped up a screen that said something like:

The developer of this product has teamed with Open Candy to provide you with recommendations for a very small number of carefully selected and related software products you may also be interested in learning more about.

By teaming with Open Candy, the developers of the product you are installing are able to continue to offer it to you [free of charge|for substantially less money than it would cost otherwise.]

Open Candy will search your drive to see if you have one of its recommended products already installed. This allows us to offer you the most relevant suggestions for other software you may be interested in. No personally identifiable data will be transmitted to Open Candy as part of this process.

May the installation proceed with Open Candy? [Y|N]


If the person then said "no", I'd be willing to accept a second screen asking them to reconsider saying "no," and explaining how OC benefits the customer and the developer.

At which point if they still said "no" it would proceed to do the installation without first invoking OC.

If OC only did this, I'd have absolutely no problem at all with it. In fact, I'd probably be willing to consider it a better alternative than a lot of what's out there.

What I do worry about, however, is that OC won't remain benign forever. With VCs backing this endeavor, big things will be expected. VCs are notorious for wanting their investments to pay off without any undue delays or surprises. So while OC may actually (to give them the benefit of the doubt) have the best of intentions, their business partners may not.

What I worry about is a slippery slope where advertising mechanisms start to get incorporated into ALL software distributions. Much like cable started ad free, and then gradually "evolved" to a mixed mode where the customers were gradually acclimated, and then trained, to accept some advertising, even on channels where there isn't supposed to be any.

And I think once OC gets enough developers on board, their mechanism it will become a fiat accomplis since every product will then come with OC in it. It will be completely unavoidable. And once that happens, I think you'll see things start to change.

FL Studio is already including it with their purchased product by the simple expedient of selling activation codes, but only distributing their actual software in the 'demo' mode.

If OC catches on, I think you'll ultimately see everybody end up doing that. ohmy


5916  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy? on: April 04, 2011, 10:53:18 PM
Attacking the software/developers that use it fall under the same aegis - especially if they are coders on the site.  A little vitriol can really hurt a developer's livelihood for our own personal bias...


I think if you reread what I wrote, you will discover that I have not, at any point, 'attacked' (your word) either OC or the developers that use it - either here at DoCo - or out in the 'wild.'

If you look at any of my previous comments, at no point will you ever see me say (or imply) that a developer doesn't have the right to get into bed with OC. Or that doing so proves they are a bad person. Or that people shouldn't trust them, or use their software, because they incorporated OC's DLL in their installer.

I did suggest that it might not turn out be quite what it appeared in the long run. But I also extended a very sincere wish to Renegade that it would work out well for him and his customers. So if I am 'attacking' anybody for using OC, I'd appreciate being shown exactly where I did. Because I looked and I can't find it.

I also openly acknowledged my initial lack of understanding of the product, and asked a number of fairly direct and specific questions about it. Many of which went unanswered in any real sense.

I have challenged OC's refusal to consider their software as a type of adware. But despite that, I edited one of my comments - and acknowledged within it a complaint from Renegade that it contained erroneous terminology - after which I gave him the floor to clarify things for us.

I have questioned OC's business practices for what I consider less than forthright behavior. I have questioned their bone fides. And I have repeatedly stated that my primary problem with the software isn't what it does but how it goes about doing it. And that it represented an attempt to change our ideas of what should be considered acceptable behavior on the part of a software installer by OC's refusal to have it display a splash screen and ask for the customer's ok before it runs.

I even went so far as to offer what I thought was the business motivation for doing it that way ($$$ - what else?), and to date, have not had anybody from OC challenge my assessment. Which leads me to conclude I was spot on. Especially since they have at least one person in their organization actively monitoring web discussions of their product - and that person has been a participant in this thread. So it's not like they don't know what's being said here.

I responded to the challenge that OC does not install anything by offering for consideration the definition I learned (before PCs ruled the world) to clarify where I was coming from when I said it did. The definition of "install" was not presented as gospel truth, but rather for the purposes of discussion. And for which I received a sarcastic and rather insulting reply.

But I still don't see anyplace in my previous comment, or any of the earlier ones in this thread, where I'm attacking anybody.

If I have been "vitriolic" and "sarcastic" (I prefer to think of it more as being "passionate" and "pithy" BTW mrgreen) it was largely directed towards the 'on air' advertising practices of the cable television industry. And for that I offer no apologies whatsoever.

Perhaps I did indulge in some excess here in my attempt to sound a cautionary note:
Quote
OC is gonna be totally different.

Really.

They have given us their word.

Forget they have serious venture funding - and are actively trying to get as many developers as possible into the fold without drawing too much attention to it.

And forget about some of its developer's past track records.

We all make mistakes.

Like getting caught.  tongue

So let's just let bygones be bygones - and "put it behind us" as the saying goes.

But I thought it might be a little less offensive than coming right out and saying what I initially wrote right after: OC is gonna be totally different. I originally just said Bullshit and ended it there.

And I will agree that that following comment would have been better left unsaid:

Quote
That's the perfect place to stick it anyway.

It's already sounding less funny to me than it originally did.

Where I did err, however was in implying Renegade said, at some point, that end users were both "stupid" and "clueless." He did not say that, even though I sensed that was what he thought from some other comments, both in this thread, and a few others.

Needless to say, my intuiting doesn't justify my creating a "composite" comment that could be confused with a direct quote.

So for that, I do apologize.

 smiley

5917  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy? on: April 04, 2011, 02:13:14 PM
If a once off usability metric is all 'spyware' ever did we would probably never have had Ad aware or Spybot Search and Destroy. No one would have considered that type of reporting malicious.

And therein lies a good part of the problem: Mission creep.

Much like cable TV stations...

First it was all free of commercials. That's why you were supposedly paying for cable - to avoid ads.

Then came ads in between the shows  - and it was now called "without commercial interruption" instead of "commercial free." But only after the FCC wouldn't go along with some channel's assertions that ads between shows shouldn't really count as ads (in the traditional sense of television advertising) because they didn't interrupt the main show.  

The FCC didn't buy it.

And with that part of the "redefine the meaning of a word" battle lost, the situation called for new thinking.

So began an industry move to reeducate the public about what should be considered an acceptable intrusion into their viewing experience...

But first, it was necessary to prime the pump and check customer reactions.

The initial test came in the form of a discreet semi-transparent channel ID "bug" in the lower right-hand corner of the screen.

Officially, this was done to discourage 'illegal' recording of cable TV shows. Which was odd, because home recording for personal use had already been ruled well within the legal provisions of "fair use" after several high profile court cases.

The bug did, however, get the viewing public used to seeing something not related to what they were watching displayed on screen during a show.

Next came little text "advisories" ("not ads - we're still ad free") at the bottom of the screen announcing the next show. Then they got bigger...and were no longer transparent...and stayed on screen longer...and soon incorporated logos and graphics.

Next came quarter-height characters from other shows walking out on the bottom of our screen waving banners and performing antics in the middle of what we were trying to watch. But now they weren't just announcing what was coming up next. They were also hyping things that wouldn't be on for two or three more days.

And lately, we've been treated to mini overlay-type commercials from various companies on some cable shows. But these "can't really" be considered ads because they're tied into - (wait for it!) a bloody contest!!!

Lovely...

I'm waiting for the day they stop kidding themselves (and us) and just permanently split the screen to have ads continuously running in one of the panels during a show.

Except they're not going to be called "ads."

Because it's still supposed to be "ad free."

So these will now officially be called 'recommendations' or 'advisories.' Or just about anything else it makes sense to call them - other than 'ads.'  

And perhaps those who are responsible for running them will hint at (or directly threaten) possible legal consequences for any who publicly call them anything different...

But only after they assure us that they're actually a bunch of extremely nice people who are deeply hurt by all the criticism they're "unfairly" receiving - and how they'd all quit the business tomorrow if they thought they were doing anything wrong.

So it's really nothing to worry about...

Really!

OC is gonna be totally different.

Really.

They have given us their word.

Forget they have serious venture funding - and are actively trying to get as many developers as possible into the fold without drawing too much attention to it.

And forget about some of its developer's past track records.

We all make mistakes.

Like getting caught.  tongue

So let's just let bygones be bygones - and "put it behind us" as the saying goes.

That's the perfect place to stick it anyway.

Besides, like Renegade pointed out, end users are clueless and stupid. So why bother trying to explain all the magical and complex logic behind how OC discovered an ad is no longer an ad? And how there's no way anybody could possibly consider OC as some form of adware. Some of OC's proponents have even cited an authority as absolute and unassailable as Wikipedia to back them up with a definition of 'adware' that works well for them.

So end of discussion and no worries, right?

Those of us who are bothered by things like OC just need to grow up, get with the times, and stop being so darn nitpicking.

 smiley

[attach]
5918  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Recommend some music videos to me! on: April 04, 2011, 11:55:59 AM
As that chart illustrates -- complaining about simple lyrics to a song is ridiculous -- such things do not separate the good from the bad.


Even though it often brings out The Ugly.  Grin

(Seriously. It wasn't that horrendous a song. No worse than many. And she is just a kid.)

5919  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Please kill me now - just bought an iPad off of eBay on: April 04, 2011, 10:08:54 AM
Damn. Is nothing original these days.

I see the case is available on eBay for £30. No, I'm not buying one. I've thought of a better idea. I'm going to put my Etch A Sketch (received as a Christmas present) inside the iPad case...

...now that IS COOOOOOOOOOL.

I guess you also support the notion that true freedom of speech consists of the right to yell "Theater!!!" in the middle of a busy fire?
 Grin

5920  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Why I was wrong about Microsoft (by Glyn Moody) on: April 04, 2011, 08:54:50 AM
I really look forward to the day Microsoft ends up in court trying to enforce such patents. Because that is the day they'll see those blatantly BS patents ruled invalid.

Which is why Microsoft will never allow a case like that to proceed to an actual trial.

They're not that stupid.

Unfortunately.  undecided

5921  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Recommend some music videos to me! on: April 04, 2011, 04:21:35 AM
@app

re: Rebecca Black vs The Beatles

That was absolutely brilliant whoever came up with that! Thmbsup

5922  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy? on: April 03, 2011, 05:06:07 PM
@Renegade

No, I did not try Sweet IM (and have no intention/need to do that). I was just wondering how you can recommend Sweet IM to others without having tried it yourself first?

Where did he recommend it?

Scuds me, but isn't that what OC insists on referring to their advertisements as - recommendations rather than ads? huh

5923  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Recommend some music videos to me! on: April 03, 2011, 01:32:37 PM
Fscking awesome, p3lb0x cheesy

+1. But I'd like it better if they also did some filter work on the video to give it a more death metal look...

[attach]

5924  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: The "Cloud" Goes Up in Smoke on: April 03, 2011, 12:02:28 PM
But all the prevention in the world - contracts that specify source code release on bankrupcy, data and template copies etc. - cant help if the company doesnt do the right thing, if they just pack up and vanish.. but that is NOT just a cloud problem, it can happen with a normal hosting company

Same goes for brick & mortar businesses. I've seen some of those unexpectedly "go missing" too.  tellme



5925  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Please kill me now - just bought an iPad off of eBay on: April 03, 2011, 11:56:44 AM
it's a beautiful looking gadget, you'll enjoy it -- don't be so hard on yourself.

+1 w/mouser. Thmbsup

"If there's something you really want to do - then just do it. Because even if you live to regret it for the rest of your life, that won't be half as long as you might regret not doing it once you're dead." - attributed to Sammy Davis Jr.

 Cool

Pages: Prev 1 ... 232 233 234 235 236 [237] 238 239 240 241 242 ... 392 Next
DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.191s | Server load: 0.07 ]