So I have to go hunt him down and ask for the file so I can verify the hash?...sure seems like signing the message with his own certificate might have been a better way to prove who authored it. I mean he is a security researcher and owner of company. He should be able to get a trusted cert for when signing, etc..
[blockquote]bca2fee517ff50ddd01bb7d6ed9c3043 The above MD5 hash of a text file should serve as a proof in case someone attempts to deny the statements of this message.[/blockquote]
Anyone care to tell me how expects the above to prove the email message you quoted is legit? If it is only a text file that David Maynor has how are we supposed to know what it is? If it is a text file that we can get at then how is the MD5 hash of it useful?
Humans do the targeting and firing... at no point is human judgement not involved. In fact given that the people doing the targetting/firing/flying aren't under stress of being killed, having to deal with motion of the aircraft, etc. they can spend far more time on making judgement calls about what to target and if/when to fire. Also the drone can stay in harms way much longer and at lower speeds then attack aircraft which gives them more time to target, etc.
Mac OS X 10.5 (and possibly OS X used on the iPhone) utilize LLVM as a JIT compiler in a few pathways (mainly to generate situational optimized code, they publicly talked about LLVM using in the OpenGL pathway during software fallback for example). LLVM back-end coupled with the LLVM-gcc front end (an Apple employee did a lot of the work on LLVM-gcc) allows the use of gcc to compile code with LLVM back-end doing final code generation (allowing for better optimized code as well as reduced code size).
Anyway it is possible that Apple used LLVM to do the final binary generation.
Actually if Michael Sweet maintained ownership and he maintained his requirement of transfer of ownership to himself of any contributions then he has full power to license the code he owns under any terms to Apple despite it also being licensed under GPLv2 (or GPLv3 if he decided to move to that). So Apple won't be affected by such a licensing change... however depending on the license agreement terms between Michael and Apple (say it was time limited or revision limited) Apple could be affected if Michael changed to GPLv3 and decided to not renew he special licensing with Apple.
Anyway Apple purchasing rights to the source was likely done to help buffer Apple from such issues as well as clear any legal issues given that Michael is now working for Apple (contributing to projects outside of your current employer has the potential issue of ownership that can be problematic without clear employer/empolyee agreements, etc.).
As you note Apple is the one developing it so they can do what they want with it and so far I am not sure they have publicly specified the license it will live under and/or if it will be available for use by others (in a open / no cost sense).
Given that they are pitching it to the LLVM community I would say a better then average chance exists that Apple will share while maintaining enough control over the project to ensure that it can fulfill their needs and ensure a high quality project (in otherwords get what they need with out triggering forking which can easily negate collaborative gains). Apple can benefit from assistance from others on a project like this.
1) The individual that sold the rights to the code to Apple had full rights to all of the source code even if some of it had been contributed by others (he required this).
2) If (1) wasn't true then that individual couldn't sell the rights to code he himself didn't have the rights to and given the use of the GPL then Apple would have to remove the use of all code that they didn't purchase if they desired to do any type of relicensing, etc.
In other words Apple couldn't get the whole thing by just buying out a simple majority of the stake holders. So this in reality is rather different then a hostile take over in the traditional meaning of the term.
"Jointly sponsored by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the Web Science Research Initiative (WSRI), this workshop will bring together government officials, computer scientists and other academics specializing in both technical and legal eGovernment issues, leaders in the Web standards community, as well as a wide range of companies providing products and services in the government marketplace." (http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/eGov-policy-cfp)
I don't see reporters or general public listed. So turning away reporters, etc. is inline with the call for participation and further supported by the statement about limited space and hence limiting participation.
It does state that the workshop doesn't require W3C membership but participants require registration... so did this reporter register? (note registration window closed on the 7th of June)
"Space is limited and priority for registration is given to those who have submitted position papers. If you request registration without sending a position paper we suggest that you wait to make any non-refundable travel arrangements." "W3C membership is not required in order to participate in the Workshop." "The total number of participants will be limited. To ensure diversity, a limit might be imposed on the maximum number of participants per organization."
Several of the issues appear to be in the foundational libraries which Apple ported from Mac OS X and not in Safari or WebKit themselves. The beta is testing more then just WebKit or Safari on Windows.
Actually in many schools of thought those levels have everything to do with quality and completeness.
Alpha = feature incomplete software with bugs, Beta = feature complete software with bugs, Release = feature complete software with ideally very few bugs.
You are misreading the last sentence you quoted... it says nothing about a song sounding different with or without DRM. It is simply stating given that folks cannot tell the difference between a 128 and 256 kb/s AAC encoded song that the value - as in extra cost of the "iTunes Plus" song - in their opinion is solely in the fact that the song comes without DRM. In other words don't buy it because it sounds that much different buy it because it has no DRM.
so let's just make a completely insane conclusion and hope no one notices
Slashdot Mirror
So I have to go hunt him down and ask for the file so I can verify the hash? ...sure seems like signing the message with his own certificate might have been a better way to prove who authored it. I mean he is a security researcher and owner of company. He should be able to get a trusted cert for when signing, etc..
[blockquote]bca2fee517ff50ddd01bb7d6ed9c3043
The above MD5 hash of a text file should serve as a proof in case
someone attempts to deny the statements of this message.[/blockquote]
Anyone care to tell me how expects the above to prove the email message you quoted is legit? If it is only a text file that David Maynor has how are we supposed to know what it is? If it is a text file that we can get at then how is the MD5 hash of it useful?
Humans do the targeting and firing... at no point is human judgement not involved. In fact given that the people doing the targetting/firing/flying aren't under stress of being killed, having to deal with motion of the aircraft, etc. they can spend far more time on making judgement calls about what to target and if/when to fire. Also the drone can stay in harms way much longer and at lower speeds then attack aircraft which gives them more time to target, etc.
According to CVE-2007-2788 and CVE-2007-2789 any version of Java before "1.5.0_11-b03" and "1.6.x before 1.6.0_01-b06".
Sure I will take that bet =P ...since they already have released the source under the LLVM license. :)
Mac OS X 10.5 (and possibly OS X used on the iPhone) utilize LLVM as a JIT compiler in a few pathways (mainly to generate situational optimized code, they publicly talked about LLVM using in the OpenGL pathway during software fallback for example). LLVM back-end coupled with the LLVM-gcc front end (an Apple employee did a lot of the work on LLVM-gcc) allows the use of gcc to compile code with LLVM back-end doing final code generation (allowing for better optimized code as well as reduced code size).
Anyway it is possible that Apple used LLVM to do the final binary generation.
Actually if Michael Sweet maintained ownership and he maintained his requirement of transfer of ownership to himself of any contributions then he has full power to license the code he owns under any terms to Apple despite it also being licensed under GPLv2 (or GPLv3 if he decided to move to that). So Apple won't be affected by such a licensing change... however depending on the license agreement terms between Michael and Apple (say it was time limited or revision limited) Apple could be affected if Michael changed to GPLv3 and decided to not renew he special licensing with Apple.
Anyway Apple purchasing rights to the source was likely done to help buffer Apple from such issues as well as clear any legal issues given that Michael is now working for Apple (contributing to projects outside of your current employer has the potential issue of ownership that can be problematic without clear employer/empolyee agreements, etc.).
Actually... I was informed that Apple stated that "clang" will be released under the same license as LLVM is currently (BSD-like license).
Note that llvm-gcc front end is different then "clang", the later is unrelated to gcc.
As you note Apple is the one developing it so they can do what they want with it and so far I am not sure they have publicly specified the license it will live under and/or if it will be available for use by others (in a open / no cost sense).
Given that they are pitching it to the LLVM community I would say a better then average chance exists that Apple will share while maintaining enough control over the project to ensure that it can fulfill their needs and ensure a high quality project (in otherwords get what they need with out triggering forking which can easily negate collaborative gains). Apple can benefit from assistance from others on a project like this.
You may want to look at LLVM and in particular clang (pdf) for an ideal on what Apple may have in the works. The later is found on the May 25, 2007 LLVM Developers' Meeting Proceedings page.
This is however different for two main reasons...
1) The individual that sold the rights to the code to Apple had full rights to all of the source code even if some of it had been contributed by others (he required this).
2) If (1) wasn't true then that individual couldn't sell the rights to code he himself didn't have the rights to and given the use of the GPL then Apple would have to remove the use of all code that they didn't purchase if they desired to do any type of relicensing, etc.
In other words Apple couldn't get the whole thing by just buying out a simple majority of the stake holders. So this in reality is rather different then a hostile take over in the traditional meaning of the term.
(or extend your existing AT&T plan to 2 yeas and add $40/mo.) Nope the base unlimited data plan for the iPhone is $20/mo.
...and ain't talking about no salad fork.
...no but version 3 of the GPL will save us from the iPhone.
iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them
"Jointly sponsored by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the Web Science Research Initiative (WSRI), this workshop will bring together government officials, computer scientists and other academics specializing in both technical and legal eGovernment issues, leaders in the Web standards community, as well as a wide range of companies providing products and services in the government marketplace." (http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/eGov-policy-cfp)
I don't see reporters or general public listed. So turning away reporters, etc. is inline with the call for participation and further supported by the statement about limited space and hence limiting participation.
It does state that the workshop doesn't require W3C membership but participants require registration... so did this reporter register? (note registration window closed on the 7th of June)
http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/eGov-policy
"Space is limited and priority for registration is given to those who have submitted position papers. If you request registration without sending a position paper we suggest that you wait to make any non-refundable travel arrangements."
"W3C membership is not required in order to participate in the Workshop."
"The total number of participants will be limited. To ensure diversity, a limit might be imposed on the maximum number of participants per organization."
Take a look at the following and make sure to file defects...
Safari Beta 3.0.1 for Windows
Several of the issues appear to be in the foundational libraries which Apple ported from Mac OS X and not in Safari or WebKit themselves. The beta is testing more then just WebKit or Safari on Windows.
Actually in many schools of thought those levels have everything to do with quality and completeness.
Alpha = feature incomplete software with bugs, Beta = feature complete software with bugs, Release = feature complete software with ideally very few bugs.
You are misreading the last sentence you quoted... it says nothing about a song sounding different with or without DRM. It is simply stating given that folks cannot tell the difference between a 128 and 256 kb/s AAC encoded song that the value - as in extra cost of the "iTunes Plus" song - in their opinion is solely in the fact that the song comes without DRM. In other words don't buy it because it sounds that much different buy it because it has no DRM.
so let's just make a completely insane conclusion and hope no one notices
Good advice...
Maybe you missed this? "Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the iTunes Store"
The "30%" only applies to song purchase. Album purchases haven't changed in price when buying 256kbps sans DRM.
It supports more (or less) then 128 partitions... the wikipedia entry just outlines what the Windows partitioning tool reserves.
Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) supports GUID Partition Table (GPT)
Try right-clicking (or control-left-click) when Safari is showing a PDF.