"In every conceivable way, the hackers in question have failed to give me any reason to believe they actually had an exploit against Apple's AirPort drivers."
In every conceivable way? The fact that they demonstrated the flaw and said it existed in many configurations including Apple's isn't conceivable to you? You live in a fantasy land where Apple can do no wrong.
"But given they've not given me a reason to believe them, why on earth should I?"
They did give you a reason to believe them but you chose do deny it. The fact is that they really don't care whether you believe them or not.
"Even worse, they've never even made it clear EXACTLY WHAT their claim is. In other words, they've never stated, clearly, that they actually had a working exploit against Apple's AirPort drivers."
Never made it clear to you perhaps. Funny that Apple released updates shortly after their demonstation however.
"What makes you want to so strongly defend such an ambiguous claim that has such little evidence?"
I don't. I argue against the groundless attacks levied by people like you. I have no idea what really went on besides what they said and did publicly and what I observed afterward. Unlike you, I keep an open mind as to what they said. What possible purpose would they have in saying things that were untrue?
"So you acknowledge that it was a stunt and a lie. Good."
I acknowledge that what you just said was a stunt and a lie.
"Uh yeah? His conditions seemed pretty standard stuff it you look at it from a scientific standpoint."
Sure, videotaping and having the camera controlled by john gruber is part of the scientific standpoint. I'm sure that offered plenty of encouragement. Offering a measly reward worth, at best, a small fraction of what they could have gotten from Apple, was part of the scientific standpoint as well.
"How would they have "contributed", had they shut up his mouth by performing what they claimed they could?"
By increasing its exposure leading up to the event. Are you really that stupid?
"A standard macbooks can be refurbished for just under $1k, whatever the excitement they could get out of a macbook, $1k for about 5mn of work (if their claim were true) is not something many people can pass on like that."
You have no idea how much work it would take or how long it would take, but it's certain that it would take longer than 5 minutes when you consider the hour or two minimum it would take waiting on the production crew. Furthermore, that thousand dollars doesn't mean much if it means the sacrifice of a $100K contract they may have had with someone else that included a non-disclosure. It's clear that you can't understand such complicated concepts.
"Dude, as I said I don't own a mac, and I never have owned one..."
So you said.
"Yeah, let's demonstrate a flaw against an obscure configuration involving third-party stuff, because god forbid we did it against the main, default, standard configuration of the machine even though we claimed we could."
Unless, of course, they'd already done that and been paid for their consulting work in exchange for an agreement not to demonstrate that configuration.
The fact is that you have no idea what actually went on behind the scenes but that doesn't stop you from declaring them as frauds. Just who is the liar here?
"If their hypothetic flaw is now patched, why don't they demonstrate their attack on an unpatched macbook unless "because they didn't find a flaw in the first place"?"
There you go proclaiming the reasons for things you don't understand. Who says they haven't demonstrated it? They just haven't demonstrated it to you.
"You know, scientific method 101 says it's not ours to disprove that they found a flaw, it's theirs to prove they found one in the first place, which they've never done."
The scientific method says nothing of the sort. I makes no comment on what blowhards like you should or shouldn't do.
"Most countries in that region have seat numbers in movie halls."
Perhaps. I had no issue with that. What I had issue with is that I showed up over 3 hours early for a showing (that never sold out) and I bought my ticket while there was absolutely no line. Considering that I was obviously a foreigner, that the theater was accustomed to specific seating requests, and that there was no rush whatsoever, it's clear that I was gamed into buying the worst seat without realizing it.
"I too noticed that people washed there hands more often and I guess thats why the washbasins are more conveniently placed."
There's a "cause and effect" issue there that you may well have reversed.
"I don't see how that is judging anyone."
The judging came from my frequent observations that the locals were watching others wash their hands.
"Even in rural Texas, a lot of the 'messy' barbecue places have washbasins outside the restrooms and we dont think anyone is jugding us there."
Liking barbecue and living in Texas myself, I can't say that I've ever seen that. Not saying it isn't true. Regardless, it can't be anything like this place I'm describing. How convenient is it to stand in line to wash your hands at a fast food place where there's only two sinks for both sexes? Yes, there were lines at the sinks.
"It doesn't really seem to be much of a democracy, more like a benevolent dictatorship with elections thrown around for fun."
There did seem to be a lot meddling in how everyone lived their lives. I wasn't aware that chewing gum was outlawed in total, I was simply told that it was illegal to spit it out and chew it in some places. They have some pretty old fashioned and oppressive sex laws, but AFAIK homosexuality isn't punishable by death as someone claimed (just life in prison!). I heard some locals bitching, mostly the cab drivers, that there were fines for doing most anything.
"The "Golden Village" operator which is by far the most successful and widespread, allows you to choose your seats, so you know exactly where your seat is."
Except they made no mention of it to foreigners (or at least us). Curious that they would do that considering that they must be accustomed to specific seating requests (since locals would ask 100% of the time). Considering that I was hours earlier than any other customer for my showtime, it's interesting that I got sold the absolute worst seat in the house. I considered that deliberate rudeness though it could have simply been that employee. I don't recall any employees being especially nice. This was around 2001.
"Ignoring how you seem to have drawn that conclusion based on misinformation and a single personal experience, the fact is that if anything, Singaporean service staff have been criticized for showing favouritism to foreigners or tourists, and this was widely publicized in the local newspapers."
Yeah, here in the US we advertise the fairness of our democracy in the local newspapers and on Fox news. Doesn't mean it's true.
"The purpose of situating the sinks in the middle of the seating area is merely convenience, and not some sinister plot to embarrass hygiene rebels. The large majority of Singaporeans, being as busy as they are, simply do not have the time nor the inclination to observe whether you've washed your hands or not."
Haha. Considering that the location was in a mall and that the restrooms were a few steps away, the convenience argument doesn't fly. Furthermore, from my personal experience locals certainly do have an inclination to observe; I watched it over and over. There is nothing uglier than having wash basins square in the middle of your restaurant. It does create lots of witnesses to undesirable behavior however.
"Remember to go for Golden Village theaters; They're usually cleaner, with seats that are way more comfortable."
The theater was quite nice. I simply hate being taken advantage of because I'm unfamiliar with the game.
"The primary reason being that they couldn't do it."
Only they know the answer to that, not you. I figure they don't consider themselves circus animals and don't have any interest in jumping through hoops on orders from a clown like Gruber. It's also conceivable that they may have had some sort of agreement in place that restricted what they could publicly disclose.
"Their problem is that they made ambiguous claims, and were given many chances to clarify their claims."
Who gave them these chances? Anyone they concerned themselves with or respected? You think they care what a grandstander like John Gruber says?
"They've never directly answered that question."
They haven't answered a million questions. So what? Furthermore, they voiced their disrespect for Apple fanboys at the time, so what makes you think they care about the peanut gallery? You act like mac fanboys like Gruber are at the center of the universe here. They aren't.
"Gruber's challenge was mean to financially/materially motivate them to put up or shut up."
No it wasn't. Gruber's challenge was designed to gain Gruber personal exposure on an issue where he had nothing else to offer.
"They could just return it for full value minus the restocking fee."
Who knows what value they placed on the reward but it clearly wasn't enough to tempt them. When you consider that they may have profited hansomely in consulting fees (perhaps in exchange for nondisclosure) I would expect them to laugh at Gruber's pitiful offer.
"If they truly have an exploit, they have severely damaged their reputation by not being forthright."
I doubt it. Their reputations aren't related to the opinions of people like those found here. We have no idea what has really happened behind the scenes. The fact that they chose a mac to run the demo on was simply a side benefit for them. They claimed all along that many hardware configs and many OSes were vulnerable. Curious that no one but mac zealots like Gruber called them out.
"Of the two possibilities, which most closely fits with their actions?"
The one where they have an exploit seeing's how they demonstrated it. They did not demonstrate the exploit on every possible config, but so what? Curiously, Apple released updates a short time later even though they insisted they had no problem. Which is more likely, that Apple coincidently discovered very similar though unrelated issues in a code audit that just happened to take place at the time as this announcement, or that Apple found problems when they looked into this issue (with or without specific assistance) and simply lied about it to the public? I'm going with the second myself. You can delude yourself all you want.
You don't know what agreement he has with his service provider nor do you have any reason to claim that the agreement in question alters or defines his liability for the content that travels over his wireless network. You are talking out your ass.
It would not be hard for you to research why caning is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Perhaps you should do so rather than expect/.'ers to do it for you.
"However, law-abiding Singaporeans, though trouubled by the principle of such punishments, seem pretty darn happy with their prosperous and sqeaky-clean city-state."
I don't know about that. It's clear that they are very used to it and those who don't know differently expect things to be they way they are.
I visited Singapore briefly and noticed some bitching and some attitude. Couple of things struck be besides the obvious cleanliness. First, there were assigned seats in the movie theaters. There weren't any signs saying such and the theater attendent took great delight in selling me the worst seat in the house despite being 3 hours early for the show. Rudeness to visitors is SOP there.
Second, I ate in a mall fast food joint where the sinks for washing hands are in a conspicuous location, not in the bathrooms, in the middle of the seating area. It was clear that the purpose was so you could see that everyone washed their hands whenever they were supposed to. Customers regularly took notice of hand washing and the stink of judgement was unmistakable. I personally don't care or want to know if someone washes their hands. In Singapore it seems it seems not just a moral imperative to wash but also to verify. It creeped me out.
As far as Singapore's government working, that depends on your perspective. I'm sure it works for those who profit from it much like the US government does. I wouldn't want to live there though another visit would be fine. I'll be sure to get good seats the next time.
Still sensitive are you? The claim was that many platforms were vulnerable, not just macs.
"He still hasn't disclosed any information on a bug in apple-supplied wireless drivers for apple-supported wireless devices..."
Nor are they obligated to. Odds are that the presentation had the desired effect and there was no need to proceed further.
"...even though he was offered stuff for actually proving what he'd said (John Gruber, for example, offered to give him two brand-new fresh-out-of-the-box macbooks if he managed to hack them)"
Gruber challenged them to hack a macbook (not two) with many stipulations. The challenge was to be videotaped and the conditioned were not under the control of the hackers. If the challenge was not met, the hackers would have to pay for the machine. The results of the videotaping were the property of John Gruber.
There are plenty of reasons for not accepting the challenge. They may have felt that there would be too much risk that they didn't want to accept, they may have not given a shit about John Gruber (likely), they may not have wanted to contributed to his pro-Apple site, or they may have had no interest in the lame reward offered. A macbook may be exciting to you and John Gruber but probably not to them.
Just because additional details were not provided on demand to Apple loyalists does not mean that vulnerabilities didn't exist. IMO the test configuration was chosen because it was the easiest one to demonstrate the flaw. That doesn't mean it's the only one that contains the flaw though Apple apologists have always insisted otherwise.
"The lyrics of "Indiscipline" were based on a letter written to Adrian Belew by his then wife Margaret. The letter concerned a sculpture that she had made."
I do remember one thing. It took hours and hours but.. by the time I was done with it, I was so involved, I didn't know what to think.
I carried it around with me for days and days.. playing little games like not looking at it for a whole day and then.. looking at it. to see if I still liked it. I did.
Your post was nothing more than a specious observation containing a preemptive pedantic retort claimed to "forestall" a "spurious comment" but really intended to discourage a legitimate observation.
Microsoft can't put the boot sound into the firmware since it doesn't control the firmware. The two are otherwise analogous and, yes, a mac does the same thing that Vista does. Curious that, in other threads, Microsoft has been criticised for even copying Apple's boot sound.
"Instead, Microsoft has used this patent pledge to indicate that, in their view, the only good Free Software developer is an isolated, uncompensated, unimportant Free Software developer."
I would add that Microsoft has indicated nothing of the sort. The patent pledge is something Microsoft has offered out of their own business interests/strategies and says nothing of the value they place on any developer. Instead, the statement was offered merely to further inflame anti-MS sentiments. Like the MS/Novell deal or not, there's no reason to claim that Microsoft has insulted open source developers.
"The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Non-Compensated Developers" is indeed rather useless, because it only covers creation and local use, and specifically excludes distribution."
True. Even worse, they're pledging not to do something that they can't do anyway! The grant of the patent was done in exchange for teaching me how to implement and use the invention. They cannot prevent me from learning it, they can only prevent me from using the knowledge in a manner that infringes on their granted rights.
"I'll use DVDs as an example for proper DRM systems here..."
Hmmm, I've never considered CSS to be an example of DRM (Digital Rights Management). CSS is supposedly to fight piracy (a job it is terrible at as you say) but in reality I think CSS was implemented to assure that players would implement features such as region locking and mandatory play (for ads and FBI warnings) not to mention assuring that companies paid their royalties. You had to purchase a license to CSS and that was the leverage the DVD consortium had over you.
That said, it's true that DVDs are illegally distributed with CSS intact so I stand corrected on that. When users rip a DVD they typically remove CSS since that is trivial to do.
"Do you have anything to back that up?"
No, but I did say "unlikely".;-) Obviously, the content available that's DRM-free is virtually limitless while tools that remove Apple's and Microsoft's DRM are relatively recent (and require updating). I've tried the MS removal tools and they don't work consistently. Given the choice between using DRM stripping tools and downloading alternates, I would choose the easiest method. So far, for me, redownloading is the easiest.
"That was one of my main points. The fact that your shows were DRMed made you jump through hoops to format-shift (you had to download them a second time). Had you pirated them right away you could easily have shifted them without a second download."
Actually, you said it was the only reason and I objected to that. I did not argue that DRM isn't used for the reasons you said, I argued that they aren't the only reasons (and not even the primary one). This is what you said:
"The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have, and I can't imagine what's good about that."
As you can see, this is not the same as what you say now nor am I objecting to what you say now. It's clear, though, that the point of DRM is more that what you said initially.
"Are you sure that device-shifting, time-shifting, format-shifting limitations aren't intentional?"
They absolutely are intentional! It's well known that the MPAA has always been pissed about fair use and has sought means to deny it. I personally feel that Apple and MS use DRM to appease their content sources, not to restrict use.
"...[all your myriad of indisputable points regarding DRM]..."
I'm with you on all these points. My initial comment was simply that you were ignoring DRM as a deterrent to piracy which I believe is the primary purpose. Although I'm no fan of DRM and few are, I have to acknowledge that DRM may be good for me if the choice is DRM'ed content or no content at all. I can always choose not to purchase.
"If I have an iPod already -- then would I say I was going to buy a new one inside of a year? That isn't very likely if I'm already satisfied with the iPod I have. If I have an mp3 player, and I'm buying a new one in 12 months, I'm more likely to be dissatisfied -- I think that's a fair assumption. There is a portion of any group that will crave New and Kewl -- they'll be the group more likely to be buying in 12 months."
It's only unfair if you assume that iPod owners are more likely to be satisfied than owners of other players. There are plenty of reasons an iPod owner may plan on a replacement.
"They threw out a large group of the sample -- so it removes the random nature of the sample."
No it doesn't. The sample is intended to be of people who will be buying in the next 12 months. You have to throw out those who won't be.
"I would EXPECT that iPod owners are less loyal, because it is a device that just does a few specific tasks well. I'm not loyal to my toaster... but we haven't learned if this expectation is true or not with this fudged survey."
It's not a fudged survey but I agree with you. The surprising thing is that people take offense to the suggestion that iPod owners aren't loyal to the brand. Frankly, I think it's a compliment.
"That's the major mistake you are making: repeatedly asserting that."
I've never asserted that even though you are wrong about it. You do not have the freedom to commit slander any more than you have the freedom to commit murder. There is no free speech right to break the law.
"It's simply impossible to engage in vigilantism by expressing your free speech rights."
Ignoring your repeated attempts to characterize slander as a legal activity, vigilantism can be nothing more than speech. In the case of this ISP, it involved more than speech. It involved research as well. The vigilante group took actions against their enemy and part of that action was slanderous speech.
"...that vigilantism requires ACTS"
Of course it does, and speech is an ACT. If you don't believe so, try to communicate without doing anything. When you speak, you make a concious choice to communicate and you choose what you say. Speech is a deliberate ACT.
"If free speech is his only tool, he's just flapping his jaws, since there are no vigilante acts. At worst, such a person is a would-be vigilante, since they have done nothing, unlike an actual vigilante."
That's all bullshit. If a man raped a woman in a pool hall while a bunch of other men cheered him on, would those men be guilty of nothing because all they did was speak? Ever heard of "inciting a riot"? There are forms of speech that are illegal and engaging in them may very well constitute vigilantism.
"As you yourself said of the definition of vigilante: "Taking the law into your own hands, yes"."
I said that would be "one" definition. Since you can't seem to understand the concept of "law" however, it doesn't matter.
"Without action, one cannot take the law into their own hands. Without action, all it is is expressing an opinion. It's not technically possible for someone to take the law into their own hands through excerise of free speech."
No you're just hanging on your hat on the argument that speech is not an action. Speech has consequences and that's why some forms of speech aren't free. The fact that some speech is illegal is proof that you are wrong and it's the reason why I continually take issue with your lame attempts to describe slander as "free speech".
Incidently, vigilantism does not require vigilantes to actually break any laws. All it requires is that ordinary citizens take responsibility upon themselves that would rightfully fall on authorized law enforcement. When you decide to interfer with another driver who you feel is driving to fast, you are engaging in an act of vigilantism. You don't have to shoot him, hang, him, inprison him, or even break any law to intefer with him. In fact, simply calling your friend who's a policeman would qualify as a vigilante act. In that case, free speech itself is a vigilante act since it's purpose is to "take the law into one's own hands". Unless you are a policeman, any entitlement you feel to enforce traffic laws on another driver is vigilantism.
"I've seen those, actually. No vigilantism there, either."
You are deluded by self-righteousness. Those are examples of extreme vigilantism.
"They leave any arrest, punishment, prosecution, or lack of such to the actual authorities."
But you've already acknowledged that arrest and prosecution aren't requirements of vigilantism. As for punishment, they are certainly dishing it out themselves (and profitting from it).
"Nothing wrong with a "honeypot" that exposes (provides information on) guys attempting to rape children."
There absolutely is, and that's why there are laws specifically forbidding entrapment. Unfortunately, entrapment laws don't extend to vigilantes and that's why the police especially love the fact that ordinary citizens are willing to brazenly entrap on their behalf. The people who put on these illegal stings should themselves be prosecuted. Anything that is illegal for a cop to do should also be illegal for vigilantes.
First, while some like to lump many technologies together and call them all DRM, there are fundamental differences between incompatible hacks to the Red Book standard and DRM-equipped content files. DRM is a technology embedded in content that controls its usage. That was the topic of conversation, not Sony rootkit CDs.
Now, regarding Sony CDs, there is no DRM in the audio since the audio itself is nothing more than Red Book standard. There is no need to strip the DRM since no DRM exists. It is possible, even likely, that people have gone through the trouble to rip these CDs and distribute the results. That has happened since incomapatible CDs have been around.
DRM'ed files, on the other hand, must have their DRM stripped to be distributable illegally. There have been some tools distributed to do this but it's unlikely that the practice is widespread because unencumbered versions are already available. DRM-laden files themselves are not distributed because they would be useless without stripping. In absense of a stripping utility, DRM prevents distribution of the file and that's its primary purpose. That's the whole point of this conversation.
For example, the only DRMed content I've ever purchased were TV shows (Lost, Desperate) from iTMS. I wanted to try the video feature before tools were widely available for downconversions. Rather than trying to strip the DRM in order to format-shift I simply bittorrented alternate versions. I may not have the legal high ground but I have a moral one since I've paid multiple times already. It doesn't matter in my case since the network itself makes those downloads freely available now. The DRM did prevent me from format-shifting but it also prevented redistribution.
There is no doubt that DRM is used for other purposes and those restrictions are a nuisance to the end user. That doesn't mean that there's no other reason for it. I'm no more a supporter of DRM than you are but there is the reality of the existence of DRM and that's to doscourage pirating, not limit usefulness.
Rootkitted CDs are not examples of DRM in the context of this discussion and copy protection was stripped before copy as you said. The topic was what embedded DRM was useful for. Your example is meaningless.
"Just because most copies in the wild lack evidence of DRM does not mean that DRM was effective."
Examples where DRM never existed isn't proof that DRM isn't effective either.
The claim is that DRM is only useful for restricting the rights of content obtained legally. That is totally false. DRM's primary function is to discourage unauthorized copying. The relative lack of DRM-equipped copies IS a testament to that. You cannot prove that any unprotected content started out with DRM that was stripped along the way. It's certainly possible but there are far easier ways of obtaining content.
You are associating fanboy commumities with market volume? They are unrelated.
"Canon is the big bad wolf of the DSLR game, outselling Nikon more than 2:1 and totally owning the high-margin markets made up of sports and wildlife pros. Canon is the mass market, mass appeal brand out there right now, Nikon is the little engine that (sometimes) could."
Slashdot Mirror
"In every conceivable way, the hackers in question have failed to give me any reason to believe they actually had an exploit against Apple's AirPort drivers."
In every conceivable way? The fact that they demonstrated the flaw and said it existed in many configurations including Apple's isn't conceivable to you? You live in a fantasy land where Apple can do no wrong.
"But given they've not given me a reason to believe them, why on earth should I?"
They did give you a reason to believe them but you chose do deny it. The fact is that they really don't care whether you believe them or not.
"Even worse, they've never even made it clear EXACTLY WHAT their claim is. In other words, they've never stated, clearly, that they actually had a working exploit against Apple's AirPort drivers."
Never made it clear to you perhaps. Funny that Apple released updates shortly after their demonstation however.
"What makes you want to so strongly defend such an ambiguous claim that has such little evidence?"
I don't. I argue against the groundless attacks levied by people like you. I have no idea what really went on besides what they said and did publicly and what I observed afterward. Unlike you, I keep an open mind as to what they said. What possible purpose would they have in saying things that were untrue?
"So you acknowledge that it was a stunt and a lie. Good."
I acknowledge that what you just said was a stunt and a lie.
"Uh yeah? His conditions seemed pretty standard stuff it you look at it from a scientific standpoint."
Sure, videotaping and having the camera controlled by john gruber is part of the scientific standpoint. I'm sure that offered plenty of encouragement. Offering a measly reward worth, at best, a small fraction of what they could have gotten from Apple, was part of the scientific standpoint as well.
"How would they have "contributed", had they shut up his mouth by performing what they claimed they could?"
By increasing its exposure leading up to the event. Are you really that stupid?
"A standard macbooks can be refurbished for just under $1k, whatever the excitement they could get out of a macbook, $1k for about 5mn of work (if their claim were true) is not something many people can pass on like that."
You have no idea how much work it would take or how long it would take, but it's certain that it would take longer than 5 minutes when you consider the hour or two minimum it would take waiting on the production crew. Furthermore, that thousand dollars doesn't mean much if it means the sacrifice of a $100K contract they may have had with someone else that included a non-disclosure. It's clear that you can't understand such complicated concepts.
"Dude, as I said I don't own a mac, and I never have owned one..."
So you said.
"Yeah, let's demonstrate a flaw against an obscure configuration involving third-party stuff, because god forbid we did it against the main, default, standard configuration of the machine even though we claimed we could."
Unless, of course, they'd already done that and been paid for their consulting work in exchange for an agreement not to demonstrate that configuration.
The fact is that you have no idea what actually went on behind the scenes but that doesn't stop you from declaring them as frauds. Just who is the liar here?
"If their hypothetic flaw is now patched, why don't they demonstrate their attack on an unpatched macbook unless "because they didn't find a flaw in the first place"?"
There you go proclaiming the reasons for things you don't understand. Who says they haven't demonstrated it? They just haven't demonstrated it to you.
"You know, scientific method 101 says it's not ours to disprove that they found a flaw, it's theirs to prove they found one in the first place, which they've never done."
The scientific method says nothing of the sort. I makes no comment on what blowhards like you should or shouldn't do.
"Most countries in that region have seat numbers in movie halls."
Perhaps. I had no issue with that. What I had issue with is that I showed up over 3 hours early for a showing (that never sold out) and I bought my ticket while there was absolutely no line. Considering that I was obviously a foreigner, that the theater was accustomed to specific seating requests, and that there was no rush whatsoever, it's clear that I was gamed into buying the worst seat without realizing it.
"I too noticed that people washed there hands more often and I guess thats why the washbasins are more conveniently placed."
There's a "cause and effect" issue there that you may well have reversed.
"I don't see how that is judging anyone."
The judging came from my frequent observations that the locals were watching others wash their hands.
"Even in rural Texas, a lot of the 'messy' barbecue places have washbasins outside the restrooms and we dont think anyone is jugding us there."
Liking barbecue and living in Texas myself, I can't say that I've ever seen that. Not saying it isn't true. Regardless, it can't be anything like this place I'm describing. How convenient is it to stand in line to wash your hands at a fast food place where there's only two sinks for both sexes? Yes, there were lines at the sinks.
"It doesn't really seem to be much of a democracy, more like a benevolent dictatorship with elections thrown around for fun."
There did seem to be a lot meddling in how everyone lived their lives. I wasn't aware that chewing gum was outlawed in total, I was simply told that it was illegal to spit it out and chew it in some places. They have some pretty old fashioned and oppressive sex laws, but AFAIK homosexuality isn't punishable by death as someone claimed (just life in prison!). I heard some locals bitching, mostly the cab drivers, that there were fines for doing most anything.
"The "Golden Village" operator which is by far the most successful and widespread, allows you to choose your seats, so you know exactly where your seat is."
Except they made no mention of it to foreigners (or at least us). Curious that they would do that considering that they must be accustomed to specific seating requests (since locals would ask 100% of the time). Considering that I was hours earlier than any other customer for my showtime, it's interesting that I got sold the absolute worst seat in the house. I considered that deliberate rudeness though it could have simply been that employee. I don't recall any employees being especially nice. This was around 2001.
"Ignoring how you seem to have drawn that conclusion based on misinformation and a single personal experience, the fact is that if anything, Singaporean service staff have been criticized for showing favouritism to foreigners or tourists, and this was widely publicized in the local newspapers."
Yeah, here in the US we advertise the fairness of our democracy in the local newspapers and on Fox news. Doesn't mean it's true.
"The purpose of situating the sinks in the middle of the seating area is merely convenience, and not some sinister plot to embarrass hygiene rebels. The large majority of Singaporeans, being as busy as they are, simply do not have the time nor the inclination to observe whether you've washed your hands or not."
Haha. Considering that the location was in a mall and that the restrooms were a few steps away, the convenience argument doesn't fly. Furthermore, from my personal experience locals certainly do have an inclination to observe; I watched it over and over. There is nothing uglier than having wash basins square in the middle of your restaurant. It does create lots of witnesses to undesirable behavior however.
"Remember to go for Golden Village theaters; They're usually cleaner, with seats that are way more comfortable."
The theater was quite nice. I simply hate being taken advantage of because I'm unfamiliar with the game.
"The primary reason being that they couldn't do it."
Only they know the answer to that, not you. I figure they don't consider themselves circus animals and don't have any interest in jumping through hoops on orders from a clown like Gruber. It's also conceivable that they may have had some sort of agreement in place that restricted what they could publicly disclose.
"Their problem is that they made ambiguous claims, and were given many chances to clarify their claims."
Who gave them these chances? Anyone they concerned themselves with or respected? You think they care what a grandstander like John Gruber says?
"They've never directly answered that question."
They haven't answered a million questions. So what? Furthermore, they voiced their disrespect for Apple fanboys at the time, so what makes you think they care about the peanut gallery? You act like mac fanboys like Gruber are at the center of the universe here. They aren't.
"Gruber's challenge was mean to financially/materially motivate them to put up or shut up."
No it wasn't. Gruber's challenge was designed to gain Gruber personal exposure on an issue where he had nothing else to offer.
"They could just return it for full value minus the restocking fee."
Who knows what value they placed on the reward but it clearly wasn't enough to tempt them. When you consider that they may have profited hansomely in consulting fees (perhaps in exchange for nondisclosure) I would expect them to laugh at Gruber's pitiful offer.
"If they truly have an exploit, they have severely damaged their reputation by not being forthright."
I doubt it. Their reputations aren't related to the opinions of people like those found here. We have no idea what has really happened behind the scenes. The fact that they chose a mac to run the demo on was simply a side benefit for them. They claimed all along that many hardware configs and many OSes were vulnerable. Curious that no one but mac zealots like Gruber called them out.
"Of the two possibilities, which most closely fits with their actions?"
The one where they have an exploit seeing's how they demonstrated it. They did not demonstrate the exploit on every possible config, but so what? Curiously, Apple released updates a short time later even though they insisted they had no problem. Which is more likely, that Apple coincidently discovered very similar though unrelated issues in a code audit that just happened to take place at the time as this announcement, or that Apple found problems when they looked into this issue (with or without specific assistance) and simply lied about it to the public? I'm going with the second myself. You can delude yourself all you want.
You don't know what agreement he has with his service provider nor do you have any reason to claim that the agreement in question alters or defines his liability for the content that travels over his wireless network. You are talking out your ass.
It would not be hard for you to research why caning is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Perhaps you should do so rather than expect /.'ers to do it for you.
I agree. I was somewhat disgusted to see it but what you said appears to be the case.
"However, law-abiding Singaporeans, though trouubled by the principle of such punishments, seem pretty darn happy with their prosperous and sqeaky-clean city-state."
I don't know about that. It's clear that they are very used to it and those who don't know differently expect things to be they way they are.
I visited Singapore briefly and noticed some bitching and some attitude. Couple of things struck be besides the obvious cleanliness. First, there were assigned seats in the movie theaters. There weren't any signs saying such and the theater attendent took great delight in selling me the worst seat in the house despite being 3 hours early for the show. Rudeness to visitors is SOP there.
Second, I ate in a mall fast food joint where the sinks for washing hands are in a conspicuous location, not in the bathrooms, in the middle of the seating area. It was clear that the purpose was so you could see that everyone washed their hands whenever they were supposed to. Customers regularly took notice of hand washing and the stink of judgement was unmistakable. I personally don't care or want to know if someone washes their hands. In Singapore it seems it seems not just a moral imperative to wash but also to verify. It creeped me out.
As far as Singapore's government working, that depends on your perspective. I'm sure it works for those who profit from it much like the US government does. I wouldn't want to live there though another visit would be fine. I'll be sure to get good seats the next time.
Still sensitive are you? The claim was that many platforms were vulnerable, not just macs.
"He still hasn't disclosed any information on a bug in apple-supplied wireless drivers for apple-supported wireless devices..."
Nor are they obligated to. Odds are that the presentation had the desired effect and there was no need to proceed further.
"...even though he was offered stuff for actually proving what he'd said (John Gruber, for example, offered to give him two brand-new fresh-out-of-the-box macbooks if he managed to hack them)"
No, here's the link:
http://daringfireball.net/2006/09/open_challenge
Gruber challenged them to hack a macbook (not two) with many stipulations. The challenge was to be videotaped and the conditioned were not under the control of the hackers. If the challenge was not met, the hackers would have to pay for the machine. The results of the videotaping were the property of John Gruber.
There are plenty of reasons for not accepting the challenge. They may have felt that there would be too much risk that they didn't want to accept, they may have not given a shit about John Gruber (likely), they may not have wanted to contributed to his pro-Apple site, or they may have had no interest in the lame reward offered. A macbook may be exciting to you and John Gruber but probably not to them.
Just because additional details were not provided on demand to Apple loyalists does not mean that vulnerabilities didn't exist. IMO the test configuration was chosen because it was the easiest one to demonstrate the flaw. That doesn't mean it's the only one that contains the flaw though Apple apologists have always insisted otherwise.
According to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_(album)
"The lyrics of "Indiscipline" were based on a letter written to Adrian Belew by his then wife Margaret. The letter concerned a sculpture that she had made."
"When did he ever threaten MS with litigation for having FOSS intellectual property in Windows."
Why assume he wouldn't if he could? That isn't the sole measure.
I think the "fascism" shoe fits pretty well. http://www.answers.com/fascism&r=67
The startup sounds is part of the branding. It's there for their benefit, not yours.
True. He seems more of an Indiscipline fan.
I like it!
I do remember one thing.
It took hours and hours but..
by the time I was done with it,
I was so involved, I didn't know what to think.
I carried it around with me for days and days..
playing little games
like not looking at it for a whole day
and then.. looking at it.
to see if I still liked it.
I did.
Your post was nothing more than a specious observation containing a preemptive pedantic retort claimed to "forestall" a "spurious comment" but really intended to discourage a legitimate observation.
Microsoft can't put the boot sound into the firmware since it doesn't control the firmware. The two are otherwise analogous and, yes, a mac does the same thing that Vista does. Curious that, in other threads, Microsoft has been criticised for even copying Apple's boot sound.
Very well said. Regarding the quote you provided:
"Instead, Microsoft has used this patent pledge to indicate that, in their view, the only good Free Software developer is an isolated, uncompensated, unimportant Free Software developer."
I would add that Microsoft has indicated nothing of the sort. The patent pledge is something Microsoft has offered out of their own business interests/strategies and says nothing of the value they place on any developer. Instead, the statement was offered merely to further inflame anti-MS sentiments. Like the MS/Novell deal or not, there's no reason to claim that Microsoft has insulted open source developers.
"The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Non-Compensated Developers" is indeed rather useless, because it only covers creation and local use, and specifically excludes distribution."
True. Even worse, they're pledging not to do something that they can't do anyway! The grant of the patent was done in exchange for teaching me how to implement and use the invention. They cannot prevent me from learning it, they can only prevent me from using the knowledge in a manner that infringes on their granted rights.
"I'll use DVDs as an example for proper DRM systems here..."
;-) Obviously, the content available that's DRM-free is virtually limitless while tools that remove Apple's and Microsoft's DRM are relatively recent (and require updating). I've tried the MS removal tools and they don't work consistently. Given the choice between using DRM stripping tools and downloading alternates, I would choose the easiest method. So far, for me, redownloading is the easiest.
Hmmm, I've never considered CSS to be an example of DRM (Digital Rights Management). CSS is supposedly to fight piracy (a job it is terrible at as you say) but in reality I think CSS was implemented to assure that players would implement features such as region locking and mandatory play (for ads and FBI warnings) not to mention assuring that companies paid their royalties. You had to purchase a license to CSS and that was the leverage the DVD consortium had over you.
That said, it's true that DVDs are illegally distributed with CSS intact so I stand corrected on that. When users rip a DVD they typically remove CSS since that is trivial to do.
"Do you have anything to back that up?"
No, but I did say "unlikely".
"That was one of my main points. The fact that your shows were DRMed made you jump through hoops to format-shift (you had to download them a second time). Had you pirated them right away you could easily have shifted them without a second download."
Actually, you said it was the only reason and I objected to that. I did not argue that DRM isn't used for the reasons you said, I argued that they aren't the only reasons (and not even the primary one). This is what you said:
"The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have, and I can't imagine what's good about that."
As you can see, this is not the same as what you say now nor am I objecting to what you say now. It's clear, though, that the point of DRM is more that what you said initially.
"Are you sure that device-shifting, time-shifting, format-shifting limitations aren't intentional?"
They absolutely are intentional! It's well known that the MPAA has always been pissed about fair use and has sought means to deny it. I personally feel that Apple and MS use DRM to appease their content sources, not to restrict use.
"...[all your myriad of indisputable points regarding DRM]..."
I'm with you on all these points. My initial comment was simply that you were ignoring DRM as a deterrent to piracy which I believe is the primary purpose. Although I'm no fan of DRM and few are, I have to acknowledge that DRM may be good for me if the choice is DRM'ed content or no content at all. I can always choose not to purchase.
"If I have an iPod already -- then would I say I was going to buy a new one inside of a year? That isn't very likely if I'm already satisfied with the iPod I have. If I have an mp3 player, and I'm buying a new one in 12 months, I'm more likely to be dissatisfied -- I think that's a fair assumption. There is a portion of any group that will crave New and Kewl -- they'll be the group more likely to be buying in 12 months."
It's only unfair if you assume that iPod owners are more likely to be satisfied than owners of other players. There are plenty of reasons an iPod owner may plan on a replacement.
"They threw out a large group of the sample -- so it removes the random nature of the sample."
No it doesn't. The sample is intended to be of people who will be buying in the next 12 months. You have to throw out those who won't be.
"I would EXPECT that iPod owners are less loyal, because it is a device that just does a few specific tasks well. I'm not loyal to my toaster... but we haven't learned if this expectation is true or not with this fudged survey."
It's not a fudged survey but I agree with you. The surprising thing is that people take offense to the suggestion that iPod owners aren't loyal to the brand. Frankly, I think it's a compliment.
"That's the major mistake you are making: repeatedly asserting that."
I've never asserted that even though you are wrong about it. You do not have the freedom to commit slander any more than you have the freedom to commit murder. There is no free speech right to break the law.
"It's simply impossible to engage in vigilantism by expressing your free speech rights."
Ignoring your repeated attempts to characterize slander as a legal activity, vigilantism can be nothing more than speech. In the case of this ISP, it involved more than speech. It involved research as well. The vigilante group took actions against their enemy and part of that action was slanderous speech.
"...that vigilantism requires ACTS"
Of course it does, and speech is an ACT. If you don't believe so, try to communicate without doing anything. When you speak, you make a concious choice to communicate and you choose what you say. Speech is a deliberate ACT.
"If free speech is his only tool, he's just flapping his jaws, since there are no vigilante acts. At worst, such a person is a would-be vigilante, since they have done nothing, unlike an actual vigilante."
That's all bullshit. If a man raped a woman in a pool hall while a bunch of other men cheered him on, would those men be guilty of nothing because all they did was speak? Ever heard of "inciting a riot"? There are forms of speech that are illegal and engaging in them may very well constitute vigilantism.
"As you yourself said of the definition of vigilante: "Taking the law into your own hands, yes"."
I said that would be "one" definition. Since you can't seem to understand the concept of "law" however, it doesn't matter.
"Without action, one cannot take the law into their own hands. Without action, all it is is expressing an opinion. It's not technically possible for someone to take the law into their own hands through excerise of free speech."
No you're just hanging on your hat on the argument that speech is not an action. Speech has consequences and that's why some forms of speech aren't free. The fact that some speech is illegal is proof that you are wrong and it's the reason why I continually take issue with your lame attempts to describe slander as "free speech".
Incidently, vigilantism does not require vigilantes to actually break any laws. All it requires is that ordinary citizens take responsibility upon themselves that would rightfully fall on authorized law enforcement. When you decide to interfer with another driver who you feel is driving to fast, you are engaging in an act of vigilantism. You don't have to shoot him, hang, him, inprison him, or even break any law to intefer with him. In fact, simply calling your friend who's a policeman would qualify as a vigilante act. In that case, free speech itself is a vigilante act since it's purpose is to "take the law into one's own hands". Unless you are a policeman, any entitlement you feel to enforce traffic laws on another driver is vigilantism.
"I've seen those, actually. No vigilantism there, either."
You are deluded by self-righteousness. Those are examples of extreme vigilantism.
"They leave any arrest, punishment, prosecution, or lack of such to the actual authorities."
But you've already acknowledged that arrest and prosecution aren't requirements of vigilantism. As for punishment, they are certainly dishing it out themselves (and profitting from it).
"Nothing wrong with a "honeypot" that exposes (provides information on) guys attempting to rape children."
There absolutely is, and that's why there are laws specifically forbidding entrapment. Unfortunately, entrapment laws don't extend to vigilantes and that's why the police especially love the fact that ordinary citizens are willing to brazenly entrap on their behalf. The people who put on these illegal stings should themselves be prosecuted. Anything that is illegal for a cop to do should also be illegal for vigilantes.
I know you t
First, while some like to lump many technologies together and call them all DRM, there are fundamental differences between incompatible hacks to the Red Book standard and DRM-equipped content files. DRM is a technology embedded in content that controls its usage. That was the topic of conversation, not Sony rootkit CDs.
Now, regarding Sony CDs, there is no DRM in the audio since the audio itself is nothing more than Red Book standard. There is no need to strip the DRM since no DRM exists. It is possible, even likely, that people have gone through the trouble to rip these CDs and distribute the results. That has happened since incomapatible CDs have been around.
DRM'ed files, on the other hand, must have their DRM stripped to be distributable illegally. There have been some tools distributed to do this but it's unlikely that the practice is widespread because unencumbered versions are already available. DRM-laden files themselves are not distributed because they would be useless without stripping. In absense of a stripping utility, DRM prevents distribution of the file and that's its primary purpose. That's the whole point of this conversation.
For example, the only DRMed content I've ever purchased were TV shows (Lost, Desperate) from iTMS. I wanted to try the video feature before tools were widely available for downconversions. Rather than trying to strip the DRM in order to format-shift I simply bittorrented alternate versions. I may not have the legal high ground but I have a moral one since I've paid multiple times already. It doesn't matter in my case since the network itself makes those downloads freely available now. The DRM did prevent me from format-shifting but it also prevented redistribution.
There is no doubt that DRM is used for other purposes and those restrictions are a nuisance to the end user. That doesn't mean that there's no other reason for it. I'm no more a supporter of DRM than you are but there is the reality of the existence of DRM and that's to doscourage pirating, not limit usefulness.
Rootkitted CDs are not examples of DRM in the context of this discussion and copy protection was stripped before copy as you said. The topic was what embedded DRM was useful for. Your example is meaningless.
"Just because most copies in the wild lack evidence of DRM does not mean that DRM was effective."
Examples where DRM never existed isn't proof that DRM isn't effective either.
The claim is that DRM is only useful for restricting the rights of content obtained legally. That is totally false. DRM's primary function is to discourage unauthorized copying. The relative lack of DRM-equipped copies IS a testament to that. You cannot prove that any unprotected content started out with DRM that was stripped along the way. It's certainly possible but there are far easier ways of obtaining content.
You are associating fanboy commumities with market volume? They are unrelated.
"Canon is the big bad wolf of the DSLR game, outselling Nikon more than 2:1 and totally owning the high-margin markets made up of sports and wildlife pros. Canon is the mass market, mass appeal brand out there right now, Nikon is the little engine that (sometimes) could."
I see you're one of them.