But I'm really all for app signing as long as it's free to do so or a negligible (ie: $5-$10) processing fee.
But if it's $500 or $1,500 to have your app signed. Then it will fail...
Let's think about this, shall we? Apple will have to guarantee that the product isn't malware, and doesn't provide a backdoor. Therefore, either the SDK will provide a sandbox VM, or "signing" means "paying for code inspection".
Since I haven't heard anything about a sandbox, but I have heard about "signing" I am under the impression that "get the customer to pay for code inspection" is the plan. That means significant expense. I think we can expect that only commercial products will make it through the process.
Yes, I'm able to identify the point. You've missed my point, though: the very purpose of tort law is to establish equity. Franklin's quoted comments do not dispute the importance of equity -- actually they reinforce it. He wanted personal satisfaction and acclaim, and he didn't need a patent to enforce that -- just a favorable biographer.
The problem with this case is that the very definitions of the words plaintiff, equity, and relief have been turned on their ears. In the new world, the hostile, attacking party is now the plaintiff, a stickup job is equity, and extortion is relief. Understand, please, these are antonyms. We are in bizarro world: up is down, black is white, good is bad.
Whether you personally believe in the idea of patents for you personally does not change the fact that the patent system is not working as defined. It is literally doing the exact opposite of what the very definition of patent law requires.
The patent system isn't broken, corrupt, or overwhelmed. Unfortunately, it is working exactly as it was designed.
Let's look at the facts of this particular case: a company has bought an unenforced and probably unenforceable patent from another company for the sole purpose of bringing a lawsuit against companies that are selling and supporting legitimate products, in order to force those companies into settlement.
This is exactly the opposite of "equity". It's a stickup job, plain and simple.
The real breakdown with the patent system is evidenced in this: the only available responses to this sort of attack is capitulation (pay the Danegeld) or physical violence (fight the Dane). Whenever that is true, the legal system has failed.
Or what if someone inserted the DNA of another person in an attempt to frame the person? Insert DNA, kill someone, scratch yourself with the dead body's nails: instant frame job.
This is even easier to do without bothering with stem cells.
The flaw in your plan is that you will be a positive match for the DNA at the crime scene. Bad idea. Better to just plant the DNA evidence.
Single layer BD: $15
Dual layer DVDR: $1.25
Single layer DVDR: $0.20
Look on Sony fanboys face when he sees the quality of HD H.264 video on a cheap DVDR: priceless.
I'm starting to believe the many-worlds hypothesis.
In my universe we have this thing called NTP that does exactly what you claim is impossible. We also have a computer science concept called "looping" that allows us to measure many small-duration events in order to analyze them statistically.
Not so. H.264 can fit a typical movie on a dual-layer DVDR at 1080p24, and a couple at 720p24. But why even bother going dual-layer? Save your money, and use a single layer 4.7G DVDR and use 720p24 -- easily enough for a single movie. You need to spend more time playing with H.264, it is truly a wonder of technology.
Compare that to Blu-ray, which is a "wonder why" technology.
You could even cause them to think night was day, if their only reference was the continuity announcer's time checks (and/or you could give them a special watch which displayed your manipulated version of the time)
Of course, by the form of your argument you have presented the weakness of your argument. All you need to test the "prisoner hypothesis" is an independent clock. Every processor, every VM, every rootkit is subject to timing tests.
By your definition, much of the live HD programming on the air "isn't HD", since the cameras used don't use a native 1280x720 or 1920x1080 pixel count, but instead use multiple CCDs at lower than HD resolutions which are scaled and combined. If professional HD video cameras are using somewhat smaller pixel counts and scaling to the standard HD resolutions, why can't games do the same?
Even Microsoft doesn't have the balls to be so obviously hostile.
So the Vista-lockout is less obviously hostile? I disagree. Microsoft is the real trailblazer when it comes to obvious hostility toward their customers. Followed closely behind by the RIAA, MPAA and Sony. This little iPod interop issue is pretty minor by comparison.
Here's some more help for followup posters: Gopher, MUDs, NNTP, Anonymous FTP, SMTP, UUCP. At no point in the long history of the internet did Microsoft contribute usable technology.
the biggest and longest lived companies waste the most, not the least (AT&T, IBM, Raytheon, etc)
So, what you are saying is, large companies propped up by government-enforced monopolies, policies and contracts (respectively) are good examples of why a free market doesn't work?
I suppose the longer they prolong the war, the more time MS has to build out download standards which will focus favourably on VC-1.
Yes, they are deliberately crashing HD-DVD and BD into eachother -- but not to the benefit of VC-1. Ubiquitous VC-1 isn't their goal, it's just one of the strategies they've tried. The goal is to put MS in de facto control of media distribution. That happens through HD-IPTV -- and having tasted that soup, the consumer doesn't care what codec they use.
The competition isn't HD-DVD or BD, it's YouTube. The era of the polycarbonate-encrusted bit is over.
By 'allowing to violate copyright' does that give them carte blanche to distribute said content outside their borders?
That's exactly what it means. "Disney, et al, to get hijacked by the pirates of the Caribbean." That's ever so much more ironic than rain on your wedding day.
Does someone presenting heart attack symptoms get an aspirin within the first 24 hours of being in a hospital? Do they get a beta blocker within 24 hours? 0 variations are allowed to meet their quality goal.
It's insanity like this that is the evidence that medicare is doomed. I recently went to the hospital presenting heart attack symptoms. Received aspirin, received beta-blockers. Subsequently went into cardiogenic shock followed by syncope, and followed a bit later by asystole. Yes, indeed -- they killed me.
I wasn't having a heart attack -- I was suffering from simultaneous symptoms of a gall bladder attack and sick sinus syndrome. Which, the doctors could have diagnosed if they hadn't been so quick to administer inappropriate emergency medicine, per some moron checklist.
When a project manager gets to decide mandatory medical procedures, the patients die. On schedule, and on budget.
That's not poker. If you play by this strategy, you will be easy to beat. Here's an example: you draw ace-two, and the flop is ace-ace-king. Your opponent opens with "all-in". Probability says that the odds of your opponent actually holding ace-king is very low, yet he is signalling that he thinks he has best hand. He is also signalling that he is anxious to steal the pot, since he isn't slow playing you. He definitely isn't holding ace-ace, so he definitely knows that he doesn't have an unbeatable hand. Therefore he is definitely bluffing -- but HOW MUCH is he bluffing? Probability can't answer that.
Therein lies the game. It ends when one of you chooses, and you both drink.
All played hands are bluffs and/or gambles to some extent. Probability doesn't figure into it as much as psychology.
Wind is already probably a factor of 3x cheaper, not quite enough
And that's where your otherwise sound research collapsed. Wind is already highly competitive with fossil fuels. A 1.5 MW tower costs about $1M to build, has a 25 year service life, and puts out power at about 35% of capacity. Do the math: 115,000 MWh for $1M -- less than 1c per KWh. Compared to wind power, solar is a running joke.
Okay. Nevertheless, you should go out and try it before you pass judgment -- when shooting varmints: 1) acquire target, 2) aim, 3) pull trigger, 4) boom, 5) try to get rifle under control, 6) discover that you have no way to figure out what happened.
If you really want to know if you are successful, you need a partner with a spotting scope. Some folks hook video cameras up to the spotting scope in lieu of a partner. That's not immoral. Just practical.
I will not justify watching the resulting video for pleasure. It is certainly valuable for education.
It may surprise you to learn that varmint control is a major part of ranching and farming. You can't ranch on land that is infested with ground varmints -- the holes create a hazard for other animals. And then there is disease to consider: prairie dogs, in particular, are carriers of plague. Not joking -- plague.
Now you may choose a different value system than those ranchers and farmers. Perhaps you think the plague has every right to live that you do. Perhaps you would choose to crusade for plague rights. Those ranchers and farmers would be happy to give you the freedom to air your pro-plague position. They ask only that you give them the same freedom.
There are many ways to control prairie dog infestations. Poison works really, really well. It's incredibly painful for the prairie dog, and it has the added advantage of killing the coyotes and hawks that eat the carcasses. It also poisons the human food supply. Perhaps that is more "moral" to your sensibilities. Live by the sword, and all that.
Many ranchers and farmers instead choose a much more difficult, but (to their limited understanding) more humane method. If quickly and cleanly killing a prairie dog is depraved to your understanding, then perhaps you'd be better off not watching. Those of us who have to do it are interested in using the best expanding ammunition to do the job quickly. We don't find any joy at all in watching a wounded prairie dog drag it's body back into the ground. That's tragic and immoral to our "depraved" sensibilities.
So we return to the topic: death is always with us. Every prairie dog is going to experience arrest and irreversible cell death. The only question is: how effectively will they reproduce before that happens, spreading disease and destruction.
Slashdot Mirror
Bad idea. The Republicans have the guns.
Since I haven't heard anything about a sandbox, but I have heard about "signing" I am under the impression that "get the customer to pay for code inspection" is the plan. That means significant expense. I think we can expect that only commercial products will make it through the process.
Yes, I'm able to identify the point. You've missed my point, though: the very purpose of tort law is to establish equity. Franklin's quoted comments do not dispute the importance of equity -- actually they reinforce it. He wanted personal satisfaction and acclaim, and he didn't need a patent to enforce that -- just a favorable biographer.
The problem with this case is that the very definitions of the words plaintiff, equity, and relief have been turned on their ears. In the new world, the hostile, attacking party is now the plaintiff, a stickup job is equity, and extortion is relief. Understand, please, these are antonyms. We are in bizarro world: up is down, black is white, good is bad.
Whether you personally believe in the idea of patents for you personally does not change the fact that the patent system is not working as defined. It is literally doing the exact opposite of what the very definition of patent law requires.
This is exactly the opposite of "equity". It's a stickup job, plain and simple.
The real breakdown with the patent system is evidenced in this: the only available responses to this sort of attack is capitulation (pay the Danegeld) or physical violence (fight the Dane). Whenever that is true, the legal system has failed.
The flaw in your plan is that you will be a positive match for the DNA at the crime scene. Bad idea. Better to just plant the DNA evidence.
Single layer BD: $15
Dual layer DVDR: $1.25
Single layer DVDR: $0.20
Look on Sony fanboys face when he sees the quality of HD H.264 video on a cheap DVDR: priceless.
I'm starting to believe the many-worlds hypothesis.
In my universe we have this thing called NTP that does exactly what you claim is impossible. We also have a computer science concept called "looping" that allows us to measure many small-duration events in order to analyze them statistically.
Not so. H.264 can fit a typical movie on a dual-layer DVDR at 1080p24, and a couple at 720p24. But why even bother going dual-layer? Save your money, and use a single layer 4.7G DVDR and use 720p24 -- easily enough for a single movie. You need to spend more time playing with H.264, it is truly a wonder of technology.
Compare that to Blu-ray, which is a "wonder why" technology.
Disparaging the taser is a taserable offense!
NCSA Mosaic.
*sigh*
Here's some more help for followup posters: Gopher, MUDs, NNTP, Anonymous FTP, SMTP, UUCP. At no point in the long history of the internet did Microsoft contribute usable technology.
The competition isn't HD-DVD or BD, it's YouTube. The era of the polycarbonate-encrusted bit is over.
I wasn't having a heart attack -- I was suffering from simultaneous symptoms of a gall bladder attack and sick sinus syndrome. Which, the doctors could have diagnosed if they hadn't been so quick to administer inappropriate emergency medicine, per some moron checklist.
When a project manager gets to decide mandatory medical procedures, the patients die. On schedule, and on budget.
That's not poker. If you play by this strategy, you will be easy to beat. Here's an example: you draw ace-two, and the flop is ace-ace-king. Your opponent opens with "all-in". Probability says that the odds of your opponent actually holding ace-king is very low, yet he is signalling that he thinks he has best hand. He is also signalling that he is anxious to steal the pot, since he isn't slow playing you. He definitely isn't holding ace-ace, so he definitely knows that he doesn't have an unbeatable hand. Therefore he is definitely bluffing -- but HOW MUCH is he bluffing? Probability can't answer that.
Therein lies the game. It ends when one of you chooses, and you both drink.
All played hands are bluffs and/or gambles to some extent. Probability doesn't figure into it as much as psychology.
cat /dev/urandom | hexdump -C | grep "ff ff ff"
/dev/urandom!"
00321460 c2 35 ff ff ff 89 1a 03 66 8c 98 c4 c1 84 7c e7 |.5......f.....|.|
"24 bits in a row, all ones! Something must be wrong with
Just because something is rare, doesn't mean it's significant.
Okay. Nevertheless, you should go out and try it before you pass judgment -- when shooting varmints: 1) acquire target, 2) aim, 3) pull trigger, 4) boom, 5) try to get rifle under control, 6) discover that you have no way to figure out what happened.
If you really want to know if you are successful, you need a partner with a spotting scope. Some folks hook video cameras up to the spotting scope in lieu of a partner. That's not immoral. Just practical.
I will not justify watching the resulting video for pleasure. It is certainly valuable for education.
Ah, "moral depravity". Yes. Where to start?
It may surprise you to learn that varmint control is a major part of ranching and farming. You can't ranch on land that is infested with ground varmints -- the holes create a hazard for other animals. And then there is disease to consider: prairie dogs, in particular, are carriers of plague. Not joking -- plague.
Now you may choose a different value system than those ranchers and farmers. Perhaps you think the plague has every right to live that you do. Perhaps you would choose to crusade for plague rights. Those ranchers and farmers would be happy to give you the freedom to air your pro-plague position. They ask only that you give them the same freedom.
There are many ways to control prairie dog infestations. Poison works really, really well. It's incredibly painful for the prairie dog, and it has the added advantage of killing the coyotes and hawks that eat the carcasses. It also poisons the human food supply. Perhaps that is more "moral" to your sensibilities. Live by the sword, and all that.
Many ranchers and farmers instead choose a much more difficult, but (to their limited understanding) more humane method. If quickly and cleanly killing a prairie dog is depraved to your understanding, then perhaps you'd be better off not watching. Those of us who have to do it are interested in using the best expanding ammunition to do the job quickly. We don't find any joy at all in watching a wounded prairie dog drag it's body back into the ground. That's tragic and immoral to our "depraved" sensibilities.
So we return to the topic: death is always with us. Every prairie dog is going to experience arrest and irreversible cell death. The only question is: how effectively will they reproduce before that happens, spreading disease and destruction.