Oh really? What exactly does your company do? Does your company actually create software? Or does your company just follow where the industry is going and try to obtain patents on what you think people will be doing so you can collect on their hard work.
I'm pretty certain it's the latter, even if you yourself can't see that. Ask yourself, what have you done that is truly new and innovative in software that noone else in the industry didn't already think of or would find obvious if they were working towards similar goals.
That I, an average programmer, an average thinker, of average creativity, am always coming up with things that violate patents, just in the normal course of my job, tells me that most of these patents are obvious. That this is such a problem for software developers tells me that patents on software is inherently flawed.
And as for my saying, "go fucking die", I was just responding to you being a complete asshole. You were the first to start throwing "fuck you"'s around.
Easy, I come up with some great idea based in software. My patent allows me the opportunity to make money off of that idea. I can focus on my next idea since I don't have to worry about promoting my last idea to pay the rent. My patent allows me to inovate.
He asked for an example, and you basically reiterated what he wanted an example of. Your hopythetical example is what's supposed to happen, in reality, it doesn't.
Yeah, but software patents aren't helping thinkers to eat. They're helping businesses stamp out competition from those with less money.
Another moderate for critical thought. [dasmegabyte.org]
Critical thought? Not too critical, considering that 50% of patents that are contested are thrown out, to the tune of over $2,000,000 on average in legal costs. Fucking idiots like you are making it impossible for anyone but the very rich make a living. Go fucking die, you worthless piece of shit.
Sorry to be harsh, but in your original post you indirectly made the claim that you are smarter than the stupid masses(who deserve what they get even... sheesh), which, judging from your comprehension of the security problem discussed in the article, was a very arrogant proclamation indeed. Elitist attitudes, such as yours, are always, always(!) the result of egotism.
Sorry, I may be overstating it a bit:)
Here's the thing... It is relatively easy to spoof a browser interface, as demonstrated in the article. So if you go to an untrusted site, while searching or whatever, it is possible to get a window that looks like your browser, but is actually a site that spoofs your browser interface.
Now, perhaps you're intelligent enough that you understand that can be done, and so everytime you go to a site you trust to, say, enter credit card info, bank account details, et cetera, you will close and restart your browser before doing so.
If, OTOH, you're just a person with above average intelligence, and not a brilliant person like you, you may just enter the address of the trusted site into your location bar, not aware that said location bar is actually a spoofed piece of the browser interface, which then intercepts the address and loads a fake, or altered-via-proxy, page that looks like the site you are intending to visit. As in the demonstration, this site will appear to have a secure certificate, which is simply another spoof. Congratulations, you are now giving your bank account info, social security number, credit card numbers, et cetera, to a theif. But that can only happen to "stupid" people, right? People who don't have their own little start page with links to trusted sites... *rolls eyes*
I don't know what you're talking about. What's a 'browser component'? Who does the 'not allow'ing?
I was referring to any component of the browser interface, eg. address bar, toolbar, bookmark bar, menubar, statusbar, et cetera. If none of these pieces of the interface are hidable, it would then be impossible to spoof them in a browser window.
Are you daft, man? The point of this article is that it is possible for sites to make it (nearly) impossible to tell what site you're really on; user stupidity has fuck all to do with it. How the hell are you supposed to use the web like that? I guess you don't ever google or anything, otherwise you might end up on an untrustworthy site.
The simple solution(to this particular problem) is to not allow sites to hide any browser component, which would make it impossible to spoof a browser interface in the browser.
I'm not a zealot and i'm going to be sticking with Firefox, as I don't believe i'm at risk of this particular exploit
I'm a huge fan of OSS. That said, I must point out that that sort of reasoning is stupid. When Microsoft simply says, "Only browse sites you know are safe," (which someone at MS said once... ridiculous! I will not tolerate that from anyone, OSS or otherwise!) OSS supporters get up in arms. And for good reason! The web should be safe. Networking in general should be safe. Nothing you don't want to allow to get in should ever get in.
BTW, I explained a very simple solution to these sort of browser interface spoofing problems somewhere above, for all browsers.
I'd also like to point out, as I'm using Galeon, I'm not vulnerable to these problems;p Haha, so I am invincible... INVINCIBLE!! Hehe, j/k:)
Seriously, people have been doing this sort of thing for years, with every browser. This one happens to be a bit more ambitious than most, but I've seen the same thing done with IE in the past.
I've never heard anyone say it was MS's fault that people can make a convincing fake browser interface to fool people. Hell, all of slashdot has discussed this type of thing before, with the old ads some companies made to look like popup dialog boxes. Those fooled a lot of people, but I've never heard anyone say it was MS's fault.
But there's a very simple solution, and I can explain it in one sentence.
Never let anything, popup windows, javascript, etc., hide any part of the browser interface.
That's it. 100% solution to the "fake browser interface" problem. In fact, Firefox already has that partly covered, "Allow scripts to: [*] Hide the status bar" => "Allow scripts to: [ ] Hide the status bar". That setting should default to unchecked, and it shouldn't be user-modifiable. On my system, I immediately saw a double status-bar. But that's not enough, the menu bar and browser controls shouldn't be hidable either.
If Apple is making money on the iPods, and using those profits to subsidize losses on the iTMS, why shouldn't Apple be able to tie these two products together?
That is such juvenile reasoning. Of course there's no reason Apple can't do that. They already are doing that! What they aren't(and shouldn't be) granted is the force of law to support their business model. There's no reason someone shouldn't be able to do anything they want with a product they purchased, and hence, own.
There are devices for companies to use to guard innovations: patents, copyright, trademark(which are all highly abused today, but I digress...), and if their products are truly worthy of "protection" ("protection" is the same as taking away freedom from everyone else, don't forget that), then patents can be acquired to protect their investments.
There is nothing exceptionally innovative about the iTMS and iPod. Indeed, others have had similar products for ages. Apple's success is due largely to their "Oooh! Shiny!" factor, and their acquiring a "reasonable" deal with the music industry.
It is not the responsibility of government to support flawed business models. End of story. To do so is to trade the freedom of the people for money, which is not the democratic thing to do by any stretch of the imagination. Think a little harder before applying the threat of force using the law. Lack of thinking is creating a fascist atmosphere in this country.
Is competing with Apple now a crime? That's the gist of your post, it seems.
It's the same ridiculous bullshit you dumb Apple fanboys are always spouting. Everything Apple does is good, everything anyone else does is suspect.
Apple products are generally pretty good; I like them. Apple as a company is ethically neutral, ie. amoral, or possibly even immoral as it seems many companies are. In fact, that is probably an apt description, as they are doing something wrong and probably just don't care. It's just all about money in the end.
Why do you folks look at legal wranglings from Apple differently than those from everyone else? Answer: because you are pathetic "Ooh, shiny!" type people, and can't disassociate your love of Apple products from Apple the company.
Christ on a crutch... Apple is just another company trying to make money. They don't give two shits about you. Buying products from them is purely a business transaction. Sheesh!
Umm... right. My grandmother had an ulcer. They tried acid blockers first, because it was more likely to be heartburn or acid reflux, which is not curable with antibiotics.
After that didn't help, they took a look inside her stomach, a not inexpensive procedure. I had it done once to the tune of well over $1,000 USD(paid by my insurance company).
Treatment doctors try is often more dictated by insurance companies than drug companies. Cheaper/easier treatment is always tried first.
After diagnosing my grandmother as having an ulcer(and what type!), they gave her antibiotics.
Of course, all that is not to say that a pharmaceutical company wouldn't try to keep people using their cash cow drug instead of getting cured...
I say it's about time for Apple to flex some legal muscles for a change and try to protect what they have.
That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Flexing legal muscle should be done when one is in the right, legally and morally. Apple has no right, legally or morally(except possibly under some highly suspect interpretation of the DMCA -- yes, not even the DMCA has any provisions against reverse-engineering, except with regards to copy control mechanisms protecting copyrighted works), to prevent people from using devices they purchased in a manner they please. It doesn't matter whether said person is an individual or a company, or any combination thereof.
If Real provides consumers with another way to use the iPods that they have purchased and own, so be it. I don't like Real. In fact, I despise Real. But I will not support Apple in any matter that involves abuse of our ailing legal system.
I think everyone who supports this sort of bullshit deserves a swift kick to the nose. Ah, if I could only be the one to deal them out:P (I'm just kidding, BTW)
And BTW, you certainly can put Honda engines in Hundai cars. In fact, there are many small companies which specialize in such things(probably not something stupid like Honda engine -> Hundai car, more like Mustang/Chevy/Acura -> Jeep Wrangler/Honda Civic/$cheap_but_has_potential_car.
As far as the legal situation is concerned, I think Apple has nothing to stand on. As long as Real doesn't do anything to allow consumers to copy copyrighted works, Real can reverse engineer to their heart's content, and so can any iPod competitors. They can't, however, "steal" Apple's copyrighted code and/or copy anything Apple has patents for, which should be just certain aspects of the iPod interface.
I mean, Christ on a crutch, it's a pretty simple device... Not like every electronics company hasn't already made something similar. It shouldn't be too difficult at all to make something iPod compatible.
That is the single best post that will be posted to this ridiculous story.
This will be the second best.
Everyone supporting Apple here is supporting a small bit of fascism, and everyone opposing despite being a fan of Apple products is a person of good character.
Now please excuse me while I hire a crack team of lawyers so I can do the "cool" thing and stifle some more innovation.
Jesus, everyone is an asshole these days, harshly criticizing people who are doing work in their spare time and not getting paid. Open source software works when it's good enough that people take notice, end of story. If a good product lacks documentation, perhaps the developer just doesn't have the time, and if you care so fucking much, help them. Noone wants to read another fucking whine piece by some asshole who likes to hear himself talk.
Ewww! Seriously, anyone else find pretty much everything on MSN designed with really poor taste? Hell, half the shit on MSN doesn't even have a background color set.
It's all so... cluttered.
That's my first reaction; I was expecting better, considering the resources they have.
Yeah, well, as a non-Apple *nix user, Apple's DRM is preventing me from using their store, period. But regardless, I refuse to purchase anything that requires proprietary software to use. Architectures change. Software breaks. There is no guarantee that they won't stop supporting older formats one day and force you to buy it all again. Or they may just go out of business...
Music collections can be worth several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars(mine must be close to 10k), ergo, _any_ DRM is unacceptable.
You make no sense at all. If it's true that it's horribly insecure, then the fact that other organizations are recommending using something other than IE is not FUD, it is a recommendation based on facts. That the facts are perhaps scaring people into switching only means that people want more security than MS is currently providing.
Well that's neat and all, but there should be a better way of using it than ActiveX. They could use Java, plain ol' streaming video, animated GIF, et cetera.
Anyway, I hope you find a solution; perhaps you should pester the company that makes the device to provide a better solution. Tell them you got a Mac, or can't use IE because of company policy or something:D
That is a bad idea. ActiveX is and always has been an insecure piece of shit. Furthermore, it is Wintel only. ActiveX is a patently ridiculous web technology. Why the hell would anyone want things on the web to be tied to a specific operating system and processor? One of Mozilla's goals is cross-platform compatibility, why would they cripple that with a seriously flawed component such as ActiveX.
Of course, there's no reason someone couldn't write an ActiveX plugin for Mozilla... but I for one would rather see ActiveX die a quick death.
Along with excessive popup ads, annoying active X controls, et cetera. So all of us who support Mozilla (and KHTML), have moron executives who continue to add more and more ads to websites, like it's an addiction, to thank for the increasing acceptance of "alternative" browsers.
We have several "normal" computer users at the office. When having one of them try Firefox, because she was frustrated with popups, the first day she said, "I don't like Firefox, can't you just fix the Internet?" The second day, after she figured out tabs, popup blocking, and even the speed, she said, "Firefox is so much better. Why would anyone still use Internet Explorer."
Before, she didn't understand the difference between "The Internet" and "Internet Explorer". After 1 single day using Firefox, some things clicked in her head, and she is now a much more saavy Internet user, requiring much less support from our technical staff, ie. me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty certain it's the latter, even if you yourself can't see that. Ask yourself, what have you done that is truly new and innovative in software that noone else in the industry didn't already think of or would find obvious if they were working towards similar goals.
That I, an average programmer, an average thinker, of average creativity, am always coming up with things that violate patents, just in the normal course of my job, tells me that most of these patents are obvious. That this is such a problem for software developers tells me that patents on software is inherently flawed.
And as for my saying, "go fucking die", I was just responding to you being a complete asshole. You were the first to start throwing "fuck you"'s around.
He asked for an example, and you basically reiterated what he wanted an example of. Your hopythetical example is what's supposed to happen, in reality, it doesn't.
"thinkers got to eat"
Yeah, but software patents aren't helping thinkers to eat. They're helping businesses stamp out competition from those with less money.
Another moderate for critical thought. [dasmegabyte.org]
Critical thought? Not too critical, considering that 50% of patents that are contested are thrown out, to the tune of over $2,000,000 on average in legal costs. Fucking idiots like you are making it impossible for anyone but the very rich make a living. Go fucking die, you worthless piece of shit.
Sorry, I may be overstating it a bit :)
Here's the thing... It is relatively easy to spoof a browser interface, as demonstrated in the article. So if you go to an untrusted site, while searching or whatever, it is possible to get a window that looks like your browser, but is actually a site that spoofs your browser interface.
Now, perhaps you're intelligent enough that you understand that can be done, and so everytime you go to a site you trust to, say, enter credit card info, bank account details, et cetera, you will close and restart your browser before doing so.
If, OTOH, you're just a person with above average intelligence, and not a brilliant person like you, you may just enter the address of the trusted site into your location bar, not aware that said location bar is actually a spoofed piece of the browser interface, which then intercepts the address and loads a fake, or altered-via-proxy, page that looks like the site you are intending to visit. As in the demonstration, this site will appear to have a secure certificate, which is simply another spoof. Congratulations, you are now giving your bank account info, social security number, credit card numbers, et cetera, to a theif. But that can only happen to "stupid" people, right? People who don't have their own little start page with links to trusted sites... *rolls eyes*
I don't know what you're talking about. What's a 'browser component'? Who does the 'not allow'ing?
I was referring to any component of the browser interface, eg. address bar, toolbar, bookmark bar, menubar, statusbar, et cetera. If none of these pieces of the interface are hidable, it would then be impossible to spoof them in a browser window.
The simple solution(to this particular problem) is to not allow sites to hide any browser component, which would make it impossible to spoof a browser interface in the browser.
I'm a huge fan of OSS. That said, I must point out that that sort of reasoning is stupid. When Microsoft simply says, "Only browse sites you know are safe," (which someone at MS said once... ridiculous! I will not tolerate that from anyone, OSS or otherwise!) OSS supporters get up in arms. And for good reason! The web should be safe. Networking in general should be safe. Nothing you don't want to allow to get in should ever get in.
BTW, I explained a very simple solution to these sort of browser interface spoofing problems somewhere above, for all browsers.
I'd also like to point out, as I'm using Galeon, I'm not vulnerable to these problems ;p Haha, so I am invincible... INVINCIBLE!! Hehe, j/k :)
Cheers!
I've never heard anyone say it was MS's fault that people can make a convincing fake browser interface to fool people. Hell, all of slashdot has discussed this type of thing before, with the old ads some companies made to look like popup dialog boxes. Those fooled a lot of people, but I've never heard anyone say it was MS's fault.
But there's a very simple solution, and I can explain it in one sentence.
Never let anything, popup windows, javascript, etc., hide any part of the browser interface.
That's it. 100% solution to the "fake browser interface" problem. In fact, Firefox already has that partly covered, "Allow scripts to: [*] Hide the status bar" => "Allow scripts to: [ ] Hide the status bar". That setting should default to unchecked, and it shouldn't be user-modifiable. On my system, I immediately saw a double status-bar. But that's not enough, the menu bar and browser controls shouldn't be hidable either.
That is such juvenile reasoning. Of course there's no reason Apple can't do that. They already are doing that! What they aren't(and shouldn't be) granted is the force of law to support their business model. There's no reason someone shouldn't be able to do anything they want with a product they purchased, and hence, own.
There are devices for companies to use to guard innovations: patents, copyright, trademark(which are all highly abused today, but I digress...), and if their products are truly worthy of "protection" ("protection" is the same as taking away freedom from everyone else, don't forget that), then patents can be acquired to protect their investments.
There is nothing exceptionally innovative about the iTMS and iPod. Indeed, others have had similar products for ages. Apple's success is due largely to their "Oooh! Shiny!" factor, and their acquiring a "reasonable" deal with the music industry.
It is not the responsibility of government to support flawed business models. End of story. To do so is to trade the freedom of the people for money, which is not the democratic thing to do by any stretch of the imagination. Think a little harder before applying the threat of force using the law. Lack of thinking is creating a fascist atmosphere in this country.
It's the same ridiculous bullshit you dumb Apple fanboys are always spouting. Everything Apple does is good, everything anyone else does is suspect.
Apple products are generally pretty good; I like them. Apple as a company is ethically neutral, ie. amoral, or possibly even immoral as it seems many companies are. In fact, that is probably an apt description, as they are doing something wrong and probably just don't care. It's just all about money in the end.
Why do you folks look at legal wranglings from Apple differently than those from everyone else? Answer: because you are pathetic "Ooh, shiny!" type people, and can't disassociate your love of Apple products from Apple the company.
Christ on a crutch... Apple is just another company trying to make money. They don't give two shits about you. Buying products from them is purely a business transaction. Sheesh!
After that didn't help, they took a look inside her stomach, a not inexpensive procedure. I had it done once to the tune of well over $1,000 USD(paid by my insurance company).
Treatment doctors try is often more dictated by insurance companies than drug companies. Cheaper/easier treatment is always tried first.
After diagnosing my grandmother as having an ulcer(and what type!), they gave her antibiotics.
Of course, all that is not to say that a pharmaceutical company wouldn't try to keep people using their cash cow drug instead of getting cured...
That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Flexing legal muscle should be done when one is in the right, legally and morally. Apple has no right, legally or morally(except possibly under some highly suspect interpretation of the DMCA -- yes, not even the DMCA has any provisions against reverse-engineering, except with regards to copy control mechanisms protecting copyrighted works), to prevent people from using devices they purchased in a manner they please. It doesn't matter whether said person is an individual or a company, or any combination thereof.
If Real provides consumers with another way to use the iPods that they have purchased and own, so be it. I don't like Real. In fact, I despise Real. But I will not support Apple in any matter that involves abuse of our ailing legal system.
I think everyone who supports this sort of bullshit deserves a swift kick to the nose. Ah, if I could only be the one to deal them out :P (I'm just kidding, BTW)
And BTW, you certainly can put Honda engines in Hundai cars. In fact, there are many small companies which specialize in such things(probably not something stupid like Honda engine -> Hundai car, more like Mustang/Chevy/Acura -> Jeep Wrangler/Honda Civic/$cheap_but_has_potential_car.
I mean, Christ on a crutch, it's a pretty simple device... Not like every electronics company hasn't already made something similar. It shouldn't be too difficult at all to make something iPod compatible.
This will be the second best.
Everyone supporting Apple here is supporting a small bit of fascism, and everyone opposing despite being a fan of Apple products is a person of good character.
Now please excuse me while I hire a crack team of lawyers so I can do the "cool" thing and stifle some more innovation.
I assume that's what you are doing. Please stop using computers and the Internet, you are too stupid.
Here's an idea: Think different? No. Just start thinking for yourself.
Get bent.
It's all so... cluttered.
That's my first reaction; I was expecting better, considering the resources they have.
No opinion on the content yet.
Music collections can be worth several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars(mine must be close to 10k), ergo, _any_ DRM is unacceptable.
Anyway, I hope you find a solution; perhaps you should pester the company that makes the device to provide a better solution. Tell them you got a Mac, or can't use IE because of company policy or something :D
Cheers.
Of course, there's no reason someone couldn't write an ActiveX plugin for Mozilla... but I for one would rather see ActiveX die a quick death.
We have several "normal" computer users at the office. When having one of them try Firefox, because she was frustrated with popups, the first day she said, "I don't like Firefox, can't you just fix the Internet?" The second day, after she figured out tabs, popup blocking, and even the speed, she said, "Firefox is so much better. Why would anyone still use Internet Explorer."
Before, she didn't understand the difference between "The Internet" and "Internet Explorer". After 1 single day using Firefox, some things clicked in her head, and she is now a much more saavy Internet user, requiring much less support from our technical staff, ie. me.
I'm not a QT "fanboy," but I have to point out that GPL != non-commercial.
With the GPLed version, you can do whatever you want, but if you distribute your program, it must also be licensed under the GPL.