The approval process didn't do any good when data was stolen from Apple users a month or two ago. A bunch of people were charged for apps they never bought, and several apps were removed from the app store, but a full explanation from Apple was never offered.
So I guess you think that it's totally irrelevant that a) the stolen data had nothing to do with the app approval process, and b) the data was not stolen by the approved apps?
Yeah, let's blame the approval process for something to which it is completely unrelated. *eye roll*
What malicious apps have gotten through Apple's approval process? I'm open to any links you may have. Don't bother linking to the guy who hacked into iTunes accounts and used them to buy his otherwise legitimate app -- the app itself was not malicious, so there's no reason to blame the approval process for the incident.
You say "tethering apps" as if that's a bad thing. The app didn't steal any data, or use any APIs that could reveal the user's personal data. Apple checks all submissions against their list of approved APIs... an app that steals personal data would have to use unapproved or custom APIs and would therefore be rejected from the app store.
I'm not saying Apple's approval process is perfect, but it *is* set up to catch malicious data-stealing apps.
Unless you want to analyze every app's source code which seems ludicrous for a bunch of reasons.
Apple doesn't examine the source code but it does check to see if the app uses any unapproved APIs. That sort of check is relatively trivial and easy to automate.
My understanding (which is possibly incorrect) is that you would have to use unapproved APIs in order to steal data, and that would get your app rejected.
but Apple shouldn't have caught on to this during the approval process?
Please explain how an app approval process can catch something external to the approval process (hacking iTunes accounts through means other than apps) and which hasn't happened yet at the time the approval process takes place.
But I still don't see why it's okay to film people without their consent under one-party, but not under two-party, unless you're one of the involved parties.
Well, it's not okay under one-party rules. However, if the gang-banger is doing the beating in a public place, that changes things.
If the gang-banger is doing the beating in his own house, then you have no right to film that, unless perhaps you can see it from a public place... like your own house's window... but then you're getting into "Peeping Tom" territory, I'm not sure what the laws are there.
Of course, I fail to see why the law should care. If I can see a crime happen, then I'm allowed to report it (i.e. if I see the neighbor couple physically fighting, I can report a domestic disturbance); ideally it should never be illegal to submit a video recording of exactly what I saw (assuming I wasn't trespassing or something in order to see it). That would cover the gang-banger beatdown and the domestic abuse you can see through your neighbor's window...
... Next time I'm looking for a job, remind me not to work for Microsoft.
This is off-topic, but you made me remember it...
CString, from MFC (you should all be shuddering right now) had a bug where under the right set of conditions, you could accidentally erase the data in every CString instance in your program. This becomes problematic in million-line programs.
I still haven't figured out why Microsoft didn't just use std::string.
Try an IDE that *doesn't* suck. Having used NetBeans, Eclipse, Visual Studio, and Xcode, I have to say that Xcode is orders of magnitude suckier than the rest. Netbeans and Eclipse both work on OSX.
That said, I think IDEs do tend to be too helpful. I'm tired of having to erase the extraneous parenthesis that Eclipse throws in. (I know there's probably configuration options to change that behavior, but there are so many options I wouldn't know where to begin.)
We have a FoobarFactoryFactory class in the project I'm currently assigned to... yes, it's a factory that creates factories (which in turn create foobars). And the foobars are themselves generic-ish objects which can contain any number of different types of data.
And they have the nerve to tell me one of the qualities of higher-level devs is that "they tend to make things simpler than entry-level devs".
You're quite right. It's probably stupid to argue about semantics unless we have the actual poll in front of us.
I sometimes think it would be better if polls were only answerable in essay form, but then they would take so much more time to compile into usable results, and they would be subject to the interpretation of the poll gatherers...
By definition, "knew about beforehand" could not possibly mean "had credible knowledge of the possibility". No, the latter would be more like "suspected beforehand".
"Knew" is a strong word - if you're not certain, then you don't know, so if you only "knew it was possible", then you didn't "know about it beforehand".
It doesn't matter how much you argue, the fact remains that knowing something will happen is quite different from knowing something is possible.
For example, I know it's possible I'll get hit by a truck on the way home from work today. However, it would be absurd to argue that if I do get hit by a truck on the way home from work today, then obviously I knew about it beforehand.
Logically, if the government knew what would happen and allowed it to happen, then it may as well have been an inside job.
In both cases, the government would desire the outcome, not the event itself, so whether the event was carried out by a third party or by internal agents is irrelevant.
And in either case, there is a conspiracy involved. If Jim believes 9/11 was a conspiracy, it's irrelevant whether it was an inside job or a "let's let it happen" thing; the fact remains, Jim believes it was a conspiracy.
(In case I wasn't clear, I'm speaking hypothetically; personally I think 9/11 conspiracy-believers are morons.)
I'm sure if I spent five minutes googling I could find similar lists of demonstrable stupidity by members of every political party. It's silly to pretend this is unique to Republicans; stupidity, ignorance and crazy beliefs are very common traits.
I voted against Obama, but I think the people painting Hitler mustaches on his face and calling for his impeachment are morons. I may not like everything Obama supports, but he is the President, and I believe we should support him as best we can.
It feels like "hate the President" is this fad that people feel cool if they follow, regardless of the fact that most sane people are going to ignore them; they could make a much bigger difference putting that energy toward actual political participation.
I know, but it's a pain in the neck to have to alt-tab out of your game, find the.exe in the process list, and set the affinity.
It's worse than that. If you don't do it during the first few seconds of execution (during the first startup logo clip), it has no effect, and you're stuck with crappy broken behavior until you quit and try again. (At least, that was my experience with Deus Ex.)
Getting offtopic: does anyone know a way to make Windows remember processor affinity settings for a particular.exe, or perhaps a way to make a desktop shortcut set the affinity for me?
Interestingly, she greatly enjoys the UI changes made between WinXP and Win7.
As far as spousal tech support... I'm just glad she doesn't click "install" on every random window that pops up. She asks me what to do, or clicks "cancel" if I'm not around.
I worked at a place where they had N licenses for $EXPENSIVE_PROCESSING_SOFTWARE. This software was business-critical. In order to meet processing demand, this software was installed on at least 3N machines... including all our desktops.
Plus most of the computers were running "legitimate" ("it's just a backup copy of our volume license disc", he promised) copies of Win2k and MS Office. At least the data servers were running Linux...
I did my best to avoid license violations while I worked there. I used my own laptop (until he banned it) for Windows-specific things (as far as I'm aware, the business-critical Win3.1-era software we used regularly was actually legit), and ran Linux on my work desktop for everything else.
Slashdot Mirror
The approval process didn't do any good when data was stolen from Apple users a month or two ago. A bunch of people were charged for apps they never bought, and several apps were removed from the app store, but a full explanation from Apple was never offered.
So I guess you think that it's totally irrelevant that a) the stolen data had nothing to do with the app approval process, and b) the data was not stolen by the approved apps?
Yeah, let's blame the approval process for something to which it is completely unrelated. *eye roll*
A kid tricked Apple into letting a tethering application through. So yeah, of course this could end up on the Apple app store.
Right, because an app exposing native phone functionality using approved APIs is totally the same as an app using unapproved APIs to steal user data.
(Remember, Apple's approval process checks the app to see whether it's using any unapproved or custom APIs.)
What malicious apps have gotten through Apple's approval process? I'm open to any links you may have. Don't bother linking to the guy who hacked into iTunes accounts and used them to buy his otherwise legitimate app -- the app itself was not malicious, so there's no reason to blame the approval process for the incident.
You say "tethering apps" as if that's a bad thing. The app didn't steal any data, or use any APIs that could reveal the user's personal data. Apple checks all submissions against their list of approved APIs... an app that steals personal data would have to use unapproved or custom APIs and would therefore be rejected from the app store.
I'm not saying Apple's approval process is perfect, but it *is* set up to catch malicious data-stealing apps.
Unless you want to analyze every app's source code which seems ludicrous for a bunch of reasons.
Apple doesn't examine the source code but it does check to see if the app uses any unapproved APIs. That sort of check is relatively trivial and easy to automate.
My understanding (which is possibly incorrect) is that you would have to use unapproved APIs in order to steal data, and that would get your app rejected.
but Apple shouldn't have caught on to this during the approval process?
Please explain how an app approval process can catch something external to the approval process (hacking iTunes accounts through means other than apps) and which hasn't happened yet at the time the approval process takes place.
Will that be your response when this UK court also bans any software which uses BitTorrent?
After all, the fact that it has non-infringing uses is irrelevant, right?
But I still don't see why it's okay to film people without their consent under one-party, but not under two-party, unless you're one of the involved parties.
Well, it's not okay under one-party rules. However, if the gang-banger is doing the beating in a public place, that changes things.
If the gang-banger is doing the beating in his own house, then you have no right to film that, unless perhaps you can see it from a public place... like your own house's window... but then you're getting into "Peeping Tom" territory, I'm not sure what the laws are there.
Of course, I fail to see why the law should care. If I can see a crime happen, then I'm allowed to report it (i.e. if I see the neighbor couple physically fighting, I can report a domestic disturbance); ideally it should never be illegal to submit a video recording of exactly what I saw (assuming I wasn't trespassing or something in order to see it). That would cover the gang-banger beatdown and the domestic abuse you can see through your neighbor's window...
I'm not talking about what code the runtime sees. I'm talking about what I have to do as a programmer.
... Next time I'm looking for a job, remind me not to work for Microsoft.
This is off-topic, but you made me remember it...
CString, from MFC (you should all be shuddering right now) had a bug where under the right set of conditions, you could accidentally erase the data in every CString instance in your program. This becomes problematic in million-line programs.
I still haven't figured out why Microsoft didn't just use std::string.
Yes, ugly code. Yes, perfect sample. Zero class instantiations.
But it's still part of a class. It's a stupid, extraneous requirement.
Sure you can model everything into a set of classes, but that doesn't mean you should always do so.
This is what bothers me about Java. You're forced to model everything into a set of classes.
Try an IDE that *doesn't* suck. Having used NetBeans, Eclipse, Visual Studio, and Xcode, I have to say that Xcode is orders of magnitude suckier than the rest. Netbeans and Eclipse both work on OSX.
That said, I think IDEs do tend to be too helpful. I'm tired of having to erase the extraneous parenthesis that Eclipse throws in. (I know there's probably configuration options to change that behavior, but there are so many options I wouldn't know where to begin.)
Worse... we're using Spring :(
I'm not even sure why I used "foobar". The actual class name is "DocumentFactoryFactory". ... not much better.
So what you're saying is that it sucks working on a codebase in a language you don't understand using design paradigms you don't understand?
Nothing to see here...
We have a FoobarFactoryFactory class in the project I'm currently assigned to... yes, it's a factory that creates factories (which in turn create foobars). And the foobars are themselves generic-ish objects which can contain any number of different types of data.
And they have the nerve to tell me one of the qualities of higher-level devs is that "they tend to make things simpler than entry-level devs".
You're quite right. It's probably stupid to argue about semantics unless we have the actual poll in front of us.
I sometimes think it would be better if polls were only answerable in essay form, but then they would take so much more time to compile into usable results, and they would be subject to the interpretation of the poll gatherers...
Anyone have a good solution?
By definition, "knew about beforehand" could not possibly mean "had credible knowledge of the possibility". No, the latter would be more like "suspected beforehand".
"Knew" is a strong word - if you're not certain, then you don't know, so if you only "knew it was possible", then you didn't "know about it beforehand".
It doesn't matter how much you argue, the fact remains that knowing something will happen is quite different from knowing something is possible.
For example, I know it's possible I'll get hit by a truck on the way home from work today. However, it would be absurd to argue that if I do get hit by a truck on the way home from work today, then obviously I knew about it beforehand.
Yet that's exactly what you're arguing.
Isn't "slow news day" what Idle is for?
Logically, if the government knew what would happen and allowed it to happen, then it may as well have been an inside job.
In both cases, the government would desire the outcome, not the event itself, so whether the event was carried out by a third party or by internal agents is irrelevant.
And in either case, there is a conspiracy involved. If Jim believes 9/11 was a conspiracy, it's irrelevant whether it was an inside job or a "let's let it happen" thing; the fact remains, Jim believes it was a conspiracy.
(In case I wasn't clear, I'm speaking hypothetically; personally I think 9/11 conspiracy-believers are morons.)
I'm sure if I spent five minutes googling I could find similar lists of demonstrable stupidity by members of every political party. It's silly to pretend this is unique to Republicans; stupidity, ignorance and crazy beliefs are very common traits.
I voted against Obama, but I think the people painting Hitler mustaches on his face and calling for his impeachment are morons. I may not like everything Obama supports, but he is the President, and I believe we should support him as best we can.
It feels like "hate the President" is this fad that people feel cool if they follow, regardless of the fact that most sane people are going to ignore them; they could make a much bigger difference putting that energy toward actual political participation.
I know, but it's a pain in the neck to have to alt-tab out of your game, find the .exe in the process list, and set the affinity.
It's worse than that. If you don't do it during the first few seconds of execution (during the first startup logo clip), it has no effect, and you're stuck with crappy broken behavior until you quit and try again. (At least, that was my experience with Deus Ex.)
Getting offtopic: does anyone know a way to make Windows remember processor affinity settings for a particular .exe, or perhaps a way to make a desktop shortcut set the affinity for me?
Seriously though, if you like to game on your computer there is no such thing as too much power.
Yeah, but some older games (e.g. Deus Ex, even the Steam version) tend to misbehave on multicore systems...
Interestingly, she greatly enjoys the UI changes made between WinXP and Win7.
As far as spousal tech support... I'm just glad she doesn't click "install" on every random window that pops up. She asks me what to do, or clicks "cancel" if I'm not around.
I worked at a place where they had N licenses for $EXPENSIVE_PROCESSING_SOFTWARE. This software was business-critical. In order to meet processing demand, this software was installed on at least 3N machines... including all our desktops.
Plus most of the computers were running "legitimate" ("it's just a backup copy of our volume license disc", he promised) copies of Win2k and MS Office. At least the data servers were running Linux...
I did my best to avoid license violations while I worked there. I used my own laptop (until he banned it) for Windows-specific things (as far as I'm aware, the business-critical Win3.1-era software we used regularly was actually legit), and ran Linux on my work desktop for everything else.