Safari browser exploits and other app exploits can still lead to installing malware on a machine.
The point is that this is not true. Use of a Safari feature that is very useful for anyone downloading legitimate software allows malware to be downloaded and Apple's installer to be started. But "Installer started" != "malware installed". There is this tiny, tiny little gap that the malware cannot cross if the user has a brain: To install the malware, the user has to willingly enter their administrator password. No administrator password, no malware.
This probably wouldn't happen in the western world because we have some expectation of safety and working conditions. In a ideal world, we'd be manufacturing this sort of thing at home. Any form of economic prosperity in one area is balanced by a social or economic cost in another.
People dying in accidents at work happens in the USA about 4000 times per year. So things do happen. They don't just happen, they happen every day. Quite likely that ten or more people died in work accidents in the USA on the same die.
From the article " Thunderbolt hardware, we've been told, cost no less than $90"
Reality check: Apple is putting Thunderbolt into each single MacBook Pro and iMac, with some iMacs getting two Thunderbolt ports. Once MacBook, MacBook Air, and Mac Pro's are all updated, they will ship about 20 million Thunderbolt ports every year. Do you really think Apple would spend $1.8bn (1800 million dollars) every year for Thunderbolt?
It sounds promising - he's acknowledging that TrollHaven likely doesn't even own this IP, and if they do, haven't been injured.
No, the judge noticed that RightHaven doesn't own the copyrights that it is suing about, and _because they don't_, they haven't been injured.
For $100, I sell you the right to sue anyone who damages my car for those damages. What do you actually get for the $100? The only thing you get is that when you try to sue someone who damaged my car, _I_ cannot come running to the judge and complain. However, you won't get any damages because the damaged car is not actually yours. You basically paid $100 for a right that isn't worth anything.
I don't think there is anything that could happen legally to the copyright holder, but I think Righthaven might go down for fraud. Let's say I have done something that makes me actually guilty of copyright infringement. The copyright holder can then take me to court, or ask for money in order not to take me to court, which I would have to accept. However, if anyone who is not the copyright holder tells me they are going to sue me, and asks for money, and I pay up, then I think this is quite clearly fraud.
Many apps on the iPhone do so as well. The phone itself, no.
Apps on an iPhone _cannot_ find out your location without asking you for permission and getting that permission. _Your_ phone is allowed to track your location, but if it does, then nobody except you is allowed to access that information without your permission.
If mobile providers would be forced to compete by a single, transparent Money/GB value (maybe slightly regressive with amount of data, but *not* a factor of 10 or 100), and the customers would be free to choose the mobile phones independently, we would be spared from all this shit.
The phone company will always charge some amount to cover the cost, plus some amount that is profit. The actual cost is so many dollars or cents per GB, plus some fixed cost of having you as a customer, plus some cost to find out what your payment is. At the moment their cost to find out how much you should pay is zero. If you start metering, then you need to do it precisely because people will complain if you overcharge them, and then it gets expensive. So if you had 100 people paying x dollars each for a 3GB data plan for a total of 100x dollars; these 100 people would have to pay more than 100x dollars when the traffic is metered. Obviously everyone actually close to 3GB would have to pay a lot more. Everyone at or above average would pay more. For a 3 GB plan, the average is likely something like 1.2 GB. Since the total cost goes up, a 1 GB user would now pay the same as they paid for the 3GB plan.
That "handful" (using more than the average) is and always will be about 50% of their users.
No. 50% of users use more than the median. If you have 100 people downloading one GB or less, and one person downloading 100 GB, then the average is more than one GB, and only one of 101 users is above average. Kicking off that one user would significantly reduce the cost, and the 100 users would fully agree with that.
I've always said that Macs are for people that don't understand computers and have too much money.
Strange enough, around software developers that I know, Macs are the computers of choice. Mostly because they don't have to prove how clever they are. (And no, successfully fighting your Windows PC doesn't show you are more clever than a Mac user whose computer just works).
And I don't really want to go on about spelling, but having a spelling error in your nickname, Reverand (sic) Dave, that is taking the piss.
The person who used their key card to open the door took the heat for the incident. I have to say it's kind of hard to unlock the door, but stop people from just walking in. Unless you have a gun and are a major @ss I guess
Very simple, actually. Instead of just having a company policy "don't let anyone in behind you" have another policy "don't follow anyone through the door" with a major telling off if you are caught, even when you have a pass yourself.
Once you do that and enforce it, anyone who follows you would have to be confronted.
Ford, Toyota, etc. would LOVE it if the only option was to buy new.
If it was totally illegal to sell or buy used cars, then the majority of the people who would usually buy a new car every two years would instead buy cheaper cars and drive them for a very much longer time. Those who find it hard to afford a new car would buy the cheapest new car they can find and drive it until it falls apart.
There is a very simple answer to all privacy concern: Just convince Apple, Redhat, Google that all Macs, Linux machines, iOS and Android devices should implement the same functionality by accessing the exact same file, using the exact same request byte for byte as Windows 7 does.
That way, Microsoft gets _everyone's_ IP address, but there is no information content anymore. All that they would know is that the IP address exists. Today they know that the IP address is using Windows 7; that information would evaporate.
It's as simple as fear of the unknown, a basic feature of human nature. Why do people fear plane crashes and terrorist attacks and mostly ignore far greater risks to health and life like car crashes and hear disease?
Step ladders. If there is one thing you should fear, it is step ladders.
Before Apple fixing the price these retailers paid for books, they could buy at a 50% margin, keep 20% of that, still pay Apple their 30% (right or wrong) and have a successful business. Now there's no way.
So the publisher had the choice: Allow Apple to publish the book on its book store, and get 70% of what the customer pays. Or allow an intermediary publish the book through an application on the iPad, and get 50% of what the customer pays. I can't quite see why the publisher would do the latter. And I can't quite see what the advantage of this app is for the customer.
English Translation: It stores your location, just not very accurately.
Mistranslation. It stores several locations all around the point where the phone was. Now if we ignore the fact that nobody can lay their hands on this data without stealing my phone or computer, in which case (1) my phone or computer is gone, and (2) there are things like email, address book, browser cache that I worry about a lot lot more, and if we ignore the fact that there is very little someone could do with _exact_ information where I have been, information that shows my location within half a mile is completely useless to anyone.
"The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately"
That's awful. They've got it all wrong. That is _not_ why consumers would be harmed by illegal tying.
Any company is free to offer whatever they want at whatever the price. They can make offers that customers like, or offers that customers don't like. And customers are free to choose whether they buy or not. Tying one less desirable product to another more desirable product means that the offer for the more desirable product is now less good, so fewer people will buy it.
Where illegal tying harms is when it harms competition: If Product B at $50 is tied with Product A at $100, that actually benefits everyone who competes with Product A, because if I sell a product X that is as good as Product A, then you would be buying my product even if it costs a bit more than $100 (as long as it is less than $150 minus what B is worth to you). But it harms everyone who competes with Product B, because many potential customers of Product Y that competes with B have already bought B together with A, so they have no use for a competitor's product, even if it is cheaper than B.
and what are you doing that you do not want law enforcement to know?
Well, drove my car to work on the usually route, parked it at work for the day, drove back home, went to my local petrol station. And all of that I don't want law enforcement to know, because it is none of their f***ing business.
Your argument is wrong. It is perfectly fine that an innocent person could go to court (and this would be a civil court where there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty"). The point that the judge made is that it is the _right person_ that has to go to court. And in this case, many of these people would be the _wrong_ person. This is the difference between one person suspected of shoplifting, who is proven innocent because they can show a store receipt (right person but innocent), and another person suspected of shoplifting, who is proven innocent because they didn't grab the guy who ran out of the store with his pocket full of stolen goods, but an innocent bystander (wrong person).
You can subpoena the owner of a car to find out who the driver was. This happens when you privately own a car, if the car is involved in an accident you will be asked who the driver was. And it happens if you are a rental car company; if the rental car is involved in an accident, they will be asked who the driver was.
Same with a router. If your router was involved in illegal copying or worse things, you can be asked who was using that router. But... your ISP doesn't own the router. Your ISP doesn't have to answer a subpoena. Only the _owner_ of the router has to. So if they find you, you'll have to tell them who used the router (me, my wife and children, the neighbours, and any criminal who came within 50 meters of my home). Just like Ford or GM don't have to respond if a car that they built is involved in an accident and don't have to give someone a list of everyone buying their cars.
If you have to put up suicide nets and make people sign contracts promising not to kill themself then you're doing it wrong.
You are an idiot, and so are the five people marking this as "insightful".
Suicides are not committed by people who are thinking rationally about their situation. Of all people jumping off a high roof to commit suicide, most think "Oh shit, I think I made a _big_ mistake here" before they hit the ground. If you put up nets, they will think "what's that? It is a net! I am safe!" before they hit the net, which is hopefully constructed carefully to catch them without killing them. Or they think "here I am, trying to commit suicide, and the fuckers put a fucking net up! I'll show them, I'll climb down and beat the shit out of whoever is responsible for that net!". And by the time they climb down, they feel a lot better. (Read Niven/Pournelle "Oath of fealty").
Excessive overtime is routine, despite a legal limit of 36 hours a month. One payslip, seen by the Observer, indicated that the worker had performed 98 hours of overtime in a month.
98 hours of overtime. In a month. I'll grant that's a lot of overtime. If he's working a 48-hour week, call it 192 hours straight time a month, and then 98 on top of that?
Anything over 40 hours a week is overtime. They found _one_ payslip with 98 hours overtime in a month. So I would assume that this was the highest, because otherwise they would have said so, and I would assume that they didn't find many that were close, because otherwise they would have said so as well. Now it is a lot of overtime, about 24 hours a week, but please note that they found this _on his payslip_. In other words, the man is actually _paid_ for 24 hours overtime each week. Unlike many software developers at game companies in the USA, who work _longer_ hours and are _not_ paid for it. If I could work 98 hours overtime for a few months _and my company paid me, like this employee was paid_, I can assure you that my wife would make me work that time:-(
A while ago there was a report about working conditions at Foxconn was quoted as saying that "most complaints at Foxconn were related to overtime". Then the original report surfaced, and the actual fact was that "most complaints were about the fact that there wasn't always as much overtime work available as workers wanted".
Its true - its a great ruling and a vital first step. But basing the ruling on someone piggybacking off of another persons router doesn't solve the main issue. What could be argued is that in fact (and we know its not true) an IP address does point to a person..but happened (because of open WIFI) to point to the WRONG person. What needs to be brought up is IP address leasing...and that a particular IP could belong to countless people over a pretty short period of time...only then will we put this issue to rest.
You are confusing two things here. The one thing is was this judge said: Just because someone's router's IP address was involved, that doesn't mean immediately that the person had anything to do with it, so the judge cannot allow what amounts to a fishing expedition against hundreds of people, of whom many will have nothing to do with the case. What you suggest is thinking about methods to avoid IP addresses ever pointing to the right person, so that copyright infringement can happen without fear of being caught. The correct thing would be static IP addresses, closed-down routers etc. so that an IP address never points to the wrong person and innocent people are never suspected. Why would you want to protect the guilty?
Actually, if one of the people in this case had intentionally set up their router to produce deniability, then I think collecting evidence against them should be allowed.
Even though I trust their claims that they'll anonymize the data, I suspect that this data could be very easily de-anonymized (like they discovered was possible with the NetFlix data set), and would not contribute my data to this project.
That doesn't make sense. Either you trust them or you don't. Apple, or any other company, would never anonymize data that they collected, and then run some complicated algorithm to de-anonymize the data again; they would just keep one version that is not anonymized and another version to show everyone that is all anonymized. And you would never find out. _If_ they were lying to you.
Squaring a number with a naive algorithm is. With some decent algorithm it is O (n ln n). Like multiplying, division, square root, sine, cosine and many other functions.
Slashdot Mirror
Safari browser exploits and other app exploits can still lead to installing malware on a machine.
The point is that
this is not true. Use of a Safari feature that is very useful for anyone downloading legitimate software allows malware to be downloaded and Apple's installer to be started. But "Installer started" != "malware installed". There is this tiny, tiny little gap that the malware cannot cross if the user has a brain: To install the malware, the user has to willingly enter their administrator password. No administrator password, no malware.
This probably wouldn't happen in the western world because we have some expectation of safety and working conditions. In a ideal world, we'd be manufacturing this sort of thing at home. Any form of economic prosperity in one area is balanced by a social or economic cost in another.
People dying in accidents at work happens in the USA about 4000 times per year. So things do happen. They don't just happen, they happen every day. Quite likely that ten or more people died in work accidents in the USA on the same die.
From the article " Thunderbolt hardware, we've been told, cost no less than $90"
Reality check: Apple is putting Thunderbolt into each single MacBook Pro and iMac, with some iMacs getting two Thunderbolt ports. Once MacBook, MacBook Air, and Mac Pro's are all updated, they will ship about 20 million Thunderbolt ports every year. Do you really think Apple would spend $1.8bn (1800 million dollars) every year for Thunderbolt?
It sounds promising - he's acknowledging that TrollHaven likely doesn't even own this IP, and if they do, haven't been injured.
No, the judge noticed that RightHaven doesn't own the copyrights that it is suing about, and _because they don't_, they haven't been injured.
For $100, I sell you the right to sue anyone who damages my car for those damages. What do you actually get for the $100? The only thing you get is that when you try to sue someone who damaged my car, _I_ cannot come running to the judge and complain. However, you won't get any damages because the damaged car is not actually yours. You basically paid $100 for a right that isn't worth anything.
I don't think there is anything that could happen legally to the copyright holder, but I think Righthaven might go down for fraud. Let's say I have done something that makes me actually guilty of copyright infringement. The copyright holder can then take me to court, or ask for money in order not to take me to court, which I would have to accept. However, if anyone who is not the copyright holder tells me they are going to sue me, and asks for money, and I pay up, then I think this is quite clearly fraud.
Many apps on the iPhone do so as well. The phone itself, no.
Apps on an iPhone _cannot_ find out your location without asking you for permission and getting that permission. _Your_ phone is allowed to track your location, but if it does, then nobody except you is allowed to access that information without your permission.
If mobile providers would be forced to compete by a single, transparent Money/GB value (maybe slightly regressive with amount of data, but *not* a factor of 10 or 100), and the customers would be free to choose the mobile phones independently, we would be spared from all this shit.
The phone company will always charge some amount to cover the cost, plus some amount that is profit. The actual cost is so many dollars or cents per GB, plus some fixed cost of having you as a customer, plus some cost to find out what your payment is. At the moment their cost to find out how much you should pay is zero. If you start metering, then you need to do it precisely because people will complain if you overcharge them, and then it gets expensive. So if you had 100 people paying x dollars each for a 3GB data plan for a total of 100x dollars; these 100 people would have to pay more than 100x dollars when the traffic is metered. Obviously everyone actually close to 3GB would have to pay a lot more. Everyone at or above average would pay more. For a 3 GB plan, the average is likely something like 1.2 GB. Since the total cost goes up, a 1 GB user would now pay the same as they paid for the 3GB plan.
That "handful" (using more than the average) is and always will be about 50% of their users.
No. 50% of users use more than the median. If you have 100 people downloading one GB or less, and one person downloading 100 GB, then the average is more than one GB, and only one of 101 users is above average. Kicking off that one user would significantly reduce the cost, and the 100 users would fully agree with that.
I've always said that Macs are for people that don't understand computers and have too much money.
Strange enough, around software developers that I know, Macs are the computers of choice. Mostly because they don't have to prove how clever they are. (And no, successfully fighting your Windows PC doesn't show you are more clever than a Mac user whose computer just works).
And I don't really want to go on about spelling, but having a spelling error in your nickname, Reverand (sic) Dave, that is taking the piss.
The person who used their key card to open the door took the heat for the incident. I have to say it's kind of hard to unlock the door, but stop people from just walking in. Unless you have a gun and are a major @ss I guess
Very simple, actually. Instead of just having a company policy "don't let anyone in behind you" have another policy "don't follow anyone through the door" with a major telling off if you are caught, even when you have a pass yourself.
Once you do that and enforce it, anyone who follows you would have to be confronted.
Ford, Toyota, etc. would LOVE it if the only option was to buy new.
If it was totally illegal to sell or buy used cars, then the majority of the people who would usually buy a new car every two years would instead buy cheaper cars and drive them for a very much longer time. Those who find it hard to afford a new car would buy the cheapest new car they can find and drive it until it falls apart.
There is a very simple answer to all privacy concern: Just convince Apple, Redhat, Google that all Macs, Linux machines, iOS and Android devices should implement the same functionality by accessing the exact same file, using the exact same request byte for byte as Windows 7 does.
That way, Microsoft gets _everyone's_ IP address, but there is no information content anymore. All that they would know is that the IP address exists. Today they know that the IP address is using Windows 7; that information would evaporate.
It's as simple as fear of the unknown, a basic feature of human nature. Why do people fear plane crashes and terrorist attacks and mostly ignore far greater risks to health and life like car crashes and hear disease?
Step ladders. If there is one thing you should fear, it is step ladders.
I may not agree with what he said, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it. In other words, it's a threat to free speech
You are a clueless idiot. You may not agree, but you'll defend to your death my right to say it. In other words, you're a clueless idiot.
Before Apple fixing the price these retailers paid for books, they could buy at a 50% margin, keep 20% of that, still pay Apple their 30% (right or wrong) and have a successful business. Now there's no way.
So the publisher had the choice: Allow Apple to publish the book on its book store, and get 70% of what the customer pays. Or allow an intermediary publish the book through an application on the iPad, and get 50% of what the customer pays. I can't quite see why the publisher would do the latter. And I can't quite see what the advantage of this app is for the customer.
English Translation: It stores your location, just not very accurately.
Mistranslation. It stores several locations all around the point where the phone was. Now if we ignore the fact that nobody can lay their hands on this data without stealing my phone or computer, in which case (1) my phone or computer is gone, and (2) there are things like email, address book, browser cache that I worry about a lot lot more, and if we ignore the fact that there is very little someone could do with _exact_ information where I have been, information that shows my location within half a mile is completely useless to anyone.
"The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately"
That's awful. They've got it all wrong. That is _not_ why consumers would be harmed by illegal tying.
Any company is free to offer whatever they want at whatever the price. They can make offers that customers like, or offers that customers don't like. And customers are free to choose whether they buy or not. Tying one less desirable product to another more desirable product means that the offer for the more desirable product is now less good, so fewer people will buy it.
Where illegal tying harms is when it harms competition: If Product B at $50 is tied with Product A at $100, that actually benefits everyone who competes with Product A, because if I sell a product X that is as good as Product A, then you would be buying my product even if it costs a bit more than $100 (as long as it is less than $150 minus what B is worth to you). But it harms everyone who competes with Product B, because many potential customers of Product Y that competes with B have already bought B together with A, so they have no use for a competitor's product, even if it is cheaper than B.
and what are you doing that you do not want law enforcement to know?
Well, drove my car to work on the usually route, parked it at work for the day, drove back home, went to my local petrol station. And all of that I don't want law enforcement to know, because it is none of their f***ing business.
Your argument is wrong. It is perfectly fine that an innocent person could go to court (and this would be a civil court where there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty"). The point that the judge made is that it is the _right person_ that has to go to court. And in this case, many of these people would be the _wrong_ person. This is the difference between one person suspected of shoplifting, who is proven innocent because they can show a store receipt (right person but innocent), and another person suspected of shoplifting, who is proven innocent because they didn't grab the guy who ran out of the store with his pocket full of stolen goods, but an innocent bystander (wrong person).
You can subpoena the owner of a car to find out who the driver was. This happens when you privately own a car, if the car is involved in an accident you will be asked who the driver was. And it happens if you are a rental car company; if the rental car is involved in an accident, they will be asked who the driver was.
Same with a router. If your router was involved in illegal copying or worse things, you can be asked who was using that router. But... your ISP doesn't own the router. Your ISP doesn't have to answer a subpoena. Only the _owner_ of the router has to. So if they find you, you'll have to tell them who used the router (me, my wife and children, the neighbours, and any criminal who came within 50 meters of my home). Just like Ford or GM don't have to respond if a car that they built is involved in an accident and don't have to give someone a list of everyone buying their cars.
If you have to put up suicide nets and make people sign contracts promising not to kill themself then you're doing it wrong.
You are an idiot, and so are the five people marking this as "insightful".
Suicides are not committed by people who are thinking rationally about their situation. Of all people jumping off a high roof to commit suicide, most think "Oh shit, I think I made a _big_ mistake here" before they hit the ground. If you put up nets, they will think "what's that? It is a net! I am safe!" before they hit the net, which is hopefully constructed carefully to catch them without killing them. Or they think "here I am, trying to commit suicide, and the fuckers put a fucking net up! I'll show them, I'll climb down and beat the shit out of whoever is responsible for that net!". And by the time they climb down, they feel a lot better. (Read Niven/Pournelle "Oath of fealty").
Excessive overtime is routine, despite a legal limit of 36 hours a month. One payslip, seen by the Observer, indicated that the worker had performed 98 hours of overtime in a month. 98 hours of overtime. In a month. I'll grant that's a lot of overtime. If he's working a 48-hour week, call it 192 hours straight time a month, and then 98 on top of that?
Anything over 40 hours a week is overtime. They found _one_ payslip with 98 hours overtime in a month. So I would assume that this was the highest, because otherwise they would have said so, and I would assume that they didn't find many that were close, because otherwise they would have said so as well. Now it is a lot of overtime, about 24 hours a week, but please note that they found this _on his payslip_. In other words, the man is actually _paid_ for 24 hours overtime each week. Unlike many software developers at game companies in the USA, who work _longer_ hours and are _not_ paid for it. If I could work 98 hours overtime for a few months _and my company paid me, like this employee was paid_, I can assure you that my wife would make me work that time :-(
A while ago there was a report about working conditions at Foxconn was quoted as saying that "most complaints at Foxconn were related to overtime". Then the original report surfaced, and the actual fact was that "most complaints were about the fact that there wasn't always as much overtime work available as workers wanted".
It has been discussed elsewhere that their suicide rate is actually less than their normal population, not just among industrial workers.
It has been discussed elsewhere that their suicide rate is actually considerably less than the suicide rate in the total population of the USA.
Its true - its a great ruling and a vital first step. But basing the ruling on someone piggybacking off of another persons router doesn't solve the main issue. What could be argued is that in fact (and we know its not true) an IP address does point to a person..but happened (because of open WIFI) to point to the WRONG person. What needs to be brought up is IP address leasing...and that a particular IP could belong to countless people over a pretty short period of time...only then will we put this issue to rest.
You are confusing two things here. The one thing is was this judge said: Just because someone's router's IP address was involved, that doesn't mean immediately that the person had anything to do with it, so the judge cannot allow what amounts to a fishing expedition against hundreds of people, of whom many will have nothing to do with the case. What you suggest is thinking about methods to avoid IP addresses ever pointing to the right person, so that copyright infringement can happen without fear of being caught. The correct thing would be static IP addresses, closed-down routers etc. so that an IP address never points to the wrong person and innocent people are never suspected. Why would you want to protect the guilty?
Actually, if one of the people in this case had intentionally set up their router to produce deniability, then I think collecting evidence against them should be allowed.
Even though I trust their claims that they'll anonymize the data, I suspect that this data could be very easily de-anonymized (like they discovered was possible with the NetFlix data set), and would not contribute my data to this project.
That doesn't make sense. Either you trust them or you don't. Apple, or any other company, would never anonymize data that they collected, and then run some complicated algorithm to de-anonymize the data again; they would just keep one version that is not anonymized and another version to show everyone that is all anonymized. And you would never find out. _If_ they were lying to you.
Yep. Squaring a number is an O(n^2) operation.
Squaring a number with a naive algorithm is. With some decent algorithm it is O (n ln n). Like multiplying, division, square root, sine, cosine and many other functions.