The DCMA has an exception for reverse engineering for compatibility. In this case, the private key is not protecting content, it is protecting Apple's monopoly on interoperating with iDevices in a particular way, so it was fair game.
The worst thing is modal configuration dialogs. When you have to look up some information in the Window behind, you have to cancel your configuration, reposition the Window to where the information you want will be visible when the dialog is displayed (often this involves resizing and repositioning other windows too) before restarting the configuration you were half way through from the beginning again.
Infant mortality has a big effect on average life expectancy. The life expectancy of grown adults has not changed as much as it appears from the statistics.
PETA should be made to understand that a cure for baldness is worth sacrificing a few mice for. It's right up there with curing erectile dysfunction in the importance stakes. If the researchers had been researching something as mundane as a cure for cancer, or heart disease, then those PETA guys might have a point.
As for Airbus being just as safe, there is a known problem with the fly by wire
control systems when an Airbus experiences a high static charge. I wouldn't
fly on one if it was free and they paid me to go.
Comparing the safety record of the A320, A330, A340, A380 and B777 to other airliners such as the A310 and B737, I'll take your known problem over other known problems any day.
It's easy to say that in hindsight. I raised this issue 12 years ago in a Slashdot thread about the release of IE 5. Judging by the responses and moderation I received, the general consensus at the time was that I was crazy kook for complaining about the proliferation of trusted CAs.
That's because iOS does its scaling at the bitmap level, assuming the developer has designed their app down to the pixel. Android does scaling at the layout level, and developers have been encouraged to produce scalable layouts from the outset. The quality of phone targeted apps on an Android tablet will not be anywhere near as bad as what iPad owners have experienced with iPhone apps.
The article is not clear, but it seems that AUO were already supplying half the LCDs for the iPad 2, with Toshiba, Hitachi, Samsung and LGD also named in the article (the latter two specifically as display suppliers). So it seems Apple already had their bets hedged with multiple suppliers, and AUO is just increasing its share (probably along with Samsung and LGD) to cover the shortfall from the Japanese suppliers. Quality should not be affected, as they are an existing supplier, not a new unknown one.
I'm pretty sure its not good for the Japanese for us to want their stuff so bad that we'll go to Taiwan to get it made when there is a temporary supply problem. Some percentage of these temporary changes in supply chain to meet demand are going to become permanent, perhaps a significant percentage if the price is right and they can sort out the quality issues.
If the bridge is going to collapse because they can't get spare parts for a month or two, then I say let it collapse and build a lower maintenance one in its place.
OK. My original search had the word download in it, so a slightly different ad was shown. But calling that "the polar opposite of deceptive" shows your bias. Why is this ad only showing up for localised google sites for countries with weak consumer protection laws? European and US law would not see this as the polar opposite of deceptive.
They are not simply displaying the search terms as the link either, they have deliberately crafted the ads to have those deceptivelinks in a way which would cause other advertisers to have their ads removed under the terms and conditions of the service.
The advertisement may be clearly marked as "Ad", but it is also clearly marked "Download Internet Explorer 9", clicking on which will take you to the Chrome download page. This kind of deceptive advertising is unethical, and in most countries illegal. The European and US sites do not have this Ad at the top, so Google are clearly aware of that.
The French robots were ready to ship over 2 weeks ago, but were told that they would not be allowed to enter Japan without an official request from the government. That request came on Monday this week. The Japanese need to ask some serious questions of TEPCO, their government and their culture of bureaucracy relating to the handling of this disaster. Unfortunately, they will probably just lap up the face saving excuses, say "sho ga nai", and continue their lives as they were.
Are you suggesting that Firefox, Chrome and Opera are cheating by rendering the background of about:blank as slightly grey? Because I can't think of any other scenario in which the LCD would be the differentiating variable here.
It could be ascertained from the source, and if it hadn't been for the other simple fact allegedly from the same source which was quietly removed from the article at the same time they added the comment about getting it from nslookup, I might give them the benefit of the doubt.
More than likely, the code is a red herring that's tying up resources and focus.
Which is probably why they threw this out to the public to solve rather than continue to tie up FBI resources on it. In the unlikely event that it is useful, they still get to benefit without wasting their resources in the most likely scenario of it being a red herring.
Perhaps they opposed the introduction of the domain because the politicians like their porn as much as any other red blooded male (perhaps even more due to the repressed society in which they live), and now they have no excuse not to block it.
Anyone should be free to take that binary and sign it with a key as required by some platforms.
It seems you are in complete agreement with the GPLv3 then. The GPLv3 does not prevent you from signing code. It prevents device or OS manufacturers from using code signing to prevent end users from replacing GPL'ed binaries with their own compiled versions.
If you allow import of arbitrary (self-signed) certs, you might as well be allowing unsigned code
This is only true if there is a vulnerability in the keystore that allows unauthorised software to install keys to authorize itself. Requiring expensive code signing certificates from a recognized CA does not fix such a hole.
Requiring signed code is not more secure than unsigned code, as signing certificates are available for a fixed fee. I don't know of any CA that carefully checks all the source code of the requestor to ensure it is not malicious before issuing a certificate.
But who's to say they might not be planning to add SMB or Active Directory support to the iPad?
Provide users a convenient way to get files on and off their iPad without using Apple's own proprietary software? Not likely. If you aren't forced to use iTunes, you might be tempted to buy your music elsewhere.
It's not just control freaks that have a problem with it. It's also security-conscious engineering teams. Those bits of GPLv3 betray a fundamental lack of understanding of the need for proper code signing.
I assume you are talking about the below clause from the GPLv3. This does not disallow code signing per se, it disallows the use of code signing as a DCMA measure to prevent copying of copy-left software. Giving the end-user control of the signing keys so they can approve binaries themselves gives you the security from third party malicious code that you want, without taking away the user's freedoms under the GPL.
(From GPLv3)
3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article
11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or
similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such
measures.
When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention
is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to
the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or
modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's
users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of
technological measures.
It's crowd sourcing in that abuse is relatively easy to spot if it is just one claim in a crowd of many that do not agree. Like the guy in Mito, Japan who is reading over 2000 microsieverts, when everyone around him is getting 0.4 or less.
Slashdot Mirror
The DCMA has an exception for reverse engineering for compatibility. In this case, the private key is not protecting content, it is protecting Apple's monopoly on interoperating with iDevices in a particular way, so it was fair game.
How long did it take Microsoft to start wiping the floor with their VFAT patents? Note the "at any point it feels like" in the GP's statement.
The worst thing is modal configuration dialogs. When you have to look up some information in the Window behind, you have to cancel your configuration, reposition the Window to where the information you want will be visible when the dialog is displayed (often this involves resizing and repositioning other windows too) before restarting the configuration you were half way through from the beginning again.
Infant mortality has a big effect on average life expectancy. The life expectancy of grown adults has not changed as much as it appears from the statistics.
PETA should be made to understand that a cure for baldness is worth sacrificing a few mice for. It's right up there with curing erectile dysfunction in the importance stakes. If the researchers had been researching something as mundane as a cure for cancer, or heart disease, then those PETA guys might have a point.
Comparing the safety record of the A320, A330, A340, A380 and B777 to other airliners such as the A310 and B737, I'll take your known problem over other known problems any day.
It's easy to say that in hindsight. I raised this issue 12 years ago in a Slashdot thread about the release of IE 5. Judging by the responses and moderation I received, the general consensus at the time was that I was crazy kook for complaining about the proliferation of trusted CAs.
That's because iOS does its scaling at the bitmap level, assuming the developer has designed their app down to the pixel. Android does scaling at the layout level, and developers have been encouraged to produce scalable layouts from the outset. The quality of phone targeted apps on an Android tablet will not be anywhere near as bad as what iPad owners have experienced with iPhone apps.
The article is not clear, but it seems that AUO were already supplying half the LCDs for the iPad 2, with Toshiba, Hitachi, Samsung and LGD also named in the article (the latter two specifically as display suppliers). So it seems Apple already had their bets hedged with multiple suppliers, and AUO is just increasing its share (probably along with Samsung and LGD) to cover the shortfall from the Japanese suppliers. Quality should not be affected, as they are an existing supplier, not a new unknown one.
I'm pretty sure its not good for the Japanese for us to want their stuff so bad that we'll go to Taiwan to get it made when there is a temporary supply problem. Some percentage of these temporary changes in supply chain to meet demand are going to become permanent, perhaps a significant percentage if the price is right and they can sort out the quality issues.
If the bridge is going to collapse because they can't get spare parts for a month or two, then I say let it collapse and build a lower maintenance one in its place.
Actually, it seems Sturgeon was wrong. 99.95% of everything is crap.
OK. My original search had the word download in it, so a slightly different ad was shown. But calling that "the polar opposite of deceptive" shows your bias. Why is this ad only showing up for localised google sites for countries with weak consumer protection laws? European and US law would not see this as the polar opposite of deceptive.
They are not simply displaying the search terms as the link either, they have deliberately crafted the ads to have those deceptive links in a way which would cause other advertisers to have their ads removed under the terms and conditions of the service.
The advertisement may be clearly marked as "Ad", but it is also clearly marked "Download Internet Explorer 9", clicking on which will take you to the Chrome download page. This kind of deceptive advertising is unethical, and in most countries illegal. The European and US sites do not have this Ad at the top, so Google are clearly aware of that.
The French robots were ready to ship over 2 weeks ago, but were told that they would not be allowed to enter Japan without an official request from the government. That request came on Monday this week. The Japanese need to ask some serious questions of TEPCO, their government and their culture of bureaucracy relating to the handling of this disaster. Unfortunately, they will probably just lap up the face saving excuses, say "sho ga nai", and continue their lives as they were.
Google tries to do what they can get away with. Don't be fooled by the "don't be evil" motto.
Are you suggesting that Firefox, Chrome and Opera are cheating by rendering the background of about:blank as slightly grey? Because I can't think of any other scenario in which the LCD would be the differentiating variable here.
It could be ascertained from the source, and if it hadn't been for the other simple fact allegedly from the same source which was quietly removed from the article at the same time they added the comment about getting it from nslookup, I might give them the benefit of the doubt.
Which is probably why they threw this out to the public to solve rather than continue to tie up FBI resources on it. In the unlikely event that it is useful, they still get to benefit without wasting their resources in the most likely scenario of it being a red herring.
Perhaps they opposed the introduction of the domain because the politicians like their porn as much as any other red blooded male (perhaps even more due to the repressed society in which they live), and now they have no excuse not to block it.
It seems you are in complete agreement with the GPLv3 then. The GPLv3 does not prevent you from signing code. It prevents device or OS manufacturers from using code signing to prevent end users from replacing GPL'ed binaries with their own compiled versions.
This is only true if there is a vulnerability in the keystore that allows unauthorised software to install keys to authorize itself. Requiring expensive code signing certificates from a recognized CA does not fix such a hole.
Requiring signed code is not more secure than unsigned code, as signing certificates are available for a fixed fee. I don't know of any CA that carefully checks all the source code of the requestor to ensure it is not malicious before issuing a certificate.
Provide users a convenient way to get files on and off their iPad without using Apple's own proprietary software? Not likely. If you aren't forced to use iTunes, you might be tempted to buy your music elsewhere.
I assume you are talking about the below clause from the GPLv3. This does not disallow code signing per se, it disallows the use of code signing as a DCMA measure to prevent copying of copy-left software. Giving the end-user control of the signing keys so they can approve binaries themselves gives you the security from third party malicious code that you want, without taking away the user's freedoms under the GPL.
(From GPLv3)
3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.
When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.
It's crowd sourcing in that abuse is relatively easy to spot if it is just one claim in a crowd of many that do not agree. Like the guy in Mito, Japan who is reading over 2000 microsieverts, when everyone around him is getting 0.4 or less.