True, the paranoid might want to store their upskirts on dropbox or a secure private storage somewhere other than on the phone (which could be seized by police). But this hardly makes sharing easy.
The request was for something more secure than Dropbox, or at lease open source. I have no problem with that. There' are documents I won't put on Google Docs, even tho I use Google heavily.
It just seemed to me that photo snaps were the least of my concern, and I would just keep them on the phone unless I wanted the share them, and if I wanted to share them dropbox or any other private implementation of that sort would be counter productive.
Thats where I was going with my post. Just the photo sharing angle. And maybe I imagined the sharing part.
Ok, and exactly WHY as a iPhone customer, would I want such 'feature' on my phone?? Rather limiting I'd say.
Exactly so. What a huge sales disincentive.
Far be it from me to suggest Apple is doing something altruistic, but let me toss this out there:
Were they doing us all a favor by locking up this technology so that venues couldn't deploy it and/or demand it on all smart phones?
Seems vaguely possible, since without wide adoption in all handsets, this technology is useless, and won't be deployed anywhere. A patent is actually counter productive in the eyes of the venues and rights holders, as it limits the ability to deploy this.
Apple themselves would have little incentive to add yet another cripple feature in their phones considering that the competition would add no such thing. Unless Apple lobbied for smartphone exclusion zones, with the iPhone given a pass there would be no market incentive for this feature.
So why patent something that would be a huge sales disincentive if actually deployed?
Some middle eastern countries are cracking down on photos in public places, but I doubt they have a big enough market for this.
Why would he need dropbox for pictures snapped from his android phone? If he has Android, he has google. If he has google he has Picasa. If he has picasa his android will sync with it at will.
There is no facepalm big enough to express my feeling at that hack. I'm sure they paid good money to "security professionals" to set that up too.
The hack isn't as simple as you might think at first glance.
Sending the account number out in a URL is not that big of a deal in an SSL environment. (Not defending it, people looking over the users shoulder and all. It should have been an encrypted session string, or an encrypted cookie so that the user couldn't see how to alter it.).
But the ultimate problem here was accepting the altered URL without going thru re-validation, without asking for passwords again, etc.
It wasn't so much a hack as a simple (but gigantic) oversight in the web server security suite.
Sending the account number out in a URL over SSL should not be that big of a hole. (Ok, not smart, but the risk lies mostly in the person looking over the user's sholder).
The problem was allowing the change in the URL without going thru re-validation of credentials. Apparently they set a session flag indicating that validation had been passed, and never bothered to match that with the change in the account number.
It is amazingly robust, self healing, and self preserving and resilient. It is consistent over eons, with constant change within limits based on energy input from the sun.
Nothing "meddlesome man" can do will have as much effect as a 2% change in the sun's output.
So your assertion that it is appropriate is questionable, and your claim that it is "not up to questioning" is just simply flat wrong.
The numbers won't be in the 100M range. It might even be a number with a B behind it.
Royalties probably have a low estimate of around $5 per handset, and perhaps as high as $15. Microsoft makes $5 per android handset for software licenses alone.
With something approaching 80 million iPhones sold, you can easily see this could be rather larger than 100M.
How can you claim that he proved your point? What exactly is it that he says that proves your point?
Because in in the space of one paragraph he neatly ties it all together:
Quoting:
"Evil mankind" is a subjective term, but meddlesome mankind is certainly not. The fact is, even in this day and age, we live in a highly complex and fickle ecosystem that can be torn asunder by the planet's forces, as shown by several of the earth's recent natural disasters. What happens if bees stop pollinating altogether tomorrow? What about hurricanes and tornadoes all over the planet?
The subtle switch from "meddlesome mankind" to "the planets forces" fools none but the gullible. Bringing up the bees is nothing but a sop to the recent cell-phones kill bees junk science. Mentioning "hurricanes and tornadoes" is a clear play for the news of recent events (which are statistically inline with historical records).
When warming deniers resort to these tactics, and point to the brutal Chicago winter, they are shouted down.
Yet when the same tactics are sob-storied out here, people like you rush in to defend. Whats up with that?
The ecosystem is not fickle. It is astoundingly resilient. Amazing robust, and self healing. Yet he tries to get away with blaming that all on "meddlesome mankind", and you take the bait.
My point was that regardless of the changes from the sun swamping ALL inputs from mankind, the warmist crowd would change the terms of the discussion such that mankind was to blame. He did exactly that. And you swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Global warming was a clumsy name. People hear of and think they'll have nicer summers, or take a particularly cold spell as evidence against climate change. On a similar note, survival of the fittest is a poor description to use with laymen because many imagine it to mean that evolutionary processes favour the physically strongest or fastest species.
But people can be educated, which, with regard to "Survival of the fittest", takes at most 15 minutes in the 5th grade. After that, problem solved.
There is simply no need to start casting concepts in more obfuscating terms, especially when the primary purpose for doing so is to disguise the fact that most of the theory is as wrong as the cherry picked data used to support it.
Renaming is the last bastion of scoundrels and snake oil salesmen. When Liberals became a pejorative, suddenly progressives were born.
Are you prepared to offer any scientific evidence that the so called "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" is any more harmful than say, the landfills of any medium to large sized city?
This isn't search based on facial recognition, but on product recognition, or so it seems from what I've read so far. It will be interesting when you can point Google at a picture of someone and have it search for other pictures of the same person. Then check to see if you get different results with safe-search off.
That may be the case this week, but with facial recognition already built into Picasa (and it works fairly well) and with other companies (facebook) threatening to unleash it on the web, we can only guess how long Google can hold off a full fledged facial reco system, at least for public figures, and probably with an opt-in, but eventually for any face at all.
The tools are there already. The privacy issue and their often mocked clinging to the "don't be evil" motto is probably the only thing preventing google from offering a FR application tomorrow,
No, they will still find a way to blame humans. Even the next Ice Age will be blamed on human activity. They've simply changed the terminology from Global Warming to Climate Change so that they can never be proven wrong, and always retain their stick with which to beat evil mankind.
You are essentially correct, but apple refused to join the GSMA even AFTER they decided to jump into the GSM market place.
And contrary to many posters in this thread, GSMA was not asking for ALL apple iphone patents, simply those patents pertaining to GSM radio and feature space which were pertinent to handsets.
But Apple invented practically nothing in this regard, they simply used chipsets manufactured by others. They therefore, initially, claimed that all royalties were paid by Infineon and Broadcom and their other suppliers. This was wrong, of course, as the charter allowed no such escape, and indeed had pre-established rated for patent use by non-reciprocating companies.
And since Apple had very little to offer in return for the use of the pool patents, they were obligated to pay these rates. Apple stomped their foot and refused, and actually got away with it for far longer than they should have.
Had they joined the alliance, they would have had to offer a few minor patents they held, none of which are central to iPhone designs. They would have lost nothing virtually nothing, and paid much lower royalties. Now, they have more patents, largely regarding antenna design (flawed as that may be). Since LTE is based on GSM, Apple had no option but to settle this, because these patents are not going away anytime soon.
There are other patent holders in this pool, and I would expect to see the other member coming after Apple soon. With the precedent set, Erickson and Rim are going to want their royalties as well.
If I were Apple, I might be looking for a new Legal team. The one they have is the same one that told them to thumb their nose at the GSMA, and lost. You can bet they lost big, VERY BIG, or Apple would be crowing about how little it cost them to settle the issue.
You may feel angry because those toys aren't available to you, or me. What you'd love right now is being in the playground with the others and not in a dark, isolate angle, trying to pretend you want to help them out. See, the canonical good samaritan doesn't fake his attention needs, you might want to look for someone who actually hear _your_ problems.
Seriously?
I couldn't eek out a moment in my day to use these toys to attack some web site somewhere. I have an actual life, and no basement to crawl into.
Some day the perpwalks will start. How smug will you be then?
Like I said, expand your world view outside of your own back yard.
Statistics from the US don't mean much, due to successive administrations following a practice of pushing the conflict right back into the back yards of the attackers. Not all countries have this ability.
This is all about protecting us from the last attack.
No, the cockpit doors are protecting us from the last successful attack. I suppose if you count would-be shoe-bombers then the passengers protected us from the last attempted attack. I'm not sure what this is protecting us from. Why do they need to do biometric scans after you've been scanned for explosives? That makes no sense. If you want to track people (legally or not) just use face (and clothing) recognition software and inconspicuous cameras so people don't notice and don't get upset about it.
Exactly. And the no-fly list is equally idiotic. It should be a no-fly-without a complete scan list. Especially since even babies can be added to the list. What does it matter who flys as long as they don't have a weapon?
The whole thing is security theater. It hurts us more than Osama ever did.
You don't need an actual weapon to commit an actual crime. Even dry runs are actionable.
Besides, the lab tests will show explosives. It will be blown up to render it safe. Go ahead, prove them wrong. Your protestations of modeling clay will be laughed out of court.
Muslim extremists are actually responsible for a minority of terrorist activity (though granted it's a large minority).
A minority?
I don't think so. The fact that you can only name one "corn bread" suggests that even you don't believe what you are posting. Expand your worldview outside your immediate surroundings.
Slashdot Mirror
But Picasa is free.
True, the paranoid might want to store their upskirts on dropbox or a secure private storage somewhere other than on the phone (which could be seized by police). But this hardly makes sharing easy.
The request was for something more secure than Dropbox, or at lease open source. I have no problem with that. There' are documents I won't put on Google Docs, even tho I use Google heavily.
It just seemed to me that photo snaps were the least of my concern, and I would just keep them on the phone unless I wanted the share them, and if I wanted to share them dropbox or any other private implementation of that sort would be counter productive.
Thats where I was going with my post. Just the photo sharing angle. And maybe I imagined the sharing part.
Ok, and exactly WHY as a iPhone customer, would I want such 'feature' on my phone?? Rather limiting I'd say.
Exactly so. What a huge sales disincentive.
Far be it from me to suggest Apple is doing something altruistic, but let me toss this out there:
Were they doing us all a favor by locking up this technology so that venues couldn't deploy it and/or demand it on all smart phones?
Seems vaguely possible, since without wide adoption in all handsets, this technology is useless, and won't be deployed anywhere. A patent is actually counter productive in the eyes of the venues and rights holders, as it limits the ability to deploy this.
Apple themselves would have little incentive to add yet another cripple feature in their phones considering that the competition would add no such thing. Unless Apple lobbied for smartphone exclusion zones, with the iPhone given a pass there would be no market incentive for this feature.
So why patent something that would be a huge sales disincentive if actually deployed?
Some middle eastern countries are cracking down on photos in public places, but I doubt they have a big enough market for this.
It makes no sense.
Why would he need dropbox for pictures snapped from his android phone?
If he has Android, he has google.
If he has google he has Picasa.
If he has picasa his android will sync with it at will.
There does not exist on earth more carbon than the earth can process.
All the carbon came from the earth. It was "processed" into the earth in the past after the living material was "done" with it.
Says more about the meteorologist than nature....
There is no facepalm big enough to express my feeling at that hack. I'm sure they paid good money to "security professionals" to set that up too.
The hack isn't as simple as you might think at first glance.
Sending the account number out in a URL is not that big of a deal in an SSL environment. (Not defending it, people looking over the users shoulder and all. It should have been an encrypted session string, or an encrypted cookie so that the user couldn't see how to alter it.).
But the ultimate problem here was accepting the altered URL without going thru re-validation, without asking for passwords again, etc.
It wasn't so much a hack as a simple (but gigantic) oversight in the web server security suite.
Sending the account number out in a URL over SSL should not be that big of a hole.
(Ok, not smart, but the risk lies mostly in the person looking over the user's sholder).
The problem was allowing the change in the URL without going thru re-validation of credentials.
Apparently they set a session flag indicating that validation had been passed, and never bothered
to match that with the change in the account number.
Nature is not fickle.
It is amazingly robust, self healing, and self preserving and resilient.
It is consistent over eons, with constant change within limits based on energy input from the sun.
Nothing "meddlesome man" can do will have as much effect as a 2% change in the sun's output.
So your assertion that it is appropriate is questionable, and your claim that it is "not up to questioning" is just simply flat wrong.
The numbers won't be in the 100M range.
It might even be a number with a B behind it.
Royalties probably have a low estimate of around $5 per handset, and perhaps as high as $15.
Microsoft makes $5 per android handset for software licenses alone.
With something approaching 80 million iPhones sold, you can easily see this could be rather larger
than 100M.
How can you claim that he proved your point? What exactly is it that he says that proves your point?
Because in in the space of one paragraph he neatly ties it all together:
Quoting:
"Evil mankind" is a subjective term, but meddlesome mankind is certainly not. The fact is, even in this day and age, we live in a highly complex and fickle ecosystem that can be torn asunder by the planet's forces, as shown by several of the earth's recent natural disasters. What happens if bees stop pollinating altogether tomorrow? What about hurricanes and tornadoes all over the planet?
The subtle switch from "meddlesome mankind" to "the planets forces" fools none but the gullible.
Bringing up the bees is nothing but a sop to the recent cell-phones kill bees junk science.
Mentioning "hurricanes and tornadoes" is a clear play for the news of recent events (which are statistically inline with historical records).
When warming deniers resort to these tactics, and point to the brutal Chicago winter, they are shouted down.
Yet when the same tactics are sob-storied out here, people like you rush in to defend. Whats up with that?
The ecosystem is not fickle. It is astoundingly resilient. Amazing robust, and self healing.
Yet he tries to get away with blaming that all on "meddlesome mankind", and you take the bait.
My point was that regardless of the changes from the sun swamping ALL inputs from mankind, the warmist crowd would change the terms of the discussion such that mankind was to blame. He did exactly that. And you swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Global warming was a clumsy name. People hear of and think they'll have nicer summers, or take a particularly cold spell as evidence against climate change. On a similar note, survival of the fittest is a poor description to use with laymen because many imagine it to mean that evolutionary processes favour the physically strongest or fastest species.
But people can be educated, which, with regard to "Survival of the fittest", takes at most 15 minutes in the 5th grade.
After that, problem solved.
There is simply no need to start casting concepts in more obfuscating terms, especially when the primary purpose for doing so is to disguise the fact that most of the theory is as wrong as the cherry picked data used to support it.
Renaming is the last bastion of scoundrels and snake oil salesmen.
When Liberals became a pejorative, suddenly progressives were born.
Are you prepared to offer any scientific evidence that the so called "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" is any more harmful than say, the landfills of any medium to large sized city?
You should have moderated.
You would have had more effect, because after all, the only thing you accomplished by posting was to prove my point.
Bees. Hurricanes and Tornadoes! Are you sure you don't want to throw in earthquakes and volcanoes and blame them on mankind too?
No, supposedly it will not be facial recognition, at least not yet.
It will probably be swamped by porn.
This isn't search based on facial recognition, but on product recognition, or so it seems from what I've read so far. It will be interesting when you can point Google at a picture of someone and have it search for other pictures of the same person. Then check to see if you get different results with safe-search off.
That may be the case this week, but with facial recognition already built into Picasa (and it works fairly well) and with other companies (facebook) threatening to unleash it on the web, we can only guess how long Google can hold off a full fledged facial reco system, at least for public figures, and probably with an opt-in, but eventually for any face at all.
The tools are there already. The privacy issue and their often mocked clinging to the "don't be evil" motto is probably the only thing preventing google from offering a FR application tomorrow,
No, they will still find a way to blame humans. Even the next Ice Age will be blamed on human activity. They've simply changed the terminology from Global Warming to Climate Change so that they can never be proven wrong, and always retain their stick with which to beat evil mankind.
You are essentially correct, but apple refused to join the GSMA even AFTER they decided to jump into the GSM market place.
And contrary to many posters in this thread, GSMA was not asking for ALL apple iphone patents, simply those patents pertaining to GSM radio and feature space which were pertinent to handsets.
But Apple invented practically nothing in this regard, they simply used chipsets manufactured by others. They therefore, initially, claimed that all royalties were paid by Infineon and Broadcom and their other suppliers. This was wrong, of course, as the charter allowed no such escape, and indeed had pre-established rated for patent use by non-reciprocating companies.
And since Apple had very little to offer in return for the use of the pool patents, they were obligated to pay these rates. Apple stomped their foot and refused, and actually got away with it for far longer than they should have.
Had they joined the alliance, they would have had to offer a few minor patents they held, none of which are central to iPhone designs. They would have lost nothing virtually nothing, and paid much lower royalties. Now, they have more patents, largely regarding antenna design (flawed as that may be). Since LTE is based on GSM, Apple had no option but to settle this, because these patents are not going away anytime soon.
There are other patent holders in this pool, and I would expect to see the other member coming after Apple soon. With the precedent set, Erickson and Rim are going to want their royalties as well.
If I were Apple, I might be looking for a new Legal team. The one they have is the same one that told them to thumb their nose at the GSMA, and lost. You can bet they lost big, VERY BIG, or Apple would be crowing about how little it cost them to settle the issue.
You may feel angry because those toys aren't available to you, or me.
What you'd love right now is being in the playground with the others and not in a dark, isolate angle, trying to pretend you want to help them out.
See, the canonical good samaritan doesn't fake his attention needs, you might want to look for someone who actually hear _your_ problems.
Seriously?
I couldn't eek out a moment in my day to use these toys to attack some web site somewhere. I have an actual life, and no basement to crawl into.
Some day the perpwalks will start.
How smug will you be then?
So I'm not sure how that is germane?
These people, even if they are using a false identity, should get searched and scanned, and then allowed to fly.
Instead, legions of similarly named people are denied the right to fly ARBITRARILY.
Like I said, expand your world view outside of your own back yard.
Statistics from the US don't mean much, due to successive administrations following a practice of
pushing the conflict right back into the back yards of the attackers. Not all countries have this
ability.
No, the cockpit doors are protecting us from the last successful attack. I suppose if you count would-be shoe-bombers then the passengers protected us from the last attempted attack. I'm not sure what this is protecting us from. Why do they need to do biometric scans after you've been scanned for explosives? That makes no sense. If you want to track people (legally or not) just use face (and clothing) recognition software and inconspicuous cameras so people don't notice and don't get upset about it.
Exactly.
And the no-fly list is equally idiotic. It should be a no-fly-without a complete scan list. Especially since even babies can be added to the list.
What does it matter who flys as long as they don't have a weapon?
The whole thing is security theater. It hurts us more than Osama ever did.
You don't need an actual weapon to commit an actual crime. Even dry runs are actionable.
Besides, the lab tests will show explosives. It will be blown up to render it safe. Go ahead, prove them wrong.
Your protestations of modeling clay will be laughed out of court.
Make it successful enough, and you're killing yourself along with your target.
Since when has that ever proven to be a deterrent?
Muslim extremists are actually responsible for a minority of terrorist activity (though granted it's a large minority).
A minority?
I don't think so. The fact that you can only name one "corn bread" suggests that even you don't believe what you are posting.
Expand your worldview outside your immediate surroundings.