Another thing to look out for using those hacks (most notably the Multiple IE one), is that there is some oddness introduced in certain circumstances. For example, if I have IE7 installed on my machine, and I'm running the multiple IE version of IE6 - things such as the direct x hack for displaying PNG's can act strangely. I'm not sure of what other things like that are either broken, or using new components instead of the apropriate ones per browser, but I'm sure there are quite a few. Has anyone else encountered this?
The only downpoint to this, is that there is no way to keep it self contained in a single stylesheet like we could before. We now have to split the IE hacks into their own stylesheets, potentially causing a great deal of extra IE specific files. Or alternately muddy our html further w/ inline IE specific hacks. Not a huge deal, but certainly annoying. On the plus side, if you split them all to ie specific stylesheets, it will be easy to find and axe them should Microsoft ever learn how to write a web browser.
The big difference is that people actually WANT the music that Radiohead is producing. Not that I am implying the other music is bad, just that it isn't even heard of, so people may not even know they should want it.
This is not a big deal because it is a unique idea. This is a big deal because a very big name in music is telling the RIAA to go to hell.
This is a joke, right? He was ON THE GROUND restrained by several officers. They had complete control over the situation, and when they tazed him he was in no position to harm anyone. Was the kid being an ass? Yeah. Could they have booked him on resisting arrest? Probably (although I don't feel he was a risk to anyone, and wouldn't agree with it if they did). Did they use excessive force : absolutely. Every officer involved deserves some form of disciplinary action.
A fact that is completely irrelevant to the average user. It is up to the distribution to care about any licensing necessary for basic functionality. Does it suck that it's a restricted format? Yes. Does that mean that shifting the burden of that on to the user is acceptable? No.
So how is the video's native format more portable than Flash? Flash has a higher and more consistent install base than any video codec I know of, not to mention giving a consistent user experience across all of them - which an OS dependent embedded player wouldn't do. Youtube made it work without flash for the iphone to overcome an iphone limitation - not because it was the more portable implementation.
Deprecating the center tag was absolutely and in every way the proper choice. There are better ways of centering your content via CSS, that don't impose your layout intrusively upon your content.
This is highly offtopic, and I apologize in advance, but can we all make an agreement here and now? I want everyone to agree to never again say : fanboi, micro$oft, m$, i(anything), crApple, etc? It's not funny, and it makes you look like a moron. Not to mention diluting any point you were going for...
Yeah! How dare you criticize a company for starting to sell a product before it's own team is prepared for it! They certainly can't be blamed for failing to train their own staff!
Dell is becoming the Walmart of computer vendors. Sure, you can get something cheap, but god help you if you actually want any service, support, or any form of professionalism.
Well, he posted on slashdot, so I don't think he could be. I mean, mythological constructs can't type.
As an aside, I've always though it would make an interesting movie plot where the hero finds out that the bible is just revisionist history, and that the "devil" was actually the protagonist who just happened to lose and so didn't get to dictate history.
Obviously we disagree with how things were handled. Honestly, I think in this particular situation, Apple did well. I just don't necessarily think that all big corporations are evil by default. Maybe I just haven't been as abused by them. I hope that if he does learn any lesson from this, instead it is this : Don't publicize a flaw unless you can prove it, which to date he has still failed to do.
Oh, so you missed my point. Fair enough. What I was adding to the conversation was that the "reasonable culprit" side of this argument was and is nothing more than paranoid "the man keeping us down" delusion. I'm not saying that it isn't a possibility, just that jumping to it with no further information is ridiculous. Oh, and I wouldn't call him a "guy trying to keep his pride", I'd call him a security researcher trying to exploit the name of a corporation that is currently popular to inflate his own value.
>Many major vendors have a known history for screwing over vulnerability researchers such as Cisco, Apple, Microsoft and others. I just have a >hard time believing this is any different.
So almost a year later he comes forward, still doesn't demo what was promised the first time (and I don't even want to hear you whine about, well that's the easy part - because if it really was, he would have shown that), and you still want to think it was just the big bad corporations holding him down...
I guess I'm just not good enough with the suspension of disbelief thing. I suppose it's not worth mentioning that maybe he's just trying to save face by exploiting what Apple has now published? Because honestly, even THAT is more reasonable than what he has claimed up until now. I guess we can thank him for proving the fix really work...
And that's what I get for commenting on the spirit of the word without doing the homework and looking it up to ensure I wouldn't be soundly bitchslapped. Well played, good sir, well played...
Ok, wasn't aware of that, and thanks for the link. Even in that case, however, Microsoft wasn't entirely in the wrong. They weren't nice about it, certainly, but they definitely have the claim to how the Windows trademark was used, and had a valid case. In both cases, the old product in question was discontinued or the brand was no longer being used. In the iPhones case, it was also a very different product. I know I'm going to get flack for calling it a very different device, but really look at the feature sets for both of them. They may both be phones, but that is a very broad category of products. We could probably argue and nitpick over terminology on that argument all day, however.
While I agree with most of your post, I have to nitpick on one point :
"The point of copyright is that the creators of intellectual property should be the ones who decide how their work is distributed."
This statement actually hurt me to read. The point of copyright is not to control the distribution of media, the point of copyright is to compensate the producer for their work - thus giving a monetary reason for them to continue producing something we as a society find beneficial. The arts aren't required for human life like food and water is, however, as a society we have created things like copyright to help promote something that we find valuable.
This debate should not be about if copying for free is right or wrong, it should be about compensating the artist for their hard work. Piracy doesn't do that, but honestly the majority of labels don't much either... it's obviously time we rethought our strategy altogether.
Really? What was stolen? The product..? No, the actual product seems original.
Oh, you mean the name... I see. But wait, Microsoft never "stole" a name like that, to my knowledge. They have done a lot of other shady things, but never a name. So your statement doesn't make much sense, and that is even IF we decide to go along with you on Apple "stealing" this trademark. Not that I am going along with that, however, as Cisco wasn't even using the trademark for a current product, let alone one in the same market space.
I don't know why I let the trolls get to me, I really don't... I know I should just set my threshold higher, but it really is like watching a trainwreck and I can't seem to look away.
You do of course realize that Jobs has been against DRM from the beginning... right? He has openly stated it all along, this was just a formal request to the recording companies.
How about this - stop reading that letter as if it were addressed to you. Seriousy. Because it wasn't, it was addressed to the European countries that are seeking to take legal action against Apple for selling DRM laden music. The only reason Apple is embroiled in this, is that they are the biggest distributor currently. They are being punished for being successful. The Zune and Sony's players operate under the same type of DRM restriction with things bought from their stores but their market share in the portable music player industry is laughable, so they get out clean. Apple is being used to set a precedent. The letter was issued openly just to get public attention, and that was ballsy to put it mildly.
As for Apple's clout with the RIAA, it's not quite so potent as you'd think. They can tell them that they won't change the terms of their contract (the 99 cents debacle), but negotiating this is a much bigger deal. The pricing issue was the RIAA trying to negotiate things in their favor, and the DRM thing is Apple trying to negotiate it in theirs. They've managed a standoff in the middle ground for now, but don't go thinking that either one has any huge upper hand.
>Then you have the lip service to non-DRM music while their own product locks you into their own service. I'm gathering from this quote that you didn't bother reading the statement, so here's a summary :
They aren't saying "DRM is bad" and still using it. They are saying "DRM is bad, but we are under forced contractual obligations to use it - please convince the record companies of this so that we can drop it as well." At least understand the argument before making a comment on it. Apple CAN'T drop DRM without losing the majority of the content from iTunes. If you want to go after someone for this, the RIAA and company are still the bad guys (and appear to really enjoy the role).
The only good argument that has come out about this, is why music that isn't from the big 4 labels are DRM'd, and I think everyone is interested in clarification about that.
As for the commercials, I find them funny, but humor is completely subjective.
While I do find how InputManagers work somewhat troublesome, I have yet to hear of anything actually exploited by this. Because of my concerns I've taken a few precautions (most notably, folder actions to tell me if anything has tried to write to the dir. admittedly, malware could remove those - but I keep an eye on that as a part of normal system maintenance.) What I wonder, is if it is such a glaring hole, why have I yet to see an exploit target it? Or are there any active in the wild that I just don't know about? If so, please enlighten me... Beyond that, I personally have found Apple's response to bugs and vulnerabilities to be perfectly reasonable and timely. Faster is always better, but I suppose I would say that they seem "fast enough" with the issues that have been presented thus far.
(My guess is that before it can hook itself in like that, the malware has to find some way to get to my system and execute - which means in order to use this as an attack vector, another exploit would also be required.)
No, because if you want to replace something with another solution - it at least has to solve all the problems the current solution does. Bonus points if it solves more.
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing to look out for using those hacks (most notably the Multiple IE one), is that there is some oddness introduced in certain circumstances. For example, if I have IE7 installed on my machine, and I'm running the multiple IE version of IE6 - things such as the direct x hack for displaying PNG's can act strangely. I'm not sure of what other things like that are either broken, or using new components instead of the apropriate ones per browser, but I'm sure there are quite a few.
Has anyone else encountered this?
The only downpoint to this, is that there is no way to keep it self contained in a single stylesheet like we could before. We now have to split the IE hacks into their own stylesheets, potentially causing a great deal of extra IE specific files. Or alternately muddy our html further w/ inline IE specific hacks.
Not a huge deal, but certainly annoying. On the plus side, if you split them all to ie specific stylesheets, it will be easy to find and axe them should Microsoft ever learn how to write a web browser.
The big difference is that people actually WANT the music that Radiohead is producing. Not that I am implying the other music is bad, just that it isn't even heard of, so people may not even know they should want it.
This is not a big deal because it is a unique idea. This is a big deal because a very big name in music is telling the RIAA to go to hell.
This is a joke, right? He was ON THE GROUND restrained by several officers. They had complete control over the situation, and when they tazed him he was in no position to harm anyone.
Was the kid being an ass? Yeah. Could they have booked him on resisting arrest? Probably (although I don't feel he was a risk to anyone, and wouldn't agree with it if they did). Did they use excessive force : absolutely. Every officer involved deserves some form of disciplinary action.
A fact that is completely irrelevant to the average user. It is up to the distribution to care about any licensing necessary for basic functionality. Does it suck that it's a restricted format? Yes. Does that mean that shifting the burden of that on to the user is acceptable? No.
So how is the video's native format more portable than Flash? Flash has a higher and more consistent install base than any video codec I know of, not to mention giving a consistent user experience across all of them - which an OS dependent embedded player wouldn't do.
Youtube made it work without flash for the iphone to overcome an iphone limitation - not because it was the more portable implementation.
I agreed with you up until the comment on the toliet paper - it should always hang over, never under. Under is just obnoxious.
Deprecating the center tag was absolutely and in every way the proper choice. There are better ways of centering your content via CSS, that don't impose your layout intrusively upon your content.
I swear that happens every damn time. Serves me right, though...
No, we bastardized the language fair and square. You can't have it back.
Clarification - I'm not against the term fanboy. I'm against the mispelling of an already stupid word.
This is highly offtopic, and I apologize in advance, but can we all make an agreement here and now?
I want everyone to agree to never again say : fanboi, micro$oft, m$, i(anything), crApple, etc?
It's not funny, and it makes you look like a moron. Not to mention diluting any point you were going for...
Yeah! How dare you criticize a company for starting to sell a product before it's own team is prepared for it! They certainly can't be blamed for failing to train their own staff!
Dell is becoming the Walmart of computer vendors. Sure, you can get something cheap, but god help you if you actually want any service, support, or any form of professionalism.
Well, he posted on slashdot, so I don't think he could be. I mean, mythological constructs can't type.
As an aside, I've always though it would make an interesting movie plot where the hero finds out that the bible is just revisionist history, and that the "devil" was actually the protagonist who just happened to lose and so didn't get to dictate history.
Obviously we disagree with how things were handled. Honestly, I think in this particular situation, Apple did well. I just don't necessarily think that all big corporations are evil by default. Maybe I just haven't been as abused by them.
I hope that if he does learn any lesson from this, instead it is this : Don't publicize a flaw unless you can prove it, which to date he has still failed to do.
Oh, so you missed my point. Fair enough. What I was adding to the conversation was that the "reasonable culprit" side of this argument was and is nothing more than paranoid "the man keeping us down" delusion. I'm not saying that it isn't a possibility, just that jumping to it with no further information is ridiculous.
Oh, and I wouldn't call him a "guy trying to keep his pride", I'd call him a security researcher trying to exploit the name of a corporation that is currently popular to inflate his own value.
>Many major vendors have a known history for screwing over vulnerability researchers such as Cisco, Apple, Microsoft and others. I just have a
>hard time believing this is any different.
So almost a year later he comes forward, still doesn't demo what was promised the first time (and I don't even want to hear you whine about, well that's the easy part - because if it really was, he would have shown that), and you still want to think it was just the big bad corporations holding him down...
I guess I'm just not good enough with the suspension of disbelief thing. I suppose it's not worth mentioning that maybe he's just trying to save face by exploiting what Apple has now published? Because honestly, even THAT is more reasonable than what he has claimed up until now. I guess we can thank him for proving the fix really work...
And that's what I get for commenting on the spirit of the word without doing the homework and looking it up to ensure I wouldn't be soundly bitchslapped.
Well played, good sir, well played...
Ok, wasn't aware of that, and thanks for the link. Even in that case, however, Microsoft wasn't entirely in the wrong. They weren't nice about it, certainly, but they definitely have the claim to how the Windows trademark was used, and had a valid case. In both cases, the old product in question was discontinued or the brand was no longer being used. In the iPhones case, it was also a very different product.
I know I'm going to get flack for calling it a very different device, but really look at the feature sets for both of them. They may both be phones, but that is a very broad category of products. We could probably argue and nitpick over terminology on that argument all day, however.
While I agree with most of your post, I have to nitpick on one point :
"The point of copyright is that the creators of intellectual property should be the ones who decide how their work is distributed."
This statement actually hurt me to read. The point of copyright is not to control the distribution of media, the point of copyright is to compensate the producer for their work - thus giving a monetary reason for them to continue producing something we as a society find beneficial. The arts aren't required for human life like food and water is, however, as a society we have created things like copyright to help promote something that we find valuable.
This debate should not be about if copying for free is right or wrong, it should be about compensating the artist for their hard work. Piracy doesn't do that, but honestly the majority of labels don't much either... it's obviously time we rethought our strategy altogether.
Really? What was stolen? The product..?
No, the actual product seems original.
Oh, you mean the name... I see. But wait, Microsoft never "stole" a name like that, to my knowledge. They have done a lot of other shady things, but never a name. So your statement doesn't make much sense, and that is even IF we decide to go along with you on Apple "stealing" this trademark. Not that I am going along with that, however, as Cisco wasn't even using the trademark for a current product, let alone one in the same market space.
I don't know why I let the trolls get to me, I really don't... I know I should just set my threshold higher, but it really is like watching a trainwreck and I can't seem to look away.
You do of course realize that Jobs has been against DRM from the beginning... right? He has openly stated it all along, this was just a formal request to the recording companies.
How about this - stop reading that letter as if it were addressed to you. Seriousy. Because it wasn't, it was addressed to the European countries that are seeking to take legal action against Apple for selling DRM laden music. The only reason Apple is embroiled in this, is that they are the biggest distributor currently. They are being punished for being successful. The Zune and Sony's players operate under the same type of DRM restriction with things bought from their stores but their market share in the portable music player industry is laughable, so they get out clean. Apple is being used to set a precedent. The letter was issued openly just to get public attention, and that was ballsy to put it mildly.
As for Apple's clout with the RIAA, it's not quite so potent as you'd think. They can tell them that they won't change the terms of their contract (the 99 cents debacle), but negotiating this is a much bigger deal. The pricing issue was the RIAA trying to negotiate things in their favor, and the DRM thing is Apple trying to negotiate it in theirs. They've managed a standoff in the middle ground for now, but don't go thinking that either one has any huge upper hand.
>Then you have the lip service to non-DRM music while their own product locks you into their own service.
I'm gathering from this quote that you didn't bother reading the statement, so here's a summary :
They aren't saying "DRM is bad" and still using it. They are saying "DRM is bad, but we are under forced contractual obligations to use it - please convince the record companies of this so that we can drop it as well." At least understand the argument before making a comment on it. Apple CAN'T drop DRM without losing the majority of the content from iTunes. If you want to go after someone for this, the RIAA and company are still the bad guys (and appear to really enjoy the role).
The only good argument that has come out about this, is why music that isn't from the big 4 labels are DRM'd, and I think everyone is interested in clarification about that.
As for the commercials, I find them funny, but humor is completely subjective.
While I do find how InputManagers work somewhat troublesome, I have yet to hear of anything actually exploited by this. Because of my concerns I've taken a few precautions (most notably, folder actions to tell me if anything has tried to write to the dir. admittedly, malware could remove those - but I keep an eye on that as a part of normal system maintenance.)
What I wonder, is if it is such a glaring hole, why have I yet to see an exploit target it? Or are there any active in the wild that I just don't know about? If so, please enlighten me...
Beyond that, I personally have found Apple's response to bugs and vulnerabilities to be perfectly reasonable and timely. Faster is always better, but I suppose I would say that they seem "fast enough" with the issues that have been presented thus far.
(My guess is that before it can hook itself in like that, the malware has to find some way to get to my system and execute - which means in order to use this as an attack vector, another exploit would also be required.)
No, because if you want to replace something with another solution - it at least has to solve all the problems the current solution does. Bonus points if it solves more.