You have heard of Microsoft, the "go to" competition in Operating systems... how is their cash cow producing? 2.6 % of the market?
Huh? Microsoft has 2 cash cows. MS Windows on the desktop, and MS Office. It has far more than 2.6% of both of them. More like 85% of desktop OS and similar for Office.
You seem to be referring to Windows Phone and/or Windows Mobile. These never had cash cow status.
So how has MS done out of their cash cows? Fucking brilliantly. The've served the company well for 25 years or so, and whilst they have started to lose ground, they are still where most of MS's money comes from.
Except that Apple was early to the HTML5 table, not a laggard. They had a real choice, the choice that the majority of other's were using: Flash. Apple killed Flash in favour of HTML5.
Apple knows they can skimp on features like that to release a product, while giving their engineers time to actually develop things like a camera, and A2DP bluetooth *years* down the road.
The very first iPhone shipped with a camera, and A2DP Bluetooth was in the 2nd generation (iPhone 3G).
But you have to give credit to the company who put out the original iPhone without a camera, knowing full well that every tech reviewer was going to ding them for it. Such discipline and customer insight should be admired in a world where bloat is the norm.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, the original iPhone did have a camera.
I have more than a few lottery winners to go on, I have my own personal experience of what I did when I made a lot of money in the.com boom. Yes, it's still anecdote, but I thought the easy life of getting up when I wanted, and living 5 mins from the beach would make me happy. It didn't.
As I said you THINK it will make you happier. You don't know. It might work out differently for you. But you don't know.
Happiness has been a hot topic of academic study in recent years. And everything I've read says I'm not unusual. That what you think will make uyou happy is quite different from what actually does.
In truth the things that make you happy are having a family, putting your efforts to helping others, not yourself. And taking time to appreciate what you do have.
I didn't ask anyone to justify themselves. Read my post. See? It says nothing of the sort.
So what are you saying? That one can't point out the thing that motivates most people to jailbreak? That it's unsayable? So much for liberty, you are implying censorship.
I don't think there's anything wrong with rewarding tim burners-lee for example. We all owe him a lot. He literally changed all of our lives for the better.
And for those that don't need the money, there's a fair chance that they will use the money to invest in promising next generation technology, anyway.
Leaving aside your confusion between England and the uk, the prize was created by the uk government, but is judged by an international panel, and is financed by a bunch of multinational corporations. So there is no paradox.
Your source is a self help book that's selling the idea that you can amass a million dollars by retirement by living like a miser, and investing your savings. It's not actually analysing real rich people.
For sure it gives little "factoids", often in the form of claimed stats. As do most self help books. As I say I rejected the book, so I don't have it here to quote from. But most self help book stats aren't worth the paper they are written on.
I'm sure there's an appendix, so is there some particular stat that you want to point out the primary source for? Maybe we can track down whether it's real or not.
"But, you say, there's a TOS that authorizes access." "Ah, so at least you admit that it's OK for me to jiggle the lock."
No, I haven't said either of those things, nor do they represent anything I have said. It's symptomatic of the fact that you have no case, that you're arguing with things I haven't said, rather than things I have.
Again, the law is clear in the result of the case. There's nothing absurd about the result and I've told you why. I no longer care that you choose to believe the contrary.
I'd argue that a HTML delivering web-server, and a JSON or XML or whatever based webservice is a different door. Regardless of the fact that the same web-server servicing HTTP requests might enable both of them. Same building, two different doors.
I also want to add that all of those activities sound exactly like one would do if he wanted to reverse engineer a protocol for compatibility reasons.
Absolutely. And I've been working on exactly that for the past week. However if I found a way to retrieve other people's personal details with the API I'm looking at, I'd need to stop right there, and only do it for my own details.
It's intent that's the issue, not technology.
I need to be very clear where the line is, because I don't want to end up in the slammer like this dude. However, since I'm not a troll, and it's not generally my objective to create problems for other people everywhere I go, it's unlikely.
"And he's right. Though it isn't just inheritance, it's funding an ivy league education, and investing in the kids ideas, or giving him a job as an exec in the family firm."
Why do you say he's right and then proceed to state a completely different thesis
Because it wasn't a different thesis. He was clearly using the informal use of the word "inherited" meaning intergenerational wealth transfer. You can tell that because he later mentions "keeping the relatives happy", which implies that they aren't dead at that point, and thus the money isn't strictly inheritance.
I merely made clear that the scope is wider than simple inheritance.
Additionally there's nothing surprising that hardworking parents raise hardworking children and that parents with poor decision making skills raise children with poor decision making skills.
The red herring here is "hardworking". There is no strong correlation between hardworking and rich. Subsistence farming for example is far harder work than arranging the occasional deal on a golf course.
Similar for decision making skills. A poor person can be great at making decisions, it's not necessarily going to make him rich. And vice versa.
Reading between the lines, you seem to think that people are rich because they deserve it. And that simply isn't necessarily true. To repeat an example someone else used earlier, Paris Hilton is neither hard-working, nor a good decision maker. But she is very rich. She can not work hard and make poor decisions for the rest of her life, and she'll till be rich. She's had plenty of inter-generational wealth transfer, which most people would refer to as inherited wealth, though her parents aren't dead yet, so it's not inherited by the strict definition.
To begin with you apparently completely missed the point of my post. I was responding to the guy who claimed that the vast majority of rich people got it by inheritance.
And he's right. Though it isn't just inheritance, it's funding an ivy league education, and investing in the kids ideas, or giving him a job as an exec in the family firm.
The number one predictor of whether a child will become rich is whether his parents are rich.
However I'm curious if you have you actually read the book or are you just quoting Wikipedia's criticisms?
I flicked through it years ago in the self-help section of a book-store. I didn't buy it. It seemed like a recipe for living a poor life for the sake of a big bank balance when you are old. Is it still published?
So users of the User Agent Switcher [mozilla.org] are hackers now?
I preempted your obviousness with the phrase "(not the same as pretending to be a generic browser)" in my post. Did you not read it?
Again, the internet operates on an assumption of default allow.
Again, you made that up on the spot. And it has NOTHING to do with law.
The only way I know whether I am allowed to access a resource is to try and see if it is available.
And the only way you can know whether you are allowed access to a building is to try all the doors, and assume it's public property if you find one that isn't locked?
I repeat, what you think is not illegal clearly is, because this guy just got convicted for it. The evidence is on my side.
you've given 0 evidence that the majority of the top 1% are there by inheritance
We're not in a court of law. My opinions are made up of my experiences and of things that I have read over many years.
though saying capitalism is a bit odd. That would imply anyone who started a business could be excluded from having "worked" for their money.
Capitalism is making money from capital. It's not working for money. Entrepreneurs who work 12 hours a day to make their business work are workers, not capitalists. They may become capitalists later in life, if and when they do more making money from capital than making money from working.
But the top 1% in income
At no point have I said income. Rich people are rich because of what they own, and their incomes are whatever their tax accountants can get away with.
That only requires about 370k in adjusted gross income.... A doctor can easily top this
As I already said,a doctor is a skilled worker, not a capitalist.
If someone is getting 370k (according to his tax accountant) from capital, what is he worth? Say he makes 5% a year (unlikely, as a lot of his worth, like his house, won't be bringing in an income), he's worth 7.5 million. Yes, that's rich.
you realize your video says absolutely nothing about income, and only about where wealth is
My point was to show you that you aren't even thinking about the rich when you consider people who's money came by personally earning it through work. The rich are so much more wealthy than that.
You seem to be drawing the line at wealthy somewhere in the 9 figure range, an astronomical figure that puts your interest in simple investments in the top tenth, and almost top hundredth of a percent.
If I were to put a figure on it, it'd be the top 1%. But it's not about the quantile, it's about the distance from the rest of the people, and the way it comes from inheritance and capitalism, rather than work.
What's the difference between spoofing, and requesting an URL? What made weev's HTTP GET a "spoof" and what makes mine legit? Lay it out for me in technical terms. Is it because he constructed the URL manually? Guess what, I constructed the URL to your user page manually too. What's the real difference?
We don't have the actual headers of the request he used. But we know he didn't just construct a URL. We know that he constructed a request pretending to be (spoofing) a request from an iPad. So he set up the User Agent to claim to be from a particular iPad app (not the same as pretending to be a generic browser). And he set up a request for a particular iPad identity. Which would typically be in the body of a request, not the URL. He may have spoofed other elements, but as I say we don't have the actual request in question.
So yes, there IS a difference technically. But more important there's a difference legally. You might have constructed that URL manually, I don't know. But you did it in the knowledge that you could have navigated there using the intended links. That that information was intended for public consumption. Weev did his exploit knowing that he was accessing stuff that was not meant to be public.
Look, there is no technical difference between you driving off in your car and a criminal stealing your keys and driving off in your car. The difference is in authorisation and in intent.
Just because something isn't protected by locks or other security measures doesn't mean it's OK for you to steal it. And even though the technical process of taking something that belongs to you is the same as a criminal stealing something, it doesn't mean that they are both legal.
You don't seem to understand how Pwn2Own works. People don't arrive at the contest, pick an OS/Browser and then start looking for an exploit.
They begin weeks in advance looking for exploits. IF they find one, then they go to the contest and select the appropriate platform and demonstrate the exploit. Their demonstration may fail, because the versions of the software on the contest platform might be different from what they were practicing with.
That no one "attempted to hack" OSX and Safari at the competition this year is because in the past few weeks of trying, no one has found an exploit for it. It's certainly not the case that they could have won the prize, but couldn't be bothered.
Slashdot Mirror
You have heard of Microsoft, the "go to" competition in Operating systems... how is their cash cow producing? 2.6 % of the market?
Huh? Microsoft has 2 cash cows. MS Windows on the desktop, and MS Office. It has far more than 2.6% of both of them. More like 85% of desktop OS and similar for Office.
You seem to be referring to Windows Phone and/or Windows Mobile. These never had cash cow status.
So how has MS done out of their cash cows? Fucking brilliantly. The've served the company well for 25 years or so, and whilst they have started to lose ground, they are still where most of MS's money comes from.
Except that Apple was early to the HTML5 table, not a laggard. They had a real choice, the choice that the majority of other's were using: Flash. Apple killed Flash in favour of HTML5.
Apple knows they can skimp on features like that to release a product, while giving their engineers time to actually develop things like a camera, and A2DP bluetooth *years* down the road.
The very first iPhone shipped with a camera, and A2DP Bluetooth was in the 2nd generation (iPhone 3G).
But you have to give credit to the company who put out the original iPhone without a camera, knowing full well that every tech reviewer was going to ding them for it. Such discipline and customer insight should be admired in a world where bloat is the norm.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, the original iPhone did have a camera.
I have more than a few lottery winners to go on, I have my own personal experience of what I did when I made a lot of money in the .com boom. Yes, it's still anecdote, but I thought the easy life of getting up when I wanted, and living 5 mins from the beach would make me happy. It didn't.
As I said you THINK it will make you happier. You don't know. It might work out differently for you. But you don't know.
Happiness has been a hot topic of academic study in recent years. And everything I've read says I'm not unusual. That what you think will make uyou happy is quite different from what actually does.
In truth the things that make you happy are having a family, putting your efforts to helping others, not yourself. And taking time to appreciate what you do have.
I didn't ask anyone to justify themselves. Read my post. See? It says nothing of the sort.
So what are you saying? That one can't point out the thing that motivates most people to jailbreak? That it's unsayable? So much for liberty, you are implying censorship.
And is the Nobel prize similarly a stunt?
I don't think there's anything wrong with rewarding tim burners-lee for example. We all owe him a lot. He literally changed all of our lives for the better.
And for those that don't need the money, there's a fair chance that they will use the money to invest in promising next generation technology, anyway.
Leaving aside your confusion between England and the uk, the prize was created by the uk government, but is judged by an international panel, and is financed by a bunch of multinational corporations. So there is no paradox.
"Took the initiative on creating" != "invented".
Driving can be fun. When you get away from it all, and there's an open road, through nice scenery, with lots of nice swooping corners.
However, most of the time, for most people, it's being stuck in heavy traffic, on a dull road. The same road, every day. And few people find that fun.
Actually it's closer to a taxi. Which most people have cause to use from time to time. They're particularly useful in cities.
I think it mostly includes kids who want to pirate stuff.
The main reason to jailbreak an iPhone is to pirate apps.
Your source is a self help book that's selling the idea that you can amass a million dollars by retirement by living like a miser, and investing your savings. It's not actually analysing real rich people.
For sure it gives little "factoids", often in the form of claimed stats. As do most self help books. As I say I rejected the book, so I don't have it here to quote from. But most self help book stats aren't worth the paper they are written on.
I'm sure there's an appendix, so is there some particular stat that you want to point out the primary source for? Maybe we can track down whether it's real or not.
"But, you say, there's a TOS that authorizes access."
"Ah, so at least you admit that it's OK for me to jiggle the lock."
No, I haven't said either of those things, nor do they represent anything I have said. It's symptomatic of the fact that you have no case, that you're arguing with things I haven't said, rather than things I have.
Again, the law is clear in the result of the case. There's nothing absurd about the result and I've told you why. I no longer care that you choose to believe the contrary.
I'd argue that a HTML delivering web-server, and a JSON or XML or whatever based webservice is a different door. Regardless of the fact that the same web-server servicing HTTP requests might enable both of them. Same building, two different doors.
I also want to add that all of those activities sound exactly like one would do if he wanted to reverse engineer a protocol for compatibility reasons.
Absolutely. And I've been working on exactly that for the past week. However if I found a way to retrieve other people's personal details with the API I'm looking at, I'd need to stop right there, and only do it for my own details.
It's intent that's the issue, not technology.
I need to be very clear where the line is, because I don't want to end up in the slammer like this dude. However, since I'm not a troll, and it's not generally my objective to create problems for other people everywhere I go, it's unlikely.
"And he's right. Though it isn't just inheritance, it's funding an ivy league education, and investing in the kids ideas, or giving him a job as an exec in the family firm."
Why do you say he's right and then proceed to state a completely different thesis
Because it wasn't a different thesis. He was clearly using the informal use of the word "inherited" meaning intergenerational wealth transfer. You can tell that because he later mentions "keeping the relatives happy", which implies that they aren't dead at that point, and thus the money isn't strictly inheritance.
I merely made clear that the scope is wider than simple inheritance.
Additionally there's nothing surprising that hardworking parents raise hardworking children and that parents with poor decision making skills raise children with poor decision making skills.
The red herring here is "hardworking". There is no strong correlation between hardworking and rich. Subsistence farming for example is far harder work than arranging the occasional deal on a golf course.
Similar for decision making skills. A poor person can be great at making decisions, it's not necessarily going to make him rich. And vice versa.
Reading between the lines, you seem to think that people are rich because they deserve it. And that simply isn't necessarily true. To repeat an example someone else used earlier, Paris Hilton is neither hard-working, nor a good decision maker. But she is very rich. She can not work hard and make poor decisions for the rest of her life, and she'll till be rich. She's had plenty of inter-generational wealth transfer, which most people would refer to as inherited wealth, though her parents aren't dead yet, so it's not inherited by the strict definition.
To begin with you apparently completely missed the point of my post. I was responding to the guy who claimed that the vast majority of rich people got it by inheritance.
And he's right. Though it isn't just inheritance, it's funding an ivy league education, and investing in the kids ideas, or giving him a job as an exec in the family firm.
The number one predictor of whether a child will become rich is whether his parents are rich.
However I'm curious if you have you actually read the book or are you just quoting Wikipedia's criticisms?
I flicked through it years ago in the self-help section of a book-store. I didn't buy it. It seemed like a recipe for living a poor life for the sake of a big bank balance when you are old. Is it still published?
It's not about how rich you are but about how poor the other guys are!
I may be eating road kill, but that guy over there is eating out of bins.
So users of the User Agent Switcher [mozilla.org] are hackers now?
I preempted your obviousness with the phrase "(not the same as pretending to be a generic browser)" in my post. Did you not read it?
Again, the internet operates on an assumption of default allow.
Again, you made that up on the spot. And it has NOTHING to do with law.
The only way I know whether I am allowed to access a resource is to try and see if it is available.
And the only way you can know whether you are allowed access to a building is to try all the doors, and assume it's public property if you find one that isn't locked?
I repeat, what you think is not illegal clearly is, because this guy just got convicted for it. The evidence is on my side.
you've given 0 evidence that the majority of the top 1% are there by inheritance
We're not in a court of law. My opinions are made up of my experiences and of things that I have read over many years.
though saying capitalism is a bit odd. That would imply anyone who started a business could be excluded from having "worked" for their money.
Capitalism is making money from capital. It's not working for money. Entrepreneurs who work 12 hours a day to make their business work are workers, not capitalists. They may become capitalists later in life, if and when they do more making money from capital than making money from working.
But the top 1% in income
At no point have I said income. Rich people are rich because of what they own, and their incomes are whatever their tax accountants can get away with.
That only requires about 370k in adjusted gross income.... A doctor can easily top this
As I already said,a doctor is a skilled worker, not a capitalist.
If someone is getting 370k (according to his tax accountant) from capital, what is he worth? Say he makes 5% a year (unlikely, as a lot of his worth, like his house, won't be bringing in an income), he's worth 7.5 million. Yes, that's rich.
you realize your video says absolutely nothing about income, and only about where wealth is
My point was to show you that you aren't even thinking about the rich when you consider people who's money came by personally earning it through work. The rich are so much more wealthy than that.
You seem to be drawing the line at wealthy somewhere in the 9 figure range, an astronomical figure that puts your interest in simple investments in the top tenth, and almost top hundredth of a percent.
If I were to put a figure on it, it'd be the top 1%. But it's not about the quantile, it's about the distance from the rest of the people, and the way it comes from inheritance and capitalism, rather than work.
What's the difference between spoofing, and requesting an URL? What made weev's HTTP GET a "spoof" and what makes mine legit? Lay it out for me in technical terms. Is it because he constructed the URL manually? Guess what, I constructed the URL to your user page manually too. What's the real difference?
We don't have the actual headers of the request he used. But we know he didn't just construct a URL. We know that he constructed a request pretending to be (spoofing) a request from an iPad. So he set up the User Agent to claim to be from a particular iPad app (not the same as pretending to be a generic browser). And he set up a request for a particular iPad identity. Which would typically be in the body of a request, not the URL. He may have spoofed other elements, but as I say we don't have the actual request in question.
So yes, there IS a difference technically. But more important there's a difference legally. You might have constructed that URL manually, I don't know. But you did it in the knowledge that you could have navigated there using the intended links. That that information was intended for public consumption. Weev did his exploit knowing that he was accessing stuff that was not meant to be public.
Look, there is no technical difference between you driving off in your car and a criminal stealing your keys and driving off in your car. The difference is in authorisation and in intent.
Just because something isn't protected by locks or other security measures doesn't mean it's OK for you to steal it. And even though the technical process of taking something that belongs to you is the same as a criminal stealing something, it doesn't mean that they are both legal.
You don't seem to understand how Pwn2Own works. People don't arrive at the contest, pick an OS/Browser and then start looking for an exploit.
They begin weeks in advance looking for exploits. IF they find one, then they go to the contest and select the appropriate platform and demonstrate the exploit. Their demonstration may fail, because the versions of the software on the contest platform might be different from what they were practicing with.
That no one "attempted to hack" OSX and Safari at the competition this year is because in the past few weeks of trying, no one has found an exploit for it. It's certainly not the case that they could have won the prize, but couldn't be bothered.