I've had to administrate sites in Typo3, Joomla, Drupal, and other CMSs. I've written some Typo3 extensions because there was nothing out that did exactly what I needed. Nonetheless, I cannot stand Typo3 and its irritating TypoScript psuedo-language. I'll take Joomla any day over that.
It may be a mistake from our perspective, but Apple shareholders don't mind too much that the iPod and iTMS are incredibly successful.
Many other companies have tried to break into the same markets (hello Microsoft?) with not much success. And they had even better DRM than Apple's! (from a lock-in perspective)
My favorite line from the MS site is: "If you would like to receive information when the Elevate America resources become available in your state, please follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/elevateamerica."
No, If any part of a page is not encrypted then an attacker can effectively strip all encryption from the entire page.
You're right, and thanks for the links. Though, this seems to be more a problem with scripting vulnerabilities and MITM attcks than with HTTPS specifically.
I also thnk that browsers just should not allow a form on a not-fully-HTTPS page to submit to a HTTPS URL.
Designers then started breaking this. To avoid an extra https serve, particularly on a front page or popular page. For the sake of "Design", including putting a sign in form on the front page.
Errr... you really think the DESIGNERS cared about extra HTTPS hits??? They were probably told to put the login on the home page. Then, the sysadmins balked at the idea of an increased SSL load, but still said the login could be done securely if the form action was HTTPS.
The real problem is browsers. They should have been designed so that only HTTPS forms could submit to HTTPS actions. No HTTP form should be accepted.
Really, you should already be wary when a site asks you for login information over HTTP rather than HTTPS.
Maybe. The login form might be located on an HTTP page, but as long as the form submits to an HTTPS page, your login credentials are still SSL-encrypted. Conversely, if you have an HTTPS login form, but the form action goes to an HTTP site, your credentials are NOT encrypted.
FTA: "In fact it is more like a puzzle that you get to solve. It told me to go to Windows Update and do a bunch of incantations."
Finally, someone at Microsoft admits that you have to use magic to make Windows work right... I would comment more, but I am on my way to my daily Ballmer goat and bull sacrifice.
Apple is 1% hardware and 99% Marketing. Not too much they do can't be done on a Dell or HP. They just make it appear to do it better/slicker/faster, that's all.
I'd peg it at 10% hardware, if not more. The internal hardware layout of Apple's desktop towers borders on beautiful. Beats Dell and HP hands down.
And, while its hardware failures tend to be more spectacular, I've generally found Apple hardware to be more reliable than any of the Wintel vendors. (...speaking as someone who has been supporting computers since before MS-DOS or the Mac...)
So, just to take this to a logical conclusion... would it be OK if a stranger walked into your house or office; copied your music CDs, movie DVDs, and files off your computer; photographed your desk and bedroom; and then left your house... as long as the original materials remained behind? They would not be depriving you of the "good" you receive from those items.
Off the top of my head: beaches are the only thing, in the USA, I can think of that are always public and you can always cross private land to reach.
Upstate New York's Adirondack State Park is over six million acres of forest, mountains, lakes, and streams -- the largest state park in the continental U.S., almost as large as the entire state of Massachussetts. Half of the land in it, is actually privately-owned. Years ago, I hiked and camped there a lot, and frequently hiked along a state trail, only to find myself tramping across someone's backyard. And that is perfectly acceptable there. Very little land in the Adirondacks are truly off-limits to hikers, and it is very clearly marked. If you buy property there, you just know that hikers may be on your land. It's part of the deal. Your house is still private, but your land is fairly open access.
Does anyone think, "if I can see it it is mine?" Of course not.
I realize this may be off-topic, but have you heard about people downloading pirated movies and music off the Internet? Seems like an example of "if I can see it, it is mine," or at least "if I can find it, it can be mine."
the fact that American consumers (who have the freedom to do so) have been buying these specialized connectors and cables for years proves that consumers want them. That's common sense as well as basic economic theory -- which some Slashdotters seem to understand better than others.
I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious.
Suppose that, when you bought a cell phone, you were given a choice between (1) using a power adaptor plug that you already owned and fit other devices you owned, and (2) buying a new power adapter that only worked with this one single new device. Everybody would choose #1. The only reason that Americans have always chosen #2 with cell phones, is because there has never been a choice #1.
(1) Is to help boost stocks by convincing investors the company is growing, even though it's not actually hiring anybody. (2) To claim they searched for U.S. candidates, could not find any, therefore they need to import cheap labor from China or India. Whichever one it is, it was obvious I wasn't getting the job even though I'm only 30 minutes away from the factory.
I once worked for a company that advertised a job that wasn't actually open. Basically, the person in that position was foriegn (Italian) and had just applied for full residency in the U.S. Her employer wanted to keep her on, of course. But apparently they had to prove to the INS that she was most fit for the job, so they had to advertise the job. Not sure what corporate machinations were involved, but they did keep her (and she got residency).
At another place, they had received such a huge number of applications for a specific job, that they decided not to accept any more.
We discussed this issue back in 2006, though for a different continent. But if South Korea and China can do it, why not the rest of the world? Seems like it would be a win-win for manufacturing, if nothing else.
FTA: "We are paying particular attention to style and design; I'm practically obsessed with it," said Patrick Chomet, global director of terminals for Vodafone Group.
Channeling Steve Jobs?
Also: "If the device hits an anticipated price point of between 99 and 199 euros, Ms Milenesi said it would be pitched at the broader phone market. "With that range of prices, it's not aimed at the same audience as, say, the iPhone, it's looking more at a broader appeal for people."
Hmm, how much cheaper than the iPhone is that really? Will people want to save a few euros and miss out on all the cool Apple vibe that iPhone owners magically acquire?
I'd agree with you, except that iPhones are hardly a commodity or a right. It's a prestigious, expensive mobile computing device, and you know its legal limitations before you buy it. If you don't like those limitations, DON'T BUY IT.
30% is not a bad deal for providing massive visibility, end-to-end distribution, a super-simple installation method, and some kind of C.Y.A. legal protection (?) that your app will work seamlessly on your iPhone (since Apple has authorized/verified your app).
Yes, but in return for Apple's cut, they provide a huge amount of convenience and visibility. That's not a bad thing. Your jailbroken app won't make half as much money if nobody knows about it (or it's complicated to install).
So Apple is doing this to protect its income for apps on the iPhone store. That also means it is protecting the income of application *developers* who sell through the iPhone store. Sure, they could try to sell apps only for jailbroken phones, but with all the gray areas around it legally (at least in the public's eye) and with the immense ease of use of the iPhone store (click and download right now!), they would much rather go Apple's route. Right? So Apple could be covering its ass, making sure they don't get attacked from iPhone developers who have trekked through the process to make "legit" apps but could be someday losing out to jailbroken competitors.
That's what we need, a generation of young people who know how to make a sensible-sounding fallacious argument.
Stepping back from the article for a moment... it's not just evil fundamentalists who have honed that skill. Think politicians, marketers, ad execs, the RIAA, and plenty of others. Much of society is based on saying things that sound truthy but aren't quite true.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had to administrate sites in Typo3, Joomla, Drupal, and other CMSs. I've written some Typo3 extensions because there was nothing out that did exactly what I needed. Nonetheless, I cannot stand Typo3 and its irritating TypoScript psuedo-language. I'll take Joomla any day over that.
It may be a mistake from our perspective, but Apple shareholders don't mind too much that the iPod and iTMS are incredibly successful.
Many other companies have tried to break into the same markets (hello Microsoft?) with not much success. And they had even better DRM than Apple's! (from a lock-in perspective)
My favorite line from the MS site is: "If you would like to receive information when the Elevate America resources become available in your state, please follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/elevateamerica."
Oooh boy, I'm standing by for my Microsoft Tweet!
No, If any part of a page is not encrypted then an attacker can effectively strip all encryption from the entire page.
You're right, and thanks for the links. Though, this seems to be more a problem with scripting vulnerabilities and MITM attcks than with HTTPS specifically.
I also thnk that browsers just should not allow a form on a not-fully-HTTPS page to submit to a HTTPS URL.
Designers then started breaking this. To avoid an extra https serve, particularly on a front page or popular page. For the sake of "Design", including putting a sign in form on the front page.
Errr... you really think the DESIGNERS cared about extra HTTPS hits??? They were probably told to put the login on the home page. Then, the sysadmins balked at the idea of an increased SSL load, but still said the login could be done securely if the form action was HTTPS.
The real problem is browsers. They should have been designed so that only HTTPS forms could submit to HTTPS actions. No HTTP form should be accepted.
Really, you should already be wary when a site asks you for login information over HTTP rather than HTTPS.
Maybe. The login form might be located on an HTTP page, but as long as the form submits to an HTTPS page, your login credentials are still SSL-encrypted. Conversely, if you have an HTTPS login form, but the form action goes to an HTTP site, your credentials are NOT encrypted.
FTA: "In fact it is more like a puzzle that you get to solve. It told me to go to Windows Update and do a bunch of incantations."
Finally, someone at Microsoft admits that you have to use magic to make Windows work right... I would comment more, but I am on my way to my daily Ballmer goat and bull sacrifice.
Apple is 1% hardware and 99% Marketing. Not too much they do can't be done on a Dell or HP. They just make it appear to do it better/slicker/faster, that's all.
I'd peg it at 10% hardware, if not more. The internal hardware layout of Apple's desktop towers borders on beautiful. Beats Dell and HP hands down.
And, while its hardware failures tend to be more spectacular, I've generally found Apple hardware to be more reliable than any of the Wintel vendors. (...speaking as someone who has been supporting computers since before MS-DOS or the Mac...)
Fair enough.
So, just to take this to a logical conclusion... would it be OK if a stranger walked into your house or office; copied your music CDs, movie DVDs, and files off your computer; photographed your desk and bedroom; and then left your house... as long as the original materials remained behind? They would not be depriving you of the "good" you receive from those items.
Off the top of my head: beaches are the only thing, in the USA, I can think of that are always public and you can always cross private land to reach.
Upstate New York's Adirondack State Park is over six million acres of forest, mountains, lakes, and streams -- the largest state park in the continental U.S., almost as large as the entire state of Massachussetts. Half of the land in it, is actually privately-owned. Years ago, I hiked and camped there a lot, and frequently hiked along a state trail, only to find myself tramping across someone's backyard. And that is perfectly acceptable there. Very little land in the Adirondacks are truly off-limits to hikers, and it is very clearly marked. If you buy property there, you just know that hikers may be on your land. It's part of the deal. Your house is still private, but your land is fairly open access.
Does anyone think, "if I can see it it is mine?" Of course not.
I realize this may be off-topic, but have you heard about people downloading pirated movies and music off the Internet? Seems like an example of "if I can see it, it is mine," or at least "if I can find it, it can be mine."
Google isn't selling said photos.
What's the difference between selling the photos, versus selling advertising on the backs of free photos? It is still about making money.
Hmm, this "phone in the butt" story appeared just after the bar of soap phone story... cue jokes about bending over.
I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious.
Suppose that, when you bought a cell phone, you were given a choice between (1) using a power adaptor plug that you already owned and fit other devices you owned, and (2) buying a new power adapter that only worked with this one single new device. Everybody would choose #1. The only reason that Americans have always chosen #2 with cell phones, is because there has never been a choice #1.
I once worked for a company that advertised a job that wasn't actually open. Basically, the person in that position was foriegn (Italian) and had just applied for full residency in the U.S. Her employer wanted to keep her on, of course. But apparently they had to prove to the INS that she was most fit for the job, so they had to advertise the job. Not sure what corporate machinations were involved, but they did keep her (and she got residency).
At another place, they had received such a huge number of applications for a specific job, that they decided not to accept any more.
FYI, yes, I see that TFA has a link to the Chinese government mandate.
We discussed this issue back in 2006, though for a different continent. But if South Korea and China can do it, why not the rest of the world? Seems like it would be a win-win for manufacturing, if nothing else.
FTA: "We are paying particular attention to style and design; I'm practically obsessed with it," said Patrick Chomet, global director of terminals for Vodafone Group.
Channeling Steve Jobs?
Also: "If the device hits an anticipated price point of between 99 and 199 euros, Ms Milenesi said it would be pitched at the broader phone market. "With that range of prices, it's not aimed at the same audience as, say, the iPhone, it's looking more at a broader appeal for people."
Hmm, how much cheaper than the iPhone is that really? Will people want to save a few euros and miss out on all the cool Apple vibe that iPhone owners magically acquire?
In Soviet Russia, radio beams twist YOU!
Do you actually own an iphone? If so, why did you buy it if the manufacturer has terms you dont like?
"economically unsound and civilly corrupt"
I'd agree with you, except that iPhones are hardly a commodity or a right. It's a prestigious, expensive mobile computing device, and you know its legal limitations before you buy it. If you don't like those limitations, DON'T BUY IT.
Still playing devil's advocate here...
30% is not a bad deal for providing massive visibility, end-to-end distribution, a super-simple installation method, and some kind of C.Y.A. legal protection (?) that your app will work seamlessly on your iPhone (since Apple has authorized/verified your app).
Yes, but in return for Apple's cut, they provide a huge amount of convenience and visibility. That's not a bad thing. Your jailbroken app won't make half as much money if nobody knows about it (or it's complicated to install).
So Apple is doing this to protect its income for apps on the iPhone store. That also means it is protecting the income of application *developers* who sell through the iPhone store. Sure, they could try to sell apps only for jailbroken phones, but with all the gray areas around it legally (at least in the public's eye) and with the immense ease of use of the iPhone store (click and download right now!), they would much rather go Apple's route. Right? So Apple could be covering its ass, making sure they don't get attacked from iPhone developers who have trekked through the process to make "legit" apps but could be someday losing out to jailbroken competitors.
Or else it's just about the money.
Stepping back from the article for a moment... it's not just evil fundamentalists who have honed that skill. Think politicians, marketers, ad execs, the RIAA, and plenty of others. Much of society is based on saying things that sound truthy but aren't quite true.