I respectfully disagree and think you are missing the core issue, that the fact that publishers may ONLY sell subscriptions under Apple's specific terms is the real issue. Not the specific terms themselves, but that Apple does not give their "vendors" or their "customers" the right to do business with each other outside those terms.
Apple wants all apps sold under the news stand model, where vendors sell the apps to Apple and Apple sells them to the end customer.
I don't think that's irrelevant to the discussion at all, nor do I feel it's a rant. I think, by and large, that the Apple Store is a good thing for most consumers, provided you are willing to accept the restrictions it brings.
I don't think so - I think that your original post is missing the point of view of the publishers and the argument they are trying to make.
First, Apple is being admirable at not selling your personal data to others for purchases made at the Apple Store, and I'll give them serious cool points for that. They would be in serious shit if they ever started selling off that information, because you are their customer.
But that's not the core of the argument.
The publishers are claiming that Apple should not be the sole people allowed to sell software for the platform.
Agree or disagree, but that's the crux of the issue. We as consumers can't decide whether this is something Apple should do, only whether we're comfortable with it.
Apple don't allow me to do business with anyone other than them for iOS app purchases. I have to include their store in everything I do with my iPod except importing music.
Only one entity (Apple) gets access to the things I do with my device, and that has its advantages. But they get a complete view of everything I do, and I can't do anything they don't approve of. To me, that's a disadvantage.
Whether that outweighs the advantages (one central vendor, less chance of credit card breaches, fewer people with personal data, etc) is a matter of personal preference.
The publishers raise a valid point - they can't have you as a customer on iOS. No one can, other than Apple. The only people who can have customers who are buying iOS applications is Apple, because all software comes through one store, the Apple Store.
You can only buy software for your iOS device using a payment instrument that Apple accepts, and Apple has a comprehensive list of everything you've bought.
You can only buy software for your iOS device that Apple has approved, and that's good when the thing you want is unsafe, but Apple has a history of denying things they don't like that are perfectly safe for you to use.
And while I agree, I think the whole argument slams smack-dab into the walls around the walled garden. If you want to have your software on an iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc, that software has to be sold through Apple (barring jailbreaking, which does not a viable business model make).
What if I wanted to buy a subscription to Android Magazine for my iPad so I could read up on it? Apple can deny the publishers the right to sell their magazine for use on my device, and (without jailbreaking) there's no way I can buy it. And if selling an app requires jailbreaking, most publishers know their subscription numbers hardly justify building out an app for it.
More to the point, what if I wanted to buy software and didn't want to use my Apple account for it? What if I wanted to use a different credit card, or wanted to go to a brick-and-mortar and pay cash to install something? Nope, Apple purchases go through the Apple store, and that's that.
I'm not saying that the model is inherently wrong - it's got its advantages and disadvantages that have been discussed to death already. But it does mean that you can't buy any software for your iOS-based device except exclusively from Apple, and they get to decide who they do business with.
The walls can protect you, and they can restrict your motion. You have to choose whether you accept the restrictions that go with the protections. If you can't, don't get locked into a multi-year contract with the thing.
I have an older iPod Touch, and for the most part if I had a choice, I'd PREFER software that is available in the Apple Store. It's been vetted out to an extent, I'm only giving payment information to one vendor (decreasing the likelihood of credit card breaches), and all that. But I think it would be nice (in a "I'm not going to be able to get this anyway, so I might as well dream" sort of way) to have a competitive marketplace for applications on the platform so I can stray from the path if I want.
It's not a deal-killer for the iPod because I won it in a contest, and I really only use it to listen to music (via my already-purchased library and imported CDs, not iTunes) and run a few free apps. It's not my phone or anything terribly important to me, and when the battery finally dies it'll get installed permanently in a music player docking station and I won't lament the loss of the other features too much.
But the point is, it's Apple's playground, and Steve hands out the marbles. There are other playgrounds if you don't like Steve's rules, but the point of these stories is to make those rules clear to people about to make a buying decision. Many people are very comfortable with the walled garden, and that's fine, just understand that the top of the walls have razor wire on them, and you aren't getting out.
Well, actually, they are talking about using linear induction, not vacuum/pressure. However, the argument still holds partly at least.
A direct collision is still possible if you hire programmers as incompetent as Denver's (though not if you hire programmers like those responsible for the other 99% of similar projects like most major train systems).
However, two capsules headed directly at each other would be significantly slowed by the increase in air pressure between them as they approach, assuming the capsules both come close to filling the tube. The resulting collision would be at well-below peak speeds.
Don't underestimate the marketroids. Most of them fully grasp that a flat rate would be more "logical" if their goal was to be fair. Their goal is not to be fair. Their goal is to extract the most money possible from you for the least possible cost. Making their plans simple and clear would be deeply, horribly illogical of them given their goal.
When I went to get my corporate Blackberry a couple of years ago, I had my choice of three models from Verizon and three from AT&T. Two of the models from each were equipped with GPS receivers and a bunch of nifty neato features. Both carriers claimed the phones were GPS-equipped. I did a little more research and my favorite Verizon model turned out to be delivered with the GPS locked to only their TeleNav service if you paid $10 a month.
I called a Verizon rep about this, and the conversation went sorta like this:
Me: I understand that you lock the GPS on your Curve 8300 units, is that correct?
Verizon Rep: Absolutely not! The GPS is fully available.
Me: So, I could download Google Maps for Blackberry and I'd have my location shown?
VR: Yes, location services are available in Google Maps. The location should calculate in seconds, and of course you need a data plan.
Me: What? GPS doesn't use data unless you enable Assisted-GPS. Can I use non-Assisted mode in areas I don't get coverage?
VR: No. You can't use the GPS with Google Maps, location services for that application are via cell triangulation.
Me: But, why can't it use the GPS?
VR: The GPS only works with TeleNav, our paid subscription service, which offers (blah blah blah more than Google Maps) all for only $10 a month.
Me: So if I paid the $10 a month for TeleNav, I could use the GPS built into my Blackberry with any application I wanted?
VR: Yes, I already said that location services are available to all applications.
Me: Great, so I don't need any extra hardware to unlock the GPS, just the TeleNav subscription?
VR: The GPS is not locked, sir. I told you that.
Me: Allow me to rephrase that. I don't need any extra hardware to use the GPS receiver built into my Blackberry to use, say, Google Maps or Blackstar, assuming I pay the $10 TeleNav fee?
VR: (sounding annoyed) Location services are availalable in all applications that support them.
Me: GPS-accuracy location services? As in approximately three meter accuracy with a good view of the sky under ideal conditions?
VR: (quite annoyed now) Of course you need extra hardware, you need an external bluetooth GPS puck to get the location from. We can sell you one with your phone for an extra $150.
Me: So the GPS itself can only be used with TeleNav, and no other applications, and only if I purchase TeleNav, right?
VR: (very piqued) I keep telling you, location services are available in all applications.
Me: Just not using the built-in GPS.
VR: Yes, the GPS works fine in all supported applications.
Me: Can you name a few of those supported applications, please?
VR: TeleNav.
Me: Any others?
VR: Location Services are available in Google Maps, Blackberry Maps, and a number of other...
Me: (interrupting) Please stop talking about location services, I want to know about the Global Positioning Satellite Receiver hardware built into my phone. Can I use that hardware with Google Maps, Blackberry Maps, or any application other than TeleNav, even if I purchase the $10 a month TeleNav subscrip...
VR: (interrupting) Of course not! The GPS is for TeleNav only. If you want a GPS of your own, you have to buy one. We won't just GIVE you one!
To me, this seemed a very illogical discussion. But to Verizon, this is a very logical conversation, because they wanted to get me into a two-year commitment with their phone so I'd be facing the decision
Same thing as what happens today when a truck hits a large bump and smashes a few cases of corn syrup, or someone at a factory or distribution center drops a couple of cases, or they slide off a conveyor, etc etc. Shipping damage happens no matter what the transport method.
The containers would no doubt be sealed, so any sticky gooeyness would be discovered after the tube is removed from the system.
Collisions are less likely than with a truck, because the cargo tubes are not independently powered and independently operated, there's a central computer managing traffic routing. Trains don't collide all that often any more, and most train accidents are some asshole in a car who tried to beat the gate so he didn't have to wait 5 minutes for the train to pass. A tube network would not have that problem - all traffic anywhere in or around the network would be under the control of the computer grid running it.
No, it would be very easy to blow up enough of it to make a big difference. As it stands right now, there is one main supply line, for example, into the State of Maine - Interstate 95. There are two bridges that cross into the state near that interstate, and one of them is falling apart on its own and needs little help to complete the journey. The other bridge, if closed, would force all traffic entering or leaving the state to the South to drive 20 miles out of their way, a good chunk of it on back roads that aren't designed to handle the 6 lanes each way of traffic that the current two bridges provide the capacity for (and quite often use to the point of backups).
During the summer, the I95 corridor regularly has toll backups of well over ten miles. One car bomb set off at one of those toll booths would inconvenience two lines of cars ten miles long and four cars wide, and any trucks that happen to be mixed in.
And that's for a rural state with under 2 million residents. It gets worse when you go urban. A lot worse. Three car bombs could take out the Calahan Tunnel, the I-90 Mass Pike Bridge, and the bridge at the William F., McLellan Highway. A couple more could take out the offramps off I95 in that area, and isolate Boston into two unconnected cities for quite some time.
Look at New York. Take out the Holland and Brooklyn Battery tunnels and a half-dozen bridges and New York City will come to a standstill that made the WTC bombings look like "business as usual".
The highway system is deeply vulnerable to attack, as is the electrical system, the sewer and water systems in many major cities, and lots of infrastructure. The important distinction is that these would be excellent military targets but poor terrorism targets. Terrorists want a large immediate and direct body count.
If anything, a tube network like this will have distinct advantages from a national security standpoint. It will allow food supplies to continue to flow in the event of an attack on the highway system, or if this system is attacked we can still use the highway system for critical supplies (we just need to commandeer the trucks currently used for less-critical supplies). It provides redundancy.
Infrastructure for this will be cheaper and easier to build than a highway, so you can build a lot more redundancy into a system like this at lower cost.
A system like this would be less accessible and therefore harder to target. Any asshole can rent a Ryder truck, load it with some Diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate fertilizer, and "McVeigh" a significant bridge or section of highway for a very long time. Attacking a sealed tube (particularly underground) where cars don't normally go is harder. And the tube, being smaller, can be repaired more quickly and we can use the highways as a backup or reroute until it is fixed. Probably faster than you could design some way of getting the goods from the tubes to a truck.
The copyright holder holds all rights to the song. I would argue that they hold it for waaaaay too goddamned long, and waaaaay too goddamned strictly, and waaaaay waaaaay waaaay too broadly, but that's not relevant to the discussion. The copyright holder holds rights to the base material, and any derivations of that base material can become distinct copyrightable items.
The copyright holder can release a particular version of a particular performance of a song and still withhold copyright to other versions or performances of the same song.
So, what EMI is open-licensing is a specific data file that may be downloaded freely from the site they have licensed it to. Technically, they could say that only copies acquired directly from them (or downloaded from RapidShare) are legitimate if they wanted to, though tracking that would be tough for them and the burden of proof that you got it elsewhere is on them.
Yes, it gets convoluted, because it's easy to create a derivative work. But the principle behind it is pretty simple - if you created it and you didn't base it on someone else's work, it's yours and you get to tell everyone what they can and cannot do with it (within limits set by law, such as "fair use" and DMCA exceptions).
It would be easier if we had a "registrar of copyright" so you could submit a work to a central registry somewhere and say "this is mine, and these are the terms under which it may be used". Copyright protection would only be offered to works that are in the registry.
And what would be nicer is if this protection didn't last ridiculous periods of time. I'd support very strict copyright indeed if the copyright holder had 5 years with a paid initial copyright filing and an additional 5 years with a paid renewal. Or I'd support really long terms if the terms were looser (using 5 notes as a tribute riff shouldn't get you sued by the original artist's great grandchildren). The current terms of copyright are simply too long and too draconian, and that's just an ugly combination that stifles innovation rather than encouraging it like copyright was supposed to do.
So, yeah, they could ding you for redistributing it, though there'd be little reason for them to, and they most likely would not (since the fact that they gave it away on RapidShare in the first place means they want that version of the song spread far and wide).
No, for the files they share they are legally and legitimately offering copies for free. There's no infringement happening there. That is the normal defense used for the existence of these sites, to serve as a clearinghouse for labels and artists who CHOOSE to share their work openly in order to promote it, right? Why can't EMI participate in that same clearinghouse for the songs they choose to share, like everyone else? EMI has a gigantic catalog, why shouldn't they be allowed to share parts of it if they choose to? EMI is actually adding legal and legitimate content to the site.
The obvious part, of course, is that EMI cannot offer a song to you on RapidShare and then sue you for downloading it and seeding the exact same version of the same song, but they have to sue you in order to pursue damages, so they'd have no basis for a suit if you stuck to specific versions of songs they shared. So if you can identify it as a "legal" one, you're good.
For the other pieces of music that EMI is not sharing but that others are, well, did I mention that EMI is not sharing those? Those are still things that EMI could legally come after you for. The same is true of versions of the song EMI chose not to share that someone else is (higher bitrate, etc). EMI is the rights-holder, they can release any portion of any song in any version they damned well please. That doesn't open the rest of their catalogue for free use by everyone, or even that different versions of the same song are free for use.
Let's say I'm EMI. I have two artists signed with me, with one album each. SoundsLikeValiumLooksLikeAGirl is my boy band, and ScreechyButSkankyAndGotBigBoobs is my girl band.
I don't want people to listen to Screechy's actual signing, dear God no, I sell her albums to horny teen boys based on the airbrushed cleavage on her album covers and the large pull-out centerfolds in the album art insert, and her reputation for skankiness so young horny boys can fantasize about the diseases they could catch from her. I don't want her album shared on RapidShare because I want to sell more album art, and I don't want my young horny hormone-driven money-sources to actually hear her voice, it might turn them off.
But young girls love Valium's smooth, overly synthesized, vapid sound, so I share out a few of their songs at 128k MP3 so the girls will buy the rest of the album because they can't get enough of his smooth synthesized voice and want a higher-quality version.
I cannot sue anyone for the specific versions of the songs I've released on RapidShare myself. However, I haven't released any of Screechy's music at all. So if I see people sharing her songs, I can pursue them. And I've only released specific copies of Valium's work, so if I see a 256k version or a live version I can go after that, too, since it's nothing I've released.
How does the user know the difference? Well, good question. Honestly. But these sites purportedly exist for artists to share their music, and they are being victimized by the majority who upload music they have no rights to.
How does an average user know the difference today? How do I go on RapidShare and find freely licensed music right now and differentiate it from pirated music? Is there a "pirated" section and a "non-pirated" section and does everyone honestly use the sections? EMI could easily identify them if the site had a system for doing so, but how many pirates would mark their files as "authorized", too? It'd be like making a small non-peeing section in a large pool.
The fact is, if you want to know whether the music you download is authorized, you really need to go to the web sites for your chosen musician or their label. If their site points you to a torrent, then they've shared some music for your enjoyment. If you choose to use something like RapidShare, go ahead, but understand that there's no reliable mechanism for anyone to tell you what might or might not be legal for you to get.
Not true, at least on the "has ever provided" part. My father in law has a grandfathered Verizon $60/month "unlimited" plan. It truly is unlimited. We went over 5GB one month just to test it, hit about 6.5GB, Verizon never said "boo" about it. This is a USB dongle thingie for his laptop.
Verizon has been trying to fool him into making some account change or getting a free upgrade to his device for a few years now, in an attempt to cancel his unlimited plan, but as it stands he's on a month-to-month plan and Verizon doesn't appear to have any way to change that term on him.
Sadly, you can't get a NEW account like that, and he's treating his old USB dongle like it's made out of spun crystal because he knows if he ever breaks it he's screwed.
Unless, of course, the right plan for you requires more than 10GB/month, which at $80/month is the largest plan Verizon offers. $10/GB overage, so if you use 20 GB in a month that's $180.
Or, with AT&T, the largest plan is their $60 5GB plan, overages at 5 cents a megabyte ($51/GB), so if you used 20GB on that plan you're looking at $213.
Wireless is not for bulk data, of course, so if you need bulk data you've better off with wireline (or a local WiFi provider if you can find one!)
I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that there's no driver's test for the Internet and as inadequately as antivirus tools are capable of protecting the innocent, they are at least better than nothing at all. Whether through simple lack of time or lack of access to an educator, there is a significant population of "click on whatever looks good and damn the torpedoes" folks out there.
I've tried educating the rest of my group, with some significant success, but I can't possibly make them aware of every risk and they aren't going to take the time to educate themselves on every new threat. Many of them are pretty open to actually looking at emails, a few are OK with NoScript but it "makes the Internet harder" for more than half (some pages don't work at all, or don't work well, without JavaScript). A very small few of them have enough trouble just handling email and Facebook which is the extent of the Internet to them, bless their dear hearts.
I'm probably not that much different in terms of my car. I follow the maintenance schedule, listen for odd noises or odd handling, and look for warning lights.
Since not everyone is going to be fully aware (and some may be completely unaware) of what the "bad sounds" and "odd handling" are on the Internet, we add "warning lights" (antivirus and other tools) that at least catch a good chunk of the problems, just like the idiot lights in your car.
They aren't perfect, but they help catch the worst stuff, because just as few people have the wherewithal to check their oil, brake, and steering fluid levels every time they start the car, and precious few crawl under the car to look for a brake line that's on its last legs, so do few people have the wherewithal to check every URL, research each error message they see, and recognize when your bank is not your bank.
So the car, and the computer, are "taught" to identify some of the most serious things that can happen and identify them to the user. Part of the lesson is to avoid having the warning light come on by maintaining the machine (keeping signatures up to date, checking URLs, using NoScript and other protection tools, refraining from clicking on every damned thing in email even if it does promise Natalie Portman in hot grits or dancing fluffy kittens).
The other part is telling them what to do when a warning light comes on (antivirus goes BING!, certificate warnings, popup ads, UAC popups in Win7, etc).
Of course, I also helped an older woman some years back whose car had broken down at the side of the road. Her description was that of a little red "Aladdin's Lamp" lighting up about 30 miles back, then the car getting a little rumbly-grumbly sounding for a while, then finally no matter how hard she pushed down on the gas the car slowed down and got more wiggy-jiggy, then finally it went thumpity-thumpity-clunky-creakity-phoot-grunt and the engine stopped and she had to coast to the side of the road. (read: Low Oil Pressure light came on and she drove the car past 6 highway exits for a half an hour to the point of utter death by friction, ignoring the increasingly urgent mechanical problems that were developing). So the lights don't always do any good even when they do work...
Phorm did appear to use a form of pharming (more specifically DNS poisoning, in this case poisoned at the ISP level) to do its ugly magic. So maybe the marketing dweebs who made up the term "pharming" had some inspiration from Phorm's name in inventing their security tool marketing term.
Because then 1,459 other people would have posted the pre-pre-pre-preview version and your carefully-researched, well-though-out, and more accurate followup with actual useful links and information would be immediately rejected as a "duplicate" and you wouldn't get posting credit.
It's not about who is BEST, it's about who is FIRST. That's been true of all media outlets for over a century now, it's just that the Internet lets us all be cub reporters and the pace is a tad more frenetic.
I help about a dozen people with their computers as "side favors", and I know of only one person at the moment on Windows who is not using Antivirus of some form. Comcast includes it for free, so anyone on Comcast I just send them the link and tell them to install it, the same is also true of most ISPs now - almost all of them include something for Antivirus.
If I drop by to help with something and there's no antivirus installed, we have a serious chat and I usually insist on installing something (at least AVG-Free) before we proceed to working on the actual problem they want help with. It cuts down on repeat visits, and even though I work for beer and I like beer, I have money and can buy beer, and cash purchase is my preferred method for acquiring beer. Fixing other people's computer gaffes is barely worth the beer. I'd rather buy beer and bring it to their house and drink it with them while having a conversation.
My one antivirus-averse person, let's call him "Risky Rick", feels that he never visits any sites that could harm him (and he does appear pretty cautious), he was very open to installing Firefox with NoScript for web and Thunderbird for email, he is savvy enough not to be running as Admin (Windows XP), he keeps his system patched reasonably well, he's got a decent consumer router with SPI, and he uses MailWasher to review the headers of all of his email so he can delete anything suspicious before it hits an email client capable of rendering HTML or running scripts. He doesn't want to incur the slowdown of a realtime scanner, but he does run a full system scan every few months or so (and it's always come back clean, so I'll give him credit that his caution is working OK for now). Rick is putting actual effort into security rather than depending on a tool to help. Which works, sorta, but you want a Risky Rick who also uses Antivirus as an additional layer, because there's no such thing as too many layers of security.
New computers are almost always bundled with McAfee or Norton, with a really annoying reminder when the 3, 6, or 12 months or whatever of included service are up. I'm not really a big fan of either, but they get the job done, and they almost force the user to keep them current. It's annoying and invasive, but it seems to be working.
"REPORT JUNK MAIL OR FRAUD" is clear, understandable, and obvious. Then when you hit a threshold for a specific message, throw it into the spam bin for everyone and force anyone who really wants to click the links on it to move it back to the Inbox first. Links in the spam bin should never, ever, ever be clickable.
Now, let's talk placement. "Report Phishing" is where, you say? Oh, under the REPLY button? That I have to open the email to get to. Oh, OK. Wait.. what? Isn't the very first lesson we all try to teach our newbies "junk and fraud emails are evil - never open them if you can tell what they are by looking at the subject line. Delete them." And yet, when Google wants fraud reported, they make you open the message. (tap tap tap) hello? Is this thing on?
We used to call it "telephone fraud" or "scamming" back when it was done over the phone and "mail fraud" when it was done via the dead tree snail-mail system. And unwanted postal advertisement was called "junk mail".
Then when it came to online we decided on the terms "phishing" for fraud and "spam" for unwanted email. Oh, but then it got worse.
Then there's "whaling" (email scams targeting people higher up in the organization), and "spear phishing" (collecting data about the person you want to phish and crafting a personal attack), "smishing" (scams over cell text messages), "pharming" (DNS redirect), etc. All to describe an attempt at fraud to different targets or using different techniques.
Then, to add insult to stupidity, someone asked "hey! what if someone tries phishing you over the phone? What should we call that?" and came up with "vishing", completely ignoring the fact that there's been a perfectly good term in use for many generations now to describe telephone fraud. "telephone fraud".
I'm waiting for someone to come up with a new term for postal fraud. "snailshing?"
No wonder the terminology is confusing. It's asinine. Something describing fraud should be called "fraud" with the proper adjective in front of it. "mail fraud", "email fraud", "phone fraud", "SMS fraud". Hey, even a complete Internet newbie can understand that without a specialized dictionary to understand the terminology. They're not inviting me to a "Phish" concert, I'm not being invited to catch some stripers with someone who can't spell, they're trying to commit fraud!
Side note: The old IBM buckling-spring keyboards are alive and well, built in Lexington Kentucky where IBM used to build their keyboards. The people who bought the old IBM equipment call themselves Unicomp, and their storefront is at http://pckeyboards.stores.yahoo.net/ and you get all the beautiful tactile feedback you can handle along with the wonderful clackity sounds.
Possibly, but there's only a low chance that the bacteria will be particularly virulent at attacking the human body. The only thing the bacteria will have going for it is that it is resistant to specific artificial means to fight it. It doesn't mean that the bacteria will necessarily be better at compromising natural defenses or that they'll be particularly virulent or harmful.
In other words, by using antibacterial soaps, you are selecting for bacteria that is resistant to the agents in those soaps, and by not being exposed to as many bacteria you are compromising your own immune response to bacteria. When the "superbug" comes home to roost, you won't have the defenses to fight it, and the artificial means you've come to depend on to fight it for you will be ineffective.
By not using antibacterial soaps, you keep your immune system operating more efficiently, which means when the "superbug" comes home to roost in your antibacterial-soap-using friends, your body is going to treat it just like any other bacteria. There's a chance it will be virulent, but probably not. Your own body will probably be able to fight it off reasonably well.
The real danger in overuse of antibacterials is that some people utterly depend on artificial means to defend themselves from bacteria. The very young, the very old, and people with otherwise underdeveloped or compromised immune systems cannot build their defenses, and the artificial defenses we've developed are all they have. Overuse of antibacterials means the bacteria can develop their resistant strains more quickly and they become more common.
Antibacterials (including antibiotics) in general should be reserved for cases where the patient really, really needs them. This will slow the development if antibacteria-resistant strains and ensure that the bulk of the population has a natural defense. The same can be said of many viruses - trying to eradicate them only selects out the antiviral-resistant strains.
Most innoculations are a separate discussion, as long as they are the kind that introduce a weakened or killed bacteria or virus for the purpose of "showing the body a potential enemy" so the body can build a defense for something it may well have to fight soon.
That's right. Don't ever try and stand up for your rights.
I don't know where you read that, but I didn't write it. You may be misinterpreting what I said. I may not have said it clearly. Please allow me to try again.
Your "right" to install any software you desire on your phone is alive and well.
My Blackberry does it quite happily. My wife's Nokia/Symbian is thrilled to run anything that will compile for Symbian. I have several friends with Androids who can run anything they want.
Every single smartphone platform gives you the freedom you seek. Except iPhone.
You chose iPhone. Maybe it was the "best fit", but it comes with a package that includes Apple and its policies.
You have to have seen that Apple has been engaging in this exact same restrictive behavior for as many years as the iPhone has existed, and frankly this shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone who watches even the mainstream news, and much less so for someone with a Slashdot UID that is almost half my own.
Just keep running around between 2 or 3 mega corporations that are all circling the same drain.
No one else is "circling the drain" on this one.
Carrier lock is an issue for some platforms, but buy the phone unlocked and it ceases to be an issue. It costs more, but that's what the carrier subsidies do - they help buy your phone, and in turn you accept restrictions from them. Freedom isn't free, and smartphones cost a good bit of money to build out.
My wife is very happy with her unlocked, non-carrier-subsidized Nokia ExpressMusic 5800, and AT&T can't say jack about what we do with the phone - their SIM is in it, and I'm paying for a voice contract month-to-month. If they want to play a silly game, the phone will work just fine on another carrier or just as a prepaid using any SIM I can pick up at a convenience store.
No need for a data plan, she uses WiFi at home and data just doesn't work away from home. There's even a second SIM slot in the phone if we wanted to use another service for data or balance calls between multiple carriers.
Suggesting and defending the idea that consumers might have rights over the products they purchase? That's just commie talk, right?
No. It's just that you happened to choose the only vendor in a competitive marketplace that does what you don't want. You voted for their way of doing business by giving them money.
The smartphone market is not a monopoly market. It's not even an oligopoly market (otherwise Android would never have entered it so quickly!). It's a relatively open, competitive market. Unlike the US cell carrier market, but that's a separate discussion.
My point is not to lie down and take it. It's to vote with the one and only thing Apple gives a hoot about. Your money. You can complain all you want, and as long as you keep paying them they can safely ignore you.
No amount of complaining has really changed any of the "New" (since iOS was introduced) Apple's policies in any meaningful during the entire existence of iPhone as a platform. Steve Jobs knows precisely what he wants to sell, and your only choice is to buy it or not. He's not accepting feedback. He never has. And he runs the company with an iron fist.
You must speak the only language a business like Apple can understand - "you no longer deserve my commerce, I shall seek out one of your competitors. Bye-bye."
You stop a fire by spraying foam at the base, not by telling the fire that you want it to stop burning your possessions. Fire doesn't listen. Neither does Apple.
The Tantrum'o'Steve? Talking about a competitor makes him break into tantrums all the time. Then he does snitty things like rip previously-approved apps out of the App Store for no good reason.
Seriously, though... Apple's on, what, their 4th generation phone now (and I know that there have been at least a few "iterations" like the "GS")? They've been doing this since the first app installed on the first generation phone. This is covered very regularly on Slashdot and at least once every few months on a more mainstream news outlet.
Why is this behavior a surprise to people?
"NEWS FLASH: Apple demonstrates that Apple is still Apple after all these years."
If this is such a big deal to people, why would any of them knowingly run an iPhone?
The answer: Either it isn't a big deal to most people (there are valid reasons for wanting at least the sense if not the reality of security that a walled garden provides), or it's a big deal and people are making really stupid choices then trying to blame someone else for them. If you bought using "shiny" as a primary selection criteria back when you had multiple choices, don't blame the "shiny" maker for being who they are.
And that would be fine if I were free to shop for apps at another store.
When your contract is up, might I respectfully suggest that you consider shopping for your PHONE at another store?
Apple's been utterly arbitrary and capricious for years on their App Store, it's not like this story represents a new concept. This is a "yawn, Apple shows that Apple is Apple. Again."
These stories are important in that they make it clear to potential iPhone buyers exactly what they are getting into when they sign that 2-year contract with the $300+ ETF. But if you bought an iPhone more than 3 months after the very first iPhone went to market, you had to have known what you were getting into.
In other news, if you are looking for a half-ton hauler, a Toyota Prius might not be the wisest choice and you shouldn't expect Toyota to do a recall because it couldn't haul what you wanted.
Smartphones are expensive, dammit. Do a little research and make sure one fits your needs before you buy it. "Shiny" should not be a primary selection criteria, and if it is, you've made your choice.
I disagree. Apple only has a monopoly on iPhones, not on smartphones. There are other alternatives out there that aren't so limiting on your choice of applications (Android, RIM/Blackberry, Nokia/Symbian, etc). Apple is free to do what they want within their platform because Apple does not enjoy a monopoly in any market that the platform operates in (far from it, in fact). Once you choose to limit yourself to Apple's offerings, knowing the limitations they are now legendary for placing on them, you've made your decision, and you have to live with it.
Walk into any cell store and you can walk out with any one of an array of phones, which you choose by looking at pricing, features, and the kind of company that makes and offers them.
But you need the information to make a choice that is correct for you. A competitive market only works when consumers are informed.
Apple's capricious and arbitrary rules about their App Store are precisely why these stories are so important, despite the fact that they get tiresome. If, after reading story after story like this, you make the informed decision to purchase an iPhone, that's completely your decision. Freedom to run the apps you want may not be as important to you as walled-garden security or the convenience of not having to search for apps at dozens of web sites. And that's OK, there are significant numbers of people who actually prefer their phones to work that way. But smartphones are expensive, and you really owe it to yourself to know what you are getting into before you commit to 2 years with the damned thing.
While you are still in a competitive marketplace, choose a phone that doesn't meet your needs. You can choose Apple if you feel it meets your needs, or not if you don't, but don't ask Apple to change their business model just because you bought one of their phones. Apple (the company) is part of the phone you bought. They aren't going to change unless you force them to, and the only way to force them to change is to demonstrate that their way of doing business is not what you want, and you can really only do that by buying another phone that does meet your needs.
Once you've bought an iPhone, Apple could care less about you carping about how restrictive it is. You've bought the damned thing, you're on the quarterly profit sheet for two (or more) years now. Even if you dropped it tomorrow and went with something else, they're making their share of the money off the service plan you committed to (or the ETF you have to pay). In two years, they'll have the iPhone 6 or 7 out, and you'll almost certainly have forgotten what apps you can't run and go back and buy one. Or you'll come to prefer their business model. Or maybe you'll defect, but that's two years from now.
Apple's been like this for years now, and people still keep buying their product. Maybe their target customer prefers them to work the way they do. Maybe, just maybe, you're not part of that target market and should really evaluate your choices next time around.
Slashdot Mirror
I respectfully disagree and think you are missing the core issue, that the fact that publishers may ONLY sell subscriptions under Apple's specific terms is the real issue. Not the specific terms themselves, but that Apple does not give their "vendors" or their "customers" the right to do business with each other outside those terms.
Apple wants all apps sold under the news stand model, where vendors sell the apps to Apple and Apple sells them to the end customer.
I don't think that's irrelevant to the discussion at all, nor do I feel it's a rant. I think, by and large, that the Apple Store is a good thing for most consumers, provided you are willing to accept the restrictions it brings.
I don't think so - I think that your original post is missing the point of view of the publishers and the argument they are trying to make.
First, Apple is being admirable at not selling your personal data to others for purchases made at the Apple Store, and I'll give them serious cool points for that. They would be in serious shit if they ever started selling off that information, because you are their customer.
But that's not the core of the argument.
The publishers are claiming that Apple should not be the sole people allowed to sell software for the platform.
Agree or disagree, but that's the crux of the issue. We as consumers can't decide whether this is something Apple should do, only whether we're comfortable with it.
Apple don't allow me to do business with anyone other than them for iOS app purchases. I have to include their store in everything I do with my iPod except importing music.
Only one entity (Apple) gets access to the things I do with my device, and that has its advantages. But they get a complete view of everything I do, and I can't do anything they don't approve of. To me, that's a disadvantage.
Whether that outweighs the advantages (one central vendor, less chance of credit card breaches, fewer people with personal data, etc) is a matter of personal preference.
The publishers raise a valid point - they can't have you as a customer on iOS. No one can, other than Apple. The only people who can have customers who are buying iOS applications is Apple, because all software comes through one store, the Apple Store.
You can only buy software for your iOS device using a payment instrument that Apple accepts, and Apple has a comprehensive list of everything you've bought.
You can only buy software for your iOS device that Apple has approved, and that's good when the thing you want is unsafe, but Apple has a history of denying things they don't like that are perfectly safe for you to use.
Are you saying that people can't keep it in their jeans because it's in their genes?
And while I agree, I think the whole argument slams smack-dab into the walls around the walled garden. If you want to have your software on an iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc, that software has to be sold through Apple (barring jailbreaking, which does not a viable business model make).
What if I wanted to buy a subscription to Android Magazine for my iPad so I could read up on it? Apple can deny the publishers the right to sell their magazine for use on my device, and (without jailbreaking) there's no way I can buy it. And if selling an app requires jailbreaking, most publishers know their subscription numbers hardly justify building out an app for it.
More to the point, what if I wanted to buy software and didn't want to use my Apple account for it? What if I wanted to use a different credit card, or wanted to go to a brick-and-mortar and pay cash to install something? Nope, Apple purchases go through the Apple store, and that's that.
I'm not saying that the model is inherently wrong - it's got its advantages and disadvantages that have been discussed to death already. But it does mean that you can't buy any software for your iOS-based device except exclusively from Apple, and they get to decide who they do business with.
The walls can protect you, and they can restrict your motion. You have to choose whether you accept the restrictions that go with the protections. If you can't, don't get locked into a multi-year contract with the thing.
I have an older iPod Touch, and for the most part if I had a choice, I'd PREFER software that is available in the Apple Store. It's been vetted out to an extent, I'm only giving payment information to one vendor (decreasing the likelihood of credit card breaches), and all that. But I think it would be nice (in a "I'm not going to be able to get this anyway, so I might as well dream" sort of way) to have a competitive marketplace for applications on the platform so I can stray from the path if I want.
It's not a deal-killer for the iPod because I won it in a contest, and I really only use it to listen to music (via my already-purchased library and imported CDs, not iTunes) and run a few free apps. It's not my phone or anything terribly important to me, and when the battery finally dies it'll get installed permanently in a music player docking station and I won't lament the loss of the other features too much.
But the point is, it's Apple's playground, and Steve hands out the marbles. There are other playgrounds if you don't like Steve's rules, but the point of these stories is to make those rules clear to people about to make a buying decision. Many people are very comfortable with the walled garden, and that's fine, just understand that the top of the walls have razor wire on them, and you aren't getting out.
Well, actually, they are talking about using linear induction, not vacuum/pressure. However, the argument still holds partly at least.
A direct collision is still possible if you hire programmers as incompetent as Denver's (though not if you hire programmers like those responsible for the other 99% of similar projects like most major train systems).
However, two capsules headed directly at each other would be significantly slowed by the increase in air pressure between them as they approach, assuming the capsules both come close to filling the tube. The resulting collision would be at well-below peak speeds.
Don't underestimate the marketroids. Most of them fully grasp that a flat rate would be more "logical" if their goal was to be fair. Their goal is not to be fair. Their goal is to extract the most money possible from you for the least possible cost. Making their plans simple and clear would be deeply, horribly illogical of them given their goal.
When I went to get my corporate Blackberry a couple of years ago, I had my choice of three models from Verizon and three from AT&T. Two of the models from each were equipped with GPS receivers and a bunch of nifty neato features. Both carriers claimed the phones were GPS-equipped. I did a little more research and my favorite Verizon model turned out to be delivered with the GPS locked to only their TeleNav service if you paid $10 a month.
I called a Verizon rep about this, and the conversation went sorta like this:
Me: I understand that you lock the GPS on your Curve 8300 units, is that correct?
Verizon Rep: Absolutely not! The GPS is fully available.
Me: So, I could download Google Maps for Blackberry and I'd have my location shown?
VR: Yes, location services are available in Google Maps. The location should calculate in seconds, and of course you need a data plan.
Me: What? GPS doesn't use data unless you enable Assisted-GPS. Can I use non-Assisted mode in areas I don't get coverage?
VR: No. You can't use the GPS with Google Maps, location services for that application are via cell triangulation.
Me: But, why can't it use the GPS?
VR: The GPS only works with TeleNav, our paid subscription service, which offers (blah blah blah more than Google Maps) all for only $10 a month.
Me: So if I paid the $10 a month for TeleNav, I could use the GPS built into my Blackberry with any application I wanted?
VR: Yes, I already said that location services are available to all applications.
Me: Great, so I don't need any extra hardware to unlock the GPS, just the TeleNav subscription?
VR: The GPS is not locked, sir. I told you that.
Me: Allow me to rephrase that. I don't need any extra hardware to use the GPS receiver built into my Blackberry to use, say, Google Maps or Blackstar, assuming I pay the $10 TeleNav fee?
VR: (sounding annoyed) Location services are availalable in all applications that support them.
Me: GPS-accuracy location services? As in approximately three meter accuracy with a good view of the sky under ideal conditions?
VR: (quite annoyed now) Of course you need extra hardware, you need an external bluetooth GPS puck to get the location from. We can sell you one with your phone for an extra $150.
Me: So the GPS itself can only be used with TeleNav, and no other applications, and only if I purchase TeleNav, right?
VR: (very piqued) I keep telling you, location services are available in all applications.
Me: Just not using the built-in GPS.
VR: Yes, the GPS works fine in all supported applications.
Me: Can you name a few of those supported applications, please?
VR: TeleNav.
Me: Any others?
VR: Location Services are available in Google Maps, Blackberry Maps, and a number of other...
Me: (interrupting) Please stop talking about location services, I want to know about the Global Positioning Satellite Receiver hardware built into my phone. Can I use that hardware with Google Maps, Blackberry Maps, or any application other than TeleNav, even if I purchase the $10 a month TeleNav subscrip...
VR: (interrupting) Of course not! The GPS is for TeleNav only. If you want a GPS of your own, you have to buy one. We won't just GIVE you one!
To me, this seemed a very illogical discussion. But to Verizon, this is a very logical conversation, because they wanted to get me into a two-year commitment with their phone so I'd be facing the decision
Same thing as what happens today when a truck hits a large bump and smashes a few cases of corn syrup, or someone at a factory or distribution center drops a couple of cases, or they slide off a conveyor, etc etc. Shipping damage happens no matter what the transport method.
The containers would no doubt be sealed, so any sticky gooeyness would be discovered after the tube is removed from the system.
Collisions are less likely than with a truck, because the cargo tubes are not independently powered and independently operated, there's a central computer managing traffic routing. Trains don't collide all that often any more, and most train accidents are some asshole in a car who tried to beat the gate so he didn't have to wait 5 minutes for the train to pass. A tube network would not have that problem - all traffic anywhere in or around the network would be under the control of the computer grid running it.
No, it would be very easy to blow up enough of it to make a big difference. As it stands right now, there is one main supply line, for example, into the State of Maine - Interstate 95. There are two bridges that cross into the state near that interstate, and one of them is falling apart on its own and needs little help to complete the journey. The other bridge, if closed, would force all traffic entering or leaving the state to the South to drive 20 miles out of their way, a good chunk of it on back roads that aren't designed to handle the 6 lanes each way of traffic that the current two bridges provide the capacity for (and quite often use to the point of backups).
During the summer, the I95 corridor regularly has toll backups of well over ten miles. One car bomb set off at one of those toll booths would inconvenience two lines of cars ten miles long and four cars wide, and any trucks that happen to be mixed in.
And that's for a rural state with under 2 million residents. It gets worse when you go urban. A lot worse. Three car bombs could take out the Calahan Tunnel, the I-90 Mass Pike Bridge, and the bridge at the William F., McLellan Highway. A couple more could take out the offramps off I95 in that area, and isolate Boston into two unconnected cities for quite some time.
Look at New York. Take out the Holland and Brooklyn Battery tunnels and a half-dozen bridges and New York City will come to a standstill that made the WTC bombings look like "business as usual".
The highway system is deeply vulnerable to attack, as is the electrical system, the sewer and water systems in many major cities, and lots of infrastructure. The important distinction is that these would be excellent military targets but poor terrorism targets. Terrorists want a large immediate and direct body count.
If anything, a tube network like this will have distinct advantages from a national security standpoint. It will allow food supplies to continue to flow in the event of an attack on the highway system, or if this system is attacked we can still use the highway system for critical supplies (we just need to commandeer the trucks currently used for less-critical supplies). It provides redundancy.
Infrastructure for this will be cheaper and easier to build than a highway, so you can build a lot more redundancy into a system like this at lower cost.
A system like this would be less accessible and therefore harder to target. Any asshole can rent a Ryder truck, load it with some Diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate fertilizer, and "McVeigh" a significant bridge or section of highway for a very long time. Attacking a sealed tube (particularly underground) where cars don't normally go is harder. And the tube, being smaller, can be repaired more quickly and we can use the highways as a backup or reroute until it is fixed. Probably faster than you could design some way of getting the goods from the tubes to a truck.
It does, and it doesn't.
The copyright holder holds all rights to the song. I would argue that they hold it for waaaaay too goddamned long, and waaaaay too goddamned strictly, and waaaaay waaaaay waaaay too broadly, but that's not relevant to the discussion. The copyright holder holds rights to the base material, and any derivations of that base material can become distinct copyrightable items.
The copyright holder can release a particular version of a particular performance of a song and still withhold copyright to other versions or performances of the same song.
So, what EMI is open-licensing is a specific data file that may be downloaded freely from the site they have licensed it to. Technically, they could say that only copies acquired directly from them (or downloaded from RapidShare) are legitimate if they wanted to, though tracking that would be tough for them and the burden of proof that you got it elsewhere is on them.
Yes, it gets convoluted, because it's easy to create a derivative work. But the principle behind it is pretty simple - if you created it and you didn't base it on someone else's work, it's yours and you get to tell everyone what they can and cannot do with it (within limits set by law, such as "fair use" and DMCA exceptions).
It would be easier if we had a "registrar of copyright" so you could submit a work to a central registry somewhere and say "this is mine, and these are the terms under which it may be used". Copyright protection would only be offered to works that are in the registry.
And what would be nicer is if this protection didn't last ridiculous periods of time. I'd support very strict copyright indeed if the copyright holder had 5 years with a paid initial copyright filing and an additional 5 years with a paid renewal. Or I'd support really long terms if the terms were looser (using 5 notes as a tribute riff shouldn't get you sued by the original artist's great grandchildren). The current terms of copyright are simply too long and too draconian, and that's just an ugly combination that stifles innovation rather than encouraging it like copyright was supposed to do.
Sorry, I thought RapidShare used P2P. My bad.
So, yeah, they could ding you for redistributing it, though there'd be little reason for them to, and they most likely would not (since the fact that they gave it away on RapidShare in the first place means they want that version of the song spread far and wide).
No, for the files they share they are legally and legitimately offering copies for free. There's no infringement happening there. That is the normal defense used for the existence of these sites, to serve as a clearinghouse for labels and artists who CHOOSE to share their work openly in order to promote it, right? Why can't EMI participate in that same clearinghouse for the songs they choose to share, like everyone else? EMI has a gigantic catalog, why shouldn't they be allowed to share parts of it if they choose to? EMI is actually adding legal and legitimate content to the site.
The obvious part, of course, is that EMI cannot offer a song to you on RapidShare and then sue you for downloading it and seeding the exact same version of the same song, but they have to sue you in order to pursue damages, so they'd have no basis for a suit if you stuck to specific versions of songs they shared. So if you can identify it as a "legal" one, you're good.
For the other pieces of music that EMI is not sharing but that others are, well, did I mention that EMI is not sharing those? Those are still things that EMI could legally come after you for. The same is true of versions of the song EMI chose not to share that someone else is (higher bitrate, etc). EMI is the rights-holder, they can release any portion of any song in any version they damned well please. That doesn't open the rest of their catalogue for free use by everyone, or even that different versions of the same song are free for use.
Let's say I'm EMI. I have two artists signed with me, with one album each. SoundsLikeValiumLooksLikeAGirl is my boy band, and ScreechyButSkankyAndGotBigBoobs is my girl band.
I don't want people to listen to Screechy's actual signing, dear God no, I sell her albums to horny teen boys based on the airbrushed cleavage on her album covers and the large pull-out centerfolds in the album art insert, and her reputation for skankiness so young horny boys can fantasize about the diseases they could catch from her. I don't want her album shared on RapidShare because I want to sell more album art, and I don't want my young horny hormone-driven money-sources to actually hear her voice, it might turn them off.
But young girls love Valium's smooth, overly synthesized, vapid sound, so I share out a few of their songs at 128k MP3 so the girls will buy the rest of the album because they can't get enough of his smooth synthesized voice and want a higher-quality version.
I cannot sue anyone for the specific versions of the songs I've released on RapidShare myself. However, I haven't released any of Screechy's music at all. So if I see people sharing her songs, I can pursue them. And I've only released specific copies of Valium's work, so if I see a 256k version or a live version I can go after that, too, since it's nothing I've released.
How does the user know the difference? Well, good question. Honestly. But these sites purportedly exist for artists to share their music, and they are being victimized by the majority who upload music they have no rights to.
How does an average user know the difference today? How do I go on RapidShare and find freely licensed music right now and differentiate it from pirated music? Is there a "pirated" section and a "non-pirated" section and does everyone honestly use the sections? EMI could easily identify them if the site had a system for doing so, but how many pirates would mark their files as "authorized", too? It'd be like making a small non-peeing section in a large pool.
The fact is, if you want to know whether the music you download is authorized, you really need to go to the web sites for your chosen musician or their label. If their site points you to a torrent, then they've shared some music for your enjoyment. If you choose to use something like RapidShare, go ahead, but understand that there's no reliable mechanism for anyone to tell you what might or might not be legal for you to get.
Not true, at least on the "has ever provided" part. My father in law has a grandfathered Verizon $60/month "unlimited" plan. It truly is unlimited. We went over 5GB one month just to test it, hit about 6.5GB, Verizon never said "boo" about it. This is a USB dongle thingie for his laptop.
Verizon has been trying to fool him into making some account change or getting a free upgrade to his device for a few years now, in an attempt to cancel his unlimited plan, but as it stands he's on a month-to-month plan and Verizon doesn't appear to have any way to change that term on him.
Sadly, you can't get a NEW account like that, and he's treating his old USB dongle like it's made out of spun crystal because he knows if he ever breaks it he's screwed.
It's not 4G, but it gets the job done for him.
Unless, of course, the right plan for you requires more than 10GB/month, which at $80/month is the largest plan Verizon offers. $10/GB overage, so if you use 20 GB in a month that's $180.
Or, with AT&T, the largest plan is their $60 5GB plan, overages at 5 cents a megabyte ($51/GB), so if you used 20GB on that plan you're looking at $213.
Wireless is not for bulk data, of course, so if you need bulk data you've better off with wireline (or a local WiFi provider if you can find one!)
I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that there's no driver's test for the Internet and as inadequately as antivirus tools are capable of protecting the innocent, they are at least better than nothing at all. Whether through simple lack of time or lack of access to an educator, there is a significant population of "click on whatever looks good and damn the torpedoes" folks out there.
I've tried educating the rest of my group, with some significant success, but I can't possibly make them aware of every risk and they aren't going to take the time to educate themselves on every new threat. Many of them are pretty open to actually looking at emails, a few are OK with NoScript but it "makes the Internet harder" for more than half (some pages don't work at all, or don't work well, without JavaScript). A very small few of them have enough trouble just handling email and Facebook which is the extent of the Internet to them, bless their dear hearts.
I'm probably not that much different in terms of my car. I follow the maintenance schedule, listen for odd noises or odd handling, and look for warning lights.
Since not everyone is going to be fully aware (and some may be completely unaware) of what the "bad sounds" and "odd handling" are on the Internet, we add "warning lights" (antivirus and other tools) that at least catch a good chunk of the problems, just like the idiot lights in your car.
They aren't perfect, but they help catch the worst stuff, because just as few people have the wherewithal to check their oil, brake, and steering fluid levels every time they start the car, and precious few crawl under the car to look for a brake line that's on its last legs, so do few people have the wherewithal to check every URL, research each error message they see, and recognize when your bank is not your bank.
So the car, and the computer, are "taught" to identify some of the most serious things that can happen and identify them to the user. Part of the lesson is to avoid having the warning light come on by maintaining the machine (keeping signatures up to date, checking URLs, using NoScript and other protection tools, refraining from clicking on every damned thing in email even if it does promise Natalie Portman in hot grits or dancing fluffy kittens).
The other part is telling them what to do when a warning light comes on (antivirus goes BING!, certificate warnings, popup ads, UAC popups in Win7, etc).
Of course, I also helped an older woman some years back whose car had broken down at the side of the road. Her description was that of a little red "Aladdin's Lamp" lighting up about 30 miles back, then the car getting a little rumbly-grumbly sounding for a while, then finally no matter how hard she pushed down on the gas the car slowed down and got more wiggy-jiggy, then finally it went thumpity-thumpity-clunky-creakity-phoot-grunt and the engine stopped and she had to coast to the side of the road. (read: Low Oil Pressure light came on and she drove the car past 6 highway exits for a half an hour to the point of utter death by friction, ignoring the increasingly urgent mechanical problems that were developing). So the lights don't always do any good even when they do work...
No reference to it in the Wiki about Pharming.
Phorm did appear to use a form of pharming (more specifically DNS poisoning, in this case poisoned at the ISP level) to do its ugly magic. So maybe the marketing dweebs who made up the term "pharming" had some inspiration from Phorm's name in inventing their security tool marketing term.
Because then 1,459 other people would have posted the pre-pre-pre-preview version and your carefully-researched, well-though-out, and more accurate followup with actual useful links and information would be immediately rejected as a "duplicate" and you wouldn't get posting credit.
It's not about who is BEST, it's about who is FIRST. That's been true of all media outlets for over a century now, it's just that the Internet lets us all be cub reporters and the pace is a tad more frenetic.
I help about a dozen people with their computers as "side favors", and I know of only one person at the moment on Windows who is not using Antivirus of some form. Comcast includes it for free, so anyone on Comcast I just send them the link and tell them to install it, the same is also true of most ISPs now - almost all of them include something for Antivirus.
If I drop by to help with something and there's no antivirus installed, we have a serious chat and I usually insist on installing something (at least AVG-Free) before we proceed to working on the actual problem they want help with. It cuts down on repeat visits, and even though I work for beer and I like beer, I have money and can buy beer, and cash purchase is my preferred method for acquiring beer. Fixing other people's computer gaffes is barely worth the beer. I'd rather buy beer and bring it to their house and drink it with them while having a conversation.
My one antivirus-averse person, let's call him "Risky Rick", feels that he never visits any sites that could harm him (and he does appear pretty cautious), he was very open to installing Firefox with NoScript for web and Thunderbird for email, he is savvy enough not to be running as Admin (Windows XP), he keeps his system patched reasonably well, he's got a decent consumer router with SPI, and he uses MailWasher to review the headers of all of his email so he can delete anything suspicious before it hits an email client capable of rendering HTML or running scripts. He doesn't want to incur the slowdown of a realtime scanner, but he does run a full system scan every few months or so (and it's always come back clean, so I'll give him credit that his caution is working OK for now). Rick is putting actual effort into security rather than depending on a tool to help. Which works, sorta, but you want a Risky Rick who also uses Antivirus as an additional layer, because there's no such thing as too many layers of security.
New computers are almost always bundled with McAfee or Norton, with a really annoying reminder when the 3, 6, or 12 months or whatever of included service are up. I'm not really a big fan of either, but they get the job done, and they almost force the user to keep them current. It's annoying and invasive, but it seems to be working.
Damnit, "review" fail.
Last bit should be:
"REPORT JUNK MAIL OR FRAUD" is clear, understandable, and obvious. Then when you hit a threshold for a specific message, throw it into the spam bin for everyone and force anyone who really wants to click the links on it to move it back to the Inbox first. Links in the spam bin should never, ever, ever be clickable.
Now, let's talk placement. "Report Phishing" is where, you say? Oh, under the REPLY button? That I have to open the email to get to. Oh, OK. Wait.. what? Isn't the very first lesson we all try to teach our newbies "junk and fraud emails are evil - never open them if you can tell what they are by looking at the subject line. Delete them." And yet, when Google wants fraud reported, they make you open the message. (tap tap tap) hello? Is this thing on?
Well, it's really no surprise.
We used to call it "telephone fraud" or "scamming" back when it was done over the phone and "mail fraud" when it was done via the dead tree snail-mail system. And unwanted postal advertisement was called "junk mail".
Then when it came to online we decided on the terms "phishing" for fraud and "spam" for unwanted email. Oh, but then it got worse.
Then there's "whaling" (email scams targeting people higher up in the organization), and "spear phishing" (collecting data about the person you want to phish and crafting a personal attack), "smishing" (scams over cell text messages), "pharming" (DNS redirect), etc. All to describe an attempt at fraud to different targets or using different techniques.
Then, to add insult to stupidity, someone asked "hey! what if someone tries phishing you over the phone? What should we call that?" and came up with "vishing", completely ignoring the fact that there's been a perfectly good term in use for many generations now to describe telephone fraud. "telephone fraud".
I'm waiting for someone to come up with a new term for postal fraud. "snailshing?"
No wonder the terminology is confusing. It's asinine. Something describing fraud should be called "fraud" with the proper adjective in front of it. "mail fraud", "email fraud", "phone fraud", "SMS fraud". Hey, even a complete Internet newbie can understand that without a specialized dictionary to understand the terminology. They're not inviting me to a "Phish" concert, I'm not being invited to catch some stripers with someone who can't spell, they're trying to commit fraud!
"REPORT JUNK MAIL OR FRAUD" not to do?
Side note: The old IBM buckling-spring keyboards are alive and well, built in Lexington Kentucky where IBM used to build their keyboards. The people who bought the old IBM equipment call themselves Unicomp, and their storefront is at http://pckeyboards.stores.yahoo.net/ and you get all the beautiful tactile feedback you can handle along with the wonderful clackity sounds.
Be polite. Buy your cubemates earplugs. :)
Possibly, but there's only a low chance that the bacteria will be particularly virulent at attacking the human body. The only thing the bacteria will have going for it is that it is resistant to specific artificial means to fight it. It doesn't mean that the bacteria will necessarily be better at compromising natural defenses or that they'll be particularly virulent or harmful.
In other words, by using antibacterial soaps, you are selecting for bacteria that is resistant to the agents in those soaps, and by not being exposed to as many bacteria you are compromising your own immune response to bacteria. When the "superbug" comes home to roost, you won't have the defenses to fight it, and the artificial means you've come to depend on to fight it for you will be ineffective.
By not using antibacterial soaps, you keep your immune system operating more efficiently, which means when the "superbug" comes home to roost in your antibacterial-soap-using friends, your body is going to treat it just like any other bacteria. There's a chance it will be virulent, but probably not. Your own body will probably be able to fight it off reasonably well.
The real danger in overuse of antibacterials is that some people utterly depend on artificial means to defend themselves from bacteria. The very young, the very old, and people with otherwise underdeveloped or compromised immune systems cannot build their defenses, and the artificial defenses we've developed are all they have. Overuse of antibacterials means the bacteria can develop their resistant strains more quickly and they become more common.
Antibacterials (including antibiotics) in general should be reserved for cases where the patient really, really needs them. This will slow the development if antibacteria-resistant strains and ensure that the bulk of the population has a natural defense. The same can be said of many viruses - trying to eradicate them only selects out the antiviral-resistant strains.
Most innoculations are a separate discussion, as long as they are the kind that introduce a weakened or killed bacteria or virus for the purpose of "showing the body a potential enemy" so the body can build a defense for something it may well have to fight soon.
That's right. Don't ever try and stand up for your rights.
I don't know where you read that, but I didn't write it. You may be misinterpreting what I said. I may not have said it clearly. Please allow me to try again.
Your "right" to install any software you desire on your phone is alive and well.
My Blackberry does it quite happily. My wife's Nokia/Symbian is thrilled to run anything that will compile for Symbian. I have several friends with Androids who can run anything they want.
Every single smartphone platform gives you the freedom you seek. Except iPhone.
You chose iPhone. Maybe it was the "best fit", but it comes with a package that includes Apple and its policies.
You have to have seen that Apple has been engaging in this exact same restrictive behavior for as many years as the iPhone has existed, and frankly this shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone who watches even the mainstream news, and much less so for someone with a Slashdot UID that is almost half my own.
Just keep running around between 2 or 3 mega corporations that are all circling the same drain.
No one else is "circling the drain" on this one.
Carrier lock is an issue for some platforms, but buy the phone unlocked and it ceases to be an issue. It costs more, but that's what the carrier subsidies do - they help buy your phone, and in turn you accept restrictions from them. Freedom isn't free, and smartphones cost a good bit of money to build out.
My wife is very happy with her unlocked, non-carrier-subsidized Nokia ExpressMusic 5800, and AT&T can't say jack about what we do with the phone - their SIM is in it, and I'm paying for a voice contract month-to-month. If they want to play a silly game, the phone will work just fine on another carrier or just as a prepaid using any SIM I can pick up at a convenience store.
No need for a data plan, she uses WiFi at home and data just doesn't work away from home. There's even a second SIM slot in the phone if we wanted to use another service for data or balance calls between multiple carriers.
Suggesting and defending the idea that consumers might have rights over the products they purchase? That's just commie talk, right?
No. It's just that you happened to choose the only vendor in a competitive marketplace that does what you don't want. You voted for their way of doing business by giving them money.
The smartphone market is not a monopoly market. It's not even an oligopoly market (otherwise Android would never have entered it so quickly!). It's a relatively open, competitive market. Unlike the US cell carrier market, but that's a separate discussion.
My point is not to lie down and take it. It's to vote with the one and only thing Apple gives a hoot about. Your money. You can complain all you want, and as long as you keep paying them they can safely ignore you.
No amount of complaining has really changed any of the "New" (since iOS was introduced) Apple's policies in any meaningful during the entire existence of iPhone as a platform. Steve Jobs knows precisely what he wants to sell, and your only choice is to buy it or not. He's not accepting feedback. He never has. And he runs the company with an iron fist.
You must speak the only language a business like Apple can understand - "you no longer deserve my commerce, I shall seek out one of your competitors. Bye-bye."
You stop a fire by spraying foam at the base, not by telling the fire that you want it to stop burning your possessions. Fire doesn't listen. Neither does Apple.
What part of the ToS does it really break?
The Tantrum'o'Steve? Talking about a competitor makes him break into tantrums all the time. Then he does snitty things like rip previously-approved apps out of the App Store for no good reason.
Seriously, though... Apple's on, what, their 4th generation phone now (and I know that there have been at least a few "iterations" like the "GS")? They've been doing this since the first app installed on the first generation phone. This is covered very regularly on Slashdot and at least once every few months on a more mainstream news outlet.
Why is this behavior a surprise to people?
"NEWS FLASH: Apple demonstrates that Apple is still Apple after all these years."
If this is such a big deal to people, why would any of them knowingly run an iPhone?
The answer: Either it isn't a big deal to most people (there are valid reasons for wanting at least the sense if not the reality of security that a walled garden provides), or it's a big deal and people are making really stupid choices then trying to blame someone else for them. If you bought using "shiny" as a primary selection criteria back when you had multiple choices, don't blame the "shiny" maker for being who they are.
And that would be fine if I were free to shop for apps at another store.
When your contract is up, might I respectfully suggest that you consider shopping for your PHONE at another store?
Apple's been utterly arbitrary and capricious for years on their App Store, it's not like this story represents a new concept. This is a "yawn, Apple shows that Apple is Apple. Again."
These stories are important in that they make it clear to potential iPhone buyers exactly what they are getting into when they sign that 2-year contract with the $300+ ETF. But if you bought an iPhone more than 3 months after the very first iPhone went to market, you had to have known what you were getting into.
In other news, if you are looking for a half-ton hauler, a Toyota Prius might not be the wisest choice and you shouldn't expect Toyota to do a recall because it couldn't haul what you wanted.
Smartphones are expensive, dammit. Do a little research and make sure one fits your needs before you buy it. "Shiny" should not be a primary selection criteria, and if it is, you've made your choice.
I disagree. Apple only has a monopoly on iPhones, not on smartphones. There are other alternatives out there that aren't so limiting on your choice of applications (Android, RIM/Blackberry, Nokia/Symbian, etc). Apple is free to do what they want within their platform because Apple does not enjoy a monopoly in any market that the platform operates in (far from it, in fact). Once you choose to limit yourself to Apple's offerings, knowing the limitations they are now legendary for placing on them, you've made your decision, and you have to live with it.
Walk into any cell store and you can walk out with any one of an array of phones, which you choose by looking at pricing, features, and the kind of company that makes and offers them.
But you need the information to make a choice that is correct for you. A competitive market only works when consumers are informed.
Apple's capricious and arbitrary rules about their App Store are precisely why these stories are so important, despite the fact that they get tiresome. If, after reading story after story like this, you make the informed decision to purchase an iPhone, that's completely your decision. Freedom to run the apps you want may not be as important to you as walled-garden security or the convenience of not having to search for apps at dozens of web sites. And that's OK, there are significant numbers of people who actually prefer their phones to work that way. But smartphones are expensive, and you really owe it to yourself to know what you are getting into before you commit to 2 years with the damned thing.
While you are still in a competitive marketplace, choose a phone that doesn't meet your needs. You can choose Apple if you feel it meets your needs, or not if you don't, but don't ask Apple to change their business model just because you bought one of their phones. Apple (the company) is part of the phone you bought. They aren't going to change unless you force them to, and the only way to force them to change is to demonstrate that their way of doing business is not what you want, and you can really only do that by buying another phone that does meet your needs.
Once you've bought an iPhone, Apple could care less about you carping about how restrictive it is. You've bought the damned thing, you're on the quarterly profit sheet for two (or more) years now. Even if you dropped it tomorrow and went with something else, they're making their share of the money off the service plan you committed to (or the ETF you have to pay). In two years, they'll have the iPhone 6 or 7 out, and you'll almost certainly have forgotten what apps you can't run and go back and buy one. Or you'll come to prefer their business model. Or maybe you'll defect, but that's two years from now.
Apple's been like this for years now, and people still keep buying their product. Maybe their target customer prefers them to work the way they do. Maybe, just maybe, you're not part of that target market and should really evaluate your choices next time around.