"Insiders" don't have to make stupid guesses what this might mean. Insiders _know_ what Apple is doing. That's because they are inside, and that's why they are called "insiders".
The people making guesses about a production move to Brazil are either overpaid information whores who don't have a clue, or some random MacRumors poster, not having much more of a clue, but at least not pretending and getting paid for it.
So there are no more devices that run webOS. What are the OS developers going to be doing? If HP doesn't have faith in the OS, why would anyone else chose to make devices for it?
HP paid $1.2 billion for webOS. If they cancel it then they have a loss of $1.2 billion on their books, which looks pretty bad for the CEO. So they will keep it alive as long as possible. Or until the next CEO starts, who will cancel it and blame it (rightfully in this case) on his predecessor. When a new CEO starts, a big loss in the previous year is a good thing because that makes it a lot easier to improve the numbers.
If he was under an NDA, he's lucky he didn't get fined, possible jail time.
NDA is a contract, in this case part of the employment contract. You can't get jail time or a fine for breach of employment contract. You can, and this guy did, lose your job for breach of employment contract.
The only solution is delegate the "trust" relationship in a way that it economically VERY interesting that the delegate checks the trustworthiness of the CA. E.g. your bank for certs that is used for online payments - if the (by the bank trusted) CA fails, it's the bank that pays the damages. Unfortunately, I do not have yet an idea of certs used by "free" Webmail (e.g. gmail).
You got the problem completely wrong. Let's say my bank is highly knowledgable, they figured out that there are 10 CAs they can trust one hundred percent and the others are a bit dodgy, and they use one of the 10 CAs that are hundred percent trustworthy. The problem is that any of the dodgy CAs can create a certificate for the bank's website that will be trusted by your browser until it is found out and revoked, without the bank being involved at all. And of course the victim of a hack will not be in contact with the bank's website, because the whole point is to redirect victims to a hacker's website, which can pretend to be the bank's website because they have a genuine fake certificate.
Let's say I call an incompetent CA and say "Hi, my name is Joe Google, I need a certificate for my website www.google.com" and the incompetent CA sells me a certificate for $9.99. Nothing that Google can do about this, and in no way Google's fault.
I think my real issue here is if you say that in this case, what he was saying was illegal because it hurt the parents, what is to stop me from going out and stopping someone talking about issue X because I find issue X offensive.
One would have to decide what's the problem - what the person talking about X is doing, or that you find it offensive. That was quite an easy decision in this case. There are plenty of things where some people find it offensive to talk about them, and society has decided that it's that person's problem and talking about it is fine. There are other things where society has decided the other way, like in this case. Most people have been raised by their parents to know the difference. Some are ****ing jerks who want to argue for arguments sake.
What can I say, in Britain, that won't get me jailed, what doe I say that crosses the line into sociopathy?
Are you saying you are incapable of functioning without a clear rulebook that lays out the laws for you? There is "being a decent human person", there is "being an ass", and then there is "being so bad that you deserve to be thrown into jail". Most people try to fall into the first category, but you enquire where the line between the second and third category is?
Even if they can prove a particular machine was used to commit the offence, how will they prove who used it? That isn't even taking into account things such as TOR. I'd go as far as to say he is downright lying.
They just have to prove it "beyond reasonable doubt". Enough proof to convince a jury that he should be convicted. If there is a particular computer, and he's the only person living there, that is beyond reasonable doubt. If there are other people, and they make witness statements about computer use and things he said, that is beyond reasonable doubt. And believe me, if I knew that anyone in my household had done this kind of thing, I would say that a few weeks in jail will serve them an important lesson.
Having the copyright doesn't by itself make him any money. To make money, he actually has to sell the music. Now while I believed quite strongly 35 years ago that he was a washed-out talentless has-been that no sane person would want to listen to, apparently some people do. I can't imagine why, but they do.
If you don't like his music, then don't listen to it, and definitely don't buy it. If you like his music, then presumably you would be willing to pay for it. He only gets as much money as it is worth to people today.
They're related in this case due to the licensing involved in implementing a standard that includes patented components. Under FRAND licensing, patent-holders pool patents and agree to license them in a uniform way, but not for free. This makes it impossible to distribute software that implements the patents for free, which makes the general way open-source projects are run impossible.
Typical terms are: You can use these patents for free to implement this standard, as long as you agree that all your patents can be used for free to implement this standard. This is without doubt fair, cheap, and not compatible with GPL because of the restriction "to implement this standard". The problem is not the cost, the problem us the specific terms in the GPL license. Now of course some people will like terms that are free, cheap and not GPL compatible.
I think you also forget that license plates are just large lettered ID tags for your car, someone using that very public, very easy to see information intelligently seems quite reasonable.
And making your car easily identifiable, for example when you are involved in an accident, or park it where you shouldn't, is the whole point of the license plate. A nice use of automatic license plate readers where I live is to find cars where the road tax hasn't been paid. Which implies that the driver is driving without insurance, because you can't get insurance without paying road tax. Which means I can be 100% sure that if the driver damages my car or someone else's, they will try their best not to pay for it.
(If someone was running a dictionary attack on Itunes, it would noticed if they have even halfway competent security.
Let's say one in 10,000 users uses "123456" as their password. That means trying to login with a random Apple ID and the password "123456" has a one in 10,000 chance to succeed. Now let's say we have a list of the top 100 passwords used by idiots. A botnet could perform 10,000 login attempts per day (every time a different account, and a different one of the top 100 passwords) and crack one account per day. That would be very, very hard to notice.
If his illegal activity draws any heat, they will seize every computer in the house while they try to figure out whodunnit. Do you have anything on your computer that could incriminate you in any way? Are you sure? If not, and you do manage to avoid federal prosecution, you still might not ever get your stuff back.
You can prevent your computers from being seized by ratting on your roommate in this situation. And since he insisted, against your wishes, to keep downloading stuff illegally, you have no obligations towards him. (Of course he can try to claim it was you, but that would get him into very serious trouble when yours and his computers are examined. In England it would be called "perverting the course of justice" and is considerably worse than the copyright infringement. )
I think AppleIDs are reasonably easy to find. Mostly they are email addresses. Haven't tried if trying to login with a random email address and a random password gives any indication that the email address is an Apple ID; you would hope not. However, if hackers manage to read your emails, then they can read any purchase confirmation emails, and from these emails you can find the Apple ID.
Now if they know many Apple IDs, they can just randomly try to login with valid Apple ID and a random weak password, and will have some successes. If 100 weak passwords are used by just 2 percent of all users, then one in 5,000 attempts will break an account.
that if you receive any letters from any lawyers you will answer them truthfully. So if you get accused of illegal downloads, you would truthfully reply that you didn't do it, but your roommate.
It seems your roommate insists, against your objections, to do things that are illegal, and bound to get you into expensive trouble, without taking any precautions. If the shit hits the fan, you have no obligation at all to support him in any way; your only responsibility is to get out of trouble yourself as cheaply as possible.
Here's a weird thing: Some people posted that their credit card info has been changed. So I think the following could happen: Crook hacks into my iTunes account. Crook also has a stolen credit card. He changes the credit card info to the stolen credit card. He then uses my account with the stolen credit card to buy stuff; the money probably goes to some associate of the crook. I don't notice unless I check my iTunes account because _my_ credit card is not affected. Still bizarre.
Making them complex and writing them down on a piece of paper is probably one of the most secure method in these days of remote attacks. I'm starting to wonder why we told users to reject this method. Keep them different across important accounts and the only worry you have is a burglar.
Combine something that is easy to remember with a random sequence that you have to write down and pin to your monitor. Remote attack fails because of the random sequence, looking at the paper fails because the person looking is not an experienced hacker and doesn't know the "easy to remember" bit.
And even if an experienced hacker knew the random sequence, at least attacks using rainbow tables would now fail.
The summary says "Computer Science graduates in the UK have high unemployment rates". The webpage says "Computer Science graduates in the UK have high unemployment rates". The study that it links to actually shows that Computer Science graduates have excellent employment rates, higher than many other graduates and significantly higher than the average of all graduates.
if its just 10% drop at the advent of the law, it means it outright failed.
No, it is highly successful. The 10% of P2P that were used for piracy have stopped, while the 90% that were used for legitimate purposes are still there.
Can you cite one instance Just one where Google has used patents offensively?
So what is the sequence of events? The sequence of events isn't "Apple sues for patent infringement, Google gives HTC patents to countersue" which would be defensive. The sequence of events is "Apple builds a phone that revolutionizes the smart phone market, everybody including HTC tries to rip off Apple, Apple uses patents to defend against the ripping off, and Google gives HTC patents to countersue with the goal that they can continue to rip off Apple". That is offensive in every meaning of the word.
The reality is that *every tech company* that has done so, does not include google. Putting google and microsoft in the same category is a known microsoft shilling technique.
Well, Google stopped Microsoft, Apple and others from buying Novell patents by claiming that they were going to use these patents in lawsuits. And now Google has purchased Motorola and its patents and gives patents to HTC to use them in a lawsuit.
Shape and size? The natural results of designing a case around a screen, CPU, RAM, battery etc.
The fanbois seem to think this is "informative". Pictures of eight tablets looking distinctively different from an iPad are apparently not informative.
Now, according [fudzilla.com] to Apple's lawyers, if you ever worked for Apple, then your subsequent inventions for other companies may also very well belong to Apple:
As so often happens, you are either accidentally or on purpose misrepresenting what is actually happen. In a patent dispute, some company said that Andy Rubin had nothing whatsoever to do with Apple's patent, and Apple then showed that the same Andy Rubin worked directly under the two people who actually received the patent at that time.
In a patent dispute, _if_ there is infringement then it can be important for the amount of damages whether the infringement was intentional or by accident. If Andy Rubin worked under the two inventors at the time the invention was made, then surely this is relevant. And if Andy Rubin himself took out a patent that had this invention as prior art, and didn't mention the prior art, then the fact that he worked for them would also be relevant.
No, Apple wants to stop companies building tablets that look very much the same as an iPad. There was a recent review of tablets on theregister, with photos of ten tablets, and eight of them were designed to look very much different from an iPad.
Slashdot Mirror
"Insiders" don't have to make stupid guesses what this might mean. Insiders _know_ what Apple is doing. That's because they are inside, and that's why they are called "insiders".
The people making guesses about a production move to Brazil are either overpaid information whores who don't have a clue, or some random MacRumors poster, not having much more of a clue, but at least not pretending and getting paid for it.
I've had a Macbook for like 3 years now, and even though it is the best laptop I've ever owned, this still still bothers me.
What version of MacOS X are you running? When I start dragging a volume, the "Trash" icon changes to an "Eject" icon.
So there are no more devices that run webOS. What are the OS developers going to be doing? If HP doesn't have faith in the OS, why would anyone else chose to make devices for it?
HP paid $1.2 billion for webOS. If they cancel it then they have a loss of $1.2 billion on their books, which looks pretty bad for the CEO. So they will keep it alive as long as possible. Or until the next CEO starts, who will cancel it and blame it (rightfully in this case) on his predecessor. When a new CEO starts, a big loss in the previous year is a good thing because that makes it a lot easier to improve the numbers.
If he was under an NDA, he's lucky he didn't get fined, possible jail time.
NDA is a contract, in this case part of the employment contract. You can't get jail time or a fine for breach of employment contract. You can, and this guy did, lose your job for breach of employment contract.
The only solution is delegate the "trust" relationship in a way that it economically VERY interesting that the delegate checks the trustworthiness of the CA. E.g. your bank for certs that is used for online payments - if the (by the bank trusted) CA fails, it's the bank that pays the damages. Unfortunately, I do not have yet an idea of certs used by "free" Webmail (e.g. gmail).
You got the problem completely wrong. Let's say my bank is highly knowledgable, they figured out that there are 10 CAs they can trust one hundred percent and the others are a bit dodgy, and they use one of the 10 CAs that are hundred percent trustworthy. The problem is that any of the dodgy CAs can create a certificate for the bank's website that will be trusted by your browser until it is found out and revoked, without the bank being involved at all. And of course the victim of a hack will not be in contact with the bank's website, because the whole point is to redirect victims to a hacker's website, which can pretend to be the bank's website because they have a genuine fake certificate.
Let's say I call an incompetent CA and say "Hi, my name is Joe Google, I need a certificate for my website www.google.com" and the incompetent CA sells me a certificate for $9.99. Nothing that Google can do about this, and in no way Google's fault.
I think my real issue here is if you say that in this case, what he was saying was illegal because it hurt the parents, what is to stop me from going out and stopping someone talking about issue X because I find issue X offensive.
One would have to decide what's the problem - what the person talking about X is doing, or that you find it offensive. That was quite an easy decision in this case. There are plenty of things where some people find it offensive to talk about them, and society has decided that it's that person's problem and talking about it is fine. There are other things where society has decided the other way, like in this case. Most people have been raised by their parents to know the difference. Some are ****ing jerks who want to argue for arguments sake.
What can I say, in Britain, that won't get me jailed, what doe I say that crosses the line into sociopathy?
Are you saying you are incapable of functioning without a clear rulebook that lays out the laws for you? There is "being a decent human person", there is "being an ass", and then there is "being so bad that you deserve to be thrown into jail". Most people try to fall into the first category, but you enquire where the line between the second and third category is?
Even if they can prove a particular machine was used to commit the offence, how will they prove who used it? That isn't even taking into account things such as TOR. I'd go as far as to say he is downright lying.
They just have to prove it "beyond reasonable doubt". Enough proof to convince a jury that he should be convicted. If there is a particular computer, and he's the only person living there, that is beyond reasonable doubt. If there are other people, and they make witness statements about computer use and things he said, that is beyond reasonable doubt. And believe me, if I knew that anyone in my household had done this kind of thing, I would say that a few weeks in jail will serve them an important lesson.
Having the copyright doesn't by itself make him any money. To make money, he actually has to sell the music. Now while I believed quite strongly 35 years ago that he was a washed-out talentless has-been that no sane person would want to listen to, apparently some people do. I can't imagine why, but they do.
If you don't like his music, then don't listen to it, and definitely don't buy it. If you like his music, then presumably you would be willing to pay for it. He only gets as much money as it is worth to people today.
They're related in this case due to the licensing involved in implementing a standard that includes patented components. Under FRAND licensing, patent-holders pool patents and agree to license them in a uniform way, but not for free. This makes it impossible to distribute software that implements the patents for free, which makes the general way open-source projects are run impossible.
Typical terms are: You can use these patents for free to implement this standard, as long as you agree that all your patents can be used for free to implement this standard. This is without doubt fair, cheap, and not compatible with GPL because of the restriction "to implement this standard". The problem is not the cost, the problem us the specific terms in the GPL license. Now of course some people will like terms that are free, cheap and not GPL compatible.
I think you also forget that license plates are just large lettered ID tags for your car, someone using that very public, very easy to see information intelligently seems quite reasonable.
And making your car easily identifiable, for example when you are involved in an accident, or park it where you shouldn't, is the whole point of the license plate. A nice use of automatic license plate readers where I live is to find cars where the road tax hasn't been paid. Which implies that the driver is driving without insurance, because you can't get insurance without paying road tax. Which means I can be 100% sure that if the driver damages my car or someone else's, they will try their best not to pay for it.
(If someone was running a dictionary attack on Itunes, it would noticed if they have even halfway competent security.
Let's say one in 10,000 users uses "123456" as their password. That means trying to login with a random Apple ID and the password "123456" has a one in 10,000 chance to succeed. Now let's say we have a list of the top 100 passwords used by idiots. A botnet could perform 10,000 login attempts per day (every time a different account, and a different one of the top 100 passwords) and crack one account per day. That would be very, very hard to notice.
If his illegal activity draws any heat, they will seize every computer in the house while they try to figure out whodunnit. Do you have anything on your computer that could incriminate you in any way? Are you sure? If not, and you do manage to avoid federal prosecution, you still might not ever get your stuff back.
You can prevent your computers from being seized by ratting on your roommate in this situation. And since he insisted, against your wishes, to keep downloading stuff illegally, you have no obligations towards him. (Of course he can try to claim it was you, but that would get him into very serious trouble when yours and his computers are examined. In England it would be called "perverting the course of justice" and is considerably worse than the copyright infringement. )
I think AppleIDs are reasonably easy to find. Mostly they are email addresses. Haven't tried if trying to login with a random email address and a random password gives any indication that the email address is an Apple ID; you would hope not. However, if hackers manage to read your emails, then they can read any purchase confirmation emails, and from these emails you can find the Apple ID.
Now if they know many Apple IDs, they can just randomly try to login with valid Apple ID and a random weak password, and will have some successes. If 100 weak passwords are used by just 2 percent of all users, then one in 5,000 attempts will break an account.
that if you receive any letters from any lawyers you will answer them truthfully. So if you get accused of illegal downloads, you would truthfully reply that you didn't do it, but your roommate.
It seems your roommate insists, against your objections, to do things that are illegal, and bound to get you into expensive trouble, without taking any precautions. If the shit hits the fan, you have no obligation at all to support him in any way; your only responsibility is to get out of trouble yourself as cheaply as possible.
Here's a weird thing: Some people posted that their credit card info has been changed. So I think the following could happen: Crook hacks into my iTunes account. Crook also has a stolen credit card. He changes the credit card info to the stolen credit card. He then uses my account with the stolen credit card to buy stuff; the money probably goes to some associate of the crook. I don't notice unless I check my iTunes account because _my_ credit card is not affected. Still bizarre.
Making them complex and writing them down on a piece of paper is probably one of the most secure method in these days of remote attacks. I'm starting to wonder why we told users to reject this method. Keep them different across important accounts and the only worry you have is a burglar.
Combine something that is easy to remember with a random sequence that you have to write down and pin to your monitor. Remote attack fails because of the random sequence, looking at the paper fails because the person looking is not an experienced hacker and doesn't know the "easy to remember" bit.
And even if an experienced hacker knew the random sequence, at least attacks using rainbow tables would now fail.
The summary says "Computer Science graduates in the UK have high unemployment rates". The webpage says "Computer Science graduates in the UK have high unemployment rates". The study that it links to actually shows that Computer Science graduates have excellent employment rates, higher than many other graduates and significantly higher than the average of all graduates.
if its just 10% drop at the advent of the law, it means it outright failed.
No, it is highly successful. The 10% of P2P that were used for piracy have stopped, while the 90% that were used for legitimate purposes are still there.
Can you cite one instance Just one where Google has used patents offensively?
So what is the sequence of events? The sequence of events isn't "Apple sues for patent infringement, Google gives HTC patents to countersue" which would be defensive. The sequence of events is "Apple builds a phone that revolutionizes the smart phone market, everybody including HTC tries to rip off Apple, Apple uses patents to defend against the ripping off, and Google gives HTC patents to countersue with the goal that they can continue to rip off Apple". That is offensive in every meaning of the word.
The reality is that *every tech company* that has done so, does not include google. Putting google and microsoft in the same category is a known microsoft shilling technique.
Well, Google stopped Microsoft, Apple and others from buying Novell patents by claiming that they were going to use these patents in lawsuits. And now Google has purchased Motorola and its patents and gives patents to HTC to use them in a lawsuit.
Never used a Mac and never will if I can help it, however, I doubt Mac users care about or understand such stuff.
You won't be missed.
Shape and size? The natural results of designing a case around a screen, CPU, RAM, battery etc.
The fanbois seem to think this is "informative". Pictures of eight tablets looking distinctively different from an iPad are apparently not informative.
Now, according [fudzilla.com] to Apple's lawyers, if you ever worked for Apple, then your subsequent inventions for other companies may also very well belong to Apple:
As so often happens, you are either accidentally or on purpose misrepresenting what is actually happen. In a patent dispute, some company said that Andy Rubin had nothing whatsoever to do with Apple's patent, and Apple then showed that the same Andy Rubin worked directly under the two people who actually received the patent at that time.
In a patent dispute, _if_ there is infringement then it can be important for the amount of damages whether the infringement was intentional or by accident. If Andy Rubin worked under the two inventors at the time the invention was made, then surely this is relevant. And if Andy Rubin himself took out a patent that had this invention as prior art, and didn't mention the prior art, then the fact that he worked for them would also be relevant.
No, Apple wants to stop companies building tablets that look very much the same as an iPad. There was a recent review of tablets on theregister, with photos of ten tablets, and eight of them were designed to look very much different from an iPad.