Simply put, for the typical iPhone to be jailbroken, the typical iPhone user would either need to have a certain level of technical sophistication far in excess of what is reasonably expected for such a mass market product, or have both access to someone with those skills and the desire to have them jailbreak their iPhone.
You do realize it is not beyond even people with little computer experience to jail break an iphone/ipod/.
Google "jailbreak my iphone" and click the first link download blackrain run it and click the only single button in the window
Most all commercial software application installers have a more complex procedure than jailbreaking does.
I think they'd have to record it for it to be child pornography.
It is recorded if they even viewed the image. Temp file cache ftw in this case.
Judges have put people in prison for decades for the same thing, even when no other pictures or media was found outside of the cache.
Even if no prison time is involved, being on the sexual offender list will force the school to let them go as they are no longer allowed within 100 yards of any school grounds.
Interesting - what WOULD happen if you stood in front of the Large Hadron Collider beam
The collider would shut down for two years due to some component overheating.
Hey now, no need to resort to name calling the GP a 'component';}
The good news is that at the temperatures the environment is kept at, there won't be too much of a mess to clean off the walls left by whomever was standing there.
Of course, I've gotten fed up enough with how Apple deals with the unlocking / tethering / app store details that when I'm done with this term, I'm going somewhere else.
I'm curious why you don't just unlock it, do tethering, and install alternate app stores?
Most people feel they shouldn't HAVE to go through so much to get to that point (And they are probably right, no arguments here) but it is still only an extra step of one button click after syncing the phone.
It seems you desire those features (Thus your being fed up with that not being the default) Those features and more are available.
I'm wondering basically if there are actual valid reasons for leaving the phone as apple sold it. Or more specifically, I'd like to hear some real-world reasons people have.
WTF is it with this trend of conjuring up completely meaningless words to use as company names?
Because every word in the dictionary has already been trademarked for some field, and no company wants to pre-limit themselves to their current field (or as others call it, not having focus)
Yeah. Though maybe they can pull a Dominoes. Our product sucks and we knew it! Now we made it not suck so try it again!
I haven't tried it yet. Did they actually remove the suck?
I just was informed of that very commercial by a friend last weekend (Well, 8 days ago)
The four other people there actually all said it is better and they like it now. Big improvement. I even tried some too after enough arm twisting.
Personally, while it tasted different from what I remember, the cheese still appeared to look and feel the same plasticy texture as before, and the sauce still tastes like an ashtray with a distinct aftertaste of stabbing my tongue.
Please note however, I am not the best person to take 'food flavor' advice from, as I lost my sense of smell as a child. I am more than willing to admit it might just be me:}
Some things deserve a permanent stigma: in this case how can you seriously expect he would continue to act in a role that requires significant trust when he's proven he can't be trusted?
To those whom only read the first line before hitting reply: I am not defending this guy. at all. I am bitching about our government
There, now that that is out of the way, I still fail to see why someone who ruined their trust in computer and information areas, should still be banned for life from flipping burgers or packing bags at walmart. (Neither hire felons anymore in my state at least)
While I too would not want this guy managing my data or computer security (or any security for that matter), I don't see how he could be much harm making my cheeseburger delux at the drive through, or putting my stuff in a plastic bag at the end of an isle on camera.
Yet he is effectively life banned from such low paying jobs.
This particular person fucked up a bit worse than normal, however you can only assign blame or credit to someone when the act is of their own choice and will.
So it is his fault for being punished for his crimes yes. It is NOT his fault for his life being totally ruined. The proof of this is that in any other first world nation he would still be able to find work after he paid his time, and manage to earn enough food to eat to not starve to death, and earn enough for a shack in the ghetto to not freeze to death.
Not you personally, but a lot of people seem to think he deserves starving and freezing to death. But in the same situation, no matter what the circumstances for getting there are, I am pretty certain ANYONE would act in the same way afterwords (Repeat crimes)
As you say, that last bit can't possibly be this persons fault. It was our government doing it to him. The proof again is that in any other country practically, this would not have happened. So it is not a situation that magically happens out of no where.
And my only REAL complaint, is that so many people in jail did not actually do anything wrong, and end up the same way. Sure, some criminals will keep being criminals. But why force that decision on everyone else, who WOULD have learned how much it sucks to do what they did, and would have stopped if given a chance to stop.
I'm not saying he's right, but it does highlight something interesting about finding work as an ex-con.
And that is why in the USA, even a 2 week sentence to jail is identical to a life sentence in prison, because a 2 week stay in jail will ruin all of the remaining years of your life (by design)
When you are starving and can't get money legally because the government set it up that way, its obvious what one must do to survive.
Personally I do blame the government for creating directly so much crime that wouldn't happen otherwise. You see much less of this problem in countries with sane punishments for the harm done.
Jail and prison are supposed to be to keep dangerous people away from a functional society.
Once you start putting anyone and everyone in there with them, from jay walkers to people that just pissed off a cop legally, then any sense of fairness in law is ruined, and you get the outcome we have now.
Just remember, its all by design, proven by the fact our government is well aware of other systems that work much better in that sense, yet the same people claim our current system is perfect. For their goals, I can only assume they are speaking truthfully.
and finding it would have zero impact on the worlds population
Do as you say, troll.
If you don't think computers are of any impact, then you should give yours away and get off the Internet. Both are technology that exists because of science which as you say is pointless.
I guess to a troll, that statement pretty much is true. One can be an asshole without the aid of any technology.
They already don't have common carrier on their data lines. That only applies to voice, data lines are exempted and can NOT be given that status by law.
Legacy parts? live with it. Eventually, they stop being produced anyhow. It can take decades to move hardware but a ton of stuff can be moved quickly.
Don't you mean: Legacy parts? live with it. Eventually, they stop being produced anyhow. It can take decades to move hardware but 907.18474 kilograms of stuff can be moved quickly.
Considering that you can still get taken down by a DMCA notice unless you get your own Internet, I don't see your point.
That is what the suggestion is to do.
Of course you are trying to be funny and imply the Internet is a single thing or something, so you won't quite get that.
See, the Internet is just a bunch of other peoples networks linked together. Running your own network, connected to the Internet, would be technically correct as long as you are using the name Internet incorrect already. So yes, setup your own Internet, linked to all the other Internets.
His point isn't that someone CAN'T send you a DMCA takedown. Hell, you can send a DMCA takedown to someone in china if you really wanted. Both will have the same effect.
If I am my hosting provider, I can just ignore the DMCA takedown. Delete it, or toss it in the trash, and ignore it. Their next move is to take you to court. Not answering the DMCA takedown, now 'you' (the host) are also in trouble for the same 'crime' they are claiming 'you' (the client) have done.
Unlike with a takedown notice and argument with your hosting company, the label will need to take you and you into court (the host and the client, who are the same person) and show a judge how you don't have legal permission to distribute that song. You show your permission to the judge, state they never once contacted you about it to find out otherwise, and are acting in bad faith from the start.
In that case, you really DO have to be committing a crime for the judge to rule as such.
It should be worth pointing out, if you actually are hosting copyrighted material that you don't have permission to distribute, then for the love of donkey, don't do the above! Then it will be YOU pissing the judge off.
When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement. If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.
I'm starting to think that just isn't true. I mean, I too know the actual DMCA law wording states that outright and all... But if it was really part of law, then at least one out of the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts (IE false takedown notices) would have been held up in court.
Of the few cases that even made it to court, not a single judge upheld that any damages should be awarded for filing a false (even known false in one case) take down notice.
Additionally, using the DMCA for this nearly exact thing was it's goal, and what it's used for most commonly. It is a tool for stopping the competition of the record labels as much as it was a tool to stop piracy.
This is what elbows are for. You'd be amazed how much smaller some people become after the eighth 'Sorry, was that you?'
As someone who is 6'0 and only 105 pounds, I too am offended by people who do such things. Being equipped with quite sharp elbows however usually gets the same reaction only after 3 or 4 times:D
And none of it was purchased through your iPhone. You can purchase music on a computer and transfer it to the device, but there's no way to get non-iTunes music through the device itself.
But if _I_ modified it, then the checksum would be different.
Exactly my point. If you modified the file, the checksum would be different, and thus when Microsofts patch doesn't bother to check that at all, it will overwrite your changes and if it is a system file, possibly bsod you.
So while this one specific case of a rootkit can't be blamed on the patch, because even if they verified the checksums, it would have matched and been replaced.
But Microsoft can be blamed for not verifying checksums.
Yes, doing so would not have prevented this specific case with the rootkit. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
And Linux fanbois remind me of a battered woman who cannot get her damn wireless card working for the life of her.
Well if she didn't use windows, she wouldn't have to fight for her life to get the wireless to work, it just would. She also probably wouldn't be hitting her head on the desk causing her to be battered, if she didn't have to fight with Windows.
Yes. Rootkits return the checksum the verification app is expecting.
So?
There are other programs out there that modify files. A file, even a core system file, could be modified by any number of things for any number of reasons.
Hell, pretend YOU modified it! Microsoft's patch would still have overwrote it despite it not being the correct file to replace. It would still cause problems with unknown states the software would then be in.
Pretending rootkits are the only programs in existence that edit files on the drive is silly.
After all, there's no way that their malware tool could have spotted it, or the update could have checksummed the files before patching them.
Sadly, yes. But I still place a teeny bit of blame on Microsoft regarding this.
While you are totally correct in that their malware tool nor checksums would have been able to detect a rootkit, so this specific problem would still have happened at no fault of theirs.. Still, they could have Tried to verify a checksum.
I mean, you are fully correct that it wouldn't work anywhere close to 100% of the time. But isn't 3 or 5% of the time better than zero?
Meh, I guess it doesn't matter. The rootkit method can't be detected unless the rootkit itself has a bug to see and take advantage of. So as long as there is nothing that can be done within the OS about it, attackers will continue using it as a vector (successfully), and Microsoft will pass the no-verifying-checksum buck off as pointless due to this very reason, while ignoring the many other ways a file could get changed and have a similar problem.
Imagine some major program like an Antivirus or a poor (read: hooks in the kernel deep) backup app, or even just a utility that has to change a major function in windows.. they release their update on the same day or a day before Microsoft finishes patch testing and pushes it out, thinking they tested that program already (Which they did, just not the newest version heh)
If they put half as much effort into their anti-malware activities as they do into their DRM regime, the world would be a better place. We'd all have unicorns, and a pot of gold.
Yes, and then it's only a short matter of time before the picture gets mailed to your parents, faxed and e-mailed to your school,...
One should probably consider those outcomes anyway when posting pictures of yourself that even you would be embarrassed for people to see. (Not you personally, but you know, that 'you'.)
In fact, you shouldn't put up a picture of anything you don't want people to see. That is sort of the entire point of a picture after all.
Do they hope legal purchases will fill the void?...because I'm pretty sure this will only boost piracy...
I'm starting to think that is the plan.
Piracy has been the best thing to the music industry since, well, ever.
Before, they would charge maybe $10 per CD. These days easily up to $20 for the same CD. With piracy in the picture, they got laws put in place so they can get just a few grand under a quarter million dollars for that one CD.
But when all they have to do is make it very difficult, or in this case impossible, to actually give them money for their product, in order to get $250000 for a $20 item, there is zero doubt in my mind this plan is working for them exactly as desired and that they planned.
Slashdot Mirror
One wonders what the principle does when he discovers that a student took the laptop with them into the restroom....
Lock the office door, get out the lotion and tissue, and wank to the soft supple thought of the fact you are above the law.
Simply put, for the typical iPhone to be jailbroken, the typical iPhone user would either need to have a certain level of technical sophistication far in excess of what is reasonably expected for such a mass market product, or have both access to someone with those skills and the desire to have them jailbreak their iPhone.
You do realize it is not beyond even people with little computer experience to jail break an iphone/ipod/.
Google "jailbreak my iphone" and click the first link
download blackrain
run it and click the only single button in the window
Most all commercial software application installers have a more complex procedure than jailbreaking does.
I think they'd have to record it for it to be child pornography.
It is recorded if they even viewed the image. Temp file cache ftw in this case.
Judges have put people in prison for decades for the same thing, even when no other pictures or media was found outside of the cache.
Even if no prison time is involved, being on the sexual offender list will force the school to let them go as they are no longer allowed within 100 yards of any school grounds.
Well, according to Apple [eff.org], jailbreaking is illegal.
I guess I can see some people blindly believing that and assuming it is true.
(For the record, jail breaking is not illegal, but I assume you know that)
But thanks for the example!
Interesting - what WOULD happen if you stood in front of the Large Hadron Collider beam
The collider would shut down for two years due to some component overheating.
Hey now, no need to resort to name calling the GP a 'component' ;}
The good news is that at the temperatures the environment is kept at, there won't be too much of a mess to clean off the walls left by whomever was standing there.
Mind if I ask a serious question?
Of course, I've gotten fed up enough with how Apple deals with the unlocking / tethering / app store details that when I'm done with this term, I'm going somewhere else.
I'm curious why you don't just unlock it, do tethering, and install alternate app stores?
Most people feel they shouldn't HAVE to go through so much to get to that point (And they are probably right, no arguments here) but it is still only an extra step of one button click after syncing the phone.
It seems you desire those features (Thus your being fed up with that not being the default)
Those features and more are available.
I'm wondering basically if there are actual valid reasons for leaving the phone as apple sold it.
Or more specifically, I'd like to hear some real-world reasons people have.
Thanks!
WTF is it with this trend of conjuring up completely meaningless words to use as company names?
Because every word in the dictionary has already been trademarked for some field, and no company wants to pre-limit themselves to their current field (or as others call it, not having focus)
Yeah. Though maybe they can pull a Dominoes. Our product sucks and we knew it! Now we made it not suck so try it again!
I haven't tried it yet. Did they actually remove the suck?
I just was informed of that very commercial by a friend last weekend (Well, 8 days ago)
The four other people there actually all said it is better and they like it now. Big improvement.
I even tried some too after enough arm twisting.
Personally, while it tasted different from what I remember, the cheese still appeared to look and feel the same plasticy texture as before, and the sauce still tastes like an ashtray with a distinct aftertaste of stabbing my tongue.
Please note however, I am not the best person to take 'food flavor' advice from, as I lost my sense of smell as a child. I am more than willing to admit it might just be me :}
Some things deserve a permanent stigma: in this case how can you seriously expect he would continue to act in a role that requires significant trust when he's proven he can't be trusted?
To those whom only read the first line before hitting reply: I am not defending this guy. at all. I am bitching about our government
There, now that that is out of the way, I still fail to see why someone who ruined their trust in computer and information areas, should still be banned for life from flipping burgers or packing bags at walmart.
(Neither hire felons anymore in my state at least)
While I too would not want this guy managing my data or computer security (or any security for that matter), I don't see how he could be much harm making my cheeseburger delux at the drive through, or putting my stuff in a plastic bag at the end of an isle on camera.
Yet he is effectively life banned from such low paying jobs.
This particular person fucked up a bit worse than normal, however you can only assign blame or credit to someone when the act is of their own choice and will.
So it is his fault for being punished for his crimes yes. It is NOT his fault for his life being totally ruined.
The proof of this is that in any other first world nation he would still be able to find work after he paid his time, and manage to earn enough food to eat to not starve to death, and earn enough for a shack in the ghetto to not freeze to death.
Not you personally, but a lot of people seem to think he deserves starving and freezing to death.
But in the same situation, no matter what the circumstances for getting there are, I am pretty certain ANYONE would act in the same way afterwords (Repeat crimes)
As you say, that last bit can't possibly be this persons fault. It was our government doing it to him.
The proof again is that in any other country practically, this would not have happened. So it is not a situation that magically happens out of no where.
And my only REAL complaint, is that so many people in jail did not actually do anything wrong, and end up the same way.
Sure, some criminals will keep being criminals. But why force that decision on everyone else, who WOULD have learned how much it sucks to do what they did, and would have stopped if given a chance to stop.
I'm not saying he's right, but it does highlight something interesting about finding work as an ex-con.
And that is why in the USA, even a 2 week sentence to jail is identical to a life sentence in prison, because a 2 week stay in jail will ruin all of the remaining years of your life (by design)
When you are starving and can't get money legally because the government set it up that way, its obvious what one must do to survive.
Personally I do blame the government for creating directly so much crime that wouldn't happen otherwise.
You see much less of this problem in countries with sane punishments for the harm done.
Jail and prison are supposed to be to keep dangerous people away from a functional society.
Once you start putting anyone and everyone in there with them, from jay walkers to people that just pissed off a cop legally, then any sense of fairness in law is ruined, and you get the outcome we have now.
Just remember, its all by design, proven by the fact our government is well aware of other systems that work much better in that sense, yet the same people claim our current system is perfect. For their goals, I can only assume they are speaking truthfully.
Seriously, what planet are you fucking on? You reckon (laughing to myself) that nobody gave a fuck about electrons until 'we made TVs' ?!?
Well that is what YOU said after all. Your post, and the one the GP replied to, are both signed the same name.
You gunna change your mind yet again when you reply to me?
and finding it would have zero impact on the worlds population
Do as you say, troll.
If you don't think computers are of any impact, then you should give yours away and get off the Internet. Both are technology that exists because of science which as you say is pointless.
I guess to a troll, that statement pretty much is true. One can be an asshole without the aid of any technology.
They already don't have common carrier on their data lines. That only applies to voice, data lines are exempted and can NOT be given that status by law.
Legacy parts? live with it. Eventually, they stop being produced anyhow. It can take decades to move hardware but a ton of stuff can be moved quickly.
Don't you mean:
Legacy parts? live with it. Eventually, they stop being produced anyhow. It can take decades to move hardware but 907.18474 kilograms of stuff can be moved quickly.
Considering that you can still get taken down by a DMCA notice unless you get your own Internet, I don't see your point.
That is what the suggestion is to do.
Of course you are trying to be funny and imply the Internet is a single thing or something, so you won't quite get that.
See, the Internet is just a bunch of other peoples networks linked together.
Running your own network, connected to the Internet, would be technically correct as long as you are using the name Internet incorrect already. So yes, setup your own Internet, linked to all the other Internets.
His point isn't that someone CAN'T send you a DMCA takedown. Hell, you can send a DMCA takedown to someone in china if you really wanted.
Both will have the same effect.
If I am my hosting provider, I can just ignore the DMCA takedown. Delete it, or toss it in the trash, and ignore it.
Their next move is to take you to court. Not answering the DMCA takedown, now 'you' (the host) are also in trouble for the same 'crime' they are claiming 'you' (the client) have done.
Unlike with a takedown notice and argument with your hosting company, the label will need to take you and you into court (the host and the client, who are the same person) and show a judge how you don't have legal permission to distribute that song. You show your permission to the judge, state they never once contacted you about it to find out otherwise, and are acting in bad faith from the start.
In that case, you really DO have to be committing a crime for the judge to rule as such.
It should be worth pointing out, if you actually are hosting copyrighted material that you don't have permission to distribute, then for the love of donkey, don't do the above! Then it will be YOU pissing the judge off.
When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement. If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.
I'm starting to think that just isn't true.
I mean, I too know the actual DMCA law wording states that outright and all... But if it was really part of law, then at least one out of the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts (IE false takedown notices) would have been held up in court.
Of the few cases that even made it to court, not a single judge upheld that any damages should be awarded for filing a false (even known false in one case) take down notice.
Additionally, using the DMCA for this nearly exact thing was it's goal, and what it's used for most commonly.
It is a tool for stopping the competition of the record labels as much as it was a tool to stop piracy.
This is what elbows are for. You'd be amazed how much smaller some people become after the eighth 'Sorry, was that you?'
As someone who is 6'0 and only 105 pounds, I too am offended by people who do such things. :D
Being equipped with quite sharp elbows however usually gets the same reaction only after 3 or 4 times
Not only can you not save arbitrary files (mp3s included),
Of course it can.
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/12/04/mobile-safari-plug-in-downloads-files-to-your-iphone-ipod-touch/
http://www.hackint0sh.org/f126/18060.htm
And none of it was purchased through your iPhone. You can purchase music on a computer and transfer it to the device, but there's no way to get non-iTunes music through the device itself.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/6-ways-to-sync-music-to-your-iphone-without-itunes/
Google has the other ways to do it if you actually care.
But if _I_ modified it, then the checksum would be different.
Exactly my point. If you modified the file, the checksum would be different, and thus when Microsofts patch doesn't bother to check that at all, it will overwrite your changes and if it is a system file, possibly bsod you.
So while this one specific case of a rootkit can't be blamed on the patch, because even if they verified the checksums, it would have matched and been replaced.
But Microsoft can be blamed for not verifying checksums.
Yes, doing so would not have prevented this specific case with the rootkit. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
And Linux fanbois remind me of a battered woman who cannot get her damn wireless card working for the life of her.
Well if she didn't use windows, she wouldn't have to fight for her life to get the wireless to work, it just would.
She also probably wouldn't be hitting her head on the desk causing her to be battered, if she didn't have to fight with Windows.
You don't know how rootkits work, do you?
Yes. Rootkits return the checksum the verification app is expecting.
So?
There are other programs out there that modify files.
A file, even a core system file, could be modified by any number of things for any number of reasons.
Hell, pretend YOU modified it! Microsoft's patch would still have overwrote it despite it not being the correct file to replace. It would still cause problems with unknown states the software would then be in.
Pretending rootkits are the only programs in existence that edit files on the drive is silly.
After all, there's no way that their malware tool could have spotted it, or the update could have checksummed the files before patching them.
Sadly, yes. But I still place a teeny bit of blame on Microsoft regarding this.
While you are totally correct in that their malware tool nor checksums would have been able to detect a rootkit, so this specific problem would still have happened at no fault of theirs.. Still, they could have Tried to verify a checksum.
I mean, you are fully correct that it wouldn't work anywhere close to 100% of the time.
But isn't 3 or 5% of the time better than zero?
Meh, I guess it doesn't matter. The rootkit method can't be detected unless the rootkit itself has a bug to see and take advantage of. So as long as there is nothing that can be done within the OS about it, attackers will continue using it as a vector (successfully), and Microsoft will pass the no-verifying-checksum buck off as pointless due to this very reason, while ignoring the many other ways a file could get changed and have a similar problem.
Imagine some major program like an Antivirus or a poor (read: hooks in the kernel deep) backup app, or even just a utility that has to change a major function in windows.. they release their update on the same day or a day before Microsoft finishes patch testing and pushes it out, thinking they tested that program already (Which they did, just not the newest version heh)
If they put half as much effort into their anti-malware activities as they do into their DRM regime, the world would be a better place. We'd all have unicorns, and a pot of gold.
Amen!
Yes, and then it's only a short matter of time before the picture gets mailed to your parents, faxed and e-mailed to your school, ...
One should probably consider those outcomes anyway when posting pictures of yourself that even you would be embarrassed for people to see. (Not you personally, but you know, that 'you'.)
In fact, you shouldn't put up a picture of anything you don't want people to see. That is sort of the entire point of a picture after all.
Do they hope legal purchases will fill the void? ...because I'm pretty sure this will only boost piracy...
I'm starting to think that is the plan.
Piracy has been the best thing to the music industry since, well, ever.
Before, they would charge maybe $10 per CD. These days easily up to $20 for the same CD.
With piracy in the picture, they got laws put in place so they can get just a few grand under a quarter million dollars for that one CD.
But when all they have to do is make it very difficult, or in this case impossible, to actually give them money for their product, in order to get $250000 for a $20 item, there is zero doubt in my mind this plan is working for them exactly as desired and that they planned.