You can really tell I upset some Apple fans with mod points. 40% Insightful, 30% Overrated, 10% Flamebait. Flamebait? Seriously? I really don't think a comment is overrated if it only has a score of 2. Great job, guys. Way to forget how to properly use mod points.
I haven't gotten anything like that, but I have gotten marketing letters addressed to and greeting Informed Consumer and things like that. It is really retarded.
Unfortunately, I find more and more sites printing only the current page. That is especially annoying when it spills over just a couple lines onto another page. there is nothing like printing out what should be a 2-page article onto 10 pages.
Who said they can't dictate what kind of music is produced? Besides, what would that accomplish? Did you even think about your analogy before you typed it?
Apple gets a pass because many people can name several popular phone manufacturers but only 2 operating systems. Microsoft took advantage of having a huge market share and little serious competition to force others out of business. If you didn't like what Microsoft was doing, you could vote with your money and get an alternative OS but then none of your software would work because everyone was writing for the OS with the largest market. With Apple, if you don't like what they are doing with the iPhone, go buy a Nokia, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung, HTC, or Blackberry.
"Why can't I dictate why software gets loaded on "my" device?"
That is the question I should have asked. When you buy the phone, you own the physical hardware, but only a license to use the software. Why can't Apple dictate how their software is used? They aren't Microsoft with a 90% market share, they are in a market with massive competition.
With Java, one can make one's program look and feel different from other Java programs, but that isn't required. All Sun has to do is make a look and feel similar to the iPhone's and as long as a developer doesn't specify a different look and feel, it will be consistent from app to app.
I don't care about what happened to people using accounts. They were using accounts, nobody using the MobiTV url is using an account. You can't copyright a url, so why can a url be considered a secret?
There is a huge difference between this and logging into account. You have to have a url and some form of authentication to log in to an account and access the data. MobiTV has a url with readily available content but no authentication is required, thus there is no account to hack.
When you go to a url, one of two things happens: 1. The content is served regardless of who you are. or 2. The server asks for some form of authentication and if the proper response is received, the server responds with the content.
It is hacking if you find a way to circumvent #2 but it is not hacking if #1 happens. When you go to the MobiTV urls, #2 is expected to happen but #1 is happening instead with no additional action on your part. There is nothing illegal about your actions when that happens, only stupidity on the part of MobiTV.
There is no attempt here to protect the url's contents. The url is simply in a form that is only commonly used by programs, not humans, but that doesn't make it any kind of protection. While hiding or obscurity are often parts of a security system, they do not constitute security when used alone.
If you find a diary in the middle of the square, how do you know you shouldn't read it? People publish diaries all the time and somebody thought this might be a cool way to draw attention to it. If it says you shouldn't read it, that problem is solved. But in the case of the URL, it doesn't say you should be paying for it. The only indication that something might be wrong is the use of a somewhat obscure URL. Only casual users won't be aware of it.
How is that a crime? The car owner willfully and knowingly allowed someone to drive their car. Am I a thief if my fiance gives me the keys to her car and says,"Go get the groceries" and I comply?
Look who is arrogant now. It would really help if you didn't call me arrogant and then say you know you are right, especially when you are actually wrong.
"Well, my premise is that if you ARE passed on the right, then you didn't return to the right lane in a reasonable amount of time. That's my reasoning here. You don't need a car length's room; half of that is fine."
Half a car length?! That is insane and very unsafe at 70mph.
"Yes, and statistically speaking, it's not going to be you. This is a big problem in America today. You view all or most other drivers as beneath you, and you're one of the "few" good drivers. It's a delusion and it's dangerous."
Why are motorcyclist taught to believe that everyone else on the road is trying to kill them? It keeps them aware of what is going on and helps them better evaluate the safety of their actions. You don't know a damn thing about me yet you claim to know I am not a better drivers than most. That is very childish.
"By the way, your logic is the same as those that wish to keep speed limits in place. That without rules and confinment, people will start destroying each other. That attitude is very antithical to the concept of freedom on which this country was founded."
You're joking, right? Oh, you're not. You should go take some political science classes.
"setting limits lower than they should be according to sound civil engineering"
Just because one can travel at very high speeds on a road doesn't mean that one has the skills to do it safely.
I'd go outside of my 2-story studio apartment and get some air but it is raining. BTW, why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? Do you always have to have the last word?
How am I supposed to show you that this would have been a normal, run-of-the-mill, properly executed pass had some idiot not passed on the right, encouraging others to do the same? If the first person behind them had not passed on the right literally the moment there was space for the vehicle, my parents would have moved back into the right lane. People on the road are sheep and do what the person in front of them does. If the first person says,"Fuck you, I'm not waiting another second" and passes on the right, the person behind them says,"That seems like a good idea" and also passes on the right. This keeps happening because people don't want to do anything to make someone else mad when in reality they are totally screwing with the flow of traffic. I see it all the time. All it takes is a tiny little bit of patience for the first person to not pass and the flow of traffic will be normal. You say the law says you can't interfere with the normal flow of traffic, right? This wasn't the normal flow of traffic so I had every right to "interfere" and correct it.
"Of course in your arrogance you think you and your parents somehow are above average. You're not, by definition."
Do you know what "average" even is? By definition, something or someone has to be above average.
If you want hard numbers, look somewhere else. Numbers are anything but hard. Some people consider a highway to be busy if they see 5 cars on it, others consider it busy of they see 50.
Please just read what others have said. They understand what happened. If you still don't understand what happened, you clearly never will.
Slashdot Mirror
You can really tell I upset some Apple fans with mod points. 40% Insightful, 30% Overrated, 10% Flamebait. Flamebait? Seriously? I really don't think a comment is overrated if it only has a score of 2. Great job, guys. Way to forget how to properly use mod points.
I haven't gotten anything like that, but I have gotten marketing letters addressed to and greeting Informed Consumer and things like that. It is really retarded.
Unfortunately, I find more and more sites printing only the current page. That is especially annoying when it spills over just a couple lines onto another page. there is nothing like printing out what should be a 2-page article onto 10 pages.
Who said they can't dictate what kind of music is produced? Besides, what would that accomplish? Did you even think about your analogy before you typed it?
Apple gets a pass because many people can name several popular phone manufacturers but only 2 operating systems. Microsoft took advantage of having a huge market share and little serious competition to force others out of business. If you didn't like what Microsoft was doing, you could vote with your money and get an alternative OS but then none of your software would work because everyone was writing for the OS with the largest market. With Apple, if you don't like what they are doing with the iPhone, go buy a Nokia, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung, HTC, or Blackberry.
I thought they changed that. I know they at least changed the user to something other than root.
"Why can't I dictate why software gets loaded on "my" device?"
That is the question I should have asked. When you buy the phone, you own the physical hardware, but only a license to use the software. Why can't Apple dictate how their software is used? They aren't Microsoft with a 90% market share, they are in a market with massive competition.
Why can't Apple dictate what gets put on their device? After all, if you don't like it, there are plenty of other phones on the market.
The only MacBook Air commercial I've ever seen was online when it first came out.
If everyone left earlier enough to account for everything, nothing would get done because everyone would be waiting around somewhere else.
With Java, one can make one's program look and feel different from other Java programs, but that isn't required. All Sun has to do is make a look and feel similar to the iPhone's and as long as a developer doesn't specify a different look and feel, it will be consistent from app to app.
Why is a URL considered a secret?
I don't care about what happened to people using accounts. They were using accounts, nobody using the MobiTV url is using an account. You can't copyright a url, so why can a url be considered a secret?
There is a huge difference between this and logging into account. You have to have a url and some form of authentication to log in to an account and access the data. MobiTV has a url with readily available content but no authentication is required, thus there is no account to hack.
When you go to a url, one of two things happens:
1. The content is served regardless of who you are.
or
2. The server asks for some form of authentication and if the proper response is received, the server responds with the content.
It is hacking if you find a way to circumvent #2 but it is not hacking if #1 happens. When you go to the MobiTV urls, #2 is expected to happen but #1 is happening instead with no additional action on your part. There is nothing illegal about your actions when that happens, only stupidity on the part of MobiTV.
My point is that it is not illegal, as you contend, because there were no security broken or circumvented.
There is no attempt here to protect the url's contents. The url is simply in a form that is only commonly used by programs, not humans, but that doesn't make it any kind of protection. While hiding or obscurity are often parts of a security system, they do not constitute security when used alone.
If you find a diary in the middle of the square, how do you know you shouldn't read it? People publish diaries all the time and somebody thought this might be a cool way to draw attention to it. If it says you shouldn't read it, that problem is solved. But in the case of the URL, it doesn't say you should be paying for it. The only indication that something might be wrong is the use of a somewhat obscure URL. Only casual users won't be aware of it.
"security through obscurity is very bad security, but it's still security"
No, it isn't security at all. Just because it is called "security" doesn't make it security.
How is that a crime? The car owner willfully and knowingly allowed someone to drive their car. Am I a thief if my fiance gives me the keys to her car and says,"Go get the groceries" and I comply?
Look who is arrogant now. It would really help if you didn't call me arrogant and then say you know you are right, especially when you are actually wrong.
"Well, my premise is that if you ARE passed on the right, then you didn't return to the right lane in a reasonable amount of time. That's my reasoning here. You don't need a car length's room; half of that is fine."
Half a car length?! That is insane and very unsafe at 70mph.
"Yes, and statistically speaking, it's not going to be you. This is a big problem in America today. You view all or most other drivers as beneath you, and you're one of the "few" good drivers. It's a delusion and it's dangerous."
Why are motorcyclist taught to believe that everyone else on the road is trying to kill them? It keeps them aware of what is going on and helps them better evaluate the safety of their actions. You don't know a damn thing about me yet you claim to know I am not a better drivers than most. That is very childish.
"By the way, your logic is the same as those that wish to keep speed limits in place. That without rules and confinment, people will start destroying each other. That attitude is very antithical to the concept of freedom on which this country was founded."
You're joking, right? Oh, you're not. You should go take some political science classes.
"setting limits lower than they should be according to sound civil engineering"
Just because one can travel at very high speeds on a road doesn't mean that one has the skills to do it safely.
"That's busy by anyones standards"
No, it is just being rude.
"contradictions your posts raise"
What contradictions?
I'd go outside of my 2-story studio apartment and get some air but it is raining. BTW, why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? Do you always have to have the last word?
I never said he was. Any more buttons I can push? I made my point perfectly clear, you just don't want to understand it. That is very sad.
How am I supposed to show you that this would have been a normal, run-of-the-mill, properly executed pass had some idiot not passed on the right, encouraging others to do the same? If the first person behind them had not passed on the right literally the moment there was space for the vehicle, my parents would have moved back into the right lane. People on the road are sheep and do what the person in front of them does. If the first person says,"Fuck you, I'm not waiting another second" and passes on the right, the person behind them says,"That seems like a good idea" and also passes on the right. This keeps happening because people don't want to do anything to make someone else mad when in reality they are totally screwing with the flow of traffic. I see it all the time. All it takes is a tiny little bit of patience for the first person to not pass and the flow of traffic will be normal. You say the law says you can't interfere with the normal flow of traffic, right? This wasn't the normal flow of traffic so I had every right to "interfere" and correct it.
"Of course in your arrogance you think you and your parents somehow are above average. You're not, by definition."
Do you know what "average" even is? By definition, something or someone has to be above average.
If you want hard numbers, look somewhere else. Numbers are anything but hard. Some people consider a highway to be busy if they see 5 cars on it, others consider it busy of they see 50.
Please just read what others have said. They understand what happened. If you still don't understand what happened, you clearly never will.
It does have wifi, but wifi isn't everywhere.
Additionally, most flash is bandwidth intensive.