He was not exhonerated, the prosecutor deemed the ititial warrant baseless, and revoked it. It says nothing about Assange guilt or not, but about the base as to prosecute him.
Wrong. There isn't only "no base to prosecute him", there is no base to _investigate_ him.
ou can live a long and productive live and never use your ID at all, unless you're a lawyer by profession or get arrested a lot...
Interesting. In Britain, you can't get a new job without showing a passport, because the employer has to check that you have the right to work there and are not an illegal immigrant, asylum seeker etc.
Apple wants you to pay for an expensive LCD screen and gimped the graphics.
I have never, ever, ever heard the word "gimped" until quite recently it apparently become fashionable to use the word in connection with Apple products. Why has nobody ever complained that Microsoft gimped the computing experience for whole generations of customers, producing one gimped operating system after the other, the laughable gimped brown Zune that nobody wanted, the XBox with its gimped power cables, shall I continue?
There are two states, Maryland and Virginia, under which remote disablement of software is allowed under UCITA, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act.
That would only apply to the rightful owner of the software (on the phone), not to a thief.
Wouldn't that kind of action be in violation of the recent ruling that made such actions as jailbreaking legal on personally owned devices? I understand its a warranty violation, but that shouldn't mean that it should allow apple to restrict usage, etc.
It is completely legal for you to use your credit card today in Moscow, tomorrow in Sidney, and they day after in Tokio, each time buying a 50 inch TV. Completely legal. But the credit card company will lock down your card, because it is much more likely that there is fraud going on and it isn't actually you buying the TVs.
So you think that it should be okay for your phone to automatically take photos of you and send them away without your permission? It doesn't need to be able to do that in order to be remotely wiped. Nice strawman though.
It would be quite nice if _my_ phone, after it is stolen, could automatically take photos of whoever is using it and send them to me and the police. It doesn't need that for remote wiping, but it comes very handy for catching the thief.
No. What it means is that if the patent is granted (which hasn't happened yet) nobody else is allowed to remotely disable a jailbroken phone without Apple's permission.
4. Get sued for 3X Profit (copyright infringement bonus points).
It is exactly the situation that the (in)famous "$750 to $150,000 statutory damages" are meant for, so when someone copies your book and sells it on Lulu you can sue them for $750 to $150,000 in statutory damages without having to prove how much money they made and how much damages they caused you. Not for someone putting 1000 songs on a p2p share which are on the average copied 0.1 times to be told they have to pay statutory damages for each of 1000 songs.
I have a feeling Apple only cares because at some point in the past someone was going to find out about the deal and Apple simply didn't want the negative publicity. If it was going to stay a "don't ask, don't tell" "secret", we wouldn't be commenting on this story right now. Lets face it, more profit is a good thing for all Apple employees and shareholders. Lets also face the fact that most businesses would probably do the same damn thing.
Very strange interpretation of the matter. This manager received about a million dollars from manufacturers for information about Apple products, so they could negotiate better deals. Since the information was owned by Apple, selling it was at least theft - the million dollars should have been paid to Apple. Since those companies wouldn't have paid the money if they hadn't made more than a million using the information, Apple's loss was actually a lot higher.
On top of that comes in incalculable loss through the loss in reputation. If I deal with people who I believe are crooks, I will do things differently than when I deal with people who I believe are honest. These companies believed that Apple were crooks, based on their experience with a corrupt manager. So they would be more willing to cheat on Apple than other companies who believe that Apple is dealing in an honest way.
It's probably much too late to post this, but the police actually went to the street where he was supposed to have been speeding, and they found witnesses. That would probably have been enough to convict him, but he also confessed in court.
Now maybe that is just my opinion and feel free to disagree, but if you boast about exceeding the speed limit in a criminally dangerous way, then that puts your ability and more importantly your willingness to drive a car safely and according to the traffic rules very much into doubt. Even if it wasn't true. And we should also consider that his boasting, even if it wasn't the truth, could easily encourage others to actually do it, so that kind of boasting should be strongly discouraged. So I would see a good case for taking away his driving license for the boasting alone. I would also say that if he didn't do it, then he should at least be charged with wasting police time. (Interesting question: Would that apply if he did do it but they cannot prove it? )
... a proof is genuinely revolutionary, because this proof would simply affirm a long-held postulation, that P
It would be absolutely revolutionary, because this proof totally contradicts the widely held belief that there is no proof for P = NP or for P != NP.
Short form:if P=NP, crypto is something of a futile effort - that implies that there's a non-brute-force crack to every possible private-key algorythm. I suppose it might still be slow enough for the crypto to be useful, but I woudl expect you would end up needing gigantic keys.
Not at all true. There is now an algorithm that tests primality in proven polynomial time; the algorithm is far inferior to existing algorithms for all instances that can be solved in any reasonable time.
The upper bound for number of calculations is about 2^256: All the matter in the universe, completely converted to energy, would not be enough to power a computer to make 2^256 state changes. Say you have an algorithm cracking an n-bit code in n^32 steps. A 256 bit code would take 256^32 = (2^8)^32 = 2^256 steps - impossible to crack.
Wouldn't lack of experience with Windows be a detriment to someone looking for employment in the business world, where Windows runs on well over 90% of all computers? I realize you can run Windows on a Mac, and many people do, but that seems like an expensive approach to gaining these valuable skills.
If you are looking for a measly office job, you don't go to university for that. And you don't suffer through university with a Windows system just to get a bit of experience using Windows. If you used a computer running MacOS X or Windows XP for for years, MacOS X users will probably find it easier using Windows 7. And any troubleshooting experience which you may have gained is useless; you don't troubleshoot your work PC; you call IT services.
However, when some faceless corporation plugs a hole without permission it seems to be okay and there will never be any kind of consequence for that. There's just some disparity there that's hard to put your finger on.
The difference is that it was the faceless corporation who set the password originally, so they are changing the exact same password that they themselves set. If they checked whether you changed the password from "password1" to something unsafe like "password2" and changed that, then you would have more of a point.
The worst part was that we later complained about speed issues on the line and they got back to us saying "sorry, we seem to be having problems accessing your router". Erm, yeah, that'd kinda be the point - I don't want my router open and available with any backdoors on the Internet!
You may have shot yourself in the foot there. There _are_ some settings on a broadband router that you don't want to play with, but that your ISP should be able to configure. Basically what line quality your router expects and how it handles lower quality. If that isn't set properly, then you will have problems with line quality. If my line is capable of handling 4 MBit and my router doesn't try to use more, everything is fine. If your line is better, capable of handling 6 MBit, but your router tries to run at 8 MBit, then your connections will be shit.
If a company sanctioned it (and that is purely an assumption) they could be looking for info on their own employees.
It would be entirely reasonable for any company doing e-commerce to download these files, and check which usernames/passwords match their own data.
For example, if there was a facebook user with username gnasher719 and password imsoclever, and Apple found there is an iTunes account with the same username and password, it would be a good idea to put some kind of clamp on that account before someone starts downloading expensive iPhone apps using my account information. Same with Paypal, eBay and so on.
Looking for your own employees, on the other hand, would be very illegal, except perhaps again to turn off all logins that use the same username and password that is used in the facebook list, and I think impossible to keep secret.
Citation needed, copies to RAM are not counted as copying for the purposes of copyright law in the US.
Wrong. It counts as copying. But it is copying that is allowed by law _if you have the right to use the software_ in the first place, just like making a backup copy. If you don't have the right to use the software, then every time you load the software into RAM you commit copyright infringement.
The copy in RAM is exempted in 17 USC 117(a)(1) [cornell.edu] Other states probably also have similar laws. You don't need a license to use an authorized copy of software.
The devil is in the details. You are allowed to make a copy into RAM if you have the right to use the software (so if I sold you some software with a contract to do anything you want with the software except loading it into RAM, and sued you as soon as you use it, that wouldn't fly). But it is a copy, obviously, so if you _don't_ have the right to use the software then everytime you load it into RAM you commit copyright infringement. That's why EULAs actually work. Nobody can hold you to the terms of a EULA (probably) but if you don't accept most EULAs then you have no right to copy the software and making a copy into RAM is copyright infringement.
f this precedent holds we may be in very good shape. The obvious generalization is to allowing such circumvention for fair use. If that occurs, then most of the problems with this legislation go out the window.
Just to clarify: I hold in my hands a DRM-"protected" DVD that I own. You stand besides me, and I could lend the CD to you. What things do you think "fair use" would allow me and you to do?
How do exclusivity deals with major vendors count as monopolistic? It just sounds like competition to me. I like AMD's competition to Intel, but just because Intel is the chip leader for PCs doesn't mean it should be hampered in trying to compete with its competition. Can you point me to an antitrust statute that says exclusive deals with manufacturers counts as anti-competitive behavior?
Lets say Dell needs one million processors. AMD can only supply 500,000. Intel can supply a million. They make an offer for Dell to buy exclusively Intel chips, or they won't sell anything at all to Dell. Since Dell cannot live only buying 500,000 AMD chips, they have to buy the Intel chips. That means it doesn't matter whether AMDs chips are better value for money than Intel chips or not, Dell won't buy them. That's what makes it anticompetitive; Dells decision not to buy AMD is not based on AMD's competitiveness or not, but on the exclusive contract.
For that to be fair you can't just take the money from the companies bank accounts now. The current owners of the company are not entirely the same people as those who owned it when the fraud was perpetrated. Countless investors have bought and sold over the years and the investors who own the company today may not have benefitted from the fraud at all. If I bought dell shares two weeks ago why should I pay a fine while investors who profited and sold years ago are laughing to the bank?
The whole matter is an SEC investigation, so it is all about misleading investors. It's not about Dell receiving money from Intel, it is about Dell receiving money from Intel and then telling the public they were making lots of money by buying their computer parts so cheaply; they should have told investors that they received money (illegally) from Intel, in which case investors would have known to keep their hands off DELL shares.
If you own DELL shares now, that is just tough. You bought a part of the company probably at a higher price then you would have if you had known all the facts, and you are held responsible for all fines the company gets for things they did in their past. Just like you pay for them making the wrong business decisions years ago (can you imagine how much money Dell would be raking in if they had bought Next instead of Apple and all Dell computers were shipping with DellOS X instead of Windows?)
Seriously, who thinks this info is private? We're talking about payload data from unsecured wifi. For that matter we're talking about payload fragments.
On a recent discussion about the data that the iPhone collects and sends to Apple, many people commented that Apple is worse than Google. Apple collects and sends the following data:
1. MAC address
That's it. Apple doesn't collect the SSID which could likely be used to identify you. And Apple most definitely doesn't even look at any payload. Why would Google have any need to look at payload data? They have no legitimate reason whatsoever. I cannot see any technical reason why looking at any payload data would help them with Streetview. And they discarded all encrypted traffic and kept unencrypted traffic, making it very, very clear that this was intentionally nosing into stuff that they have no right to nose into.
From Apple's Terms; "Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. "
Oh yeah, of course they'll give it to their 'partners' for 'free'. That's so much 'better'.
I suggest you RTFPDF (Read The Fucking PDF). That will tell you who the two partners are. And they don't pay Apple for the data. Apple pays them for the service they supply - translating information about nearby routers into coordinates.
Slashdot Mirror
He was not exhonerated, the prosecutor deemed the ititial warrant baseless, and revoked it. It says nothing about Assange guilt or not, but about the base as to prosecute him.
Wrong. There isn't only "no base to prosecute him", there is no base to _investigate_ him.
ou can live a long and productive live and never use your ID at all, unless you're a lawyer by profession or get arrested a lot...
Interesting. In Britain, you can't get a new job without showing a passport, because the employer has to check that you have the right to work there and are not an illegal immigrant, asylum seeker etc.
Apple wants you to pay for an expensive LCD screen and gimped the graphics.
I have never, ever, ever heard the word "gimped" until quite recently it apparently become fashionable to use the word in connection with Apple products. Why has nobody ever complained that Microsoft gimped the computing experience for whole generations of customers, producing one gimped operating system after the other, the laughable gimped brown Zune that nobody wanted, the XBox with its gimped power cables, shall I continue?
There are two states, Maryland and Virginia, under which remote disablement of software is allowed under UCITA, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act.
That would only apply to the rightful owner of the software (on the phone), not to a thief.
Wouldn't that kind of action be in violation of the recent ruling that made such actions as jailbreaking legal on personally owned devices? I understand its a warranty violation, but that shouldn't mean that it should allow apple to restrict usage, etc.
It is completely legal for you to use your credit card today in Moscow, tomorrow in Sidney, and they day after in Tokio, each time buying a 50 inch TV. Completely legal. But the credit card company will lock down your card, because it is much more likely that there is fraud going on and it isn't actually you buying the TVs.
So you think that it should be okay for your phone to automatically take photos of you and send them away without your permission? It doesn't need to be able to do that in order to be remotely wiped. Nice strawman though.
It would be quite nice if _my_ phone, after it is stolen, could automatically take photos of whoever is using it and send them to me and the police. It doesn't need that for remote wiping, but it comes very handy for catching the thief.
...doesn't mean it's legal, right?
No. What it means is that if the patent is granted (which hasn't happened yet) nobody else is allowed to remotely disable a jailbroken phone without Apple's permission.
4. Get sued for 3X Profit (copyright infringement bonus points).
It is exactly the situation that the (in)famous "$750 to $150,000 statutory damages" are meant for, so when someone copies your book and sells it on Lulu you can sue them for $750 to $150,000 in statutory damages without having to prove how much money they made and how much damages they caused you. Not for someone putting 1000 songs on a p2p share which are on the average copied 0.1 times to be told they have to pay statutory damages for each of 1000 songs.
thought octopi had 8 arms. Wouldn't that be hex?
Japanese consider them to have eight legs, not eight arms. Seriously.
I have a feeling Apple only cares because at some point in the past someone was going to find out about the deal and Apple simply didn't want the negative publicity. If it was going to stay a "don't ask, don't tell" "secret", we wouldn't be commenting on this story right now. Lets face it, more profit is a good thing for all Apple employees and shareholders. Lets also face the fact that most businesses would probably do the same damn thing.
Very strange interpretation of the matter. This manager received about a million dollars from manufacturers for information about Apple products, so they could negotiate better deals. Since the information was owned by Apple, selling it was at least theft - the million dollars should have been paid to Apple. Since those companies wouldn't have paid the money if they hadn't made more than a million using the information, Apple's loss was actually a lot higher.
On top of that comes in incalculable loss through the loss in reputation. If I deal with people who I believe are crooks, I will do things differently than when I deal with people who I believe are honest. These companies believed that Apple were crooks, based on their experience with a corrupt manager. So they would be more willing to cheat on Apple than other companies who believe that Apple is dealing in an honest way.
It's probably much too late to post this, but the police actually went to the street where he was supposed to have been speeding, and they found witnesses. That would probably have been enough to convict him, but he also confessed in court.
Now maybe that is just my opinion and feel free to disagree, but if you boast about exceeding the speed limit in a criminally dangerous way, then that puts your ability and more importantly your willingness to drive a car safely and according to the traffic rules very much into doubt. Even if it wasn't true. And we should also consider that his boasting, even if it wasn't the truth, could easily encourage others to actually do it, so that kind of boasting should be strongly discouraged. So I would see a good case for taking away his driving license for the boasting alone. I would also say that if he didn't do it, then he should at least be charged with wasting police time. (Interesting question: Would that apply if he did do it but they cannot prove it? )
... a proof is genuinely revolutionary, because this proof would simply affirm a long-held postulation, that P It would be absolutely revolutionary, because this proof totally contradicts the widely held belief that there is no proof for P = NP or for P != NP.
Short form:if P=NP, crypto is something of a futile effort - that implies that there's a non-brute-force crack to every possible private-key algorythm. I suppose it might still be slow enough for the crypto to be useful, but I woudl expect you would end up needing gigantic keys.
Not at all true. There is now an algorithm that tests primality in proven polynomial time; the algorithm is far inferior to existing algorithms for all instances that can be solved in any reasonable time. The upper bound for number of calculations is about 2^256: All the matter in the universe, completely converted to energy, would not be enough to power a computer to make 2^256 state changes. Say you have an algorithm cracking an n-bit code in n^32 steps. A 256 bit code would take 256^32 = (2^8)^32 = 2^256 steps - impossible to crack.
Wouldn't lack of experience with Windows be a detriment to someone looking for employment in the business world, where Windows runs on well over 90% of all computers? I realize you can run Windows on a Mac, and many people do, but that seems like an expensive approach to gaining these valuable skills.
If you are looking for a measly office job, you don't go to university for that. And you don't suffer through university with a Windows system just to get a bit of experience using Windows. If you used a computer running MacOS X or Windows XP for for years, MacOS X users will probably find it easier using Windows 7. And any troubleshooting experience which you may have gained is useless; you don't troubleshoot your work PC; you call IT services.
Just make a copy of a government officials plate put it on your car and runs some red lights while a friend takes pictures to post.
When you think the police anywhere is just a bunch of idiots, that is called "projection".
However, when some faceless corporation plugs a hole without permission it seems to be okay and there will never be any kind of consequence for that. There's just some disparity there that's hard to put your finger on.
The difference is that it was the faceless corporation who set the password originally, so they are changing the exact same password that they themselves set. If they checked whether you changed the password from "password1" to something unsafe like "password2" and changed that, then you would have more of a point.
The worst part was that we later complained about speed issues on the line and they got back to us saying "sorry, we seem to be having problems accessing your router". Erm, yeah, that'd kinda be the point - I don't want my router open and available with any backdoors on the Internet!
You may have shot yourself in the foot there. There _are_ some settings on a broadband router that you don't want to play with, but that your ISP should be able to configure. Basically what line quality your router expects and how it handles lower quality. If that isn't set properly, then you will have problems with line quality. If my line is capable of handling 4 MBit and my router doesn't try to use more, everything is fine. If your line is better, capable of handling 6 MBit, but your router tries to run at 8 MBit, then your connections will be shit.
If a company sanctioned it (and that is purely an assumption) they could be looking for info on their own employees.
It would be entirely reasonable for any company doing e-commerce to download these files, and check which usernames/passwords match their own data.
For example, if there was a facebook user with username gnasher719 and password imsoclever, and Apple found there is an iTunes account with the same username and password, it would be a good idea to put some kind of clamp on that account before someone starts downloading expensive iPhone apps using my account information. Same with Paypal, eBay and so on.
Looking for your own employees, on the other hand, would be very illegal, except perhaps again to turn off all logins that use the same username and password that is used in the facebook list, and I think impossible to keep secret.
Citation needed, copies to RAM are not counted as copying for the purposes of copyright law in the US.
Wrong. It counts as copying. But it is copying that is allowed by law _if you have the right to use the software_ in the first place, just like making a backup copy. If you don't have the right to use the software, then every time you load the software into RAM you commit copyright infringement.
The copy in RAM is exempted in 17 USC 117(a)(1) [cornell.edu] Other states probably also have similar laws. You don't need a license to use an authorized copy of software.
The devil is in the details. You are allowed to make a copy into RAM if you have the right to use the software (so if I sold you some software with a contract to do anything you want with the software except loading it into RAM, and sued you as soon as you use it, that wouldn't fly). But it is a copy, obviously, so if you _don't_ have the right to use the software then everytime you load it into RAM you commit copyright infringement. That's why EULAs actually work. Nobody can hold you to the terms of a EULA (probably) but if you don't accept most EULAs then you have no right to copy the software and making a copy into RAM is copyright infringement.
f this precedent holds we may be in very good shape. The obvious generalization is to allowing such circumvention for fair use. If that occurs, then most of the problems with this legislation go out the window.
Just to clarify: I hold in my hands a DRM-"protected" DVD that I own. You stand besides me, and I could lend the CD to you. What things do you think "fair use" would allow me and you to do?
How do exclusivity deals with major vendors count as monopolistic? It just sounds like competition to me. I like AMD's competition to Intel, but just because Intel is the chip leader for PCs doesn't mean it should be hampered in trying to compete with its competition. Can you point me to an antitrust statute that says exclusive deals with manufacturers counts as anti-competitive behavior?
Lets say Dell needs one million processors. AMD can only supply 500,000. Intel can supply a million. They make an offer for Dell to buy exclusively Intel chips, or they won't sell anything at all to Dell. Since Dell cannot live only buying 500,000 AMD chips, they have to buy the Intel chips. That means it doesn't matter whether AMDs chips are better value for money than Intel chips or not, Dell won't buy them. That's what makes it anticompetitive; Dells decision not to buy AMD is not based on AMD's competitiveness or not, but on the exclusive contract.
For that to be fair you can't just take the money from the companies bank accounts now. The current owners of the company are not entirely the same people as those who owned it when the fraud was perpetrated. Countless investors have bought and sold over the years and the investors who own the company today may not have benefitted from the fraud at all. If I bought dell shares two weeks ago why should I pay a fine while investors who profited and sold years ago are laughing to the bank?
The whole matter is an SEC investigation, so it is all about misleading investors. It's not about Dell receiving money from Intel, it is about Dell receiving money from Intel and then telling the public they were making lots of money by buying their computer parts so cheaply; they should have told investors that they received money (illegally) from Intel, in which case investors would have known to keep their hands off DELL shares.
If you own DELL shares now, that is just tough. You bought a part of the company probably at a higher price then you would have if you had known all the facts, and you are held responsible for all fines the company gets for things they did in their past. Just like you pay for them making the wrong business decisions years ago (can you imagine how much money Dell would be raking in if they had bought Next instead of Apple and all Dell computers were shipping with DellOS X instead of Windows?)
Seriously, who thinks this info is private? We're talking about payload data from unsecured wifi. For that matter we're talking about payload fragments.
On a recent discussion about the data that the iPhone collects and sends to Apple, many people commented that Apple is worse than Google. Apple collects and sends the following data:
1. MAC address
That's it. Apple doesn't collect the SSID which could likely be used to identify you. And Apple most definitely doesn't even look at any payload. Why would Google have any need to look at payload data? They have no legitimate reason whatsoever. I cannot see any technical reason why looking at any payload data would help them with Streetview. And they discarded all encrypted traffic and kept unencrypted traffic, making it very, very clear that this was intentionally nosing into stuff that they have no right to nose into.
From Apple's Terms; "Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. "
Oh yeah, of course they'll give it to their 'partners' for 'free'. That's so much 'better'.
I suggest you RTFPDF (Read The Fucking PDF). That will tell you who the two partners are. And they don't pay Apple for the data. Apple pays them for the service they supply - translating information about nearby routers into coordinates.
The partners are Google and Skyhook.