OK, so why does anyone think Adobe is busy making an HTML5 tool if it thinks HTML5 is going to kill Flash? Hello? Adobe already makes Dreamweaver. It also already makes Flash. The summary reads as though upstart Adobe is running in to steal Flash's lunch, when Flash's lunchbox has Adobe's name on it.
With a lot of such software "secured" by crap like macrovision's flexlm (which only punishes the honest) it would be trivially easy to exceed such hard limits but it's still a concious act and not an accident.
Sure, but my point was more that people saying "just don't pirate software" probably have no idea how easy it is to run into a situation where you're in violation. Were you really planning to screw that software maker out of a license? Or did you just need that workstation up and running today and you were planning to file the purchase order tomorrow? Stuff just happens. Maybe it's "intentional" but that still doesn't mean it was done out of criminality or malice.
You clearly don't work with HTML at all, because there really is no comparison between the state of Gnash and the state of Web browsers. Seriously. You've already said you don't know how much each supports, so don't keep repeating yourself.
I don't know the full feature breakdown of all modern browsers ability to implement the entire HTML5 spec vs Gnash's feature implementation of the entire Flash spec but i'd wager you don't either.
Most browsers support some HTML5. In my experience they support most of it; any quirks at this point are fairly minor. By comparison, as I've mentioned before, Gnash only supports most Flash 7, some Flash 8 and Flash 9, and no Flash 10. That's by its developers' own admission, and that's a lot different than the difference between how WebKit renders HTML5/CSS3 versus how Firefox renders it.
Put it to you this way: How many Web developers bother to test against two or more different browsers? I'd wager all of them. How many Flash developers bother to test against Gnash? Find me one.
Now I know you're trolling; Firefox for Android DOES support Flash
If Firefox for Android supports Flash they're being pretty quiet about it. News reports announcing the Firefox 6 beta complain that it has no Flash support. User comments on the Firefox Beta page on the Android Market complain that it still has no Flash support. The release notes for Firefox 6 say Flash and other plugins are not supported. This bug report has been open since January and as of late June it just says "we're working on it." If you guys are using Flash with Firefox for Android I'd love to hear how you've managed it. Sounds like the Mozilla Foundation would love to hear about it, too.
Work fine on my Xoom. What site are you referring to?
Firefox Mobile doesn't support plugins, so I don't see how you can be viewing Flash sites with it. As for the stock browser, Flash sites absolutely do not "work fine" on Honeycomb tablets; that's just an out-and-out lie.
That's weird. You say the Galaxy Tab has already been declared the winner, but the link you provide declares the iPad the winner... and goes as far as to use words like "obnoxious," "tolerable," "hurts to look at," "sledge hammer approach," and "Samsung ruined it" to describe the Galaxy Tab. (Note that the review is just of the various tablets' screen technologies.)
Just tried it on a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and it works fine. I personally never put much stock in display models, especially at a high-traffic "big box" store like Best Buy. Those display units go through hell. If one crashes, I just think, "Jesus, couldn't they have even put a working one out for display?"
I have Firefox installed on my Xoom with the desktop UA string. What site can I not access?
Sites that use Flash, Silverlight, Java applets, or ActiveX controls, for starters. What's more, when using the built-in browser I've also seen plenty of Flash sites that reject the Galaxy Tab because it doesn't have the Flash Player installed (even when it does).
None of the demos on this page( http://www.apple.com/html5/ ) will run on the Galaxy Tab. Therefore the Galaxy Tab does not support the entire web.
How do we know if they'll run on the Galaxy Tab? They very well might, if Apple hadn't put up a wall that prevents non-Safari Web browsers from viewing them. The content won't load on a Galaxy Tab, but to my knowledge nobody has checked whether it will run (which isn't the same thing). Saying that makes Apple's product superior is like saying Internet Explorer 6 is a better Web browser than Chrome because Chrome can't view Web pages with ActiveX controls on them.
Used to be until two and a half years ago [wikipedia.org]. In February 2009, Adobe published the SWF specification under a license that does not prohibit third-party SWF players. Flash Player remains proprietary software, but the spec license change has allowed for Gnash [wikipedia.org], Gordon [slashdot.org], and Smokescreen [slashdot.org].
That argument seems to be sort of a smokescreen to me (no pun intended). None of those projects can play all Flash content. The most mature of the three, Gnash claims to support "most" Flash v7 and "some" Flash v8 and 9. Flash is on Version 10. As long as the only way to reliably play Flash content is to install the Adobe product, then Flash remains "closed" as a practical matter. Same is true of Microsoft's XML-based Office file formats; you can read the specs, but how many open source projects can reliably read/write.docx files? I would say none.
If the OP has the original discs and the licenses from those then there shouldn't be anything to worry about because that's more than enough to satisfy the requirements.
Of course. Example: I used to run IT at a graphic design firm, where the designers were always hungry for more memory and faster CPUs. Each time they got a new Mac, I'd set it up with all their software and maybe swap it out while they were on lunch. As soon as I did that, I was in violation -- two Macs had copies of the same software with the same serial on them! Technicality? The vendor would probably give you a break for it? Sure. But what does "give you a break" mean if it's already heading for court?
Thinking about graphic design firms again, just suppose you were completely on top of it and had all your licenses for Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. in order. (We were actually pretty good about this.) What about fonts? Every font is a copyrighted piece of software. Is every computer in your shop with a copy of a font on it licensed for that font? Are you sure? Suppose one of your partners, clients, or a contractor e-mailed one of your designers some files and included the fonts in a Zip: violation. In fact, I'd wager if you don't have a site license from Adobe then you're almost certainly in violation -- and sometimes even then.
What about servers? Is your server software licensed based on the number of clients? Does it have a hard control over how many clients can connect to it? If it doesn't, are you sure you're in full compliance? Have you hired anyone lately?
There are countless examples, and most of them happen without actual malice. Unfortunately, nobody has to prove malice.
There is in fact no vehicle Joe public with 30-100K in fairly liquid assets, and another 200-500K in real-estate and long term investments tied up in IRA, US Savings Bonds etc, can protect himself; to my knowledge at the moment.
I'm not going to argue with the rest of your point, but that sounds like a helluva lot of assets for Joe Public. The Joe Publics I know typically have less than $30K in liquid assets (sometimes much less) and many have more than $30K in student loans alone. If they own real estate at all, they have very little equity in their property, and with the housing crash they're probably underwater. If they're saving for retirement at all, it's probably through a 401(k), and the maximum you can contribute in a year would be about $16,000 -- so they're won't have saved up $200K unless they've been on the job for over a decade, which assumes they haven't been laid off, and assumes the stock market hasn't sent the value of their account into the dumpster. And maybe they decided to have a baby before the risk of Down Syndrome became too great -- there go their savings. Or maybe they actually had a health problem, and their insurance only covered 70 percent. And I'm talking about young professionals now, not folks who work in restaurants or have blue-collar jobs. I would say the scenario you paint would be a pretty lucky Joe Public in today's America.
Not really. That's why the GP pointed out that this is a civil, rather than a criminal matter. In criminal cases we have the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," but that's not true in civil cases. For civil cases, the judgment is supposed to go to the party that offers the preponderance of evidence in favor of their argument. If the BSA comes in and says it has an affidavit from a former employee that says he was eyewitness to license violations, and you come in with "no, we're fine"... well, that might not cut it. You'll want to provide some evidence in your favor.
Do you have a receipt for every copy of Photoshop or Office your company is using? Do you have the original media with the label showing the serial number? No? Well how did you get those serial numbers, then?
If it gets to the point that you're going to trial and you allow the BSA to determine the terms and nature of the audit, you will probably lose. What company doesn't have a few license violations here and there? Whether the violations are intentional or not, if you come before a judge and swear you are in absolute compliance and you have no reason to deal with the BSA, and the BSA shows proof of license violations, it will look bad for you.
Nope. Encryption + Remote Wipe + Local Wipe on too many failed password attempts (see "Safe and Secure by Design" and "Ready for Business" on this page [apple.com]). Not even in the same universe as far as security goes...
See, I don't get all the people in this thread saying Android devices are "horrible" and "not even in the same universe as far as security." I have an Android phone from Motorola. It's billed by T-Mobile as one of their lower-end, entry-level smartphones, as opposed to a "teh awesomeness" phone. Nonetheless, my phone can encrypt the data on the device and the SD card, and it comes bundled with a (free) service from Motorola that not only lets you remote wipe your data, but will tell you where your phone is via GPS. It doesn't do the wipe on failed password attempts, but I wouldn't enable that anyway -- I'd hate to be fumbling with my phone trying to unlock it when I'm drunk and accidentally wipe all the data. So what security universe is my cheapie Android phone in?
The difficult part these days is that the cheap, entry-level systems tend to be all-in-ones. The amplifier has a built-in DVD player, etc. I doubt you could drive a pair of Klipsch speakers with one of those, so you're back to buying everything all at once.
You sound like you know what you're talking about, but it doesn't sound like you're describing modern home audio systems, particularly home theater. I thought pretty much any home theater system you could buy these days came with a standalone subwoofer unit to punch up the bass sounds? In fact, the cheapie systems seem to consist of nothing but five tiny mids and a subwoofer.
But really, I can't see playing a 30 year old LP of "Dark Side of the Moon" on 30 year old gear, when you can play the (30th Anniversary?) SACD edition on modern gear. I wore at least two album versions out before upgrading to the CD and eventually the SACD.
But the SACD isn't the same thing. If they did a good job of remixing and mastering it, maybe it will sound good. But it still won't be the same thing as listening to the original, the way it was originally mastered and released. Or to put it another way... you sound like George Lucas.
Well, I don't know how to explain it, but believe that even though the Defy's bootloader is locked, there is a one-click root exploit and you can indeed get CyanogenMod on it. I'm not 100 percent certain about this, though, because it's not something I feel compelled to do to mine, but if you like the hardware then you should Google it.
I can think offhand of human trafficking rings in the United States (Times Square...
If you're talking about Times Square in New York City, have you ever actually been to New York? About the only things they're "trafficking" in Times Square these days are Coca-Cola, Bvlgari watches, tickets to Broadway shows, and cheeseburgers at the Hard Rock Cafe.
You say this as if it is difficult to do, or illegal...at least in the US? It is simple, just buy a gun from cash from a private individual, no record of the transaction at all.
In California, private gun sales are illegal, period. A private individual may transfer a firearm to another private individual only through a federally-licensed intermediary, who will hold the gun for the state mandated 10-day waiting period. If it's a handgun, the buyer also has to pass a handgun safety test. All handguns are registered by the state. If you move to California, you have 60 days to report your handgun ownership to the Department of Justice.
The govt. has no need to know what arms I own.
No, you apparently have no need for the government to know what arms you own, but the State of California feels otherwise. I guess that means you wouldn't want to live here, but bear in mind, more people live in California than in any other state in the union.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so why does anyone think Adobe is busy making an HTML5 tool if it thinks HTML5 is going to kill Flash? Hello? Adobe already makes Dreamweaver. It also already makes Flash. The summary reads as though upstart Adobe is running in to steal Flash's lunch, when Flash's lunchbox has Adobe's name on it.
With a lot of such software "secured" by crap like macrovision's flexlm (which only punishes the honest) it would be trivially easy to exceed such hard limits but it's still a concious act and not an accident.
Sure, but my point was more that people saying "just don't pirate software" probably have no idea how easy it is to run into a situation where you're in violation. Were you really planning to screw that software maker out of a license? Or did you just need that workstation up and running today and you were planning to file the purchase order tomorrow? Stuff just happens. Maybe it's "intentional" but that still doesn't mean it was done out of criminality or malice.
You clearly don't work with HTML at all, because there really is no comparison between the state of Gnash and the state of Web browsers. Seriously. You've already said you don't know how much each supports, so don't keep repeating yourself.
I don't know the full feature breakdown of all modern browsers ability to implement the entire HTML5 spec vs Gnash's feature implementation of the entire Flash spec but i'd wager you don't either.
Most browsers support some HTML5. In my experience they support most of it; any quirks at this point are fairly minor. By comparison, as I've mentioned before, Gnash only supports most Flash 7, some Flash 8 and Flash 9, and no Flash 10. That's by its developers' own admission, and that's a lot different than the difference between how WebKit renders HTML5/CSS3 versus how Firefox renders it.
Put it to you this way: How many Web developers bother to test against two or more different browsers? I'd wager all of them. How many Flash developers bother to test against Gnash? Find me one.
Now I know you're trolling; Firefox for Android DOES support Flash
If Firefox for Android supports Flash they're being pretty quiet about it. News reports announcing the Firefox 6 beta complain that it has no Flash support. User comments on the Firefox Beta page on the Android Market complain that it still has no Flash support. The release notes for Firefox 6 say Flash and other plugins are not supported. This bug report has been open since January and as of late June it just says "we're working on it." If you guys are using Flash with Firefox for Android I'd love to hear how you've managed it. Sounds like the Mozilla Foundation would love to hear about it, too.
And yet the specs for HTML5 are all there but how many browsers can run all HTML5 content? None! I'm no fan of Flash but your logic is way off.
The extent to which modern Web browsers support HTML5 vs. the extent to which the latest version of Gnash supports Flash content is what's way off.
Work fine on my Xoom. What site are you referring to?
Firefox Mobile doesn't support plugins, so I don't see how you can be viewing Flash sites with it. As for the stock browser, Flash sites absolutely do not "work fine" on Honeycomb tablets; that's just an out-and-out lie.
That's weird. You say the Galaxy Tab has already been declared the winner, but the link you provide declares the iPad the winner... and goes as far as to use words like "obnoxious," "tolerable," "hurts to look at," "sledge hammer approach," and "Samsung ruined it" to describe the Galaxy Tab. (Note that the review is just of the various tablets' screen technologies.)
Just tried it on a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and it works fine. I personally never put much stock in display models, especially at a high-traffic "big box" store like Best Buy. Those display units go through hell. If one crashes, I just think, "Jesus, couldn't they have even put a working one out for display?"
I have Firefox installed on my Xoom with the desktop UA string. What site can I not access?
Sites that use Flash, Silverlight, Java applets, or ActiveX controls, for starters. What's more, when using the built-in browser I've also seen plenty of Flash sites that reject the Galaxy Tab because it doesn't have the Flash Player installed (even when it does).
None of the demos on this page( http://www.apple.com/html5/ ) will run on the Galaxy Tab. Therefore the Galaxy Tab does not support the entire web.
How do we know if they'll run on the Galaxy Tab? They very well might, if Apple hadn't put up a wall that prevents non-Safari Web browsers from viewing them. The content won't load on a Galaxy Tab, but to my knowledge nobody has checked whether it will run (which isn't the same thing). Saying that makes Apple's product superior is like saying Internet Explorer 6 is a better Web browser than Chrome because Chrome can't view Web pages with ActiveX controls on them.
Used to be until two and a half years ago [wikipedia.org]. In February 2009, Adobe published the SWF specification under a license that does not prohibit third-party SWF players. Flash Player remains proprietary software, but the spec license change has allowed for Gnash [wikipedia.org], Gordon [slashdot.org], and Smokescreen [slashdot.org].
That argument seems to be sort of a smokescreen to me (no pun intended). None of those projects can play all Flash content. The most mature of the three, Gnash claims to support "most" Flash v7 and "some" Flash v8 and 9. Flash is on Version 10. As long as the only way to reliably play Flash content is to install the Adobe product, then Flash remains "closed" as a practical matter. Same is true of Microsoft's XML-based Office file formats; you can read the specs, but how many open source projects can reliably read/write .docx files? I would say none.
If the OP has the original discs and the licenses from those then there shouldn't be anything to worry about because that's more than enough to satisfy the requirements.
Isn't that what I said?
Of course. Example: I used to run IT at a graphic design firm, where the designers were always hungry for more memory and faster CPUs. Each time they got a new Mac, I'd set it up with all their software and maybe swap it out while they were on lunch. As soon as I did that, I was in violation -- two Macs had copies of the same software with the same serial on them! Technicality? The vendor would probably give you a break for it? Sure. But what does "give you a break" mean if it's already heading for court?
Thinking about graphic design firms again, just suppose you were completely on top of it and had all your licenses for Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. in order. (We were actually pretty good about this.) What about fonts? Every font is a copyrighted piece of software. Is every computer in your shop with a copy of a font on it licensed for that font? Are you sure? Suppose one of your partners, clients, or a contractor e-mailed one of your designers some files and included the fonts in a Zip: violation. In fact, I'd wager if you don't have a site license from Adobe then you're almost certainly in violation -- and sometimes even then.
What about servers? Is your server software licensed based on the number of clients? Does it have a hard control over how many clients can connect to it? If it doesn't, are you sure you're in full compliance? Have you hired anyone lately?
There are countless examples, and most of them happen without actual malice. Unfortunately, nobody has to prove malice.
There is in fact no vehicle Joe public with 30-100K in fairly liquid assets, and another 200-500K in real-estate and long term investments tied up in IRA, US Savings Bonds etc, can protect himself; to my knowledge at the moment.
I'm not going to argue with the rest of your point, but that sounds like a helluva lot of assets for Joe Public. The Joe Publics I know typically have less than $30K in liquid assets (sometimes much less) and many have more than $30K in student loans alone. If they own real estate at all, they have very little equity in their property, and with the housing crash they're probably underwater. If they're saving for retirement at all, it's probably through a 401(k), and the maximum you can contribute in a year would be about $16,000 -- so they're won't have saved up $200K unless they've been on the job for over a decade, which assumes they haven't been laid off, and assumes the stock market hasn't sent the value of their account into the dumpster. And maybe they decided to have a baby before the risk of Down Syndrome became too great -- there go their savings. Or maybe they actually had a health problem, and their insurance only covered 70 percent. And I'm talking about young professionals now, not folks who work in restaurants or have blue-collar jobs. I would say the scenario you paint would be a pretty lucky Joe Public in today's America.
Not really. That's why the GP pointed out that this is a civil, rather than a criminal matter. In criminal cases we have the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," but that's not true in civil cases. For civil cases, the judgment is supposed to go to the party that offers the preponderance of evidence in favor of their argument. If the BSA comes in and says it has an affidavit from a former employee that says he was eyewitness to license violations, and you come in with "no, we're fine"... well, that might not cut it. You'll want to provide some evidence in your favor.
Do you have a receipt for every copy of Photoshop or Office your company is using? Do you have the original media with the label showing the serial number? No? Well how did you get those serial numbers, then?
If it gets to the point that you're going to trial and you allow the BSA to determine the terms and nature of the audit, you will probably lose. What company doesn't have a few license violations here and there? Whether the violations are intentional or not, if you come before a judge and swear you are in absolute compliance and you have no reason to deal with the BSA, and the BSA shows proof of license violations, it will look bad for you.
Nope. Encryption + Remote Wipe + Local Wipe on too many failed password attempts (see "Safe and Secure by Design" and "Ready for Business" on this page [apple.com]). Not even in the same universe as far as security goes...
See, I don't get all the people in this thread saying Android devices are "horrible" and "not even in the same universe as far as security." I have an Android phone from Motorola. It's billed by T-Mobile as one of their lower-end, entry-level smartphones, as opposed to a "teh awesomeness" phone. Nonetheless, my phone can encrypt the data on the device and the SD card, and it comes bundled with a (free) service from Motorola that not only lets you remote wipe your data, but will tell you where your phone is via GPS. It doesn't do the wipe on failed password attempts, but I wouldn't enable that anyway -- I'd hate to be fumbling with my phone trying to unlock it when I'm drunk and accidentally wipe all the data. So what security universe is my cheapie Android phone in?
The difficult part these days is that the cheap, entry-level systems tend to be all-in-ones. The amplifier has a built-in DVD player, etc. I doubt you could drive a pair of Klipsch speakers with one of those, so you're back to buying everything all at once.
You sound like you know what you're talking about, but it doesn't sound like you're describing modern home audio systems, particularly home theater. I thought pretty much any home theater system you could buy these days came with a standalone subwoofer unit to punch up the bass sounds? In fact, the cheapie systems seem to consist of nothing but five tiny mids and a subwoofer.
But really, I can't see playing a 30 year old LP of "Dark Side of the Moon" on 30 year old gear, when you can play the (30th Anniversary?) SACD edition on modern gear. I wore at least two album versions out before upgrading to the CD and eventually the SACD.
But the SACD isn't the same thing. If they did a good job of remixing and mastering it, maybe it will sound good. But it still won't be the same thing as listening to the original, the way it was originally mastered and released. Or to put it another way ... you sound like George Lucas.
Victor Malarek documents an attempt by law enforcement to crack down on a trafficking ring operating in Times Square. Look him up.
Just because something isn't obvious to you when you walk through a place doesn't mean that it's not happening.
And just because an activist claims he's a journalist doesn't mean he's credible.
Well, I don't know how to explain it, but believe that even though the Defy's bootloader is locked, there is a one-click root exploit and you can indeed get CyanogenMod on it. I'm not 100 percent certain about this, though, because it's not something I feel compelled to do to mine, but if you like the hardware then you should Google it.
I don't know about the Titanium, but for the Defy the answers are yes and yes (though I don't mind Blur at all, kinda like it in fact).
I can think offhand of human trafficking rings in the United States (Times Square...
If you're talking about Times Square in New York City, have you ever actually been to New York? About the only things they're "trafficking" in Times Square these days are Coca-Cola, Bvlgari watches, tickets to Broadway shows, and cheeseburgers at the Hard Rock Cafe.
You say this as if it is difficult to do, or illegal...at least in the US? It is simple, just buy a gun from cash from a private individual, no record of the transaction at all.
In California, private gun sales are illegal, period. A private individual may transfer a firearm to another private individual only through a federally-licensed intermediary, who will hold the gun for the state mandated 10-day waiting period. If it's a handgun, the buyer also has to pass a handgun safety test. All handguns are registered by the state. If you move to California, you have 60 days to report your handgun ownership to the Department of Justice.
The govt. has no need to know what arms I own.
No, you apparently have no need for the government to know what arms you own, but the State of California feels otherwise. I guess that means you wouldn't want to live here, but bear in mind, more people live in California than in any other state in the union.