So everyone else who has an Android, or Windows, or BB, or any other dumb camera phone is not only free, but PROHIBITED from having this "feature" unless the manufacturers license it from Apple.
It sounds good, until Apple bribes the government to make it a requirement for phone cameras. Then everyone else is required to license it from Apple, and Apple gets more money to think up new ways to limit their customers and then apply it to everyone else.
But 5 million others will, and if something of public interest is going on, say police brutality, and they try to record it with their camera phone, but it's been disabled, say, by police IR equipment, that kind of affects us all, doesn't it?
Don't worry about it, it's not like we live in an iPhone-only society. The recent police shooting in Florida that made the news after it was filmed and the photographer was arrested was filmed using an HTC Evo, not an iPhone. There are enough people with non-Apple smartphones that make it so that anything that Apple does does not have the wide-ranging impact that everyone fears. Apple is just limiting its own customers, not everyone else. For now, anyway.
Re:Unfortunately, the way to proceed is clear
on
Righthaven Loses
·
· Score: 2
I am sure that the newspapers will just grant full copyright to RightHaven, for a right to share in the spoils of the lawsuits. This might have been RightHaven's plan all along...
Doubtful, considering that Righthaven is partly owned by members of the Stephens family. Warren Stephens is the founder of Stephens Media, the rights holder. It sounds like Righthaven was set up as an additional revenue stream for the family (and others), not as a rights holder. Stephens Media still retains the rights. It seems like they wanted to prove their case with their own works first before offering their services to others.
The judge cites the Copyright Act in saying that in order for someone to sue, they must be the holder of at least one of the exclusive rights under the Act. The agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media only (and explicitly) transferred the bare right to sue and profit from the recovery, which is not one of the exclusive rights under the Act. Stephens Media retained all exclusive rights to the works. Therefore, Righthaven does not have standing to sue because it is not the holder of any exclusive right.
This is not the same thing as someone hiring a law firm to sue on their behalf. Stephens Media was not a party to the lawsuit, only Righthaven and Democratic Underground were parties, and Righthaven did not have the standing to sue. If I wanted to sue someone for copyright infringement I would hire a lawyer and I would be the plaintiff, not the lawyer. In this case, Righthaven is the plaintiff, not Stephens Media (the rights holder).
Dreamweaver is a tool, not a skill... When was the last time you heard a craftsman get praised for having a tool, rather than possessing true skill?
You realize the guy is asking about which tools to use, right? It's a fact that Dreamweaver has been one of the most stable tools for creating basic web sites.
Where's the leak? According to the data I see in the article this feature looks like it's specifically designed in. It's not "leaking" anything, it's specifically disseminating that information.
Yeah, but... he IS a a visionary genius / hero, and there is no way to refute that.
Oh, really? Let me show you how:
I refute that.
There, that wasn't hard. It's difficult to argue against him being a visionary, he definitely has a vision for the future. It's a stark, choice-less, authoritarian type of vision, but it's a vision. It's much easier to argue that he is not a genius or hero. Genius doesn't really have a precise definition, and of course one group's hero is another group's villain. Steve Jobs might be a "hero" to people who buy his products, but he's definitely no hero of mine. I don't like where his vision is going and I hope that his vision doesn't spill over into things that affect me. I have no desire to be subjugated by the type of total control he's going for.
It's not about money, it's about his ego and his legacy. He has a giant ego, and he thinks his legacy will be as the person who brought America, or the world, into high technology. In that sense it's about greed, he sees himself as some sort of visionary/genius/hero out to save the world by apparently crapping on everyone's choices and forcing people to conform to his ideas about what computers should be.
I don't have a Mac to look that up on, but from what I've seen posted here it looks like they are checking for specific files in the package, with hashes or other data to look for. It seems pretty trivial to change the software enough to produce a different hash or pattern if they can identify what is being searched for.
I'm going to go ahead and guess "so it looks legitimate". Apparently it's still a long way off before malware writers are able to use proper English grammar, but at least they try to make it look legit.
Here's the thing that you are missing: The very first version of malware detection that detects MacDefender wasn't defeated within hours, it was defeated many days before it was released. It is obvious to anyone except you that these malcreants had a variant of their software ready, and since Apple has seen only one variant, their detection doesn't know yet how to detect variants. Very soon they'll know, and then things get a lot harder.
And how do you know exactly what changed in the malware, and what Apple was detecting? I'll tell you this - one of the things that changed was the filename. So it's possible that Apple was just looking for particular filenames. If that's the case, that's no better than blocking files called "virus.exe" from running. It also took them 8 hours to release the new version. If they had one ready, it wouldn't have taken 8 hours to roll it out. It sounds to me like they updated their test platforms as soon as Apple released the update, determined what the update was looking for, and made a new version in 8 hours. I don't know what you think you mean by "how to detect variants", but it's not really as simple as that. If you need proof, look at the Windows malware industry.
It pains me that people still mark comments like that as Insightful. Look up Sencha/ExtJS or another full-featured framework with UI components. Javascript plus CSS and images can do a ton of extremely useful things that we used to need Flash for. I'm not positive about this, but I think the only thing that ExtJS 4 uses any Flash components for is for some really nice charting tools. That could change with support for canvas, but one of the advantages of ExtJS 4 is that it works in IE6. Granted, like all things Javascript, IE6 takes its sweet goddamn time to do anything, but it does work.
I take that back about the charting, apparently ExtJS 4 uses SVG and VML, not Flash (unless the browser doesn't support SVG or VML).
It's not 2001 anymore, even though we have to support a browser from 2001 doesn't mean our tools need to be that old also. There's nothing Insightful about telling people to target IE6 and use Flash for anything "fancy". There are hundreds of thousands of people using the applications I've built with ExtJS (older versions, no less), and I bet a lot of them use IE6.
8 FPS? Are you using IE? I was getting 30-40 FPS on a crappy years-old work laptop using Opera. The CPU was chugging and made all of the fans turn on, and some textures were flickering, but it ran smoothly the entire time. The menu was only running at about 5-6 FPS though.
And if you say "no, they don't age" then they aren't human and porn laws don't apply to them. You can't have it both ways.
What about "the pictures were made when they were children?" If you have a picture of a naked 15-year old (I mean an actual human), that picture doesn't become legal once the person turns 18.
My personal solution would be to say "Oops, that's a typo in the manual. Those 'people' are 18, not 17." The whole concept about treating a cartoon as a person is just too ridiculous for me to take this whole thing seriously. It makes it even more stupid when these decisions are based off some 30 or 40-year old writer whose job it was to make a backstory for these characters.
I'm interested in what actually shows up under their dress though. Surely this bullshit isn't just about a pair of rendered underwear. But surely Nintendo wouldn't actually put the goods under the dresses.. this is just stupid all the way around.
I think we're worse, because we believe we're more civilized and cultured than they are.
I would imagine they view themselves the same way. Anyone on any sort of moral crusade always thinks they're standing on the high ground. They might not choose the words "civilized" or "cultured" though, maybe something like "enlightened".
Wow, the airline manufacturing industry has fanboys, too? Might I recommend "AirBu$"? That way you can also signify it's a for-profit corporation, which seems to play well around here. Regardless, I'm going to try and work the term "mach tuck" into daily speech, so thanks for that.
Perhaps the AutoPilot corrected for an indicated stall and boned everyone on board?
It sounds like the automated systems disengaged at the beginning of the descent and the 32-year-old co-pilot put the plane into a 35 degree up angle, and the plane stayed at that angle even until impact. Apparently by the time it hit it had also rolled to the right, but was still 35 degrees up. The investigators indicated that based on the audio the pilots did not realize they had stalled. They never said the word "stall". They did recognize they had no valid speed indicators.
What we are seeing now is the shift from professionals to skript kiddies.
I don't really agree. Yeah, definitely the kiddies are writing Mac malware, but the professionally-produced Mac vulnerability kit (kits?) is the real problem. There may be 1000 kiddies trying copy-and-paste vulnerabilities, but it's the handful of pros who also write Windows malware that Mac people need to be worried about, not the kids. Like we can see in this story, how the password is no longer required, the vulnerability and exploitation kits are going to continue to become more advanced the more they get developed. This is part of the reason why I think it's a bad idea for Apple to release a tool to disinfect this particular threat. I don't think Apple wants to get in the business, or create the expectation, that they will personally protect every machine. They should start educating people about proactive measures they can take for themselves (scanners and detectors), but that would go against a lot of their marketing BS. If they were really serious about keeping people safe, they would develop tools on par with Windows Defender, Microsoft Security Essentials, and the Malicious Software Removal Tool. Those things aren't perfect by a long shot, and it's been a long time coming, but at least Microsoft is making a serious effort in developing them.
Being pedantic isn't Mac a Microcomputer, I mean can you really call it a personal computer if you don't know how many people use any particular machine?
I don't think the term personal computer implies a single user. A personal computer is distinct from other types of computers like mainframes or even servers (even though a personal computer can in fact have server software installed on it). I tend to think of a "personal computer" and "terminal" as more or less the same, regardless of what hardware is inside them. It's a computer designed to be used by a single person at a time. Mainframes and servers do work for a lot of people at a time, even if they aren't all sitting in front of it.
I don't care if things get abbreviated or not. I'm just saying that it's not wrong to refer to any personal computer, I.E. not a mainframe, server, etc, as a PC, regardless of the operating system it happens to be running. For example, if I have a computer that can boot into either Windows, Mac OS, or Linux, it's a PC. If it can only boot in one of the three, the fact that it's a PC hasn't changed.
Slashdot Mirror
So everyone else who has an Android, or Windows, or BB, or any other dumb camera phone is not only free, but PROHIBITED from having this "feature" unless the manufacturers license it from Apple.
It sounds good, until Apple bribes the government to make it a requirement for phone cameras. Then everyone else is required to license it from Apple, and Apple gets more money to think up new ways to limit their customers and then apply it to everyone else.
Eh.. not so much. Windows is the more free and open one.
I know, it sounds weird to me too.
But 5 million others will, and if something of public interest is going on, say police brutality, and they try to record it with their camera phone, but it's been disabled, say, by police IR equipment, that kind of affects us all, doesn't it?
Don't worry about it, it's not like we live in an iPhone-only society. The recent police shooting in Florida that made the news after it was filmed and the photographer was arrested was filmed using an HTC Evo, not an iPhone. There are enough people with non-Apple smartphones that make it so that anything that Apple does does not have the wide-ranging impact that everyone fears. Apple is just limiting its own customers, not everyone else. For now, anyway.
I am sure that the newspapers will just grant full copyright to RightHaven, for a right to share in the spoils of the lawsuits. This might have been RightHaven's plan all along...
Doubtful, considering that Righthaven is partly owned by members of the Stephens family. Warren Stephens is the founder of Stephens Media, the rights holder. It sounds like Righthaven was set up as an additional revenue stream for the family (and others), not as a rights holder. Stephens Media still retains the rights. It seems like they wanted to prove their case with their own works first before offering their services to others.
The judge cites the Copyright Act in saying that in order for someone to sue, they must be the holder of at least one of the exclusive rights under the Act. The agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media only (and explicitly) transferred the bare right to sue and profit from the recovery, which is not one of the exclusive rights under the Act. Stephens Media retained all exclusive rights to the works. Therefore, Righthaven does not have standing to sue because it is not the holder of any exclusive right.
This is not the same thing as someone hiring a law firm to sue on their behalf. Stephens Media was not a party to the lawsuit, only Righthaven and Democratic Underground were parties, and Righthaven did not have the standing to sue. If I wanted to sue someone for copyright infringement I would hire a lawyer and I would be the plaintiff, not the lawyer. In this case, Righthaven is the plaintiff, not Stephens Media (the rights holder).
Dreamweaver is a tool, not a skill ... When was the last time you heard a craftsman get praised for having a tool, rather than possessing true skill?
You realize the guy is asking about which tools to use, right? It's a fact that Dreamweaver has been one of the most stable tools for creating basic web sites.
Where's the leak? According to the data I see in the article this feature looks like it's specifically designed in. It's not "leaking" anything, it's specifically disseminating that information.
Yeah, but... he IS a a visionary genius / hero, and there is no way to refute that.
Oh, really? Let me show you how:
I refute that.
There, that wasn't hard. It's difficult to argue against him being a visionary, he definitely has a vision for the future. It's a stark, choice-less, authoritarian type of vision, but it's a vision. It's much easier to argue that he is not a genius or hero. Genius doesn't really have a precise definition, and of course one group's hero is another group's villain. Steve Jobs might be a "hero" to people who buy his products, but he's definitely no hero of mine. I don't like where his vision is going and I hope that his vision doesn't spill over into things that affect me. I have no desire to be subjugated by the type of total control he's going for.
He and Woz birthed the PC market.
And he's been trying to kill it ever since.
It's not about money, it's about his ego and his legacy. He has a giant ego, and he thinks his legacy will be as the person who brought America, or the world, into high technology. In that sense it's about greed, he sees himself as some sort of visionary/genius/hero out to save the world by apparently crapping on everyone's choices and forcing people to conform to his ideas about what computers should be.
I'm watching how this develops, I purchased my wife
Was she more than $.99?
Would you buy another?
Have you seen any fraudulent wife purchases on your bill?
taking down 3 different Sony companies smells of a bully, kicking them while they are down.
In all fairness, sometimes Sony deserves a little down-kicking.
What exactly is an "Apache incubation podling"?
I don't have a Mac to look that up on, but from what I've seen posted here it looks like they are checking for specific files in the package, with hashes or other data to look for. It seems pretty trivial to change the software enough to produce a different hash or pattern if they can identify what is being searched for.
I'm going to go ahead and guess "so it looks legitimate". Apparently it's still a long way off before malware writers are able to use proper English grammar, but at least they try to make it look legit.
Here's the thing that you are missing: The very first version of malware detection that detects MacDefender wasn't defeated within hours, it was defeated many days before it was released. It is obvious to anyone except you that these malcreants had a variant of their software ready, and since Apple has seen only one variant, their detection doesn't know yet how to detect variants. Very soon they'll know, and then things get a lot harder.
And how do you know exactly what changed in the malware, and what Apple was detecting? I'll tell you this - one of the things that changed was the filename. So it's possible that Apple was just looking for particular filenames. If that's the case, that's no better than blocking files called "virus.exe" from running. It also took them 8 hours to release the new version. If they had one ready, it wouldn't have taken 8 hours to roll it out. It sounds to me like they updated their test platforms as soon as Apple released the update, determined what the update was looking for, and made a new version in 8 hours. I don't know what you think you mean by "how to detect variants", but it's not really as simple as that. If you need proof, look at the Windows malware industry.
It pains me that people still mark comments like that as Insightful. Look up Sencha/ExtJS or another full-featured framework with UI components. Javascript plus CSS and images can do a ton of extremely useful things that we used to need Flash for. I'm not positive about this, but I think the only thing that ExtJS 4 uses any Flash components for is for some really nice charting tools. That could change with support for canvas, but one of the advantages of ExtJS 4 is that it works in IE6. Granted, like all things Javascript, IE6 takes its sweet goddamn time to do anything, but it does work.
I take that back about the charting, apparently ExtJS 4 uses SVG and VML, not Flash (unless the browser doesn't support SVG or VML).
Did I mention the API Docs?
It's not 2001 anymore, even though we have to support a browser from 2001 doesn't mean our tools need to be that old also. There's nothing Insightful about telling people to target IE6 and use Flash for anything "fancy". There are hundreds of thousands of people using the applications I've built with ExtJS (older versions, no less), and I bet a lot of them use IE6.
This doesn't use Java, it uses Javascript and parts of HTML 5 (canvas, audio, etc).
8 FPS? Are you using IE? I was getting 30-40 FPS on a crappy years-old work laptop using Opera. The CPU was chugging and made all of the fans turn on, and some textures were flickering, but it ran smoothly the entire time. The menu was only running at about 5-6 FPS though.
If the plane has a bird strike and has to ditch in the Hudson, they don't want you to miss announcements because you're busy flinging Angry Birds.
And God help you if you fling a bird directly into the engine.
And if you say "no, they don't age" then they aren't human and porn laws don't apply to them. You can't have it both ways.
What about "the pictures were made when they were children?" If you have a picture of a naked 15-year old (I mean an actual human), that picture doesn't become legal once the person turns 18.
My personal solution would be to say "Oops, that's a typo in the manual. Those 'people' are 18, not 17." The whole concept about treating a cartoon as a person is just too ridiculous for me to take this whole thing seriously. It makes it even more stupid when these decisions are based off some 30 or 40-year old writer whose job it was to make a backstory for these characters.
I'm interested in what actually shows up under their dress though. Surely this bullshit isn't just about a pair of rendered underwear. But surely Nintendo wouldn't actually put the goods under the dresses.. this is just stupid all the way around.
I think we're worse, because we believe we're more civilized and cultured than they are.
I would imagine they view themselves the same way. Anyone on any sort of moral crusade always thinks they're standing on the high ground. They might not choose the words "civilized" or "cultured" though, maybe something like "enlightened".
Regular ScareBus electronic wonkiness?
Wow, the airline manufacturing industry has fanboys, too? Might I recommend "AirBu$"? That way you can also signify it's a for-profit corporation, which seems to play well around here. Regardless, I'm going to try and work the term "mach tuck" into daily speech, so thanks for that.
Perhaps the AutoPilot corrected for an indicated stall and boned everyone on board?
It sounds like the automated systems disengaged at the beginning of the descent and the 32-year-old co-pilot put the plane into a 35 degree up angle, and the plane stayed at that angle even until impact. Apparently by the time it hit it had also rolled to the right, but was still 35 degrees up. The investigators indicated that based on the audio the pilots did not realize they had stalled. They never said the word "stall". They did recognize they had no valid speed indicators.
What we are seeing now is the shift from professionals to skript kiddies.
I don't really agree. Yeah, definitely the kiddies are writing Mac malware, but the professionally-produced Mac vulnerability kit (kits?) is the real problem. There may be 1000 kiddies trying copy-and-paste vulnerabilities, but it's the handful of pros who also write Windows malware that Mac people need to be worried about, not the kids. Like we can see in this story, how the password is no longer required, the vulnerability and exploitation kits are going to continue to become more advanced the more they get developed. This is part of the reason why I think it's a bad idea for Apple to release a tool to disinfect this particular threat. I don't think Apple wants to get in the business, or create the expectation, that they will personally protect every machine. They should start educating people about proactive measures they can take for themselves (scanners and detectors), but that would go against a lot of their marketing BS. If they were really serious about keeping people safe, they would develop tools on par with Windows Defender, Microsoft Security Essentials, and the Malicious Software Removal Tool. Those things aren't perfect by a long shot, and it's been a long time coming, but at least Microsoft is making a serious effort in developing them.
Being pedantic isn't Mac a Microcomputer, I mean can you really call it a personal computer if you don't know how many people use any particular machine?
I don't think the term personal computer implies a single user. A personal computer is distinct from other types of computers like mainframes or even servers (even though a personal computer can in fact have server software installed on it). I tend to think of a "personal computer" and "terminal" as more or less the same, regardless of what hardware is inside them. It's a computer designed to be used by a single person at a time. Mainframes and servers do work for a lot of people at a time, even if they aren't all sitting in front of it.
I don't care if things get abbreviated or not. I'm just saying that it's not wrong to refer to any personal computer, I.E. not a mainframe, server, etc, as a PC, regardless of the operating system it happens to be running. For example, if I have a computer that can boot into either Windows, Mac OS, or Linux, it's a PC. If it can only boot in one of the three, the fact that it's a PC hasn't changed.