Secondly, the logo combines the wireless logo (which is standard and is not an invention of this student) with the sync logo (two arrows round a circle) which is again standard and predates this student's app. Combining the two in the obvious way makes sense and it is hard to think of a better way of doing it.
That it is an obvious combination is irrelevant. Trademarks are first-come, first-served. The only question is whether the developer applied for trademark protection. If he did, he would win against Apple given the time and money necessary to see a lawsuit against a major company through. That is highly unlikely to occur though, and Apple damn well knows it.
Not enough leverage, despite the claims of fanboys that Apple is the dominant smartphone provider.
They're actually #3, though supporters like to claim they're #2 by including all iOS devices, regardless of whether they can make actual phone calls or not.
It takes a special sort of deviance to translate being able to do something wrong into actually doing it, but there's frequently not much more to it than "because I could."
That's correct for the title of the article. What we've surpassed is maximum sustainable population growth rate. That part is indisputable if you ask any biologist who's not currently in a permanently vegetative state, or had a frontal lobotomy performed.
The same can be said of the other platforms as well. The more salient point is when you compare platform age vs. the number of exploits found against the hardware itself or in software components that are, by default, trusted by the device. In addition, the nature of the exploits routinely found is also important. I'd much prefer denial of service to execution of arbitrary code, and there are clear trends in the exploits found on various platforms.
As for 3rd-party software, it just goes to show that you shouldn't trust Adobe on any platform.:)
That is true, though you are always presented with the permissions the app wants at the time of install (again, speaking of BBOS). The process cannot be turned off, and with only a cursory glance it tells you if an app is asking for permission to access something that is completely illogical for it to be accessing. The understanding is relatively simple, though it requires the user to care. That's the real problem with security. The weakest link is usually the person using the device, and there's not much security out there that can account for a user who doesn't care. No consumer system is likely to succeed with enforced security, though Blackberry comes the closest. It also has the potential to be locked down further in cases where the user (or more likely, the user's employer) deems in necessary.
Even if the Android process is hampered by lack of developers practicing moderation in permission requests, you can at least say it has granular permissions available. Granted, that's unlikely to make a difference for the average user though.
Just out of curiosity, I looked up Blackberry, Android, and iPhone up on the National Vulnerability Database. BB has 40, Android 59, and iPhone 131.
If you give a hacker unlimited time with a device, they will find a way to do what they want.
Unless the security processor is the first internal connection to all inputs. Like the Blackberry.
Even with physical access to the device, you're not getting anywhere with it if it's been set up with a password. Blind luck or social/psychological engineering aside, of course.
The article seems to confuse application security with system security. While there is overlap in those two areas, I'm far more interested in keeping my data safe if the device is lost/stolen/"confiscated," rather than losing it to a remote exploit. The fact that Elcomsoft can pull a copy of the data off an encrypted iOS device in order to bypass the wipe-after-fail API displays the device is not secure.
Granted, there are many stupid people out there who install an "Ooh, shiny!" app without having a trusted source. In that regard, Apple is ahead of the game (if you don't care that they control the app ecosystem). However, as noted in the story, iOS lacks granular app permissions. This is a far more important security measure (to me) than a wall-garden app store. You can see (and change) every permission parameter for any app running on Blackberry OS (and presumably Android, according to TFA).
So while the bad guys did bad, the other bad guys also do bad. Just because the government does good things does not mean it should be held blameless when it overreaches its authority.
And people pay it only lip service, much as people pay the Constitution (which is the law of the land) only lip service.
With recent rulings on the 4th Amendment, and previous rulings that evidence illegally obtained is admissible as long as the police can manufacture a reasonable excuse why they thought it wasn't illegal, there is no more rule of law. It's rule of "what can I get away with next?" The 9th and 10th Amendments gasped their last breath when Lincoln came to power. About the only reversal that's been made is the Supreme Court now recognizing the term "the people" means the same damn thing in the 2nd Amendment as it means every other place it's used in the Constitution. Who knows how long that will last though.
They wouldn't exist if the terrorists left us alone.
You don't know much about intelligence works then. When there is no real enemy, one is frequently manufactured in order to consolidate power by those at the top. The ones to blame are those who continue to support the political status quo. They're the ones who either vote for the same people, or refuse to vote at all. To pull from a previous discussion, Lulz is responsible in part for the response by the government. However, the people culpable for the policy are those who make the reactive policy, and ultimately the US populace in general who put them into power.
It's entirely likely that there exist hacker groups who have been or will be used, directly or indirectly, by intelligence services in order to justify measures they wish to put into place.
You fail at logic. First, you failed to understand that zero means zero, and is a possibilty. Second, you still conflate responsibility and culpability. Your arson example falls at the zero end of the scale, which was explicitly mentioned previously.
If you walk into a biker bar and insult someone knowing full well that they will beat you down, you are responsible for your actions and for the outcome by knowingly placing yourself in a situation where any reasonable person could forsee the outcome. The person who beat the crap out of you is still 100% culpable. You, on the other hand, are 100% responsible. You can spin it any way you like, but every example will range somewhere from 0 to 100% responsibility on the part of the victim. You pick examples at the zero end of the scale to try and shore up a logically indefensible argument. Just because 0% examples abound does not eliminate the existence of non-zero examples.
There is no statement I made that is anything like saying a perpetrator is obligated to do anything. Nice straw man though. I wasn't implying anything; I was making explicit statements.
I'm also fully aware that your "customer" example differs. It differs a great deal, to the point of being completely non-representative of what I'm talking about. In your example, the customer is both culpable AND responsible, which fails completely at addressing the point. My comment about customers was to illustrate that prevailing views are not necessarily right, even when repeated as a mantra by certain segments of the population. There is nothing further to be read into it, as that is the entirety of the point for which it was used.
Now, I've spent far longer than was worthwhile on this, since you are clearly not willing to separate logic from emotion in this regard. Continue pretending that everyone who is victimized plays absolutely no active part in creating the circumstances they find themselves in (the definition of responsibility in this regard). Go ahead, flip off those gangbangers late at night in the hood. You can take comfort in the fact that you bear no responsibility for them shooting you. It was all them, after all, 100%.
It was absolutely brilliant. Not only play video while multitasking, but do real-time 3D transforms on it as well. BeOS is actually one of the first pieces of software I ever purchased myself (that's a first, I've finally dated myself on/.), because it was something I wanted to support financially even though it was in the early stages of development. I don't recall how I found out about it, but I got a copy and ran it (and subsequent releases) until it became clear that Be's purchase by Palm was going to end development. That was a sad day.
As for the timeline, I actually have a copy of Barbarians Led By Bill Gates by Jennifer Edstrom and Marlin Eller, which is an in-depth analysis of exactly the sort of crap they pulled using vaporware to kill competing technologies before they were ready to roll out their own.
In a lot of ways, I agree it was likely for the overall good of the industry though. Apple, IBM, and Microsoft all wanted control of the world. Apple and IBM also wanted the world to be smaller. So, while I dislike Microsoft a great deal, I have to hand it to them that defeating Apple and IBM was at least a better outcome. Of course, that ignores the possibilities of "what might have been," but then again "what might have been" isn't useful in regards to the world as it currently exists. It can only inform us as to what we might do better in the future.
Way to take a small snippet out that ignores the completely legitimate point, making it sound like the poster thinks all women raped are responsible for the rape occurring.
It's a reasonable point which unreasonable people fail to acknowledge because of laziness or ignorance of basic logic. Easy emotional appeal response is easy.
You fail at distinguishing between someone deserving what they get as a result of their actions, and the responsibility they bear in bringing about those results. The two are not necessarily the same thing. It's not an outdated attitude, it's a pragmatic approach to evaluating the risk of certain behaviors. The customer is always right, the victim never bears any responsibility. Wrong. The customer can be wrong, and the victim can bear anywhere from no responsibility to all of the responsibility, depending on the circumstances. People should stop using rape as an example, but only because it brings the morons out of the woodwork. That's their responsibility, in order to redirect those who fail at logic and argument to at least come up with something novel.
They can't use the name in some contexts. The NFL sending lawyers after someone does not necessarily mean the person is in violation of the law. It simply means NFL has lawyers, and is unafraid to use them aggressively.
That people frequently settle, or choose to avoid the issue completely, is irrelevant from a legal standpoint. I most certainly can give away Superbowl tickets legally, as a promotion. I'd wind up in court, but with enough money I'd win. Spending the money isn't worthwhile though. I'd be interested to see a single US Court of Appeals case (or higher) that favors the NFL in a case not involving leveraging the name in a non-factual (strictly leveraged for advertising, rather than factually descriptive) context or a public broadcast. I mean that seriously, too. I very much would be interested to read up on any that exist.
Given that it amounts simply to a statement of fact (e.g. We are giving away an iPad), it should be insulated from claims of attempting to profit from another's service or trademark.
Then again, modern trademark law is rife with examples of stupidity in terms of what the law was originally intended for.
Solution: Give away a coupon that's worth 99.99% off the price of the iKoolaid, then just happen to have exactly as many on-hand at the location people pick up the coupons. Unless, of course, Apple is claiming they can control second-hand sale of the devices they sell. If that's the case, fuck them and fuck anyone who supports them.
A practicum is a lot harder to cheat your way through than a paper exam. Not saying it doesn't happen, but you've got to be pretty skilled to pull it off unless the program itself is fundamentally flawed. In that case, the cheater is the least of your worries.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly, the logo combines the wireless logo (which is standard and is not an invention of this student) with the sync logo (two arrows round a circle) which is again standard and predates this student's app. Combining the two in the obvious way makes sense and it is hard to think of a better way of doing it.
That it is an obvious combination is irrelevant. Trademarks are first-come, first-served. The only question is whether the developer applied for trademark protection. If he did, he would win against Apple given the time and money necessary to see a lawsuit against a major company through. That is highly unlikely to occur though, and Apple damn well knows it.
Not enough leverage, despite the claims of fanboys that Apple is the dominant smartphone provider.
They're actually #3, though supporters like to claim they're #2 by including all iOS devices, regardless of whether they can make actual phone calls or not.
In the US, it's the color purple that's been trademarked. It wouldn't surprise me if the rest were as well though.
Bonus points to anyone who knows which company actually holds the trademark on the color purple.
It takes a special sort of deviance to translate being able to do something wrong into actually doing it, but there's frequently not much more to it than "because I could."
Microsoft has the money and political clout to lobby congress into getting something like this changed to their advantage.
That's how lobbying works. Things aren't fixed, they're re-broken in such a way to further enrich those organizations who are able to buy politicians.
Didn't realize the conversation had shifted to other countries in this thread, so yes, in the US.
That's correct for the title of the article. What we've surpassed is maximum sustainable population growth rate. That part is indisputable if you ask any biologist who's not currently in a permanently vegetative state, or had a frontal lobotomy performed.
Some internalization of external costs may be in order.
Anything that depends on this will fail in the current political climate.
The same can be said of the other platforms as well. The more salient point is when you compare platform age vs. the number of exploits found against the hardware itself or in software components that are, by default, trusted by the device. In addition, the nature of the exploits routinely found is also important. I'd much prefer denial of service to execution of arbitrary code, and there are clear trends in the exploits found on various platforms.
As for 3rd-party software, it just goes to show that you shouldn't trust Adobe on any platform. :)
That is true, though you are always presented with the permissions the app wants at the time of install (again, speaking of BBOS). The process cannot be turned off, and with only a cursory glance it tells you if an app is asking for permission to access something that is completely illogical for it to be accessing. The understanding is relatively simple, though it requires the user to care. That's the real problem with security. The weakest link is usually the person using the device, and there's not much security out there that can account for a user who doesn't care. No consumer system is likely to succeed with enforced security, though Blackberry comes the closest. It also has the potential to be locked down further in cases where the user (or more likely, the user's employer) deems in necessary.
Even if the Android process is hampered by lack of developers practicing moderation in permission requests, you can at least say it has granular permissions available. Granted, that's unlikely to make a difference for the average user though.
Just out of curiosity, I looked up Blackberry, Android, and iPhone up on the National Vulnerability Database. BB has 40, Android 59, and iPhone 131.
That's assuming it actually is locked down, rather than a half-assed job that can be rooted with ease.
If you give a hacker unlimited time with a device, they will find a way to do what they want.
Unless the security processor is the first internal connection to all inputs. Like the Blackberry.
Even with physical access to the device, you're not getting anywhere with it if it's been set up with a password. Blind luck or social/psychological engineering aside, of course.
The article seems to confuse application security with system security. While there is overlap in those two areas, I'm far more interested in keeping my data safe if the device is lost/stolen/"confiscated," rather than losing it to a remote exploit. The fact that Elcomsoft can pull a copy of the data off an encrypted iOS device in order to bypass the wipe-after-fail API displays the device is not secure.
Granted, there are many stupid people out there who install an "Ooh, shiny!" app without having a trusted source. In that regard, Apple is ahead of the game (if you don't care that they control the app ecosystem). However, as noted in the story, iOS lacks granular app permissions. This is a far more important security measure (to me) than a wall-garden app store. You can see (and change) every permission parameter for any app running on Blackberry OS (and presumably Android, according to TFA).
If they could restrain themselves, the government would have no need to do that.
If there is no enemy to a power, one must be created. Otherwise people will call for that power to be diluted, since it is obviously not necessary.
False flag operations abound in intelligence work. One notable, proven one is https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/COINTELPRO
So while the bad guys did bad, the other bad guys also do bad. Just because the government does good things does not mean it should be held blameless when it overreaches its authority.
And people pay it only lip service, much as people pay the Constitution (which is the law of the land) only lip service.
With recent rulings on the 4th Amendment, and previous rulings that evidence illegally obtained is admissible as long as the police can manufacture a reasonable excuse why they thought it wasn't illegal, there is no more rule of law. It's rule of "what can I get away with next?" The 9th and 10th Amendments gasped their last breath when Lincoln came to power. About the only reversal that's been made is the Supreme Court now recognizing the term "the people" means the same damn thing in the 2nd Amendment as it means every other place it's used in the Constitution. Who knows how long that will last though.
For the record, though, I don't personally believe that this is worth getting your knickers in a knot over.
Poster's covered "question the sources" and "failing to see the point" at the same time.
Or some infinite subset of a larger infinite series. :)
They wouldn't exist if the terrorists left us alone.
You don't know much about intelligence works then. When there is no real enemy, one is frequently manufactured in order to consolidate power by those at the top. The ones to blame are those who continue to support the political status quo. They're the ones who either vote for the same people, or refuse to vote at all. To pull from a previous discussion, Lulz is responsible in part for the response by the government. However, the people culpable for the policy are those who make the reactive policy, and ultimately the US populace in general who put them into power.
It's entirely likely that there exist hacker groups who have been or will be used, directly or indirectly, by intelligence services in order to justify measures they wish to put into place.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/COINTELPRO is but one example of this.
To put it another way, this statement is both as true and false as the above quote from your post: Terrorists wouldn't exist if we left them alone.
You fail at logic. First, you failed to understand that zero means zero, and is a possibilty. Second, you still conflate responsibility and culpability. Your arson example falls at the zero end of the scale, which was explicitly mentioned previously.
If you walk into a biker bar and insult someone knowing full well that they will beat you down, you are responsible for your actions and for the outcome by knowingly placing yourself in a situation where any reasonable person could forsee the outcome. The person who beat the crap out of you is still 100% culpable. You, on the other hand, are 100% responsible. You can spin it any way you like, but every example will range somewhere from 0 to 100% responsibility on the part of the victim. You pick examples at the zero end of the scale to try and shore up a logically indefensible argument. Just because 0% examples abound does not eliminate the existence of non-zero examples.
There is no statement I made that is anything like saying a perpetrator is obligated to do anything. Nice straw man though. I wasn't implying anything; I was making explicit statements.
I'm also fully aware that your "customer" example differs. It differs a great deal, to the point of being completely non-representative of what I'm talking about. In your example, the customer is both culpable AND responsible, which fails completely at addressing the point. My comment about customers was to illustrate that prevailing views are not necessarily right, even when repeated as a mantra by certain segments of the population. There is nothing further to be read into it, as that is the entirety of the point for which it was used.
Now, I've spent far longer than was worthwhile on this, since you are clearly not willing to separate logic from emotion in this regard. Continue pretending that everyone who is victimized plays absolutely no active part in creating the circumstances they find themselves in (the definition of responsibility in this regard). Go ahead, flip off those gangbangers late at night in the hood. You can take comfort in the fact that you bear no responsibility for them shooting you. It was all them, after all, 100%.
It was absolutely brilliant. Not only play video while multitasking, but do real-time 3D transforms on it as well. BeOS is actually one of the first pieces of software I ever purchased myself (that's a first, I've finally dated myself on /.), because it was something I wanted to support financially even though it was in the early stages of development. I don't recall how I found out about it, but I got a copy and ran it (and subsequent releases) until it became clear that Be's purchase by Palm was going to end development. That was a sad day.
As for the timeline, I actually have a copy of Barbarians Led By Bill Gates by Jennifer Edstrom and Marlin Eller, which is an in-depth analysis of exactly the sort of crap they pulled using vaporware to kill competing technologies before they were ready to roll out their own.
In a lot of ways, I agree it was likely for the overall good of the industry though. Apple, IBM, and Microsoft all wanted control of the world. Apple and IBM also wanted the world to be smaller. So, while I dislike Microsoft a great deal, I have to hand it to them that defeating Apple and IBM was at least a better outcome. Of course, that ignores the possibilities of "what might have been," but then again "what might have been" isn't useful in regards to the world as it currently exists. It can only inform us as to what we might do better in the future.
Way to take a small snippet out that ignores the completely legitimate point, making it sound like the poster thinks all women raped are responsible for the rape occurring.
It's a reasonable point which unreasonable people fail to acknowledge because of laziness or ignorance of basic logic. Easy emotional appeal response is easy.
You fail at distinguishing between someone deserving what they get as a result of their actions, and the responsibility they bear in bringing about those results. The two are not necessarily the same thing. It's not an outdated attitude, it's a pragmatic approach to evaluating the risk of certain behaviors. The customer is always right, the victim never bears any responsibility. Wrong. The customer can be wrong, and the victim can bear anywhere from no responsibility to all of the responsibility, depending on the circumstances. People should stop using rape as an example, but only because it brings the morons out of the woodwork. That's their responsibility, in order to redirect those who fail at logic and argument to at least come up with something novel.
They can't use the name in some contexts. The NFL sending lawyers after someone does not necessarily mean the person is in violation of the law. It simply means NFL has lawyers, and is unafraid to use them aggressively.
That people frequently settle, or choose to avoid the issue completely, is irrelevant from a legal standpoint. I most certainly can give away Superbowl tickets legally, as a promotion. I'd wind up in court, but with enough money I'd win. Spending the money isn't worthwhile though. I'd be interested to see a single US Court of Appeals case (or higher) that favors the NFL in a case not involving leveraging the name in a non-factual (strictly leveraged for advertising, rather than factually descriptive) context or a public broadcast. I mean that seriously, too. I very much would be interested to read up on any that exist.
Public broadcast (distribution) without a license, for profit, is a completely separate area of law.
Given that it amounts simply to a statement of fact (e.g. We are giving away an iPad), it should be insulated from claims of attempting to profit from another's service or trademark.
Then again, modern trademark law is rife with examples of stupidity in terms of what the law was originally intended for.
Solution: Give away a coupon that's worth 99.99% off the price of the iKoolaid, then just happen to have exactly as many on-hand at the location people pick up the coupons. Unless, of course, Apple is claiming they can control second-hand sale of the devices they sell. If that's the case, fuck them and fuck anyone who supports them.
A practicum is a lot harder to cheat your way through than a paper exam. Not saying it doesn't happen, but you've got to be pretty skilled to pull it off unless the program itself is fundamentally flawed. In that case, the cheater is the least of your worries.