However, Apple (and to a lesser extent other electronic companies) can insist on certain standards. I believe that Apple looks at the cost model (wages, part costs etc) and then dictates how much profit companies like Foxconn can make per assembly. If Apple insisted on a certain standard of welfare and provided money into their costing specifically for this ( I believe HP do this), then this issue would go away.
Guess what Apple has been doing for the last years. There is a report on Apple's website www.apple.com describing exactly what Apple is doing. The NYT article takes a lot of its information from exactly that report, but carefully leaving out some words to make it sound better. Like "we found records that 11 persons were employed at a younger age than allowed, of which 7 were now old enough to be employed", and that is changed to "manufacturers employed underage children". Or that people worked "more than 60 hours in at least one of thirteen weeks reviewed" became "people worked more than 60 hours". Or "we audited 150 companies. At one company we found problem X. At another company we found problem Y. At a third company we found problem Z" is reported as "Apple's suppliers did X, Y and Z".
There's now an iPhone / iPad app for finding your car _even if you didn't remember to start the app when leaving your car_. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and a tiny transmitter in the car. So the iPhone or iPad will detect when it leaves the proximity of the transmitter and record the location. (It could of course detect when you get near to the car as well, but it is pointless for that app).
How is this any different from a union? And if it's okay for unions to do it, why isn't it okay for companies?
Same reply as the last time this nonsense was posted. If it is Ok for a three year old kid to hit and kick an adult man as hard as possible, shouldn't it be Ok for an adult man to hit and kick a three year old kid as hard as possible?
If I were in London, happening upon a scene of the big ben with a red bus in the foreground somewhere, it's likely I would have used the same type of effect (though it's kind of outdated IMHO, but that's besides the point; it's still used by many other people). If I coincidentally was in the roughly the same location (i.e. within some 30 meters), would I be violating copyright as well?
As you describe it, you wouldn't have copied anything. The defendant in this case tried to get a license to sell copies of the original and failed, he then created the second image. While your image is clearly not derived, the second one clearly is; the question is if there is enough derivation to make it copyright infringement. I would say yes, looking at the pictures.
You fine me 90% of my annual revenue? The same nanosecond a new company is created, which just happens to have the same board, who scoops up everything from the yard sale the company you fined has after going bankrupt, including all brands and patents. How do you plan to avoid that? Short answer, you can't. The company just went bankrupt due to the fine, in the bankruptcy process all liabilities get cut to a certain percentage and the new company can scoop up everything for a penny for the dollar. Yes, it's still some money lost, but we're a far cry from the 90% you wanted. if you're lucky, you get 1-2%. Which is pretty much where we're right now.
Not that easy. If a company goes bankrupt and has sold on all kinds of stuff before the bankruptcy, all these sales can be invalidated, with more additional consequences.
And think what would happen to a company like Google, or Facebook, or Apple, or Microsoft. Going bankrupt is not an option. If Google sold patents to Google v.2 for a dollar each, and then declares bankruptcy, surely Apple and others would go to the courts and offer twice the money.
Apple claims some rights over what you make using their software. I know of no other software that does this, and the very idea strikes me as objectionable and worthy of ridicule, regardless of practical effect.
Two examples: Metrowerks Codewarrior Compiler with Student license. You were not allowed to sell any software made with this compiler. Microsoft Office Home Edition. You are not allowed to use their software with this license for commercial use.
That is your work. Would you say the output of the word processor should be owned by the creator of the word processor?
Sure. But the word processor produces very, very little output. Most is produced by the person on the keyboard.
It's quite simple really. You start iBooks Author, paste in your 300 pages textbook or novel, format it, and... everything up to this point is exclusively yours. Then you select "Export" from the file menu, and then choose the "iBook" option. This produces an output file. And that output file can according to the EULA only be sold through Apple, or given away for free. BUT everything else is still yours, and Apple doesn't have any right to it whatsoever. If Amazon had similar software for the Kindle, you could take your textbook, format it in Amazon's application, and sell it on the Kindle. What you _can't_ sell on the Kindle is the iBook that iBooks Author created.
BUT now we need to compare licenses, because Amazon actually has an app for that. And guess what: They don't allow you to produce a competing product if you want to go on the Kindle store! So the other way, producing a Kindle version first and then one for the iPad, Amazon won't allow you to do that!
Something I have always wondered: Suppose they do manage to decrypt her disk (or in another case, the disk isn't even encrypted). What prevents them from planting a couple of incriminating files? How could you ever prove it?
If they wanted to plant incriminating files, why would they need to decrypt your disk? Just reformat it, put natural looking files plus some incriminating files on it, encrypt it using your birthday and name of your dog as the password, and magically guess the password. They don't even need your computer, they can buy some used computer and do the same.
You have to rely on forensics not doing things that would put them into jail for many years if found out. First, because they would go to jail, second because they are decent people.
Entering the password is of course _not_ self incriminating. Assume the possibility that someone on their forensics team made a huge mistake and erased the hard drive, but didn't tell anyone, hoping that you don't decrypt the drive and nobody detects his blunder. In that case entering the password wouldn't incriminate you. Therefore, any possible incrimination doesn't come from you entering the password. Ergo, entering the password is not self incrimination.
There might be rare circumstances; if it is known that one of two persons entered information of crimes into a computer and encrypted it, but not which of the two persons, then the fact that you can decrypt the drive would incriminate you. But again, it would incriminate you even if that tech had made a blunder and destroyed the contents of the hard drive.
If there's incriminating evidence, surely this is a perfect example on why the person can't decrypt as it WOULD self incriminate them!
This is supposed to be a site for geeks, strong at logic. Decrypting the hard drive will not incriminate you. Once it is encrypted, there might be documents on the hard drive that would incriminate you, but that isn't self incrimination. These documents were there before, just harder to read.
So what's the objection to GPS tracking, if it is no less invasive than other means of tracking can be?
Could you go back a few posts and read exactly what five of the highest judges of the USA agreed on? That attaching the GPS device was trespassing, and trespassing means it is a search, and being a search means the cops need a warrant. Following you is not trespassing.
I would not be in the least bit surprised if a class action suit against the government (or something of that nature) was launched from all those who had legitimate files on Megaupload. Imagine if the USG shut down Youtube when it was first starting up. But truthfully, we are as a society held to the laws we make. To quote a lawyer once while I was in court, "If people don't like the laws, they should change them."
What are you smoking? First, you can't sue the government (easily). Second, the ones to sue are the people running Megaupload. If you had a valid contract with them to give them money so they store your data, then it was _their_ duty to ensure your data is safe. One part of their duty is to not commit illegal activities that gets them closed down.
If three year old children don't go to jail for hitting and kicking an adult man, then surely an adult man shouldn't go to jail for hitting and kicking a three your old child, right?
The purpose of a union is to make the relationship more even, instead of huge organization vs. single person it should be at least huge organization vs. union of persons. This deal meant that as a single person, you might not be fighting just the one huge organization that employs you, but other huge organizations as well. There is also the monopoly / oligopoly argument. If you have several huge organizations, they still have to compete for their employees. If you have only one huge organization, or an oligopoly, then there is no competition anymore.
Another reason to have a closed network. Not so much a security issue, but avoids snooping authorities. Sure they could wardrive, but at least one has a possible affermative defense.
That's quite idiotic. Nobody cares what name _you_ see displayed for _your_ network. People complained about names they see displayed for _other peoples_ networks which they can't change except in this case by calling the police.
If that racist f***er had used a closed network, then that child wouldn't have been exposed to his racist shit, the child's mother wouldn't have been concerned, and authorities would never have investigated. BTW. If someone violated his right to free speech and smashed the f***ers teeth in I would use my right of free speech to applaud that person.
If this form of FFT can do fast squaring, it will reduce the amount of time taken to find new, large primes.
It wouldn't, because it only works when your data contains many zeroes. The products in GIMPS are of pseudo-random data, so I would expect half the bits to be non-zero, and almost none of the numbers involved to be zero.
Well, that is not what FFT does. You have to look at plain old FT (Fourier Transform) first, not FFT (Fast Fourier Transform), and better CFT (Continuous Fourier Transform) first.
CFT transforms a continuous signal into continuous frequencies, and it does that by integrating the input signal multiplied by a complex sine wave. The mathematics for that is reasonably understandable, doing the calculations is horribly difficult.
FT does an approximation of CFT, by first changing the input signal to discrete values (like 44,100 per second for music), calculating only discrete frequencies, (440 Hz, 441 Hz, 442 Hz...) and replacing the integral with a sum. So you calculate for each point the sum of (input signal times sine wave). For each of n inputs you add n values, for a total of n^2 products.
FFT or Fast FT uses a clever algorithm and properties of the sine function to reduce the number of calculations to about n * log (n). Understanding FFT has nothing to do anymore with your problem; it just is understanding a clever optimization.
Get 10 people together, everyone buy an iPad on the same day (maybe over 2 days). 2. Take the iPads home, remove iPads, replace with clay. 3. Return the iPads claiming you found clay in the box when you bought it. 4. Receive new iPads, sell on eBay. Same net effect, 10 iPads. But this way you don't have to try and reseal the box in a convincing way, and you don't have to get the store clerk to take back a box of clay.
Here's the problem: A crime has been committed, without any doubt. And they have your name, so now you are a known suspect. With many crimes, the difficult step in solving it is to find a known suspect. You've just down the hard work for them.
If you want to become a criminal, do it in a way that nobody knows who you are. Otherwise all you do is improving the solved crime statistics.
I thought the advantage of paying for itunes match was you get to automagically upgrade your cruddy 128K rips to 384K or lossless or whatever.
I actually had one record that was ripped at 56 Kbit/second. Had to manually convert it to 128 KBit/sec because iTunes match doesn't touch anything at less than 100 KBit, but then it was matched and replaced with 256KBit/sec.
It also matched many songs that come straight from LPs. But that is a bit hit and miss; I think the song length must be right, and a separated them by hand. If you are lazy and just record one LP side as one 20 minute song, you obviously won't get any match.
So... just for clarification, does an IP identify somebody? or not?
Depends. Let's say someone in my office, connected through our wired network, had done this. Then the IP address would most likely lead to my office and therefore to my company, and OpenStreetMap would be quite justified to say "someone at XXX did this". Since I work for a company that has a reputation to lose, I'd say it is quite possible that my company would shortly afterwards say that an ex-employee was responsible.
I don't see Anobit on that list of suppliers. And, considering Apple just acquired Anobit for its NAND flash ECC firmware, it makes me wonder why they'd do that without having even used its product first. Or could this list from Apple be only what it's willing to reveal?
Anobit is an engineering company in Israel. If you are worried about their working conditions, shouldn't you be much more worried about the working conditions of software developers in the US gaming industry? Do you think they are subject to cruel treatment, like having to use Windows on a Dell computer?
...which will have to report favorable findings if it wishes to operate in that country.
And you are an idiot. Read this here: http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/ Trying to influence the findings in any audit is a sure way for a company to lose their business with Apple.
So what about communities who mine the stuff, doing everything completely by the book. Do you think they should end up in poverty because bad things happened in a completely different place in the world? This problem is destroying honest people's livelihood right now, you want to make it worse?
Slashdot Mirror
However, Apple (and to a lesser extent other electronic companies) can insist on certain standards. I believe that Apple looks at the cost model (wages, part costs etc) and then dictates how much profit companies like Foxconn can make per assembly. If Apple insisted on a certain standard of welfare and provided money into their costing specifically for this ( I believe HP do this), then this issue would go away.
Guess what Apple has been doing for the last years. There is a report on Apple's website www.apple.com describing exactly what Apple is doing. The NYT article takes a lot of its information from exactly that report, but carefully leaving out some words to make it sound better. Like "we found records that 11 persons were employed at a younger age than allowed, of which 7 were now old enough to be employed", and that is changed to "manufacturers employed underage children". Or that people worked "more than 60 hours in at least one of thirteen weeks reviewed" became "people worked more than 60 hours". Or "we audited 150 companies. At one company we found problem X. At another company we found problem Y. At a third company we found problem Z" is reported as "Apple's suppliers did X, Y and Z".
But the catch is that you left the Bluetooth option enabled, now your iPhone battery is dead, and now you have no idea where your car is located!
Idiot.
Oh, Slashdot thinks that I should think longer about this response. Yes, you are an idiot.
There's now an iPhone / iPad app for finding your car _even if you didn't remember to start the app when leaving your car_. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and a tiny transmitter in the car. So the iPhone or iPad will detect when it leaves the proximity of the transmitter and record the location. (It could of course detect when you get near to the car as well, but it is pointless for that app).
How is this any different from a union? And if it's okay for unions to do it, why isn't it okay for companies?
Same reply as the last time this nonsense was posted. If it is Ok for a three year old kid to hit and kick an adult man as hard as possible, shouldn't it be Ok for an adult man to hit and kick a three year old kid as hard as possible?
If I were in London, happening upon a scene of the big ben with a red bus in the foreground somewhere, it's likely I would have used the same type of effect (though it's kind of outdated IMHO, but that's besides the point; it's still used by many other people). If I coincidentally was in the roughly the same location (i.e. within some 30 meters), would I be violating copyright as well?
As you describe it, you wouldn't have copied anything. The defendant in this case tried to get a license to sell copies of the original and failed, he then created the second image. While your image is clearly not derived, the second one clearly is; the question is if there is enough derivation to make it copyright infringement. I would say yes, looking at the pictures.
You fine me 90% of my annual revenue? The same nanosecond a new company is created, which just happens to have the same board, who scoops up everything from the yard sale the company you fined has after going bankrupt, including all brands and patents. How do you plan to avoid that? Short answer, you can't. The company just went bankrupt due to the fine, in the bankruptcy process all liabilities get cut to a certain percentage and the new company can scoop up everything for a penny for the dollar. Yes, it's still some money lost, but we're a far cry from the 90% you wanted. if you're lucky, you get 1-2%. Which is pretty much where we're right now.
Not that easy. If a company goes bankrupt and has sold on all kinds of stuff before the bankruptcy, all these sales can be invalidated, with more additional consequences.
And think what would happen to a company like Google, or Facebook, or Apple, or Microsoft. Going bankrupt is not an option. If Google sold patents to Google v.2 for a dollar each, and then declares bankruptcy, surely Apple and others would go to the courts and offer twice the money.
Apple claims some rights over what you make using their software. I know of no other software that does this, and the very idea strikes me as objectionable and worthy of ridicule, regardless of practical effect.
Two examples: Metrowerks Codewarrior Compiler with Student license. You were not allowed to sell any software made with this compiler. Microsoft Office Home Edition. You are not allowed to use their software with this license for commercial use.
That is your work. Would you say the output of the word processor should be owned by the creator of the word processor?
Sure. But the word processor produces very, very little output. Most is produced by the person on the keyboard.
It's quite simple really. You start iBooks Author, paste in your 300 pages textbook or novel, format it, and... everything up to this point is exclusively yours. Then you select "Export" from the file menu, and then choose the "iBook" option. This produces an output file. And that output file can according to the EULA only be sold through Apple, or given away for free. BUT everything else is still yours, and Apple doesn't have any right to it whatsoever. If Amazon had similar software for the Kindle, you could take your textbook, format it in Amazon's application, and sell it on the Kindle. What you _can't_ sell on the Kindle is the iBook that iBooks Author created.
BUT now we need to compare licenses, because Amazon actually has an app for that. And guess what: They don't allow you to produce a competing product if you want to go on the Kindle store! So the other way, producing a Kindle version first and then one for the iPad, Amazon won't allow you to do that!
But maybe some insight from a real author who has written books for real publishers with real contracts: http://dimsumthinking.com/2012/01/21/a-writers-eula/
Something I have always wondered: Suppose they do manage to decrypt her disk (or in another case, the disk isn't even encrypted). What prevents them from planting a couple of incriminating files? How could you ever prove it?
If they wanted to plant incriminating files, why would they need to decrypt your disk? Just reformat it, put natural looking files plus some incriminating files on it, encrypt it using your birthday and name of your dog as the password, and magically guess the password. They don't even need your computer, they can buy some used computer and do the same.
You have to rely on forensics not doing things that would put them into jail for many years if found out. First, because they would go to jail, second because they are decent people.
Entering the password is of course _not_ self incriminating. Assume the possibility that someone on their forensics team made a huge mistake and erased the hard drive, but didn't tell anyone, hoping that you don't decrypt the drive and nobody detects his blunder. In that case entering the password wouldn't incriminate you. Therefore, any possible incrimination doesn't come from you entering the password. Ergo, entering the password is not self incrimination.
There might be rare circumstances; if it is known that one of two persons entered information of crimes into a computer and encrypted it, but not which of the two persons, then the fact that you can decrypt the drive would incriminate you. But again, it would incriminate you even if that tech had made a blunder and destroyed the contents of the hard drive.
If there's incriminating evidence, surely this is a perfect example on why the person can't decrypt as it WOULD self incriminate them!
This is supposed to be a site for geeks, strong at logic. Decrypting the hard drive will not incriminate you. Once it is encrypted, there might be documents on the hard drive that would incriminate you, but that isn't self incrimination. These documents were there before, just harder to read.
So what's the objection to GPS tracking, if it is no less invasive than other means of tracking can be?
Could you go back a few posts and read exactly what five of the highest judges of the USA agreed on? That attaching the GPS device was trespassing, and trespassing means it is a search, and being a search means the cops need a warrant. Following you is not trespassing.
I would not be in the least bit surprised if a class action suit against the government (or something of that nature) was launched from all those who had legitimate files on Megaupload. Imagine if the USG shut down Youtube when it was first starting up. But truthfully, we are as a society held to the laws we make. To quote a lawyer once while I was in court, "If people don't like the laws, they should change them."
What are you smoking? First, you can't sue the government (easily). Second, the ones to sue are the people running Megaupload. If you had a valid contract with them to give them money so they store your data, then it was _their_ duty to ensure your data is safe. One part of their duty is to not commit illegal activities that gets them closed down.
If three year old children don't go to jail for hitting and kicking an adult man, then surely an adult man shouldn't go to jail for hitting and kicking a three your old child, right?
The purpose of a union is to make the relationship more even, instead of huge organization vs. single person it should be at least huge organization vs. union of persons. This deal meant that as a single person, you might not be fighting just the one huge organization that employs you, but other huge organizations as well. There is also the monopoly / oligopoly argument. If you have several huge organizations, they still have to compete for their employees. If you have only one huge organization, or an oligopoly, then there is no competition anymore.
Another reason to have a closed network. Not so much a security issue, but avoids snooping authorities. Sure they could wardrive, but at least one has a possible affermative defense.
That's quite idiotic. Nobody cares what name _you_ see displayed for _your_ network. People complained about names they see displayed for _other peoples_ networks which they can't change except in this case by calling the police.
If that racist f***er had used a closed network, then that child wouldn't have been exposed to his racist shit, the child's mother wouldn't have been concerned, and authorities would never have investigated. BTW. If someone violated his right to free speech and smashed the f***ers teeth in I would use my right of free speech to applaud that person.
If this form of FFT can do fast squaring, it will reduce the amount of time taken to find new, large primes.
It wouldn't, because it only works when your data contains many zeroes. The products in GIMPS are of pseudo-random data, so I would expect half the bits to be non-zero, and almost none of the numbers involved to be zero.
Well, that is not what FFT does. You have to look at plain old FT (Fourier Transform) first, not FFT (Fast Fourier Transform), and better CFT (Continuous Fourier Transform) first.
CFT transforms a continuous signal into continuous frequencies, and it does that by integrating the input signal multiplied by a complex sine wave. The mathematics for that is reasonably understandable, doing the calculations is horribly difficult.
FT does an approximation of CFT, by first changing the input signal to discrete values (like 44,100 per second for music), calculating only discrete frequencies, (440 Hz, 441 Hz, 442 Hz...) and replacing the integral with a sum. So you calculate for each point the sum of (input signal times sine wave). For each of n inputs you add n values, for a total of n^2 products.
FFT or Fast FT uses a clever algorithm and properties of the sine function to reduce the number of calculations to about n * log (n). Understanding FFT has nothing to do anymore with your problem; it just is understanding a clever optimization.
Nope. FFTs are used in many fields, but cryptography is not one of them. Not since the old analog radio scramblers of decades past.
Informative and wrong. When you calculate powers of 4096 bit numbers, the fastest way to calculate the 4096 bit products is convolution via FFT.
Get 10 people together, everyone buy an iPad on the same day (maybe over 2 days). 2. Take the iPads home, remove iPads, replace with clay. 3. Return the iPads claiming you found clay in the box when you bought it. 4. Receive new iPads, sell on eBay. Same net effect, 10 iPads. But this way you don't have to try and reseal the box in a convincing way, and you don't have to get the store clerk to take back a box of clay.
Here's the problem: A crime has been committed, without any doubt. And they have your name, so now you are a known suspect. With many crimes, the difficult step in solving it is to find a known suspect. You've just down the hard work for them.
If you want to become a criminal, do it in a way that nobody knows who you are. Otherwise all you do is improving the solved crime statistics.
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/18/google_blames_contractors/
Two Google contractors are now ex-contractors, as one could have predicted.
I thought the advantage of paying for itunes match was you get to automagically upgrade your cruddy 128K rips to 384K or lossless or whatever.
I actually had one record that was ripped at 56 Kbit/second. Had to manually convert it to 128 KBit/sec because iTunes match doesn't touch anything at less than 100 KBit, but then it was matched and replaced with 256KBit/sec.
It also matched many songs that come straight from LPs. But that is a bit hit and miss; I think the song length must be right, and a separated them by hand. If you are lazy and just record one LP side as one 20 minute song, you obviously won't get any match.
So... just for clarification, does an IP identify somebody? or not?
Depends. Let's say someone in my office, connected through our wired network, had done this. Then the IP address would most likely lead to my office and therefore to my company, and OpenStreetMap would be quite justified to say "someone at XXX did this". Since I work for a company that has a reputation to lose, I'd say it is quite possible that my company would shortly afterwards say that an ex-employee was responsible.
I don't see Anobit on that list of suppliers. And, considering Apple just acquired Anobit for its NAND flash ECC firmware, it makes me wonder why they'd do that without having even used its product first. Or could this list from Apple be only what it's willing to reveal?
Anobit is an engineering company in Israel. If you are worried about their working conditions, shouldn't you be much more worried about the working conditions of software developers in the US gaming industry? Do you think they are subject to cruel treatment, like having to use Windows on a Dell computer?
...which will have to report favorable findings if it wishes to operate in that country.
And you are an idiot. Read this here: http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/ Trying to influence the findings in any audit is a sure way for a company to lose their business with Apple.
How about not using tantalum?
So what about communities who mine the stuff, doing everything completely by the book. Do you think they should end up in poverty because bad things happened in a completely different place in the world? This problem is destroying honest people's livelihood right now, you want to make it worse?