An Extended Validation certificate is one that includes information indicating that a specific legal entity (person, corporation) has been confirmed as being the owner of the certificate, rather than just in control of a particular domain. In modern browsers that understand this extended information, you will often see the name of the corporation next to the 'lock' icon.
If you read the article, you would learn that this isn't the case. It's pretty clearly a bug (not a missing revocation infrastructure) since the problem only occurs on Extended Validation certs. Otherwise, the revocation works as it should.
There seem to be a lot of people in this thread saying, "Oh no! Prior art is dead!" All this actually means is that somebody can no longer invent (or CLAIM have invented) something and then KEEP IT A SECRET (not sell, publicly demonstrate, file for a patent, etc...) and then, later on, after somebody else files for the patent, say, "Hey! I invented that %d years ago!" Right now, it seems to be pretty common practice for corporations to attempt to 'manufacture evidence' of non-public prior art. It seems like this would simplify patent disputes.
If you see how the -inside- of a 3.5 TRS jack is designed, you would see that Apple's design would have the same surface area between the contacts as a current jack. In a current jack the contacts do not SURROUND the plug. They only touch the side of it. You can see an example of a typical type of TRS jack here
Marc Emery was running a business selling goods across the border, into the US, that the US Federal Government considers to be extremely illegal. He was extradited to the US after the Canadian government couldn't come up with a reasonable excuse not to. Personally, I feel that this makes Emery a very poor spokesperson for the effort to legalize in Canada, since his arrest and conviction would have likely gone unchanged even if it was completely legal in Canada. I wish that all of the attention going to his 'plight' would instead be focused on changing the laws here in Canada instead of trying to free a man who was essentially daring a foreign government to extradite him while he was running an illegal export business.
Furthermore, what does the BC provincial government have to do with the situation?
This is the method that the Wiimote already uses to let you 'feel' the buttons or letters on the screen. It works well. When you get the edge of a button, you feel a 'bump'. From reading the article, this appears to be exactly the same thing, except on a touch-screen.
I'm not really surprised it's not been mentioned since GWT is not a technology that most people realize exists or is in use. Personally, I absolutely hate writing and debugging Javascript so I will usually jump at an opportunity to use GWT if I'm otherwise writing a non-trivial amount of browser-side code. Since I write server code mostly in Java, I think this approach makes a lot of sense.
I think the real issue with the Javascript being 'opaque' on GMail and other Google sites is that the javascript is not the original code the software is written in. The original code is written in Java and 'compiled' into Javascript with GWT. In order to be truly useful and readable, Google would need to release the Java source code. The javascript that is delivered to your browser will even differ depending on what browser you're using.
J2ME is a joke. It's more or less limited to the core libraries and language constructs of a 12-year-old implementation of Java with the addition of an almost laughable lowest-common-denominator set of UI widgets. The language and core API limitations mean that it's impossible to use any but the most trivial of the incredibly rich ecosystem of open-source Java libraries out there. There ARE API extensions out there that add back support of some of the modern Java libraries, but they're provided piece-meal by different mobile venders, offering no real useful target for cross-platform development.
Android, on the other hand, supports almost all of the language constructs of the latest Java 1.6 as well as an extremely rich portion of the modern Java core APIs. From this, an enormous amount of existing Java code can be leveraged. On top of that, it provides a rich platform-specific set of APIs. Yes, it will only work on Android, but at least I can use most of the tools and libraries from the modern Java ecosystem.
Cross-platform UI design on even very similar platforms (graphically, at least) such as MacOS and Windows is still extremely difficult. Mobile devices are far more divergent in their UIs than desktops. J2ME doesn't really solve anybody's problems by pretending to be a complete cross-platform solution.
If only there was some sort of brick & mortar equivalent of such a scheme to use as a point of comparison, but then, surely our society would never allow some sort of public book repository where a member of the public could borrow the book for a limited amount of time, as that would have destroyed the book publishing industry! Who would ever want to own their own copy of a book if they could just borrow it for free?!
Umm... What about the fact that the Android SDK includes compatible implementations of the Java class library, using EXACTLY the same names and APIs? How can you both include core APIs named, for example, java.lang.Object while at the same time claim that it has nothing to do with Java? The Android SDK documentation has specific portions that describe what the specific differences are between it and a full Java implementation.
In the end, though, I believe that none of this has ANY bearing on weither Google is violating Oracle/Sun patents that are used in Java or not. As previously discussed, MS ran afoul of Sun's patents on Java while implementing a different API and VM from scratch. Sun put a huge amount of work into what has become an excellent VM that amazingly rivals the performance of a lot of C/C++ code. It did so by having a whole lot of clever people write a whole lot of clever code. Clever ideas are what patents were intended for. I have no doubt that Google as well as ANY other modern VM implementors have ran afoul of these patents, accidentally or otherwise. Google is a large target with deep pockets, as was Microsoft. It's hardly a surprise that Oracle is grabbing for this revenue stream, even though it appears to be a risky long-term strategic move to arouse Google's wrath.
Incidentally, James Gosling has a very clear opinion on the Google/Oracle patent issue, while having no love of Oracle. His opinion is that Google is unquestionably violating Oracle's patents. You can read that directly here: http://www.basementcoders.com/transcripts/James_Gosling_Transcript.html
As an aside, I still feel that software patents are a bad idea in general.
I'd be curious to actually know the real numbers, how frequently enterprise Java applications run on Oracle. I've worked for several large enterprises that standardized on Java as the development platform, but almost exclusively used MS SQL instead of Oracle for the databases.
Additionally, Apple's documentation on the API that provides the UDID specifically indicates that Apple considers it appropriate to use as a method of identifying a user/device.
Of course, that doesn't change the privacy implications, but it indicates that the UDID is provided by Apple to developers for precisely that purpose.
Incorrect. Without using Location Services (and asking permission) apps have no access to anything involving the Wi-Fi SSIDs surrounding you.
And as for IP address... WARNING! Your computer is broadcasting your IP address! Be serious.
Incidentally, with rare exceptions, the IP address of your phone, as assigned from your carrier, is in a private IP range. If you're connecting to a server, which will then have your public IP address, do you really feel you have any expectation of privacy, as far as the server not attempting to map your IP address to a location?
If only there was some sort of government organization that could deploy skilled manpower in the event of a national emergency or attack that is highly mobile and has the ability to communicate over channels that do not rely on the local infrastructure, the same as if they were deployed in remote or hostile locations. Oh wait!!
Just a note, Welbutrin isn't an SSRI, it's a completely different class of drug. Apparently it -does- behave in a similar manner to cocaine, though, but without any euphoria.
I'd be a bit surprised if Java could take advantage of either of these mechanisms due to the nature of the dynamic compiler and class-loading, without major, major problems. MS probably had to build special mechanisms into the CLR runtime for it to work in.NET. On the other hand, Java has a reputation of being a pretty bulletproof platform in terms of the exploits that these two mechanisms are designed to protect against.
>And yet you correctly state that the iPhone OS (and the iPad version is the same) don't do multi-task/threading.
Actually, I stated the exact opposite, that the iPhone OS is capable of and almost always has more than one application running at once. Additionally, almost every single app made for the iPhone is multi-threaded.
>And it's one more reason why the iPad isn't even close any kind of ultimate game machine.
Actually, I disagree with this. What benefit does it bring to a game to be running in an OS along-side other applications? Off the top of my head, I can't think of a purpose-built gaming machine that allows you to switch between multiple running applications.
Ugg, I'm getting tired of hearing this misunderstanding. The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively. Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time. Several built-in applications run in the background instead of exiting, such as Safari, Mail and the Phone applications. I do not agree with their decision to do this, however, but understand why they did. In a way, though, I should be thankful that so many people are complaining about this, even not entirely accurately, since I think the negative publicity might be enough to push Apple to change this. Apple isn't completely immune to consumer pressure.
Canadian Blood Services has already proven themselves to be an organization that makes decisions according to myth and rumor rather than fact. Despite a large amount of controversy (and a grilling of one of the organization's leaders on CBC radio) CBS not only refuses to take donations by homosexual or bisexual men (despite the fact that every unit of blood that is donated is tested) who have been sexually active since I believe the late 70s, but refuses to take donations from women who have been sexually active with a bisexual man within the last several years. This is despite the fact that there has never been any statistical evidence that women in this group have any higher risk than the general population of an HIV infection.
Slashdot Mirror
An Extended Validation certificate is one that includes information indicating that a specific legal entity (person, corporation) has been confirmed as being the owner of the certificate, rather than just in control of a particular domain. In modern browsers that understand this extended information, you will often see the name of the corporation next to the 'lock' icon.
If you read the article, you would learn that this isn't the case. It's pretty clearly a bug (not a missing revocation infrastructure) since the problem only occurs on Extended Validation certs. Otherwise, the revocation works as it should.
There seem to be a lot of people in this thread saying, "Oh no! Prior art is dead!"
All this actually means is that somebody can no longer invent (or CLAIM have invented) something and then KEEP IT A SECRET (not sell, publicly demonstrate, file for a patent, etc...) and then, later on, after somebody else files for the patent, say, "Hey! I invented that %d years ago!" Right now, it seems to be pretty common practice for corporations to attempt to 'manufacture evidence' of non-public prior art. It seems like this would simplify patent disputes.
AC was referring, perhaps, to MacOS X, which had built-in disk-image manipulation and mounting tools built into it since version 1.0, in 2000.
If you see how the -inside- of a 3.5 TRS jack is designed, you would see that Apple's design would have the same surface area between the contacts as a current jack. In a current jack the contacts do not SURROUND the plug. They only touch the side of it.
You can see an example of a typical type of TRS jack here
Marc Emery was running a business selling goods across the border, into the US, that the US Federal Government considers to be extremely illegal. He was extradited to the US after the Canadian government couldn't come up with a reasonable excuse not to. Personally, I feel that this makes Emery a very poor spokesperson for the effort to legalize in Canada, since his arrest and conviction would have likely gone unchanged even if it was completely legal in Canada. I wish that all of the attention going to his 'plight' would instead be focused on changing the laws here in Canada instead of trying to free a man who was essentially daring a foreign government to extradite him while he was running an illegal export business.
Furthermore, what does the BC provincial government have to do with the situation?
This is the method that the Wiimote already uses to let you 'feel' the buttons or letters on the screen. It works well. When you get the edge of a button, you feel a 'bump'. From reading the article, this appears to be exactly the same thing, except on a touch-screen.
I'm not really surprised it's not been mentioned since GWT is not a technology that most people realize exists or is in use. Personally, I absolutely hate writing and debugging Javascript so I will usually jump at an opportunity to use GWT if I'm otherwise writing a non-trivial amount of browser-side code. Since I write server code mostly in Java, I think this approach makes a lot of sense.
I think the real issue with the Javascript being 'opaque' on GMail and other Google sites is that the javascript is not the original code the software is written in. The original code is written in Java and 'compiled' into Javascript with GWT. In order to be truly useful and readable, Google would need to release the Java source code. The javascript that is delivered to your browser will even differ depending on what browser you're using.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what Magnuson-Moss says.
Here's a "for dummies" reference:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/keeping-your-mods-warranty-intact.html
J2ME is a joke. It's more or less limited to the core libraries and language constructs of a 12-year-old implementation of Java with the addition of an almost laughable lowest-common-denominator set of UI widgets. The language and core API limitations mean that it's impossible to use any but the most trivial of the incredibly rich ecosystem of open-source Java libraries out there. There ARE API extensions out there that add back support of some of the modern Java libraries, but they're provided piece-meal by different mobile venders, offering no real useful target for cross-platform development.
Android, on the other hand, supports almost all of the language constructs of the latest Java 1.6 as well as an extremely rich portion of the modern Java core APIs. From this, an enormous amount of existing Java code can be leveraged. On top of that, it provides a rich platform-specific set of APIs. Yes, it will only work on Android, but at least I can use most of the tools and libraries from the modern Java ecosystem.
Cross-platform UI design on even very similar platforms (graphically, at least) such as MacOS and Windows is still extremely difficult. Mobile devices are far more divergent in their UIs than desktops. J2ME doesn't really solve anybody's problems by pretending to be a complete cross-platform solution.
If only there was some sort of brick & mortar equivalent of such a scheme to use as a point of comparison, but then, surely our society would never allow some sort of public book repository where a member of the public could borrow the book for a limited amount of time, as that would have destroyed the book publishing industry! Who would ever want to own their own copy of a book if they could just borrow it for free?!
Umm... What about the fact that the Android SDK includes compatible implementations of the Java class library, using EXACTLY the same names and APIs? How can you both include core APIs named, for example, java.lang.Object while at the same time claim that it has nothing to do with Java? The Android SDK documentation has specific portions that describe what the specific differences are between it and a full Java implementation.
In the end, though, I believe that none of this has ANY bearing on weither Google is violating Oracle/Sun patents that are used in Java or not. As previously discussed, MS ran afoul of Sun's patents on Java while implementing a different API and VM from scratch. Sun put a huge amount of work into what has become an excellent VM that amazingly rivals the performance of a lot of C/C++ code. It did so by having a whole lot of clever people write a whole lot of clever code. Clever ideas are what patents were intended for. I have no doubt that Google as well as ANY other modern VM implementors have ran afoul of these patents, accidentally or otherwise. Google is a large target with deep pockets, as was Microsoft. It's hardly a surprise that Oracle is grabbing for this revenue stream, even though it appears to be a risky long-term strategic move to arouse Google's wrath.
Incidentally, James Gosling has a very clear opinion on the Google/Oracle patent issue, while having no love of Oracle. His opinion is that Google is unquestionably violating Oracle's patents. You can read that directly here: http://www.basementcoders.com/transcripts/James_Gosling_Transcript.html
As an aside, I still feel that software patents are a bad idea in general.
I'd be curious to actually know the real numbers, how frequently enterprise Java applications run on Oracle. I've worked for several large enterprises that standardized on Java as the development platform, but almost exclusively used MS SQL instead of Oracle for the databases.
Additionally, Apple's documentation on the API that provides the UDID specifically indicates that Apple considers it appropriate to use as a method of identifying a user/device.
Of course, that doesn't change the privacy implications, but it indicates that the UDID is provided by Apple to developers for precisely that purpose.
Incorrect. Without using Location Services (and asking permission) apps have no access to anything involving the Wi-Fi SSIDs surrounding you.
And as for IP address...
WARNING! Your computer is broadcasting your IP address!
Be serious.
Incidentally, with rare exceptions, the IP address of your phone, as assigned from your carrier, is in a private IP range. If you're connecting to a server, which will then have your public IP address, do you really feel you have any expectation of privacy, as far as the server not attempting to map your IP address to a location?
If only there was some sort of government organization that could deploy skilled manpower in the event of a national emergency or attack that is highly mobile and has the ability to communicate over channels that do not rely on the local infrastructure, the same as if they were deployed in remote or hostile locations. Oh wait!!
Just a note, Welbutrin isn't an SSRI, it's a completely different class of drug. Apparently it -does- behave in a similar manner to cocaine, though, but without any euphoria.
I'd be a bit surprised if Java could take advantage of either of these mechanisms due to the nature of the dynamic compiler and class-loading, without major, major problems. MS probably had to build special mechanisms into the CLR runtime for it to work in .NET.
On the other hand, Java has a reputation of being a pretty bulletproof platform in terms of the exploits that these two mechanisms are designed to protect against.
Since OSX uses CUPS as its core printer driver system, I suspect it wouldn't be terribly difficult to make it run on Linux.
By default, unless you specifically re-format a partition, OSX file systems are case-preserving but insensitive.
>And yet you correctly state that the iPhone OS (and the iPad version is the same) don't do multi-task/threading.
Actually, I stated the exact opposite, that the iPhone OS is capable of and almost always has more than one application running at once. Additionally, almost every single app made for the iPhone is multi-threaded.
>And it's one more reason why the iPad isn't even close any kind of ultimate game machine.
Actually, I disagree with this. What benefit does it bring to a game to be running in an OS along-side other applications? Off the top of my head, I can't think of a purpose-built gaming machine that allows you to switch between multiple running applications.
Ugg, I'm getting tired of hearing this misunderstanding. The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively. Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time. Several built-in applications run in the background instead of exiting, such as Safari, Mail and the Phone applications. I do not agree with their decision to do this, however, but understand why they did. In a way, though, I should be thankful that so many people are complaining about this, even not entirely accurately, since I think the negative publicity might be enough to push Apple to change this. Apple isn't completely immune to consumer pressure.
Keep in mind that SSL-enabled versions of both POP and SMTP (with authentication) are very widely supported.
Canadian Blood Services has already proven themselves to be an organization that makes decisions according to myth and rumor rather than fact. Despite a large amount of controversy (and a grilling of one of the organization's leaders on CBC radio) CBS not only refuses to take donations by homosexual or bisexual men (despite the fact that every unit of blood that is donated is tested) who have been sexually active since I believe the late 70s, but refuses to take donations from women who have been sexually active with a bisexual man within the last several years. This is despite the fact that there has never been any statistical evidence that women in this group have any higher risk than the general population of an HIV infection.