You obviously didn't try the demo in the Secunia advisory. Javascript dialogs in Safari 2.0 appear as popup windows, not sheets. HTTP authentication dialogs *do* appear as sheets in Safari, but those are a different beast.
And even javascript sheets don't save you, since technically that browser window did open the dialog (through a redirection through a malicious site and a pause, before sending you to the real site), even if the dialog appeared as a sheet, it would be attached to the trusted site's browser window-- which is even worse, IMO, since then they'd look like legit authentication requests.
Open source works well in development. It diffuses costs and gives you more resources to work with in manpower. It doesn't work as well after you've spent $2 million bucks and then give the software away freely to everybody.
The real debate here is that if you switch to a better system for less than the maintenance costs of your current in-house one-- which would be the only reason to not be eager to sell it--, you should RUN RUN RUN and buy it. Stop throwing money into a pit when you can get a better product cheaper. That's the discussion to have with your boss.
Look, I like open source as much as the next guy, but if you suggested to me that we take our $2 million project and freely give it away to our competitors, I'd laugh you out of my office.
Next time, start the project as open source. Don't wait till you're $2 mil in.
Now look at their other line, the iPod. The iPod is a means to drive people to their iTunes store. They lose money on the iPod to drive people to the store to make money on that. It's a completely different model.
Surely you meant that the other way around. They make an absolute killing on the iPod, and barely break even on the Music Store.
And I also don't think we'll even see a 'leaked' development version in the wild anytime soon. Apple is distributing the dev kit installed on hardware and not on CD. I would venture to guess they are doing that for a reason.
Maybe because they also have to distribute Intel Macs along with the software. It's not like developers just have them lying around like G5s. Without those, an install CD is totally useless.
Why is it when it comes to hate crime legislation and gun control, Republicans say we should "enforce the laws on the books, we don't need new ones" and yet when it comes to distributing pre-release copyrighted material, we suddenly need a new law to make it more illegal?
One of Meetup's biggest uses was organizing meetings during the campaign season-- I know every Democratic presidential candidate had meetups. Now that you have to pay, these seem like they may run afoul of the campaign finance rules that require out-of-pocket expenses to be reported to the FEC as donations in-kind.
Actually, the song is just copied into an invisible folder on the iPod, and is very easy to copy off again using either a utility or the command line in OS X. No conversion of any kind takes place-- Apple's not Sony.
For iTMS files, iTunes copies the decryption key onto the iPod as well, provided the machine is authorized to play the track. So, they're claiming that the patent is violated again when iTunes copies the decryption key, I guess.
Everyone assumes...
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The assumption being made here is that Apple Computer broke a contract that none of us has ever seen. Apple says they don't believe they did; that it was open to intepretation in some of its key points. It's premature to call them guilty, since none of us really knows what the hell we're talking about. Just 'cause Apple Records says it doesn't make it true.
I thought about starting a crazy rumor around MacWorld Expo in January and again at WWDC that Steve Jobs' big announcement would be that Apple was settling the lawsuit by purchasing Apple Corps. from Capitol Records, and that the Beatles catalog would be available exclusively from iTunes. After all, Apple had previously reportedly offered $5-$6 billion to purchase Universal Music--they could certainly afford the smaller Apple Corps.
It really would not surprise me if part of the settlement is Apple Computer striking a distribution deal with, or purchasing outright, Apple Corps. Think about it... a stock swap purchase would certainly "make Apple Corps a significant shareholder in Apple Computer," and would likely result in someone from the company (McCartney) joining the Apple Computer board.
It's a reference to the original fruit flavored iMacs; Apple had trouble keeping the stock numbers right due to varied demand for the five colors; Blueberry sold much better than Tangerine for instance. This was a problem because Apple demanded their resellers stock equal amounts of all five colors.
This dispute led some resellers (notably Best Buy) to stop selling iMacs.
Seeing as they're all turning in record profits, I think the CEOs of Shell, BP, etc. would tell you they have no problem with selling fossil fuels.
I wouldn't expect them to want to move to alternative energy sources-- after all, once you've sold someone the Shell branded fusion reactor, they're not going to be filling up their tank every week, paying prettymuch whatever price you demand.
It's a question of taking a large amount of revenue up front, or the guaranteed revenue stream over the long term. I suspect that most businesses would take the latter.
Plus, it necessitates scrapping a giant amount of their infrastructure (drilling operations, refineries, possibly even gas stations), which is expensive to do (buying out employees, etc.).
Granted, there will still be associated costs with the Shell branded fusion reactor, unless they bundle Mr. Fusion with it, but I think the long-run revenue of fossil fuels would still bring in more money.
I guess when Microsoft hands over a stack of patent applications, we should respond with a stack of examples of prior art (surely they must exist)? Either that or start applying for patents first and if they're granted make them publicly licensed under certain conditions (e.g. for OSS)? Of course, that makes open source the demon... argh.
Of course, knowing the patent office, they'll just rubber stamp Microsoft's applications. Right next to 1-Click and that new method of swinging one.
If one had a safe, and said safe was completely uncrackable, and there was a good likelyhood that the critical piece of evidence to a crime was inside it, could the owner of the safe be forced to divulge the combination? This is how I envision encryption keys. Honestly, under the fifth amendment, I'm not sure.
In the safe example, you likely couldn't be forced to surrender the combination, but you could certainly be subpoenaed to provide the evidence in question, and fined or jailed if you refused to do so.
It's ironic. We refused to ratify the International Criminal Court agreement because it would be "dangerous to Americans"-- allowing foreign governments to try American citizens. But this treaty which applies many of the same rules to digital information? No problem!
The problem with this is that you get very large receipts since they have to be human readable.
The receipts are no larger than today's paper ballots, which have, for the most part, served the purpose in elections. I think we can handle generating paper receipts and storing them.
People don't have perspective on e-voting; they expect it to be perfectly secure and foolproof. The system will never be wholly secure. Just like an election of entirely paper ballots will never be wholly secure; there is always room to manipulate the results, no matter what system is used. We always have to have a level of trust in the integrity of the people (the little old ladies parent wrote about) and the machinery (both in its fairness and technical soundness).
The key to improving the integrity of e-voting is to have verifiable paper trails, and perform sampled audits of all electonically counted races. If the numbers match in every race, that constantly reaffirms both the integrity and technical soundness of the electronic process.
The worst thing for e-voting is to advocate UIDs and audit trails that allow votes to be tied to specific voters, even if you try to sell it as not being name-specific. People don't react well to the idea of having their votes monitored, and in the long run it will only hurt the cause of trustworthiness.
Further, all the secure electronic technology in the world is useless if you don't enforce the rules before voters ever reach their polling place. Florida in 2000 was a clear indicator that misapplication of official powers can swing the outcome of an election (cutting people off the eligible voter list because they are wrongly identified as felons, etc.). We haven't solved anything until we ensure that things like that don't happen.
$25 million of the award was punitive damages, so presumably, the other $40 million was compensatory (lost profits) and legal fees (probably mostly legal fees).
Interestingly, those damages were awarded by a judge, not a jury.
Here's a link. I would've expected a smaller judgement from the bench.
I have been told you can even use Toast to do this without creating a coaster.
Yup, sure can. The DRM is done by QuickTime, (which I think means any QT capable app can do this, at least on the Mac side).
Drop the tracks on Toast like you're burning an audio disc. Then select them (after Toast does its conversion) and click "Export" instead of burning the disc. You get fresh, clean, non DRMed AIFF files. You can then use iTunes to convert them to MP3 or AAC.
But don't tell anybody lest they remove this feature. It'll be our little secret.
I think this sums up alot of the problem with Microsoft's products (read: code bloat). After all, if the hardware is free (or as Gates puts it "nearly free"), why bother trying to optimize the code or make the software run acceptably on limited (read: older) hardware? And why make that effort if you're not the ones paying the cost of that free hardware? After all, the users can just upgrade.
In my experience, if you tell someone they have unlimited resources, they'll do their damnedest to prove you wrong.
"People experiencing problems with their telephones were also asked not to report the fault."
Too bad they told them to wait. I can see it now, thousands of people screaming in the general direction of the phone company's office. A modern day, less funny, Monty Python sketch waiting to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The bill also raised the tax per blank 700 MB CD-R to 24 cents a disc (I assume in Euros, not USD). I thought the idea of these taxes was to pay the *AAs for piracy?
You obviously didn't try the demo in the Secunia advisory. Javascript dialogs in Safari 2.0 appear as popup windows, not sheets. HTTP authentication dialogs *do* appear as sheets in Safari, but those are a different beast.
And even javascript sheets don't save you, since technically that browser window did open the dialog (through a redirection through a malicious site and a pause, before sending you to the real site), even if the dialog appeared as a sheet, it would be attached to the trusted site's browser window-- which is even worse, IMO, since then they'd look like legit authentication requests.
...to suggest this roughly $2 million ago.
Open source works well in development. It diffuses costs and gives you more resources to work with in manpower. It doesn't work as well after you've spent $2 million bucks and then give the software away freely to everybody.
The real debate here is that if you switch to a better system for less than the maintenance costs of your current in-house one-- which would be the only reason to not be eager to sell it--, you should RUN RUN RUN and buy it. Stop throwing money into a pit when you can get a better product cheaper. That's the discussion to have with your boss.
Look, I like open source as much as the next guy, but if you suggested to me that we take our $2 million project and freely give it away to our competitors, I'd laugh you out of my office.
Next time, start the project as open source. Don't wait till you're $2 mil in.
Surely you meant that the other way around. They make an absolute killing on the iPod, and barely break even on the Music Store.
Maybe because they also have to distribute Intel Macs along with the software. It's not like developers just have them lying around like G5s. Without those, an install CD is totally useless.
You're joking, right?
Domain name: BITTORRENT.COM
Administrative Contact:
Cohen, Bram bram@bitconjurer.org
Bittorrent.com? Sounds pretty official to me.
My iPod also works perfectly fine with tracks I ripped from other people's CDs.
Cue RIAA lawyers in 5...4...I think it's called the "Scotty method."
Why is it when it comes to hate crime legislation and gun control, Republicans say we should "enforce the laws on the books, we don't need new ones" and yet when it comes to distributing pre-release copyrighted material, we suddenly need a new law to make it more illegal?
One of Meetup's biggest uses was organizing meetings during the campaign season-- I know every Democratic presidential candidate had meetups. Now that you have to pay, these seem like they may run afoul of the campaign finance rules that require out-of-pocket expenses to be reported to the FEC as donations in-kind.
Actually, the song is just copied into an invisible folder on the iPod, and is very easy to copy off again using either a utility or the command line in OS X. No conversion of any kind takes place-- Apple's not Sony. For iTMS files, iTunes copies the decryption key onto the iPod as well, provided the machine is authorized to play the track. So, they're claiming that the patent is violated again when iTunes copies the decryption key, I guess.
The assumption being made here is that Apple Computer broke a contract that none of us has ever seen. Apple says they don't believe they did; that it was open to intepretation in some of its key points. It's premature to call them guilty, since none of us really knows what the hell we're talking about. Just 'cause Apple Records says it doesn't make it true.
I thought about starting a crazy rumor around MacWorld Expo in January and again at WWDC that Steve Jobs' big announcement would be that Apple was settling the lawsuit by purchasing Apple Corps. from Capitol Records, and that the Beatles catalog would be available exclusively from iTunes. After all, Apple had previously reportedly offered $5-$6 billion to purchase Universal Music--they could certainly afford the smaller Apple Corps.
It really would not surprise me if part of the settlement is Apple Computer striking a distribution deal with, or purchasing outright, Apple Corps. Think about it... a stock swap purchase would certainly "make Apple Corps a significant shareholder in Apple Computer," and would likely result in someone from the company (McCartney) joining the Apple Computer board.
It's a reference to the original fruit flavored iMacs; Apple had trouble keeping the stock numbers right due to varied demand for the five colors; Blueberry sold much better than Tangerine for instance. This was a problem because Apple demanded their resellers stock equal amounts of all five colors.
This dispute led some resellers (notably Best Buy) to stop selling iMacs.
Seeing as they're all turning in record profits, I think the CEOs of Shell, BP, etc. would tell you they have no problem with selling fossil fuels.
I wouldn't expect them to want to move to alternative energy sources-- after all, once you've sold someone the Shell branded fusion reactor, they're not going to be filling up their tank every week, paying prettymuch whatever price you demand.
It's a question of taking a large amount of revenue up front, or the guaranteed revenue stream over the long term. I suspect that most businesses would take the latter.
Plus, it necessitates scrapping a giant amount of their infrastructure (drilling operations, refineries, possibly even gas stations), which is expensive to do (buying out employees, etc.).
Granted, there will still be associated costs with the Shell branded fusion reactor, unless they bundle Mr. Fusion with it, but I think the long-run revenue of fossil fuels would still bring in more money.
I guess when Microsoft hands over a stack of patent applications, we should respond with a stack of examples of prior art (surely they must exist)? Either that or start applying for patents first and if they're granted make them publicly licensed under certain conditions (e.g. for OSS)? Of course, that makes open source the demon... argh.
Of course, knowing the patent office, they'll just rubber stamp Microsoft's applications. Right next to 1-Click and that new method of swinging one.
In the safe example, you likely couldn't be forced to surrender the combination, but you could certainly be subpoenaed to provide the evidence in question, and fined or jailed if you refused to do so.
It's ironic. We refused to ratify the International Criminal Court agreement because it would be "dangerous to Americans"-- allowing foreign governments to try American citizens. But this treaty which applies many of the same rules to digital information? No problem!
The problem with this is that you get very large receipts since they have to be human readable.
The receipts are no larger than today's paper ballots, which have, for the most part, served the purpose in elections. I think we can handle generating paper receipts and storing them.
People don't have perspective on e-voting; they expect it to be perfectly secure and foolproof. The system will never be wholly secure. Just like an election of entirely paper ballots will never be wholly secure; there is always room to manipulate the results, no matter what system is used. We always have to have a level of trust in the integrity of the people (the little old ladies parent wrote about) and the machinery (both in its fairness and technical soundness).
The key to improving the integrity of e-voting is to have verifiable paper trails, and perform sampled audits of all electonically counted races. If the numbers match in every race, that constantly reaffirms both the integrity and technical soundness of the electronic process.
The worst thing for e-voting is to advocate UIDs and audit trails that allow votes to be tied to specific voters, even if you try to sell it as not being name-specific. People don't react well to the idea of having their votes monitored, and in the long run it will only hurt the cause of trustworthiness.
Further, all the secure electronic technology in the world is useless if you don't enforce the rules before voters ever reach their polling place. Florida in 2000 was a clear indicator that misapplication of official powers can swing the outcome of an election (cutting people off the eligible voter list because they are wrongly identified as felons, etc.). We haven't solved anything until we ensure that things like that don't happen.
$25 million of the award was punitive damages, so presumably, the other $40 million was compensatory (lost profits) and legal fees (probably mostly legal fees).
Interestingly, those damages were awarded by a judge, not a jury. Here's a link. I would've expected a smaller judgement from the bench.
<insert obligatory paying for sex joke here>
Yup, sure can. The DRM is done by QuickTime, (which I think means any QT capable app can do this, at least on the Mac side).
Drop the tracks on Toast like you're burning an audio disc. Then select them (after Toast does its conversion) and click "Export" instead of burning the disc. You get fresh, clean, non DRMed AIFF files. You can then use iTunes to convert them to MP3 or AAC.
But don't tell anybody lest they remove this feature. It'll be our little secret.
I think this sums up alot of the problem with Microsoft's products (read: code bloat). After all, if the hardware is free (or as Gates puts it "nearly free"), why bother trying to optimize the code or make the software run acceptably on limited (read: older) hardware? And why make that effort if you're not the ones paying the cost of that free hardware? After all, the users can just upgrade.
In my experience, if you tell someone they have unlimited resources, they'll do their damnedest to prove you wrong.
"People experiencing problems with their telephones were also asked not to report the fault."
Too bad they told them to wait. I can see it now, thousands of people screaming in the general direction of the phone company's office. A modern day, less funny, Monty Python sketch waiting to happen.