This is the first compromise that I'm aware of Handbrake having this year, and they do sign their releases. They've done so for years, in fact. Updates that occur via the built in updater check that the signature matches what's expected. In this case, however, the user downloaded the file directly from the affected mirror without checking the signature, hence why it didn't matter.
Whether you go through security or not is a moot point. The only reasonable cause for a ban like this is if you think the terrorists have a laptop bomb that can successfully get through security without being detected. Once you understand that, you begin to see how pointless the ban actually is if it's only enforced on inbound flights, which is what the OP was getting at.
More or less, we'd still be letting the terrorist into the country with their undetectable bomb, at which point they can board a domestic flight, take the laptop bomb with them into the cabin, and blow it up, circumventing the ban entirely. If you let the terrorist into the country with an undetectable bomb, you've already lost, regardless of whether it was in the cabin or the cargo hold.
A) The Nexus 4 didn't have a curved display. It had curved glass covering a flat display. Not even close to the same thing.
B) Even if the Nexus 4 was a valid example, however, it still wouldn't matter, because Apple's application is technically a continuation of an earlier patent for which they've claimed priority. As such, while this one was filed in 2014, the effective filing date is September 2011, when the earlier patent application was filed.
I had two thoughts when reading this: 1) Saying "no" to this headline is far less satisfying than it should be. Betteridge's Law of Headlines has apparently failed me again!
2) That (though I don't think it to be the case) the evidence could just as easily back up the theory that--after decades of work--these researchers have successfully bred/selected the members of the insect species such that they no longer fall into those particular varieties of traps. I.e. More or less what you said, except that they've culled the weak from the herd, rather than teaching them.
Also worth mentioning: the 2014 bezel patent is a continuation of an earlier patent application from September 2011, meaning that the effective filing date for the bezel patent is September 2011. As such, for Samsung or any other rival to attempt to invalidate the patent on the basis of prior art, they would have to demonstrate that the prior art existed prior to September 2011.
Unfortunately, that actually doesn't change the situation.
I didn't mention this earlier since it seemed irrelevant and (I thought) would merely complicate the conversation unnecessarily, but the bezel patent was filed as a continuation of an earlier patent Apple applied for in September 2011 (i.e. they "claimed priority"). As such, the effective filing date for the bezel application also goes back to September 2011, meaning that a 2013 demo would still be too late to qualify as prior art.
Yay for patent law. *eyeroll*
P.S. Just to be clear, while I don't have any reason to think that Samsung's products or the CES demo count as prior art, I don't think Apple should have been granted this patent either. I think it's ridiculous that they were granted a patent over something so obvious.
I was addressing whether the Galaxy Note Edge qualifies as prior art (it doesn't), not who came up with it first (I have no clue). You're clearly confused about the distinction.
Even though Samsung almost certainly had prototypes and perhaps even fully functional devices working at the time Apple's application was filed in July 2014, those devices do not qualify as prior art because those devices had not yet been publicly disclosed. Had Samsung filed for the patent shortly after Apple, the fact that the US operates under a first-inventor-to-file system may have played into their favor, but so far as we know they didn't do that, so none of their earlier work in secret has any bearing on the validity of Apple's patent (though, as I pointed out elsewhere, I think it should be invalidated for other reasons). Moreover, even if they had done that, Apple is claiming a priority right based on an application that dates back to 2011, meaning that the effective filing date for this application is also 2011.
Again, none of this is in any way intended to address the topic of who came up with the idea first, nor the topic of who brought a product based on it first.
It's possible that Samsung may be entitled to prior user rights that allow them to continue using the patented technology for themselves, given that they may have invented it independently, in secret prior to the filing date, but that's a separate matter for which I don't have nearly enough evidence to build an informed opinion either way.
It wasn't available 4 years ago. The earliest Edge display I can find was the Galaxy Note Edge, which was announced in September 2014, two months after the patent was filed.
First to market? No. First to file? Yes. The filing date on the bezel patent was July 2014, beating the Galaxy Note Edge's announcement by two months. As such, those other products (all of which were announced after the Note Edge) would not qualify as prior art, given that they weren't disclosed until after the filing.
I wish we'd all spend less time on this red herring with the dates and more time focusing on the fact that it shouldn't have been granted because it's obvious.
The Galaxy Note Edge (the first Samsung device with the edge display) wasn't announced until September 2014. The patent was filed two months earlier, in July 2014. While the patent still shouldn't have been granted because it was obvious, the Edge devices don't count as prior art, given that they were announced after the patent was already filed.
If you're going to ding Apple over patenting this sort of thing (and you should!), do it for the fact that they're patenting something that's obvious. If you're going to make an argument about the timing of things, at least check your dates before spouting off with wrong information, because so far as I can tell, the facts don't back you up.
The bezel patent was filed in July 2014. To the best of my recollection (and I'll admit I may be mistaken, so I'd welcome correction if anyone has better information), Samsung's "Edge" devices were the first to feature this sort of display, but the first of those was the Galaxy Note Edge, which wasn't unveiled until September 2014, two months after the patent had been filed. The S6 Edge and subsequent devices weren't even announced until the following year, meaning that the patent was filed well before any of those products had gone public. If there were any other rivals doing this sort of thing 4 years ago as you claimed, I can't find any evidence of it.
Again, feel free to take Apple to task for patenting things that should never have been allowed to get through the system, but check the relevant dates before you make factually incorrect claims about the timing of events.
Proprietary modular design? [...] So they're gonna make an SGI O2? That went really well. Look at how well SGI is doing.
I wouldn't be surprised if a proprietary design is exactly what they end up doing, though they may just take a Thunderbolt-based approach, given that it would suffice for most of this sort of stuff.
That said, unlike SGI they're not pinning the company's success on this one sector of their business. Even if the Mac Pro fails (which, frankly, it already has for the last few years), you still have a wildly successful company, though not one that's at the top of its game. As such, drawing those sorts of parallels to SGI seems unwarranted.
Instead, I'd draw parallels back to Firewire or the other ports they championed (perhaps even Thunderbolt in its various incarnations) that haven't exactly taken the world by storm.
That's "million". That's with an "m" not a "b". With all this talk of it being a "landmark" partnership and whatnot, I figured it was supposed to be a "b", but the article says "million" as well.
So, $5M, which is about enough to pay the salaries of, say, 100 people working for one year, or 20 people working for five years? Don't get me wrong, that's great and all, and the cause is good, but it seems as if whoever wrote this press release is laying the hyperbole on thick.
They've confirmed that the next Mac Pro, which will be using a modular approach that should allow for easier customization and upgradeability, is already in the works, but that it shouldn't be expected until 2018.
I have Flash configured in my Chrome settings to be disabled until I enable it on a per-case basis. I also run ad blockers that block almost all third-party requests by default, so it shouldn't be anything of that sort. It just seems to be bad behavior on the part of a few browser-based apps that appear to not clean up after themselves well.
Nope. I remember I had these... - Gmail - Google Calendar - Fastmail - Overcast.fm - JIRA - YNAB
Google's tabs were by far the biggest offenders, with YNAB and JIRA not far behind. Overcast and Fastmail were both decently well behaved. I think I had another tab or two open, but I don't remember what it would have been. Maybe a particular issue in JIRA?
I take it you're unaware that RAM prices are nearly twice what they were at this same time last year?
The fabs for two of the three major manufacturers are currently in the middle of transitioning to smaller manufacturing processes, resulting in the industry being unable to keep up with demand. The fact that the mobile market keeps asking for more and more of their attention doesn't help matters either. As such, prices are actually expected to keep going up until around the end of the year.
If you'd like to see the price tends over the last few years, PCPartPicker has some pretty good charts highlighting the issue. Suffice to say, picking up RAM is not so cheap as you suggest. Maybe next year.
Chrome is a resource hog on Windows too. I came back last weekend to find that all 16GB of RAM on my work computer were spoken for, causing things to run at a crawl. I checked Task Manager and could see various tabs each taking up over 1GB, so I closed Chrome out, killed its background processes for good measure, and immediately regained 9GB of memory, even though I had only had around 6-8 tabs open. Others at work have had similar issues, so much so that we have to be careful about having Chrome running while also using VMs or doing memory intensive tests.
Aside from a small number of people who would've done so anyway, no one is going to be ripping Netflix content in response to this, for the simple reason that the phone is the fallback we rely on only when we have absolutely nothing else to use. But because Netflix runs on basically every device, that scenario doesn't play out for most people with any sort of regularity.
At this moment, I have 7 different devices hooked directly up to my TV with which I can watch Netflix (Playstations 3 and 4, Xbox 360, Wii and Wii U, Apple TV, and a smart TV), all but two of which (the 360 and Wii) have been used in the last year to watch Netflix. We have a desktop, two laptops, and two tablets on which we can watch Netflix, all but one of which (the older laptop) has been used in the last year to watch Netflix.
...and then we have two phones, neither of which have been used to watch Netflix in the last year, because watching Netflix on your phone is an inherently inferior experience to watching on virtually any of the other devices they support. Again, anyone ripping Netflix "because of this" was already going to be doing so anyway because of other reasons they had for themselves.
Exactly right. It's a shame your post hasn't gotten more attention.
While I certainly think the policy should be followed, the GP is way off in suggesting that people should be prosecuted for failing to abide by it. Then again, I'd also love to see it turned into something with a bit more teeth to it.
No, but if they cannot or will not pay the expense to stay updated, then they need to accept the responsibility for protecting it themselves. What I expect from them is that they will take the necessary steps to protect their outdated, vulnerable, yet-still-mission-critical hardware, such as simply disconnecting it from the network or air-gapping those systems, given that they aren't paying someone else to protect it for them.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that's not the case. It's also using SMB to spread behind firewalls after someone fails to follow Step 3 that you provided. As such, both Steps 2 and 3 are necessary and must be practiced by everyone behind your firewall, otherwise you may still get infected.
Then they should settle privately, out of court. When they use taxpayer money we have a right to know the details.
A) If a person can't turn to the courts to protect their rights, those rights don't exist.
B) No, you do not have the right to know every detail about how your tax dollars are being spent. Democracies are built on the bond of trust between the people and their government, so transparency is generally in everyone's best interests, but that doesn't mean everyone is entitled to know every detail. There needs to be room for discretion, whether we're talking about confidential intelligence, stolen trade secrets, or body cam footage from officers who found you having sex when they broke down the wrong door.
C) Your workaround doesn't work. Without a justice system compelling everyone to play by the rules, there's no incentive for the violator to settle with the victim. Perhaps in the utopian society you think we live in, everyone acknowledges the error in their ways and seeks to make amends that are equitable and fair, but here in the real world that doesn't happen unless someone makes them, which is the exact reason we have courts.
Slashdot Mirror
His dev box was infected. If you're using dev boxes as mission critical computers, you're the one with issues.
This is the first compromise that I'm aware of Handbrake having this year, and they do sign their releases. They've done so for years, in fact. Updates that occur via the built in updater check that the signature matches what's expected. In this case, however, the user downloaded the file directly from the affected mirror without checking the signature, hence why it didn't matter.
Whether you go through security or not is a moot point. The only reasonable cause for a ban like this is if you think the terrorists have a laptop bomb that can successfully get through security without being detected. Once you understand that, you begin to see how pointless the ban actually is if it's only enforced on inbound flights, which is what the OP was getting at.
More or less, we'd still be letting the terrorist into the country with their undetectable bomb, at which point they can board a domestic flight, take the laptop bomb with them into the cabin, and blow it up, circumventing the ban entirely. If you let the terrorist into the country with an undetectable bomb, you've already lost, regardless of whether it was in the cabin or the cargo hold.
A) The Nexus 4 didn't have a curved display. It had curved glass covering a flat display. Not even close to the same thing.
B) Even if the Nexus 4 was a valid example, however, it still wouldn't matter, because Apple's application is technically a continuation of an earlier patent for which they've claimed priority. As such, while this one was filed in 2014, the effective filing date is September 2011, when the earlier patent application was filed.
I had two thoughts when reading this:
1) Saying "no" to this headline is far less satisfying than it should be. Betteridge's Law of Headlines has apparently failed me again!
2) That (though I don't think it to be the case) the evidence could just as easily back up the theory that--after decades of work--these researchers have successfully bred/selected the members of the insect species such that they no longer fall into those particular varieties of traps. I.e. More or less what you said, except that they've culled the weak from the herd, rather than teaching them.
Also worth mentioning: the 2014 bezel patent is a continuation of an earlier patent application from September 2011, meaning that the effective filing date for the bezel patent is September 2011. As such, for Samsung or any other rival to attempt to invalidate the patent on the basis of prior art, they would have to demonstrate that the prior art existed prior to September 2011.
Unfortunately, that actually doesn't change the situation.
I didn't mention this earlier since it seemed irrelevant and (I thought) would merely complicate the conversation unnecessarily, but the bezel patent was filed as a continuation of an earlier patent Apple applied for in September 2011 (i.e. they "claimed priority"). As such, the effective filing date for the bezel application also goes back to September 2011, meaning that a 2013 demo would still be too late to qualify as prior art.
Yay for patent law. *eyeroll*
P.S. Just to be clear, while I don't have any reason to think that Samsung's products or the CES demo count as prior art, I don't think Apple should have been granted this patent either. I think it's ridiculous that they were granted a patent over something so obvious.
I was addressing whether the Galaxy Note Edge qualifies as prior art (it doesn't), not who came up with it first (I have no clue). You're clearly confused about the distinction.
Even though Samsung almost certainly had prototypes and perhaps even fully functional devices working at the time Apple's application was filed in July 2014, those devices do not qualify as prior art because those devices had not yet been publicly disclosed. Had Samsung filed for the patent shortly after Apple, the fact that the US operates under a first-inventor-to-file system may have played into their favor, but so far as we know they didn't do that, so none of their earlier work in secret has any bearing on the validity of Apple's patent (though, as I pointed out elsewhere, I think it should be invalidated for other reasons). Moreover, even if they had done that, Apple is claiming a priority right based on an application that dates back to 2011, meaning that the effective filing date for this application is also 2011.
Again, none of this is in any way intended to address the topic of who came up with the idea first, nor the topic of who brought a product based on it first.
It's possible that Samsung may be entitled to prior user rights that allow them to continue using the patented technology for themselves, given that they may have invented it independently, in secret prior to the filing date, but that's a separate matter for which I don't have nearly enough evidence to build an informed opinion either way.
Sure. You are aware that unannounced products don't count as prior art, right? Which was the topic I was specifically addressing.
It wasn't available 4 years ago. The earliest Edge display I can find was the Galaxy Note Edge, which was announced in September 2014, two months after the patent was filed.
First to market? No. First to file? Yes. The filing date on the bezel patent was July 2014, beating the Galaxy Note Edge's announcement by two months. As such, those other products (all of which were announced after the Note Edge) would not qualify as prior art, given that they weren't disclosed until after the filing.
I wish we'd all spend less time on this red herring with the dates and more time focusing on the fact that it shouldn't have been granted because it's obvious.
The Galaxy Note Edge (the first Samsung device with the edge display) wasn't announced until September 2014. The patent was filed two months earlier, in July 2014. While the patent still shouldn't have been granted because it was obvious, the Edge devices don't count as prior art, given that they were announced after the patent was already filed.
If you're going to ding Apple over patenting this sort of thing (and you should!), do it for the fact that they're patenting something that's obvious. If you're going to make an argument about the timing of things, at least check your dates before spouting off with wrong information, because so far as I can tell, the facts don't back you up.
The bezel patent was filed in July 2014. To the best of my recollection (and I'll admit I may be mistaken, so I'd welcome correction if anyone has better information), Samsung's "Edge" devices were the first to feature this sort of display, but the first of those was the Galaxy Note Edge, which wasn't unveiled until September 2014, two months after the patent had been filed. The S6 Edge and subsequent devices weren't even announced until the following year, meaning that the patent was filed well before any of those products had gone public. If there were any other rivals doing this sort of thing 4 years ago as you claimed, I can't find any evidence of it.
Again, feel free to take Apple to task for patenting things that should never have been allowed to get through the system, but check the relevant dates before you make factually incorrect claims about the timing of events.
Proprietary modular design? [...] So they're gonna make an SGI O2? That went really well. Look at how well SGI is doing.
I wouldn't be surprised if a proprietary design is exactly what they end up doing, though they may just take a Thunderbolt-based approach, given that it would suffice for most of this sort of stuff.
That said, unlike SGI they're not pinning the company's success on this one sector of their business. Even if the Mac Pro fails (which, frankly, it already has for the last few years), you still have a wildly successful company, though not one that's at the top of its game. As such, drawing those sorts of parallels to SGI seems unwarranted.
Instead, I'd draw parallels back to Firewire or the other ports they championed (perhaps even Thunderbolt in its various incarnations) that haven't exactly taken the world by storm.
That's "million". That's with an "m" not a "b". With all this talk of it being a "landmark" partnership and whatnot, I figured it was supposed to be a "b", but the article says "million" as well.
So, $5M, which is about enough to pay the salaries of, say, 100 people working for one year, or 20 people working for five years? Don't get me wrong, that's great and all, and the cause is good, but it seems as if whoever wrote this press release is laying the hyperbole on thick.
They've confirmed that the next Mac Pro, which will be using a modular approach that should allow for easier customization and upgradeability, is already in the works, but that it shouldn't be expected until 2018.
I have Flash configured in my Chrome settings to be disabled until I enable it on a per-case basis. I also run ad blockers that block almost all third-party requests by default, so it shouldn't be anything of that sort. It just seems to be bad behavior on the part of a few browser-based apps that appear to not clean up after themselves well.
Nope. I remember I had these...
- Gmail
- Google Calendar
- Fastmail
- Overcast.fm
- JIRA
- YNAB
Google's tabs were by far the biggest offenders, with YNAB and JIRA not far behind. Overcast and Fastmail were both decently well behaved. I think I had another tab or two open, but I don't remember what it would have been. Maybe a particular issue in JIRA?
Or get more RAM. The sticks are dirt cheap.
I take it you're unaware that RAM prices are nearly twice what they were at this same time last year?
The fabs for two of the three major manufacturers are currently in the middle of transitioning to smaller manufacturing processes, resulting in the industry being unable to keep up with demand. The fact that the mobile market keeps asking for more and more of their attention doesn't help matters either. As such, prices are actually expected to keep going up until around the end of the year.
If you'd like to see the price tends over the last few years, PCPartPicker has some pretty good charts highlighting the issue. Suffice to say, picking up RAM is not so cheap as you suggest. Maybe next year.
Chrome is a resource hog on Windows too. I came back last weekend to find that all 16GB of RAM on my work computer were spoken for, causing things to run at a crawl. I checked Task Manager and could see various tabs each taking up over 1GB, so I closed Chrome out, killed its background processes for good measure, and immediately regained 9GB of memory, even though I had only had around 6-8 tabs open. Others at work have had similar issues, so much so that we have to be careful about having Chrome running while also using VMs or doing memory intensive tests.
Aside from a small number of people who would've done so anyway, no one is going to be ripping Netflix content in response to this, for the simple reason that the phone is the fallback we rely on only when we have absolutely nothing else to use. But because Netflix runs on basically every device, that scenario doesn't play out for most people with any sort of regularity.
At this moment, I have 7 different devices hooked directly up to my TV with which I can watch Netflix (Playstations 3 and 4, Xbox 360, Wii and Wii U, Apple TV, and a smart TV), all but two of which (the 360 and Wii) have been used in the last year to watch Netflix. We have a desktop, two laptops, and two tablets on which we can watch Netflix, all but one of which (the older laptop) has been used in the last year to watch Netflix.
...and then we have two phones, neither of which have been used to watch Netflix in the last year, because watching Netflix on your phone is an inherently inferior experience to watching on virtually any of the other devices they support. Again, anyone ripping Netflix "because of this" was already going to be doing so anyway because of other reasons they had for themselves.
Exactly right. It's a shame your post hasn't gotten more attention.
While I certainly think the policy should be followed, the GP is way off in suggesting that people should be prosecuted for failing to abide by it. Then again, I'd also love to see it turned into something with a bit more teeth to it.
No, but if they cannot or will not pay the expense to stay updated, then they need to accept the responsibility for protecting it themselves. What I expect from them is that they will take the necessary steps to protect their outdated, vulnerable, yet-still-mission-critical hardware, such as simply disconnecting it from the network or air-gapping those systems, given that they aren't paying someone else to protect it for them.
The second one alone should protect you.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that's not the case. It's also using SMB to spread behind firewalls after someone fails to follow Step 3 that you provided. As such, both Steps 2 and 3 are necessary and must be practiced by everyone behind your firewall, otherwise you may still get infected.
Then they should settle privately, out of court. When they use taxpayer money we have a right to know the details.
A) If a person can't turn to the courts to protect their rights, those rights don't exist.
B) No, you do not have the right to know every detail about how your tax dollars are being spent. Democracies are built on the bond of trust between the people and their government, so transparency is generally in everyone's best interests, but that doesn't mean everyone is entitled to know every detail. There needs to be room for discretion, whether we're talking about confidential intelligence, stolen trade secrets, or body cam footage from officers who found you having sex when they broke down the wrong door.
C) Your workaround doesn't work. Without a justice system compelling everyone to play by the rules, there's no incentive for the violator to settle with the victim. Perhaps in the utopian society you think we live in, everyone acknowledges the error in their ways and seeks to make amends that are equitable and fair, but here in the real world that doesn't happen unless someone makes them, which is the exact reason we have courts.