Claiming that it is not censorship because someone could jailbreak their phone is like claiming that there is no censorship in China because someone could use proxy servers.
Except that the latter is actual censorship while the former is a hysterical redefining of the term.
I'm under the impression that the iStore or whatever is the ONLY place that you can get content for your iPhone/iPod/iThing. In which case your analogy doesn't hold.
Cydia. And that's not the only alternative App Store.
Apple did not just refuse to sell the application: they prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it.
No, they just prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it from their store. There would be nothing Apple can do to stop this person from selling it in an alternative store or through their website to owners of jailbroken iDevices.
Except that OS X is very much about sharing code. Only if you ignore the vast amounts of contribution back to open source projects by Apple and it's employees can you make such a ridiculous statement.
Pretty much anyone but an incompetent programmer like you?
My point to illustrate was the difference between testing one by one and using a loop of some sort to perform the operation.
And it's a retarded way to do it.
And for your information, what the hell do you think a "regex" does!? Do you think it doesn't perform looping internally?
I never said anything of the sort. But your statement was a piss poor reimplementation of a regex.
Take it from an assembly programmer -- All computers do is ADD and SHIFT.
Pfft, assembly? Come back to me when you've programmed purely in hex.
What is done with those basic functions is added complexity to represent something more abstract. The point is that whatever code that is created, it should be as bullet proof as possible. SQL injection should be impossible.
Yes, but doing a bunch of stupid checks for all the bad things that can happen is precisely the wrong thing to do as was pointed out above because you can not remotely think of any and all bad cases. That's why you validate against what you know is good input and thus you don't have a bloated mess like your solution.
And insulting someone like that? Not a a good move on your part. You are not as anonymous as you think you are.
Oh noes! An e-thug is gonna come get me! I'm wetting my pants as we speak!
Also, writing checks for every case imaginable bloats your code and then there are all the cases you didn't imagine but a clever hacker does. the solution is to write checks for everything valid and have a standard procedure for everything invalid.
Yeah, it's incredibly funny how the guy who was trying to talk down on other's for low quality code is someone who doesn't even understand the basics of using a regex to find invalid characters in a string but would instead create a huge spaghetti mess of if/else statements.
For example, if you are screening for illegal/disallowed characters in your input string, you could write a series of if/then to test for each one, or you could define a string comprised of disallowed characters and write a loop to test for the presence of any of those characters in the input string.
That's incredibly retarded. How anyone would hire someone as dumb as you to code their business critical applications is beyond me. What you're talking about is what a simple regex accomplishes without a bunch of bloated conditionals.
In most other industries this would be considered illegal as a clear conflict of interest.
Care to cite the relevant statutory or case law to back this up? There is nothing inherently illegal about a conflict of interest. There are plenty of people who function in a number of positions despite conflicts of interest that exist and there is nothing illegal about it at all.
I'm not a big XBL player but one thing I notice is how laggy a lot of gamers already are given a wired connection.
Really? Outside of the first few days after a new game was released (like with Red Dead Revolver), I can't even count on 1 hand the times I've lagged or had others lag out of a game.
That's great and all but it doesn't change the fact that Google's actual business is in it's proprietary search engine and ads platform. They'd ditch their open source projects long before they'd over ditch those core business.
Neither. I'm merely pointing out the facts which are that the Linux kernel they use is an internal, proprietary fork, their GoogleFS is proprietary, and the version of Ubuntu they use is an internal and proprietary fork. Why would it make me a troll to make sure that the entire story is heard?
So what? This article wasn't about multi-billion dollar companies leveraging open source for their bottom line. It was about companies selling and supporting open source products that they create.
Slashdot Mirror
Claiming that it is not censorship because someone could jailbreak their phone is like claiming that there is no censorship in China because someone could use proxy servers.
Except that the latter is actual censorship while the former is a hysterical redefining of the term.
Yes. Jailbreak your iPhone and download it from someone else. Neither act is illegal.
To an extent, yes.
Sure, if you completely redefine the term to mean something it has never meant or ever even implied.
But...but...Apple forced people to buy their phones!!!
So, where are all those other places that people can download iPhone/iPad applications?
Cydia.
I'm under the impression that the iStore or whatever is the ONLY place that you can get content for your iPhone/iPod/iThing. In which case your analogy doesn't hold.
Cydia. And that's not the only alternative App Store.
Apple did not just refuse to sell the application: they prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it.
No, they just prevented anyone who owns an iPad/iPhone from obtaining it from their store. There would be nothing Apple can do to stop this person from selling it in an alternative store or through their website to owners of jailbroken iDevices.
By such an absurd standard any store that choose not to sell someone's product is also engaging in "censorship".
Except that OS X is very much about sharing code. Only if you ignore the vast amounts of contribution back to open source projects by Apple and it's employees can you make such a ridiculous statement.
Who cares about "the best way"?
Pretty much anyone but an incompetent programmer like you?
My point to illustrate was the difference between testing one by one and using a loop of some sort to perform the operation.
And it's a retarded way to do it.
And for your information, what the hell do you think a "regex" does!? Do you think it doesn't perform looping internally?
I never said anything of the sort. But your statement was a piss poor reimplementation of a regex.
Take it from an assembly programmer -- All computers do is ADD and SHIFT.
Pfft, assembly? Come back to me when you've programmed purely in hex.
What is done with those basic functions is added complexity to represent something more abstract. The point is that whatever code that is created, it should be as bullet proof as possible. SQL injection should be impossible.
Yes, but doing a bunch of stupid checks for all the bad things that can happen is precisely the wrong thing to do as was pointed out above because you can not remotely think of any and all bad cases. That's why you validate against what you know is good input and thus you don't have a bloated mess like your solution.
And insulting someone like that? Not a a good move on your part. You are not as anonymous as you think you are.
Oh noes! An e-thug is gonna come get me! I'm wetting my pants as we speak!
It says that I was making a joke at his expense.
So basically you want to hold a plastic phallus in your hand?
Also, writing checks for every case imaginable bloats your code and then there are all the cases you didn't imagine but a clever hacker does. the solution is to write checks for everything valid and have a standard procedure for everything invalid.
Yeah, it's incredibly funny how the guy who was trying to talk down on other's for low quality code is someone who doesn't even understand the basics of using a regex to find invalid characters in a string but would instead create a huge spaghetti mess of if/else statements.
2 years after the fact. That's hardly equivalent to the claimed peer review that "happens all the time".
For example, if you are screening for illegal/disallowed characters in your input string, you could write a series of if/then to test for each one, or you could define a string comprised of disallowed characters and write a loop to test for the presence of any of those characters in the input string.
That's incredibly retarded. How anyone would hire someone as dumb as you to code their business critical applications is beyond me. What you're talking about is what a simple regex accomplishes without a bunch of bloated conditionals.
I can't even think of writing code without checks for every condition imaginable
So you're the idiot who writes code the 500 if else branches and 10 page long switch statements?
In most other industries this would be considered illegal as a clear conflict of interest.
Care to cite the relevant statutory or case law to back this up? There is nothing inherently illegal about a conflict of interest. There are plenty of people who function in a number of positions despite conflicts of interest that exist and there is nothing illegal about it at all.
It will be hacked to work with a PC within a week, don't worry.
What would be the point if no PC games are made to use it?
I'm not a big XBL player but one thing I notice is how laggy a lot of gamers already are given a wired connection.
Really? Outside of the first few days after a new game was released (like with Red Dead Revolver), I can't even count on 1 hand the times I've lagged or had others lag out of a game.
Except he's pretty much wrong. It's going to use a USB 2.0 type A connector.
What is next? The banning of all primary source materials in school textbooks because they are old?
Except this isn't banning anything. Great slippery slope fallacy though!
Of which you then leave out:
So it looks like a SQL injection attack against a third party ad management script.
That's great and all but it doesn't change the fact that Google's actual business is in it's proprietary search engine and ads platform. They'd ditch their open source projects long before they'd over ditch those core business.
Neither. I'm merely pointing out the facts which are that the Linux kernel they use is an internal, proprietary fork, their GoogleFS is proprietary, and the version of Ubuntu they use is an internal and proprietary fork. Why would it make me a troll to make sure that the entire story is heard?
So what? This article wasn't about multi-billion dollar companies leveraging open source for their bottom line. It was about companies selling and supporting open source products that they create.