I agree. I was pretty gung-ho about getting a MBP until I read your comment. I was hesitant about dropping to 1680x1050 (which was the resolution I thought they were at 15") but seeing that I'd have to get a 17" to have that is just unacceptable.
TPM is evil like Bittorrent is evil: both are tools which can be used for good (assurance that binaries haven't been tampered with; mass distribution of copyleft materials) or evil (locking away your legitimately purchased copyrighted media; mass copyright infringement).
I look forward to the day that I can trust that my binaries haven't been tampered with, as long as I can sign my own binaries to my key in the TPM chip.
As others have said, you can make some good bank developing the software... Nothing says you gotta run the company--it kinda looks like you were being asked to do some contract work, which would have paid regardless of the success of the site (unless they were paying you in stock, I guess, but I'd really rather not take that risk no matter what the job is.)
Who cares about encrypting libc or the x.org libraries? People want to encrypt their financial, medical, and other such data. eCryptfs makes it easy to encrypt only what users want to encrypt.
Level of security. Ideally, we'd have FDE in hardware (using a TPM chip, perhaps) to prevent tampering of your libraries should you be out of control of the machine for some period of time. Even better is encrypting/signing the bootloader and every file along the way to the applications and data.
I mean, what good is your encrypted drive if covert ops sneak into your hotel room, steal your notebook, copy your drive, trojan your binaries, then wait for you to enter your password so their trojans can e-mail it to them and grab your data. Or say you are expected to surrender your notebook at the airport so they can "check it for explosives" (this allegedly happened to some guy--they took his notebook into a separate room to "examine"--who knows whether they imaged th drive, as he wasn't allowed to watch while they examined his property).
I say make it as hard as possible. Make them replace the TPM chip and jump through as many hoops as you can to prevent your data from being stolen.
I may be paranoid, but on a new install of Windows, I usually use FTP to get Moz builds. Just in case I mistype the name or something and hit a site with malware.
Sandisk is currently promoting technology called "U3" which is intended to act this way. It/should/ say so on the packaging--if it doesn't, blame Sandisk for changing things.
--- QUOTE --- Q: What must I do to trigger Autorun on my USB storage device? The Autorun capabilities are restricted to CD-ROM drives and fixed disk drives. If you need to make a USB storage device perform Autorun, the device must not be marked as a removable media device and the device must contain an Autorun.inf file and a startup application.
The removable media device setting is a flag contained within the SCSI Inquiry Data response to the SCSI Inquiry command. Bit 7 of byte 1 (indexed from 0) is the Removable Media Bit (RMB). A RMB set to zero indicates that the device is not a removable media device. A RMB of one indicates that the device is a removable media device. Drivers obtain this information by using the StorageDeviceProperty request." --- END QUOTE ---
Inexcusable? Hardly. It would certainly be inexcusable if they didn't take action here, but for a simple mistake? I think everyone is overstating how big a problem this is.
And before people start saying, "Well if it was Microsoft, we'd be jumping down their throats about this!" consider that Apple isn't exactly a company with a long history of security flaws.
I do think that the statement "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses" is absurd. If there/were/ widespread viruses for Apple, they'd likely be just as problematic. The only thing that 'hardens' Apple against viruses, other than obscurity, is the fact that users don't run as Admin by default, so they have to type in their password for the virus to do any significant damage. Since we're training users to do this, it seems likely that a virus would still be able to wreak havoc on a Mac. We'd just call it a trojan, first.
I guess Autorun on by default is another flaw in Windows, but I wasn't aware that USB devices would autorun by default. Are iPods presenting themselves as CDRoms now?
Seriously. People look at a company like Apple and they imagine that there's some middle-aged guy in a turtleneck personally checking every iPod and somehow he slipped up and missed this. Nope. It's some grunt in a factory somewhere trying to meet a quota, and of course they're going to cut corners. Apple hasn't screwed up yet--we'll have to see how they handle this situation to find out whether their actions are "inexcusable."
There's no harm in asking, but there's no harm in being realistic, either. And if Nvidia has licensed technologies and are under NDA, there isn't a lot they can do without being in serious legal trouble.
It depends completely on what you're trying to accomplish.
The AJAX model shines for web applications. You know, applications where you need to make frequent requests to the server. Flash can do this, but as others have said, you get the same latency issues with Flash making queries to the server as with an AJAX-like application.
AJAX seems like a terrible idea for standalone applications, which is what you said in an earlier post. So far, I haven't seen a single AJAX application that didn't query a server somewhere. The reason for this is precisely because we have better options: Java/Flash if you want to stay in the browser, standalone applications if you don't.
Maybe we've all just misunderstood you. Gmail is arguably the best-known AJAX application. Its primary user-interface is web-based. If you're suggesting that web-based e-mail is a ridiculous concept because you could just download a standalone client, download your messages, and read them off-line, I can see that as a valid viewpoint. But the reason that web applications exist (in general) is because nearly everyone has access to a web browser. You don't have to download a new program for each website you want to use. Imagine taking this idea to the extreme and having to download Google Internet Search rathern than just pointing your browser to http://www.google.com/. Wouldn't that seem a little weird (I'm old enough to have used Archie and Gopher, so no jokes about the young ones, please)
Web browsers are good middleware because they're ubiquitous. Everyone who has an Internet connection has one. Using the functionality of the browser (much like the Java sandbox, incidentally, which you said was valid in http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=200963&c id=16458167) rather than writing a complete application has a number of advantages, not the least of which is version control (being able to ensure that people are using the latest version of your software, no version mismatches, etc).
I think AJAX is an interesting model, and I'll be following its adoption with interest. I don't think it's the end-all be-all of computing, but I don't think it's completely without merit, either. Then again, I don't have anything against traditional web applications, for the most part, so that may be where our viewpoints differ.
If you'd bothered to read the EULA (and read it like a lawyer) what they really seem to be saying is that you can't run the same copy of Vista on a physical machine and a VM at the same time, not that it can't be run in a VM at all. IANAL, yadda yadda.
I guess you haven't heard about the VLK restrictions? Basically, the machines have to connect to a license server periodically or they get dumped into "reduced functionality" mode. The license server will validate the number of copies of Vista that the company has licensed, and in turn (presumably) share all these details with Microsoft.
And your quotation makes it sound like the real issue is that you can't install Vista, install virtualization software, then install that same copy of vista in the virtualization software. Gotta have another license. This really has nothing to do with being able to run Vista in a virtualized environment (as so many people seem to think).
The biggest issue all of this illustrates is how unreasonable software licenses are. You shouldn't need a law degree to install software on your computer.
I'm appalled that people detests someone or something for standing up for their rights and their freedom, I don't understand why.
Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way. Mozilla tries to protect their Trademark (a right granted by the government) and everyone bashes them. It's pretty irritating.
You seem to be heavily oversimplifying things. It is certainly true that trademark and copyright have significant differences. However they also have some similarities (which you seem to be discounting when you say, "Copyright and Trademark are entirely separate.") The are separate in the sense that they aren't synonyms. They are separate in the sense that granting one does not immediately confer the rights of the other. But they are similar in that they are both vapid--there is nothing hard or real about them. They are both granted by the government and are given properties of physical property in an effort to otherwise control or limit their use by persons other than those to whom the government has granted the mark or right.
Calling them (along with patents) "intellectual property" does have connotations that ownership of ideas can exist, so perhaps a better term would be 'intangible property'. Nevertheless, "intellectual property" is a fairly well established and accepted term to call the collective group of monopolies that the government grants to individuals and corporations regarding intangible ideas. Even dictionaries include the term.
The better the general public understand the difference, the better off society will be.
I agree with this, but that doesn't mean that there aren't similarities between the two terms.
Be aware that altering the content is not a great deal of work. Mozilla has provided a single switch which allows you to turn off all the Firefox branding. In this way, they make it quite easy to comply with their terms.
If a program is released as free/open source under the GPL, or BSD, or any license for that matter, but contains artwork inside of it that is restricted, then that's absurd, and retarded! I'm sorry that I have to take a Stallman approach to this issue, but it's stupid to have Copyleft and Trademark compete against each other...
I completely disagree with this, and here's why.
What do we lose by not getting to use the trademarks? We still have the right to modify and redistribute. We still have the right to demand the source code if someone gives us a binary. What we do not have is the right to call our own modified software by the same name--and to me, that makes sense. If I patch the Linux kernel and redistribute it, I am no longer distributing Linux--I am instead distributing Linux with my own particular patches in it. If it's not from the original release, Iwant to know it, because that way I can more easily track down likely sources of any problems I have, and possibly realize that I need to try downloading the official source before spending hours troubleshooting.
I work for an ISP that used Spamhaus. We lost the feed temporarily because the mail admin twiddled a configuration entry that screwed things up. We knew immediately because our spam increased by a huge amount. It was our clue that we needed to check the config, and sure enough, there was the error. Fixed it and the spam dropped back to the previous "normal" level.
The idea that Spamhaus should be taken down because admins might use it poorly is equivalent to the argument that guns should be banned because people might kill with them. It's the same argument that says DeCSS should be banned because people might copy DVDs illegally with it. In all three of these cases, the tool is being removed because of what people MIGHT do.
Here's an idea: leave Spamhaus and let the people choose. If the mail admin is acting inappropriately (in your opinion) let them know. If they refuse to change their policy, switch providers, or get an address that isn't linked with your ISP. Leave the tool out there, for better or worse.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I was pretty gung-ho about getting a MBP until I read your comment. I was hesitant about dropping to 1680x1050 (which was the resolution I thought they were at 15") but seeing that I'd have to get a 17" to have that is just unacceptable.
5 1
Maybe with this mod, it would work, though:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=2077
TPM is evil like Bittorrent is evil: both are tools which can be used for good (assurance that binaries haven't been tampered with; mass distribution of copyleft materials) or evil (locking away your legitimately purchased copyrighted media; mass copyright infringement).
I look forward to the day that I can trust that my binaries haven't been tampered with, as long as I can sign my own binaries to my key in the TPM chip.
As others have said, you can make some good bank developing the software... Nothing says you gotta run the company--it kinda looks like you were being asked to do some contract work, which would have paid regardless of the success of the site (unless they were paying you in stock, I guess, but I'd really rather not take that risk no matter what the job is.)
Who cares about encrypting libc or the x.org libraries? People want to encrypt their financial, medical, and other such data. eCryptfs makes it easy to encrypt only what users want to encrypt.
Level of security. Ideally, we'd have FDE in hardware (using a TPM chip, perhaps) to prevent tampering of your libraries should you be out of control of the machine for some period of time. Even better is encrypting/signing the bootloader and every file along the way to the applications and data.
I mean, what good is your encrypted drive if covert ops sneak into your hotel room, steal your notebook, copy your drive, trojan your binaries, then wait for you to enter your password so their trojans can e-mail it to them and grab your data. Or say you are expected to surrender your notebook at the airport so they can "check it for explosives" (this allegedly happened to some guy--they took his notebook into a separate room to "examine"--who knows whether they imaged th drive, as he wasn't allowed to watch while they examined his property).
I say make it as hard as possible. Make them replace the TPM chip and jump through as many hoops as you can to prevent your data from being stolen.
Weird!
I may be paranoid, but on a new install of Windows, I usually use FTP to get Moz builds. Just in case I mistype the name or something and hit a site with malware.
Until they start using encrypted connections.
Sandisk is currently promoting technology called "U3" which is intended to act this way. It /should/ say so on the packaging--if it doesn't, blame Sandisk for changing things.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/usbfa q.mspx seems to disagree with you.
--- QUOTE ---
Q: What must I do to trigger Autorun on my USB storage device?
The Autorun capabilities are restricted to CD-ROM drives and fixed disk drives. If you need to make a USB storage device perform Autorun, the device must not be marked as a removable media device and the device must contain an Autorun.inf file and a startup application.
The removable media device setting is a flag contained within the SCSI Inquiry Data response to the SCSI Inquiry command. Bit 7 of byte 1 (indexed from 0) is the Removable Media Bit (RMB). A RMB set to zero indicates that the device is not a removable media device. A RMB of one indicates that the device is a removable media device. Drivers obtain this information by using the StorageDeviceProperty request."
--- END QUOTE ---
The content of a number of hits on http://www.google.com/search?q=autorun+usb also imply that USB does not Autorun.
Who knows how many "very few" is in these terms, or what other spin might be applied here.
Inexcusable? Hardly. It would certainly be inexcusable if they didn't take action here, but for a simple mistake? I think everyone is overstating how big a problem this is.
/were/ widespread viruses for Apple, they'd likely be just as problematic. The only thing that 'hardens' Apple against viruses, other than obscurity, is the fact that users don't run as Admin by default, so they have to type in their password for the virus to do any significant damage. Since we're training users to do this, it seems likely that a virus would still be able to wreak havoc on a Mac. We'd just call it a trojan, first.
And before people start saying, "Well if it was Microsoft, we'd be jumping down their throats about this!" consider that Apple isn't exactly a company with a long history of security flaws.
I do think that the statement "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses" is absurd. If there
I guess Autorun on by default is another flaw in Windows, but I wasn't aware that USB devices would autorun by default. Are iPods presenting themselves as CDRoms now?
Seriously. People look at a company like Apple and they imagine that there's some middle-aged guy in a turtleneck personally checking every iPod and somehow he slipped up and missed this. Nope. It's some grunt in a factory somewhere trying to meet a quota, and of course they're going to cut corners. Apple hasn't screwed up yet--we'll have to see how they handle this situation to find out whether their actions are "inexcusable."
There's no harm in asking, but there's no harm in being realistic, either. And if Nvidia has licensed technologies and are under NDA, there isn't a lot they can do without being in serious legal trouble.
It depends completely on what you're trying to accomplish.
c id=16458167) rather than writing a complete application has a number of advantages, not the least of which is version control (being able to ensure that people are using the latest version of your software, no version mismatches, etc).
The AJAX model shines for web applications. You know, applications where you need to make frequent requests to the server. Flash can do this, but as others have said, you get the same latency issues with Flash making queries to the server as with an AJAX-like application.
AJAX seems like a terrible idea for standalone applications, which is what you said in an earlier post. So far, I haven't seen a single AJAX application that didn't query a server somewhere. The reason for this is precisely because we have better options: Java/Flash if you want to stay in the browser, standalone applications if you don't.
Maybe we've all just misunderstood you. Gmail is arguably the best-known AJAX application. Its primary user-interface is web-based. If you're suggesting that web-based e-mail is a ridiculous concept because you could just download a standalone client, download your messages, and read them off-line, I can see that as a valid viewpoint. But the reason that web applications exist (in general) is because nearly everyone has access to a web browser. You don't have to download a new program for each website you want to use. Imagine taking this idea to the extreme and having to download Google Internet Search rathern than just pointing your browser to http://www.google.com/. Wouldn't that seem a little weird (I'm old enough to have used Archie and Gopher, so no jokes about the young ones, please)
Web browsers are good middleware because they're ubiquitous. Everyone who has an Internet connection has one. Using the functionality of the browser (much like the Java sandbox, incidentally, which you said was valid in http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=200963&
I think AJAX is an interesting model, and I'll be following its adoption with interest. I don't think it's the end-all be-all of computing, but I don't think it's completely without merit, either. Then again, I don't have anything against traditional web applications, for the most part, so that may be where our viewpoints differ.
So how do you translate "DO NOT RUN WE ARE YOUR FRIENDS" into Arabic?
If you'd bothered to read the EULA (and read it like a lawyer) what they really seem to be saying is that you can't run the same copy of Vista on a physical machine and a VM at the same time, not that it can't be run in a VM at all. IANAL, yadda yadda.
I guess you haven't heard about the VLK restrictions? Basically, the machines have to connect to a license server periodically or they get dumped into "reduced functionality" mode. The license server will validate the number of copies of Vista that the company has licensed, and in turn (presumably) share all these details with Microsoft.
And your quotation makes it sound like the real issue is that you can't install Vista, install virtualization software, then install that same copy of vista in the virtualization software. Gotta have another license. This really has nothing to do with being able to run Vista in a virtualized environment (as so many people seem to think).
The biggest issue all of this illustrates is how unreasonable software licenses are. You shouldn't need a law degree to install software on your computer.
But Bootcamp creates an ISO (and burns it for you) with Mac hardware drivers so that you can install Windows natively on your Mac.
I'm appalled that people detests someone or something for standing up for their rights and their freedom, I don't understand why.
Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way. Mozilla tries to protect their Trademark (a right granted by the government) and everyone bashes them. It's pretty irritating.
Weasel has a negative connotation in English. It indicates sleeziness, untrustworthiness, etc.
Ok, I jumped the gun, obviously. I didn't realize that Mozilla is /tri-licensed/
How does that work exactly? Can the end-user decide which license to use?
will probably exert the GPL
You're aware that Mozilla isn't licenced under the GPL, right? Or did you mean something else, which I misunderstood?
You seem to be heavily oversimplifying things. It is certainly true that trademark and copyright have significant differences. However they also have some similarities (which you seem to be discounting when you say, "Copyright and Trademark are entirely separate.") The are separate in the sense that they aren't synonyms. They are separate in the sense that granting one does not immediately confer the rights of the other. But they are similar in that they are both vapid--there is nothing hard or real about them. They are both granted by the government and are given properties of physical property in an effort to otherwise control or limit their use by persons other than those to whom the government has granted the mark or right.
Calling them (along with patents) "intellectual property" does have connotations that ownership of ideas can exist, so perhaps a better term would be 'intangible property'. Nevertheless, "intellectual property" is a fairly well established and accepted term to call the collective group of monopolies that the government grants to individuals and corporations regarding intangible ideas. Even dictionaries include the term.
The better the general public understand the difference, the better off society will be.
I agree with this, but that doesn't mean that there aren't similarities between the two terms.
Be aware that altering the content is not a great deal of work. Mozilla has provided a single switch which allows you to turn off all the Firefox branding. In this way, they make it quite easy to comply with their terms.
If a program is released as free/open source under the GPL, or BSD, or any license for that matter, but contains artwork inside of it that is restricted, then that's absurd, and retarded! I'm sorry that I have to take a Stallman approach to this issue, but it's stupid to have Copyleft and Trademark compete against each other...
I completely disagree with this, and here's why.
What do we lose by not getting to use the trademarks? We still have the right to modify and redistribute. We still have the right to demand the source code if someone gives us a binary. What we do not have is the right to call our own modified software by the same name--and to me, that makes sense. If I patch the Linux kernel and redistribute it, I am no longer distributing Linux--I am instead distributing Linux with my own particular patches in it. If it's not from the original release, Iwant to know it , because that way I can more easily track down likely sources of any problems I have, and possibly realize that I need to try downloading the official source before spending hours troubleshooting.
Here's another take.
I work for an ISP that used Spamhaus. We lost the feed temporarily because the mail admin twiddled a configuration entry that screwed things up. We knew immediately because our spam increased by a huge amount. It was our clue that we needed to check the config, and sure enough, there was the error. Fixed it and the spam dropped back to the previous "normal" level.
The idea that Spamhaus should be taken down because admins might use it poorly is equivalent to the argument that guns should be banned because people might kill with them. It's the same argument that says DeCSS should be banned because people might copy DVDs illegally with it. In all three of these cases, the tool is being removed because of what people MIGHT do.
Here's an idea: leave Spamhaus and let the people choose. If the mail admin is acting inappropriately (in your opinion) let them know. If they refuse to change their policy, switch providers, or get an address that isn't linked with your ISP. Leave the tool out there, for better or worse.