I am in the "We must FIX this" camp. Not because I have anything against higher temperatures... but because I am afraid of giant lizards. If the average temperature goes up, cold-blooded animals can become larger. And I really don't want giant alligators and snakes around me.
The "property" you are discussing doesn't really exist. It's called "intellectual property", and only has value when it is heard. Or seen. Or felt.
If it is heard or seen without "suitable permission", is the person hearing or seeing breaking the law? Note that the fee for the lecture is a fee to be inside a lecture hall. It is not actually a fee to hear the lecture. Sneaking in is not a "crime of hearing" -- that is absurd. It is trespass.
This "hearing" and "seeing" thing cannot be controlled. Even if you really, really want to. The attempt to control these things would be considered unethical by sane people.
Which really makes "intellectual property" a silly notion. I much prefer the proper use of the three types of "intellectual property": Copyrights, Patents, and Trade Secrets.
And none of the three states, implies, or mentions any right of sensory control. The closest notion would be Trade Secret, wherein if the Trade Secret is accidentally divulged, it ceases to be a Trade Secret.
To predict the next argument -- why are people being asked to pay money to play radios in public places? Copyright controls reproduction, and a reproduction right can give rise to a performance right.
That's a very slippery slope you are on. If there is a legal differential, there is a societal differential. If the difference did not exist, the laws would be in harmony. Which would imply that extradition would not be needed.
Extreme examples abound -- countries that refuse to extradite criminals that would be executed, because execution is deemed morally wrong in one jurisdiction, and morally right in another.
Now, in this case, breaking into a computer is considered wrong in both jurisdictions. Why extradite? The only reason to is to apply a different punishment. It will either be more, or less, severe. But, understand, it will be different and not in accord with the original countries societal norms.
Since the defendant is a member of the original country, and, by extension a member of its society, he should be tried in accordance with its societal norms.
It interests me that this is exactly what he requested.
It is morally wrong for the leaders of his society to permit this extradition. In doing so, they show themselves to be either weak or dismissive of the democracy that elected them. The last time I checked, the UK was a democracy, and under its own rule.
The defendant did not commit the crimes in the US, and didn't physically flee US jurisdiction. If this had occurred, I would be supportive of his extradition.
Only the most extreme sentences can overturn the right to be held accountable to ones society. These are generally (in my society) those which will also refugee status to be granted. Simple theft, breaking and entering, or computer crime come nowhere near this bar.
Allowing this extradition means that the UK government is abdicating its sovereignty. The people of the UK should push to bring down this government, as it is no longer following the rule of UK law and society.
"Improvement". Um... no, the details of what makes the font appear distinctive area destroyed by "BCI". The fonts are not the same -- perhaps in terms of set-width, but not at all for typographic detail.
I guess "BCI" simply replaces the actual character forms with something else at lower pixel resolutions.
For example, look at the 13th line in the example - look at the lower case "c" and "d". Notice that the "BCI" version is considerably more open. Indeed, it has become a much more modern font! Note that kerning would then have to change -- since the bodies of the letters are significantly larger, keeping the kerning rules of the original font would result in a very squished look. (actually, I believe the opposite happens these days -- kerning will simply be ignored, or the kerning rules of a modern font such as Times Roman are applied, and the look of the printed copy allowed to deteriorate.)
At 300dpi resolution, it is very hard to produce proper fonts (I produced a very popular laser printer based proofing system in the 80s -- along with a complement of over 3,000 fonts, for typographers. Hinting at 300dpi did not give accurate enough results for the typographers of the time). At 600dpi it becomes a more reasonable proposition. At typical screen resolutions? Readability and font fidelity are not compatible for classical typefaces. "BCI" may be a solution for you, as long as you realize that what you are seeing on the screen is not actually reflected in print output.
In general, I recommend that screen fonts be chosen for legibility. Until display technology catches up to 600dpi or greater, you just won't get classical fonts to both reflect readability and artistic intent.
Using classic fonts as a primary display format for computer monitors is like viewing the Mona Lisa on a monitor encoded as a jpeg.
Let's look at use cases. I am in the (fortunate) position to have an iPhone 3G (my wife's) and a BlackBerry 9000 (mine). The 9000 was chosen based on the keyboard size (over the Bold, etc.).
Phone Usage: BlackBerry. If we are in (say) a parking garage, we use my phone. The iPhone craps out much earlier (and we use the same carrier).
MP3 Playback: BlackBerry. You just plug the phone into a computer and drag the MP3s over. They play. Then again, I have an iPod as well. But, it doesn't really do so well -- the BB is also a "USB stick".
Video Playback: BlackBerry. See MP3 Playback. As well, the BlackBerry will just play Xvid encoded AVI files. Grab it and go. No need to transcode and put into iTunes first.
Instant Messaging: iPhone. The conversation threading is nice
Email: BlackBerry.
Bluetooth: BlackBerry. I can squirt pictures and stuff over to computers or other phones. Just not iPhones.
Storage: BlackBerry. Just a USB drive. Stick in a micro-sd to extend the storage.
Router: iPhone. I think (I haven't seen the feature on the 3G yet). As a road warrior I carry a micro-router along with my BlackBerry.
So, it depends on your use cases. It is interesting that the iPhone wins in a one "business" case (router) and one "home" case (instant messaging). As to "usable" it all depends... If you are a "road warrior", you may not have access to the computer that is the "home computer" that the iPhone depends on. Unless, of course, that is your laptop. (but, what if your laptop is stolen?) Which makes the iPhone pretty much a non-starter for a pure "smartphone" play.
It's not the carrier. I have a blackberry 9000 and my wife has an iPhone 3g. Same carrier. If we are in a marginal signal situation (car garage, for example), I lend her my phone to make calls with. And, it's not just us.
It is possible to define such a thing. Quick example (off the top of my head):
Permission to modify headers - which headers Permission to send request - originating IP, domain, other domain Permission to modify web page - content, meta-content, scripts Permission to access local store - read/write, and how much Permission to use ports - port, read/write, and how much Permission to execute local programs - which ones Permission to modify local GUI - window, menu, status, button-bar
Default: NONE. Extension must pre-declare intent to use resources. Web pages are NOT allowed to do any of these things, anyway, and may only execute scripts if allowed (NoScript should be built-in). With several exceptions. mailto:// URLs should be permitted, perhaps telnet://.
Note that the permissions for an extension are NOT the permissions needed for Web pages. The extension would be modified to make a permission request call. Since additional permissions may be added in future, you may want to implement a permission grant repository (which would then be the weak link) which can be user modified to grant future permissions, or to grant permissions to extensions that do not make the request call.
Used to be -- radio stations popularized music. Of course, back then, radio didn't compete with much. Maybe a TV channel or two, or books.
There wasn't an "Internet", no "YouTube", people didn't have 20 to 200 channels of TV, and you couldn't go and rent movies.
In order to compete, radio station formats have changed. The stations have merged into large corporations, and, if a song isn't popular, it won't get played.
So, how does new music get promoted? In a word, it won't be. Unless there is distribution through TV (but, hey, the TV stations are pretty much owned by the same large corporations as additional assets), but that isn't likely.
Either ClearChannel/Chorus/... starts playing the new music that will influence, or they will fund formulaic music that they think will sell. So far, the formula wins.
Google filtering? Formulaic music and "classic rock" is quashed, but these are the formats that get radio play anyway. Independent music ends up being promoted, because that is the only music that won't be blocked. Classical can't be.
Anyone searching for music outside of the "new radio" will then get exposed to more independent and classical. It's all good.
I'm good with it.
Strangely enough, in my area, radio still seems viable (for me). Mostly "corporate radio", but we do have one jazz station (although they tend to stick with Ella Fitzgerald, etc. big name stuff) and one classical station (they tend to stick with light, popular classical, "your classical favorites"). I get CBC R1 and CBC R2 for a range of commentary. Suites me just fine. But that's four stations in a 6 million population area. Those are my "at work" choices.
When I get home (assuming this crackdown works out), I will be exposed to new and different musical material on the Internet.
The vendor may not have had the right to copy, sell the copy, or make it available. Is the downloader engaged in any of these activities? If not, she is in the clear. She doesn't even have to destroy the files if she is found to have purchased them from an unauthorized party. The law is clear -- a damage multiplier is applied to the person who infringes the copyright.
Remember, downloading is just downloading. It is not "piracy", "theft", or any other such thing. Where I live, about the only thing that would be illegal to download is child porn.
I didn't understand either, so I posted a reply to my own post, going into the argument in more depth. The first post ends up with -1 Troll, and the reply with +5 Informative (beginning with Karma boost +1). Here is the moderation history of those two posts:
Comment Moderation sent by Slashdot Message System on Thursday June 17, @12:05AM Damning of Ormandy?, posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Overrated (-1). It is currently scored Normal (0). Since I've been modded down..., posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Insightful (+1). It is currently scored Insightful (2). Since I've been modded down..., posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Interesting (+1). It is currently scored Interesting (3). Since I've been modded down..., posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Informative (+1). It is currently scored Informative (4). Since I've been modded down..., posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Insightful (+1). It is currently scored Insightful (5). Damning of Ormandy?, posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Underrated (+1). It is currently scored Normal (1). Damning of Ormandy?, posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Troll (-1). It is currently scored Troll (0). Since I've been modded down..., posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Overrated (-1). It is currently scored Insightful (4).
Now, I will tend to believe that final "Overrated" comment -- the argument is obvious and really not that "Insightful", but, the WEIRD is the first comment was moderated "Overrated" immediately, and it hadn't been rated yet. +2, Overrated, Underrated, Troll. Now, "Troll" is good for eliminating a post, because that causes a lot of readers to assign a -1 penalty. So, this comment apparently struck a nerve with several people, and I have no clue why. Like I said in my "self-reply", I don't get it. I wouldn't change the post, even if I knew why -- I believe in the argument. I just want some insight into the thinking that went into those moderations.
Still, I actually think the/. moderation system is a "good thing" (tm). But maybe something like a "Spend some Karma to send a message to the moderator" feature might be nice. I don't want to KNOW who the moderator is, but being able to engage a dialog "off-side" (send a message to the moderator, without knowing who it is, being able to engage an email exchange) may be nice. Maybe it should cost some Karma points (2,3,5?) to do so?
I'm quoting your entire reply. Simply because it illustrates a few things very well:
"Of course it was fixed two months sooner. It was out in the wild, whereas beforehand it was not.
A security exploit that's readily known is going to be a much higher priority than one that isn't."
Let's take these points in order, "whereas beforehand it was not" -- and just HOW do you know that? I certainly didn't know it. Which lead you to your second point -- the "priority". There are several conflicting priorities here. One is the public relations priority. And, in this case you are right... But I don't care about the vendor's public image.
Another is that a readily known security exploit that has a trivial work-around has LOWER priority than one that isn't "readily known". I can defend against the first (example, my laptops X server was listening to the internet. Easily hardened, just remove TCP listen except from localhost). The second? If there is no published defence I consider myself rather screwed.
I assume that as soon as a defect is located, it will be talked about. Simply the knowledge that a defect is in an area might direct a "black-hat" to investigate. Or, the information may leak out of the vendors lab. All it takes is a bit of social engineering. I'd hire a hooker and go after the geekiest guy in the vendors lab. Sometimes, the bug report databases are published to "trusted partners". The vendor may trust the (for example) Chinese Government, but I don't.
This is just classic spying. Easier because its lower risk (you won't get shot for leaking a 0-day). But, it happens:
So, the clock is already ticking EVEN IF FULL DISCLOSURE IS NOT MADE. The only thing that this "responsible disclosure" does is give the vendor a PR break, and maybe (MAYBE) IF the vendor has appropriate security policies in the lab, allows the hold to be plugged without black-hats finding out. Maybe.
And I really don't understand why, I'll quote the article
"Microsoft issued a security advisory on the vulnerability last Thursday that acknowledged the bug and offered up a manual workaround it said would protect users against attack. The next day, it posted a "Fix it" tool that automatically unregisters the HCP protocol handler, a move Microsoft said "would help block known attack vectors before a security update is available."
So, FULL DISCLOSURE allows the hole to be fixed possibly TWO MONTHS sooner. It effectively forced Microsoft's hand. This gives Windows users a fix months earlier. Or did you expect the bug to actually be fixed within 60 days anyway?
Because Microsoft blew off a 60-day commit, they were forced to a 3-day remedial fix.
In effect, responsible admins are now safer -- the attack time has been reduced by 57 days (ok, there was the 5 day grace, so really only 52). Still, the response time from Microsoft is AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE better.
Like I said, they played chicken and lost (I imagine the fix ended up costing). The "other" security researchers are either doing some really good drugs, or they are sucking Microsoft's teat (and, from the article, at least one of quoted researchers is).
All that was asked of the vendor was to come up with a firm time-line for a fix. If that was NOT forthcoming, the only responsible action is FULL IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE.
The idea of allowing a vendor some time for a patch is to attempt to contain damage. And this assumes that the vulnerability is not already found by someone else. If the vendor refuses to commit, then that strategy is fatally flawed. The only recourse is to publish, and give an opportunity for the services, OSs, whatever, to be taken down by responsible administrators.
Without a time-line, the actual impact cannot be assessed. And, given that Google has been burned by a defect recently, they should be expected to be quite sensitive to the impact of these defects.
To rephrase -- Microsoft played chicken, and lost.
There are a few developers who I feel indebted to. Icaza is one. I use Midnight Commander every day. I give these developers "the benefit of the doubt". Icaza is up there with Bram Moolenaar (VIM). VIM is more important, but MC also "gets it done". And has for almost 15 years.
So, when Icaza said "Mono is important", I tried to suspend my disbelief. And, it was difficult for me; the JVM also had a 15 year history for me.
I'm STILL trying to see it. I "dutifully" installed Moonlight into Firefox. I've tried F-Spot. But, there appears to be no broad-base support for the CLR, even now. No CLR support for Unix... To quote a Microsoft MVP
"Shinma,
I would not recommend trying to run.NET on a unix platform. While there are attempts (there is a CLR based on a source project released by MS named ROTOR, and there is also the MONO project), not all of the functionality is there.
What are you trying to do? Which parts of the framework do you want to leverage? I think that there might be an ASP.NET implementation up and running.
-- - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]"
Now, MONO claims to have Solaris support, but I haven't yet tried it (can you get support for this from Novell?) And what about AIX and HP-UX?
JAVA supports these platforms, and so appears to be a more universal delivery system.
Was Icaza wrong? Maybe. It is possible that the CLR offers features that are not possible with the JVM (I don't know, the only thing I have personally done in this space is a COBOL to JVM system, and I haven't ever really looked at CLR -- after all Alchemy offers a commercial COBOL to CLR compiler already).
Now, I have never stressed F-Spot, but what I did try appeared to work just fine. I'm all for competition, and if the CLR is superior to the JVM, let it win! I just don't understand why it hasn't been pushed into the Unix space. Are IBM, HP and Oracle wrong?
Just curious on the thoughts of some fellow developers here. Especially from those companies. Some insight would be valuable.
Simply put, we already use this. Network transport may have errors, and these are dealt with at higher levels. As long as a corruption can be detected, we are ok. But, if a computation results in an error, and the checking of it may also result in an error, we have a problem. Some part must be guaranteed. But the transmission can be handled the same way that networks are handled.
If the store is not reliable, we can use RAID 5 or the like. This can even be done with main memory. But, we can't easily segregate the parts that have to be retained because they are expensive to recompute from those that are easy to recompute. Certainly RAID 5 storage doesn't make that distinction.
But, between a auto correcting storage and a correcting data transport, something like this should be implementable.
Now, I have to read the fine article to determine why he thinks that this will allow speeds to increase. Certainly I can see it in limited areas. For example, a network packet buffer need not be 100% reliable. Nor must a raw disk buffer (in both cases, the error correction will happen a layer up).
Downloading IS NOT Copyright Infringement. About the ONLY thing that is illegal to download (in someareas) is child-porn. TFA even indicates "file-sharing networkings" (emphasis mine) -- because simply downloading is not a problem.
Downloading is not Theft. Downloading is not Copyright Infringement. Downloading is not Piracy. Download is just Downloading.
Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada are responsible for (up to) 6 billion worth of infringement themselves. Just a bit more than the 710 million claimed.
Fill one of them new-fangled "terrorbyte" drivers with goatse.jpg HotBlowjob.jpg lemonparty.jpg tubgirl.jpg Over and over. With randomized names and sizes.
Declare it, give 'em the drive, and a card with the name of a good psychiatrist.
Let's see. BB Bold vs.iPhone 3G (the two I have, carrier is the same)
BB better phone reception BB keyboard better for email and im BB expandable memory BB camera flash BB plays AVIs without conversion BB simple USB memory interface, no need for "iTunes" BB records movies BB synchronizes with Evolution (important for me) and Google calendar BB doesn't NEED a base computer, it works as a stand-alone phone.
(3G may also synch with Google, but I don't know how)
3G display is better, but gets filthy. 3G has better games. 3G you can shake the phone to change mp3s
So, for me, BB is better. YMMV. My wife uses a 3G -- my mother-in-law and I use the BB...
The "mobile device" is more powerful than my APL workstation. More powerful than the box I learned LISP on.
And I have to program it in a language that is... um... primitive.
Why? Why not Common LISP? Scheme? Python? Good $DEITY man! C/Objective C/C++ is the ASSEMBLY level of programming. Got to be "object oriented". Right -- wouldn't functional scale better when an iPhone with multiple cores arrives? Or... got to be so low level it's downright embarrassing (C). My Scheme uses C as a portable assembler.
No higher order programming for the iPhone/iPod/iPad set. No sir. Not even sane low level programming. Hell, I prefer Pascal to C most of the time (at least, intelligent variants of Pascal). Even Apple did, at one time. But all that's gone. Can't even port those programs to C with the help of p2c. Too bad.
Flash? Don't care. I have an iPod touch, my wife has an iPhone. IF someone could supply Gambit-C running legally on the platform, I could get rid of the iPod touch, buy an iPad, and be happy... But, no, won't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I am in the "We must FIX this" camp. Not because I have anything against higher temperatures... but because I am afraid of giant lizards. If the average temperature goes up, cold-blooded animals can become larger. And I really don't want giant alligators and snakes around me.
Wait a minute -- I'll be dead. Never mind.
A/C is probably not going to read this. Still...
The "property" you are discussing doesn't really exist. It's called "intellectual property", and only has value when it is heard. Or seen. Or felt.
If it is heard or seen without "suitable permission", is the person hearing or seeing breaking the law? Note that the fee for the lecture is a fee to be inside a lecture hall. It is not actually a fee to hear the lecture. Sneaking in is not a "crime of hearing" -- that is absurd. It is trespass.
This "hearing" and "seeing" thing cannot be controlled. Even if you really, really want to. The attempt to control these things would be considered unethical by sane people.
Which really makes "intellectual property" a silly notion. I much prefer the proper use of the three types of "intellectual property": Copyrights, Patents, and Trade Secrets.
And none of the three states, implies, or mentions any right of sensory control. The closest notion would be Trade Secret, wherein if the Trade Secret is accidentally divulged, it ceases to be a Trade Secret.
To predict the next argument -- why are people being asked to pay money to play radios in public places? Copyright controls reproduction, and a reproduction right can give rise to a performance right.
Its still not a "listening right".
"You buy the right to listen to that song, so long as you are the demonstrable owner of that right. It's always been this way."
Really? Do you mean that if I hear that song accidentally, and I cannot demonstrate a right to listen, I am somehow in the wrong?
Wait a minute: YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN TRADE IN A RIGHT TO LISTEN?
Next week, it'll be a discussion on "right to feel, right to see, right to smell, and right to taste", and how these rights can be traded.
I'll show you how it's done, jandrese. Just an illustration of the technique; just a bit of propaganda.
jandrese had this to say about network neutrality:
"This is the government "deciding what's allowed" on the internet"
That liberal jandrese actually said those words. We can't allow the government that kind of control! Down with net neutrality!
And that's how it's done. A simple message; hammer it home; quote out of context if needed. That's what seeds the idea, and keeps it alive.
Gasping, laughing...
What you said was:
The phone supports a .NET infrastructure, and does not have in-memory and in-device datasets/databases with keyed retrieval and SQL?
The phone supports a .NET infrastructure, and does not allow multitasking (even though it is a network device)?
Are you serious? Not being .NET, Windows or related developer, I couldn't comment on it.
I did install "mono" to allow some stuff to run -- I assume that the .NET run-time is comparable.
[user@ariel ~]$ du -h -s /usr/lib/mono /usr/lib/mono
59M
[user@ariel ~]$
Anyway, I am sure it's "sleek" and "pretty good".
That's a very slippery slope you are on. If there is a legal differential, there is a societal differential. If the difference did not exist, the laws would be in harmony. Which would imply that extradition would not be needed.
Extreme examples abound -- countries that refuse to extradite criminals that would be executed, because execution is deemed morally wrong in one jurisdiction, and morally right in another.
Now, in this case, breaking into a computer is considered wrong in both jurisdictions. Why extradite? The only reason to is to apply a different punishment. It will either be more, or less, severe. But, understand, it will be different and not in accord with the original countries societal norms.
Since the defendant is a member of the original country, and, by extension a member of its society, he should be tried in accordance with its societal norms.
It interests me that this is exactly what he requested.
It is morally wrong for the leaders of his society to permit this extradition. In doing so, they show themselves to be either weak or dismissive of the democracy that elected them. The last time I checked, the UK was a democracy, and under its own rule.
The defendant did not commit the crimes in the US, and didn't physically flee US jurisdiction. If this had occurred, I would be supportive of his extradition.
Only the most extreme sentences can overturn the right to be held accountable to ones society. These are generally (in my society) those which will also refugee status to be granted. Simple theft, breaking and entering, or computer crime come nowhere near this bar.
Allowing this extradition means that the UK government is abdicating its sovereignty. The people of the UK should push to bring down this government, as it is no longer following the rule of UK law and society.
Um, no. Look at the 13th line of the sample. The font is something like Bernhard Modern. After "BCI" gets through mangling it, it looks like Times.
"Improvement". Um... no, the details of what makes the font appear distinctive area destroyed by "BCI". The fonts are not the same -- perhaps in terms of set-width, but not at all for typographic detail.
I guess "BCI" simply replaces the actual character forms with something else at lower pixel resolutions.
For example, look at the 13th line in the example - look at the lower case "c" and "d". Notice that the "BCI" version is considerably more open. Indeed, it has become a much more modern font! Note that kerning would then have to change -- since the bodies of the letters are significantly larger, keeping the kerning rules of the original font would result in a very squished look. (actually, I believe the opposite happens these days -- kerning will simply be ignored, or the kerning rules of a modern font such as Times Roman are applied, and the look of the printed copy allowed to deteriorate.)
At 300dpi resolution, it is very hard to produce proper fonts (I produced a very popular laser printer based proofing system in the 80s -- along with a complement of over 3,000 fonts, for typographers. Hinting at 300dpi did not give accurate enough results for the typographers of the time). At 600dpi it becomes a more reasonable proposition. At typical screen resolutions? Readability and font fidelity are not compatible for classical typefaces. "BCI" may be a solution for you, as long as you realize that what you are seeing on the screen is not actually reflected in print output.
In general, I recommend that screen fonts be chosen for legibility. Until display technology catches up to 600dpi or greater, you just won't get classical fonts to both reflect readability and artistic intent.
Using classic fonts as a primary display format for computer monitors is like viewing the Mona Lisa on a monitor encoded as a jpeg.
Let's look at use cases. I am in the (fortunate) position to have an iPhone 3G (my wife's) and a BlackBerry 9000 (mine). The 9000 was chosen based on the keyboard size (over the Bold, etc.).
Phone Usage: BlackBerry. If we are in (say) a parking garage, we use my phone. The iPhone craps out much earlier (and we use the same carrier).
MP3 Playback: BlackBerry. You just plug the phone into a computer and drag the MP3s over. They play. Then again, I have an iPod as well. But, it doesn't really do so well -- the BB is also a "USB stick".
Video Playback: BlackBerry. See MP3 Playback. As well, the BlackBerry will just play Xvid encoded AVI files. Grab it and go. No need to transcode and put into iTunes first.
Instant Messaging: iPhone. The conversation threading is nice
Email: BlackBerry.
Bluetooth: BlackBerry. I can squirt pictures and stuff over to computers or other phones. Just not iPhones.
Storage: BlackBerry. Just a USB drive. Stick in a micro-sd to extend the storage.
Router: iPhone. I think (I haven't seen the feature on the 3G yet). As a road warrior I carry a micro-router along with my BlackBerry.
So, it depends on your use cases. It is interesting that the iPhone wins in a one "business" case (router) and one "home" case (instant messaging). As to "usable" it all depends... If you are a "road warrior", you may not have access to the computer that is the "home computer" that the iPhone depends on. Unless, of course, that is your laptop. (but, what if your laptop is stolen?) Which makes the iPhone pretty much a non-starter for a pure "smartphone" play.
It's not the carrier. I have a blackberry 9000 and my wife has an iPhone 3g. Same carrier. If we are in a marginal signal situation (car garage, for example), I lend her my phone to make calls with. And, it's not just us.
The bb is just a better phone.
Why isn't it possible?
It is possible to define such a thing. Quick example (off the top of my head):
Permission to modify headers - which headers
Permission to send request - originating IP, domain, other domain
Permission to modify web page - content, meta-content, scripts
Permission to access local store - read/write, and how much
Permission to use ports - port, read/write, and how much
Permission to execute local programs - which ones
Permission to modify local GUI - window, menu, status, button-bar
Default: NONE. Extension must pre-declare intent to use resources. Web pages are NOT allowed to do any of these things, anyway, and may only execute scripts if allowed (NoScript should be built-in). With several exceptions. mailto:// URLs should be permitted, perhaps telnet://.
Note that the permissions for an extension are NOT the permissions needed for Web pages. The extension would be modified to make a permission request call. Since additional permissions may be added in future, you may want to implement a permission grant repository (which would then be the weak link) which can be user modified to grant future permissions, or to grant permissions to extensions that do not make the request call.
Just sayin'
Used to be -- radio stations popularized music. Of course, back then, radio didn't compete with much. Maybe a TV channel or two, or books.
There wasn't an "Internet", no "YouTube", people didn't have 20 to 200 channels of TV, and you couldn't go and rent movies.
In order to compete, radio station formats have changed. The stations have merged into large corporations, and, if a song isn't popular, it won't get played.
So, how does new music get promoted? In a word, it won't be. Unless there is distribution through TV (but, hey, the TV stations are pretty much owned by the same large corporations as additional assets), but that isn't likely.
Either ClearChannel/Chorus/... starts playing the new music that will influence, or they will fund formulaic music that they think will sell. So far, the formula wins.
Google filtering? Formulaic music and "classic rock" is quashed, but these are the formats that get radio play anyway. Independent music ends up being promoted, because that is the only music that won't be blocked. Classical can't be.
Anyone searching for music outside of the "new radio" will then get exposed to more independent and classical. It's all good.
I'm good with it.
Strangely enough, in my area, radio still seems viable (for me). Mostly "corporate radio", but we do have one jazz station (although they tend to stick with Ella Fitzgerald, etc. big name stuff) and one classical station (they tend to stick with light, popular classical, "your classical favorites"). I get CBC R1 and CBC R2 for a range of commentary. Suites me just fine. But that's four stations in a 6 million population area. Those are my "at work" choices.
When I get home (assuming this crackdown works out), I will be exposed to new and different musical material on the Internet.
So what law was broken by downloading?
The vendor may not have had the right to copy, sell the copy, or make it available. Is the downloader engaged in any of these activities? If not, she is in the clear. She doesn't even have to destroy the files if she is found to have purchased them from an unauthorized party. The law is clear -- a damage multiplier is applied to the person who infringes the copyright.
Remember, downloading is just downloading. It is not "piracy", "theft", or any other such thing. Where I live, about the only thing that would be illegal to download is child porn.
For your amusement --
I didn't understand either, so I posted a reply to my own post, going into the argument in more depth. The first post ends up with -1 Troll, and the reply with +5 Informative (beginning with Karma boost +1). Here is the moderation history of those two posts:
Comment Moderation
sent by Slashdot Message System on Thursday June 17, @12:05AM
Damning of Ormandy?, posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Overrated (-1).
It is currently scored Normal (0).
Since I've been modded down..., posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Insightful (+1).
It is currently scored Insightful (2).
Since I've been modded down..., posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Interesting (+1).
It is currently scored Interesting (3).
Since I've been modded down..., posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Informative (+1).
It is currently scored Informative (4).
Since I've been modded down..., posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Insightful (+1).
It is currently scored Insightful (5).
Damning of Ormandy?, posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Underrated (+1).
It is currently scored Normal (1).
Damning of Ormandy?, posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Troll (-1).
It is currently scored Troll (0).
Since I've been modded down..., posted to Miscreants Exploit Google-Outed Windows XP Zero-Day, has been moderated Overrated (-1).
It is currently scored Insightful (4).
Now, I will tend to believe that final "Overrated" comment -- the argument is obvious and really not that "Insightful", but, the WEIRD is the first comment was moderated "Overrated" immediately, and it hadn't been rated yet.
+2, Overrated, Underrated, Troll. Now, "Troll" is good for eliminating a post, because that causes a lot of readers to assign a -1 penalty. So, this comment apparently struck a nerve with several people, and I have no clue why. Like I said in my "self-reply", I don't get it. I wouldn't change the post, even if I knew why -- I believe in the argument. I just want some insight into the thinking that went into those moderations.
Still, I actually think the /. moderation system is a "good thing" (tm). But maybe something like a "Spend some Karma to send a message to the moderator" feature might be nice. I don't want to KNOW who the moderator is, but being able to engage a dialog "off-side" (send a message to the moderator, without knowing who it is, being able to engage an email exchange) may be nice. Maybe it should cost some Karma points (2,3,5?) to do so?
I've been mulling this over the past day.
I'm quoting your entire reply. Simply because it illustrates a few things very well:
"Of course it was fixed two months sooner. It was out in the wild, whereas beforehand it was not.
A security exploit that's readily known is going to be a much higher priority than one that isn't."
Let's take these points in order, "whereas beforehand it was not" -- and just HOW do you know that? I certainly didn't know it.
Which lead you to your second point -- the "priority". There are several conflicting priorities here. One is the public relations priority. And, in this case you are right... But I don't care about the vendor's public image.
Another is that a readily known security exploit that has a trivial work-around has LOWER priority than one that isn't "readily known". I can defend against the first (example, my laptops X server was listening to the internet. Easily hardened, just remove TCP listen except from localhost). The second? If there is no published defence I consider myself rather screwed.
I assume that as soon as a defect is located, it will be talked about. Simply the knowledge that a defect is in an area might direct a "black-hat" to investigate. Or, the information may leak out of the vendors lab. All it takes is a bit of social engineering. I'd hire a hooker and go after the geekiest guy in the vendors lab. Sometimes, the bug report databases are published to "trusted partners". The vendor may trust the (for example) Chinese Government, but I don't.
This is just classic spying. Easier because its lower risk (you won't get shot for leaking a 0-day). But, it happens:
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/cisco/article.php/3354851/Cisco-Investigating-Stolen-Source-Code.htm
Cisco, Microsoft, others.
So, the clock is already ticking EVEN IF FULL DISCLOSURE IS NOT MADE. The only thing that this "responsible disclosure" does is give the vendor a PR break, and maybe (MAYBE) IF the vendor has appropriate security policies in the lab, allows the hold to be plugged without black-hats finding out. Maybe.
And I really don't understand why, I'll quote the article
"Microsoft issued a security advisory on the vulnerability last Thursday that acknowledged the bug and offered up a manual workaround it said would protect users against attack. The next day, it posted a "Fix it" tool that automatically unregisters the HCP protocol handler, a move Microsoft said "would help block known attack vectors before a security update is available."
So, FULL DISCLOSURE allows the hole to be fixed possibly TWO MONTHS sooner. It effectively forced Microsoft's hand. This gives Windows users a fix months earlier. Or did you expect the bug to actually be fixed within 60 days anyway?
Because Microsoft blew off a 60-day commit, they were forced to a 3-day remedial fix.
In effect, responsible admins are now safer -- the attack time has been reduced by 57 days (ok, there was the 5 day grace, so really only 52). Still, the response time from Microsoft is AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE better.
Like I said, they played chicken and lost (I imagine the fix ended up costing). The "other" security researchers are either doing some really good drugs, or they are sucking Microsoft's teat (and, from the article, at least one of quoted researchers is).
No, damning of Microsoft.
All that was asked of the vendor was to come up with a firm time-line for a fix. If that was NOT forthcoming, the only responsible action is FULL IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE.
The idea of allowing a vendor some time for a patch is to attempt to contain damage. And this assumes that the vulnerability is not already found by someone else. If the vendor refuses to commit, then that strategy is fatally flawed. The only recourse is to publish, and give an opportunity for the services, OSs, whatever, to be taken down by responsible administrators.
Without a time-line, the actual impact cannot be assessed. And, given that Google has been burned by a defect recently, they should be expected to be quite sensitive to the impact of these defects.
To rephrase -- Microsoft played chicken, and lost.
There are a few developers who I feel indebted to. Icaza is one. I use Midnight Commander every day. I give these developers "the benefit of the doubt". Icaza is up there with Bram Moolenaar (VIM). VIM is more important, but MC also "gets it done". And has for almost 15 years.
So, when Icaza said "Mono is important", I tried to suspend my disbelief. And, it was difficult for me; the JVM also had a 15 year history for me.
I'm STILL trying to see it. I "dutifully" installed Moonlight into Firefox. I've tried F-Spot. But, there appears to be no broad-base support for the CLR, even now. No CLR support for Unix... To quote a Microsoft MVP
"Shinma,
I would not recommend trying to run .NET on a unix platform. While
there are attempts (there is a CLR based on a source project released by MS
named ROTOR, and there is also the MONO project), not all of the
functionality is there.
What are you trying to do? Which parts of the framework do you want to
leverage? I think that there might be an ASP.NET implementation up and
running.
--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]"
Now, MONO claims to have Solaris support, but I haven't yet tried it (can you get support for this from Novell?) And what about AIX and HP-UX?
JAVA supports these platforms, and so appears to be a more universal delivery system.
Was Icaza wrong? Maybe. It is possible that the CLR offers features that are not possible with the JVM (I don't know, the only thing I have personally done in this space is a COBOL to JVM system, and I haven't ever really looked at CLR -- after all Alchemy offers a commercial COBOL to CLR compiler already).
Now, I have never stressed F-Spot, but what I did try appeared to work just fine. I'm all for competition, and if the CLR is superior to the JVM, let it win! I just don't understand why it hasn't been pushed into the Unix space. Are IBM, HP and Oracle wrong?
Just curious on the thoughts of some fellow developers here. Especially from those companies. Some insight would be valuable.
Thanks, Ratboy666
Simply put, we already use this. Network transport may have errors, and these are dealt with at higher levels. As long as a corruption can be detected, we are ok. But, if a computation results in an error, and the checking of it may also result in an error, we have a problem. Some part must be guaranteed. But the transmission can be handled the same way that networks are handled.
If the store is not reliable, we can use RAID 5 or the like. This can even be done with main memory. But, we can't easily segregate the parts that have to be retained because they are expensive to recompute from those that are easy to recompute. Certainly RAID 5 storage doesn't make that distinction.
But, between a auto correcting storage and a correcting data transport, something like this should be implementable.
Now, I have to read the fine article to determine why he thinks that this will allow speeds to increase. Certainly I can see it in limited areas. For example, a network packet buffer need not be 100% reliable. Nor must a raw disk buffer (in both cases, the error correction will happen a layer up).
Simple
Downloading IS NOT Copyright Infringement. About the ONLY thing that is illegal to download (in someareas) is child-porn. TFA even indicates "file-sharing networkings" (emphasis mine) -- because simply downloading is not a problem.
Downloading is not Theft. Downloading is not Copyright Infringement. Downloading is not Piracy. Download is just Downloading.
I keep having that reaction... Did you not READ the fine article?
The speed test is pretty much "point to point". In my neighbourhood, it is between Scarborough Ontario and Markham Ontario (Canada).
The speed tester automatically picks the nearest server for you, even.
So, it DOESN'T MATTER HOW BIG THE COUNTRY IS. Peering arrangements shouldn't be coming into it either.
By all that is holy, I would expect San Jose to have some damn fine speeds.
I am embarrassed that the Scarborough speeds are so slow.
Canada is up to #3 Woohoo!
Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada are responsible for (up to) 6 billion worth of infringement themselves. Just a bit more than the 710 million claimed.
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement
Then again, its probably statutory damages vs. actual losses.
Still, I'm proud to be on the list again. Thanks!
Fill one of them new-fangled "terrorbyte" drivers with goatse.jpg HotBlowjob.jpg lemonparty.jpg tubgirl.jpg
Over and over. With randomized names and sizes.
Declare it, give 'em the drive, and a card with the name of a good psychiatrist.
Let's see. BB Bold vs.iPhone 3G (the two I have, carrier is the same)
BB better phone reception
BB keyboard better for email and im
BB expandable memory
BB camera flash
BB plays AVIs without conversion
BB simple USB memory interface, no need for "iTunes"
BB records movies
BB synchronizes with Evolution (important for me) and Google calendar
BB doesn't NEED a base computer, it works as a stand-alone phone.
(3G may also synch with Google, but I don't know how)
3G display is better, but gets filthy.
3G has better games.
3G you can shake the phone to change mp3s
So, for me, BB is better. YMMV. My wife uses a 3G -- my mother-in-law and I use the BB...
A mobile device changes the rules?
I'll bite. I've got to!
The "mobile device" is more powerful than my APL workstation. More powerful than the box I learned LISP on.
And I have to program it in a language that is... um... primitive.
Why? Why not Common LISP? Scheme? Python? Good $DEITY man! C/Objective C/C++ is the ASSEMBLY level of programming. Got to be "object oriented". Right -- wouldn't functional scale better when an iPhone with multiple cores arrives? Or... got to be so low level it's downright embarrassing (C). My Scheme uses C as a portable assembler.
No higher order programming for the iPhone/iPod/iPad set. No sir. Not even sane low level programming. Hell, I prefer Pascal to C most of the time (at least, intelligent variants of Pascal). Even Apple did, at one time. But all that's gone. Can't even port those programs to C with the help of p2c. Too bad.
Flash? Don't care. I have an iPod touch, my wife has an iPhone. IF someone could supply Gambit-C running legally on the platform, I could get rid of the iPod touch, buy an iPad, and be happy... But, no, won't happen.
The i.* remain special purpose devices.