I really don't get how these things get marked interesting or insightful.
This is SOP for any real business.
Of course you're also making retarded accusations since there are already other, mind you, completely shitty apps, on the app store that use OGG so you've lose that one before it started.
I'm continually baffled by the fact that people like yourself can't understand that there are far more reasons people like the iPhone than there are reasons they don't like it.
The end result is that they buy it, use it, love it, and wish it did a couple other things that they just haven't found the app for yet.
Theres more to life than your one retarded agenda.
To try and avoid their current slide into 'no one gives a fuck about firefox anymore' ?
Firefox and the Netscape have shown us twice (three times depending on how you count) that they kick ass when they have no competition to speak of.
Throw in any sort of useful competition and Firefox simply isn't impressive. They got to do something to remain relevant, and sometimes that means selling out you precious OSS zealots in exchange for some commercial recognition.
Because any number of apps may have hooked into the adobe DLLs to use various bits from them and its rather difficult (not impossible) to figure out which apps those might be and give you some info about them.
Also in reality, most users won't know what to do so rebooting is a fine alternative for the computer ignorant.
It amazes me that slashdot has so many users who will tell you much they know about system administration and programming, but don't understand the concept of dependencies
The original phones up until the 3Gs didn't encryption the data.
The 3GS and presumable 4.0 phones encrypted the data using a key that isnt (in theory) directly accessable to anyone outside the phone os and more specifically hardware.
So yes, there have been many ways to get data off 2g and 3g devices. 3Gs and 4.0 devices work in a different way so short of ripping apart a chip to get the key, the best you'll get is an encrypted memory dump which is more or less worthless unless you can get the key out of the hardware.
On older phones with newer OSes a remove wipe destroys the key. Updated versions of the software first destroy the key, then proceed to overwrite the encrypted data itself to make it useless even if you obtained the key somewhere else.
Basically, Apple realized this was studip 2 revisions of the hardware back and has such fixed the issue.
When you unlock the phone, you effectively add the key to the file system keystore so it can decrypt the files.
if you unlock your phone, you have... unlocked your phone. Whats the difficulty in understanding this?
All LifeLock does is add you to all the little BS registries and companies that list people who don't want to be 'contacted'.
Unforunately, thats all the data someone needs to effectively steal your identity anyway, so in reality they just become a distributor of the very information they are 'protecting'.
Whats better is it was researched funded by government and other grants.
We paid for the research anyway, its not like they are 'giving' us anything we didn't 'give' them the money to find it with.
This is just the typical BS they put out to 'the dulls' who don't realize what they do.
The end result is that they'll snoop around and find some good info from what they give out to the public, turn around, patent it and sell it to us at $250/pill
While I entirely agree with your point, I'm utterly amazed you haven't been moderated into oblivion yet with 200 'shut up you apple apologist!!@$!@$!' replies.
So, my bet is that Apple goes the same way as netflix - unwilling to compromise because their world view has no room in it for Free software for regular users.
And the movies creator also has very little room in the world for DRM.
Both are pushing their agendas on others and both are losing for it in this particular instance.
If you want to push your own personal agenda's... or be part of 'a movement' then you better be ready to accept you're going to get the short end of the stick most of the time.
Section 7.2 may be restrictive, but the EFFs response is an attempt to confuse the issue. They are mixing Apples right to control the use of their SDK and store front and exclusivity with the distribution of the application outside the store.
Violation or not, thats a clear attempt to mix in other parts of the EFFs agenda in an attempt to equate them to being one and the same, which they most certainly are not.
Yes. Apple doesn't really try to stop anyone, they do strongly advise against it and won't support you if you do it. They certainly don't have to provide you with the tools to do so.
I assure you however, I've copied apps between phones with a simple scp command line.
Apple doesn't have to help you do it or do it for you, they don't even have to make it easy.
From a technical perspective, if someone can solder up a connection to the flash chips and dump it, they've met that particular clause, regardless of how absurd of an idea that may seem.
You just quoted the part of the store relating to music, not apps. Good job. There are a metric fuckton of apple endorsed for commercial use apps for instance.
At least quote the right part of the agreement rather than random out of context quotes from unrelated portions of the agreement.
If you intend to take over the world and rule it with GPL software... then splitting hairs like WHO is distributing the source is going to end up making you just look like a pedantic asshole. In the end, the pedantic asshole winds up alone with no friends.
Do you want a useful portable game console that promotes OSS
or
Do you want a box full of crappy, buggy, half implemented OSS chips that don't do anything good, a lot of things partially, and are all around useless because the devs realized that there isn't an opensource 3d graphics chip thats ready, with all the supporting hardware and software NOW. There isn't an opensource processor with supporting hardware and reference implementations NOW.
Get the fuck over the whole 'IT MUST BE ALL OSS OR IT SUCKS" thing guys. You have to build pieces and there will always be 'better' closed alternatives, they can take ALL the knowledge and learning from the OSS stuff (not code, knowledge) and add in their own special sauce without telling you the knowledge they gained.
And to put it bluntly, you're a pretty shitty dev if you haven't yet figured out how to hook binary blobs into OSS code without violating any licensing constraints.
So... do you want it to suck for now but be 100% or be usable for now, not 100% open, but taking some of the first steps towards making a place for other open source hardware to work with it and replace the commercial bits there are now.
Might not want to cut off your face to save your nose.
Might as well take this all the way to the limits.
Since hardware the code is running on is part of the build process, you'd also need to have not only entirely OSS software (ALL OF IT, firmware, bios, everything) but you'd also need entirely open source hardware.
I'll bet a months pay no one can make a valid claim of truly GPL compliant binary distributions if you follow that rule to the letter.
When you truely follow the full (and not some arbitrary version you create) dependancy tree, it would appear to me that all the major Linux distros are in violation of the GPL since I can't get source code to the transistors or the bios in their build farms.
Yes, I'm being entirely off the wall / bat shit insane / fubar / stupid. But where exactly do you draw the line on these sorts of things? You just stop when you get your way I guess?
As I said originally, push this issue legally, and you lose, regardless of the legal outcome.
And there is no way they (for any sane definition of 'they') really want to enforce this.
It would effectively cut off all GPLv2 and 3 distributions of Windows and Mac OS X binaries since regardless of how you look at it, there are portions of the build process which will never be open source.
So you have to draw the line some where, which neither GPLv3 or v2 define, so its effectively a worthless and unenforceable constraint.
At some point you've got to realize that GPL can not infect everything it touches.
And specifically since you didn't bother to read the summary:
I have approached the FSF but their limited resources are tied up pursuing more blatant violations (where no code at all is being released.)
I'm more inclined to believe this is something the FSF doesn't want to push as they'll most certainly loose ground on this one, regardless of the outcome of any legal battle.
They'll either lose any possibility of protection, further opening up the silliness that GPL tries to force on people OR... they'll just make it obvious that GPL has no place anywhere near commercial software, which again, would be a huge blow for GPL software in general.
You REALLY REALLY don't want to push this one. Just ignore that clause like everyone else and everyone will be better off for it.
I'm sure that the engineers at Google had about 2,741,288 more productive things they could have been doing than this,
I'm going to have to disagree. I'm certain this is actually the most productive thing (for my day) that google has ever done. Just the grin on my face when it started the intro music was priceless imo.
Just ignore the GP who probably is gonna go hang himself tonight since he clearly hates the world.
Except... that comic is compare two unrelating things like if doing one would have affected the other, which it wouldn't.
The first 2 panes are spot on with a major 'geek' problem. People don't give a shit about nerd turf wars over document formats, what they have WORKS for them and everyone else, geeks included. No one has told everyone they aren't allowed to do what they want with their Word docs. When they do, then you can make this argument. Until then any format you propose is effectively the same for anyone except a true hacker which can go and write a parser for some open format after its no longer relevant to anyone. Which excludes about 99% of slashdot.
The implication here is just retarded is so wrong.
When you enter Australia... you are in Australia, the laws there apply, not the laws of your country of origin, I fail to see the difficulty in understanding this and if you don't, traveling to foreign countries is probably not a good idea.
You can simply not take the data with you. You don't really have a reason to be carrying data that requires PCI compliance on a laptop anyway do you? If you just answered Yes, I've got a $50 bill here that says you're already violating the rules in multiple ways since you're still trying to continue this discussion using that argument.
My family and a few select friends that I believe to be better people than myself.
I would like to think I would give my life if it meant saving more that one person. As Spock said (which probably came from someone else I'm sure): The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few or the one.
There are several constraints on these things of course, and in reality if it comes right down to it, I would probably not have the courage to do so, even if I think I do now while I'm not facing the decision directly.
I wouldn't give my life for anything else. No law, no contract, no license, nothing else.
Don't confuse me however, I'm not doing it for someone else, its more that I would do it because I couldn't stand to live with myself if I was the one left behind. I don't think I could live without my wife and children, and I have some friends that are really good people which make the world a better place.
It is only natural for people to resist when their most basic right of self-expression is violated.
Its only natural for someone else to kick their ass or kill them for it too. Theres a difference between cowardice and prudence even if you can't see that difference yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't get how these things get marked interesting or insightful.
This is SOP for any real business.
Of course you're also making retarded accusations since there are already other, mind you, completely shitty apps, on the app store that use OGG so you've lose that one before it started.
I'm continually baffled by the fact that people like yourself can't understand that there are far more reasons people like the iPhone than there are reasons they don't like it.
The end result is that they buy it, use it, love it, and wish it did a couple other things that they just haven't found the app for yet.
Theres more to life than your one retarded agenda.
If you think thats the case, I seriously doubt you've ever written any serious objc application.
To try and avoid their current slide into 'no one gives a fuck about firefox anymore' ?
Firefox and the Netscape have shown us twice (three times depending on how you count) that they kick ass when they have no competition to speak of.
Throw in any sort of useful competition and Firefox simply isn't impressive. They got to do something to remain relevant, and sometimes that means selling out you precious OSS zealots in exchange for some commercial recognition.
You guess really have blinders on.
Because any number of apps may have hooked into the adobe DLLs to use various bits from them and its rather difficult (not impossible) to figure out which apps those might be and give you some info about them.
Also in reality, most users won't know what to do so rebooting is a fine alternative for the computer ignorant.
It amazes me that slashdot has so many users who will tell you much they know about system administration and programming, but don't understand the concept of dependencies
Entering a PIN unlocks the hardware keys built into the device that allows access to the encrypted parts of the file system.
The PIN is simply a short password for a RSA/DSA key used for everything else, you know, to do the actual work.
Yes, you can get the raw data off without a PIN.
The original phones up until the 3Gs didn't encryption the data.
The 3GS and presumable 4.0 phones encrypted the data using a key that isnt (in theory) directly accessable to anyone outside the phone os and more specifically hardware.
So yes, there have been many ways to get data off 2g and 3g devices. 3Gs and 4.0 devices work in a different way so short of ripping apart a chip to get the key, the best you'll get is an encrypted memory dump which is more or less worthless unless you can get the key out of the hardware.
On older phones with newer OSes a remove wipe destroys the key. Updated versions of the software first destroy the key, then proceed to overwrite the encrypted data itself to make it useless even if you obtained the key somewhere else.
Basically, Apple realized this was studip 2 revisions of the hardware back and has such fixed the issue.
When you unlock the phone, you effectively add the key to the file system keystore so it can decrypt the files.
if you unlock your phone, you have ... unlocked your phone. Whats the difficulty in understanding this?
All LifeLock does is add you to all the little BS registries and companies that list people who don't want to be 'contacted'.
Unforunately, thats all the data someone needs to effectively steal your identity anyway, so in reality they just become a distributor of the very information they are 'protecting'.
Whats better is it was researched funded by government and other grants.
We paid for the research anyway, its not like they are 'giving' us anything we didn't 'give' them the money to find it with.
This is just the typical BS they put out to 'the dulls' who don't realize what they do.
The end result is that they'll snoop around and find some good info from what they give out to the public, turn around, patent it and sell it to us at $250/pill
While I entirely agree with your point, I'm utterly amazed you haven't been moderated into oblivion yet with 200 'shut up you apple apologist!!@$!@$!' replies.
And the movies creator also has very little room in the world for DRM.
Both are pushing their agendas on others and both are losing for it in this particular instance.
If you want to push your own personal agenda's ... or be part of 'a movement' then you better be ready to accept you're going to get the short end of the stick most of the time.
Section 7.2 may be restrictive, but the EFFs response is an attempt to confuse the issue. They are mixing Apples right to control the use of their SDK and store front and exclusivity with the distribution of the application outside the store.
Violation or not, thats a clear attempt to mix in other parts of the EFFs agenda in an attempt to equate them to being one and the same, which they most certainly are not.
Yes. Apple doesn't really try to stop anyone, they do strongly advise against it and won't support you if you do it. They certainly don't have to provide you with the tools to do so.
I assure you however, I've copied apps between phones with a simple scp command line.
Apple doesn't have to help you do it or do it for you, they don't even have to make it easy.
From a technical perspective, if someone can solder up a connection to the flash chips and dump it, they've met that particular clause, regardless of how absurd of an idea that may seem.
You just quoted the part of the store relating to music, not apps. Good job. There are a metric fuckton of apple endorsed for commercial use apps for instance.
At least quote the right part of the agreement rather than random out of context quotes from unrelated portions of the agreement.
Yes, and watch how long you last in court ...
Plantiff: They committed copyright infringement! As soon as we confronted them about it they stopped!
Defendant: Yea, pretty much, thats it
Judge: Why are we here again? Mr Defendant, don't do that again mmmkay. Mr Plantiff, stop fucking wasting my time with these BS suits. Next.
If you intend to take over the world and rule it with GPL software ... then splitting hairs like WHO is distributing the source is going to end up making you just look like a pedantic asshole. In the end, the pedantic asshole winds up alone with no friends.
Jesus Christ.
Do you want a useful portable game console that promotes OSS
or
Do you want a box full of crappy, buggy, half implemented OSS chips that don't do anything good, a lot of things partially, and are all around useless because the devs realized that there isn't an opensource 3d graphics chip thats ready, with all the supporting hardware and software NOW. There isn't an opensource processor with supporting hardware and reference implementations NOW.
Get the fuck over the whole 'IT MUST BE ALL OSS OR IT SUCKS" thing guys. You have to build pieces and there will always be 'better' closed alternatives, they can take ALL the knowledge and learning from the OSS stuff (not code, knowledge) and add in their own special sauce without telling you the knowledge they gained.
And to put it bluntly, you're a pretty shitty dev if you haven't yet figured out how to hook binary blobs into OSS code without violating any licensing constraints.
So ... do you want it to suck for now but be 100% or be usable for now, not 100% open, but taking some of the first steps towards making a place for other open source hardware to work with it and replace the commercial bits there are now.
Might not want to cut off your face to save your nose.
Might as well take this all the way to the limits.
Since hardware the code is running on is part of the build process, you'd also need to have not only entirely OSS software (ALL OF IT, firmware, bios, everything) but you'd also need entirely open source hardware.
I'll bet a months pay no one can make a valid claim of truly GPL compliant binary distributions if you follow that rule to the letter.
When you truely follow the full (and not some arbitrary version you create) dependancy tree, it would appear to me that all the major Linux distros are in violation of the GPL since I can't get source code to the transistors or the bios in their build farms.
Yes, I'm being entirely off the wall / bat shit insane / fubar / stupid. But where exactly do you draw the line on these sorts of things? You just stop when you get your way I guess?
As I said originally, push this issue legally, and you lose, regardless of the legal outcome.
And there is no way they (for any sane definition of 'they') really want to enforce this.
It would effectively cut off all GPLv2 and 3 distributions of Windows and Mac OS X binaries since regardless of how you look at it, there are portions of the build process which will never be open source.
So you have to draw the line some where, which neither GPLv3 or v2 define, so its effectively a worthless and unenforceable constraint.
At some point you've got to realize that GPL can not infect everything it touches.
And specifically since you didn't bother to read the summary:
I'm more inclined to believe this is something the FSF doesn't want to push as they'll most certainly loose ground on this one, regardless of the outcome of any legal battle.
They'll either lose any possibility of protection, further opening up the silliness that GPL tries to force on people OR ... they'll just make it obvious that GPL has no place anywhere near commercial software, which again, would be a huge blow for GPL software in general.
You REALLY REALLY don't want to push this one. Just ignore that clause like everyone else and everyone will be better off for it.
I'm going to have to disagree. I'm certain this is actually the most productive thing (for my day) that google has ever done. Just the grin on my face when it started the intro music was priceless imo.
Just ignore the GP who probably is gonna go hang himself tonight since he clearly hates the world.
Except ... that comic is compare two unrelating things like if doing one would have affected the other, which it wouldn't.
The first 2 panes are spot on with a major 'geek' problem. People don't give a shit about nerd turf wars over document formats, what they have WORKS for them and everyone else, geeks included. No one has told everyone they aren't allowed to do what they want with their Word docs. When they do, then you can make this argument. Until then any format you propose is effectively the same for anyone except a true hacker which can go and write a parser for some open format after its no longer relevant to anyone. Which excludes about 99% of slashdot.
The implication here is just retarded is so wrong.
When you enter Australia ... you are in Australia, the laws there apply, not the laws of your country of origin, I fail to see the difficulty in understanding this and if you don't, traveling to foreign countries is probably not a good idea.
You can simply not take the data with you. You don't really have a reason to be carrying data that requires PCI compliance on a laptop anyway do you? If you just answered Yes, I've got a $50 bill here that says you're already violating the rules in multiple ways since you're still trying to continue this discussion using that argument.
Yea, and plenty of fish have air bladders.
My family and a few select friends that I believe to be better people than myself.
I would like to think I would give my life if it meant saving more that one person. As Spock said (which probably came from someone else I'm sure): The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few or the one.
There are several constraints on these things of course, and in reality if it comes right down to it, I would probably not have the courage to do so, even if I think I do now while I'm not facing the decision directly.
I wouldn't give my life for anything else. No law, no contract, no license, nothing else.
Don't confuse me however, I'm not doing it for someone else, its more that I would do it because I couldn't stand to live with myself if I was the one left behind. I don't think I could live without my wife and children, and I have some friends that are really good people which make the world a better place.
Its only natural for someone else to kick their ass or kill them for it too. Theres a difference between cowardice and prudence even if you can't see that difference yourself.