Should it be any surprise that unmoderated software could introduce security vulnerabilities? All a CPU does is execute instructions, so "jailbreaking" a phone just gives you the opportunity to run more software which may contain malicious payloads.
Apple should have anticipated that users would want to use software outside of their control and provided detailed instructions on how to do so in a safe manor.
Moreover, what this really does is level the playing field between corporations.
Yes, it does level the playing field...
"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections."
Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period. If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that, that is your problem and yours alone.
"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections."
The vast majority of freshman enter college believing that there a is Microsoft software monoculture. This requirement forces them to open their minds when they learn that alternatives do exist. Once so enlightened, it is short leap from realizing that they don't have to depend on a corporation to meet their needs to realizing that they don't have to depend on a government to meet their needs.
What happened to judging products on their merits?
It is quite common to judge products based on the manufacturer's reputation.
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?
Absolutely, and their EULAs are even worse today.
And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?
Honestly it would take quite a lot, but acknowledging that using software has no greater relationship to copying than using a book does would be a good start.
On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?
Once a whore always a whore is probably the better analogy, particularly considering who Microsoft is in bed with. They make it well known that they continue play for sure.
This is a perfect example of all that is wrong with copyright as it exists today. Protection is granted to creators in order to increase works available to the public, not hide them away.
They cost money because it costs money to share data. Or did you think bandwidth, servers, and storage were free?
Users pay their ISP's for the bandwidth, can install a free OSS server on just about any machine, and with 2T drives available store data at a very reasonable cost. Again, vulnerabilities and malware are really the only downsides.
What does it matter if the documents are encrypted? Paid file sharing dying would be a good thing, people shouldn't have to pay to share what is theirs. The only downside I see is increased vulnerabilities.
I am really sorry to embarrass you. We started with the RIAA's imprecise language and moved on to what constitutes downloading and sharing, and currently are at how much is too much. Seems to be pretty par for how such discussions go to me.
The same place "all" original copies come from...some third world country that doesn't give a dang about enforcing copyrights of course. Really though, what does it matter? Once the cat's out of the bag it's gone.
NPR for me, but really aren't the benefits of such a feature in smart communication devices pretty obvious? Personally I think it should be mandatory that all radio devices should be able to tune to local public information stations in the event of an emergency.
Only because apple does not want to add it. Nokia phones have had FM radio WITH RDS forever.
Honestly, just because the iPhone does not have it does not mean that others dont have it, or have had it a long time already.
My thoughts exactly. I was shocked to learn just now that iPhone doesn't have FM radio. Certainly though it must have some system built into it to receive off the air broadcasts so its users can keep abreast of important local news, right?
I still don't think your hypo saves you now, but why don't you develop it a bit further and we can look again? That is, tell me the story with a little more precision as to what's happening.
Are you familiar with volleyball? Think of my hypo as after the ball is served each player only touches it long enough to play one millisecond of sound while sending it off to the next. Latency of course would have to be accounted for, but no single computer would need to store more than a word or two of memory at any instant in time.
I reiterate...if no copies are stored on disk the only way to stop distribution is to outlaw the sharing of bits, and as evidenced by Plessy even the Supreme Court is capable of admitting it is wrong.
Guess we are both getting tired. The bottom line is that no matter what lengths the **AA's go to there will always exist the possibility to circumvent their intent.
It really would behoove them to work with those of us who believe that sane copyright law that does not restrict what non-commercial users can do with content is better than no copyright law at all.
Oh, and just add to your brainfreeze consider this...it is possible for computers to load enough bits to play a sound and forward those bits to another machine while loading the next sound without storing anything to disk, and just those few bits to RAM.
The only way to outlaw that would be make all bits illegal.
Now, if you are wondering why the act of downloading a copyrighted work without authorization is illegal, it's because you make a copy when doing so. Even if it's only in your RAM or cache.
So how many bits of a song can one store in RAM before it is considered a copyright violation? With today's processors all is needed is enough to play a microsecond or two before loading the next few bits.
Slashdot Mirror
Should it be any surprise that unmoderated software could introduce security vulnerabilities? All a CPU does is execute instructions, so "jailbreaking" a phone just gives you the opportunity to run more software which may contain malicious payloads.
Apple should have anticipated that users would want to use software outside of their control and provided detailed instructions on how to do so in a safe manor.
Why should the punishment for depriving a person of their right to fair use be any less severe than violating a copyright?
Moreover, what this really does is level the playing field between corporations.
Yes, it does level the playing field...
"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections."
-Justice Stevens, dissenting.
Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period. If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that, that is your problem and yours alone.
"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections."
-Justice Stevens, dissenting.
Too bad they don't fix their country for their people with it.
They've been saving it to "fix" ours B-)
The vast majority of freshman entering college would have no idea what a "software monoculture -" is
High time they learned then, isn't it?
- that's just an anti-MS code phrase.
Are you saying that students shouldn't be made aware that some people are anti-MS, and why they are?
The vast majority of freshman enter college believing that there a is Microsoft software monoculture. This requirement forces them to open their minds when they learn that alternatives do exist. Once so enlightened, it is short leap from realizing that they don't have to depend on a corporation to meet their needs to realizing that they don't have to depend on a government to meet their needs.
What happened to judging products on their merits?
It is quite common to judge products based on the manufacturer's reputation.
Has Microsoft really damaged you so much that whatever they do meets so much resistance that the sheer *thought* of using a product would make you cringe?
Absolutely, and their EULAs are even worse today.
And on a related note, what should Microsoft do to regain your respect?
Honestly it would take quite a lot, but acknowledging that using software has no greater relationship to copying than using a book does would be a good start.
On a social analogy, is a thief always a thief, even when he shows remorse and changed his ways?
Once a whore always a whore is probably the better analogy, particularly considering who Microsoft is in bed with. They make it well known that they continue play for sure.
Blame the copyright system, but do not blame CBS.
How much money did CBS contribute towards getting the current copyright laws enacted?
This is a perfect example of all that is wrong with copyright as it exists today. Protection is granted to creators in order to increase works available to the public, not hide them away.
Download the Linux kernel and take a look at the source. I recommend you start with the Documentation directory.
that relates to your sig is that open source rescues formats, protocols, specifications and standards.
Rampant file sharers pay good money for hardware that enables them to share their stolen software and pirated content.
Your software was stolen? Are you sure you didn't just misplace it? Scan your drives again to make sure it's really gone.
The average torrent junkie doesn't buy 8TB of disk and upgraded bandwidth plans because they really like sharing Linux ISOs...Please.
I can see it now. ACTA paragraph 666 - no person shall possess more than 640kb of storage without a license. That, after all, is enough for anybody.
I'm not sure if you've noticed: rampant file sharers think EVERYTHING should be free. At least for them.
Wrong. Rampant file sharers pay good money for hardware that enables them to share their free software and content.
They cost money because it costs money to share data. Or did you think bandwidth, servers, and storage were free?
Users pay their ISP's for the bandwidth, can install a free OSS server on just about any machine, and with 2T drives available store data at a very reasonable cost. Again, vulnerabilities and malware are really the only downsides.
What does it matter if the documents are encrypted? Paid file sharing dying would be a good thing, people shouldn't have to pay to share what is theirs. The only downside I see is increased vulnerabilities.
If it can be done, it will be done.
I am really sorry to embarrass you. We started with the RIAA's imprecise language and moved on to what constitutes downloading and sharing, and currently are at how much is too much. Seems to be pretty par for how such discussions go to me.
The same place "all" original copies come from...some third world country that doesn't give a dang about enforcing copyrights of course. Really though, what does it matter? Once the cat's out of the bag it's gone.
NPR for me, but really aren't the benefits of such a feature in smart communication devices pretty obvious? Personally I think it should be mandatory that all radio devices should be able to tune to local public information stations in the event of an emergency.
Only because apple does not want to add it. Nokia phones have had FM radio WITH RDS forever.
Honestly, just because the iPhone does not have it does not mean that others dont have it, or have had it a long time already.
My thoughts exactly. I was shocked to learn just now that iPhone doesn't have FM radio. Certainly though it must have some system built into it to receive off the air broadcasts so its users can keep abreast of important local news, right?
I still don't think your hypo saves you now, but why don't you develop it a bit further and we can look again? That is, tell me the story with a little more precision as to what's happening.
Are you familiar with volleyball? Think of my hypo as after the ball is served each player only touches it long enough to play one millisecond of sound while sending it off to the next. Latency of course would have to be accounted for, but no single computer would need to store more than a word or two of memory at any instant in time.
I reiterate...if no copies are stored on disk the only way to stop distribution is to outlaw the sharing of bits, and as evidenced by Plessy even the Supreme Court is capable of admitting it is wrong.
Guess we are both getting tired. The bottom line is that no matter what lengths the **AA's go to there will always exist the possibility to circumvent their intent.
It really would behoove them to work with those of us who believe that sane copyright law that does not restrict what non-commercial users can do with content is better than no copyright law at all.
Oh, and just add to your brainfreeze consider this...it is possible for computers to load enough bits to play a sound and forward those bits to another machine while loading the next sound without storing anything to disk, and just those few bits to RAM.
The only way to outlaw that would be make all bits illegal.
Now, if you are wondering why the act of downloading a copyrighted work without authorization is illegal, it's because you make a copy when doing so. Even if it's only in your RAM or cache.
So how many bits of a song can one store in RAM before it is considered a copyright violation? With today's processors all is needed is enough to play a microsecond or two before loading the next few bits.