Anyone developing one either writes off IE completely, or is using the tools that Google's been releasing to augment IE's deficiencies.
Really, those are our 2 options? Either don't support IE, or use something from Google. Oddly enough, I've been getting by for years without doing either of those. Granted, my "real web apps" don't need canvas or SVG. The vast majority of mature Javascript libraries around have no problems supporting IE with the vast majority of their functionality, what's your excuse? I've been supporting tens of thousands of corporate (read IE) users who spend hours each day using large ajax applications that I've built. I've got an installation with over 70,000 users on it where about 1% of the front-end code is HTML, and the rest is Javascript and CSS. IE8 runs that application just fine.
If a user will fast-click through a EULA, he will fast-click through any page that will install additional software by default.
Exactly, which is why fast-clicking should always and only install the minimum necessary (for whatever is being installed), anything extra should always be explicitly allowed, not the result of fast-clicking.
Sorry for confusion, but where did I call those binaries directly "rootkit"
You at the very least implied it:
The question is why does Apple need these kernel services (read rootkit like services) running in the system space ?
I think it was clear that he was just pointing out that these services have the same privileges as a rootkit, not that these services are rootkits themselves.
Is that the entire text of the description? It doesn't say anything about Apache being installed. Installing a useless piece of software that you'll never use which may auto start and run as a service is one thing, but if they're also installing a web server they need to say that.
Sounds like a great way to get a nice $2000 machine for only $4000. After all that do you end up with a surplus case, keyboard, mouse, and monitor? Or can you actually buy a Mac without the I/O devices? Wouldn't it be easier to just buy the components individually, then install them?
Every other commercial case I've seen is either a barebone with a non-removable motherboard
A "non-removable motherboard"? What do you mean, like a motherboard that's attached to the case with screws? I've never seen a single case that has a motherboard attached in a way that you couldn't remove it.
If a Mac user spends the money on something jaw-droppingly cool, they're an elitist snob who pays more for white plastic with a logo on it.
Actually no, they're still just a hobbyist who's into cool computer hardware because nothing that could be described as "jaw-droppingly cool" comes in white plastic with an Apple logo on it.
It would be much safer to run the Chrome browser standalone since it reduces the attack surface.
This plugin is directed at IE users through web developers. This gives web developers the ability to use some of the more modern technologies without the fear that they'll cut out IE users. Developers can add some code to their pages that will check if the user is using IE without the plugin, and the developer can take some sort of action if so.
So yeah, it would be safer if the users only ran Chrome and not IE, but those aren't the type of users this is aimed at. This is aimed at people who still want to use IE.
Yeah, those major tourist destinations where people go to drop thousands really are a pain to deal with. Heck, California is probably flush with cash anyway though, what with them having one of the largest economies in the world.
I don't have a facebook account, so excuse my ignorance, but every time I read something like this I get confused:
Parker not only stopped mid-robbery to check his Facebook status
Shouldn't he know what his status is? I mean, he was the last one to change his status, right? Does facebook go around changing your status, and it's a game to log in and see what it got changed to?
making copies for personal use and then playing them while your friends come over is illegal
This sounds like FUD to me (courtesy of "selven", apparently). Here's one of the "activities" in one of the PDFs:
Take a look at these scenarios. See if you can spot the songlifters who are breaking the copyright law...
Caitlin wants to listen to music as much as possible. She copies all the music she buys online onto blank CDs so she can listen to her music when her friends come over to play. And she transfers the music she buys on CD onto her MP3 player so she can listen to her music when driving in the car with her family.
Caitlin is not a songlifter because personal use is permitted when music fans buy their music. Caitlin can copy her music onto her hard drive and her MP3 player. Caitlin can even burn a CD with her own special mix of music she has purchased.
I'd like to see a reference on where they say that it's illegal to play your music for your friends. That's specifically what I'm trying to find in the PDFs, I think that claim by TFS is false.
Of course, this entire "program" seems like a nightmare to sit through. Look at this stuff, in the teacher's guide:
Write the word songlifting on the chalk-board and ask students what they think it means.
*raise hand* I know! That's a word that was made up by a shady corporate lobby.
Have students conduct the survey [to find out who they know is a "songlifter"] as home- work, emphasizing that they should only collect information, not names. Use the chalkboard to compile their findings and investigate trends. For example: Which is the most common type of songlifting? Which age group has the most songlifters? Have students use the results of their survey to determine whether or not songlifting is a serious problem.
So Billy, do you download songs? Oh yeah, what do you use? I haven't heard of that one, I should check it out. For research, I mean.
Next, draw the copyright symbol on the chalkboard. Ask if students know what this symbol means and where they might have seen it
That's sort of different then what they claim in the teacher's guide PDF:
Total number of songs lifted = 7,800,000; Total cost of songs lifted = $7,722,000
So which is it RIAA, is a song worth $80,000 or is a song worth $.99? In order for a court to award damages of $80,000 for distribution of one song that costs $.99 to purchase, that makes the assumption that a single person distributing a song equates to a loss of 80,808 sales. That's a bit of a stretch.
I agree, if they don't want people to be able to do that as I programmer I would be happy to comply, it's only going to hurt them. I'm just saying that dropping support for ASCAP-related music in iTunes would drastically hurt the sales in iTunes (which would hurt both Apple and the music biz). Since it's affecting Apple's bottom line I doubt they're willing to comply, which is probably why ASCAP hasn't been successful at negotiating this ridiculous fee.
I mean, it's fine if they want to charge people for performing their music, and it's fine if they want to charge people for downloading their music. But it's pretty ridiculous to try to add online music sales as one definition of "performing", because it's just not.
For your information, this has nothing to do with the Recording Industry Association of America. This is the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers. The term "RIAA" doesn't even appear in the fucking article.
iTunes doesn't *need* them, anymore, and neither does Amazon.
O RLY? Do you realize how many individual artists ASCAP represents?
ASCAP is a membership association of more than 360,000 U.S. composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers of every kind of music. Through agreements with affiliated international societies, ASCAP also represents hundreds of thousands of music creators worldwide.
ASCAP is home to the greatest names in American music, past and present - from Duke Ellington to Dave Matthews, from George Gershwin to Stevie Wonder, from Leonard Bernstein to Beyonce, from Marc Anthony to Alan Jackson, from Henry Mancini to Howard Shore - as well as many thousands of writers in the earlier stages of their careers.
ASCAP represents every kind of music. ASCAP's repertory includes pop, rock, alternative, country, R&B, rap, hip-hop, Latin, film and television music, folk, roots and blues, jazz, gospel, Christian, new age, theater and cabaret, dance, electronic, symphonic, concert, as well as many others - the entire musical spectrum.
The majority of mainstream artists (or their publishers) are members of ASCAP, iTunes and Amazon are all about catering to mainstream culture.
I've seen a girl jump on a chair and shriek when a mouse scurried through the room.
For what it's worth, my male roommate exhibits the same behavior. I get called whenever any non-pet quadruped or insect is sighted. It's just like living with a girlfriend, except without the sex.
Neither is the iPhone OS, and neither is Palm's WebOS (despite having several open source components). If someone really cared about supporting open source they would be using Android. Obviously not a lot of people care enough about open source software to use Android instead of one of the others.
One could argue that the recording device is doing the eavesdropping, not the person, re "uses any device to eavesdrop". The statute does specifically say any "person who is present or who is not present". It's a contradiction to say that someone is both present in the conversation and also eavesdropping. The statute reads like it only applies to conversations that a person is not a party to, but is somehow present during. Hence the confusion. But it is not technically incorrect to say that Michigan is a state that requires the consent of all parties, because that's in fact what the law says. There isn't a Michigan statute which says that consent is only required from one party.
It explains in the very next sentence that the term "eavesdrop" in Michigan refers to listening to a conversation you are not a part of
No, it says that one court in Michigan ruled that way, not that that's what the law says. The actual statue is perfectly clear:
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto... is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Obviously the judge in his case allowed it for a reason.
Possible he was in The One Court, Judge Sauron presiding...
Slashdot Mirror
Both organisations have, to their credit, invested time in producing turd polish to bring the modern web to organizations stuck with MSIE.
Right, so it's a little bit hypocritical when one of them criticizes the way the other chooses to do this.
Anyone developing one either writes off IE completely, or is using the tools that Google's been releasing to augment IE's deficiencies.
Really, those are our 2 options? Either don't support IE, or use something from Google. Oddly enough, I've been getting by for years without doing either of those. Granted, my "real web apps" don't need canvas or SVG. The vast majority of mature Javascript libraries around have no problems supporting IE with the vast majority of their functionality, what's your excuse? I've been supporting tens of thousands of corporate (read IE) users who spend hours each day using large ajax applications that I've built. I've got an installation with over 70,000 users on it where about 1% of the front-end code is HTML, and the rest is Javascript and CSS. IE8 runs that application just fine.
Because some guy used a game controller to play a different game. What, are you saying that doesn't just completely blow your mind?
Is crap a bad word where you're from?
Because really, what coder wouldn't want to strum a guitar and have code flow from his awesome chords?
Except for the fact that you're not strumming a guitar, you're manipulating plastic controls, and you're not playing chords.
If a user will fast-click through a EULA, he will fast-click through any page that will install additional software by default.
Exactly, which is why fast-clicking should always and only install the minimum necessary (for whatever is being installed), anything extra should always be explicitly allowed, not the result of fast-clicking.
Sorry for confusion, but where did I call those binaries directly "rootkit"
You at the very least implied it:
The question is why does Apple need these kernel services (read rootkit like services) running in the system space ?
I think it was clear that he was just pointing out that these services have the same privileges as a rootkit, not that these services are rootkits themselves.
Is that the entire text of the description? It doesn't say anything about Apache being installed. Installing a useless piece of software that you'll never use which may auto start and run as a service is one thing, but if they're also installing a web server they need to say that.
Sounds like a great way to get a nice $2000 machine for only $4000. After all that do you end up with a surplus case, keyboard, mouse, and monitor? Or can you actually buy a Mac without the I/O devices? Wouldn't it be easier to just buy the components individually, then install them?
Every other commercial case I've seen is either a barebone with a non-removable motherboard
A "non-removable motherboard"? What do you mean, like a motherboard that's attached to the case with screws? I've never seen a single case that has a motherboard attached in a way that you couldn't remove it.
If a Mac user spends the money on something jaw-droppingly cool, they're an elitist snob who pays more for white plastic with a logo on it.
Actually no, they're still just a hobbyist who's into cool computer hardware because nothing that could be described as "jaw-droppingly cool" comes in white plastic with an Apple logo on it.
It would be much safer to run the Chrome browser standalone since it reduces the attack surface.
This plugin is directed at IE users through web developers. This gives web developers the ability to use some of the more modern technologies without the fear that they'll cut out IE users. Developers can add some code to their pages that will check if the user is using IE without the plugin, and the developer can take some sort of action if so.
So yeah, it would be safer if the users only ran Chrome and not IE, but those aren't the type of users this is aimed at. This is aimed at people who still want to use IE.
Yeah, those major tourist destinations where people go to drop thousands really are a pain to deal with. Heck, California is probably flush with cash anyway though, what with them having one of the largest economies in the world.
I don't have a facebook account, so excuse my ignorance, but every time I read something like this I get confused:
Parker not only stopped mid-robbery to check his Facebook status
Shouldn't he know what his status is? I mean, he was the last one to change his status, right? Does facebook go around changing your status, and it's a game to log in and see what it got changed to?
making copies for personal use and then playing them while your friends come over is illegal
This sounds like FUD to me (courtesy of "selven", apparently). Here's one of the "activities" in one of the PDFs:
Take a look at these scenarios. See if you can spot the songlifters who are breaking the copyright law...
Caitlin wants to listen to music as much as possible. She copies all the music she buys online onto blank CDs so she can listen to her music when her friends come over to play. And she transfers the music she buys on CD onto her MP3 player so she can listen to her music when driving in the car with her family.
Caitlin is not a songlifter because personal use is permitted when music fans buy their music. Caitlin can copy her music onto her hard drive and her MP3 player. Caitlin can even burn a CD with her own special mix of music she has purchased.
I'd like to see a reference on where they say that it's illegal to play your music for your friends. That's specifically what I'm trying to find in the PDFs, I think that claim by TFS is false.
Of course, this entire "program" seems like a nightmare to sit through. Look at this stuff, in the teacher's guide:
Write the word songlifting on the chalk-board and ask students what they think it means.
*raise hand* I know! That's a word that was made up by a shady corporate lobby.
Have students conduct the survey [to find out who they know is a "songlifter"] as home- work, emphasizing that they should only collect information, not names. Use the chalkboard to compile their findings and investigate trends. For example: Which is the most common type of songlifting? Which age group has the most songlifters? Have students use the results of their survey to determine whether or not songlifting is a serious problem.
So Billy, do you download songs? Oh yeah, what do you use? I haven't heard of that one, I should check it out. For research, I mean.
Next, draw the copyright symbol on the
chalkboard. Ask if students know what this
symbol means and where they might have seen
it
I weep for our nation's schoolchildren..
That's sort of different then what they claim in the teacher's guide PDF:
Total number of songs lifted = 7,800,000;
Total cost of songs lifted = $7,722,000
So which is it RIAA, is a song worth $80,000 or is a song worth $.99? In order for a court to award damages of $80,000 for distribution of one song that costs $.99 to purchase, that makes the assumption that a single person distributing a song equates to a loss of 80,808 sales. That's a bit of a stretch.
I agree, if they don't want people to be able to do that as I programmer I would be happy to comply, it's only going to hurt them. I'm just saying that dropping support for ASCAP-related music in iTunes would drastically hurt the sales in iTunes (which would hurt both Apple and the music biz). Since it's affecting Apple's bottom line I doubt they're willing to comply, which is probably why ASCAP hasn't been successful at negotiating this ridiculous fee.
I mean, it's fine if they want to charge people for performing their music, and it's fine if they want to charge people for downloading their music. But it's pretty ridiculous to try to add online music sales as one definition of "performing", because it's just not.
Haha, indeed..
For your information, this has nothing to do with the Recording Industry Association of America. This is the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers. The term "RIAA" doesn't even appear in the fucking article.
Now for the TLA-impaired.
FYI, this has nothing to do with the RIAA. This is ASCAP. The term "RIAA" doesn't even appear in TFA.
iTunes doesn't *need* them, anymore, and neither does Amazon.
O RLY? Do you realize how many individual artists ASCAP represents?
ASCAP is a membership association of more than 360,000 U.S. composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers of every kind of music. Through agreements with affiliated international societies, ASCAP also represents hundreds of thousands of music creators worldwide.
ASCAP is home to the greatest names in American music, past and present - from Duke Ellington to Dave Matthews, from George Gershwin to Stevie Wonder, from Leonard Bernstein to Beyonce, from Marc Anthony to Alan Jackson, from Henry Mancini to Howard Shore - as well as many thousands of writers in the earlier stages of their careers.
ASCAP represents every kind of music. ASCAP's repertory includes pop, rock, alternative, country, R&B, rap, hip-hop, Latin, film and television music, folk, roots and blues, jazz, gospel, Christian, new age, theater and cabaret, dance, electronic, symphonic, concert, as well as many others - the entire musical spectrum.
The majority of mainstream artists (or their publishers) are members of ASCAP, iTunes and Amazon are all about catering to mainstream culture.
I've seen a girl jump on a chair and shriek when a mouse scurried through the room.
For what it's worth, my male roommate exhibits the same behavior. I get called whenever any non-pet quadruped or insect is sighted. It's just like living with a girlfriend, except without the sex.
Windows Mobile isn't Open Source.
Neither is the iPhone OS, and neither is Palm's WebOS (despite having several open source components). If someone really cared about supporting open source they would be using Android. Obviously not a lot of people care enough about open source software to use Android instead of one of the others.
One could argue that the recording device is doing the eavesdropping, not the person, re "uses any device to eavesdrop". The statute does specifically say any "person who is present or who is not present". It's a contradiction to say that someone is both present in the conversation and also eavesdropping. The statute reads like it only applies to conversations that a person is not a party to, but is somehow present during. Hence the confusion. But it is not technically incorrect to say that Michigan is a state that requires the consent of all parties, because that's in fact what the law says. There isn't a Michigan statute which says that consent is only required from one party.
The actual statue
sigh..
It explains in the very next sentence that the term "eavesdrop" in Michigan refers to listening to a conversation you are not a part of
No, it says that one court in Michigan ruled that way, not that that's what the law says. The actual statue is perfectly clear:
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto ... is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Obviously the judge in his case allowed it for a reason.
Possible he was in The One Court, Judge Sauron presiding...