Sooo... since "math" is shorthand for "arithmetic", is the plural "maths" shorthand for the plural "arithmetics"? Or perhaps it's shorthand for the broader category of "mathematics", in which case it's pluralizing "mathematicss"? "Mathematics's"? "Mathematics-es-es"? Technically speaking of course.
The flaw in the device is not in its lack of tethering on AT&T's network, the flaw is that the device is entirely built upon the premise of Apple's locking down features that prevent you from fully using it. We all know what a general purpose computer is capable of. We all know what a general purpose smart phone is capable of. And we all know what a general purpose music player is capable of. We all are aware of feature after feature after feature that could exist, but don't in order to support some company's idea of restrictions, whether that be Apple, AT&T, the RIAA, or the MPAA. And Apple is at the core, supporting and even encouraging these restrictions, no matter how ridiculous they are.
Tethering is just one glaring example from the parent post, but there are other restrictions that are equally annoying. USB access cannot get to the phone's music via the folder structure, limiting music I/O to iTunes, which then prevents you from moving music from one place to another. It's capable of it -- you can get to the photos using USB mass storage -- but not music files. Bluetooth support is pathetic: There is no OBEX support; other manufacturer's A2DP implementations find ways to audibly bridge poor reception gaps, but Apple just leaves jarring holes in the sound; and Apple's AVRCP support consists of the "play" button -- not "previous track" or "next track", even though Apple recognizes those functions are of such importance in the music player world that they have been elevated to be available at the double-click of the button.
For a demonstration of the depths these ridiculous restrictions can go to, consider the "emoji" keyboard featuring the emoticons that are so popular in Japan. It is not available on the international keyboard list. The keyboard is actually present in every iPhone and can be access from the keyboard list if you flip a certain bit on, but to flip that bit there's a $0.99 app you have to buy (assuming you don't get a different app that includes it as a freebie function.) Why would Apple go to such lengths to restrict it? The only possible answers are sleaze and greed. And that's enough to make me regret owning the damn thing.
The problem is not that Apple doesn't recognize these as important features, because it's obvious they do. It's that they deliberately cripple the device to keep them out of our hands. Furthermore, third-party improvements that would add back these functions are strictly prohibited as long as Apple remains the gatekeeper of the iTMS.
Actually, it's not infeasible. If you own a botnet with 100,000 machines at your disposal, you could set them to cranking through these hashes. If they could crank through at your estimated speeds (which are generous given that most infected machines are likely to be slower, but it still gets the point across) they'd crack it in less than a day. Even if the problem was two orders of magnitude harder than you suggest, it's still doable in about two months. You are still correct with your tightly qualified statement "every alphanumeric email-address under 12 characters" is infact much too large a keyspace to reasonably cover overnight with a "very simple script", but the margin of comfort is pretty darn thin.
And if that is too hard, they can simplify the problem by reducing the search space. 12 alphanumeric characters is an arbitrary limit, and if they want to scan them all with their botnet in under a day, they'll just set a timer on the loop and be happy with the output they get -- it may only be all 10 character names instead of 11 or 12, but that's still sufficient for their evil purposes.
The worse news is that the guys with 100,000 bots in their net are the exact same spammers who have a business motive to come up with email addresses.
Problems of scale are more complex to analyze than they first appear. The bad guys have resources beyond what you might picture, and unlike cryptography where there is only one correct key, they will derive value from partial results.
There are two common ways to bring a Linux based system into a Windows shop: the first is that the vendor could be providing just an application to be installed, and expecting you to provide the server and maintain the operating system. The other is that they could be delivering a turn-key LAMP image, and offering to remotely support it for you. That way your shop can look at is as a black-box appliance, and not have to worry about it.
If you don't have your own people and tools and infrastructure to administer it, the "app-only" route is likely to meet with more resistance than the LAMP route. The operations team isn't going to want a Linux box if they can't stick their corporate standard SMS agent on it, for example. But don't expect the LAMP solution to mean "woo-hoo, we brought Linux into our shop!" Far from it: your terms of service will likely mean that you can't even log on to the box other than to use it. All maintenance will be done by the vendor.
An old wall-wart from some ancient piece of electronic gear can often deliver the needed power. Anyone capable of building this scanner should be able to scrounge up a functioning replacement power source.
I'd much rather be in that facility myself - rather than my digital documents - if nuclear bombs started falling close to my location.
I think I'd rather be out getting a suntan that day. Do you really want to spend the rest of your very shortened life starving to death while defending a concrete hole in the ground from roving gangs of mutants? Surrounded by a post-apocalyptic wasteland? The only settlements will make Bartertown look like a nice family-oriented place to live. And don't forget the cannibals. And probably zombies, too.
Nope, the cockroaches are going to be the only winners of that battle; why fight them for the crown?
I didn't think a court could render an opinion if it's not on the case before it. If a future case involving "space shifting" comes before the court, will they look to this ruling as precedence, or will it be treated more like an amicus curiae brief?
There is certainly a happy medium between clear code and inefficient code, but in general clear code wins on two counts. One is program correctness: when I'm reviewing clear code, I am more confident that it will do the right thing and won't cause a bug. The other is maintainability. How much time does a maintainer have to spend to understand the code in order to modify it?
Both of those are cost avoidance strategies. It generally costs me more to have a developer messing around with complex code than it does in run-time cycles. And a bug or a crash is horribly expensive -- handling a bug means you've got phone calls to support, testing, writing up incident reports, fixing the bug, etc. A crash is way more expensive than inefficient code.
I'm not saying "I like inefficient code." Far from it -- correctness also includes efficiency. Calling a database with a hundred individual queries from inside a loop because the developer doesn't understand how to process a multi-row recordset is horribly wrong, even though it may "look clear". But the correct version of the code doesn't have to read like a plate of spaghetti, either. Invoking the God of Efficiency doesn't magically give a developer license to write unreadable, unmaintainable code.
Again, this comment is about code "in general." You also have to consider the problem domain. I work on a business application, with a user typing input and processing it in real time. If some rarely used path of the code makes the user stand there for an extra 62 nanoseconds, it's not a problem to me. I don't care as much about things that change response time by less than a human can perceive (8 milliseconds is the threshold for the response time of a human with extraordinary reaction times.) But if I were working on the primitives inside a graphics rendering engine, something that's going to be called a million times per frame, you can bet I'd value efficiency far higher than readability.
They know how to do it. They have CORES already. You register, you get an ID, you use it to fill out forms and pay bills. In the case of whitespace, you register, you get an ID, you use it to fill out forms, and not pay bills. Easy.
Quite right. GP also referred to the CoS as 'mainstream'. There is nothing mainstream about them. Most other countries don't even recognize them as a religion. They are a money making / power grabbing scheme dreamed up by a third rate megalomaniac science fiction author that has now taken on a life of its own.
Apparently you have never read any of his books, so I fixed that for you.
What nation? Somalia? It's not a nation, it's a hundred little chunks of turf owned by gangs far worse than anything we know. There is no effective Somalian government to talk to. They're busy enough trying to control Mogadishu -- they have no jurisdiction over the rest of the country.
What you're asking is like ordering the mayor of New York on September 12 of 2001 to stop drug runners in Key West, Florida. It's not going to accomplish anything.
And you can't bomb the "ship" out of any particular town along the coast, since virtually every coastal town is run by a warlord who is running a pirate fleet of his own. To stop the piracy on land you'd literally have to commit genocide. Bad plan.
However, you *can* shoot the hell out of every boat in those waters that comes within RPG range of a merchant freighter, and I wouldn't care in the least. There isn't a single legitimate reason for them to approach, and with the non-lethal measures (water cannons, LRADs, etc.) there's enough non-verbal warnings to teach a legitimate but illiterate fisherman to stay the hell away. Violate that perimeter and whatever happens next is just a kindness to the gene pool.
Most of the people doing the actual "pirating" have been pushed to it by their government. The source of the problem isn't greed, it's necessity (with a decent payoff, too).
No, Somalia hasn't had an effective government in almost 20 years. If they had, there would be police and coast guard and someone to answer for the pirates. Territories are controlled by warlords, plain and simple.
They may have been pushed into piracy by their local warlords - by the lack of government, if you will, but not by the Somalian government.
But no matter why they became pirates, they are still pirates, and they deserve the same fate as pirates throughout history. Swift, irreversible justice. Doesn't matter if they're volunteers or conscripts, on drugs, just kids, old fishermen, or whatever -- they've all proven themselves by heading out to sea to commit murder. For each pirate sent to the bottom of the sea, the people back home become a little more scared, and a little less willing to head out on another attack.
The sea is a lot more brutal and less policed than Central Park, and things don't turn out nice and neat like a cop booking a mugger.
Most of them actually do eat their own dog food for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The language authors are actively writing application code using their own languages. The tool builders are building their projects in their own tools.
Whenever I've met with any of them, they've been universally polite and friendly. They're not condescending, they're just genuinely interested in getting you as excited about their work as they are.
I'd say these people are confident of their skills, not smug, and that they have absolutely every right in the world to be confident.
Your analogy of "people who make pipes" vs. "house plumbers" is close, but flawed. These guys were indeed the "house plumber" kinds of people, and they are masters of the house plumbing trade. After years in the business, they've invented new tools and new fittings to solve real-world problems they've encountered. And they're smart enough to realize the need for a "generic" design that helps everyone plumb better, and to not settle for a specific solution to a one-off problem. So they design and create a new solution, and it is so useful it is adopted by plumbers everywhere. But to think that they couldn't still go back and plumb a house better than 99% of the tradesmen in the business is a mistake.
Oh, and plover, a big thanks for the "Davee is teh gaye" comment... it'll be on Google in a couple of hours, and random search keywords on some spammer's blog in a matter of days;-)
That's actually why I misspelled everything including your name, so it wouldn't be associated with you. But the more it gets posted and reposted, the more Google will believe it to be true. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
In an earlier slashdot discussion someone talked about the problem that his name was identical to the name of a convicted p e d o p h i l e*, and that potential employers who would google for his name would always turn up the criminal first.
*spaces included so you don't turn up as a google hit if someone types that word and your name.
I wish they'd do away with anonymous for trivial/unimportant information posts. It serves no purpose other than to bring out the juvenile in everyone.
And who is going to determine that a post is trivial / unimportant ?
The author. If you're not anonymous, you're less likely to post trivial crap like "Davee is teh gaye!!11!!" It becomes self censorship, mostly because you want to keep posting, and don't want to get banned.
The flip side is that anonymous lets people post useful stuff that they shouldn't for other reasons. While you may (or may not) find the position distasteful, our form of government is composed of everybody, including drunks, racists, gays, junkies, and whoever else. Today it would be political suicide to say "we should have a holiday to celebrate the rise of the Third Reich." But if you truly believe it, an anonymous outlet lets you do just that. If enough people agree and build up support, over time your issue can come out of the closet, and you don't have to be anonymous anymore.
That's a horrible example, of course. A real example is to anonymously write "The King is a Tyrant!" until you get enough people to foment a revolution. And we don't have a king anymore, thanks to the anonymous writers and revolutionaries. Thus anonymous speech holds a significant place in our system.
Look at it the other way: it's perfect, until it's not closed.
What I mean is that Apple is doing the right thing. They should continue to deny anti-virus vendors from selling their warez, at least until there's a proven threat. And so far, there are none. From Apple's viewpoint, it's a great marketing tool to be so confident in their security that they won't compromise it by letting AV software on the platform. And for everyone who knows just how crappy AV software usually is (and how bad it drags down performance) it really is good news.
Seriously. As long as Apple keeps patching the holes the jail breakers use (which they seem to do within days) there simply are no credible threats. Oddly enough, this means the jail breakers are actually their best allies, in that they absolutely have the strongest motivations to hack the iPhone; and since their jailbreaks must necessarily be public to be useful, Apple can keep in lockstep with them.
That also means Apple must continue to keep it tightly closed, and never permit leaky crapware like Flash to run on it. Which indirectly benefits the rest of us, as that means sites that want to play nice with iPhones may provide usable Flash-free alternatives. We can hope, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Sooo ... since "math" is shorthand for "arithmetic", is the plural "maths" shorthand for the plural "arithmetics"? Or perhaps it's shorthand for the broader category of "mathematics", in which case it's pluralizing "mathematicss"? "Mathematics's"? "Mathematics-es-es"? Technically speaking of course.
Itsss 'mathssses', Preciousss. Oh yesss, mathssses.
The flaw in the device is not in its lack of tethering on AT&T's network, the flaw is that the device is entirely built upon the premise of Apple's locking down features that prevent you from fully using it. We all know what a general purpose computer is capable of. We all know what a general purpose smart phone is capable of. And we all know what a general purpose music player is capable of. We all are aware of feature after feature after feature that could exist, but don't in order to support some company's idea of restrictions, whether that be Apple, AT&T, the RIAA, or the MPAA. And Apple is at the core, supporting and even encouraging these restrictions, no matter how ridiculous they are.
Tethering is just one glaring example from the parent post, but there are other restrictions that are equally annoying. USB access cannot get to the phone's music via the folder structure, limiting music I/O to iTunes, which then prevents you from moving music from one place to another. It's capable of it -- you can get to the photos using USB mass storage -- but not music files. Bluetooth support is pathetic: There is no OBEX support; other manufacturer's A2DP implementations find ways to audibly bridge poor reception gaps, but Apple just leaves jarring holes in the sound; and Apple's AVRCP support consists of the "play" button -- not "previous track" or "next track", even though Apple recognizes those functions are of such importance in the music player world that they have been elevated to be available at the double-click of the button.
For a demonstration of the depths these ridiculous restrictions can go to, consider the "emoji" keyboard featuring the emoticons that are so popular in Japan. It is not available on the international keyboard list. The keyboard is actually present in every iPhone and can be access from the keyboard list if you flip a certain bit on, but to flip that bit there's a $0.99 app you have to buy (assuming you don't get a different app that includes it as a freebie function.) Why would Apple go to such lengths to restrict it? The only possible answers are sleaze and greed. And that's enough to make me regret owning the damn thing.
The problem is not that Apple doesn't recognize these as important features, because it's obvious they do. It's that they deliberately cripple the device to keep them out of our hands. Furthermore, third-party improvements that would add back these functions are strictly prohibited as long as Apple remains the gatekeeper of the iTMS.
Actually, it's not infeasible. If you own a botnet with 100,000 machines at your disposal, you could set them to cranking through these hashes. If they could crank through at your estimated speeds (which are generous given that most infected machines are likely to be slower, but it still gets the point across) they'd crack it in less than a day. Even if the problem was two orders of magnitude harder than you suggest, it's still doable in about two months. You are still correct with your tightly qualified statement "every alphanumeric email-address under 12 characters" is infact much too large a keyspace to reasonably cover overnight with a "very simple script", but the margin of comfort is pretty darn thin.
And if that is too hard, they can simplify the problem by reducing the search space. 12 alphanumeric characters is an arbitrary limit, and if they want to scan them all with their botnet in under a day, they'll just set a timer on the loop and be happy with the output they get -- it may only be all 10 character names instead of 11 or 12, but that's still sufficient for their evil purposes.
The worse news is that the guys with 100,000 bots in their net are the exact same spammers who have a business motive to come up with email addresses.
Problems of scale are more complex to analyze than they first appear. The bad guys have resources beyond what you might picture, and unlike cryptography where there is only one correct key, they will derive value from partial results.
There are two common ways to bring a Linux based system into a Windows shop: the first is that the vendor could be providing just an application to be installed, and expecting you to provide the server and maintain the operating system. The other is that they could be delivering a turn-key LAMP image, and offering to remotely support it for you. That way your shop can look at is as a black-box appliance, and not have to worry about it.
If you don't have your own people and tools and infrastructure to administer it, the "app-only" route is likely to meet with more resistance than the LAMP route. The operations team isn't going to want a Linux box if they can't stick their corporate standard SMS agent on it, for example. But don't expect the LAMP solution to mean "woo-hoo, we brought Linux into our shop!" Far from it: your terms of service will likely mean that you can't even log on to the box other than to use it. All maintenance will be done by the vendor.
An old wall-wart from some ancient piece of electronic gear can often deliver the needed power. Anyone capable of building this scanner should be able to scrounge up a functioning replacement power source.
Thank you. While I knew there had to be something, I didn't know what the legal framework was for handling this kind of stuff.
I'd much rather be in that facility myself - rather than my digital documents - if nuclear bombs started falling close to my location.
I think I'd rather be out getting a suntan that day. Do you really want to spend the rest of your very shortened life starving to death while defending a concrete hole in the ground from roving gangs of mutants? Surrounded by a post-apocalyptic wasteland? The only settlements will make Bartertown look like a nice family-oriented place to live. And don't forget the cannibals. And probably zombies, too.
Nope, the cockroaches are going to be the only winners of that battle; why fight them for the crown?
I didn't think a court could render an opinion if it's not on the case before it. If a future case involving "space shifting" comes before the court, will they look to this ruling as precedence, or will it be treated more like an amicus curiae brief?
There is certainly a happy medium between clear code and inefficient code, but in general clear code wins on two counts. One is program correctness: when I'm reviewing clear code, I am more confident that it will do the right thing and won't cause a bug. The other is maintainability. How much time does a maintainer have to spend to understand the code in order to modify it?
Both of those are cost avoidance strategies. It generally costs me more to have a developer messing around with complex code than it does in run-time cycles. And a bug or a crash is horribly expensive -- handling a bug means you've got phone calls to support, testing, writing up incident reports, fixing the bug, etc. A crash is way more expensive than inefficient code.
I'm not saying "I like inefficient code." Far from it -- correctness also includes efficiency. Calling a database with a hundred individual queries from inside a loop because the developer doesn't understand how to process a multi-row recordset is horribly wrong, even though it may "look clear". But the correct version of the code doesn't have to read like a plate of spaghetti, either. Invoking the God of Efficiency doesn't magically give a developer license to write unreadable, unmaintainable code.
Again, this comment is about code "in general." You also have to consider the problem domain. I work on a business application, with a user typing input and processing it in real time. If some rarely used path of the code makes the user stand there for an extra 62 nanoseconds, it's not a problem to me. I don't care as much about things that change response time by less than a human can perceive (8 milliseconds is the threshold for the response time of a human with extraordinary reaction times.) But if I were working on the primitives inside a graphics rendering engine, something that's going to be called a million times per frame, you can bet I'd value efficiency far higher than readability.
What's worse will be the DRM scheme.
This brings new meaning to the phrase Organ Grinder.
Wonder if it will print out a monkey? Everybody likes monkeys.
I mean, My Movies 3 is probably the best thing since sliced bread for playing movies.
To be fair, sliced bread didn't help much for movies.
Didn't hurt this movie: Love Is a Slice of Bread
They know how to do it. They have CORES already. You register, you get an ID, you use it to fill out forms and pay bills. In the case of whitespace, you register, you get an ID, you use it to fill out forms, and not pay bills. Easy.
Quite right. GP also referred to the CoS as 'mainstream'. There is nothing mainstream about them. Most other countries don't even recognize them as a religion. They are a money making / power grabbing scheme dreamed up by a third rate megalomaniac science fiction author that has now taken on a life of its own.
Apparently you have never read any of his books, so I fixed that for you.
Cult: n, A small, unpopular religion.
Religion: n, A large, popular cult.
This story brought to you by the RIAA, striking fear across the globe.
No fine too ridiculous! No defendant too vulnerable! No sense of proportion!
Tell me, at a glance, what makes a pirate vessel look different from a fishing vessel?
Just look for these tell-tale warning signs that you may be under attack from pirates and not a fishing vessel:
Not so tough, is it?
What nation? Somalia? It's not a nation, it's a hundred little chunks of turf owned by gangs far worse than anything we know. There is no effective Somalian government to talk to. They're busy enough trying to control Mogadishu -- they have no jurisdiction over the rest of the country.
What you're asking is like ordering the mayor of New York on September 12 of 2001 to stop drug runners in Key West, Florida. It's not going to accomplish anything.
And you can't bomb the "ship" out of any particular town along the coast, since virtually every coastal town is run by a warlord who is running a pirate fleet of his own. To stop the piracy on land you'd literally have to commit genocide. Bad plan.
However, you *can* shoot the hell out of every boat in those waters that comes within RPG range of a merchant freighter, and I wouldn't care in the least. There isn't a single legitimate reason for them to approach, and with the non-lethal measures (water cannons, LRADs, etc.) there's enough non-verbal warnings to teach a legitimate but illiterate fisherman to stay the hell away. Violate that perimeter and whatever happens next is just a kindness to the gene pool.
Most of the people doing the actual "pirating" have been pushed to it by their government. The source of the problem isn't greed, it's necessity (with a decent payoff, too).
No, Somalia hasn't had an effective government in almost 20 years. If they had, there would be police and coast guard and someone to answer for the pirates. Territories are controlled by warlords, plain and simple.
They may have been pushed into piracy by their local warlords - by the lack of government, if you will, but not by the Somalian government.
But no matter why they became pirates, they are still pirates, and they deserve the same fate as pirates throughout history. Swift, irreversible justice. Doesn't matter if they're volunteers or conscripts, on drugs, just kids, old fishermen, or whatever -- they've all proven themselves by heading out to sea to commit murder. For each pirate sent to the bottom of the sea, the people back home become a little more scared, and a little less willing to head out on another attack.
The sea is a lot more brutal and less policed than Central Park, and things don't turn out nice and neat like a cop booking a mugger.
Yeeeeah. He was... fishing... at night, in stormy weather,
... in eel-infested waters ...
Or against Japanese whaling protest ships.
I'm guessing you haven't met these guys.
Most of them actually do eat their own dog food for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The language authors are actively writing application code using their own languages. The tool builders are building their projects in their own tools.
Whenever I've met with any of them, they've been universally polite and friendly. They're not condescending, they're just genuinely interested in getting you as excited about their work as they are.
I'd say these people are confident of their skills, not smug, and that they have absolutely every right in the world to be confident.
Your analogy of "people who make pipes" vs. "house plumbers" is close, but flawed. These guys were indeed the "house plumber" kinds of people, and they are masters of the house plumbing trade. After years in the business, they've invented new tools and new fittings to solve real-world problems they've encountered. And they're smart enough to realize the need for a "generic" design that helps everyone plumb better, and to not settle for a specific solution to a one-off problem. So they design and create a new solution, and it is so useful it is adopted by plumbers everywhere. But to think that they couldn't still go back and plumb a house better than 99% of the tradesmen in the business is a mistake.
Oh, and plover, a big thanks for the "Davee is teh gaye" comment ... it'll be on Google in a couple of hours, and random search keywords on some spammer's blog in a matter of days ;-)
That's actually why I misspelled everything including your name, so it wouldn't be associated with you. But the more it gets posted and reposted, the more Google will believe it to be true. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
In an earlier slashdot discussion someone talked about the problem that his name was identical to the name of a convicted p e d o p h i l e*, and that potential employers who would google for his name would always turn up the criminal first.
*spaces included so you don't turn up as a google hit if someone types that word and your name.
I wish they'd do away with anonymous for trivial/unimportant information posts. It serves no purpose other than to bring out the juvenile in everyone.
And who is going to determine that a post is trivial / unimportant ?
The author. If you're not anonymous, you're less likely to post trivial crap like "Davee is teh gaye!!11!!" It becomes self censorship, mostly because you want to keep posting, and don't want to get banned.
The flip side is that anonymous lets people post useful stuff that they shouldn't for other reasons. While you may (or may not) find the position distasteful, our form of government is composed of everybody, including drunks, racists, gays, junkies, and whoever else. Today it would be political suicide to say "we should have a holiday to celebrate the rise of the Third Reich." But if you truly believe it, an anonymous outlet lets you do just that. If enough people agree and build up support, over time your issue can come out of the closet, and you don't have to be anonymous anymore.
That's a horrible example, of course. A real example is to anonymously write "The King is a Tyrant!" until you get enough people to foment a revolution. And we don't have a king anymore, thanks to the anonymous writers and revolutionaries. Thus anonymous speech holds a significant place in our system.
Look at it the other way: it's perfect, until it's not closed.
What I mean is that Apple is doing the right thing. They should continue to deny anti-virus vendors from selling their warez, at least until there's a proven threat. And so far, there are none. From Apple's viewpoint, it's a great marketing tool to be so confident in their security that they won't compromise it by letting AV software on the platform. And for everyone who knows just how crappy AV software usually is (and how bad it drags down performance) it really is good news.
Seriously. As long as Apple keeps patching the holes the jail breakers use (which they seem to do within days) there simply are no credible threats. Oddly enough, this means the jail breakers are actually their best allies, in that they absolutely have the strongest motivations to hack the iPhone; and since their jailbreaks must necessarily be public to be useful, Apple can keep in lockstep with them.
That also means Apple must continue to keep it tightly closed, and never permit leaky crapware like Flash to run on it. Which indirectly benefits the rest of us, as that means sites that want to play nice with iPhones may provide usable Flash-free alternatives. We can hope, anyway.