But it occurs to me that Microsoft own Bing, which (like any search engine) is paid for through advertising. And if the advertising can be tightly targeted, it's possible to charge a lot more for it. It follows that at least one business unit within Microsoft wants Do Not Track to be a complete disaster.
You don't understand what's going on in business. Google is the big advertising monster, the 800+ lb gorilla of advertising. In order to keep their advertising business running, they do their best to throw spanners in the works for anyone big enough to possibly muscle in. Thats' why you have "Google+" fighting Facebook. That's why you have Google apps fighting Microsoft. That's why you have Android fighting Apple. None if these are there to make money for Google, they are all there for the sole purpose of hurting big IT companies who might hurt Google's advertising business.
And that's what Bing is for, not to make money, but to hurt Google. That's why Apple isn't using Google Maps anymore, to take money away from Google. So no, Microsoft is absolutely happy with Do Not Track and anything that makes advertisers pay less money to Google.
This article is severely misleading. The supposed complaints about open web standards violations don't come from Apache Platinum Sponsors, of which one is Microsoft who is obviously _not_ complaining, and you can look at the list and decide for yourself which one's might worry about user's privacy and which one's wouldn't. The complaint is just some mail thread of Apache developers having a moan, where some of them think apparently that privacy settings shouldn't be set by default but should set knowingly by the user (and others vehemently say that this argument is nonsense). And they are _not_ complaining that "don't track" is the default, but that there is a default. And they are not complaining to Microsoft, this is just an Apache internal discussion.
What you say is probably correct, but there were more reasons. At the time when rumors of Apple moving to x86 started, Intel sold the monstrosity named P4 while AMD had rather better chips. But Apple would have known about the Core Duo already, which was basically Intel going back to rational chip design and getting ahead of AMD again.
And another rational reason: By going with Intel, Apple knew that at most 10% of competitors would have better chips than the Macs. By going with AMD, Apple risked having 90% of the competition using better chips.
You didn't say where you bought the Apple equipment. Statutory warranties are provided by the seller, not the manufacturer. So if you buy a Mac at PCWorld, it's PCWorld's problem. If you buy a Canon printer at the Apple Store, it's Apple's problem.
Now in the first 6 months the seller has to prove that the fault wasn't present when you received the item, after that you have to prove that the fault was there when you received it. You also didn't say whether a repair has happened; after a repair it would be impossible to prove anything about the defect. If you haven't paid yet, the important things are EU law, _and_ that you haven't caused the damage and no reason to believe you did.
(You have to _prove_ the fault was there when you bought the item. But clearly with every fault either it was faulty when bought, or you damaged it, or someone else damaged it. If the item is something that shouldn't break without visible outside damage, and there is no visible damage, that would look like you bought it with the fault).
The law includes a requirement to point out what remedies the customer is entitled to under the law. Probably, that is exactly to prevent sellers from deceiving the buyer into thinking they must pay for an extended warranty. Apple ignored that bit exactly so they could sell the extended warranty.
No, that's what someone is claiming, but not what is actually happening. If you go to store.apple.com/uk and enter "applecare" in the search box, then click on one of the products offered (the first one is applecare for iphone), you see in bold letters (yes, it's actually bold): "Important Note: Apple One-Year Limited Warranty and AppleCare Protection Plan benefits are in addition to rights provided under consumer law. For details, click here." And when you do "click here", you go to http://www.apple.com/uk/legal/statutory-warranty/ which actually explains your rights rather well, and provides links to government websites.
It is not worth wrecking the lives of the people involved just to boost sales of your crappy open source music.
No, he is absolutely correct. First, this legislation doesn't wreck anyone's life. Possibly some Japanese people might have legal problems after breaking their laws; that is after all what is supposed to happen. "Lives wrecked" is probably an exaggeration.
But the original poster's argument is correct. He has a model that works when people act within the boundaries of the law, and fails if they don't. He is producing music in a less profession way, probably therefore with some lower quality, but he gets a competitive advantage by being cheaper (free). If people illegally download music without paying that should be paid for, then he loses his competitive advantage. And that's what laws are for: To protect against negative effects caused by people breaking the law.
That works out to be a 34 songs per person per year in Japan. Somehow the mathematics just aren't there....
The number seems quite reasonable to me. Since downloading is except for the risk of being caught essentially free, there will be many people downloading whatever they can, with the purpose of the downloading being to _have_ thousands of songs, instead of _listening_ to thousands of songs.
How about the law was broken in a different jurisdiction where it isn't illegal.
The important fact is actually: The law was broken in a different jurisdiction. US authorities won't prosecute anyone for giving a fourteen year old beer in Germany. They won't even prosecute anyone for murdering someone in Germany. If an American couple goes on holiday to Germany, and one of them murders the other in Germany, US police will not prosecute the murderer. They will of course extradite that murderer to Germany where he or she would be prosecuted.
Wifi encryption is useless if anyone and everyone can join the network. Once you join, it's just like being on any other shared medium network. All your packets are available in the clear. If you're worried about security, use application level encryption.
It's not useless. Packets are not available in the clear, because everyone joining the network with the same password will get a different key. However, there are attacks possible against that version of WPA so a hacker on the network can crack someone else's key. But nothing is in the clear.
If someone has an open wifi, and something illegal (copyrighted content, kiddie porn, etc.) is downloaded via his IP, the person has plausible deniability that he himself did the downloading.
Obviously a prosecutor will hold that against you. If you are a person who knows about secure WiFi, passwords, and plausible deniability, then keeping an unprotected connection means you're up to no good.
With a password, even if every person in the world knows the password, nobody can sniff anyone else's packets.
I think that's not quite true for WPA. In the version where everyone knows the password, there are certain attacks possible once you know the password. That's why it's fine for home use where only trusted people get the password, but not say for company use where you can be sure that a hacker will find some idiot giving them or selling them the password.
doogal.co.uk has a complete list of UK postcodes (For those not in the UK: There 1,751,390 postcodes according to the site, so one postcode is for less than 40 people. Good enough to find most people). I just used their site for half a dozen postcodes; my home, nearby, and some far away, and all agreed one hundred percent with iOS maps. In the UK, the street data seems fine. Some of the satellite images are rubbish. Would be worth checking their complete data set.
What they should do is write a little app that finds your location using GPS, then lets you enter the name of your location, and send it to Apple. They can cross reference it (in case someone thinks it's clever to send rubbish data), and you get one song credit in the iTunes store. At an average cost of $0.70, they would get 14 million data points for $10 million. And lots of happy customers.
Phone number of parents is great, as they are responsible for their child (as they are still children by law). They will take the children to meets, pick them up etc. There is no need to have the child's phone number at all.
What a sick little twisted mind you've got. So according to you, I shouldn't have the phone numbers of my grandchildren? I'll conclude that you think that you couldn't be trusted with a child's phone number.
hmm who is more evil,
Microsoft Apple Oracle or Adobe?
Google obviously.
But instead of this stupid comment of yours, the real question is what will happen when this certificate is revoked? For example, apps on the App Store are signed with a digital certificate. I would expect any app signed with a revoked certificate to stop working, and I would expect Apple to revoke any certificate used to sign malware, which would _really_ give developers some motivation to keep their signing keys safe.
1. It makes it easier for multiple people to make changes to the same document at the same time.
5. It makes it harder for multiple people making changes to the same document to mess up each others' changes. If they have a minimum IQ.
(One of my colleagues once had a fight with some other developer who apparently didn't quite get the concept - used Perforce and checked in his changes, overwriting everyone else's changes in the same file and breaking everything. Repeatedly. After being told not to. After being explained why not to. )
i read these and almost every flagship from from every manufacturer is in the $180 to $200 range. Apple's bill of materials tends to be a little higher most times but their margins are also higher because they make one phone for all around the world. iphone 5 and LTE is an exception with different models supporting different frequencies around the world
And what all these children don't seem to realise is that the $180 to $200 Bill of Materials gives you a bag full of parts somewhere in a container near a manufacturing plant in China. If they saw the Bill of Materials for a pair of shoes, or some jeans, or a hamburger at McDonald's, they would faint.
So he says the iPhone 5 camera is "barely better" than the one in the iPhone 4S. Then in the article he says "But, if youâ(TM)re still not convinced that the iPhone 5 isnâ(TM)t quite a DSLR-replacer just yet, take a look at it compared to a Canon 5D Mark III. That ought to change your mind." Unless he is confused by too many "not"s in one sentence, that seems to say that the camera isn't very good compared to a professional camera. But to quote from the linked article: "The results are pretty amazing â" the iPhone takes worse photos but it certainly stacks up against a $4,000 professional camera. ". In other words, the camera in a $600 phone is not quite as good as a $4,000 professional camera, but it is not far away.
A company needs no *guards* against its workers. A factory needs no *guards* against its workers.
Most companies need security guards. Well, mine does. Keep the doors and windows locked in the night, deter anyone who wants to break into an empty building at night, and call the police if there is real trouble. On the other hand, if there are 79,000 workers and dormitories for them, then it's obvious that among those 79,000 there are some rather unpleasant ones, and you would want some security guards around. You might ask just all the single women among them if they'd rather have security guards around or not.
I didn't think Apple was doing that badly that they have to litigate others for cash to stay relevant. Oh wait, maybe they are doing it to make the others strapped for cash! Or wait, maybe there isn't even a point in doing this. Maybe they should all hold hands and be happy instead.:3
Of course Apple doesn't _need_ that money. The money is a welcome side effect. What Apple wants is to stop Samsung from making phones that copy iPhone features by making it expensive for them. And there isn't only this patent case, there have been reports quite recently that Apple has moved some major orders for memory and for displays from Samsung to other manufacturers, which will also cost them money.
And the plan seems to be working. At least if you look at Samsung's Galaxy adverts that seem to become more and more desperate. I wonder what happens at Samsung internally. If I was the guy at Samsung responsible for producing and selling components to the whole world, I'd want to punch the guy responsible for selling smartphones right in the face.
It is only when it was pointed out that Apple also profited from these slave labour practices that the fanbois suddenly starting making noises of 'you're only hating on Apple'.
There were reports like "300 workers threatened suicicde at iPhone plant" - because Microsoft was reducing XBox production and these workers were in danger of losing their jobs.
Fact: There are riots in many places. Quite bad in Britain. There have been riots this year in Florida, and in Germany. Type in "riot country name" in Google and you'll find riots. Well, and in China.
what would apple do if samsung did this to them? what would the courts reactions be?
Excuse me? You realise that at some point Apple, Google and others had agreements not to headhunt each other's employees, and _have been told by courts that such an agreement is illegal_?
Hiring Google ex-employees and even more hiring Google employees is something that Apple is _expected_ to do by Californian law. Free market. Free choice of employees to work for whoever pays most.
DMCA (the part you are talking about) is there to make it possible for websites to be run without being sued all the time, to help copyright owners to act fast against copyright infringement, and to allow innocently accused parties to publish non-infringing material.
What happened to you goes past what DMCA is there for. The website can refuse to remove the materials - in that case they risk becoming part of any court case. The infringer can insist on continuing to infringe. In that case things go to court. Now _if_ you are correct and they are infringing, they have just added substantially to their wrongdoing by making claims that they own the material.
There are severe penalties for acting against the DMCA rules. If you accuse someone of infringing when you are not the copyright holder, and likewise if they claim not to be infringing when they are. Probably worse than the copyright infringement.
But their copyrights are a different matter. Can you copyright something as common as a clockface? I'm no Apple fanboi, but this seems a real stretch. How about street signs? Google street views?
For a clockface: Should be no problem to get a trademark, if it looks sufficiently distinctive and identifies your company or product. There are gazillions of ways to design a clock face in distinctive ways. With Google street views I'd think that each individual photograph is protected by copyright, but anyone has exactly the same right as Google to take photos of exactly the same location.
The hashing algorithm they use might have collisions past 16 characters anyway, so you'd get no added security out of extra characters, and you only hash and handle the hash from the first 16 characters.
A 128 bit hash doesn't have collision. In theory it can, if the hash function is cracked then collisions can be created, but in practice there are just no collisions. And there are plenty of devices (iPhone for example), where using lots of digits, upper/lowercase etc. makes the password impractical to enter, so I'd rather use a long (>16 chars) of lowercase characters and rely on length to produce bits.
Slashdot Mirror
But it occurs to me that Microsoft own Bing, which (like any search engine) is paid for through advertising. And if the advertising can be tightly targeted, it's possible to charge a lot more for it. It follows that at least one business unit within Microsoft wants Do Not Track to be a complete disaster.
You don't understand what's going on in business. Google is the big advertising monster, the 800+ lb gorilla of advertising. In order to keep their advertising business running, they do their best to throw spanners in the works for anyone big enough to possibly muscle in. Thats' why you have "Google+" fighting Facebook. That's why you have Google apps fighting Microsoft. That's why you have Android fighting Apple. None if these are there to make money for Google, they are all there for the sole purpose of hurting big IT companies who might hurt Google's advertising business.
And that's what Bing is for, not to make money, but to hurt Google. That's why Apple isn't using Google Maps anymore, to take money away from Google. So no, Microsoft is absolutely happy with Do Not Track and anything that makes advertisers pay less money to Google.
This article is severely misleading. The supposed complaints about open web standards violations don't come from Apache Platinum Sponsors, of which one is Microsoft who is obviously _not_ complaining, and you can look at the list and decide for yourself which one's might worry about user's privacy and which one's wouldn't. The complaint is just some mail thread of Apache developers having a moan, where some of them think apparently that privacy settings shouldn't be set by default but should set knowingly by the user (and others vehemently say that this argument is nonsense). And they are _not_ complaining that "don't track" is the default, but that there is a default. And they are not complaining to Microsoft, this is just an Apache internal discussion.
What you say is probably correct, but there were more reasons. At the time when rumors of Apple moving to x86 started, Intel sold the monstrosity named P4 while AMD had rather better chips. But Apple would have known about the Core Duo already, which was basically Intel going back to rational chip design and getting ahead of AMD again.
And another rational reason: By going with Intel, Apple knew that at most 10% of competitors would have better chips than the Macs. By going with AMD, Apple risked having 90% of the competition using better chips.
You didn't say where you bought the Apple equipment. Statutory warranties are provided by the seller, not the manufacturer. So if you buy a Mac at PCWorld, it's PCWorld's problem. If you buy a Canon printer at the Apple Store, it's Apple's problem.
Now in the first 6 months the seller has to prove that the fault wasn't present when you received the item, after that you have to prove that the fault was there when you received it. You also didn't say whether a repair has happened; after a repair it would be impossible to prove anything about the defect. If you haven't paid yet, the important things are EU law, _and_ that you haven't caused the damage and no reason to believe you did.
(You have to _prove_ the fault was there when you bought the item. But clearly with every fault either it was faulty when bought, or you damaged it, or someone else damaged it. If the item is something that shouldn't break without visible outside damage, and there is no visible damage, that would look like you bought it with the fault).
The law includes a requirement to point out what remedies the customer is entitled to under the law. Probably, that is exactly to prevent sellers from deceiving the buyer into thinking they must pay for an extended warranty. Apple ignored that bit exactly so they could sell the extended warranty.
No, that's what someone is claiming, but not what is actually happening. If you go to store.apple.com/uk and enter "applecare" in the search box, then click on one of the products offered (the first one is applecare for iphone), you see in bold letters (yes, it's actually bold): "Important Note: Apple One-Year Limited Warranty and AppleCare Protection Plan benefits are in addition to rights provided under consumer law. For details, click here." And when you do "click here", you go to http://www.apple.com/uk/legal/statutory-warranty/ which actually explains your rights rather well, and provides links to government websites.
Now compare to Dell: They say - nothing.
It is not worth wrecking the lives of the people involved just to boost sales of your crappy open source music.
No, he is absolutely correct. First, this legislation doesn't wreck anyone's life. Possibly some Japanese people might have legal problems after breaking their laws; that is after all what is supposed to happen. "Lives wrecked" is probably an exaggeration.
But the original poster's argument is correct. He has a model that works when people act within the boundaries of the law, and fails if they don't. He is producing music in a less profession way, probably therefore with some lower quality, but he gets a competitive advantage by being cheaper (free). If people illegally download music without paying that should be paid for, then he loses his competitive advantage. And that's what laws are for: To protect against negative effects caused by people breaking the law.
That works out to be a 34 songs per person per year in Japan. Somehow the mathematics just aren't there ....
The number seems quite reasonable to me. Since downloading is except for the risk of being caught essentially free, there will be many people downloading whatever they can, with the purpose of the downloading being to _have_ thousands of songs, instead of _listening_ to thousands of songs.
How about the law was broken in a different jurisdiction where it isn't illegal.
The important fact is actually: The law was broken in a different jurisdiction. US authorities won't prosecute anyone for giving a fourteen year old beer in Germany. They won't even prosecute anyone for murdering someone in Germany. If an American couple goes on holiday to Germany, and one of them murders the other in Germany, US police will not prosecute the murderer. They will of course extradite that murderer to Germany where he or she would be prosecuted.
Wifi encryption is useless if anyone and everyone can join the network. Once you join, it's just like being on any other shared medium network. All your packets are available in the clear. If you're worried about security, use application level encryption.
It's not useless. Packets are not available in the clear, because everyone joining the network with the same password will get a different key. However, there are attacks possible against that version of WPA so a hacker on the network can crack someone else's key. But nothing is in the clear.
If someone has an open wifi, and something illegal (copyrighted content, kiddie porn, etc.) is downloaded via his IP, the person has plausible deniability that he himself did the downloading.
Obviously a prosecutor will hold that against you. If you are a person who knows about secure WiFi, passwords, and plausible deniability, then keeping an unprotected connection means you're up to no good.
With a password, even if every person in the world knows the password, nobody can sniff anyone else's packets.
I think that's not quite true for WPA. In the version where everyone knows the password, there are certain attacks possible once you know the password. That's why it's fine for home use where only trusted people get the password, but not say for company use where you can be sure that a hacker will find some idiot giving them or selling them the password.
All I can say is "oh, f***".
doogal.co.uk has a complete list of UK postcodes (For those not in the UK: There 1,751,390 postcodes according to the site, so one postcode is for less than 40 people. Good enough to find most people). I just used their site for half a dozen postcodes; my home, nearby, and some far away, and all agreed one hundred percent with iOS maps. In the UK, the street data seems fine. Some of the satellite images are rubbish. Would be worth checking their complete data set.
What they should do is write a little app that finds your location using GPS, then lets you enter the name of your location, and send it to Apple. They can cross reference it (in case someone thinks it's clever to send rubbish data), and you get one song credit in the iTunes store. At an average cost of $0.70, they would get 14 million data points for $10 million. And lots of happy customers.
Phone number of parents is great, as they are responsible for their child (as they are still children by law). They will take the children to meets, pick them up etc. There is no need to have the child's phone number at all.
What a sick little twisted mind you've got. So according to you, I shouldn't have the phone numbers of my grandchildren? I'll conclude that you think that you couldn't be trusted with a child's phone number.
hmm who is more evil,
Microsoft Apple Oracle or Adobe?
Google obviously.
But instead of this stupid comment of yours, the real question is what will happen when this certificate is revoked? For example, apps on the App Store are signed with a digital certificate. I would expect any app signed with a revoked certificate to stop working, and I would expect Apple to revoke any certificate used to sign malware, which would _really_ give developers some motivation to keep their signing keys safe.
1. It makes it easier for multiple people to make changes to the same document at the same time.
5. It makes it harder for multiple people making changes to the same document to mess up each others' changes. If they have a minimum IQ.
(One of my colleagues once had a fight with some other developer who apparently didn't quite get the concept - used Perforce and checked in his changes, overwriting everyone else's changes in the same file and breaking everything. Repeatedly. After being told not to. After being explained why not to. )
i read these and almost every flagship from from every manufacturer is in the $180 to $200 range. Apple's bill of materials tends to be a little higher most times but their margins are also higher because they make one phone for all around the world. iphone 5 and LTE is an exception with different models supporting different frequencies around the world
And what all these children don't seem to realise is that the $180 to $200 Bill of Materials gives you a bag full of parts somewhere in a container near a manufacturing plant in China. If they saw the Bill of Materials for a pair of shoes, or some jeans, or a hamburger at McDonald's, they would faint.
So he says the iPhone 5 camera is "barely better" than the one in the iPhone 4S. Then in the article he says "But, if youâ(TM)re still not convinced that the iPhone 5 isnâ(TM)t quite a DSLR-replacer just yet, take a look at it compared to a Canon 5D Mark III. That ought to change your mind." Unless he is confused by too many "not"s in one sentence, that seems to say that the camera isn't very good compared to a professional camera. But to quote from the linked article: "The results are pretty amazing â" the iPhone takes worse photos but it certainly stacks up against a $4,000 professional camera. ". In other words, the camera in a $600 phone is not quite as good as a $4,000 professional camera, but it is not far away.
A company needs no *guards* against its workers. A factory needs no *guards* against its workers.
Most companies need security guards. Well, mine does. Keep the doors and windows locked in the night, deter anyone who wants to break into an empty building at night, and call the police if there is real trouble. On the other hand, if there are 79,000 workers and dormitories for them, then it's obvious that among those 79,000 there are some rather unpleasant ones, and you would want some security guards around. You might ask just all the single women among them if they'd rather have security guards around or not.
I didn't think Apple was doing that badly that they have to litigate others for cash to stay relevant. Oh wait, maybe they are doing it to make the others strapped for cash! Or wait, maybe there isn't even a point in doing this. Maybe they should all hold hands and be happy instead. :3
Of course Apple doesn't _need_ that money. The money is a welcome side effect. What Apple wants is to stop Samsung from making phones that copy iPhone features by making it expensive for them. And there isn't only this patent case, there have been reports quite recently that Apple has moved some major orders for memory and for displays from Samsung to other manufacturers, which will also cost them money.
And the plan seems to be working. At least if you look at Samsung's Galaxy adverts that seem to become more and more desperate. I wonder what happens at Samsung internally. If I was the guy at Samsung responsible for producing and selling components to the whole world, I'd want to punch the guy responsible for selling smartphones right in the face.
It is only when it was pointed out that Apple also profited from these slave labour practices that the fanbois suddenly starting making noises of 'you're only hating on Apple'.
There were reports like "300 workers threatened suicicde at iPhone plant" - because Microsoft was reducing XBox production and these workers were in danger of losing their jobs.
Fact: There are riots in many places. Quite bad in Britain. There have been riots this year in Florida, and in Germany. Type in "riot country name" in Google and you'll find riots. Well, and in China.
A single example of a US citizen being arrested for the way they look and not having papers?
They made a movie about that. I think it was called "Rambo".
what would apple do if samsung did this to them? what would the courts reactions be?
Excuse me? You realise that at some point Apple, Google and others had agreements not to headhunt each other's employees, and _have been told by courts that such an agreement is illegal_?
Hiring Google ex-employees and even more hiring Google employees is something that Apple is _expected_ to do by Californian law. Free market. Free choice of employees to work for whoever pays most.
DMCA (the part you are talking about) is there to make it possible for websites to be run without being sued all the time, to help copyright owners to act fast against copyright infringement, and to allow innocently accused parties to publish non-infringing material.
What happened to you goes past what DMCA is there for. The website can refuse to remove the materials - in that case they risk becoming part of any court case. The infringer can insist on continuing to infringe. In that case things go to court. Now _if_ you are correct and they are infringing, they have just added substantially to their wrongdoing by making claims that they own the material.
There are severe penalties for acting against the DMCA rules. If you accuse someone of infringing when you are not the copyright holder, and likewise if they claim not to be infringing when they are. Probably worse than the copyright infringement.
But their copyrights are a different matter. Can you copyright something as common as a clockface? I'm no Apple fanboi, but this seems a real stretch. How about street signs? Google street views?
For a clockface: Should be no problem to get a trademark, if it looks sufficiently distinctive and identifies your company or product. There are gazillions of ways to design a clock face in distinctive ways. With Google street views I'd think that each individual photograph is protected by copyright, but anyone has exactly the same right as Google to take photos of exactly the same location.
The hashing algorithm they use might have collisions past 16 characters anyway, so you'd get no added security out of extra characters, and you only hash and handle the hash from the first 16 characters.
A 128 bit hash doesn't have collision. In theory it can, if the hash function is cracked then collisions can be created, but in practice there are just no collisions. And there are plenty of devices (iPhone for example), where using lots of digits, upper/lowercase etc. makes the password impractical to enter, so I'd rather use a long (>16 chars) of lowercase characters and rely on length to produce bits.