First, that Apple plans to implement this patent in their own products.
The fact that Apple got a patent supports the assumption that they plan to implement it. Unless Apple is just a patent troll, which is another possibility. Both of those assumptions are supported. I find the former more likely.
Second, that Apple won't license this patent to other companies.
That doesn't imply that every operating system will have advertising.
What I find interesting is Steve Jobs being listed as the "inventor". Does he have nothing better to do than sit around and come up with ways to screw over his customers?
In all fairness, turtlenecks don't buy themselves.
Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?
Uh, yeah. One reason why I think they would do this is because they got a patent to do this. Weird, I know. I'm sure they'll come up with a wonderfully-designed, aesthetically-pleasing, usable* interface for showing advertisements.
It may shock you to realize this, but Apple is actually a for-profit corporation which, like other for-profit corporations, is focused on maximizing revenue.
No, a boot screen is a boot screen. Not everything that has any sort of branding on it is necessarily an advertisement. A boot sequence is indeed critical to the functionality of the computer, and frankly it makes sense to show what is booting, however stylized they want to make it.
Branding isn't the same as advertising. For one, advertising involves showing ads for products that don't necessarily have anything to do with the one you're using. The tag on the back of your shirt that says who made the shirt isn't an advertisement for that brand, it's just identifying who made the shirt. The design on the front of the shirt, however, is an ad.
You have a problem that I dislike the Kindle idea? Ohh... so sorry. You may like to be vendor-locked and use a device that can kill your content on vendor command, but I do not.
(and as a note, My sig is not decorative. I do not like to write and read in English, and I do not care if you dislike this with your "corrected to you".)
Fixed that for you.
I don't care what you like or what you don't like. But what I don't like is posts that say "don't buy this, it's useless, because I don't like it." It works just fine for plenty of people. It doesn't really matter if it works for everyone or not. There's not a single product in the history of the world that has worked great for everyone who's tried to use it.
This is why I find it so amusing when the hardcore republicans refer to the "extreme left" democrats, which happen to be far to the right of people like myself. I'm down there somewhere near Nader:
Oh, then it must be true for everyone. That's probably exactly why the original Kindle sold out in five and a half hours and was out of stock for the next five months, because it's expensive and useless.
Also, if you think that a small laptop with a PDF reader is a replacement for Kindle (let alone "better"), you're out of touch. Do some research into how Kindle accesses content online (hint: there's no wifi, and there's no ethernet). Also, I'd like to see your netbook spend four days between battery charges while online, or two weeks while offline.
I was actually thinking about this in the shower today, and decided that even sending a string of SQL to the database is not allowed. That string could theoretically be intercepted en-route and modified.
The thing is that a voting machine should really be dead simple. There's no reason at all to require that each machine have a dedicated SQL Server to store everything in (and transmitting live results to a remote server is obviously verboten). This is a single-threaded, single-user application we're talking about here. It doesn't need a database, it can very well store all results in a file.
So yes, virtually everything you can do with a database, or at least Microsoft SQL Server, I don't believe would be allowed, or should be allowed if it is. It's simply not necessary, and over-complicates the simple task that a voting machine needs to perform.
Databases are great, they make a lot of applications a lot more simple and efficient. This is an application that is already simple, adding a database just complicates it, and efficiency isn't even an issue because you can quite happily update a counter in a text file with a 286 and not have any problems. When we're talking about the integrity of the voting system in this country, I think less is more. Take out unnecessary complexity, make sure all code can have its hash calculated and compared easily in the field, and everyone's happy.
There's no reason to set up views, stored procedures, triggers, or sending commands to a third-party piece of software. We're counting up votes here. This isn't rocket surgery.
If that were true that changes a lot. At this point I'm not really inclined to give Sequoia the benefit of the doubt though. If they had a good, competent, working system, they should have no problems showing it off.
You have no knowledge that this code shipped with the voting station. You are simply parroting assumptions.
In other words, I am not giving Sequoia the benefit of the doubt, and you're right, I'm not. They're a shady company and I don't trust them and, yeah, I'm not very inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. A jury can do that.
What I do know is that it was this code that Sequoia was trying to conceal from the public, and that right there doesn't give me a lot of faith that they've actually got a good, competent system that I just haven't seen yet. Sounds more like they know their system isn't up to par and they don't want to get called on it, but it looks like they're about to. I don't think there's necessarily any malevolence, but there sure as hell is incompetence. A single-user, single-threaded number counting application does not need a dedicated database with stored procedures to do the counting.
I'm suggesting that it doesn't satisfy the law to include code that gets executed without being able to have its checksum verified to ensure it's the same code that was certified to run. That's what I'm suggesting, and stored procedures inside SQL Server do not satisfy that requirement.
Nice one jackass, but I'm not a lawyer, I'm a programmer. It should be pretty goddamn clear to any novice that a stored procedure in MS SQL Server, which is what we're dealing with here, is most definitely interpreted code. The law clearly states that interpreted code is not allowed because of the obvious fact that it can easily be changed after the certification. They state that once the software is certified that there are no more compilers or linkers allowed in the onboard software and that the binaries should be able to have their checksum validated in the field to ensure it's the same software that was certified. Especially when the SQL code to create those same stored procedures ships with the product, as if the database itself is set up in the field.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that seems pretty goddamn clear to me that a stored procedure in SQL Server does not meet those criteria.
But, and I'm being honest here, I really want to hear your opinion on the matter, since mine doesn't matter, and is based on scary capital letters.
should there be consequences for enabling that crime
There should be consequences for committing the crime. The responsibility of the crime rests solely on whoever committed it, they are the only party with responsibility for the crime. If I say that I voted to stop prosecuting people for marijuana use, and some anti-pothead activist kills me, I'm not somehow responsible for my own murder because I informed the guy who killed me how I voted.
When information is placed in the public record, and someone uses that information to commit a crime, the only responsibility for that crime belongs to the person who committed it. There were several sane people who had access to that same information yet somehow managed to avoid committing a crime.
I take it then, that you have never voted...Your understanding of the American voting system is seriously incomplete.
Thanks, I'm 30 and have voted in several elections.
I voted for Bush the first time, and voted against him the second time.
That's interesting phrasing, I was about to say I voted for Kerry but it wasn't so much a vote for Kerry as a vote against Bush.
Do you see the reason for anonymity, now?
In the voting booth? Yeah. On the streets when people are walking around asking for signatures? No. I can see everyone else's name on the petition right in front of me, right when I sign it. If you're putting your name and support behind a public initiative, then stand up for it. If you think you're being threatened because of your vote, call the authorities. If the intimidation has worked on you and you're too scared to call the authorities, don't vote. Tampering with elections or influencing a vote is a federal crime, if you beat your wife because of her vote and she reports you, you're screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
Jobs' "vision" for Apple is a full bank account. This helps him achieve that vision.
I like how you spell "M$" while defending Apple for patenting a method of advertising. Well done.
First, that Apple plans to implement this patent in their own products.
The fact that Apple got a patent supports the assumption that they plan to implement it. Unless Apple is just a patent troll, which is another possibility. Both of those assumptions are supported. I find the former more likely.
Second, that Apple won't license this patent to other companies.
That doesn't imply that every operating system will have advertising.
What I find interesting is Steve Jobs being listed as the "inventor". Does he have nothing better to do than sit around and come up with ways to screw over his customers?
In all fairness, turtlenecks don't buy themselves.
Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?
Uh, yeah. One reason why I think they would do this is because they got a patent to do this. Weird, I know. I'm sure they'll come up with a wonderfully-designed, aesthetically-pleasing, usable* interface for showing advertisements.
It may shock you to realize this, but Apple is actually a for-profit corporation which, like other for-profit corporations, is focused on maximizing revenue.
*Usable for the advertisers, of course.
No, a boot screen is a boot screen. Not everything that has any sort of branding on it is necessarily an advertisement. A boot sequence is indeed critical to the functionality of the computer, and frankly it makes sense to show what is booting, however stylized they want to make it.
I think the majority of the stupid patents from the big companies are just to protect them from the patent trolls in the future
Sounds like you're "thinking different".
Branding isn't the same as advertising. For one, advertising involves showing ads for products that don't necessarily have anything to do with the one you're using. The tag on the back of your shirt that says who made the shirt isn't an advertisement for that brand, it's just identifying who made the shirt. The design on the front of the shirt, however, is an ad.
Wow, this may actually be the final straw that made Linux win.
What did Linux win, and how did it beat Windows 7?
Confine advertising to OSX, sounds good to me.
You have a problem that I dislike the Kindle idea? Ohh... so sorry. You may like to be vendor-locked and use a device that can kill your content on vendor command, but I do not.
(and as a note, My sig is not decorative. I do not like to write and read in English, and I do not care if you dislike this with your "corrected to you".)
Fixed that for you.
I don't care what you like or what you don't like. But what I don't like is posts that say "don't buy this, it's useless, because I don't like it." It works just fine for plenty of people. It doesn't really matter if it works for everyone or not. There's not a single product in the history of the world that has worked great for everyone who's tried to use it.
Sadly, I believe the sheriff is still around.
I think he might have moved up to Maricopa county.
The democrats in the US are on the right as well, they're just farther left than the republicans. FYI:
politicalcompass.org
This is why I find it so amusing when the hardcore republicans refer to the "extreme left" democrats, which happen to be far to the right of people like myself. I'm down there somewhere near Nader:
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
We're in good company though, we've also got Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, and Mandela:
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2
the idea that their life and property is sanctosant
Is what? You mean sacrosanct?
For me, Kindle is an expensive and useless toy.
Oh, then it must be true for everyone. That's probably exactly why the original Kindle sold out in five and a half hours and was out of stock for the next five months, because it's expensive and useless.
Also, if you think that a small laptop with a PDF reader is a replacement for Kindle (let alone "better"), you're out of touch. Do some research into how Kindle accesses content online (hint: there's no wifi, and there's no ethernet). Also, I'd like to see your netbook spend four days between battery charges while online, or two weeks while offline.
What a moronic and ludicrous world IP law has created.
IP law didn't create the world you're describing, you did.
I was actually thinking about this in the shower today, and decided that even sending a string of SQL to the database is not allowed. That string could theoretically be intercepted en-route and modified.
The thing is that a voting machine should really be dead simple. There's no reason at all to require that each machine have a dedicated SQL Server to store everything in (and transmitting live results to a remote server is obviously verboten). This is a single-threaded, single-user application we're talking about here. It doesn't need a database, it can very well store all results in a file.
So yes, virtually everything you can do with a database, or at least Microsoft SQL Server, I don't believe would be allowed, or should be allowed if it is. It's simply not necessary, and over-complicates the simple task that a voting machine needs to perform.
Databases are great, they make a lot of applications a lot more simple and efficient. This is an application that is already simple, adding a database just complicates it, and efficiency isn't even an issue because you can quite happily update a counter in a text file with a 286 and not have any problems. When we're talking about the integrity of the voting system in this country, I think less is more. Take out unnecessary complexity, make sure all code can have its hash calculated and compared easily in the field, and everyone's happy.
There's no reason to set up views, stored procedures, triggers, or sending commands to a third-party piece of software. We're counting up votes here. This isn't rocket surgery.
If that were true that changes a lot. At this point I'm not really inclined to give Sequoia the benefit of the doubt though. If they had a good, competent, working system, they should have no problems showing it off.
You have no knowledge that this code shipped with the voting station. You are simply parroting assumptions.
In other words, I am not giving Sequoia the benefit of the doubt, and you're right, I'm not. They're a shady company and I don't trust them and, yeah, I'm not very inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. A jury can do that.
What I do know is that it was this code that Sequoia was trying to conceal from the public, and that right there doesn't give me a lot of faith that they've actually got a good, competent system that I just haven't seen yet. Sounds more like they know their system isn't up to par and they don't want to get called on it, but it looks like they're about to. I don't think there's necessarily any malevolence, but there sure as hell is incompetence. A single-user, single-threaded number counting application does not need a dedicated database with stored procedures to do the counting.
I'm suggesting that it doesn't satisfy the law to include code that gets executed without being able to have its checksum verified to ensure it's the same code that was certified to run. That's what I'm suggesting, and stored procedures inside SQL Server do not satisfy that requirement.
Nice one jackass, but I'm not a lawyer, I'm a programmer. It should be pretty goddamn clear to any novice that a stored procedure in MS SQL Server, which is what we're dealing with here, is most definitely interpreted code. The law clearly states that interpreted code is not allowed because of the obvious fact that it can easily be changed after the certification. They state that once the software is certified that there are no more compilers or linkers allowed in the onboard software and that the binaries should be able to have their checksum validated in the field to ensure it's the same software that was certified. Especially when the SQL code to create those same stored procedures ships with the product, as if the database itself is set up in the field.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that seems pretty goddamn clear to me that a stored procedure in SQL Server does not meet those criteria.
But, and I'm being honest here, I really want to hear your opinion on the matter, since mine doesn't matter, and is based on scary capital letters.
Does it matter to you at all that the presence of this logic in interpreted code (SQL) is a direct violation of federal law?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sequoia+voting+machines
should there be consequences for enabling that crime
There should be consequences for committing the crime. The responsibility of the crime rests solely on whoever committed it, they are the only party with responsibility for the crime. If I say that I voted to stop prosecuting people for marijuana use, and some anti-pothead activist kills me, I'm not somehow responsible for my own murder because I informed the guy who killed me how I voted.
When information is placed in the public record, and someone uses that information to commit a crime, the only responsibility for that crime belongs to the person who committed it. There were several sane people who had access to that same information yet somehow managed to avoid committing a crime.
I take it then, that you have never voted...Your understanding of the American voting system is seriously incomplete.
Thanks, I'm 30 and have voted in several elections.
I voted for Bush the first time, and voted against him the second time.
That's interesting phrasing, I was about to say I voted for Kerry but it wasn't so much a vote for Kerry as a vote against Bush.
Do you see the reason for anonymity, now?
In the voting booth? Yeah. On the streets when people are walking around asking for signatures? No. I can see everyone else's name on the petition right in front of me, right when I sign it. If you're putting your name and support behind a public initiative, then stand up for it. If you think you're being threatened because of your vote, call the authorities. If the intimidation has worked on you and you're too scared to call the authorities, don't vote. Tampering with elections or influencing a vote is a federal crime, if you beat your wife because of her vote and she reports you, you're screwed.