With fricken laser beams on its head. Is that too much to fricken ask?
Related post: Nano particles could make hydrogen cheaper than [some other very expensive commodity whose price has been driven up artificially]
It has been argued that gasoline in the US has been kept artificially low... in the UK it's close to twice the price in the US, and prices in the rest of Europe are similar.
The problem with "life+50/70" is that it's being extended at pretty much a 1:1 ratio, via the continual "mickey mouse" amendments.
I don't like the idea of copyright requiring an annual tax, but having to pay a fee after a reasonable copyright period (something in line with the original intent) would allow Disney to keep the copyright on Tugboat Mickey intact without screwing things up for the rest of us.
The article really seems to be more to do with patents, and requiring fees for renewing patents after 10 years or so might let the patent office pay for enough competent examiners to solve that problem as well.
They've played their cards and lost, now is the time to just pay the fine, comply with the ruling and move on.
They never complied with the rulings in the DoJ case even when they were on the verge of being broken up, *and* their non-compliance tactics were turning Windows into an unparalleled breeding ground for viruses and worms, so I have no reason to believe they've finished playing silly-beggars with the courts.
This isn't "Microsoft's answer to Open Source", it's "Microsoft's answer to shareware".
Releasing these documents is meaningless to the open source community so long as they require money for "commercial use". It's not meaningless, but it's not the open source community that will benefit.
No referrer checking, no attempt to keep people from leeching their bandwidth, no advertising, no promotion.
You need to sell your better mousetrap. The world won't beat a path to your door if they don't know about it, and your competitors are shifting the merchandise from your loading dock.
It seems to me that what they are saying is not that 70% of malicious traffic is SQL worms, and 30% is other kinds of worms, but that 70% of the worms include SQL attacks in their repertoire.
I have made a few attempts to backtrack hosts that perform the scans and at first blush many show the signs of common botnet infections. Most are not running exposed SQL themselves, so that means that the code has likely been implemented into many bot-net exploitation frameworks. Perhaps the bot masters have the idea that when they infiltrate a commercial network, the SQL exploits will be available and useful to them? My assessment team says this is pretty true. Even today, they find blank "sa" passwords and other age-old SQL issues inside major corporate clients. So perhaps, that is why these old exploits continue to thrive.
If you go to "Exploring the Early Americas" at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/earlyamericas/ you will see that they are having to develop two versions of each Silverlight-enhanced view to avoid locking out people who are not using Silverlight, which means they're spending MORE money developing their websites, and eventually they're going to decide not to do that.
One hopes they'll decide to quit making the Silverlight version instead of the HTML version, once the $3M run out.
One side issue... compatibility...
on
Is AMD Dead Yet?
·
· Score: 1
And again with backwards compatibility, did Apple care that people may have wanted to run classic apps on the Intel Macs? I would say no. Microsoft should do the same, and their security problems are solved.
Apple had the Intel option at hand from since before OS X was released. They didn't take the Intel option until after they removed the last classic-booting Mac from their online site without a flood of protests. They had tried to do it multiple times before, but each time there was an outcry and they brought classic-booting back.
Based on Apple's comments when they announced the Intel switch, they started seeding big developers with early versions of the released Universal development kit (under NDS) shortly after that.
So I think you have cause and effect backwards.
As for Microsoft:
First, security: they are still keeping the biggest security-related design flaws in the Win32 environment, the whole "security zones" model, as a centerpiece of their.NET API and Silverlight. They won't get rid of their security issues by switching to an environment that is more heavily based on insecure design.
Second, compatibility: Microsoft is STILL being forced to support AND distribute Visual Studio 6 by their developers, because that's the last version that included full Win32 support. Their equivalent of the "NOW we can abandon Classic" moment is far in the future.
The problem with AIR is that it requires "porting". A website won't just work in AIR, and once it's been ported, it will no longer work as a regular real website, as it'll have dependencies on Adobe AIR. This effectively means that if you as a developer want the best of both worlds, you'll need to maintain two version of your application.
There will still be a mechanism with the SDK to sign code (for testing, obviously)
I am not sure requiring the recipient to acquire their own key meets the letter of the GPL3.
the only problem would be elements of the SDK not being GNU (as the compiler is still GCC).
Oh, that at least wouldn't be an issue, because those are components of the iPhone operating system, and there is an explicit cutout in the GPL for that.
I was referring to Jef Han's demo when I posted that. I guess you're referring to Bill Buxton's work. I haven't found any videos that clearly show pinching with just a touch-screen user interface on his site... the older videos were apparently on a site that's no longer available. Do you have a better reference?
I'm talking about the Tivoization of applications on the iPhone, and the anti-Tivoization changes in the GPL3. If you can't install a binary on your iPhone if it's not signed by Apple, then having the source code doesn't do you any good... which is one of the things that motivated the GPL3 in the first place. The GPL3 restricts the distribution of GPL3 code
So the question is, what restrictions on self-signing code or on installation of unsigned code are in the iPhone SDK and the iPhone operating system. Those restrictions will determine if you can distribute an application for the iPhone that is a derivative of code under the GPL3.
In particular, I'm thinking of this:
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
If you can't install self-signed apps on your own phone, then wouldn't that make it GPL-incompatible regardless of what Apple charges free-as-in-beer developers?
You buy a piece of downloadable music that is in a lossy format at almost the same price (or more expensive than) it would cost to buy that track as a proportion of a whole CD.
I buy tracks that I want to listen to. Let's say I want Money for Nothing (an appropriate choice):
Brother in Arms (Amazon) - $10.98 Brothers in Arms (iTunes) - $8.91... but wait, I was just looking for one track, so... Money for Nothing (iTunes) - $0.99 CD-R, $0.50, and I'm using it for a dozen tracks at a time... $0.04. Step 5, Profit! $9.95
there are **THOUSANDS** of albums out there that contain superb music all of the way through and are **WELL WORTH** buying on CD and ripping yourself
I do that, too. Mostly classical music, where I can actually tell the difference between 160k and 128k AAC.
Now, I'm pretty sure I didn't write "I only ever buy music from the iTunes store" anywhere, did I? Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I sure don't *recall* writing that.
I also buy music from eMusic, and direct from artists, and buy odd CD collections at corner stores, and buy CDs from live musicians. And I've got decades of old tapes I haven't ripped yet, some of which won't ever be released on CD...
But sometimes you just want Money for Nothing, and there's no gratification like instant gratification.
They always answer, "I own the song". Really? Do you? You can do whatever you want with it?
I can do the same things with music from iTunes as from anywhere else. Once they're burned to a CD they're no different from music I've bought on CD, vinyl, tape, or anything else.
Where do YOU buy music from that you get full rights for a buck a track?
You get bit for bit perfect music from iTunes by using the formula from Apple's ad campaign. Just change the order a bit. Mix, burn, rip.
You can't re-encode it in a lossy format without some loss. That's true. So? You lose information (and quality) when you rip your original CDs to a lossy format too, but you still do it.
You don't need Hymn, you don't need Doubletwist, just hum along to the Apple tune, and...rip, MIX, BURN, RIP, mix, burn...
I suspect that if this were a site for salesmen, facilities management, assembly line workers, or any other cohesive group of people, you would find a good deal of similar complaints about how their role in the company is dismissed by hoi polloi. In fact if you poke around you'll find similar forums for lawyers, receptionists, police officers, sales clerks, all with the same general tone.
That is to say, IT are not the only paranoid, self-entitled, whiny babies.
Or, alternatively, it's not just IT who get the raw end of the stick, and are justifiably pissed off about it.
Slashdot Mirror
And a pony.
With fricken laser beams on its head. Is that too much to fricken ask?
Related post: Nano particles could make hydrogen cheaper than [some other very expensive commodity whose price has been driven up artificially]
It has been argued that gasoline in the US has been kept artificially low... in the UK it's close to twice the price in the US, and prices in the rest of Europe are similar.
Wondering why this doesn't show up on apple.slashdot.org. Hmmm?
The problem with "life+50/70" is that it's being extended at pretty much a 1:1 ratio, via the continual "mickey mouse" amendments.
I don't like the idea of copyright requiring an annual tax, but having to pay a fee after a reasonable copyright period (something in line with the original intent) would allow Disney to keep the copyright on Tugboat Mickey intact without screwing things up for the rest of us.
The article really seems to be more to do with patents, and requiring fees for renewing patents after 10 years or so might let the patent office pay for enough competent examiners to solve that problem as well.
They've played their cards and lost, now is the time to just pay the fine, comply with the ruling and move on.
They never complied with the rulings in the DoJ case even when they were on the verge of being broken up, *and* their non-compliance tactics were turning Windows into an unparalleled breeding ground for viruses and worms, so I have no reason to believe they've finished playing silly-beggars with the courts.
They're opening up to "non-commercial use".
This isn't "Microsoft's answer to Open Source", it's "Microsoft's answer to shareware".
Releasing these documents is meaningless to the open source community so long as they require money for "commercial use". It's not meaningless, but it's not the open source community that will benefit.
No referrer checking, no attempt to keep people from leeching their bandwidth, no advertising, no promotion.
You need to sell your better mousetrap. The world won't beat a path to your door if they don't know about it, and your competitors are shifting the merchandise from your loading dock.
I don't think I ever heard of it until today.
Also, some of these qualities are specific to IT executives--such as the use of technical jargon to intimidate and confuse people.
Erm, are you sure you mean that? Using technical jargon to intimidate and confuse is rampant in accounting and sales, in my experience.
Yeh but... you can't run IIS7 on Server Core. Seems like very selective modularity there.
If you go to "Exploring the Early Americas" at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/earlyamericas/ you will see that they are having to develop two versions of each Silverlight-enhanced view to avoid locking out people who are not using Silverlight, which means they're spending MORE money developing their websites, and eventually they're going to decide not to do that.
One hopes they'll decide to quit making the Silverlight version instead of the HTML version, once the $3M run out.
And again with backwards compatibility, did Apple care that people may have wanted to run classic apps on the Intel Macs? I would say no. Microsoft should do the same, and their security problems are solved.
.NET API and Silverlight. They won't get rid of their security issues by switching to an environment that is more heavily based on insecure design.
Apple had the Intel option at hand from since before OS X was released. They didn't take the Intel option until after they removed the last classic-booting Mac from their online site without a flood of protests. They had tried to do it multiple times before, but each time there was an outcry and they brought classic-booting back.
Based on Apple's comments when they announced the Intel switch, they started seeding big developers with early versions of the released Universal development kit (under NDS) shortly after that.
So I think you have cause and effect backwards.
As for Microsoft:
First, security: they are still keeping the biggest security-related design flaws in the Win32 environment, the whole "security zones" model, as a centerpiece of their
Second, compatibility: Microsoft is STILL being forced to support AND distribute Visual Studio 6 by their developers, because that's the last version that included full Win32 support. Their equivalent of the "NOW we can abandon Classic" moment is far in the future.
The problem with AIR is that it requires "porting". A website won't just work in AIR, and once it's been ported, it will no longer work as a regular real website, as it'll have dependencies on Adobe AIR. This effectively means that if you as a developer want the best of both worlds, you'll need to maintain two version of your application.
Three versions... don't forget Silverfi^H^Hlight.
I got an idea. Apple can trade their "pinch gesture" obvious patent for this "store coupon" obvious patent.
There will still be a mechanism with the SDK to sign code (for testing, obviously)
I am not sure requiring the recipient to acquire their own key meets the letter of the GPL3.
the only problem would be elements of the SDK not being GNU (as the compiler is still GCC).
Oh, that at least wouldn't be an issue, because those are components of the iPhone operating system, and there is an explicit cutout in the GPL for that.
I was referring to Jef Han's demo when I posted that. I guess you're referring to Bill Buxton's work. I haven't found any videos that clearly show pinching with just a touch-screen user interface on his site... the older videos were apparently on a site that's no longer available. Do you have a better reference?
So the question is, what restrictions on self-signing code or on installation of unsigned code are in the iPhone SDK and the iPhone operating system. Those restrictions will determine if you can distribute an application for the iPhone that is a derivative of code under the GPL3.
In particular, I'm thinking of this:
The original multitouch demo used pinch to zoom in and out on images and on the workspace. How can Apple patent it after that?
Hell, you could strap the GTA name onto Grand Theft Auto: Extreme Lawnmowing and people would buy it.
What would be the difference between that and Mario Kart?
If you can't install self-signed apps on your own phone, then wouldn't that make it GPL-incompatible regardless of what Apple charges free-as-in-beer developers?
You buy a piece of downloadable music that is in a lossy format at almost the same price (or more expensive than) it would cost to buy that track as a proportion of a whole CD.
... but wait, I was just looking for one track, so...
I buy tracks that I want to listen to. Let's say I want Money for Nothing (an appropriate choice):
Brother in Arms (Amazon) - $10.98
Brothers in Arms (iTunes) - $8.91
Money for Nothing (iTunes) - $0.99
CD-R, $0.50, and I'm using it for a dozen tracks at a time... $0.04.
Step 5, Profit! $9.95
there are **THOUSANDS** of albums out there that contain superb music all of the way through and are **WELL WORTH** buying on CD and ripping yourself
I do that, too. Mostly classical music, where I can actually tell the difference between 160k and 128k AAC.
Now, I'm pretty sure I didn't write "I only ever buy music from the iTunes store" anywhere, did I? Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I sure don't *recall* writing that.
I also buy music from eMusic, and direct from artists, and buy odd CD collections at corner stores, and buy CDs from live musicians. And I've got decades of old tapes I haven't ripped yet, some of which won't ever be released on CD...
But sometimes you just want Money for Nothing, and there's no gratification like instant gratification.
They always answer, "I own the song". Really? Do you? You can do whatever you want with it?
I can do the same things with music from iTunes as from anywhere else. Once they're burned to a CD they're no different from music I've bought on CD, vinyl, tape, or anything else.
Where do YOU buy music from that you get full rights for a buck a track?
Or are you just saying only fools buy music?
You get bit for bit perfect music from iTunes by using the formula from Apple's ad campaign. Just change the order a bit. Mix, burn, rip.
...rip, MIX, BURN, RIP, mix, burn...
You can't re-encode it in a lossy format without some loss. That's true. So? You lose information (and quality) when you rip your original CDs to a lossy format too, but you still do it.
You don't need Hymn, you don't need Doubletwist, just hum along to the Apple tune, and
I suspect that if this were a site for salesmen, facilities management, assembly line workers, or any other cohesive group of people, you would find a good deal of similar complaints about how their role in the company is dismissed by hoi polloi. In fact if you poke around you'll find similar forums for lawyers, receptionists, police officers, sales clerks, all with the same general tone.
That is to say, IT are not the only paranoid, self-entitled, whiny babies.
Or, alternatively, it's not just IT who get the raw end of the stick, and are justifiably pissed off about it.
No fear, I didn't think you disagreed.
What I want to know is why this wouldn't be obvious to the folks who came up with all this.
That's what I mean, why wasn't it obvious to them? How could they expect adoption of IPv6 to "just stop" if interoperability was permitted?
Is it not too late to adopt 2893 as a core part of IPv6?