Don't be silly - that's just a HTML page containing the hard-coded word "No".
This one is better. If you do view source, you'll see that not only has this guy actually bothered to code for the possibility of the world being destroyed, but he's provided an EMAIL address to complain to if the world ends and the website isn't updated.
Plus, if you disable Javascript the world will go on for ever...
If Red Hat, one of the epitomes of a successful FOSS-based business, can ignore FOSS when to do so is corporately convenient
Sorry, but I must have missed the clause in the GPL that requires full and immediate public disclosure of any security breach on your servers, or a duty to maintain 100% availability.
OTOH I do remember loads of stuff in the GPL about how there was no warranty.
There also seems to be a presumption that this "breach" represents some sort of systemic vulnerability in the Fedora/Red Hat product - TFA and several comments here reference the Debian SSL problem. What about the good old standbys of "inside job", "social engineering", "weak password" or "bugger, I knew I should have password-protected my SSH key"?
What if they're planning to fire someones ass, or even press criminal charges over the incident? That would place serious restrictions on what they could publicly announce.
Something tells me that after several delays and numerous announcements that the people that are unaware of the switch to digital TV probably wouldn't be too upset about missing out on TV for a few days while they track down an analog->digital converter.
Greetings, visitor - you picked a windy day to visit our strange planet.
Seriously, some people will start screaming when the glass nipple is wrenched from their lips, and "didn't you see all the announcements?" just ain't gonna cut it.
The UK is just embarking on the same experiment and its pretty clear that a lot of people (a) rank this as equivalent to having their water or electricity cut off, (b) are "confused" by the announcements and expect the man from the gubment to turn up and fix it for them and (c) resent the idea of having to shell out £25 for each telly.
To be fair - there are some complicating factors (at least in the UK version):
The decoder boxes are cheap, but to get terrestrial digital in some areas you need an aerial upgrade, which is somewhat more expensive.
Some areas can't get digital at all - theoretically, once the digital transmissions don't have to co-exist with analogue they will crank up the power somewhat - except I'm not sure how that squares with plans to sell off the spectrum for loadsamoney.
People may not have got the message that you need an adaptor for every TV in the house - and dealing with VCRs is a headache. Cleverly, shops have continued selling analogue-only TVs, VCRs and even DVD/HD recorders without clear labels saying Don't buy this, you moron!
Sure, why not. It was established already in Independence Day that aliens use IPv4, so they should just be able to hook right up.
...but Independence Day also established that aliens are vulnerable to earthly computer viruses, so 10 seconds later, they would be pwn3d, after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest devices that script kiddies had, in their stupidity, put upon teh interweb.
I really don't think that Google wants to enter the browser wars.
But they are interested in web-based applications, and Chrome seems to have been designed with these specifically in mind (the Application Windows/Application Shortcut feature, the tab sandboxing, the minimal UI, Google Gears built-in). They're in a good position to promote Chrome as the best way to run Google Docs/Maps/etc.
Interestingly, we now have Google (Chrome), Adobe (Air) and Apple (Safari, particularly on iPhone/iPod Touch) pushing WebKit-based web application platforms.
Really, are they gonna put the effort into this thing to keep it current for the next decade?
Except that a big chunk of that work can be shared with the WebKit community - which, with the KDE folks plus Google, Apple and Adobe on board (in descending order of likely commitment to open source:-)) seems to be on the ascendant...
If you're looking for silly terms (even if they're clearly cut and paste errors), I fondly recall the C development package for Acorn computers in which the EULA explicitly forbade you from incorporating any part of the software into another program. ISTR the words were something like "any program distributed or used by you" - so you're OK writing, compiling and linking "helloworld.c"* provided you didn't actually run the result... Not that they ever showed any sign of enforcing it - but it invites the question "which bits of these stupid documents are you meant to take seriously?"
(* or c.helloworld for any Acorn purists out there...)
First, its pretty obvious that the quote pertains to some web-based service ("the services") offered by Google, not the browser itself.
Second, thanks to a broken copyright system designed for hand-engraved plates and player pianos and cast in stone by international treaties, that list of rights is pretty much what a webmaster needs simply to put your material on teh interweb - especially in countries that don't have the same "fair use" rules as the US.
I'm fairly well versed in movies and social memes and even some of what goes on outside my own country's borders
As TFA says, Geoffery Perkins was the producer of the original radio series of The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy - which is mandatory knowledge for nerds, even in the US. If you haven't heard of HHGTTG, or think it started out as a book, TV show or (God help you) a movie then please hand in your geek card at the door.
Having cleared that up, can you enlighten us UK people as to who this "Baraccus Osama" character is?
Of course, what the ASA seem to be saying is that the iPhone cannot view "all the content on a website normally accessible through a Windows/x86 PC".
Or through a Mac, or through most x86 Linux distros (including EEE PC and friends). So that's not only covered the ~95% of "personal computers" running Windows but also the 2 main "minority" platforms which can view parts of the internet that the iPhone cannot reach - not counting those sites which *do* work with Gnash etc. on other platforms.
Its not as if the ASA are telling Apple they can't claim the iPhone can access the internet and has a jolly good web browser - just that they can't explicitly claim it gives you "all the parts of the internet" when it barfs on crossplatform content accessible on 99.9% of personal computers.
I have a Linux/PPC personal computer (PC).
...so you are using a minority platform among minority platforms, which you probably chose based on a reasonable level of technical know-how and/or strong personal feelings about proprietary software. You probably started off with well informed expectations about the level of interoperability with the MS-centric world this would offer. You are not the customer which the ASA is trying to protect.
But, as demonstrated by this thread, it all depends on how you interpret "access", which we differ on.
Except the Apple ad didn't use the word "access"... Meanwhile, in the hypothetical world in which they did, do you really think a non-technical customer would be impressed by the explanation "Yes, you can access MyFaceSpace - we never said you'd be able to render it."?
As a followup, do you think that adverts should be prohibited from using any technical terms in case the public either fails to understand, or worse misunderstands, those terms and is consequently mislead by their own ignorance?
If the likely effect is to mislead the target audience of the ad, yes. If I wanted to distinguish my home PC from brand X's identical product, then "we give you 300 gigabytes of storage compared to 279 GiB for brand X" is a technically defensible statement - but its bloody obvious that I'm trying to pull a fast one on Joe Public, who probably thinks that "Gibibytes" is a type of cat food.
If so, are you just as annoyed at the cosmetics industry with all their science (and pseudo-science) jargon?
I think the complaint against Apple was justified. Whether other advertisers are held to the same standards is another matter entirely!
There are two issues with the cosmetics industry, though:
1. The capabilities of a gadget are often an easily verifiable issue of fact: e.g. find even one popular website that doesn't work on the iPhone and you have a case. Whether the Tripentamicrospheres in wrinkle cream can reduce the "visible signs of ageing" is far more subjective. Cosmetics firms will have statistics to support their claims, which would be difficult and expensive to either verify or debunk.
2. I'm sure that the cosmetic industry's annual spend on advertising is an order of magnitude larger than Apple's. The ASA is a industry body. Go figure.
OK, I've looked at the ads and that is never claimed.
In the best tradition of/. the original post linked to the wrong ads. You're looking at the 4 concatenated US ads on the Apple website. You need to look at the UK ad to which the ruling applied, which is available on the BBC website, which does contain the "all the parts of the internet" line. (Yup, we get our own custom-made Apple ads over here - we even have our own "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" guys).
According to your definition being able to access "all the parts of the internet" is impossible anyway.
Absolutely. Its a stupid claim. It was made in an ad aimed at non-technical people who probably don't have the knowledge needed to spot the absurdity. That's not cricket - although its probably just a cockup by the bods that localise the adverts rather than some great Jobs-approved conspiracy.
By extension, are you saying that any browser which is unable to render ActiveX content is unable to "access the web" and should be prohibited from making such claims?
No. But - like it or lump it - some parts of the internet are only usable with ActiveX | Flash | Java | Silverlight | FuckingIE, so you should be prohibited from claiming that:
all the parts of the internet are on [Insert name of device]
...which, along with lots of other comments that stressed how the iPhone internet was not some cut-down version of the internet, was the actual problem with the Apple ad.
No mention of the word "access". You should know that, since you can access the actual Apple ad from the BBC article. Of course, given your stated views on Flash you probably can't watch it without defiling your computer with closed software, so the fact that you can (by your definition) access it is about as much use as an inflatable dartboard.
(Sadly, BBC will probably have ruined my argument by blocking access outside the UK...)
To be able to access a resource is to be able to download it.
Thanks - that insight is going to save me a heap of time next time I get landed with one of those jobs that insists on accessibility (i.e. the ability to access) for visually or physically impaired people. "Hey - they can download it, so they can access it, right? Not my fault if they can't see it!"
See, for example Authentication, Authorization and Access Control [apache.org]. Notice the word "access"?
I very much doubt that the Advertising Standards Authority uses the Apache documentation to look up the meaning of English words. They may even do their job and try to consider how the target audience of the ad (i.e. the vast majority of of the human race who have never had the joy of editing a httpd.conf file) are likely to interpret the statement, to protect them from the sort of sophistry you are proposing.
The inability to accept that the actual meaning of a word in everyday usage might differ from its technical meaning in your specialist field seems to be an industrial disease of science/tech types.
That it can't render it is a different argument entirely.
Congratulations - you win the hairsplitter of the year prize.
I don't think the typical non-technical phone buyer (at whom the offending ad was aimed) would be particularly impressed by your pedantry when they bought an iPhone and found that they couldn't watch the videos on their favorite social networking site.
Jeez, I suppose my Linux/PPC box can't access "all of the web" because fscking Adobe haven't been gracious enough to release Flash for it yet
Absolutely - so you would have absolutely no excuse for selling it to someone with the explicit promise that it could access "all the web" on the basis that, in your personal dictionary, you'd redefined "the web" as "W3C standard only".
Despite the flamebait in the original posting, this is just an advertising industry watchdog slapping Apple's wrist for making an OTT claim in an ad.
Meanwhile, could all the open-format purists slagging off Flash stop whining until there's a usable alternative for rich, vector based content and streaming video which (and this is important) runs on 99% of browsers and doesn't involve telling your Microsoft-using customers to piss off until they've switched to Firefox?
A full OEM copy of Windows is actually cheaper than an upgrade copy so MS provides no incentive to cheat the system.
Actually, if you've bought an OEM copy of Windows and installed it on an existing computer or a VM, then you've probably violated the EULA and should have paid 3x over the odds for a "full retail" copy. No incentive to cheat the system?
OEM Windows is only supposed to be sold as a bundle with a new PC (in the UK* resellers often insist that you buy at least a hard drive or a motherboard before they'll sell you an OEM copy), you are obliged to install it on that hardware, to which you must attach the license sticker, and cannot transfer the license to another machine.
Practical upshot: whenever you buy a new PC or the parts for one, there's a powerful financial incentive to get Windows with it "just in case". Now that's anticompetetive!
(*Possibly EULAs have more teeth under UK law which, sadly, is a bit lacking in the "fair use" department).
until I can get to one of those british pubs for some fish n' chips.
Well, pubs are increasingly moving into food, but more traditional would be to go to a pub and drink several pints of beer - this will leave you feeling inexplicably hungry and ready to visit a fish'n'chip shop or an Indian restaurant. I'd recommend the latter - I've never found a decent curry in the US.
Why do I have to click FOUR times to simply say "this site is OK for me",
I refer you to your own answer:
Downside: anyone just klicks "yes" in ANY message, so where's the security in that?
as for:
while I only have to click once for popups,
...popup blockers are only there to protect you from annoying pop-ups, they're not security critical.
for auto-fillin for login data, and so on?
There, sir, you have a point! Browsers are *far* too helpful when it comes to remembering passwords, credit card numbers and should really prompt for a "keychain" password before doing *any* sort of auto-fill.
PS: Fear not: Firefox 5 will have the new intelligent skill level feature which scans your browsing history and sets its "warning" level based on your Slashdot karma and how many pr0n sites you have visited in the last week.
1. The choice is between self-signed and no encryption only, and Firefox is pushing manufacturers towards the less secure option.
Read my lips: Firefox does not stop you using self-signed certs! - 4 clicks and you've added an exception for that site - Firefox will not bug you again for that site.
The documentation for appliances could and should tell you that its OK to ignore the scary warnings in this case. Except all the appliances I've encountered use plain http: out of the box, and have done long before the advent of Firefox 3. Perhaps you also blame Mozilla for the fact that they also come with WPA/WEP disabled and "admin" as the login password?
Typically, you first encounter a self-signed cert in a secure context
And how is the browser supposed to decide that the context is secure?
They can and have issued certs when they shouldn't have.
Right. so some CAs can screw up. So lets not bother to implement the protocol properly then.
Yes you do. The first time you submit a form over unencrypted HTTP, most (all?) popular browsers warn you that "you are about to send information over an unencrypted connection" or something thereabouts. Most people click on "don't show this message again..."
You are basically saying that a website with an expired certificate or self-signed certificate is WORSE than regular HTTP sites
Absolutely, because a regular HTTP site doesn't claim to be secure and show a big friendly padlock icon by the address.
Firefox is singled out, because all the others let you continue to the site anyway.
To get to a site in firefox you have to go through some convoluted steps to access the site.
4 mouse clicks on fairly obvious buttons. In this post-Vista world where people reflexively click through security warnings you probably need that to get people's attention. Once that is done Firefox will bug you no more for that site.
It was the worst beer I ever had, while in transit in the Heathrow Airport.
First: proper beer comes out of those big hand pumps that give barmaids good biceps. If it goes "whirrr" and comes out under pressure, don't drink it.
Second: although a naive person might think a major international airport should be a welcoming beacon of hospitality, showcasing the best that the host country had to offer, and leaving those just passing through with a pang of regret that they could not have stayed longer, Heathrow airport is designed to make you want to piss off back home ASAP, and (as you discovered) will even provide the piss (probably at about 4 quid a pint).
Why is it that people take the piss out of the British for drinking "warm" beer but not the French for drinking "warm" wine? White vs. red wine - lager vs. bitter. Chill one, not the other. Same principle. How hard can it be?
I know using actual evidence is unfashionable, but lets try connecting to a self-signed https page from some popular browsers, shall we?
Firefox 3
Secure Connection Failed
phishing.itsdapead.org uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown.
The certificate is only valid for mycomputer.itsdapead.com
This could be a problem with the server's configuration, or it could be someone trying to impersonate the server.
If you have connected to this server successfully in the past, the error may be temporary, and you can try again later.
[Or you can add an exception]
Internet explorer 7:
There is a problem with this website's security certificate.
The security certificate presented by this website was not issued by a trusted certificate authority.
The security certificate presented by this website was issued for a different website's address.
Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server.
We recommend that you close this webpage and do not continue to this website.
Click here to close this webpage.
Continue to this website (not recommended).
Or Safari 3:
The certificate for this website was signed by an unknown certifying authority. You might be connecting to a website that is pretending to be "phishing.itsdapead.org" which could put your confidential information at risk. Would you like to connect to the website anyway?
How about Opera 9.5?
The server's certificate chain is incomplete, and the signer(s) are not registered. Accept?
[Help] [Reject] [Approve]
Sorry, I don't believe that - Opera is meant to be good isn't it? Let's try again: (ahem) Opera 9.5?
The server's certificate chain is incomplete, and the signer(s) are not registered. Accept?
[Help] [Reject] [Approve]
Ye gods - I wasn't imagining it! Deary, deary me...
Now, from where I'm standing:
All browsers show minor variations on the same behavior - so why is Firefox singled out?
For my money, Safari does slightly better at explaining the issue with an appropriate level of detail. Marginally.
Only IE and Firefox have bothered to warn me that, not only is the cert self-signed but the URLs don't match
Opera's risible message was presumably written by someone who expects all internet users to have a CS degree. Hope that's fixed in later versions.
Plus, Firefox is pushing the extended info scheme whereby the certificate holder's name gets displayed on the info bar (as opposed to the old scheme where ploughing through the certificate might reveal the holder's name), which should be a good thing.
Determinism is only distinguishable from Free Will if it enables you to precisely and reliably predict an individual's actions.
do you believe that given the exact same environment (a twinned universe?) your doppleganger would ever do anything different than yourself?
Irrelevant - because there could be no communication whatsoever between two such "twinned" systems. If information passed between one system and the other then the two universes would cease to be identical. No prediction is possible. If two systems are precisely identical and can never interact then do you even have two systems?
Also, the universe contains chaotic systems which although governed by precise, deterministic equations are infinitely sensitive to the smallest approximation or perturbation - so in theory the behaviour of such a system is predetermined, in practice it cannot be reliably predicted. You don't need quantum mechanics for that - the same thing would be true in a completely classical universe.
That bloody butterfly in Africa gets hit by a cosmic ray from outside your experiment and twitches its wings just so and on the other side of the world it rains, so clone you catches the bus instead of walking and...
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/
Don't be silly - that's just a HTML page containing the hard-coded word "No".
This one is better. If you do view source, you'll see that not only has this guy actually bothered to code for the possibility of the world being destroyed, but he's provided an EMAIL address to complain to if the world ends and the website isn't updated.
Plus, if you disable Javascript the world will go on for ever...
If Red Hat, one of the epitomes of a successful FOSS-based business, can ignore FOSS when to do so is corporately convenient
Sorry, but I must have missed the clause in the GPL that requires full and immediate public disclosure of any security breach on your servers, or a duty to maintain 100% availability.
OTOH I do remember loads of stuff in the GPL about how there was no warranty.
There also seems to be a presumption that this "breach" represents some sort of systemic vulnerability in the Fedora/Red Hat product - TFA and several comments here reference the Debian SSL problem. What about the good old standbys of "inside job", "social engineering", "weak password" or "bugger, I knew I should have password-protected my SSH key"?
What if they're planning to fire someones ass, or even press criminal charges over the incident? That would place serious restrictions on what they could publicly announce.
VC-whats?
Its kinda like a TiVo except it stores shows in analogue format on removable magnetic media with really crap seek time.
Its what people use to time-shift "Antiques Roadshow" so they can watch it after their Sunday evening bath.
They may be deader than rotary-dial telephones to the slashdot community of gadget freaks, but I bet there are still a hell of a lot in use.
Something tells me that after several delays and numerous announcements that the people that are unaware of the switch to digital TV probably wouldn't be too upset about missing out on TV for a few days while they track down an analog->digital converter.
Greetings, visitor - you picked a windy day to visit our strange planet.
Seriously, some people will start screaming when the glass nipple is wrenched from their lips, and "didn't you see all the announcements?" just ain't gonna cut it.
The UK is just embarking on the same experiment and its pretty clear that a lot of people (a) rank this as equivalent to having their water or electricity cut off, (b) are "confused" by the announcements and expect the man from the gubment to turn up and fix it for them and (c) resent the idea of having to shell out £25 for each telly.
To be fair - there are some complicating factors (at least in the UK version):
Sure, why not. It was established already in Independence Day that aliens use IPv4, so they should just be able to hook right up.
...but Independence Day also established that aliens are vulnerable to earthly computer viruses, so 10 seconds later, they would be pwn3d, after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest devices that script kiddies had, in their stupidity, put upon teh interweb.
I really don't think that Google wants to enter the browser wars.
But they are interested in web-based applications, and Chrome seems to have been designed with these specifically in mind (the Application Windows/Application Shortcut feature, the tab sandboxing, the minimal UI, Google Gears built-in). They're in a good position to promote Chrome as the best way to run Google Docs/Maps/etc.
Interestingly, we now have Google (Chrome), Adobe (Air) and Apple (Safari, particularly on iPhone/iPod Touch) pushing WebKit-based web application platforms.
Really, are they gonna put the effort into this thing to keep it current for the next decade?
Except that a big chunk of that work can be shared with the WebKit community - which, with the KDE folks plus Google, Apple and Adobe on board (in descending order of likely commitment to open source :-)) seems to be on the ascendant...
If you're looking for silly terms (even if they're clearly cut and paste errors), I fondly recall the C development package for Acorn computers in which the EULA explicitly forbade you from incorporating any part of the software into another program. ISTR the words were something like "any program distributed or used by you" - so you're OK writing, compiling and linking "helloworld.c"* provided you didn't actually run the result... Not that they ever showed any sign of enforcing it - but it invites the question "which bits of these stupid documents are you meant to take seriously?"
(* or c.helloworld for any Acorn purists out there...)
Yikes, that is one scary EULA.
First, its pretty obvious that the quote pertains to some web-based service ("the services") offered by Google, not the browser itself.
Second, thanks to a broken copyright system designed for hand-engraved plates and player pianos and cast in stone by international treaties, that list of rights is pretty much what a webmaster needs simply to put your material on teh interweb - especially in countries that don't have the same "fair use" rules as the US.
I'm fairly well versed in movies and social memes and even some of what goes on outside my own country's borders
As TFA says, Geoffery Perkins was the producer of the original radio series of The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy - which is mandatory knowledge for nerds, even in the US. If you haven't heard of HHGTTG, or think it started out as a book, TV show or (God help you) a movie then please hand in your geek card at the door.
Having cleared that up, can you enlighten us UK people as to who this "Baraccus Osama" character is?
Of course, what the ASA seem to be saying is that the iPhone cannot view "all the content on a website normally accessible through a Windows/x86 PC".
Or through a Mac, or through most x86 Linux distros (including EEE PC and friends). So that's not only covered the ~95% of "personal computers" running Windows but also the 2 main "minority" platforms which can view parts of the internet that the iPhone cannot reach - not counting those sites which *do* work with Gnash etc. on other platforms.
Its not as if the ASA are telling Apple they can't claim the iPhone can access the internet and has a jolly good web browser - just that they can't explicitly claim it gives you "all the parts of the internet" when it barfs on crossplatform content accessible on 99.9% of personal computers.
I have a Linux/PPC personal computer (PC).
...so you are using a minority platform among minority platforms, which you probably chose based on a reasonable level of technical know-how and/or strong personal feelings about proprietary software. You probably started off with well informed expectations about the level of interoperability with the MS-centric world this would offer. You are not the customer which the ASA is trying to protect.
But, as demonstrated by this thread, it all depends on how you interpret "access", which we differ on.
Except the Apple ad didn't use the word "access"... Meanwhile, in the hypothetical world in which they did, do you really think a non-technical customer would be impressed by the explanation "Yes, you can access MyFaceSpace - we never said you'd be able to render it."?
As a followup, do you think that adverts should be prohibited from using any technical terms in case the public either fails to understand, or worse misunderstands, those terms and is consequently mislead by their own ignorance?
If the likely effect is to mislead the target audience of the ad, yes. If I wanted to distinguish my home PC from brand X's identical product, then "we give you 300 gigabytes of storage compared to 279 GiB for brand X" is a technically defensible statement - but its bloody obvious that I'm trying to pull a fast one on Joe Public, who probably thinks that "Gibibytes" is a type of cat food.
If so, are you just as annoyed at the cosmetics industry with all their science (and pseudo-science) jargon?
I think the complaint against Apple was justified. Whether other advertisers are held to the same standards is another matter entirely!
There are two issues with the cosmetics industry, though:
1. The capabilities of a gadget are often an easily verifiable issue of fact: e.g. find even one popular website that doesn't work on the iPhone and you have a case. Whether the Tripentamicrospheres in wrinkle cream can reduce the "visible signs of ageing" is far more subjective. Cosmetics firms will have statistics to support their claims, which would be difficult and expensive to either verify or debunk.
2. I'm sure that the cosmetic industry's annual spend on advertising is an order of magnitude larger than Apple's. The ASA is a industry body. Go figure.
OK, I've looked at the ads and that is never claimed.
In the best tradition of /. the original post linked to the wrong ads. You're looking at the 4 concatenated US ads on the Apple website. You need to look at the UK ad to which the ruling applied, which is available on the BBC website, which does contain the "all the parts of the internet" line. (Yup, we get our own custom-made Apple ads over here - we even have our own "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" guys).
According to your definition being able to access "all the parts of the internet" is impossible anyway.
Absolutely. Its a stupid claim. It was made in an ad aimed at non-technical people who probably don't have the knowledge needed to spot the absurdity. That's not cricket - although its probably just a cockup by the bods that localise the adverts rather than some great Jobs-approved conspiracy.
By extension, are you saying that any browser which is unable to render ActiveX content is unable to "access the web" and should be prohibited from making such claims?
No. But - like it or lump it - some parts of the internet are only usable with ActiveX | Flash | Java | Silverlight | FuckingIE, so you should be prohibited from claiming that:
all the parts of the internet are on [Insert name of device]
...which, along with lots of other comments that stressed how the iPhone internet was not some cut-down version of the internet, was the actual problem with the Apple ad.
No mention of the word "access". You should know that, since you can access the actual Apple ad from the BBC article. Of course, given your stated views on Flash you probably can't watch it without defiling your computer with closed software, so the fact that you can (by your definition) access it is about as much use as an inflatable dartboard.
(Sadly, BBC will probably have ruined my argument by blocking access outside the UK...)
To be able to access a resource is to be able to download it.
Thanks - that insight is going to save me a heap of time next time I get landed with one of those jobs that insists on accessibility (i.e. the ability to access) for visually or physically impaired people. "Hey - they can download it, so they can access it, right? Not my fault if they can't see it!"
See, for example Authentication, Authorization and Access Control [apache.org]. Notice the word "access"?
I very much doubt that the Advertising Standards Authority uses the Apache documentation to look up the meaning of English words. They may even do their job and try to consider how the target audience of the ad (i.e. the vast majority of of the human race who have never had the joy of editing a httpd.conf file) are likely to interpret the statement, to protect them from the sort of sophistry you are proposing.
The inability to accept that the actual meaning of a word in everyday usage might differ from its technical meaning in your specialist field seems to be an industrial disease of science/tech types.
What's more - did Apple even use the word access?
That it can't render it is a different argument entirely.
Congratulations - you win the hairsplitter of the year prize.
I don't think the typical non-technical phone buyer (at whom the offending ad was aimed) would be particularly impressed by your pedantry when they bought an iPhone and found that they couldn't watch the videos on their favorite social networking site.
Jeez, I suppose my Linux/PPC box can't access "all of the web" because fscking Adobe haven't been gracious enough to release Flash for it yet
Absolutely - so you would have absolutely no excuse for selling it to someone with the explicit promise that it could access "all the web" on the basis that, in your personal dictionary, you'd redefined "the web" as "W3C standard only".
Despite the flamebait in the original posting, this is just an advertising industry watchdog slapping Apple's wrist for making an OTT claim in an ad.
Meanwhile, could all the open-format purists slagging off Flash stop whining until there's a usable alternative for rich, vector based content and streaming video which (and this is important) runs on 99% of browsers and doesn't involve telling your Microsoft-using customers to piss off until they've switched to Firefox?
A full OEM copy of Windows is actually cheaper than an upgrade copy so MS provides no incentive to cheat the system.
Actually, if you've bought an OEM copy of Windows and installed it on an existing computer or a VM, then you've probably violated the EULA and should have paid 3x over the odds for a "full retail" copy. No incentive to cheat the system?
OEM Windows is only supposed to be sold as a bundle with a new PC (in the UK* resellers often insist that you buy at least a hard drive or a motherboard before they'll sell you an OEM copy), you are obliged to install it on that hardware, to which you must attach the license sticker, and cannot transfer the license to another machine.
Practical upshot: whenever you buy a new PC or the parts for one, there's a powerful financial incentive to get Windows with it "just in case". Now that's anticompetetive!
(*Possibly EULAs have more teeth under UK law which, sadly, is a bit lacking in the "fair use" department).
until I can get to one of those british pubs for some fish n' chips.
Well, pubs are increasingly moving into food, but more traditional would be to go to a pub and drink several pints of beer - this will leave you feeling inexplicably hungry and ready to visit a fish'n'chip shop or an Indian restaurant. I'd recommend the latter - I've never found a decent curry in the US.
Why do I have to click FOUR times to simply say "this site is OK for me",
I refer you to your own answer:
Downside: anyone just klicks "yes" in ANY message, so where's the security in that?
as for:
while I only have to click once for popups,
...popup blockers are only there to protect you from annoying pop-ups, they're not security critical.
for auto-fillin for login data, and so on?
There, sir, you have a point! Browsers are *far* too helpful when it comes to remembering passwords, credit card numbers and should really prompt for a "keychain" password before doing *any* sort of auto-fill.
PS: Fear not: Firefox 5 will have the new intelligent skill level feature which scans your browsing history and sets its "warning" level based on your Slashdot karma and how many pr0n sites you have visited in the last week.
1. The choice is between self-signed and no encryption only, and Firefox is pushing manufacturers towards the less secure option.
Read my lips: Firefox does not stop you using self-signed certs! - 4 clicks and you've added an exception for that site - Firefox will not bug you again for that site.
The documentation for appliances could and should tell you that its OK to ignore the scary warnings in this case. Except all the appliances I've encountered use plain http: out of the box, and have done long before the advent of Firefox 3. Perhaps you also blame Mozilla for the fact that they also come with WPA/WEP disabled and "admin" as the login password?
Typically, you first encounter a self-signed cert in a secure context
And how is the browser supposed to decide that the context is secure?
They can and have issued certs when they shouldn't have.
Right. so some CAs can screw up. So lets not bother to implement the protocol properly then.
You do not get warnings for "regular" HTTP sites.
Yes you do. The first time you submit a form over unencrypted HTTP, most (all?) popular browsers warn you that "you are about to send information over an unencrypted connection" or something thereabouts. Most people click on "don't show this message again..."
You are basically saying that a website with an expired certificate or self-signed certificate is WORSE than regular HTTP sites
Absolutely, because a regular HTTP site doesn't claim to be secure and show a big friendly padlock icon by the address.
Firefox is singled out, because all the others let you continue to the site anyway.
To get to a site in firefox you have to go through some convoluted steps to access the site.
4 mouse clicks on fairly obvious buttons. In this post-Vista world where people reflexively click through security warnings you probably need that to get people's attention. Once that is done Firefox will bug you no more for that site.
It was the worst beer I ever had, while in transit in the Heathrow Airport.
First: proper beer comes out of those big hand pumps that give barmaids good biceps. If it goes "whirrr" and comes out under pressure, don't drink it.
Second: although a naive person might think a major international airport should be a welcoming beacon of hospitality, showcasing the best that the host country had to offer, and leaving those just passing through with a pang of regret that they could not have stayed longer, Heathrow airport is designed to make you want to piss off back home ASAP, and (as you discovered) will even provide the piss (probably at about 4 quid a pint).
Warm larger? Are you mad, or British?
Why is it that people take the piss out of the British for drinking "warm" beer but not the French for drinking "warm" wine? White vs. red wine - lager vs. bitter. Chill one, not the other. Same principle. How hard can it be?
I know using actual evidence is unfashionable, but lets try connecting to a self-signed https page from some popular browsers, shall we?
Firefox 3
Secure Connection Failed
phishing.itsdapead.org uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown.
The certificate is only valid for mycomputer.itsdapead.com
[Or you can add an exception]
Internet explorer 7:
There is a problem with this website's security certificate.
The security certificate presented by this website was not issued by a trusted certificate authority.
The security certificate presented by this website was issued for a different website's address.
Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server.
We recommend that you close this webpage and do not continue to this website.
Click here to close this webpage.
Continue to this website (not recommended).
Or Safari 3:
The certificate for this website was signed by an unknown certifying authority. You might be connecting to a website that is pretending to be "phishing.itsdapead.org" which could put your confidential information at risk. Would you like to connect to the website anyway?
How about Opera 9.5?
The server's certificate chain is incomplete, and the signer(s) are not registered. Accept?
[Help] [Reject] [Approve]
Sorry, I don't believe that - Opera is meant to be good isn't it? Let's try again: (ahem) Opera 9.5?
The server's certificate chain is incomplete, and the signer(s) are not registered. Accept?
[Help] [Reject] [Approve]
Ye gods - I wasn't imagining it! Deary, deary me...
Now, from where I'm standing:
Plus, Firefox is pushing the extended info scheme whereby the certificate holder's name gets displayed on the info bar (as opposed to the old scheme where ploughing through the certificate might reveal the holder's name), which should be a good thing.
Determinism is only distinguishable from Free Will if it enables you to precisely and reliably predict an individual's actions.
do you believe that given the exact same environment (a twinned universe?) your doppleganger would ever do anything different than yourself?
Irrelevant - because there could be no communication whatsoever between two such "twinned" systems. If information passed between one system and the other then the two universes would cease to be identical. No prediction is possible. If two systems are precisely identical and can never interact then do you even have two systems?
Also, the universe contains chaotic systems which although governed by precise, deterministic equations are infinitely sensitive to the smallest approximation or perturbation - so in theory the behaviour of such a system is predetermined, in practice it cannot be reliably predicted. You don't need quantum mechanics for that - the same thing would be true in a completely classical universe.
That bloody butterfly in Africa gets hit by a cosmic ray from outside your experiment and twitches its wings just so and on the other side of the world it rains, so clone you catches the bus instead of walking and...