Sounds like someone didn't even bother to read the fucking summary.
Provisioning, says Apple, allows carriers to 'specify access limitations to certain device resources which may otherwise be available to users of the device.'
My carrier is not my parent, nor should they be setting Unix permissions and denying me root.
But you know what? I wish Apple the best of luck. If everyone else but Apple is forced to stop crippling their devices (unless they're a boss/parent), the world will be better off.
Apple is somewhat more open - it at least sponsors a bunch of open source work.
So does Microsoft.
Except Microsoft strikes me as more open -- just compare the iPhone to Win Mobile. Even with their desktop operating systems, OS X may be better engineered, but it's certainly not more customizable than Windows.
It's hard to remember actually needing that in real life. Why would I suddenly need it more in an IM client?
About the only reason I can think of that it'd be annoying is that I do actually like to rearrange things after I type them, and I correct my spelling enough that it might not entirely be worth watching.
But I've seen this kind of thing before, and it wasn't particularly problematic. Indeed, one crazy setup I had, I gave someone else ssh access to a machine, then we both connected to a multiuser screen to collaborate on an IT project. We ended up using Bash comments to communicate, but it was awkward, since it was essentially half-duplex.That is, we started adopting protocols from two-way radios -- saying "over" when you're done talking...
If you fail to answer, they'll assume you're screening the call
Those are some pretty assuming friends.
Of the people I know who carry a cell, they don't always answer it, don't always physically have it with them, and don't always have it on. There's really no safe assumption I can make for the reason my call didn't go through.
within the first month after I bought a disposable cell phone they all dumped their old texting phones and got smartphones. Now they refuse to use text and only want to use email.
I wish I had friends like yours. I pretty much have been insisting on IM and email for years now.
Google *has* in fact shown a willingness to lock in proprietary stuff.
Sorry, but locking down their own programs -- that is, asking that their data (programs) not be copied -- is not even close to the same thing as what's usually meant by "vendor lock-in".
When people say "vendor lock-in", they tend to mean measures taken to prevent users from choosing other software, usually by ensuring the users' data is stored in a proprietary format that no one else can read, but it could also involve lengthy contracts.
In other words, it's pretty much the exact opposite of Google essentially forcing people who want to fork Android to use a non-Google mail client.
I'm glad that (I think) you caught on to the sarcasm.
It is hard to tell, sometimes.
But I was also arguing against the people who actually do have the attitude you're mocking.
Let me put it this way: There are people who actually believe Stephen Colbert is a conservative. So it's not always enough to just let the sarcasm stand on its own -- sometimes, you have to explain why the message being mocked is wrong.
I think we both mean substantially the same thing, positional/status goods, by warm fuzzies and look at me items.
Same thing, but a different attitude, I think. "Warm fuzzies" usually refers to "That warm fuzzy feeling you get" in certain circumstances, like knowing that you're doing something good for the world, or being part of a community that loves you back...
It's the kind of thing I might associate with, say, giving money to charity, or saving the environment. I don't usually associate it with something like buying a car (unless it's a Prius).
The only time I could associate "warm fuzzies" with artwork, especially that kind of "fine art", is when I saw my parents buy a painting or two directly from the artist, in his shop in a back alley in Ollantaytambo, Peru.
That in a later version of said same program that is currently open source, will always be open source?... BSD is not an example, by definition.
So, either your English is terrible, or you're not very bright. I'm guessing at what you mean here...
Let's take an extreme example: SQLite has no license. It is completely public domain. That means it has none of the restrictions GPL does.
Apple, Mozilla, and Google use SQLite all over the place. I haven't seen Microsoft use it, but I wouldn't be surprised. All of them take some version of SQLite and include it in a proprietary application. Apple certainly doesn't let you modify the version of SQLite that's in that application.
Are you trying to say that SQLite is not open source?
But I can go to sqlite.org and download the sqlite source code. I can use it in my open source applications, or proprietary ones. I can fork it and redistribute a forked version, with or without source code. I can send patches back to the SQLite project, and have my enhancements included in the next version of SQLite.
The fact that someone can make a proprietary version doesn't in any way make the original program "not open source".
What I think you're asking is whether you can prevent people from doing that. But first, you need to ask this question: Why would you ever want to do that?
But, because your comment is so poorly worded, you might be asking whether someone can somehow make SQLite proprietary. Well, no, they can't. They can make their own proprietary version of SQLite, and maybe one day the SQLite people will release a proprietary version. But it doesn't matter, because there are thousands of copies of SQLite all over the world, all open source, so if sqlite.org ever becomes proprietary, someone will make freesqlite.org and continue the open project.
Going back to your original comment, though, and you do have something fundamentally wrong: The fact that something is BSD allows parts of it to be proprietary. It doesn't require parts of it to be proprietary.
The result of this is: Chromium is 100% open source. Google Chrome is a proprietary version of Chromium, with a tiny (less than 1%) amount of code in it that isn't in Chromium (codec stuff), plus the Google logo. And Chromium has the same codecs, they just do it with different code, so the only real difference is the logo.
By the way: Open Source is not the same thing as Free Software, as the Free Software Foundation defines it. But I'm pretty sure Chromium is 100% Free Software anyway, so it's not worth bringing up.
Have you forgotten about Google C&D'ing android modders? How open is that?
Not particularly -- though the obvious solution there is to remove the apps in question. They weren't C&D-ing people for modding Android, they were C&D-ing people for distributing the proprietary software (often shipped with Android, but not a part of Android) in an unauthorized fashion.
I'm not saying I agree with it, certainly not as a first step.
If I'm doing reasonably well in the business of marketing and distributing "art", the market for "art" is as broad or as narrow as I want to define it.
In other words, the definition of art is an opinion, thus not something you have a monopoly on.
If my infrastructure for marketing and distributing art was built for handling one kind of starting material (widgets in meatspace), and if access to the infrastructure is relatively scarce (galleries) because they require much capital investment, I have a significant disincentive to allow the definition of "art" to drift outside of my core competencies and intermediation.
So you clearly would've never allowed music to be classified as art, if it was up to you.
Fortunately, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, and others, to say nothing of modern musicians, have proven that it's not up to you. Indeed, they aren't called "musicians" anymore, they're called "artists".
On the consuming side, owners of "art" may get warm fuzzies from showing off their pieces because of the exclusivity alone.
One could easily create a DRM scheme, and even make it revolve around physical copies. And that's not "warm fuzzies", it's the "look at me" factor that causes people to buy the "I Am Rich" iPhone app -- which might now be considered a collector's item.
Forgeries are easier, but they're still possible with paintings. There was a recent episode of The Mentalist showing forgeries which were passed off as real -- nearly successful, except that the forger in question was rather a legitimate reproductionist, who always puts some detail into the painting proving it wasn't the original.
If exclusivity is not a part of the art, they might have to start to *think* about substantiative ways in which the art may be appreciated and valued.
I wouldn't count on that.
Good points, if a bit cynical. Still reminds me of that comment by Steven Spielberg that he'd never seen a video game that made him cry -- which lead to the obvious examples of Final Fantasy VII and Shadow of the Colossus, making him look quite foolish.
As soon as Frame becomes popular it'll end up being yet another special case on the list of things you need to write extra code for,
First, "yet another special case" means "behaves pretty much exactly like Chrome", which was the whole point.
Second, since you have to enable it explicitly for that website, if you'd rather support IE natively, you can just pretend Frame doesn't exist. The rest of us will be supporting Frame natively, and pretending IE doesn't exist.
If by annotations you mean those text overlays in which people either try to make you buy stuff
Honestly, I've never seen an annotation that does so.
click links
That's a useful feature. If someone's making a video that actually relates to something online, it's nice if they can link to their source.
And I specifically mentioned other things these are useful for. I'm not talking theoretically -- I have actually seen this done.
simply show how retarded they are
If they were going to do that, the original video will do that as well.
First few seconds of this video is, I think, a fair request. It also doesn't hide any of the original content, and fades before the actual video appears.
Or, here, around 1:33, is an example of correcting a video which has already been published -- much more convenient for him than, again, re-shooting and re-encoding the whole thing.
Of course, if a particular set of annotations is annoying, it's trivial to disable them -- a click and a half. But to have them on is an option that you don't have without the Flash, or at least the Javascript, and that second video is an example of one where, if I'd only had the raw video, I'd have been hitting his comments section hard.
Yes, you could encode them as subtitle tracks -- but then you couldn't have clickable links.
It's the same reason that when an art museum pays N million dollars for a piece, then years later finds out it was a forgery, the museum doesn't just say, "Oh, well, it was good enough".
In other words, you're comparing digital artwork to a forgery. Nice.
Art is not about beauty or aesthetics.
So what's it about?
Original art has warmth, depth and soul,
And why can't digital artwork have this? For that matter, why can't it be considered "original"?
You might also want to test whether your definition of "art" excludes Mozart. It seems to, right now.
If you can't see the warmth, taste the depth, or perceive the soul of a piece of fine art, well, you are just a philistine and should just stay the f*** out of the museum.
Yep. And the symphony hall. Oh wait...
The original Declaration of Independence or Constitution aren't really any more useful than the copies, and weren't even originally archived, but we still keep them better protected than most people's bank accounts.
They're also historically valuable, as is most original artwork.
I am not suggesting that a copy or a forgery is as good as having the original piece, or that we shouldn't preserve originals.
What I'm saying is that just because something was originally created digitally doesn't make it "not art".
That locked propritary box is MINE. Not Microsoft's, not Googles, MINE.
Oh, the naivete...
I don't have to trust Microsoft one bit, unless Microsoft puts spyware into its product.
WGA isn't spyware?
Nonetheless, you also have to trust not only that Microsoft hasn't put spyware in there already, but that they won't distribute such spyware as an update, ever.
Google's 'robots' look at my data.
So do Microsoft's programs, running inside "your" proprietary box.
I am sure that Google sends its 'partners' "anonymous" information based on my documents.
Here's an example -- scroll just under the video, and click "Statistics & Data".
That's the kind of information Google, or their partners, actually care about. See that gigantic graph there? Thunderf00t can see a lot of powerful things -- he can see the number of visits, number of comments, number of 5-star ratings, number of 1-star ratings, etc etc.
But he can't see how you rated him, unless you tell him.
Can you make a case at all that this is an inappropriate amount of data?
Google's robots designed for specific advertizers look at my data.
I wasn't aware Google custom-built them for specific advertisers. I know for a fact that they build general-purpose robots, which then choose from available advertisers.
And there is no way I can even really say Google doesn't look at my stuff, IT IS WHAT THEY DO! Someone looks at what the 'robots' pick up eventually.
Citation needed.
I'm going to say, no, they don't. They can look at large, overall trends. Can you give me a solid technical reason why Google would have to look at your personal data in order to run their robots?
Or, let me put it this way: Do you really think anyone at Google actually visits each one of the billions (trillions?) of pages they index?
Google makes money by reading peoples stuff.
Wrong.
Google makes money by analyzing people's stuff. They really, really don't care about your ultra-secret corporate document. All they care about is whether that document talks about, say, weight and nutrition, so they can show you an ad for Weight Watchers, and try to spot other correlations -- which documents, when presented with a Weight Watchers ad, actually resulted in a purchase? Still way too much data for a human to analyze, so let the robot find those correlations, and how those documents are different from documents which did not result in a purchase, and fine-tune their advertising algorithms based on that.
None of this process results in a Google employee, or anyone from another company, having to actually look at the data directly.
I'm not saying it's impossible that they do look at it. But you're asserting that they do, without evidence, based on what seems to me a misunderstanding of how they work.
At least Microsoft makes it money by raping you on software prices. You can trust them MORE to not read your stuff, as they can still make money other ways.
Except Google does have a for-pay service. I'm not sure if it disables ads -- then again, Microsoft is also attempting to make money selling ad space.
The difference is, as much as we've made fun of Google for "violating" their corporate "Don't be Evil" motto, the evilest things Google has ever done don't come close to what Microsoft has done, and is doing. So no, I have no reason to trust Microsoft more than I trust Google.
When it comes right down to it, I'll trust neither of them, to the extent that it's practical. But at a certain point, outsourcing parts of your infrastructure is a Good Idea.
the proof of the sandbox boils down to proving all the sandbox code, which won't be turing complete,
Ok, good to know this is possible.
and then proving all the OS code
Technically, yes. But then, it's also technically possible to have a provably-correct OS, I think.
Practically, all you need to prove are the parts that directly interact with the sandbox. Again, technically, it's possible that there's some code in my video driver that will, using its ring 0 access, read the sandbox code, and do so in an insecure way. But how likely is that?
So, basically, you'd need to prove the scheduler, the allocator (and memory protection), and whatever interfaces you expose to the sandbox -- for instance, if the sandbox'd Javascript has a "stdout" object with a "write" method, you have to prove operations on Unix file descriptors are safe, and whatever the output goes to is safe.
The more precise you want to get, the more code is involved. But eventually, you end up with something like, "Well, I can't prove there's no vulnerabilities in write(2), therefore, a sandboxed program could theoretically exploit such a vulnerability." And that borders on insanity, since it'd have to be something at once profoundly stupid (it's not that hard to safely get a sequence of bytes to the stream, or somewhere on disk) and incredibly unlikely, as these interfaces have been in use (and theoretically exploitable through many other vectors) for decades.
I don't see why any of these attacks are more feasible against a turing-complete sandbox than anything which allows arbitrary data to be loaded into RAM, including HTML and CSS. If you're seriously going to pretend there's a vulnerability in write(2), fine, but that seems as likely as a vulnerability in a socket read, which would affect every Unix-based http server...
It seems far, far more likely to me that once you formally prove the sandbox and the APIs it directly exposes, you're safe -- and, conversely, that if you're not safe, the problem is either in the Turing-machine implementation itself, or in one of the APIs.
It can be easily copied, thus, it's implied that you could've copied large parts from elsewhere;
And it's "too easy" in general. It's really a pathetic "getoffmylawn" argument, and it's a bit like the people who still use C/C++ and Assembly telling me I'm not a Real Programmer because I use Ruby. There are good arguments that can be made that low-level languages are currently more efficient, and are likely to stay more efficient. But the fact that I use something higher level doesn't imply I'm stupid or lazy.
In other words, it's like a hand-painting animator resenting Photoshop, or someone who hand-crafts each frame in Photoshop complaining about 3D animation.
Ultimately, the inevitable result is that the "old way" most likely lives on, but becomes less popular. Video didn't kill all the radio stars, just most of them. Pixar didn't kill Dreamworks, and neither of them are likely to kill anime.
I think all this teaches us is that proponents of "fine" art are just that much more arrogant, pretentious, and slower to adapt.
to talk all about how great Google is because of a few token open source gestures
"Token"?
Chrome, and v8, forced browsers to start looking at Javascript performance, the way Firefox forced people to start innovating beyond IE6, and at least trying to support standards.
It also forced browsers to start going multiprocess, and stop crashing the entire browser when something goes wrong with a single tab -- not to mention that this, too, is a performance enhancement.
I'm actually surprised now when people talk about Slashdot's Javascript being slow, or slower than the HTML version, because that's not the case on my Chromium nightly.
And that's just one example.
Now, the actual motivation may be profit-driven -- in this case, Google's core revenue-base is based on the Web, so anything Google can do to improve the Web, or increase the utility of those services (for example, providing ads in Gmail, and Gmail is better on a faster browser), directly benefits Google.
But you know what? I don't care. It means Google's interests are aligned with mine and with the open source community, and it means the potential for deception is lower, since the most likely ulterior motive is right out there in the open. It's not that there's a hidden greedy agenda -- there's a very open greedy agenda, that happens to improve the Web for everyone.
And of course,
to talk all about how great Google is because of a few token open source gestures...
...and support for open standards.
And data portability.
And actual, working code behind their ideas.
And a complete lack of vendor lock-in.
My point was, Google isn't likely to lock things in, because they haven't done so in the past. They have, indeed, been about interoperability -- open standards, and often open source. The things they've kept proprietary often operate via open standards -- even Google Earth uses KML, which is supported by things like KDE Marble.
The only exception I can think of is Google Maps, and it's not as though you have data in there that would need to be ported. About the most proprietary thing they have is YouTube, and they're experimenting with providing that via HTML5.
I would probably rather have my data in a propritery locked box,
Google will likely sell you such a box -- if not now, then at some point in the future. They've done it for other things, like Search.
But what you're telling me is that you trust Microsoft more than Google, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
than seen by random people and advertisments sent to me.
"seen by advertisements"? How does that make sense?
Your data is pretty much seen by robots, which then send you advertisements that might be relevant. Google doesn't look at your data.
And this makes a lot of sense to a lot of organizations -- for example, I'd rather pay for a third party to backup my data online than trust myself to rotate tapes and carry them offsite every day.
Remember, *parts* of each of these things are open source, not all, due to apache license.
No, the Apache license allows this, it doesn't require it.
And you're partly right. Google Chrome probably includes proprietary codecs that Google has a license for. Chromium relies on ffmpeg.
But that's about it, and that's not particularly evil. For example, 100% of V8 is open.
If they were really trying to make it 100% open source they'd be looking at GPL.
*facepalm*
No. No. A thousand times no.
If they were trying to force all versions of it to be open source, forever, they'd use GPL.
But the things which they've released, which are themselves 100% open source, including v8, show just how moronic that statement is.
The GPL is not required for open source. The GPL is not required for open source. Say that until it sinks in.
All it means is that Google (and others) can use v8 in proprietary software. Which would also be true if they used the LGPL, and it currently is true of many open source successes, such as Apache, Ruby on Rails, and some of the older swf libraries (pre-Gnash). Arguably, these things allowing proprietary extensions has helped, not hurt them.
For example, if I can use Rails for a proprietary website, I can contribute back to Rails on company time. If I can't use Rails for a proprietary website, I can't use Rails at that company, meaning I'd have to contribute to it on weekends, and I probably just wouldn't. So Rails directly benefits by being BSD-licensed -- and is entirely open source.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like someone didn't even bother to read the fucking summary.
Provisioning, says Apple, allows carriers to 'specify access limitations to certain device resources which may otherwise be available to users of the device.'
My carrier is not my parent, nor should they be setting Unix permissions and denying me root.
But you know what? I wish Apple the best of luck. If everyone else but Apple is forced to stop crippling their devices (unless they're a boss/parent), the world will be better off.
Apple is somewhat more open - it at least sponsors a bunch of open source work.
So does Microsoft.
Except Microsoft strikes me as more open -- just compare the iPhone to Win Mobile. Even with their desktop operating systems, OS X may be better engineered, but it's certainly not more customizable than Windows.
who was asking them to do that ?
And why is it that Apple can't simply say "no"?
Apple wouldn't be the big looser if they couldn't restrict applications like Skype or Google voice, follow the money.
I see Apple making tons of money because people who want a fully-functional Skype or Google Voice would choose an iPhone.
It's not Apple I see hurting, it's AT&T.
Aside from being able to turn it off...
It's hard to remember actually needing that in real life. Why would I suddenly need it more in an IM client?
About the only reason I can think of that it'd be annoying is that I do actually like to rearrange things after I type them, and I correct my spelling enough that it might not entirely be worth watching.
But I've seen this kind of thing before, and it wasn't particularly problematic. Indeed, one crazy setup I had, I gave someone else ssh access to a machine, then we both connected to a multiuser screen to collaborate on an IT project. We ended up using Bash comments to communicate, but it was awkward, since it was essentially half-duplex.That is, we started adopting protocols from two-way radios -- saying "over" when you're done talking...
Oh well, it's open source. Someone will add that feature.
If you fail to answer, they'll assume you're screening the call
Those are some pretty assuming friends.
Of the people I know who carry a cell, they don't always answer it, don't always physically have it with them, and don't always have it on. There's really no safe assumption I can make for the reason my call didn't go through.
within the first month after I bought a disposable cell phone they all dumped their old texting phones and got smartphones. Now they refuse to use text and only want to use email.
I wish I had friends like yours. I pretty much have been insisting on IM and email for years now.
From that article:
heavy multitaskers underperformed the light multitaskers.
So, perhaps light multitasking is the way to go?
Google *has* in fact shown a willingness to lock in proprietary stuff.
Sorry, but locking down their own programs -- that is, asking that their data (programs) not be copied -- is not even close to the same thing as what's usually meant by "vendor lock-in".
When people say "vendor lock-in", they tend to mean measures taken to prevent users from choosing other software, usually by ensuring the users' data is stored in a proprietary format that no one else can read, but it could also involve lengthy contracts.
In other words, it's pretty much the exact opposite of Google essentially forcing people who want to fork Android to use a non-Google mail client.
Ubuntu is easy to install. Gentoo forces you to actually learn something about it.
Besides which, once you've got it installed, there's still plenty to explore.
I'm glad that (I think) you caught on to the sarcasm.
It is hard to tell, sometimes.
But I was also arguing against the people who actually do have the attitude you're mocking.
Let me put it this way: There are people who actually believe Stephen Colbert is a conservative. So it's not always enough to just let the sarcasm stand on its own -- sometimes, you have to explain why the message being mocked is wrong.
I think we both mean substantially the same thing, positional/status goods, by warm fuzzies and look at me items.
Same thing, but a different attitude, I think. "Warm fuzzies" usually refers to "That warm fuzzy feeling you get" in certain circumstances, like knowing that you're doing something good for the world, or being part of a community that loves you back...
It's the kind of thing I might associate with, say, giving money to charity, or saving the environment. I don't usually associate it with something like buying a car (unless it's a Prius).
The only time I could associate "warm fuzzies" with artwork, especially that kind of "fine art", is when I saw my parents buy a painting or two directly from the artist, in his shop in a back alley in Ollantaytambo, Peru.
Other than that, it usually seems kind of cold.
Indeed, but you can't reliably mix the two, if you're going to support older browsers and older versions of Flash.
But yes, if they were going to go straight HTML5+Javascript, they could easily show text (and images) on top of the video.
I'm really not sure what you're asking.
That in a later version of said same program that is currently open source, will always be open source?... BSD is not an example, by definition.
So, either your English is terrible, or you're not very bright. I'm guessing at what you mean here...
Let's take an extreme example: SQLite has no license. It is completely public domain. That means it has none of the restrictions GPL does.
Apple, Mozilla, and Google use SQLite all over the place. I haven't seen Microsoft use it, but I wouldn't be surprised. All of them take some version of SQLite and include it in a proprietary application. Apple certainly doesn't let you modify the version of SQLite that's in that application.
Are you trying to say that SQLite is not open source?
But I can go to sqlite.org and download the sqlite source code. I can use it in my open source applications, or proprietary ones. I can fork it and redistribute a forked version, with or without source code. I can send patches back to the SQLite project, and have my enhancements included in the next version of SQLite.
The fact that someone can make a proprietary version doesn't in any way make the original program "not open source".
What I think you're asking is whether you can prevent people from doing that. But first, you need to ask this question: Why would you ever want to do that?
But, because your comment is so poorly worded, you might be asking whether someone can somehow make SQLite proprietary. Well, no, they can't. They can make their own proprietary version of SQLite, and maybe one day the SQLite people will release a proprietary version. But it doesn't matter, because there are thousands of copies of SQLite all over the world, all open source, so if sqlite.org ever becomes proprietary, someone will make freesqlite.org and continue the open project.
Going back to your original comment, though, and you do have something fundamentally wrong: The fact that something is BSD allows parts of it to be proprietary. It doesn't require parts of it to be proprietary.
The result of this is: Chromium is 100% open source. Google Chrome is a proprietary version of Chromium, with a tiny (less than 1%) amount of code in it that isn't in Chromium (codec stuff), plus the Google logo. And Chromium has the same codecs, they just do it with different code, so the only real difference is the logo.
By the way: Open Source is not the same thing as Free Software, as the Free Software Foundation defines it. But I'm pretty sure Chromium is 100% Free Software anyway, so it's not worth bringing up.
Have you forgotten about Google C&D'ing android modders? How open is that?
Not particularly -- though the obvious solution there is to remove the apps in question. They weren't C&D-ing people for modding Android, they were C&D-ing people for distributing the proprietary software (often shipped with Android, but not a part of Android) in an unauthorized fashion.
I'm not saying I agree with it, certainly not as a first step.
If I'm doing reasonably well in the business of marketing and distributing "art", the market for "art" is as broad or as narrow as I want to define it.
In other words, the definition of art is an opinion, thus not something you have a monopoly on.
If my infrastructure for marketing and distributing art was built for handling one kind of starting material (widgets in meatspace), and if access to the infrastructure is relatively scarce (galleries) because they require much capital investment, I have a significant disincentive to allow the definition of "art" to drift outside of my core competencies and intermediation.
So you clearly would've never allowed music to be classified as art, if it was up to you.
Fortunately, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, and others, to say nothing of modern musicians, have proven that it's not up to you. Indeed, they aren't called "musicians" anymore, they're called "artists".
On the consuming side, owners of "art" may get warm fuzzies from showing off their pieces because of the exclusivity alone.
One could easily create a DRM scheme, and even make it revolve around physical copies. And that's not "warm fuzzies", it's the "look at me" factor that causes people to buy the "I Am Rich" iPhone app -- which might now be considered a collector's item.
Forgeries are easier, but they're still possible with paintings. There was a recent episode of The Mentalist showing forgeries which were passed off as real -- nearly successful, except that the forger in question was rather a legitimate reproductionist, who always puts some detail into the painting proving it wasn't the original.
If exclusivity is not a part of the art, they might have to start to *think* about substantiative ways in which the art may be appreciated and valued.
I wouldn't count on that.
Good points, if a bit cynical. Still reminds me of that comment by Steven Spielberg that he'd never seen a video game that made him cry -- which lead to the obvious examples of Final Fantasy VII and Shadow of the Colossus, making him look quite foolish.
As soon as Frame becomes popular it'll end up being yet another special case on the list of things you need to write extra code for,
First, "yet another special case" means "behaves pretty much exactly like Chrome", which was the whole point.
Second, since you have to enable it explicitly for that website, if you'd rather support IE natively, you can just pretend Frame doesn't exist. The rest of us will be supporting Frame natively, and pretending IE doesn't exist.
If by annotations you mean those text overlays in which people either try to make you buy stuff
Honestly, I've never seen an annotation that does so.
click links
That's a useful feature. If someone's making a video that actually relates to something online, it's nice if they can link to their source.
And I specifically mentioned other things these are useful for. I'm not talking theoretically -- I have actually seen this done.
simply show how retarded they are
If they were going to do that, the original video will do that as well.
First few seconds of this video is, I think, a fair request. It also doesn't hide any of the original content, and fades before the actual video appears.
Or, here, around 1:33, is an example of correcting a video which has already been published -- much more convenient for him than, again, re-shooting and re-encoding the whole thing.
Of course, if a particular set of annotations is annoying, it's trivial to disable them -- a click and a half. But to have them on is an option that you don't have without the Flash, or at least the Javascript, and that second video is an example of one where, if I'd only had the raw video, I'd have been hitting his comments section hard.
Yes, you could encode them as subtitle tracks -- but then you couldn't have clickable links.
It's the same reason that when an art museum pays N million dollars for a piece, then years later finds out it was a forgery, the museum doesn't just say, "Oh, well, it was good enough".
In other words, you're comparing digital artwork to a forgery. Nice.
Art is not about beauty or aesthetics.
So what's it about?
Original art has warmth, depth and soul,
And why can't digital artwork have this? For that matter, why can't it be considered "original"?
You might also want to test whether your definition of "art" excludes Mozart. It seems to, right now.
If you can't see the warmth, taste the depth, or perceive the soul of a piece of fine art, well, you are just a philistine and should just stay the f*** out of the museum.
Yep. And the symphony hall. Oh wait...
The original Declaration of Independence or Constitution aren't really any more useful than the copies, and weren't even originally archived, but we still keep them better protected than most people's bank accounts.
They're also historically valuable, as is most original artwork.
I am not suggesting that a copy or a forgery is as good as having the original piece, or that we shouldn't preserve originals.
What I'm saying is that just because something was originally created digitally doesn't make it "not art".
That locked propritary box is MINE. Not Microsoft's, not Googles, MINE.
Oh, the naivete...
I don't have to trust Microsoft one bit, unless Microsoft puts spyware into its product.
WGA isn't spyware?
Nonetheless, you also have to trust not only that Microsoft hasn't put spyware in there already, but that they won't distribute such spyware as an update, ever.
Google's 'robots' look at my data.
So do Microsoft's programs, running inside "your" proprietary box.
I am sure that Google sends its 'partners' "anonymous" information based on my documents.
Here's an example -- scroll just under the video, and click "Statistics & Data".
That's the kind of information Google, or their partners, actually care about. See that gigantic graph there? Thunderf00t can see a lot of powerful things -- he can see the number of visits, number of comments, number of 5-star ratings, number of 1-star ratings, etc etc.
But he can't see how you rated him, unless you tell him.
Can you make a case at all that this is an inappropriate amount of data?
Google's robots designed for specific advertizers look at my data.
I wasn't aware Google custom-built them for specific advertisers. I know for a fact that they build general-purpose robots, which then choose from available advertisers.
And there is no way I can even really say Google doesn't look at my stuff, IT IS WHAT THEY DO! Someone looks at what the 'robots' pick up eventually.
Citation needed.
I'm going to say, no, they don't. They can look at large, overall trends. Can you give me a solid technical reason why Google would have to look at your personal data in order to run their robots?
Or, let me put it this way: Do you really think anyone at Google actually visits each one of the billions (trillions?) of pages they index?
Google makes money by reading peoples stuff.
Wrong.
Google makes money by analyzing people's stuff. They really, really don't care about your ultra-secret corporate document. All they care about is whether that document talks about, say, weight and nutrition, so they can show you an ad for Weight Watchers, and try to spot other correlations -- which documents, when presented with a Weight Watchers ad, actually resulted in a purchase? Still way too much data for a human to analyze, so let the robot find those correlations, and how those documents are different from documents which did not result in a purchase, and fine-tune their advertising algorithms based on that.
None of this process results in a Google employee, or anyone from another company, having to actually look at the data directly.
I'm not saying it's impossible that they do look at it. But you're asserting that they do, without evidence, based on what seems to me a misunderstanding of how they work.
At least Microsoft makes it money by raping you on software prices. You can trust them MORE to not read your stuff, as they can still make money other ways.
Except Google does have a for-pay service. I'm not sure if it disables ads -- then again, Microsoft is also attempting to make money selling ad space.
The difference is, as much as we've made fun of Google for "violating" their corporate "Don't be Evil" motto, the evilest things Google has ever done don't come close to what Microsoft has done, and is doing. So no, I have no reason to trust Microsoft more than I trust Google.
When it comes right down to it, I'll trust neither of them, to the extent that it's practical. But at a certain point, outsourcing parts of your infrastructure is a Good Idea.
the proof of the sandbox boils down to proving all the sandbox code, which won't be turing complete,
Ok, good to know this is possible.
and then proving all the OS code
Technically, yes. But then, it's also technically possible to have a provably-correct OS, I think.
Practically, all you need to prove are the parts that directly interact with the sandbox. Again, technically, it's possible that there's some code in my video driver that will, using its ring 0 access, read the sandbox code, and do so in an insecure way. But how likely is that?
So, basically, you'd need to prove the scheduler, the allocator (and memory protection), and whatever interfaces you expose to the sandbox -- for instance, if the sandbox'd Javascript has a "stdout" object with a "write" method, you have to prove operations on Unix file descriptors are safe, and whatever the output goes to is safe.
The more precise you want to get, the more code is involved. But eventually, you end up with something like, "Well, I can't prove there's no vulnerabilities in write(2), therefore, a sandboxed program could theoretically exploit such a vulnerability." And that borders on insanity, since it'd have to be something at once profoundly stupid (it's not that hard to safely get a sequence of bytes to the stream, or somewhere on disk) and incredibly unlikely, as these interfaces have been in use (and theoretically exploitable through many other vectors) for decades.
I don't see why any of these attacks are more feasible against a turing-complete sandbox than anything which allows arbitrary data to be loaded into RAM, including HTML and CSS. If you're seriously going to pretend there's a vulnerability in write(2), fine, but that seems as likely as a vulnerability in a socket read, which would affect every Unix-based http server...
It seems far, far more likely to me that once you formally prove the sandbox and the APIs it directly exposes, you're safe -- and, conversely, that if you're not safe, the problem is either in the Turing-machine implementation itself, or in one of the APIs.
Or Shakespeare, for that matter.
I think it has more to do with two things:
It can be easily copied, thus, it's implied that you could've copied large parts from elsewhere;
And it's "too easy" in general. It's really a pathetic "getoffmylawn" argument, and it's a bit like the people who still use C/C++ and Assembly telling me I'm not a Real Programmer because I use Ruby. There are good arguments that can be made that low-level languages are currently more efficient, and are likely to stay more efficient. But the fact that I use something higher level doesn't imply I'm stupid or lazy.
In other words, it's like a hand-painting animator resenting Photoshop, or someone who hand-crafts each frame in Photoshop complaining about 3D animation.
Ultimately, the inevitable result is that the "old way" most likely lives on, but becomes less popular. Video didn't kill all the radio stars, just most of them. Pixar didn't kill Dreamworks, and neither of them are likely to kill anime.
I think all this teaches us is that proponents of "fine" art are just that much more arrogant, pretentious, and slower to adapt.
It doesn't matter if the API is public or not.
True. But the existence of public APIs proves that a secure API can be implemented.
It doesn't matter if you have a damned API.
In the case of a sandbox, it does, because if you don't provide an API, it's absolutely secure. Absolutely useless, too, but absolutely secure.
All that matters is whether or not that code can withstand all possible series of inputs.
Except that if this was a problem, it would be a problem for the first three.
Again, I'm over my head mathematically (and I hope to rectify that, at some point), but this seems stupidly obvious logically.
to talk all about how great Google is because of a few token open source gestures
"Token"?
Chrome, and v8, forced browsers to start looking at Javascript performance, the way Firefox forced people to start innovating beyond IE6, and at least trying to support standards.
It also forced browsers to start going multiprocess, and stop crashing the entire browser when something goes wrong with a single tab -- not to mention that this, too, is a performance enhancement.
I'm actually surprised now when people talk about Slashdot's Javascript being slow, or slower than the HTML version, because that's not the case on my Chromium nightly.
And that's just one example.
Now, the actual motivation may be profit-driven -- in this case, Google's core revenue-base is based on the Web, so anything Google can do to improve the Web, or increase the utility of those services (for example, providing ads in Gmail, and Gmail is better on a faster browser), directly benefits Google.
But you know what? I don't care. It means Google's interests are aligned with mine and with the open source community, and it means the potential for deception is lower, since the most likely ulterior motive is right out there in the open. It's not that there's a hidden greedy agenda -- there's a very open greedy agenda, that happens to improve the Web for everyone.
And of course,
to talk all about how great Google is because of a few token open source gestures...
...and support for open standards.
And data portability.
And actual, working code behind their ideas.
And a complete lack of vendor lock-in.
My point was, Google isn't likely to lock things in, because they haven't done so in the past. They have, indeed, been about interoperability -- open standards, and often open source. The things they've kept proprietary often operate via open standards -- even Google Earth uses KML, which is supported by things like KDE Marble.
The only exception I can think of is Google Maps, and it's not as though you have data in there that would need to be ported. About the most proprietary thing they have is YouTube, and they're experimenting with providing that via HTML5.
Except that they still have to pay the people who work on Chrome. It doesn't make sense for it to be motivated purely by money.
I would probably rather have my data in a propritery locked box,
Google will likely sell you such a box -- if not now, then at some point in the future. They've done it for other things, like Search.
But what you're telling me is that you trust Microsoft more than Google, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
than seen by random people and advertisments sent to me.
"seen by advertisements"? How does that make sense?
Your data is pretty much seen by robots, which then send you advertisements that might be relevant. Google doesn't look at your data.
And this makes a lot of sense to a lot of organizations -- for example, I'd rather pay for a third party to backup my data online than trust myself to rotate tapes and carry them offsite every day.
Remember, *parts* of each of these things are open source, not all, due to apache license.
No, the Apache license allows this, it doesn't require it.
And you're partly right. Google Chrome probably includes proprietary codecs that Google has a license for. Chromium relies on ffmpeg.
But that's about it, and that's not particularly evil. For example, 100% of V8 is open.
If they were really trying to make it 100% open source they'd be looking at GPL.
*facepalm*
No. No. A thousand times no.
If they were trying to force all versions of it to be open source, forever, they'd use GPL.
But the things which they've released, which are themselves 100% open source, including v8, show just how moronic that statement is.
The GPL is not required for open source.
The GPL is not required for open source.
Say that until it sinks in.
All it means is that Google (and others) can use v8 in proprietary software. Which would also be true if they used the LGPL, and it currently is true of many open source successes, such as Apache, Ruby on Rails, and some of the older swf libraries (pre-Gnash). Arguably, these things allowing proprietary extensions has helped, not hurt them.
For example, if I can use Rails for a proprietary website, I can contribute back to Rails on company time. If I can't use Rails for a proprietary website, I can't use Rails at that company, meaning I'd have to contribute to it on weekends, and I probably just wouldn't. So Rails directly benefits by being BSD-licensed -- and is entirely open source.