You mean the way Android does it? By listing the permissions the application has asked for when you install it.
It wouldn't be the first thing they slavishly copied from Android (*cough*notification menu*cough*)
First, I don't think it's anyway relevant who did it before. And if someone did it and it worked well, than I sure do hope so they will copy it. I'm really getting tired to read comments like these parallel to comments against intellectual property, patent trolling, etc.
Companies will object to their proprietary code and secrets being examined, users will scream until they get their fart apps.
You don't have to have access to the code to reverse engineer a program. In fact, if you have access to the source code, I wouldn't call it reverse engineering at all. Reverse engineering what a program does, in the context of network communications, is fairly easy, especially if you can run the app in a sandbox inspecting all its actions. Where you get into problems is if the data is encrypted - you see that the app is sending data, but you can't easily verify what the data is. Of course, if a ping pong game sends encrypted data to some random server in Russia, it would get quite fast on my suspicious app list.
Good luck with that.
I don't think asking their permission is part of the plan.
...I did after jailbreaking my iphone was to install a firewall. The experience was quite interesting, allowing me to see exactly which apps tried to contact remote sites and which sites they attempted to contact. And, to my knowledge, the only external sites contacted by unofficial apps I've seen were related to ad content.
Access to private data on outside of the apps (calendar, contacts, etc.) should be controllable on an per app basis, just like with location service. And each app accessing this data should be carefully reverse engineered and analyzed to ensure it is safe.
Don't expect the public attention to drop so soon in Germany. People there are very careful about protection of private data and information. They have a somewhat bad historical background about state lurking into private lives and filtering/accumulating information... and they are not about to forget it. Anything that goes into that direction gets strong opposition - and the stage generally weights in favor of the private life protection.
Now, in Germany, is happening exactly what the copyright lobby feared : people are looking into it. They is a reason why they tried to push it under the table and they failed. Now there is a good chance ACTA never goes through in Germany. And if it doesn't pass in Germany, it loses a lot of interest within the EU.
That would be probably the most effective way to finance the space program nowadays. That combined with the next TV-reallity-soap à la "Americas next hot space chick".
Combining a mission to mars with a two year Big Brother show could improve financing considerably. Just wait until the first "actor" gets kicked out. Oh the drama.
And I should proofread before posting... among all the small insignificant errors, one significant stood out. Of course, I meant "Because how widely scanners are now established,[...]".
That only works because other nations willingly accept this. I'd like to see the day where the US security moguls state that as of now, no flight from Australia can land in the US due to security concerns like they did with the flights out of Pakistan (I didn't know that btw. Interesting).
You can do something like that with a country where you have little to no economic dealings. Try that with a country in the EU, Eastern Asia or Australia and you'll be surprised by the reactions both locally and abroad. If at some point a country that has a major economic footprint in the US decide that it's enough already, I fear there is little the US authorities can do other than 1) try to pressure said other country through diplomatic channels and 2) accept it.
Of course, for some countries - or rather some countries' leadership - such measure might fit their own agenda. You can't expect them to take any provocative action against security measures imposed by the US. Also, many measures introduced by the US might be accepted officially by other international organizations as basic security measures for passengers. In that case, we are not talking anymore about a measure unilaterally imposed by the US, but rather a measures ratified by an international committee. It makes it more difficult to go against such measure. Because how widely scanners are not established, I believe they are at least partly mandated by international organizations (but i don't know for certain, it's only an assumption on my part - maybe someone knows here?)
I'm an engineer working in the field of aerospace instrumentation. I'm passionate about my job. For me, it's like playing a game and I can barely wait for the weekend to end to go back to work. In my team here, we're having a lot of fun and everyday gives us new challenges. Solving these challenges is quite exhilarating, probably just as it was for this engineer fight through the challenge of solving CFITs.
But, in the end, we're still all in it for the money. We were just lucky enough to find a career and a job that we really happened to enjoy.
I'm totally biased when I say this, but engineers are one of the profession that's grossly underpaid and under-regarded. Some investment make millions just by moving some virtual values - usually worthless - left and right on a computer screens, while engineers responsible for the success of projects worth in the multi-billion "real dollars" range, or indirectly responsible for countless lives, struggle to get decent salaries and usually don't even come close to 6 digit figures. What's even worse is that engineers carry a true responsibility for the success of their project. A personal responsibility. Bankers, when they fail because of their own greed, carry little responsibility as far as I know. Worse that could happen, is that they lose their job when the company goes down. That's nothing compared to what engineers have to face personally when they fail like that.
Actually, you just cleverly illustrated part of my point, that is you can't translate - or interpret - something without its context. You also clearly illustrate how subtle language is, just as I explained it before.
Never did I imply words in French do not hold different significations or that they all hold clear definitions. I simply said that, in general, French is a language that's more precise than English. That the interpretation of the language is different than in English. It's simple, we think differently, we build our ideas differently and express them differently.
-- Merci, AC, d'avoir si bien illustré mon point qui avait peut-être, lui aussi, été perdu dans la traduction...
What you are saying, is that the quality and stability of the specific apps available only to jailbroken devices only is lower. Not that the overall system less stable is.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone... the cydia-available apps don't go through any reviewing process (the one from the app store may be flawed, but it nonetheless a reviewing process - i'm sure a lot of buggy junk gets never approved for distribution through the app store). Furthermore, these apps often try to change OS features not meant to be changed or in ways not foreseen. They often bypass the standard APIs.
Of course they will be more buggy and less stable.
A just and fair comparison would be to compare the stability of the same apps from the app store or native iOS app before and after jailbreaking and customization.
You are creating a context where the use of the word "blast" is clearly not associated with the use of explosives.
The word "blast", like many other words in English, has a very variable meaning. French is a language where the use of word is much more precise. The whole way how you interpret words an sentences is different than in English and many non-francophones tend to forget that.
In the end, I believe there is not enough nformation to draw any conclusion, which ever way. But, on the contrary to the word "blast", the verb "exploser" has very clear and limited usages in French. These are even more limited in the French vocabulary generally in use in Quebec. And if you limit yourself to the colloquial French in Quebec, you'll notice that most usages of this verb are indeed aggressive, although not always referring to the usage of explosives.
But looking back at the context, he might have learned his French in France, and posses and use a totally different vocabulary set. This would make the interpretation even more difficult for a non-francophone analyst or translator expecting a specific context associated to a word, without even knowing the meaning could be different.
Languages are subtle. This is what all this is about.
I would be very interest to see the impact of jailbreaking in this analysis. Do apps crash more often on jailbroken devices? How does it compare between Android and iOS?
One of the main argument for closed down system, putting aside the money factor which no one gives as an official reason, is stability. I do not believe stability is considerably affected by jailbreaking or by the subsequent modification one could do to the OS, but it would be nice to have statistics and some analysis on this.
I don't know about that. From a signal encoding and processing point of view, I've always seen CDMA mobile protocols superior over GSM protocols. The only major drawback I've seen to CDMA, and it's not a little one, is its lack of resilience when large group of people get together (events, shows, stadiums, etc.). The MTSO becomes quickly overloaded and instead of quality degradation, you start to have full service loss.
I'm sure there are many reason while in the end GSM is better and more widely implemented. Just like VHS was better than Beta. Perhaps GSM is cheaper, but that's just speculation on my part. What this news post clearly shows, is that there are license issues with CDMA, and that alone reminds me of the Beta vs. VHS debate.
Maybe its common in the french language in France. In Quebec, where most french speaking Canadians are, I don't think I've ever heard the word "exploser" in that context. If I did, it was only on very rare occasions.
If I had been the analyst on the case, I would have raised a red flag too. What's missing is the whole context. You can't raise flags on single words without their context. Without the full text message, it's hard to get an opinion on the matter.
I was merely pointing out the obvious fact that the whole idea of copying a design is worthless and only based on assumptions. Only a court of justice can decide in cases like that because society decided they know better. The cases where obvious copies were made are only a handful.
In the end, all these design/patent copying/infringement case are a joke. None should ever be heard by a judge. You, like many others, seem to think from my post I believe otherwise or worse, that I somehow endorse case where Apple claims patent infringement and requests product bans. I don't care any more for these cases than for any other of this nature. Actually, I have no idea what you think to justify a tone like that. But, its the interweb, so I'll just STFU I guess and stop posting things, you know, facts.
Don't read to much between the lines - you'll find there only what you want to find.
No. Neither should be shut down or affected in any way.
Design - this is what we are talking about here, technical design - is a lot like art. To a very large extent, it shouldn't be allow to patent or claim copyright on design lines, just like you can't (or shouldn't be able to) for art. Technical design, just like art, follows trends and evolve together, yet independently.
All these patent infringement claims are getting ridiculous, regardless from who they come. It feels the same way as if the first car company that made a rounded car in 90s tried to block other car makers sales because they also introduced cars with rounded forms. Or as if one said all painters from the impressionist period are ripoff and worthless because they copied "the first" impressionist.
This case is a farce. The claim is related to a patent on multiple pager (yes, those things that display a phone number) synchronization over wireless networks. Motorola claims that iCloud on cellphone network infringes this patent. It illustrates so well the fabulous world of patent infringement court cases.
You mean, it is widely assumed that Apple stole the design of the iPhone from LG.
To my knowledge, the claims have never been proven in a court of law or otherwise. Although the similarities between the devices are obvious, it is still just an assumption. For all we know, both Apple and LG could have gotten their inspiration from the same source.
I have no Idea how they hope to achieve that. The surface of the cornea is certainly not within the depth of field of the eye, regardless how close it focuses. Plus, they explicitly say that the idea is to allow the user to get enhanced visual information while focusing on targets far away. This is a fundamental problem with this concept. Somehow, you have to shape the field so that it creates an overlapping image on the retina. Among the problem I quickly note are:
- Knowing how exactly to shape the field, implying you need to know exactly where the eye is focusing and track it actively. - You need to compensate for eye movement... thus track those movement. - And, last but not least, you need to actually shape the field to match.
All this is technically possible, but not within a compact lens. A large part of these problems have been implemented within laser eye surgery systems... which are somewhat bulky.
They might as well try to input data directly into the optical nerve... seems almost more plausible.
Or you could put your data center in Quebec, almost exclusively producing electricity from water and with little problem with cooling 10 months out of 12. There's a reason while so many aluminum plants are present in that Canadian province. Bonus : link the the Chicago network hub is easier from there than from northern Sweden.
With data center like these, they can expect less than 0.03 $CAD per kWh.
Maybe I was too young in the 70's to see what was really going on, but looking back at the state of things as I started to get aware of such things - and very young I already was a "techno-freak" so to say - I believe the comparison is difficult.
On one side, you are correct, it seems like the same kind of craze. On the other hand, the so called social media craze (I'm including in that the full spectrum, from twitter, to myspace) seems quite more widespread than the cb on the 70's. I believe it is less than 10% of the people I know that do not use social media sites in any way or form. Less than 25% that are not on facebook (regardless how active they are - so are very little, other much). Twitter acceptation in my circle seems quite less widespread.
Anyway, with numbers like this, it forces me to take a step back a the cb comparison, however correct it might seem at first hand.
don't get me wrong. I do find it interesting. I follow these kind of things out of personal interest on a regular basis. That's precisely why I can't say that there is nothing of significant interest with this particular event.
It is interesting. But not newsworthy (at least, in my opinion), at least not this particular event.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the way Android does it? By listing the permissions the application has asked for when you install it.
It wouldn't be the first thing they slavishly copied from Android (*cough*notification menu*cough*)
First, I don't think it's anyway relevant who did it before. And if someone did it and it worked well, than I sure do hope so they will copy it.
I'm really getting tired to read comments like these parallel to comments against intellectual property, patent trolling, etc.
Companies will object to their proprietary code and secrets being examined, users will scream until they get their fart apps.
You don't have to have access to the code to reverse engineer a program. In fact, if you have access to the source code, I wouldn't call it reverse engineering at all. Reverse engineering what a program does, in the context of network communications, is fairly easy, especially if you can run the app in a sandbox inspecting all its actions. Where you get into problems is if the data is encrypted - you see that the app is sending data, but you can't easily verify what the data is. Of course, if a ping pong game sends encrypted data to some random server in Russia, it would get quite fast on my suspicious app list.
Good luck with that.
I don't think asking their permission is part of the plan.
...I did after jailbreaking my iphone was to install a firewall. The experience was quite interesting, allowing me to see exactly which apps tried to contact remote sites and which sites they attempted to contact. And, to my knowledge, the only external sites contacted by unofficial apps I've seen were related to ad content.
Access to private data on outside of the apps (calendar, contacts, etc.) should be controllable on an per app basis, just like with location service. And each app accessing this data should be carefully reverse engineered and analyzed to ensure it is safe.
Don't expect the public attention to drop so soon in Germany. People there are very careful about protection of private data and information. They have a somewhat bad historical background about state lurking into private lives and filtering/accumulating information... and they are not about to forget it. Anything that goes into that direction gets strong opposition - and the stage generally weights in favor of the private life protection.
Now, in Germany, is happening exactly what the copyright lobby feared : people are looking into it. They is a reason why they tried to push it under the table and they failed. Now there is a good chance ACTA never goes through in Germany. And if it doesn't pass in Germany, it loses a lot of interest within the EU.
That would be probably the most effective way to finance the space program nowadays. That combined with the next TV-reallity-soap à la "Americas next hot space chick".
Combining a mission to mars with a two year Big Brother show could improve financing considerably. Just wait until the first "actor" gets kicked out. Oh the drama.
And I should proofread before posting... among all the small insignificant errors, one significant stood out. Of course, I meant "Because how widely scanners are now established,[...]".
That only works because other nations willingly accept this. I'd like to see the day where the US security moguls state that as of now, no flight from Australia can land in the US due to security concerns like they did with the flights out of Pakistan (I didn't know that btw. Interesting).
You can do something like that with a country where you have little to no economic dealings. Try that with a country in the EU, Eastern Asia or Australia and you'll be surprised by the reactions both locally and abroad. If at some point a country that has a major economic footprint in the US decide that it's enough already, I fear there is little the US authorities can do other than 1) try to pressure said other country through diplomatic channels and 2) accept it.
Of course, for some countries - or rather some countries' leadership - such measure might fit their own agenda. You can't expect them to take any provocative action against security measures imposed by the US. Also, many measures introduced by the US might be accepted officially by other international organizations as basic security measures for passengers. In that case, we are not talking anymore about a measure unilaterally imposed by the US, but rather a measures ratified by an international committee. It makes it more difficult to go against such measure. Because how widely scanners are not established, I believe they are at least partly mandated by international organizations (but i don't know for certain, it's only an assumption on my part - maybe someone knows here?)
What problem does Australia have that this is solving?
It solve only one problem : the lack of contract to some firm that did a good lobbying job.
I'm an engineer working in the field of aerospace instrumentation. I'm passionate about my job. For me, it's like playing a game and I can barely wait for the weekend to end to go back to work. In my team here, we're having a lot of fun and everyday gives us new challenges. Solving these challenges is quite exhilarating, probably just as it was for this engineer fight through the challenge of solving CFITs.
But, in the end, we're still all in it for the money. We were just lucky enough to find a career and a job that we really happened to enjoy.
I'm totally biased when I say this, but engineers are one of the profession that's grossly underpaid and under-regarded. Some investment make millions just by moving some virtual values - usually worthless - left and right on a computer screens, while engineers responsible for the success of projects worth in the multi-billion "real dollars" range, or indirectly responsible for countless lives, struggle to get decent salaries and usually don't even come close to 6 digit figures. What's even worse is that engineers carry a true responsibility for the success of their project. A personal responsibility. Bankers, when they fail because of their own greed, carry little responsibility as far as I know. Worse that could happen, is that they lose their job when the company goes down. That's nothing compared to what engineers have to face personally when they fail like that.
Actually, you just cleverly illustrated part of my point, that is you can't translate - or interpret - something without its context. You also clearly illustrate how subtle language is, just as I explained it before.
Never did I imply words in French do not hold different significations or that they all hold clear definitions. I simply said that, in general, French is a language that's more precise than English. That the interpretation of the language is different than in English. It's simple, we think differently, we build our ideas differently and express them differently.
--
Merci, AC, d'avoir si bien illustré mon point qui avait peut-être, lui aussi, été perdu dans la traduction...
What you are saying, is that the quality and stability of the specific apps available only to jailbroken devices only is lower. Not that the overall system less stable is.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone... the cydia-available apps don't go through any reviewing process (the one from the app store may be flawed, but it nonetheless a reviewing process - i'm sure a lot of buggy junk gets never approved for distribution through the app store). Furthermore, these apps often try to change OS features not meant to be changed or in ways not foreseen. They often bypass the standard APIs.
Of course they will be more buggy and less stable.
A just and fair comparison would be to compare the stability of the same apps from the app store or native iOS app before and after jailbreaking and customization.
You are creating a context where the use of the word "blast" is clearly not associated with the use of explosives.
The word "blast", like many other words in English, has a very variable meaning. French is a language where the use of word is much more precise. The whole way how you interpret words an sentences is different than in English and many non-francophones tend to forget that.
In the end, I believe there is not enough nformation to draw any conclusion, which ever way. But, on the contrary to the word "blast", the verb "exploser" has very clear and limited usages in French. These are even more limited in the French vocabulary generally in use in Quebec. And if you limit yourself to the colloquial French in Quebec, you'll notice that most usages of this verb are indeed aggressive, although not always referring to the usage of explosives.
But looking back at the context, he might have learned his French in France, and posses and use a totally different vocabulary set. This would make the interpretation even more difficult for a non-francophone analyst or translator expecting a specific context associated to a word, without even knowing the meaning could be different.
Languages are subtle. This is what all this is about.
I would be very interest to see the impact of jailbreaking in this analysis. Do apps crash more often on jailbroken devices? How does it compare between Android and iOS?
One of the main argument for closed down system, putting aside the money factor which no one gives as an official reason, is stability. I do not believe stability is considerably affected by jailbreaking or by the subsequent modification one could do to the OS, but it would be nice to have statistics and some analysis on this.
I don't know about that. From a signal encoding and processing point of view, I've always seen CDMA mobile protocols superior over GSM protocols. The only major drawback I've seen to CDMA, and it's not a little one, is its lack of resilience when large group of people get together (events, shows, stadiums, etc.). The MTSO becomes quickly overloaded and instead of quality degradation, you start to have full service loss.
I'm sure there are many reason while in the end GSM is better and more widely implemented. Just like VHS was better than Beta. Perhaps GSM is cheaper, but that's just speculation on my part. What this news post clearly shows, is that there are license issues with CDMA, and that alone reminds me of the Beta vs. VHS debate.
Superiority is a very relative notion.
Maybe its common in the french language in France. In Quebec, where most french speaking Canadians are, I don't think I've ever heard the word "exploser" in that context. If I did, it was only on very rare occasions.
If I had been the analyst on the case, I would have raised a red flag too. What's missing is the whole context. You can't raise flags on single words without their context. Without the full text message, it's hard to get an opinion on the matter.
I was merely pointing out the obvious fact that the whole idea of copying a design is worthless and only based on assumptions. Only a court of justice can decide in cases like that because society decided they know better. The cases where obvious copies were made are only a handful.
In the end, all these design/patent copying/infringement case are a joke. None should ever be heard by a judge. You, like many others, seem to think from my post I believe otherwise or worse, that I somehow endorse case where Apple claims patent infringement and requests product bans. I don't care any more for these cases than for any other of this nature. Actually, I have no idea what you think to justify a tone like that. But, its the interweb, so I'll just STFU I guess and stop posting things, you know, facts.
Don't read to much between the lines - you'll find there only what you want to find.
Don't worry, I got your point. It wasn't that subtle ;)
No. Neither should be shut down or affected in any way.
Design - this is what we are talking about here, technical design - is a lot like art. To a very large extent, it shouldn't be allow to patent or claim copyright on design lines, just like you can't (or shouldn't be able to) for art. Technical design, just like art, follows trends and evolve together, yet independently.
All these patent infringement claims are getting ridiculous, regardless from who they come. It feels the same way as if the first car company that made a rounded car in 90s tried to block other car makers sales because they also introduced cars with rounded forms. Or as if one said all painters from the impressionist period are ripoff and worthless because they copied "the first" impressionist.
Or newton OS from the 90s...
This case is a farce. The claim is related to a patent on multiple pager (yes, those things that display a phone number) synchronization over wireless networks. Motorola claims that iCloud on cellphone network infringes this patent. It illustrates so well the fabulous world of patent infringement court cases.
You mean, it is widely assumed that Apple stole the design of the iPhone from LG.
To my knowledge, the claims have never been proven in a court of law or otherwise. Although the similarities between the devices are obvious, it is still just an assumption. For all we know, both Apple and LG could have gotten their inspiration from the same source.
The problem is not that they are trying to fly, rather that they are trying to break the sound barrier on their first flight.
They'll eventually reach the sound barrier, but we're not quite there yet.
I have no Idea how they hope to achieve that. The surface of the cornea is certainly not within the depth of field of the eye, regardless how close it focuses. Plus, they explicitly say that the idea is to allow the user to get enhanced visual information while focusing on targets far away. This is a fundamental problem with this concept.
Somehow, you have to shape the field so that it creates an overlapping image on the retina. Among the problem I quickly note are:
- Knowing how exactly to shape the field, implying you need to know exactly where the eye is focusing and track it actively.
- You need to compensate for eye movement... thus track those movement.
- And, last but not least, you need to actually shape the field to match.
All this is technically possible, but not within a compact lens. A large part of these problems have been implemented within laser eye surgery systems... which are somewhat bulky.
They might as well try to input data directly into the optical nerve... seems almost more plausible.
Or you could put your data center in Quebec, almost exclusively producing electricity from water and with little problem with cooling 10 months out of 12. There's a reason while so many aluminum plants are present in that Canadian province. Bonus : link the the Chicago network hub is easier from there than from northern Sweden.
With data center like these, they can expect less than 0.03 $CAD per kWh.
Maybe I was too young in the 70's to see what was really going on, but looking back at the state of things as I started to get aware of such things - and very young I already was a "techno-freak" so to say - I believe the comparison is difficult.
On one side, you are correct, it seems like the same kind of craze. On the other hand, the so called social media craze (I'm including in that the full spectrum, from twitter, to myspace) seems quite more widespread than the cb on the 70's. I believe it is less than 10% of the people I know that do not use social media sites in any way or form. Less than 25% that are not on facebook (regardless how active they are - so are very little, other much). Twitter acceptation in my circle seems quite less widespread.
Anyway, with numbers like this, it forces me to take a step back a the cb comparison, however correct it might seem at first hand.
don't get me wrong. I do find it interesting. I follow these kind of things out of personal interest on a regular basis. That's precisely why I can't say that there is nothing of significant interest with this particular event.
It is interesting. But not newsworthy (at least, in my opinion), at least not this particular event.