Ironlink

>This breaks the music publisher's stranglehold

Spotify is owned by the music publishers.

I'd be happy even if this was limited to the local file system! I've already got build and deployment set up, and modifying the web servers seems like a hassle.

Because they did not post any kind of evidence (request logs, Pingdom report, etc.), not to mention the App ID in question (so that Google would know where to look). All too often, bug reports end up being some kind of misunderstanding.

We're a paying customer of GAE. I think it's quite clear that paying for the basic service doesn't include support beyond the public issue tracker and the forums. Support packages start at $150 per month, and at that point you get a 4 hour response time. I think that's entirely reasonable. We have yet to sign up for a support level, but then again we're not really seeing any troubles with the service.

This customer is complaining about a service component which has been deprecated since almost 11 months ago. There is a tool which migrates application data from the old datastore to the new one. When you don't move off of deprecated infrastructure, I'd say you've set yourself up for problems.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, it was deprecated just about eleven months ago: http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2012/04/masterslave-data...

When your datastore gets deprecated, you act sooner rather than later.

Support packages are available. http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2013/02/google-cloud-pl...

Speaking of support, Google recently announced support packages for the Cloud Platform group of services.

https://cloud.google.com/support/packages

Note to self: Compulsively add every certificate expiry as an event on my calendar.

SmartGitHg is free for non-commercial use. I've only used it from Windows, but it supports Linux and Mac as well. I've been enjoying it, but I am by no means an advanced user. I just started working with branches, and as far as I can tell, the branch management SmartGitHg offers seems excellent. I'd love to hear what someone more experienced thinks about it, though.

http://www.syntevo.com/smartgithg/index.html

While I don't know anything about how multicast is specified, I would certainly hope that it is possible to implement in such a way that each router only needs to track the memberships of it's direct neighbors. They would then themselves advertise that membership in order to serve their neighbor's request.

As for the abusive client, I say if the ISP has any sense of self preservation, they should be interested to police this themselves. For example, knowing how much bandwidth the client is paying for, they could refuse additional or even cut existing memberships of that client once that limit is reached.

As a developer, I like to follow the rule of thumb that requests that have a persistent effect (such as changing your subscription options) should be HTTP POST rather than HTTP GET. This is in order to avoid mistakes generated by automated tools or systems which pre-fetch/cache/scan/analyze content. As such, my unsubscribe links lead to a page containing a one sentence summary of what you are about to do, and a form submit button.

This does not apply to the link passed in the SMTP header List-Unsubscribe, which needs to take direct action.

> Also, just so you know, the reason that Google is stopping EAS for personal Gmail accounts is to attempt to cripple the Windows Phone before it has a chance to take off. It's a shrewd business move and once again, it has nothing to do with economics.

Got a source for that statement? For all we know, this could be related to the lawsuit following Motorola and Microsoft not being able to agree on the per-phone fee for ActiveSync. If the ActiveSync servers require a license per connected user (Client Access License), that would certainly seem like a valid cause for this decision.

I tried outlook.com for a while after the launch, but I just can't go back to the folder system. Tag & archive is now a requirement for any future email service I'll use.

Haven't had a single problem, using both my Apps account and my Gmail account. Stockholm/Sweden, Firefox.

Why look at Firefox 11 when Firefox 17 is the current release? 3 out of 36 is the current result for Firefox, much better than 13 out of 34.

No DEP, No ASLR: /Mozilla Firefox/maintenanceservice_installer.exe

No DEP, No ASLR: /Mozilla Firefox/webapp-uninstaller.exe

No DEP, No ASLR: /Mozilla Firefox/uninstall/helper.exe

In a browsing session, the Google account you sign in to first will be the default account used by Google.

For Plus, the link for using your second session (as given in the Switch Account menu in the top right) is https://plus.google.com/?authuser=1 . You should also be able to use https://plus.google.com/u/1/ , which is the link used in the top-of-page nav menu on google.com after switching to your second session.

Works fine for my Google Apps domain. Are you sure it isn't disabled in your Apps control panel? http://i.imgur.com/emsHH.png

This setting is at: https://www.google.com/a/cpanel/DOMAIN.TLD/CPanelHome#Organi...

I found that my Logitech RumblePad 2 worked great out of the box, and even better (almost flawless, the 360 controller has one extra button) after going through the button mappings in big picture settings.

Also, CloudFlare: http://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-spdy

Or perhaps they are older than the affected infrastructure and just haven't been rewritten. Or perhaps they happen to not use the affected resource. In fact, affected services include developers.google.com and code.google.com, and to a lesser extent youtube.com.

Workaround: Drag the link to the address bar.

The Safe Browsing diagnostic page is your best bet when this happens.

http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnost...

Edit: Firefox provides these links in the form of a button labeled "Why was this page blocked?"

What makes you think that those with the resources to implement dragnet surveillance do not have access to properly signed certificates, which let them Man-In-The-Middle the connection without triggering a browser warning?

Why would you even bring this up? Apple has exactly nothing to do with this.