While P/NP is indeed pretty way offtopic here, P vs. NP doesn't necessarily apply solely to decision problems. Furthermore, many problems can be rephrased as decision problems; e.g. Does the cannonball need more than 10 second to complete its flight?
For a traditional P/NP example: the traveling salesman problem is about finding the shortest path, which is also not a decision problem.
I don't think anyone's bothered to read the bugzilla case. Possibly including the idiot @ internetnews.com - seriously, I don't understand how you could possibly come to those conclusions based on that bugzilla case.
In other shocking news, different platforms requiring different implementations of this rather non-critical feature don't get the feature exactly simultaneously. And here I was hoping they'd have quantum entangled programmers whose coding is either both done or not done.
According to KPN, the hacked website was not part of the CA's issuing system. Assuming they're being wholly truthful, this article is pure sensationalism: A company has a non-critical website that's hacked: whooptie.
Of course it's bad PR: it doesn't inspire confidence in their other security matters. However, its just as likely that they're concentrating on their actual business (managing certificates), and the site was an afterthought. In any case (maybe I'm just cynical) it doesn't surprise me that a very low traffic, low volume site is negligently secured.
Yeah; people seem to have this idea that because FF will change versions several times a year that this mean they'll see the same amount of change and the same amount of plugin breakage several times a year they used to see just once every year or two.
Of course, that's nonsense - development speed won't go up by an order of magnitude; it's just a different (and better) way of packaging essentially the same changes.
I kinda hope they adopt something like chrome's auto-updater for an even less intrusive experience.
You're telling me people never use Chrome in the commercial world? Or, for that matter Windows? Or Firefox 3.6? Or really, anything? All of this big-attack-surface area stuff gets patched regularly, and if a client refuses to patch, they're generally on their own (or paying a lot for a custom solution).
It's more akin to saying that SQL is broken because some versions of PHP allow SQL injection. The bug was in two common library implementations and can be fixed merely by updating the library... I also love how the article sensationalizes the issue and calls this a "serious" vulnerability... how exactly is this vulnerability going to be exploited in a "serious" fashion? That sure doesn't sound easy to do for most openid uses...
Not quite; it trains your users to only ever enter their password into precisely one site. In addition to which, under common usage you'll already be signed in and will rarely need to enter a password in the first place.
Also, your openid provider is free to use a less risky authentication method. E.g. if you use google's you might use two-factor authentication; a process that would be far too complex and annoying if it needed setting up for every site, but hardly problematic if used for just one or two.
Except of course if the entire lawsuit is merely a cynical ploy to garner media attention, and relying on the fact that filing the lawsuit will be covered, but that dismissing it later isn't nearly as exciting.
Why else wait 2 years after the show to file? It's not like the show was top secret - and since the racing is prefilmed, they'd even had had plenty of time to review the cars before the show ever airs.
Dishonest litigation isn't something to be applauded - and it seems to me that's what they're into.
I'm not sure which "certain jurisdictions" you refer to, but assuming those countries participate in the European Convention on Human Rights, any such remants are void anyhow.
Note that though blasphemy per se is legal, that doesn't mean it's use is always; e.g. incitement to violence can be a crime and might contain blasphemy.
With microwave ovens. And teflon kitchenware. And mobile phones And digital cameras And the world wide web And slashdot With commonly distributed measles vaccine And mass-produced insulin And VCR's & DVR's And The Pill (approved in 1960) And barcodes With some understanding of genetics & proteomics Having found Cosmic microwave background radiation (aka confirming the big bang)...etc
Really, 2000 is pretty much 1960 indeed! I bet the changes in 40 years will be similarly... unimpressive.
The question, however, depends on context. Within the context of OS's, Windows is not generic - there's no generic Windows OS, just microsoft's. Outside of that context, microsoft can't assert its trademark: you can still sell windows (the glass panes) or software using windows (the GUI element) irrespective of the fact that an OS has that name.
Similarly, Apple is allowed to call itself Apple despite the fact that an apple (the generic fruit) is a common word, and despite the fact that the name famously could cause confusion with Apple Records - context matters.
Within the context of application stores, the term app store is rather generic. Comparing this the the mark Windows seems like a publicity stunt rather than a real legal argument - it's not convincing at all. If they were selling a phone called app store, or shoe polish or whatever - they'd have a case. But they're calling an app store (the generic term) app store (the trademark).
That's like trying to trademark the word Apple for a particular brand of apples - good luck with that...
Note that the customers are not still paying - assuming TiVo isn't lying anyhow. They say customers have not been billed since November and that service until June 2011 will be free. For a device last sold in 2002, that doesn't sound unreasonable. Sure it's annoying, and the hassle and price-bump may cost em goodwill, but it's hardly an extreme step.
Well, let's be honest: whatever authorization google grants or doesn't grant is irrelevant: they don't own the data (fortunately!) - which is merely keywords. Even if they did "own" a keyword by virtue of having trademarked it, that only grants limited rights (again, fortunately!) - you can't prevent others from merely mentioning or linking to your trademarked name in general - essentially as long as you're not misrepresenting it.
Users - namely google employees - apparently agreed by means of an absurd EULA (don't we love em) to send click-stream data, and Bing is merely correlating that "freely" given data.
Now, whether an EULA should suffice to permit scraping this invasive (not just the link, but form fields or text elsewhere on the page) is kinda dubious, but heck, companies have long required you to sell your soul as prerequisite to using their software, and claimed that usage means agreement.
They aren't "merely" honoring a take-down request; they're the designers, builders and distributors of a software system that's antithetical to free software; in which users no longer have the right to modify or redistribute software regardless of who wrote it.
The app store is most certainly not GPLv2 friendly.
The point is to just Say No to vendor lock-in; to the benefit of users and small software firms around the world. It's rather noble of him to take this stand despite the unfair vilification he gets for it, don't you think?
The dev asked for the app to be removed because Apple was violating its license term. Apple does not have a license to distribute VLC while imposing additional restrictions beyond those of the GPL, but chose to violate that license.
The fact that Apple claims they don't verify licenses does not make them less legally bound to oblige by them; and in this case the license wasn't a secret, so they can't claim the intermediate distributor (Applidium) misled them either: they willfully (by manually approving distribution) infringed on this dev's license. Of course, they're chosing to ignore licensing issues in their approval process, so it's hard to claim any kind of malice: they just happen to be wrong, that's all.
It is indeed their fault and responsibility - no one elses; not Applidium (who is not violating the license) nor VLC (who isn't party to Apple's app-store in the first place): just Apple.
In common sense terms, Apple is restricting modification and redistribution. After all, you cannot actually run let alone redistribute a modified app without Apple's say-so. Were Apple merely the app-store provider - that is, just one-of-many distributors - this wouldn't be an issue, but with iOS devices, they are the only distributor.
Now, it's fine that some free-software apps don't mind this additional restriction and choose not to take action - but Apple, even as a third party distributor, is violating the GPL by imposing additional restriction on the license.
The GPL is not about zero-cost distribution, the GPL is about the right for downstream users to modify the program. Apple very intentionally disables this; their app-store is the very antithesis of free software: a world in which you cannot run any program without Apple's stamp of approval.
Slashdot Mirror
While P/NP is indeed pretty way offtopic here, P vs. NP doesn't necessarily apply solely to decision problems. Furthermore, many problems can be rephrased as decision problems; e.g. Does the cannonball need more than 10 second to complete its flight?
For a traditional P/NP example: the traveling salesman problem is about finding the shortest path, which is also not a decision problem.
Possibly relevant here (in some minor way) is that thinking in a foreign language allows people to be more rational.
Seriously, RTFM: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744193
I don't think anyone's bothered to read the bugzilla case. Possibly including the idiot @ internetnews.com - seriously, I don't understand how you could possibly come to those conclusions based on that bugzilla case.
It's also a fictional summary designed to grab your attention rather than represent the truth.
In other shocking news, different platforms requiring different implementations of this rather non-critical feature don't get the feature exactly simultaneously. And here I was hoping they'd have quantum entangled programmers whose coding is either both done or not done.
This isn't a story.
According to KPN, the hacked website was not part of the CA's issuing system. Assuming they're being wholly truthful, this article is pure sensationalism: A company has a non-critical website that's hacked: whooptie.
Of course it's bad PR: it doesn't inspire confidence in their other security matters. However, its just as likely that they're concentrating on their actual business (managing certificates), and the site was an afterthought. In any case (maybe I'm just cynical) it doesn't surprise me that a very low traffic, low volume site is negligently secured.
Totally misleading headline.
The hacked machine seems unrelated to the actual CA business, though - it's just a website, not a CA management tool or whatever. Source: http://forum.kpn.com/t5/News-stream/UPDATE-11-30-KPN-sluit-tijdelijk-website-Gemnet/ba-p/8477
Yeah; people seem to have this idea that because FF will change versions several times a year that this mean they'll see the same amount of change and the same amount of plugin breakage several times a year they used to see just once every year or two.
Of course, that's nonsense - development speed won't go up by an order of magnitude; it's just a different (and better) way of packaging essentially the same changes.
I kinda hope they adopt something like chrome's auto-updater for an even less intrusive experience.
You're telling me people never use Chrome in the commercial world? Or, for that matter Windows? Or Firefox 3.6? Or really, anything? All of this big-attack-surface area stuff gets patched regularly, and if a client refuses to patch, they're generally on their own (or paying a lot for a custom solution).
Supposedly, the compatibility version string should be automatically updated in many cases: http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/04/13/add-ons-review-update-29/
It's more akin to saying that SQL is broken because some versions of PHP allow SQL injection. The bug was in two common library implementations and can be fixed merely by updating the library... I also love how the article sensationalizes the issue and calls this a "serious" vulnerability... how exactly is this vulnerability going to be exploited in a "serious" fashion? That sure doesn't sound easy to do for most openid uses...
Not quite; it trains your users to only ever enter their password into precisely one site. In addition to which, under common usage you'll already be signed in and will rarely need to enter a password in the first place.
Also, your openid provider is free to use a less risky authentication method. E.g. if you use google's you might use two-factor authentication; a process that would be far too complex and annoying if it needed setting up for every site, but hardly problematic if used for just one or two.
Except of course if the entire lawsuit is merely a cynical ploy to garner media attention, and relying on the fact that filing the lawsuit will be covered, but that dismissing it later isn't nearly as exciting.
Why else wait 2 years after the show to file? It's not like the show was top secret - and since the racing is prefilmed, they'd even had had plenty of time to review the cars before the show ever airs.
Dishonest litigation isn't something to be applauded - and it seems to me that's what they're into.
Sounds like an efficient business practice! Have you patented it yet?
I'm not sure which "certain jurisdictions" you refer to, but assuming those countries participate in the European Convention on Human Rights, any such remants are void anyhow.
Note that though blasphemy per se is legal, that doesn't mean it's use is always; e.g. incitement to violence can be a crime and might contain blasphemy.
Yeah, 2000 is pretty much 1960.
With microwave ovens. ...etc
And teflon kitchenware.
And mobile phones
And digital cameras
And the world wide web
And slashdot
With commonly distributed measles vaccine
And mass-produced insulin
And VCR's & DVR's
And The Pill (approved in 1960)
And barcodes
With some understanding of genetics & proteomics
Having found Cosmic microwave background radiation (aka confirming the big bang)
Really, 2000 is pretty much 1960 indeed!
I bet the changes in 40 years will be similarly... unimpressive.
The question, however, depends on context. Within the context of OS's, Windows is not generic - there's no generic Windows OS, just microsoft's. Outside of that context, microsoft can't assert its trademark: you can still sell windows (the glass panes) or software using windows (the GUI element) irrespective of the fact that an OS has that name.
Similarly, Apple is allowed to call itself Apple despite the fact that an apple (the generic fruit) is a common word, and despite the fact that the name famously could cause confusion with Apple Records - context matters.
Within the context of application stores, the term app store is rather generic. Comparing this the the mark Windows seems like a publicity stunt rather than a real legal argument - it's not convincing at all. If they were selling a phone called app store, or shoe polish or whatever - they'd have a case. But they're calling an app store (the generic term) app store (the trademark).
That's like trying to trademark the word Apple for a particular brand of apples - good luck with that...
Note that the customers are not still paying - assuming TiVo isn't lying anyhow. They say customers have not been billed since November and that service until June 2011 will be free. For a device last sold in 2002, that doesn't sound unreasonable. Sure it's annoying, and the hassle and price-bump may cost em goodwill, but it's hardly an extreme step.
Well, let's be honest: whatever authorization google grants or doesn't grant is irrelevant: they don't own the data (fortunately!) - which is merely keywords. Even if they did "own" a keyword by virtue of having trademarked it, that only grants limited rights (again, fortunately!) - you can't prevent others from merely mentioning or linking to your trademarked name in general - essentially as long as you're not misrepresenting it.
Users - namely google employees - apparently agreed by means of an absurd EULA (don't we love em) to send click-stream data, and Bing is merely correlating that "freely" given data.
Now, whether an EULA should suffice to permit scraping this invasive (not just the link, but form fields or text elsewhere on the page) is kinda dubious, but heck, companies have long required you to sell your soul as prerequisite to using their software, and claimed that usage means agreement.
They aren't "merely" honoring a take-down request; they're the designers, builders and distributors of a software system that's antithetical to free software; in which users no longer have the right to modify or redistribute software regardless of who wrote it.
The app store is most certainly not GPLv2 friendly.
The point is to just Say No to vendor lock-in; to the benefit of users and small software firms around the world. It's rather noble of him to take this stand despite the unfair vilification he gets for it, don't you think?
The dev asked for the app to be removed because Apple was violating its license term. Apple does not have a license to distribute VLC while imposing additional restrictions beyond those of the GPL, but chose to violate that license.
The fact that Apple claims they don't verify licenses does not make them less legally bound to oblige by them; and in this case the license wasn't a secret, so they can't claim the intermediate distributor (Applidium) misled them either: they willfully (by manually approving distribution) infringed on this dev's license. Of course, they're chosing to ignore licensing issues in their approval process, so it's hard to claim any kind of malice: they just happen to be wrong, that's all.
It is indeed their fault and responsibility - no one elses; not Applidium (who is not violating the license) nor VLC (who isn't party to Apple's app-store in the first place): just Apple.
In common sense terms, Apple is restricting modification and redistribution. After all, you cannot actually run let alone redistribute a modified app without Apple's say-so. Were Apple merely the app-store provider - that is, just one-of-many distributors - this wouldn't be an issue, but with iOS devices, they are the only distributor.
Now, it's fine that some free-software apps don't mind this additional restriction and choose not to take action - but Apple, even as a third party distributor, is violating the GPL by imposing additional restriction on the license.
The GPL is not about zero-cost distribution, the GPL is about the right for downstream users to modify the program. Apple very intentionally disables this; their app-store is the very antithesis of free software: a world in which you cannot run any program without Apple's stamp of approval.