Yeah, because it's easy to get an 8-year-old, a 3-year-old, and an infant to ride 5 miles to the grocery store and pack home their own food. Or to make the same trip on a bus.
Actually there are several AdBlock-like extensions available for Safari. I don't know that the extension structue is availabe on Windows, or that the extensions would work there anyway, but it's possible. I personally use Saft, there are also alternatives that don't cost $12. I haven't found anything that works like NoScript (or the extension I really want -- FoxyProxy) but ad-blocking at least is available.
If they make less than $600/year, or make purchases out-of-state, it's their sole responsibility to report income/use, just like any other non-employee or out-of-state exchange of money. God forbid the citizens actually be exposed to the ridiculousness of their own tax system without a corporation there to fill out the forms.
But as I read the lay it only requires being informed -- you don't have to enter into an agreement to be recorded, you only need to be informed that it will be happening. Your example of the phone call disclaimer seems to support that reading. The officer was aware he was being recorded and could simply have not spoken or walked away.
You're assuming that I have the key. For interactive things like IMs I lose the ability to decrypt the conversation as soon as I close the window. My PGP key has a longer term, but I rotate them out at least once a year, and I don't keep the old one much after I've created the new one.
And as I read this law, there's no requirement that I keep such keys, so long as my self-directed data retention policy doesn't require otherwise.
The patent office requires source to be submitted for software patents* -- that is, requires you to document the implmentation of the claims -- and there are no special exemptions that allow software patents to be granted with more general claims than non-software patents. That doesn't mean that the patent office does a good job enforcing those requirements, but they aren't any different for software and non-software patents.
It's possible that the patent office is really bad at reviewing software patents, but I think software people just tend to ignore how many non-software patents there are that do exactly what you claim is a problem unique to software -- make overly broad claims and don't suppor those claims with specific implementation details. Frankly I'd be suprised if there isn't at least one patent for a compressor that reads very much like the one you invented here, and an owner for that patent hoping to get royalties for every air conditioner, bike pump, and jet engine manufactured.
* I know they don't require complete source where the source is longer than X pages, etc. They also don't require complete documentation for physical processes where the documentation is longer than X pages, etc. It's really no different.
That's only true if you assume people only patent trivial software and non-trivial non-software. But you could just as easily patent non-software devices with cheap prototypes (think fancy new scissors) or software devices that are non-trivial and have thousands of man-hours behind them.
Could someone explain to me why this is a discussion about "software patents" and not just "patents" in general? You could just as easily have 2347 vaguely worded patents preventing your from implementing even the most trivial non-computer tasks. How many ways are there to compress a fluid? How many patents are there on compressors? How many conflicting patents are there for the same way to compress a fluid?
I know the/. audience has some interest in software vs. hardware, but as someone familiar with the hardware patent world I've never understood why software people think that conflicting, overly-broad patents on the basic process required to achieve some end result are unique to software and not a problem inherent in the patent system regardless of application.
Right. Because no one rips on Apple's hardware online without immediate response from Apple.
Apple does have an over-reaching sense of secrecy, and they have been known to enforce it in a very unfriendly manner. And I'm sure marketing would like a magic button that changes all criticism to praise. But seriously, you think suppressing the manual is some attempt to stop online criticism? Even a PR drone fresh out of school could probably spot the fallacy in that line of thought.
Like I said, I don't disagree with your desire to see the manuals and whatnot be freely available, or to have Apple stop being such a dick about things it decides shouldn't be public. But I can't figure out why you're assigning such malice to them when there are many other less offensive motivations; unless you have some inside knowledge of Apple's motivations I'm going to stick with the safe choice of ignorance vs. malice.
You're right, it's not always my call. But I've never, ever had the call go for security over time, no matter who makes it.
How the hell did you get a boss with a clue?
Re:What's changed in 30 years?
on
The Apple II At 30
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't disagree with the principle you're arguing, but the example it silly. First, the schematics for a modern computer would be A) huge and B) useless to anyone who doesn't own a fabrication plant. You physically can't build a modern computer at home, not matter what kind of mad soldering and taping skills you have, and it would be a waste of time and disk space to include a complete schematic.
I'm guessing that the C&D has more to do with protecting their currently fragile channel sales and service more than any particular desire to suppress access to documentation in general. In 1977 Apple didn't have channel sales and service, or they probably would have done the same thing then. That's not to say it is the right choice, I just don't see it as a pragmatic difference between then and now, nor do I think Woz would had or would have any particular influence on the matter.
That being said, I would like Apple to be less oppressive about things like service manuals, even if it means pissing their channel sales/service off a bit more.
But it's an established leader in marketing and hype, and it's easier to get people to spread your story about an iPhone competitor than it is to get them to spread the same story without the spin.
No, no, no. You're forgetting that the fleeting use of "obscenities" actually physically harms children under 12. Too much exposure and their eardrums will literally melt. And while their eardrums will eventually grow back, the buildup of melted eardrum material will cause long-term hearing loss if left untreated.
Just like you have no control over whether the image is 'shopped to put you next to Castro, sharing a Cuban (cigar of otherwise). If you're in public other people have the right to take pictures of you, and have the right to use those images basically however they like.
Moreover, under existing libel laws you can have harmful captions removed, and if the publisher was intentionally harmful, you can even seek to recover damages. What more do you want? You have no expectation of privacy in public. I'm not willing to give up my right to publish and caption photos I take in public just so you can deny being there -- the next step on that path is that we can't allow pictures or descriptions of public officials for reasons of national security, and that's a step I'm not willing to permit.
If someone else is in a position to take a picture of you doing something embarassing then it's a moot point -- you've already lost your privacy, and anything you do to supress their right to show and label their pictures is an afront to freedom of speech. You don't get to control pictures (or captions thereof) that other people take legally, at least not in any country where I vote.
Good point. You've convinced me to join Disney in their fight to prevent any derivative works from every being created. Of course if we did that JRRT couldn't have written in the first place, as his works are derivative of several works of older lore, but hey, we'll have to take the good with the bad.
Seriously, what are you hoping to accomplish here? JRRT's work was great, I agree. The game is nothing like his work, I also agree. But I can't figure out how the game is diminishing the original work, or if it were, why you feel entitled to stop it -- one could just as easily argue that JJRT's work diminishes the game and that his books should be suppressed.
It is highly susceptible to a MiM attack. However, in order to pull off a MiM attack you'd have to at least start the login process for lots of different people from the same system, which aids in detection. It doesn't do anything to help the first few users, but it can help the bank shut down the attacker directly.
Second, it completely stops passive attack like are common with eBay pishing sites -- you can't just simulate the login page, say "Bad Password" and the redirect to the real page, you have to customize the attack page for each target. Assuming they pay attention at least.
I don't see how SSL certificates solve this either, because I can get a certificate for www.yourbank.com.pishing.ru that your browser will tell you is perfectly valid. Having you bank sing your client certificate so you can both validate without releaving private information would work, but most people wouldn't know how to install let alone generate a client certificate, banks wouldn't know how to distribute them properly, and even if you solved those problems you'd only be able to log in from systems where your private key was installed.
A list of one-time passwords supplied to each user on a wallet card would provide a good deal more security without any additional technology, keyfobs, or even much user training -- the server shows a word from column A, you enter the corresponding word from column B. Combined with a policy that allows only one active session per account by killing old sessions when a new one authenticates you would A) completely prevent a replay attacks B) deter a phisher from logging in as you and forcing you to burn a second OTP, because your new session would blow away their old session. They'd literally have to be sitting there waiting (or have scripted) all of the post-login actions and execute them before you were able to log in again and blow away their session.
You're assuming A) a minimum level of quality, so that "better" means "better in all areas" not just "better on average". and B) that it's impossible for deficiencies one area to compliment improvements in another. In short, while what you say is generally true, there are a lot of variables.
For example, the data loss in AAC encoding is most noticeable at higher frequencies; it's possible that A) the Apple headphones have better clarity at higher frequencies than the Shure headphones, or B) that the Apple headphones have less bass response and therefore more accentuated treble response, or C) that the Apple headphone require higher volume levels which when combined with the loudness filter on the iPod produce more attenuation in the treble range or D) a whole class of other interactions might make the encoding rate difference more obvious even though the overall quality of the headphones is lower.
It's actually pretty trivial, because they are in no way tied to the audio data -- there's just another atom in the MP4 wrapper that contains your name and email address. It can be removed without impacting a single byte of audio data.
I don't understand why this is a story at all -- every song sold from iTMS has these same markings, since day 1. All the old tools from decrypting old-style iTMS songs include a provision for removing this data, and I suspect that bit still works on the new-style files.
1. Totally separate. You don't get access to the high-bandwidth video channels, specifically to prevent congestion (among other things). See 5.
2. If you're assuming that it's really per-tuner on-demand there's no reason for it to record at all -- they'll just keep a copy of the shows you want server-side and stream them back out when you want them. But that will never happen -- they aren't going to serve every show on-demand to every user. See 3-4. I'm sure it's just a generic DVR with 4 "tuners" because in this case "tuner" means "IP->disk process" and there's no real expense to additional "tuners" as long as the base processor and disk are fast enough.
3. They multi-cast to somewhere near the DSLAM and then send you the specific stream(s) you select via unicast (or at least unicast-ish, they may not actually mangle the destination on the packets, but since your local link is bandwidth limited they do have to control what data comes down your pipe) if it's anything like the other telco-based services.
4. No, they don't. They expect that the backbone network will support the broadcast infastructure (at least after upgrades), and that any given home will have enough bandwidth for the 4 shows they let you record/view simultaniously. Unless they have some fancy new model and matching hardware the only thing that will be "on-demand" is the actual on-demand programming that's marked as such and comes at an additional fee. There's no reason to drop the broadcast model just because you're using IP.
5. Yes. The TV streams get totally separate bandwidth from the rest of the network, both on your local link and on their city-wide backbone. Plus we're not talking about sending this across the Internet proper -- the data never leaves AT&T private, local telcom network.
Actually quite a few farmers come and sit outside the Wal-Mart here to sell their goods, in person, on the day they were picked. Not to mention that if you didn't have a market downstairs you could grow your own food and eat it within minutes of harvest, without having it handled by anyone else at all.
The country life may not be for you, not everyone wants to live with the population density your dream word requires. That and your dream world makes farmers both honored providers and second-class citizens at the same time -- you love and depend on their products, but hate their way of life. Then again, what can you expect from a troll.
So if Intel doesn't do what the OLPC program does, why would it pose any threat to the OLPC program? You can't say that Intel is competing and then chastise them for not competing -- they are either offering a similar product/service or they're not.
If Intel is just offering the hardware and not the rest of the program, why couldn't the OLPC program adapt to use whatever hardware platform best suits their needs? Even if the Intel product is inferior, or the OLPC program is unwilling or unable to adapt to other hardware, why is the OLPC program dependent on no one else ever making cheap laptops?
So you decided it's inferior but others won't be smart enough to do the same because of Intel's access to superior marketing? It must be nice to be smarter and less susceptible to advertising than everyone else in the world.
utter nonsense, a charity is simply an institution set up to provide help to the needy, it doesn't mean that the people working at the organization don't get paid.
It's the people getting paid part that prevents it from really being a charity. If you're running a business that pays your rent and feeds your kids, there's a good chance you'll prioritize your continuing paycheck over the values of the charity. It's a conflict of interest that I suspect most people wouldn't overcome. That sort of conflict of interest is specifically why the Bill and Meldina Gates Foundation stipulates that operations cease within 50 years of their death -- to prevent the "charity" from becoming a business in and of itself.
The OLPC needs a critical mass of several million laptops sold, otherwise it will be too expensive to produce it and the project will die a slow death. Intel knows this and is using it's money to sell their classmate at below cost. It's not illegal for them to do so, and you might expect it from any business, but it's certainly unethical of them.
It's only "unethical" of them if you presume to know their intent. It's not clear to me why you think Intel has an interest in gaining "marketshare" in a market where people don't have electricity and can't afford their products. At best they'd be buying future mindshare, but if they're giving away laptops under cost to people in places that won't be productive markets for Intel for at least a decade it seems a stretch at best to say they're doing it to make money or gain marketshare.
Couldn't their motives at least as easily be to produce a product closer to the marketspace they already compete in, for places that are poor but not totally undeveloped -- a market where the OLPC offering is less attractive -- and that they're comparing themselves to the OLPC to take advantage of the marketing that similar program has produced?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because it's easy to get an 8-year-old, a 3-year-old, and an infant to ride 5 miles to the grocery store and pack home their own food. Or to make the same trip on a bus.
Actually there are several AdBlock-like extensions available for Safari. I don't know that the extension structue is availabe on Windows, or that the extensions would work there anyway, but it's possible. I personally use Saft, there are also alternatives that don't cost $12. I haven't found anything that works like NoScript (or the extension I really want -- FoxyProxy) but ad-blocking at least is available.
If they make less than $600/year, or make purchases out-of-state, it's their sole responsibility to report income/use, just like any other non-employee or out-of-state exchange of money. God forbid the citizens actually be exposed to the ridiculousness of their own tax system without a corporation there to fill out the forms.
But as I read the lay it only requires being informed -- you don't have to enter into an agreement to be recorded, you only need to be informed that it will be happening. Your example of the phone call disclaimer seems to support that reading. The officer was aware he was being recorded and could simply have not spoken or walked away.
You're assuming that I have the key. For interactive things like IMs I lose the ability to decrypt the conversation as soon as I close the window. My PGP key has a longer term, but I rotate them out at least once a year, and I don't keep the old one much after I've created the new one.
And as I read this law, there's no requirement that I keep such keys, so long as my self-directed data retention policy doesn't require otherwise.
The patent office requires source to be submitted for software patents* -- that is, requires you to document the implmentation of the claims -- and there are no special exemptions that allow software patents to be granted with more general claims than non-software patents. That doesn't mean that the patent office does a good job enforcing those requirements, but they aren't any different for software and non-software patents.
It's possible that the patent office is really bad at reviewing software patents, but I think software people just tend to ignore how many non-software patents there are that do exactly what you claim is a problem unique to software -- make overly broad claims and don't suppor those claims with specific implementation details. Frankly I'd be suprised if there isn't at least one patent for a compressor that reads very much like the one you invented here, and an owner for that patent hoping to get royalties for every air conditioner, bike pump, and jet engine manufactured.
* I know they don't require complete source where the source is longer than X pages, etc. They also don't require complete documentation for physical processes where the documentation is longer than X pages, etc. It's really no different.
That's only true if you assume people only patent trivial software and non-trivial non-software. But you could just as easily patent non-software devices with cheap prototypes (think fancy new scissors) or software devices that are non-trivial and have thousands of man-hours behind them.
Could someone explain to me why this is a discussion about "software patents" and not just "patents" in general? You could just as easily have 2347 vaguely worded patents preventing your from implementing even the most trivial non-computer tasks. How many ways are there to compress a fluid? How many patents are there on compressors? How many conflicting patents are there for the same way to compress a fluid?
/. audience has some interest in software vs. hardware, but as someone familiar with the hardware patent world I've never understood why software people think that conflicting, overly-broad patents on the basic process required to achieve some end result are unique to software and not a problem inherent in the patent system regardless of application.
I know the
Right. Because no one rips on Apple's hardware online without immediate response from Apple.
Apple does have an over-reaching sense of secrecy, and they have been known to enforce it in a very unfriendly manner. And I'm sure marketing would like a magic button that changes all criticism to praise. But seriously, you think suppressing the manual is some attempt to stop online criticism? Even a PR drone fresh out of school could probably spot the fallacy in that line of thought.
Like I said, I don't disagree with your desire to see the manuals and whatnot be freely available, or to have Apple stop being such a dick about things it decides shouldn't be public. But I can't figure out why you're assigning such malice to them when there are many other less offensive motivations; unless you have some inside knowledge of Apple's motivations I'm going to stick with the safe choice of ignorance vs. malice.
You're right, it's not always my call. But I've never, ever had the call go for security over time, no matter who makes it.
How the hell did you get a boss with a clue?
I don't disagree with the principle you're arguing, but the example it silly. First, the schematics for a modern computer would be A) huge and B) useless to anyone who doesn't own a fabrication plant. You physically can't build a modern computer at home, not matter what kind of mad soldering and taping skills you have, and it would be a waste of time and disk space to include a complete schematic.
I'm guessing that the C&D has more to do with protecting their currently fragile channel sales and service more than any particular desire to suppress access to documentation in general. In 1977 Apple didn't have channel sales and service, or they probably would have done the same thing then. That's not to say it is the right choice, I just don't see it as a pragmatic difference between then and now, nor do I think Woz would had or would have any particular influence on the matter.
That being said, I would like Apple to be less oppressive about things like service manuals, even if it means pissing their channel sales/service off a bit more.
But it's an established leader in marketing and hype, and it's easier to get people to spread your story about an iPhone competitor than it is to get them to spread the same story without the spin.
No, no, no. You're forgetting that the fleeting use of "obscenities" actually physically harms children under 12. Too much exposure and their eardrums will literally melt. And while their eardrums will eventually grow back, the buildup of melted eardrum material will cause long-term hearing loss if left untreated.
Just like you have no control over whether the image is 'shopped to put you next to Castro, sharing a Cuban (cigar of otherwise). If you're in public other people have the right to take pictures of you, and have the right to use those images basically however they like.
Moreover, under existing libel laws you can have harmful captions removed, and if the publisher was intentionally harmful, you can even seek to recover damages. What more do you want? You have no expectation of privacy in public. I'm not willing to give up my right to publish and caption photos I take in public just so you can deny being there -- the next step on that path is that we can't allow pictures or descriptions of public officials for reasons of national security, and that's a step I'm not willing to permit.
If someone else is in a position to take a picture of you doing something embarassing then it's a moot point -- you've already lost your privacy, and anything you do to supress their right to show and label their pictures is an afront to freedom of speech. You don't get to control pictures (or captions thereof) that other people take legally, at least not in any country where I vote.
Good point. You've convinced me to join Disney in their fight to prevent any derivative works from every being created. Of course if we did that JRRT couldn't have written in the first place, as his works are derivative of several works of older lore, but hey, we'll have to take the good with the bad.
Seriously, what are you hoping to accomplish here? JRRT's work was great, I agree. The game is nothing like his work, I also agree. But I can't figure out how the game is diminishing the original work, or if it were, why you feel entitled to stop it -- one could just as easily argue that JJRT's work diminishes the game and that his books should be suppressed.
It is highly susceptible to a MiM attack. However, in order to pull off a MiM attack you'd have to at least start the login process for lots of different people from the same system, which aids in detection. It doesn't do anything to help the first few users, but it can help the bank shut down the attacker directly.
Second, it completely stops passive attack like are common with eBay pishing sites -- you can't just simulate the login page, say "Bad Password" and the redirect to the real page, you have to customize the attack page for each target. Assuming they pay attention at least.
I don't see how SSL certificates solve this either, because I can get a certificate for www.yourbank.com.pishing.ru that your browser will tell you is perfectly valid. Having you bank sing your client certificate so you can both validate without releaving private information would work, but most people wouldn't know how to install let alone generate a client certificate, banks wouldn't know how to distribute them properly, and even if you solved those problems you'd only be able to log in from systems where your private key was installed.
A list of one-time passwords supplied to each user on a wallet card would provide a good deal more security without any additional technology, keyfobs, or even much user training -- the server shows a word from column A, you enter the corresponding word from column B. Combined with a policy that allows only one active session per account by killing old sessions when a new one authenticates you would A) completely prevent a replay attacks B) deter a phisher from logging in as you and forcing you to burn a second OTP, because your new session would blow away their old session. They'd literally have to be sitting there waiting (or have scripted) all of the post-login actions and execute them before you were able to log in again and blow away their session.
You're assuming A) a minimum level of quality, so that "better" means "better in all areas" not just "better on average". and B) that it's impossible for deficiencies one area to compliment improvements in another. In short, while what you say is generally true, there are a lot of variables.
For example, the data loss in AAC encoding is most noticeable at higher frequencies; it's possible that A) the Apple headphones have better clarity at higher frequencies than the Shure headphones, or B) that the Apple headphones have less bass response and therefore more accentuated treble response, or C) that the Apple headphone require higher volume levels which when combined with the loudness filter on the iPod produce more attenuation in the treble range or D) a whole class of other interactions might make the encoding rate difference more obvious even though the overall quality of the headphones is lower.
It's actually pretty trivial, because they are in no way tied to the audio data -- there's just another atom in the MP4 wrapper that contains your name and email address. It can be removed without impacting a single byte of audio data.
I don't understand why this is a story at all -- every song sold from iTMS has these same markings, since day 1. All the old tools from decrypting old-style iTMS songs include a provision for removing this data, and I suspect that bit still works on the new-style files.
1. Totally separate. You don't get access to the high-bandwidth video channels, specifically to prevent congestion (among other things). See 5.
2. If you're assuming that it's really per-tuner on-demand there's no reason for it to record at all -- they'll just keep a copy of the shows you want server-side and stream them back out when you want them. But that will never happen -- they aren't going to serve every show on-demand to every user. See 3-4. I'm sure it's just a generic DVR with 4 "tuners" because in this case "tuner" means "IP->disk process" and there's no real expense to additional "tuners" as long as the base processor and disk are fast enough.
3. They multi-cast to somewhere near the DSLAM and then send you the specific stream(s) you select via unicast (or at least unicast-ish, they may not actually mangle the destination on the packets, but since your local link is bandwidth limited they do have to control what data comes down your pipe) if it's anything like the other telco-based services.
4. No, they don't. They expect that the backbone network will support the broadcast infastructure (at least after upgrades), and that any given home will have enough bandwidth for the 4 shows they let you record/view simultaniously. Unless they have some fancy new model and matching hardware the only thing that will be "on-demand" is the actual on-demand programming that's marked as such and comes at an additional fee. There's no reason to drop the broadcast model just because you're using IP.
5. Yes. The TV streams get totally separate bandwidth from the rest of the network, both on your local link and on their city-wide backbone. Plus we're not talking about sending this across the Internet proper -- the data never leaves AT&T private, local telcom network.
No, he doesn't think it's good, he just thinks the parent should man up and drink it anyway.
Actually quite a few farmers come and sit outside the Wal-Mart here to sell their goods, in person, on the day they were picked. Not to mention that if you didn't have a market downstairs you could grow your own food and eat it within minutes of harvest, without having it handled by anyone else at all.
The country life may not be for you, not everyone wants to live with the population density your dream word requires. That and your dream world makes farmers both honored providers and second-class citizens at the same time -- you love and depend on their products, but hate their way of life. Then again, what can you expect from a troll.
So if Intel doesn't do what the OLPC program does, why would it pose any threat to the OLPC program? You can't say that Intel is competing and then chastise them for not competing -- they are either offering a similar product/service or they're not.
If Intel is just offering the hardware and not the rest of the program, why couldn't the OLPC program adapt to use whatever hardware platform best suits their needs? Even if the Intel product is inferior, or the OLPC program is unwilling or unable to adapt to other hardware, why is the OLPC program dependent on no one else ever making cheap laptops?
So you decided it's inferior but others won't be smart enough to do the same because of Intel's access to superior marketing? It must be nice to be smarter and less susceptible to advertising than everyone else in the world.
utter nonsense, a charity is simply an institution set up to provide help to the needy, it doesn't mean that the people working at the organization don't get paid.
It's the people getting paid part that prevents it from really being a charity. If you're running a business that pays your rent and feeds your kids, there's a good chance you'll prioritize your continuing paycheck over the values of the charity. It's a conflict of interest that I suspect most people wouldn't overcome. That sort of conflict of interest is specifically why the Bill and Meldina Gates Foundation stipulates that operations cease within 50 years of their death -- to prevent the "charity" from becoming a business in and of itself.
The OLPC needs a critical mass of several million laptops sold, otherwise it will be too expensive to produce it and the project will die a slow death. Intel knows this and is using it's money to sell their classmate at below cost. It's not illegal for them to do so, and you might expect it from any business, but it's certainly unethical of them.
It's only "unethical" of them if you presume to know their intent. It's not clear to me why you think Intel has an interest in gaining "marketshare" in a market where people don't have electricity and can't afford their products. At best they'd be buying future mindshare, but if they're giving away laptops under cost to people in places that won't be productive markets for Intel for at least a decade it seems a stretch at best to say they're doing it to make money or gain marketshare.
Couldn't their motives at least as easily be to produce a product closer to the marketspace they already compete in, for places that are poor but not totally undeveloped -- a market where the OLPC offering is less attractive -- and that they're comparing themselves to the OLPC to take advantage of the marketing that similar program has produced?