My past two employers I know have admin or otherwise secure pages that I can almost guarantee haven't changed their passwords. If I were asked that question, I would have to admit that technically I do have a "backdoor", but it's not MY backdoor nor was it anywhere within my control to change the credentials to it. Or I could just lie and say I don't have access, but then starting off an career with a company with a lie isn't exactly putting your best food forward either.
That's not a backdoor. It's the front door. You had the keys to the front door, and it's a kind of key that cannot be returned, so they should have changed the locks. So you didn't create a backdoor, they just left your access to the front door intact.
Well, I think a security audit to look for other security problems should not be attributed to the hacker, nor should the effort to close the hole that the hacker used. These are things they would have done for example if their own security experts had found the hole.
However, checking what the effects of the intrusion were, to prevent further damage, that should be attributed to the hacker.
Let's say you find a way to enter a building which shouldn't have been possible, and leave a bomb. Closing the hole and checking all the entrances is not due to you. But removing the bomb, and searching the whole building in case there is a second bomb, that is due to you.
iOS crashes more than Android (for those who don't feel like trawling through the (not brilliantly formatted) article.
That's what the article claims. But the fact seems to be instead "A company producing crash reporting software measured more crashes in iOS applications than in Android applications". Not _quite_ the same. First, it's application crashes. No information about how often iOS and Android crash themselves. Second, we don't know what conditions are reported as "crash" and what percentage of crashes are reported - I'd assume that if a crash in an Android app takes the crash reporter down as well, then that wouldn't be counted. What if an app hangs without crashing?
There is just an awful lot of unknowns. And that's just the known unknowns. There are probably unknown unknowns as well, but we don't know that.
This chart has already been torn apart on Junk charts. Basically their statistics and reporting are so vague as to make it worthless. But yes, you may be surprised... lies, damn lies and statistics.
An interesting thing mentioned in the article that you linked to: What happens if the app crashes? I use one game on the iPad that crashes reasonably often, but mostly immediately after it starts, so you just launch it again. It's a bit annoying, I would be ashamed if it was my code crashing that often, but the game is quite entertaining, so I keep running it. If a crash was a Windows "Blue Screen of Death" style experience with a two minute reboot, the app would have long been deleted.
This game alone would account for a significant amount of crashes. But only because the annoyance of the crash is so little that I keep using it even though it crashes. If the crashes were more annoying, then it wouldn't be started anymore and therefore would never, ever crash again.
despite all of your rambling bullshit, you cannot write apps that will properly multitask for ios AND will get listed in the official market.
And here is what you don't get: That's a _good_ thing. As a user, I don't want apps eating up the battery life in the background. iOS is a port of MacOS X, so if Apple had wanted it, there would have been full unlimited tasking from day one. There's a good reason for the artificial limitations.
The most generally useful use of multitasking is to finish a task in the background. App starts a download, user switches to a different app, first app finishes the download in the background. That's there. It also means the next app launches _before_ the first app has exited. Automatically. Multitasking exactly when it benefits the user. The rest is special cases where multitasking is both useful and power efficient.
When iOS has memory demands it will kill suspended background processes and this shows up in the crash logs with a low memory reason. When a background process is running (not suspended) to complete some task (like downloading/uploading data, etc) and it exceeds the allowed execution time, iOS will kill it with an assertions beyond permitted time reason.
To elaborate: You start the first app, then start the second app, putting the first one into the background. The first app will write its state to the SSD, so the OS can now kill it at any time and restart it, going back to the exact same state. However, the app is not killed, just suspended. If you go back to it, it's back without any delay. Now start the third, fourth, fifth app etc. so eventually you run out of memory. At that point one of the suspended apps gets killed. Which takes no time and has no negative side effect except that going back to that app takes a bit longer now.
If that is not filtered out, then _every_ app will eventually crash because that is the only way to stop it! But this report also counts "crashes as percentage of application starts". With the older iOS versions, an app would be launched every time you went back to it. So the ratio (crashes / launches) would be a lot lower.
ARC isn't a silver bullet, but neither is garbage collection. If your code is bad enough to confuse ARC (and it is quite easy to achieve this), then the solution is not to turn off ARC, but fix the problems in your code.
apple didn't want a biolerplate frand agreement. They wanted their own agreement (which covered previous unlicensed use), and thats what allowed Motorola to dictate whatever terms they want. There is big money involved because if Motorola is correct apple has been infringing on their patent for multiple product generations. The money isn't just licensing for next year, but licensing/damages for the patent being used unlicensed for years and producing big profit.
The other way round, actually. What Apple wanted is a license under FRAND terms: You give me the license, I pay you cash. Now many companies in that business don't want these terms, they prefer: You give me a license to your patents, I'll give you a license to mine, because it is cheaper. And that's the kind of license that Motorola wanted to offer and that Apple didn't want.
And there can't be damages for any time where Motorola didn't offer a license under FRAND terms, otherwise the requirement for FRAND terms would be a joke. If I have a patent that I'm required to license to you for X dollars, I could just ask for 10 X dollars, delay an agreement for as long as possible, and then ask for X dollars in license fees and 3X dollars in damages for the time of the delay. (Obviously asking for X dollars for that time is fine).
The license from Apple was designed to retain control over both the software and the content created with the software, and to place that control in the hands of Apple. I mean, that's what it's saying, right?
Here's where you are wrong, and the rest of your post can therefore be ignored. Why you are wrong: Ok, so Apple wants to "retain control over the software". I assume you mean iBooks Author with "the software". Well, they wrote it, they are the copyright holders, the only way Apple could not "retain control over the software" would be buy selling the copyright to someone else. Why would they do that?
Then you say "the license was designed to retain control over the content created with the software". No, Apple doesn't have _any_ control over the content. What Apple controls to some degree is files created by the software in a certain file format. Apart from that, the copyright holder is totally free to use the content in any way they like. You should note that this is actually _more_ than the copyright holder has; normally if you get a publisher for a book in one format, the publisher will not allow you to use the content to produce a competing product. For example, if a publisher publishes your book in print, you won't be allowed to sell it in ePub or PDF format through a different publisher. Apple, on the other hand, allows you to do anything you like with the content.
That's actually a very interesting question! I assume that the restrictions on the "Home edition" software (let's shorten it to "HE") is on the software, not the resultant files. These kinds of restrictions (you might see one from your ISP or your phone company somewhere in their litterature) are often just to restrict people from using the software, the service, or the physical object (e.g. a hand mixer or a stove) in a commercial setting.
Well, if you use any software to write a book that you then sell, then it is commercial use. Very arguably using the software to write a book that you intend to sell is commercial use, even if you then fail to sell it. You are insofar right that the restriction is not on the output, but you fell foul of the EULA restriction much earlier. That doesn't change the fact that writing a book and selling it, taken together, is against the EULA.
It's still ridiculous. Imagine if the EULA of an IDE like Eclipse were to demand that any programs compiled using it have to give a cut to the creators of Eclipse!
Metrowerks Codewarrior, in its time the leading IDE for Mac software development. There was a commercial edition, and a student edition. Student edition was free (as in free beer), with the restriction that no commercial use was allowed. FAQ: "What if I created software with the free version and someone wants to buy it? " Answer: "Buy the commercial edition and compile the code again". Are you saying Metrowerks were jerks? Thousands of students will strongly disagree with you.
Nor does it restrict you from using output from iBooks Author if it's in a format other than iBooks. For example iBooks author has an export as PDF feature. You'd be OK to sell that through some other store.
The most important case is this: You wouldn't create the contents of a book in iBoos Author. You would use a word processor, some graphics program, a camera to make photos or movies, a 3D design program etc. You would create all these assets, and then use iBooks Author to create a book that looks really good on an iPad. You would then take the same assets and find some software to create a book that looks as great as you can manage on other devices. The panicky claims that were made were that the second use wouldn't be allowed - obviously ridiculous, but now it is clarified.
Somehow we're not supposed to still be outraged over this?
I'll compare two products: iBooks Author and Microsoft Office, Home Edition.
iBooks Author: It is free. The restriction is that documents in the native iBook format, created with iBooks Author, may not be sold for money except through Apple. Microsoft Office, Home Edition: It costs real money. The restriction is that no commercial use of the software is allowed.
Let's compare the licenses: iBooks Author is free, and it disallows one specific commercial use of the software: Selling documents in iBook format, created with iBooks Author, without going through Apple. Many other commercial uses are allowed, and so are all non-commercial uses. Microsoft Office, Home Edition: The software costs money, and it disallows _all_ commercial use of the software. So it is more expensive, and more restrictive.
Where were the complaints about Microsoft Office, Home Edition?
I rather have the impression that everybody loses except for the lawyers. Remove the lawyers and everybody else is happier: no big corporation trolls any other and have to pay/waste time for it, users get their products without the stupid bans, and products are cheaper because companies have less expenses.
That's not a correct interpretation of the situation, actually.
Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar. And it is obvious that Apple doesn't like it. Whether Apple has a case legally or not doesn't matter that much; the message sent is "if you try to sell devices that we think are copying our devices then you'll end up in court, and we make it as inconvenient as possible for you". There are plenty of other devices where Apple could have sued over the same patents, but they don't because the _reason_ for suing is not the patents, but the similarity of the product design.
The proper solution would be for Samsung to not copy the iPad design, but to tell their designers (and from my experience, they had some pretty decent designers create their TVs and laser printers) to create a design that is actually _better_ than the iPad. Try to be a bit competitive for a change instead of copying.
I was thought the GPL was supposed to prevent businesses from exploiting the hard work of volunteers trying to make open software.
Not at all. If you write some useful software and distribute it under the GPL, any business can take your app and source code, and start selling it without any changes. Obviously according to GPL terms, but that's no hardship if they didn't make any changes. And I'm quite sure the GPL doesn't require them to tell anyone it's GPL licensed before they sell it.
If they actually _add_ something to your software, that makes it a bit harder, because then anybody (for example you) can take their additions.
And who says that GPL licensed software is written by unpaid volunteers? Most of it isn't.
I fail to see how living in poverty implies that sub-human work conditions, which are so appalling that they even force workers to suicide in droves, becomes somehow acceptable and even desireable.
You say "force workers to suicide in droves". I'll give you a number for comparison. The rate of suicides at Foxconn is lower than the rate of employees in US retail murdered on the job. Now what does _that_ say about the USA.
I don't get it. Isn't the issue that megaupload customers ARE going to lose their data very soon? In that case, wouldn't the lack of reprovisioning just maintain the status quo?
The issue is that Megaupload doesn't have money to pay the company owning the servers that it uses to store data. If you hire server space, and stop paying, then eventually the data is gone. The server company says "we don't need the space right now, so we won't delete anything right now". Which is very nice of them, because right now their servers are not paid for. However, I wouldn't expect them to restore access to the data until all payments have been made.
You're right, but there are for example lots and lots of eyeballs on the Linux kernel source. Also, at least FOSS has this possibility (and while not always being reality, it is sometimes).
Where I work, there is the nice principle that for every bit of work there have been at least four eyeballs seeing it, and probably more. Guaranteed. Not just a possibility.
We can also use a mathematical argument: What is the total time that people spend reviewing FOSS code? What happens when code is so badly written that you can't effectively review it (with my code, that would just make it unaccetable).
Take a look at this Samsung product. Obviously a rip-off of the iPad, right? Except Samsung released it in 2006, four years before the iPad.
Rotate the picture by 90 degrees, and all similarity disappears. Or let's put it this way: If the Samsung tablet of 2011 had looked exactly like the Samsung photo frame from 2006, not just from the front, but from the back and the sides as well, then (1) Apple wouldn't have the slightest chance in a lawsuit, but that wouldn't matter because (2) no shop would even put the device on their shelves, for fear that customers might die laughing and then sue the store.
...and yet Jobs has publicly stated that Apple has essentially copied many others' ideas.
That quote doesn't mean what you think it means. "Little minds copy, great artists steal. "
"Great artists steal" means that great artists pick up ideas that float around everywhere, and run with them, and create something exciting and new. Little minds look at the iPad and try to make a cheap copy. Great artists look at Xerox Parc, see a company with some ideas that isn't doing anything with those ideas, and takes it, runs with it, and creates something new that wasn't there before. Hence Lisa, Macintosh, iPhone, iPad.
Samsung isn't stealing ideas. Stealing ideas means you have to invest lots of talent to go from idea to a product. They copy design; that's just so much easier.
The awful thing is that these guys are actually capable of creating great designs themselves; I've got a Samsung TV, and a Samsung colour laser printer, and they both look beautiful. But some idiot in upper management probably told them not to design a tablet themselves but to copy Apple. Result: Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits, _plus_ one of their best customers very very keen to leave them if at all possible.
A few years ago I visited a nuclear power station, and 28 Megawatt was about the output of the ship's diesel engine that they had on standby for emergency power supply to be able to run cooling systems etc. in case the power station itself breaks down and it can't get power from other power stations. I think it is also about what a large cruise ship needs for all its electrical needs. Seems to be a very small county that they are talking about.
That's a bicycle company. Probably not ready to produce laptops, phones, etc.
It has nothing to do with the industry. The fact is that a _small_ percentage of consumers is willing to pay extra for buying "politically correct" whatever that means. So if you are a small company, you can jump on that band wagon and make some good money. You would easily find hundred buyers for laptops that cost twice as much as identical products but produced in a "politically correct" way - but you won't find hundreds of thousands.
If you'd read the article you would also know that whilst Apple has a very pretty code of conduct for their suppliers, it is common for them to simply ignore infractions of that code of conduct, with fewer than 15 suppliers terminated for non-compliance since 2007, even though there are scores of the most serious breaches of that code of conduct recorded every year.
In other news, the US government just shut down all hospitals where anybody worked more than 60 hours in any of the last thirteen weeks. Oh no, they didn't! According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_resident_work_hours "While keeping the ACGME's recommendations of an 80-hour work week averaged over 4 weeks, the IOM report recommends that duty hours should not exceed 16 hours per shift for post graduate year 1 trainees (also known as interns). The IOM also recommended strategic napping between the hours of 10pm and 8am for shifts lasting up to 30 hours. The ACGME officially recommended strategic napping between the hours of 10pm and 8am on 30 hour shifts for residents who are post graduate year 2 and above but did not make this a requirement for program compliance. The report also suggests residents be given variable off-duty periods between shifts, based on the timing and duration of the shift, to allow residents to catch up on sleep each day and make up for chronic sleep deprivation on days off."
Someone needs to be boycotted, and Apple is just the obvious choice. Boycotting anyone else wouldn't have an effect. And really, how else can regular people make a statement than with their wallets?... Recently over 300 workers at the Foxconn manufacturing plant threatened suicide if working conditions didn't improve.
Ahem... you have been missing something there. These people did not complain about working conditions. They complained about losing their jobs because the production of Microsoft XBox was getting reduced. So you may want to rethink your call for a boycott in light of that information. A boycott doesn't improve working conditions. It makes people in China lose their jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
My past two employers I know have admin or otherwise secure pages that I can almost guarantee haven't changed their passwords. If I were asked that question, I would have to admit that technically I do have a "backdoor", but it's not MY backdoor nor was it anywhere within my control to change the credentials to it. Or I could just lie and say I don't have access, but then starting off an career with a company with a lie isn't exactly putting your best food forward either.
That's not a backdoor. It's the front door. You had the keys to the front door, and it's a kind of key that cannot be returned, so they should have changed the locks. So you didn't create a backdoor, they just left your access to the front door intact.
Well, I think a security audit to look for other security problems should not be attributed to the hacker, nor should the effort to close the hole that the hacker used. These are things they would have done for example if their own security experts had found the hole.
However, checking what the effects of the intrusion were, to prevent further damage, that should be attributed to the hacker.
Let's say you find a way to enter a building which shouldn't have been possible, and leave a bomb. Closing the hole and checking all the entrances is not due to you. But removing the bomb, and searching the whole building in case there is a second bomb, that is due to you.
iOS crashes more than Android (for those who don't feel like trawling through the (not brilliantly formatted) article.
That's what the article claims. But the fact seems to be instead "A company producing crash reporting software measured more crashes in iOS applications than in Android applications". Not _quite_ the same. First, it's application crashes. No information about how often iOS and Android crash themselves. Second, we don't know what conditions are reported as "crash" and what percentage of crashes are reported - I'd assume that if a crash in an Android app takes the crash reporter down as well, then that wouldn't be counted. What if an app hangs without crashing?
There is just an awful lot of unknowns. And that's just the known unknowns. There are probably unknown unknowns as well, but we don't know that.
This chart has already been torn apart on Junk charts. Basically their statistics and reporting are so vague as to make it worthless. But yes, you may be surprised ... lies, damn lies and statistics.
An interesting thing mentioned in the article that you linked to: What happens if the app crashes? I use one game on the iPad that crashes reasonably often, but mostly immediately after it starts, so you just launch it again. It's a bit annoying, I would be ashamed if it was my code crashing that often, but the game is quite entertaining, so I keep running it. If a crash was a Windows "Blue Screen of Death" style experience with a two minute reboot, the app would have long been deleted.
This game alone would account for a significant amount of crashes. But only because the annoyance of the crash is so little that I keep using it even though it crashes. If the crashes were more annoying, then it wouldn't be started anymore and therefore would never, ever crash again.
despite all of your rambling bullshit, you cannot write apps that will properly multitask for ios AND will get listed in the official market.
And here is what you don't get: That's a _good_ thing. As a user, I don't want apps eating up the battery life in the background. iOS is a port of MacOS X, so if Apple had wanted it, there would have been full unlimited tasking from day one. There's a good reason for the artificial limitations.
The most generally useful use of multitasking is to finish a task in the background. App starts a download, user switches to a different app, first app finishes the download in the background. That's there. It also means the next app launches _before_ the first app has exited. Automatically. Multitasking exactly when it benefits the user. The rest is special cases where multitasking is both useful and power efficient.
When iOS has memory demands it will kill suspended background processes and this shows up in the crash logs with a low memory reason. When a background process is running (not suspended) to complete some task (like downloading/uploading data, etc) and it exceeds the allowed execution time, iOS will kill it with an assertions beyond permitted time reason.
To elaborate: You start the first app, then start the second app, putting the first one into the background. The first app will write its state to the SSD, so the OS can now kill it at any time and restart it, going back to the exact same state. However, the app is not killed, just suspended. If you go back to it, it's back without any delay. Now start the third, fourth, fifth app etc. so eventually you run out of memory. At that point one of the suspended apps gets killed. Which takes no time and has no negative side effect except that going back to that app takes a bit longer now.
If that is not filtered out, then _every_ app will eventually crash because that is the only way to stop it! But this report also counts "crashes as percentage of application starts". With the older iOS versions, an app would be launched every time you went back to it. So the ratio (crashes / launches) would be a lot lower.
ARC isn't a silver bullet, but neither is garbage collection. If your code is bad enough to confuse ARC (and it is quite easy to achieve this), then the solution is not to turn off ARC, but fix the problems in your code.
They are offering the mp3's for free... Did someone tell Birsmarck about all the money he's losing?
The fact that he is getting no money will totally discourage him and all his contemporaries from making any new recordings.
apple didn't want a biolerplate frand agreement. They wanted their own agreement (which covered previous unlicensed use), and thats what allowed Motorola to dictate whatever terms they want. There is big money involved because if Motorola is correct apple has been infringing on their patent for multiple product generations. The money isn't just licensing for next year, but licensing/damages for the patent being used unlicensed for years and producing big profit.
The other way round, actually. What Apple wanted is a license under FRAND terms: You give me the license, I pay you cash. Now many companies in that business don't want these terms, they prefer: You give me a license to your patents, I'll give you a license to mine, because it is cheaper. And that's the kind of license that Motorola wanted to offer and that Apple didn't want.
And there can't be damages for any time where Motorola didn't offer a license under FRAND terms, otherwise the requirement for FRAND terms would be a joke. If I have a patent that I'm required to license to you for X dollars, I could just ask for 10 X dollars, delay an agreement for as long as possible, and then ask for X dollars in license fees and 3X dollars in damages for the time of the delay. (Obviously asking for X dollars for that time is fine).
The license from Apple was designed to retain control over both the software and the content created with the software, and to place that control in the hands of Apple. I mean, that's what it's saying, right?
Here's where you are wrong, and the rest of your post can therefore be ignored. Why you are wrong: Ok, so Apple wants to "retain control over the software". I assume you mean iBooks Author with "the software". Well, they wrote it, they are the copyright holders, the only way Apple could not "retain control over the software" would be buy selling the copyright to someone else. Why would they do that?
Then you say "the license was designed to retain control over the content created with the software". No, Apple doesn't have _any_ control over the content. What Apple controls to some degree is files created by the software in a certain file format. Apart from that, the copyright holder is totally free to use the content in any way they like. You should note that this is actually _more_ than the copyright holder has; normally if you get a publisher for a book in one format, the publisher will not allow you to use the content to produce a competing product. For example, if a publisher publishes your book in print, you won't be allowed to sell it in ePub or PDF format through a different publisher. Apple, on the other hand, allows you to do anything you like with the content.
That's actually a very interesting question! I assume that the restrictions on the "Home edition" software (let's shorten it to "HE") is on the software, not the resultant files. These kinds of restrictions (you might see one from your ISP or your phone company somewhere in their litterature) are often just to restrict people from using the software, the service, or the physical object (e.g. a hand mixer or a stove) in a commercial setting.
Well, if you use any software to write a book that you then sell, then it is commercial use. Very arguably using the software to write a book that you intend to sell is commercial use, even if you then fail to sell it. You are insofar right that the restriction is not on the output, but you fell foul of the EULA restriction much earlier. That doesn't change the fact that writing a book and selling it, taken together, is against the EULA.
It's still ridiculous. Imagine if the EULA of an IDE like Eclipse were to demand that any programs compiled using it have to give a cut to the creators of Eclipse!
Metrowerks Codewarrior, in its time the leading IDE for Mac software development. There was a commercial edition, and a student edition. Student edition was free (as in free beer), with the restriction that no commercial use was allowed. FAQ: "What if I created software with the free version and someone wants to buy it? " Answer: "Buy the commercial edition and compile the code again". Are you saying Metrowerks were jerks? Thousands of students will strongly disagree with you.
Nor does it restrict you from using output from iBooks Author if it's in a format other than iBooks. For example iBooks author has an export as PDF feature. You'd be OK to sell that through some other store.
The most important case is this: You wouldn't create the contents of a book in iBoos Author. You would use a word processor, some graphics program, a camera to make photos or movies, a 3D design program etc. You would create all these assets, and then use iBooks Author to create a book that looks really good on an iPad. You would then take the same assets and find some software to create a book that looks as great as you can manage on other devices. The panicky claims that were made were that the second use wouldn't be allowed - obviously ridiculous, but now it is clarified.
Somehow we're not supposed to still be outraged over this?
I'll compare two products: iBooks Author and Microsoft Office, Home Edition.
iBooks Author: It is free. The restriction is that documents in the native iBook format, created with iBooks Author, may not be sold for money except through Apple. Microsoft Office, Home Edition: It costs real money. The restriction is that no commercial use of the software is allowed.
Let's compare the licenses: iBooks Author is free, and it disallows one specific commercial use of the software: Selling documents in iBook format, created with iBooks Author, without going through Apple. Many other commercial uses are allowed, and so are all non-commercial uses. Microsoft Office, Home Edition: The software costs money, and it disallows _all_ commercial use of the software. So it is more expensive, and more restrictive.
Where were the complaints about Microsoft Office, Home Edition?
I rather have the impression that everybody loses except for the lawyers. Remove the lawyers and everybody else is happier: no big corporation trolls any other and have to pay/waste time for it, users get their products without the stupid bans, and products are cheaper because companies have less expenses.
That's not a correct interpretation of the situation, actually.
Fact is that Samsung created a tablet that looks very similar to an iPad, and that similarity was intentional. Other tablets do _not_ look that similar. And it is obvious that Apple doesn't like it. Whether Apple has a case legally or not doesn't matter that much; the message sent is "if you try to sell devices that we think are copying our devices then you'll end up in court, and we make it as inconvenient as possible for you". There are plenty of other devices where Apple could have sued over the same patents, but they don't because the _reason_ for suing is not the patents, but the similarity of the product design.
The proper solution would be for Samsung to not copy the iPad design, but to tell their designers (and from my experience, they had some pretty decent designers create their TVs and laser printers) to create a design that is actually _better_ than the iPad. Try to be a bit competitive for a change instead of copying.
I was thought the GPL was supposed to prevent businesses from exploiting the hard work of volunteers trying to make open software.
Not at all. If you write some useful software and distribute it under the GPL, any business can take your app and source code, and start selling it without any changes. Obviously according to GPL terms, but that's no hardship if they didn't make any changes. And I'm quite sure the GPL doesn't require them to tell anyone it's GPL licensed before they sell it.
If they actually _add_ something to your software, that makes it a bit harder, because then anybody (for example you) can take their additions.
And who says that GPL licensed software is written by unpaid volunteers? Most of it isn't.
I fail to see how living in poverty implies that sub-human work conditions, which are so appalling that they even force workers to suicide in droves, becomes somehow acceptable and even desireable.
You say "force workers to suicide in droves". I'll give you a number for comparison. The rate of suicides at Foxconn is lower than the rate of employees in US retail murdered on the job. Now what does _that_ say about the USA.
I don't get it. Isn't the issue that megaupload customers ARE going to lose their data very soon? In that case, wouldn't the lack of reprovisioning just maintain the status quo?
The issue is that Megaupload doesn't have money to pay the company owning the servers that it uses to store data. If you hire server space, and stop paying, then eventually the data is gone. The server company says "we don't need the space right now, so we won't delete anything right now". Which is very nice of them, because right now their servers are not paid for. However, I wouldn't expect them to restore access to the data until all payments have been made.
You're right, but there are for example lots and lots of eyeballs on the Linux kernel source. Also, at least FOSS has this possibility (and while not always being reality, it is sometimes).
Where I work, there is the nice principle that for every bit of work there have been at least four eyeballs seeing it, and probably more. Guaranteed. Not just a possibility.
We can also use a mathematical argument: What is the total time that people spend reviewing FOSS code? What happens when code is so badly written that you can't effectively review it (with my code, that would just make it unaccetable).
Take a look at this Samsung product. Obviously a rip-off of the iPad, right? Except Samsung released it in 2006, four years before the iPad.
Rotate the picture by 90 degrees, and all similarity disappears. Or let's put it this way: If the Samsung tablet of 2011 had looked exactly like the Samsung photo frame from 2006, not just from the front, but from the back and the sides as well, then (1) Apple wouldn't have the slightest chance in a lawsuit, but that wouldn't matter because (2) no shop would even put the device on their shelves, for fear that customers might die laughing and then sue the store.
...and yet Jobs has publicly stated that Apple has essentially copied many others' ideas.
That quote doesn't mean what you think it means. "Little minds copy, great artists steal. "
"Great artists steal" means that great artists pick up ideas that float around everywhere, and run with them, and create something exciting and new. Little minds look at the iPad and try to make a cheap copy. Great artists look at Xerox Parc, see a company with some ideas that isn't doing anything with those ideas, and takes it, runs with it, and creates something new that wasn't there before. Hence Lisa, Macintosh, iPhone, iPad.
Samsung isn't stealing ideas. Stealing ideas means you have to invest lots of talent to go from idea to a product. They copy design; that's just so much easier.
The awful thing is that these guys are actually capable of creating great designs themselves; I've got a Samsung TV, and a Samsung colour laser printer, and they both look beautiful. But some idiot in upper management probably told them not to design a tablet themselves but to copy Apple. Result: Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits, _plus_ one of their best customers very very keen to leave them if at all possible.
A few years ago I visited a nuclear power station, and 28 Megawatt was about the output of the ship's diesel engine that they had on standby for emergency power supply to be able to run cooling systems etc. in case the power station itself breaks down and it can't get power from other power stations. I think it is also about what a large cruise ship needs for all its electrical needs. Seems to be a very small county that they are talking about.
That's a bicycle company. Probably not ready to produce laptops, phones, etc.
It has nothing to do with the industry. The fact is that a _small_ percentage of consumers is willing to pay extra for buying "politically correct" whatever that means. So if you are a small company, you can jump on that band wagon and make some good money. You would easily find hundred buyers for laptops that cost twice as much as identical products but produced in a "politically correct" way - but you won't find hundreds of thousands.
If you'd read the article you would also know that whilst Apple has a very pretty code of conduct for their suppliers, it is common for them to simply ignore infractions of that code of conduct, with fewer than 15 suppliers terminated for non-compliance since 2007, even though there are scores of the most serious breaches of that code of conduct recorded every year.
In other news, the US government just shut down all hospitals where anybody worked more than 60 hours in any of the last thirteen weeks. Oh no, they didn't! According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_resident_work_hours "While keeping the ACGME's recommendations of an 80-hour work week averaged over 4 weeks, the IOM report recommends that duty hours should not exceed 16 hours per shift for post graduate year 1 trainees (also known as interns). The IOM also recommended strategic napping between the hours of 10pm and 8am for shifts lasting up to 30 hours. The ACGME officially recommended strategic napping between the hours of 10pm and 8am on 30 hour shifts for residents who are post graduate year 2 and above but did not make this a requirement for program compliance. The report also suggests residents be given variable off-duty periods between shifts, based on the timing and duration of the shift, to allow residents to catch up on sleep each day and make up for chronic sleep deprivation on days off."
Someone needs to be boycotted, and Apple is just the obvious choice. Boycotting anyone else wouldn't have an effect. And really, how else can regular people make a statement than with their wallets? ... Recently over 300 workers at the Foxconn manufacturing plant threatened suicide if working conditions didn't improve.
Ahem... you have been missing something there. These people did not complain about working conditions. They complained about losing their jobs because the production of Microsoft XBox was getting reduced. So you may want to rethink your call for a boycott in light of that information. A boycott doesn't improve working conditions. It makes people in China lose their jobs.