Of course, the real issue here is that even the distance to our nearest neighbor - Alpha Centauri - is insurmountable in the foreseeable future.
I don't think that's true: there are plenty of reasonable technologies we could use, and I suspect we could get an interstellar probe up and running for less than the cost of the Iraq war. It would be small and take several decades to travel, but it would be feasible.
Most of the code in question is tremendously useful for running Linux as a server in a mac client environment. This is not trivial or insignificant to my mind.
It's self-serving, in the sense that it supports Apple's business interests and nobody else's.
Regarding Apple's contribution with Objective-C, they did much more than the bare minimum.
Really? Like what? They haven't even released their core Objective-C runtime, let alone any useful libraries.
Objective-C in gcc is well-maintained and AFAIK Apple is still contributing.
Apple doesn't have a choice in the matter. Furthermore, Objective-C is largely useless to anybody on other platforms.
Your assessment of Apple's outsourcing politics is correct up to a point : all US companies are also outsourcing like crazy.
Apple isn't just outsourcing like other companies, they are in a class by themselves. Look at their financials and compare them with companies like HP or IBM.
I think you're hopelessly biased against anything from Apple and I think you left unaddressed a great many points I made about
Yes, I am "biased" against anything from Apple, because of what the company has done and said over the past 20 years. I am "biased" against them as someone who has used their machines since the mid-80's. As for your "points", you haven't made any; you simply repeat Apple's marketing fictions.
If they're not innovative, why haven't they made it into mainstream Linux disros yet? Why are Linux implementations of them so immature and poor?
Let's turn that around: if those are such great ideas, why haven't they caught on? Doesn't Microsoft have the resources to clone each and every Mac feature? Almost every Mac feature exists in open source form, yet Linux distributions choose not to ship it--why? I'll tell you why: those features are marketing gimmicks that don't work well in the real world. It's not that people can't clone the Mac, it's that they don't want to.
Unlike you, apparently, I actually use both Linux and OS X regularly and can realistically assess where each is ahead of the game.
That's another wrong assumption on your part. In fact, I am writing this from a Mac. My dislike of the platform is based on using it and developing for it.
In short I think you're right that the OSS community is not benefiting much by what Apple has been doing, but I think that is largely the fault of the OSS community for not taking what Apple has done and running with it.
There's a lot of stuff that the FOSS community cannot run with because they'd have Apple's lawyers on their asses. And for a lot of other features, when it comes down to it, they aren't being adopted because they are bad features and don't stand up to scrutiny.
They introduced innovative UIs (dock and expose).
There's nothing "innovative" about either of those.
They took old and crufty parts of UNIX and redesigned them (LaunchD, basic directory structure, ACLs).
There were several init replacements before LaunchD. LaunchD was so poor that people didn't adopt it.
Apple moved a lot of directories around, but there's no evidence that their structure is any better.
ACLs have been in Linux and UNIX for years; they have been widely rejected by users and administrators because they are a bad idea.
They introduced powerful technologies that are all their own (OpenStep, signing framework, system services).
OpenStep is derived from the Smalltalk libraries and it's 20 year old technology. System services is an obscure gimmick for geeks. Other platforms have signing frameworks.
Apple's platform is restrictive, but it is restricted by Apple (who has a lot of leverage in dealing with phone companies) as opposed to restricted by the phone company, who are the ones that have kept phones crippled in the past.
US carriers have supported unlocked, unrestricted phones for many years.
I think you have had too much of Steve Jobs's magic Coolaid.
- the Objective-C front-end to GCC, essential to GNUStep [gnustep.org]
Apple (NeXT) released the minimum necessary, and only after legal threats from the FSF. GNUStep has had no impact.
- Bonjour [apple.com] (aka Rendez-Vous), although most distributions have switched to Avahi [avahi.org].
I don't think Apple's code was ever used, and as you point out, it's not used today.
- Darwin [apple.com], by itself quite significant and in particular allowed the development of the hfs+ driver in Linux.
Almost nobody uses Darwin, and HFS+ is only significant for being able to read Mac media. Darwin, of course, itself started out as an open source project.
- Lots of patches to konqueror's back end [kdedevelopers.org] (the same as Safari)
True, but Konqueror is a minority browser, Apple didn't have a choice, and they made it hard to actually use their changes.
There are other examples [apple.com].
Yup, Apple releases open source software; most of it, however, is either tied to their products or largely useless.
When you can think of something actually valuable and useful that Apple has released open source, let us know...
What are some of the things that you've run into that people in your family need?
Well, for starters, you need to install any and all applications that people want. Also, they will pester people at random points with notices about updates. Updates don't just install, they require interaction. Wireless, video conferencing, VPN, and all that are just as complicated as on any other machine. And for a lot of hardware, finding and installing the drivers is an exercise in frustration.
I'm also someone who has owned two PowerMacs (A Quicksilver G4 and a dual 2.0Ghz G5) and for me both of those machines fell into what I what I would consider a "Just Work" catagory.
I've owned about a dozen Macs. Yes, you can turn them on and they give you a web browser and maybe find the wireless, but that's true for most other preinstalled machines. And software installation and maintenance is at least as much work and at least as obscure on Macs as on other platforms.
iPhones are not far more restrictive than any carrier phone ever was.
Oh, yes, it is: Apple has introduced a number of restrictions that no other smart phone maker has done to this point.
The other point you make is that DRM was dying before iTunes. Horsepuckey. There were no widespread online music stores before iTunes.
So, before Apple: no mainstream DRM store, after Apple: the dominant music store uses DRM.
Finally, as far as outsourcing goes, Apple's not too much different from every other company.
If you look at their financials, they are quite different.
What they want is a computer that works pretty well, isn't too expensive, and runs the programs they want.
And that is why they should not buy a Mac: Macs are too expensive, come with very little software, and are about as much work to install and maintain as Windows computers.
And they want a swank mobile phone that does cool stuff for them and impresses people when they whip it out of their pockets. Hence iPhones.
Yes, nothing says "I am rich" like the iPhone... except, perhaps, the $1000 "I am rich" screen saver.
They have contributed much to the open source community.
Apple is using a lot of open source code, and they have released some open source code themselves. But what have they actually contributed to the open source community? I can't think of any significant piece of Apple software that runs on any Linux distribution.
They have raised the bar for software/hardware technology in general.
With what? Quartz, HFS+, Cocoa, Darwin, and XCode do not "raise the bar" on anything. Apple fans like to point to USB, OS X, Bonjour, Quicktime, and similar technologies, but Apple's contributions there were either to adopt an existing standard that was coming anyway, or to take an existing technology, tinker a little with it, and release it under their own name.
They give developers a great platform for either open source development or Mac development without charging for developer tools.
Any code you develop using Apple's native APIs for OS X will only be useful for OS X. That makes it a nice platform for Apple to tie developers to their proprietary platform, but it doesn't make it a nice platform for open source.
They have created an exceptional market for independent developers to make REAL money writing for the iPhone.
You're right: independent developers can charge ridiculous prices for their apps on iPhone. Whether that's going to be a long term viable market remains to be seen.
I guess Apple is bad because they make money.
No, Apple is bad because they keep doing things that are bad for consumers and they keep lying.
For example, with the iPhone, they have created a platform that is far more restrictive than any carrier phone ever was; kudos to their PR department, who managed to misrepresent the iPhone as some kind of rescue from carrier restrictions.
They pulled a similar stunt with DRM: just as DRM was dying naturally, Apple and iTunes firmly established it in the market place.
Apple is outsourcing like crazy overseas; if all US computer companies were run like Apple, there wouldn't be any jobs to speak of.
Apple has a long history of doing sleazy and deplorable things; that's why anybody with half a brain should "hate" them.
Point is, newly bought Mac is ready out of box for average Joe Six-Pack. Newly bought Dell with Vista has to be brought to your geek friend to make out of it something the Joe Six-Pack can use.
Having set up Macs for my family, I have to say: that's a myth. Macs do not come with all the software people need, and finding and installing that software is something "Joe Six-Pack" can't do.
That's why I can easily imaging that some people might get religious over stuff which "Just Works" (c).
Macs do not "just work"; that's a marketing fiction created by Apple. They do work a little better than Windows, but that's a far cry from "just work".
But you can like Apple products because they are made to be liked.
Yes, that they are. They look nice, they have nice themes, the sound nice, and they are nicely packaged. And Apple has successfully created an association in people's minds that their machines are easy to use and are the right choice for smart people who have better things to do with their time than fiddle with computers.
Athletes are wrecking their bodies anyway, so I don't see what the fuss is about with steroids. And the article is right: the idea that doping can be reliably detected in the future is ridiculous.
As the devil's advocate, the first example that comes to mind: Material physics labs.
You can do that with telepresence.
If we had invested the money we wasted on manned space flight in robotics, we'd have a large part of the solar system explored already.
And any future manned mission will require extensive robotic support anyway. For example, even a Mars mission will require robotic landers that prepare habitats and collect fuel.
Spending money on sending people into space with the primitive technologies we have right now is a complete waste. By pushing for manned exploration prematurely, advocates of manned space travel hurt their own cause.
Actual data is highly biased towards gas giants in close orbits because that's what's easy to detect.
Simulations like these don't have sufficient real-world data to make any reasonable statements about what kinds of solar systems are likely.
Also, "rare" is a relative term; if 1% of all planetary systems contain a habitable planet, there would be a lot of them and they'd be rather closely spaced.
firefighters found a LOT of chemicals, about 1500 different ones to be exact.
You have hundreds of thousands of chemicals in your body. Are you a zoning violation?
so doing so much chemical work there violated zoning laws
Oh, my, he did "teh chemical work"! Run for the hills!
He may have violated zoning laws, but that depends on what chemicals he was working with, not how many he had.
Chances are that the insecticides, weed killers, leaf blowers, and motor oil in a typical suburban neighborhood are a far greater health risk than anything this guy cooked up.
That doesn't apply here. The "olympic" symbols are protected as trademarks:
if the person, without the consent of the corporation, uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competitionâ"
According to US law, you should be able to use them to criticize the olympic games, satirize them, or as part of political protest.
The IOC has no grounds on which to demand removal. I hope this will go to court and their hypocrisy will get exposed.
No, the IOC should be ashamed. YouTube did what they had to: when they get a complaint, they have to take it down; it's not for YouTube to decide whether the complaint is valid.
Communication and understanding through friendly international sports competitions is a good idea.
But the IOC has subverted it all. Between insane competitiveness, corporate sponsorships, and political forces, the Olympics is simply a huge public relations and propaganda event.
The best thing you can do is tune out and participate in sports yourself. And you'll do a lot more for international understanding and cooperation if you personally participate in international events than if you cheer for the Olympics.
Subway systems know in detail how much fraud occurs, from rider statistics and revenues.
And why bother deploy a cryptographically secure system? Tokens were far easier to forge than magnetic stripes or RFID tags.
The only ignorance and incompetence here is on the part of the MIT students and people like you who simply don't understand economics and cost/benefit tradeoffs.
How can any such order be justified in the light of the first amendment protection of free speech?
There are lots of things you can't disclose publicly without consequences: nuclear launch codes, secret passages into the Pentagon, how to make anthrax, Google's secret sauce, Microsoft Windows Vista source code, etc. The judge may reasonably conclude that this falls into the same category.
You've apparently missed my first point completely - bad guys ARE looking and YOU ignore this
Are you dumb or something? As I keep saying: of course, bad guys "are looking". Not only are they looking, they are succeeding in defrauding these systems. Public transit authorities know that, and their economists work out the optimum tradeoff between fraud and enforcement.
Do you REALLY think that MBTA cards wouldn't be diddled without these guys?
Again, are you dumb or something? As I keep saying: the MBTA knows how much they are "being diddled". That's factored into the costs!
No PDAs near readers would have been required either as it's the cards that get modified as I recall. Should they arrest someone for innocently playing with a PDA near such machines I think they will find it a pretty big mistake.
You haven't been paying attention; the RFID hack involved placing a GNU radio next to the RFID reader at a subway station.
The MBTA stuff could have been built secure from the start.
Really. Do tell us how. How would you handle key distribution? How would you handle key revocation? What are the costs for networking and system upgrades? How much do the RFID tags cost that support this? How much do the people who can run such a system cost? What vendors offer it and are available for selection by the MBTA? What vendors were available at the time?
A real shame that you so feel the need to bury head in sand and focus blame where it doesn't belong. You're not the manager that stupidly signed off on this for MBTA are you? You seem to have the proper mentality for it...
No, I'm not the manager who signed off on it. In fact, I'm just an MBTA rider. But I've been part of enough big projects to know that a cryptographically secure solution is rarely the economically right one.
But my recommendation to the MBTA would be: (1) ignore the bad publicity and don't change anything about the existing card or RFID system, (2) use data mining and behavioral profiling to find unusual behavior and arrest people who seem to be cheating, and (3) ban the use of any electronics other than cell phones on MBTA property.
In fact, MBTA has no choice because, contrary to what the MIT nitwits think, there is no simple technical fix to this problem.
I'm quite sure that the folks in Boston bought it having been told it WAS "secure"
Yes, and that sort of idiotic arrogance is at the heart of this. No, a bunch of MIT undergraduates are not smarter than the people who design subway systems full time.
Imagine where batteries and consumer electronics were if any combination of lithium-ion/lead-acid/alkaline/... battery and camera/camcorder/radio/television/ipod/... were patented.
Even attempting to patent something like this is an outrage.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but even ignoring the fact that your stats are an order of magnitude off that's pretty inaccurate.
Actually, the stats are accurate: there's been a lot happening in the compact market place.
those cameras have sensors a fraction of the size of SLRs, meaning lower sensitivity, less information per pixel, and more noise and distortion.
That matters to landscape and portrait photographers, it doesn't matter much to news photographers.
If you want to take any kind of professional or artistic photograph, you will need a more capable tool.
Funny, that's what photographers used to say about 35mm, which was an absolutely ridiculously low quality format when it came out.
Of course, the real issue here is that even the distance to our nearest neighbor - Alpha Centauri - is insurmountable in the foreseeable future.
I don't think that's true: there are plenty of reasonable technologies we could use, and I suspect we could get an interstellar probe up and running for less than the cost of the Iraq war. It would be small and take several decades to travel, but it would be feasible.
Most of the code in question is tremendously useful for running Linux as a server in a mac client environment. This is not trivial or insignificant to my mind.
It's self-serving, in the sense that it supports Apple's business interests and nobody else's.
Regarding Apple's contribution with Objective-C, they did much more than the bare minimum.
Really? Like what? They haven't even released their core Objective-C runtime, let alone any useful libraries.
Objective-C in gcc is well-maintained and AFAIK Apple is still contributing.
Apple doesn't have a choice in the matter. Furthermore, Objective-C is largely useless to anybody on other platforms.
Your assessment of Apple's outsourcing politics is correct up to a point : all US companies are also outsourcing like crazy.
Apple isn't just outsourcing like other companies, they are in a class by themselves. Look at their financials and compare them with companies like HP or IBM.
I think you're hopelessly biased against anything from Apple and I think you left unaddressed a great many points I made about
Yes, I am "biased" against anything from Apple, because of what the company has done and said over the past 20 years. I am "biased" against them as someone who has used their machines since the mid-80's. As for your "points", you haven't made any; you simply repeat Apple's marketing fictions.
If they're not innovative, why haven't they made it into mainstream Linux disros yet? Why are Linux implementations of them so immature and poor?
Let's turn that around: if those are such great ideas, why haven't they caught on? Doesn't Microsoft have the resources to clone each and every Mac feature? Almost every Mac feature exists in open source form, yet Linux distributions choose not to ship it--why? I'll tell you why: those features are marketing gimmicks that don't work well in the real world. It's not that people can't clone the Mac, it's that they don't want to.
Don't take my word for it, take Tog's.
Unlike you, apparently, I actually use both Linux and OS X regularly and can realistically assess where each is ahead of the game.
That's another wrong assumption on your part. In fact, I am writing this from a Mac. My dislike of the platform is based on using it and developing for it.
In short I think you're right that the OSS community is not benefiting much by what Apple has been doing, but I think that is largely the fault of the OSS community for not taking what Apple has done and running with it.
There's a lot of stuff that the FOSS community cannot run with because they'd have Apple's lawyers on their asses. And for a lot of other features, when it comes down to it, they aren't being adopted because they are bad features and don't stand up to scrutiny.
They introduced innovative UIs (dock and expose).
There's nothing "innovative" about either of those.
They took old and crufty parts of UNIX and redesigned them (LaunchD, basic directory structure, ACLs).
There were several init replacements before LaunchD. LaunchD was so poor that people didn't adopt it.
Apple moved a lot of directories around, but there's no evidence that their structure is any better.
ACLs have been in Linux and UNIX for years; they have been widely rejected by users and administrators because they are a bad idea.
They introduced powerful technologies that are all their own (OpenStep, signing framework, system services).
OpenStep is derived from the Smalltalk libraries and it's 20 year old technology. System services is an obscure gimmick for geeks. Other platforms have signing frameworks.
Apple's platform is restrictive, but it is restricted by Apple (who has a lot of leverage in dealing with phone companies) as opposed to restricted by the phone company, who are the ones that have kept phones crippled in the past.
US carriers have supported unlocked, unrestricted phones for many years.
I think you have had too much of Steve Jobs's magic Coolaid.
- the Objective-C front-end to GCC, essential to GNUStep [gnustep.org]
Apple (NeXT) released the minimum necessary, and only after legal threats from the FSF. GNUStep has had no impact.
- Bonjour [apple.com] (aka Rendez-Vous), although most distributions have switched to Avahi [avahi.org].
I don't think Apple's code was ever used, and as you point out, it's not used today.
- Darwin [apple.com], by itself quite significant and in particular allowed the development of the hfs+ driver in Linux.
Almost nobody uses Darwin, and HFS+ is only significant for being able to read Mac media. Darwin, of course, itself started out as an open source project.
- Lots of patches to konqueror's back end [kdedevelopers.org] (the same as Safari)
True, but Konqueror is a minority browser, Apple didn't have a choice, and they made it hard to actually use their changes.
There are other examples [apple.com].
Yup, Apple releases open source software; most of it, however, is either tied to their products or largely useless.
When you can think of something actually valuable and useful that Apple has released open source, let us know...
What are some of the things that you've run into that people in your family need?
Well, for starters, you need to install any and all applications that people want. Also, they will pester people at random points with notices about updates. Updates don't just install, they require interaction. Wireless, video conferencing, VPN, and all that are just as complicated as on any other machine. And for a lot of hardware, finding and installing the drivers is an exercise in frustration.
I'm also someone who has owned two PowerMacs (A Quicksilver G4 and a dual 2.0Ghz G5) and for me both of those machines fell into what I what I would consider a "Just Work" catagory.
I've owned about a dozen Macs. Yes, you can turn them on and they give you a web browser and maybe find the wireless, but that's true for most other preinstalled machines. And software installation and maintenance is at least as much work and at least as obscure on Macs as on other platforms.
iPhones are not far more restrictive than any carrier phone ever was.
Oh, yes, it is: Apple has introduced a number of restrictions that no other smart phone maker has done to this point.
The other point you make is that DRM was dying before iTunes. Horsepuckey. There were no widespread online music stores before iTunes.
So, before Apple: no mainstream DRM store, after Apple: the dominant music store uses DRM.
Finally, as far as outsourcing goes, Apple's not too much different from every other company.
If you look at their financials, they are quite different.
What they want is a computer that works pretty well, isn't too expensive, and runs the programs they want.
And that is why they should not buy a Mac: Macs are too expensive, come with very little software, and are about as much work to install and maintain as Windows computers.
And they want a swank mobile phone that does cool stuff for them and impresses people when they whip it out of their pockets. Hence iPhones.
Yes, nothing says "I am rich" like the iPhone... except, perhaps, the $1000 "I am rich" screen saver.
They have contributed much to the open source community.
Apple is using a lot of open source code, and they have released some open source code themselves. But what have they actually contributed to the open source community? I can't think of any significant piece of Apple software that runs on any Linux distribution.
They have raised the bar for software/hardware technology in general.
With what? Quartz, HFS+, Cocoa, Darwin, and XCode do not "raise the bar" on anything. Apple fans like to point to USB, OS X, Bonjour, Quicktime, and similar technologies, but Apple's contributions there were either to adopt an existing standard that was coming anyway, or to take an existing technology, tinker a little with it, and release it under their own name.
They give developers a great platform for either open source development or Mac development without charging for developer tools.
Any code you develop using Apple's native APIs for OS X will only be useful for OS X. That makes it a nice platform for Apple to tie developers to their proprietary platform, but it doesn't make it a nice platform for open source.
They have created an exceptional market for independent developers to make REAL money writing for the iPhone.
You're right: independent developers can charge ridiculous prices for their apps on iPhone. Whether that's going to be a long term viable market remains to be seen.
I guess Apple is bad because they make money.
No, Apple is bad because they keep doing things that are bad for consumers and they keep lying.
For example, with the iPhone, they have created a platform that is far more restrictive than any carrier phone ever was; kudos to their PR department, who managed to misrepresent the iPhone as some kind of rescue from carrier restrictions.
They pulled a similar stunt with DRM: just as DRM was dying naturally, Apple and iTunes firmly established it in the market place.
Apple is outsourcing like crazy overseas; if all US computer companies were run like Apple, there wouldn't be any jobs to speak of.
Apple has a long history of doing sleazy and deplorable things; that's why anybody with half a brain should "hate" them.
Point is, newly bought Mac is ready out of box for average Joe Six-Pack. Newly bought Dell with Vista has to be brought to your geek friend to make out of it something the Joe Six-Pack can use.
Having set up Macs for my family, I have to say: that's a myth. Macs do not come with all the software people need, and finding and installing that software is something "Joe Six-Pack" can't do.
That's why I can easily imaging that some people might get religious over stuff which "Just Works" (c).
Macs do not "just work"; that's a marketing fiction created by Apple. They do work a little better than Windows, but that's a far cry from "just work".
But you can like Apple products because they are made to be liked.
Yes, that they are. They look nice, they have nice themes, the sound nice, and they are nicely packaged. And Apple has successfully created an association in people's minds that their machines are easy to use and are the right choice for smart people who have better things to do with their time than fiddle with computers.
Athletes are wrecking their bodies anyway, so I don't see what the fuss is about with steroids. And the article is right: the idea that doping can be reliably detected in the future is ridiculous.
As the devil's advocate, the first example that comes to mind: Material physics labs.
You can do that with telepresence.
If we had invested the money we wasted on manned space flight in robotics, we'd have a large part of the solar system explored already.
And any future manned mission will require extensive robotic support anyway. For example, even a Mars mission will require robotic landers that prepare habitats and collect fuel.
Spending money on sending people into space with the primitive technologies we have right now is a complete waste. By pushing for manned exploration prematurely, advocates of manned space travel hurt their own cause.
Actual data is highly biased towards gas giants in close orbits because that's what's easy to detect.
Simulations like these don't have sufficient real-world data to make any reasonable statements about what kinds of solar systems are likely.
Also, "rare" is a relative term; if 1% of all planetary systems contain a habitable planet, there would be a lot of them and they'd be rather closely spaced.
What's "useful" about space bases? Why does putting a bunch of smelly humans into a can and orbiting them around earth help science or mankind?
If you convolve noisy images with some filter, some information is irretrievably lost.
firefighters found a LOT of chemicals, about 1500 different ones to be exact.
You have hundreds of thousands of chemicals in your body. Are you a zoning violation?
so doing so much chemical work there violated zoning laws
Oh, my, he did "teh chemical work"! Run for the hills!
He may have violated zoning laws, but that depends on what chemicals he was working with, not how many he had.
Chances are that the insecticides, weed killers, leaf blowers, and motor oil in a typical suburban neighborhood are a far greater health risk than anything this guy cooked up.
That doesn't apply here. The "olympic" symbols are protected as trademarks:
According to US law, you should be able to use them to criticize the olympic games, satirize them, or as part of political protest.
The IOC has no grounds on which to demand removal. I hope this will go to court and their hypocrisy will get exposed.
No, the IOC should be ashamed. YouTube did what they had to: when they get a complaint, they have to take it down; it's not for YouTube to decide whether the complaint is valid.
Communication and understanding through friendly international sports competitions is a good idea.
But the IOC has subverted it all. Between insane competitiveness, corporate sponsorships, and political forces, the Olympics is simply a huge public relations and propaganda event.
The best thing you can do is tune out and participate in sports yourself. And you'll do a lot more for international understanding and cooperation if you personally participate in international events than if you cheer for the Olympics.
The copy of Windows probably wasn't licensed anyway. You can't expect unlicensed, unsupported Microsoft software not to crash :-)
Subway systems know in detail how much fraud occurs, from rider statistics and revenues.
And why bother deploy a cryptographically secure system? Tokens were far easier to forge than magnetic stripes or RFID tags.
The only ignorance and incompetence here is on the part of the MIT students and people like you who simply don't understand economics and cost/benefit tradeoffs.
How can any such order be justified in the light of the first amendment protection of free speech?
There are lots of things you can't disclose publicly without consequences: nuclear launch codes, secret passages into the Pentagon, how to make anthrax, Google's secret sauce, Microsoft Windows Vista source code, etc. The judge may reasonably conclude that this falls into the same category.
(3) ban the use of any electronics other than cell phones on MBTA property.
Make that cell phones or MP3 players, although both are almost useless on MBTA anyway, given the noise.
You've apparently missed my first point completely - bad guys ARE looking and YOU ignore this
Are you dumb or something? As I keep saying: of course, bad guys "are looking". Not only are they looking, they are succeeding in defrauding these systems. Public transit authorities know that, and their economists work out the optimum tradeoff between fraud and enforcement.
Do you REALLY think that MBTA cards wouldn't be diddled without these guys?
Again, are you dumb or something? As I keep saying: the MBTA knows how much they are "being diddled". That's factored into the costs!
No PDAs near readers would have been required either as it's the cards that get modified as I recall. Should they arrest someone for innocently playing with a PDA near such machines I think they will find it a pretty big mistake.
You haven't been paying attention; the RFID hack involved placing a GNU radio next to the RFID reader at a subway station.
The MBTA stuff could have been built secure from the start.
Really. Do tell us how. How would you handle key distribution? How would you handle key revocation? What are the costs for networking and system upgrades? How much do the RFID tags cost that support this? How much do the people who can run such a system cost? What vendors offer it and are available for selection by the MBTA? What vendors were available at the time?
A real shame that you so feel the need to bury head in sand and focus blame where it doesn't belong. You're not the manager that stupidly signed off on this for MBTA are you? You seem to have the proper mentality for it...
No, I'm not the manager who signed off on it. In fact, I'm just an MBTA rider. But I've been part of enough big projects to know that a cryptographically secure solution is rarely the economically right one.
But my recommendation to the MBTA would be: (1) ignore the bad publicity and don't change anything about the existing card or RFID system, (2) use data mining and behavioral profiling to find unusual behavior and arrest people who seem to be cheating, and (3) ban the use of any electronics other than cell phones on MBTA property.
In fact, MBTA has no choice because, contrary to what the MIT nitwits think, there is no simple technical fix to this problem.
I'm quite sure that the folks in Boston bought it having been told it WAS "secure"
Yes, and that sort of idiotic arrogance is at the heart of this. No, a bunch of MIT undergraduates are not smarter than the people who design subway systems full time.
Imagine where batteries and consumer electronics were if any combination of lithium-ion/lead-acid/alkaline/... battery and camera/camcorder/radio/television/ipod/... were patented.
Even attempting to patent something like this is an outrage.