'' I hope they have a plan in mind to make sure people are not locked out of their own devices. ''
1. One week delay before the bricking actually takes place. 2. You can authorise any number of computers. 3. Plugging the iPod into any authorised computer fixes it.
In this scenario, the annoying case would be if you take your iPod on a two week holiday, you've never used it with your laptop, and after a week you can't charge it anymore. When you're back home, you'll plug it into your main computer and everything is fine.
' I think Apple might run into some anti-competitive issues with this one. Recall that the ink-jet printer industry got into big trouble with the 3rd party (read 'clone') cartridges not working because they needed to be specially chipped. They attempted to sue some suppliers that copied some of the ID codes, but were denied. Since people will want other ways to charge their devices besides an Apple made charger, I think this mode of bricking would be hard to enforce. '
No problem. Using another charger doesn't brick it. Connecting it to a different iTunes, and not being able to have a code needed to authorise that copy of iTunes, will brick it one week later. You can authorise as many computers as you like, and plugging it into any authorised computer unbricks it.
What makes you think there would be false positives (actually, false negatives:-) ?
This would be very simple to manage. Every iPod comes with a built-in serial number. Derived from the serial number is a code that is printed on a paper in your box. Because it is derived from the serial number, Apple can tell you the code if necessary. The first time the iPod gets connected to a computer with iTunes, iTunes remembers the serial number. If the iPod gets connected to a different iTunes, it will know this is the second connection, iTunes will lock the charging with a delay of one week, and give you an opportunity to enter the code. If you enter the code, it gets unlocked and that copy of iTunes remembers the serial number of your iPod, so you can use it on that machine forever. If you don't know the code, you have to plug it into the original computer, and everything is fixed. External chargers work unless the iPod is locked.
So what happens if your iPod is stolen? The thief doesn't know the code. He/she can play your music forever if they have a charger. If they ever plug the iPod into a computer with iTunes, it will be locked a week later and cannot be charged anymore.
What happens if you plug it into a different computer? It gets locked, unless you enter the code. No problem, since you can use it for another week and plugging it into the original Mac fixes the problem. You'll probably enter the code into your second computer at home, your girlfriends computer, your computer at work. If you lose the code, go to the nearest Apple store with proof of purchase; the serial number and ID should be enough if you registered your iPod with Apple. If you sell the iPod, give the buyer your code. If you buy a used iPod, insist on the code and change the registration.
'' Isn't it quite hard to sue for doing something that's illegal? Texting while drivig presumably counts as driving without due care and attention. Using a mobile while driving is even a specific offence in some countries. ''
Here in England, a 19 year old girl has been convicted for manslaughter for killing a pedestrian. The police could prove that she had sent seven text messages while driving.
'' The copyright expiry should be calculated from the death of the artist, not the date of recording. ''
Why? Why should copyright expire in 50 years for a recording of an old artist, and in 110 years for a recording by a very young artist, but in 50 years if that very young artist dies in a car crash?
'' I think licensing is more complicated than that. If they point out that you were giving the software away, and let people copy it, then you do have to establish that you're allowed to impose conditions like this -- and a court could conceivably disagree. ''
Now that is stupid. The GPL doesn't say: "1. You can copy this code any way you like. 2. There are the following conditions..." It says "You may distribute copies of the code along with a copy of the GPL etc. etc. ". GPL'd software is _not_ given away.
But that doesn't put actually any restrictions on me. I don't care one bit what Microsoft wants me to do or not to do.
Otherwise, here is how I can destroy the use of the gcc compiler on Redhat in two seconds:
I, gnasher719, hereby promise not to sue any Redhat Linux users for use of any patents that I own that are used in Redhat Linux, unless that Redhat Linux user uses gcc to compile anything.
Now Redhat Linux users can't use gcc anymore! I hope you can see what's wrong with this argument. Exactly the same is wrong with your argument against gcc usage on Linspire.
I don't think this agreement is relevant to users at all.
Basically, Microsoft says "we won't sue Linspire users as long as they only do X, Y and Z".
That doesn't mean in any way that anyone is preventing Linspire users from doing whatever they want. They can do A, B and C, just like Redhat users can. Microsoft just doesn't promise anymore not to sue them, just as it never promised not to sue Redhat customers. Which doesn't matter much, because Microsoft is just full of wind anyway.
'' People that use a Linux distro that is newly encumbered by Microsoft patent agreements *cough*Linspire*cough* cannot use the compilers for development anyway. What does the actual GPL version matter to the users in that situation? ''
Please could you explain why I couldn't use the gcc compilers on a box running Linspire for development?
In reality, this whole "patent agreement" is just a lot of hot air. Microsoft just agreed not to sue a very small subset of all Linux users. The other 90+ percent of Linux users just say "Patents? What patents? If I am infringing any of your patents, then tell me which ones, so I can tell you where to stick them".
Seriously: It is quite unlikely that anyone is running gcc on a TiVo, and even more unlikely that anyone is running a modified gcc on a TiVo. And I can't see anyone creating a DRM encumbered version of gcc. Now if Microsoft decided to co-operate with Sony and create the most horrible DRM ever thought of for the new Microsoft-Sony-Dr.Evil Music Player, then there is nothing at all that would stop them from using a future gcc compiler under GPL V. 3 to do this.
Now someone could try to find out what exactly are the consequences if lets say Apple has a very cool idea to create faster code, gets a patent for it, and adds an implementation to gcc. Or if Microsoft has a very cool idea to creater faster code, gets a patent for it, and doesn't add an implementation to gcc.
'' Actually it makes a lot more difference than you'd think. This is most evident in caches. Intel's quadcore has two shared L2 caches (one per two cores). AMD has a full L2 cache per core AND a shared 2mb L3 cache. Intel doesn't have an L3 cache on any of their stuff. ''
Very interesting comparison. The way I see it: AMD has 0.5 MB L2 per core, and 2MB L3 shared between four cores. Intel has 4MB L2 shared between two cores, and 4MB L2 shared between the other two cores. Anything where 0.5MB is enough, AMD wins. After that, we have L3 vs. L2 cache where Intel should be slight winner. But once you need a total over 4MB cache, or more than 2MB in one process, Intel is the clear winner.
Seriously, you blame Intel for not having any L3 cache when their L2 cache is twice the size of AMD's total?
'' I don't think you understand what he's really saying - you could hand out RSA key fobs and/or client certificates that authenticate the browser to the bank. Without that, the password would/could be utterly useless. ''
A very low-tech approach would be this: On your paper bank statement that you receive every month, print a list of twenty 10-digit access codes. Each access code can be only used by you, in the following month, and only once. One month delay so you can tell your bank if the statement didn't arrive or looked tampered with. There would still be some danger that someone could steal _one_ access code via fishing, but not more.
'' They're not even subtle about this anymore. They're openly shaking down their own artists.''
I'd say that the iTunes Music Store is very close to being big enough to support an artist. Remember that Apple could easily afford to pay 70 cents to an artist for every song sold, or seven dollars for every album sold. So if iTMS sales = 10 percent of total sales, it's getting worthwhile for the artist. And since the Apple Inc. vs. Apple Corps court case is settled, there are no legal obstacles for Apple to get into the music business in a big way.
Even I as a lowly employee know that under no circumstances should I be posting on any share trading site about my company, without having discussed the situation thoroughly with our legal department first. Under no circumstances should I do anything that could annoy the SEC; and in one employment contract I was told that I am not even allowed to do anything that might _appear_ to be illegal or that some people might believe to be illegal.
Now I am not employed to run my companies' business, and I still have to know these things. As the CEO of the company, posting on a share trading site marks him as an outstanding idiot, bringing his company in disrepute, and possibly opening it up to severe penalties. That is grounds for immediate termination of his contract.
'' You're still in a stronger position if you negotiate the contract in the first place. The better thing to remember is: It's a contract, and you can negotiate it before you sign it. ''
I always thought whatever is in a contract with a consumer who _hasn't_ negotiated the contract is subject to consumer protection laws, and lots of things that would be entirely legal in a contract that could be held against you just don't count because of consumer protection laws. But as soon as you negotiate the contract, all that is gone. Your negotiation might improve what's written in the contract, but you might actually lose out because the original contract didn't actually count for anything.
'' Now, I'm sure Apple won't release substantial improvements under the GPL - they'll probably close it up. This isn't a good thing for open source. But the deal seems straightforward. Whenever Microsoft gets involved in anything "open", you have to look very carefully for hidden agendas, because of a long history of shenanigans. That's what gets people upset. ''
I don't think Apple will close this at all. What Apple is really after is allowing people to write closed-source printer drivers for MacOS X.
Lets say company X makes a printer and has written a proprietary driver for Windows; but there is no Mac driver. With GPL'd CUPS, they could create a printer driver that runs on MacOS X or Linux, but they had to license it under the GPL, which some companies really really hate to do. Apple allows them now to use CUPS to create a printer driver for any Apple operating system (that is for MacOS X mostly), and keep it proprietary. That's what Apple wants: More companies making printer drivers for Apple.
There may be an additional effect that it is easier now for Apple to integrate CUPS into MacOS X; with CUPS being under GPL, they had to keep it separate to avoid making MacOS X a "derived work". Now they can make everything link against CUPS.
I can't see Apple closing down CUPS, because they still can have all the benefits of open source. The only thing that will change is that Apple will not accept any submissions unless they transfer copyright to Apple. And once a company has created a (proprietary) MacOS X driver using CUPS, it would then be more tempting to release the driver under GPL so it can be used under Linux, increasing sales of their printers again.
'' Degrees of an ark however are an arbritary unit. Someone decided there would be 360 degrees in a circle but they could just as easily have decided that there were 400 or 64. ''
'' Sadly this is probably true. All my maths teachers (after infant school) automatically used radians and rarely mentioned degrees. But that was back when we had O'levels instead of GCSEs and A'levels were difficult. I assume it's all been dumbed down now and that's why you think radians is degree level maths. You can't do calculus using degrees. ''
All GPS systems use degrees to specify locations. Ever used a mitre saw? It uses degrees in angles. What angle is the roof of your house? Radians or degrees? Ever seen a road that goes up at a 0.1 radians angle? I haven't.
'' I agree with the general point that the spec. should be more carefully defined. However, in practise does MS office not act as a reference implementation to clear up ambiguities? ''
That's how Microsoft works. That's not how standards work.
The right way to handle this would be to take the whole thing away from Microsoft, who clearly doesn't have people who can do the job, and give it to people who have experience with standards, and let them create a workable standard. Then Microsoft can try to create an application that follows this standard, and they can try to translate old office documents to the standard.
On the other hand, you could save a lot of work by throwing away this whole nonsense, and let Microsoft use an existing, well-designed and carefully reviewed standard like the OpenDocument Standard.
For the next twelve months, the battery is no problem. If a battery loses too much of its capacity or stops working, then it is broken and gets fixed under warranty. For the next six or so months, few batteries will need replacing, and then the number will grow slowly.
Within twelve months, plenty of people will figure out how to replace these batteries cheaper than Apple does and make money doing this. There will be alternatives to handling an exchange. For example, a repair shop could invest in half a dozen used iPhones, then let you swap your own (used) iPhone with low-capacity battery for a different (used) iPhone with a brand-new battery, so you don't have to wait and you don't have to return to the shop. Or they could let you trade in your used iPhone for a brand new one, then resell the old one with a new battery. Within eighteen months, batteries will probably be improved, so you might get more battery life than in a brand-new iPhone.
If you think Apple's battery replacement is to expensive, then it is a market opportunity for someone.
'' By the very fact that the MPAA didn't attempt to take down the site, it implies that it's operating legally.
By them making themselves easy to find and offering you an opportunity that you don't find elsewhere, you may well be tempted to try something you'd never try otherwise.
I think that qualifies as entrapment. ''
No, it is not entrapment. If a cop tells you: "Look, that guy left his wallet on the table, you could just take it.", that is entrapment. If the same cop tells you "Here is my wallet, you can have it", that is not entrapment, that is a present. Taking the wallet is no crime, it is perfectly legal.
Slashdot Mirror
'' I hope they have a plan in mind to make sure people are not locked out of their own devices. ''
1. One week delay before the bricking actually takes place.
2. You can authorise any number of computers.
3. Plugging the iPod into any authorised computer fixes it.
In this scenario, the annoying case would be if you take your iPod on a two week holiday, you've never used it with your laptop, and after a week you can't charge it anymore. When you're back home, you'll plug it into your main computer and everything is fine.
' I think Apple might run into some anti-competitive issues with this one. Recall that the ink-jet printer industry got into big trouble with the 3rd party (read 'clone') cartridges not working because they needed to be specially chipped. They attempted to sue some suppliers that copied some of the ID codes, but were denied. Since people will want other ways to charge their devices besides an Apple made charger, I think this mode of bricking would be hard to enforce. '
No problem. Using another charger doesn't brick it. Connecting it to a different iTunes, and not being able to have a code needed to authorise that copy of iTunes, will brick it one week later. You can authorise as many computers as you like, and plugging it into any authorised computer unbricks it.
What makes you think there would be false positives (actually, false negatives :-) ?
This would be very simple to manage. Every iPod comes with a built-in serial number. Derived from the serial number is a code that is printed on a paper in your box. Because it is derived from the serial number, Apple can tell you the code if necessary. The first time the iPod gets connected to a computer with iTunes, iTunes remembers the serial number. If the iPod gets connected to a different iTunes, it will know this is the second connection, iTunes will lock the charging with a delay of one week, and give you an opportunity to enter the code. If you enter the code, it gets unlocked and that copy of iTunes remembers the serial number of your iPod, so you can use it on that machine forever. If you don't know the code, you have to plug it into the original computer, and everything is fixed. External chargers work unless the iPod is locked.
So what happens if your iPod is stolen? The thief doesn't know the code. He/she can play your music forever if they have a charger. If they ever plug the iPod into a computer with iTunes, it will be locked a week later and cannot be charged anymore.
What happens if you plug it into a different computer? It gets locked, unless you enter the code. No problem, since you can use it for another week and plugging it into the original Mac fixes the problem. You'll probably enter the code into your second computer at home, your girlfriends computer, your computer at work. If you lose the code, go to the nearest Apple store with proof of purchase; the serial number and ID should be enough if you registered your iPod with Apple. If you sell the iPod, give the buyer your code. If you buy a used iPod, insist on the code and change the registration.
'' Isn't it quite hard to sue for doing something that's illegal? Texting while drivig presumably counts as driving without due care and attention. Using a mobile while driving is even a specific offence in some countries. ''
Here in England, a 19 year old girl has been convicted for manslaughter for killing a pedestrian. The police could prove that she had sent seven text messages while driving.
'' The copyright expiry should be calculated from the death of the artist, not the date of recording. ''
Why? Why should copyright expire in 50 years for a recording of an old artist, and in 110 years for a recording by a very young artist, but in 50 years if that very young artist dies in a car crash?
'' I sure wish that I could get to keep collecting money for 50 years for work that I'm doing today. ''
Easy. Build a house. Rent it out.
'' I think licensing is more complicated than that. If they point out that you were giving the software away, and let people copy it, then you do have to establish that you're allowed to impose conditions like this -- and a court could conceivably disagree. ''
Now that is stupid. The GPL doesn't say: "1. You can copy this code any way you like. 2. There are the following conditions..." It says "You may distribute copies of the code along with a copy of the GPL etc. etc. ". GPL'd software is _not_ given away.
But that doesn't put actually any restrictions on me. I don't care one bit what Microsoft wants me to do or not to do.
Otherwise, here is how I can destroy the use of the gcc compiler on Redhat in two seconds:
I, gnasher719, hereby promise not to sue any Redhat Linux users for use of any patents that I own that are used in Redhat Linux, unless that Redhat Linux user uses gcc to compile anything.
Now Redhat Linux users can't use gcc anymore!
I hope you can see what's wrong with this argument. Exactly the same is wrong with your argument against gcc usage on Linspire.
I don't think this agreement is relevant to users at all.
Basically, Microsoft says "we won't sue Linspire users as long as they only do X, Y and Z".
That doesn't mean in any way that anyone is preventing Linspire users from doing whatever they want. They can do A, B and C, just like Redhat users can. Microsoft just doesn't promise anymore not to sue them, just as it never promised not to sue Redhat customers. Which doesn't matter much, because Microsoft is just full of wind anyway.
'' People that use a Linux distro that is newly encumbered by Microsoft patent agreements *cough*Linspire*cough* cannot use the compilers for development anyway. What does the actual GPL version matter to the users in that situation? ''
Please could you explain why I couldn't use the gcc compilers on a box running Linspire for development?
In reality, this whole "patent agreement" is just a lot of hot air. Microsoft just agreed not to sue a very small subset of all Linux users. The other 90+ percent of Linux users just say "Patents? What patents? If I am infringing any of your patents, then tell me which ones, so I can tell you where to stick them".
Who is favouring a switch to GPL V. 3 and why?
Seriously: It is quite unlikely that anyone is running gcc on a TiVo, and even more unlikely that anyone is running a modified gcc on a TiVo. And I can't see anyone creating a DRM encumbered version of gcc. Now if Microsoft decided to co-operate with Sony and create the most horrible DRM ever thought of for the new Microsoft-Sony-Dr.Evil Music Player, then there is nothing at all that would stop them from using a future gcc compiler under GPL V. 3 to do this.
Now someone could try to find out what exactly are the consequences if lets say Apple has a very cool idea to create faster code, gets a patent for it, and adds an implementation to gcc. Or if Microsoft has a very cool idea to creater faster code, gets a patent for it, and doesn't add an implementation to gcc.
'' Actually it makes a lot more difference than you'd think. This is most evident in caches. Intel's quadcore has two shared L2 caches (one per two cores). AMD has a full L2 cache per core AND a shared 2mb L3 cache. Intel doesn't have an L3 cache on any of their stuff. ''
Very interesting comparison. The way I see it: AMD has 0.5 MB L2 per core, and 2MB L3 shared between four cores. Intel has 4MB L2 shared between two cores, and 4MB L2 shared between the other two cores. Anything where 0.5MB is enough, AMD wins. After that, we have L3 vs. L2 cache where Intel should be slight winner. But once you need a total over 4MB cache, or more than 2MB in one process, Intel is the clear winner.
Seriously, you blame Intel for not having any L3 cache when their L2 cache is twice the size of AMD's total?
Who modded this as funny? It might have been funny in 1978, but most people thought the joke was a bit old back then.
'' I don't think you understand what he's really saying - you could hand out RSA key fobs and/or client certificates that authenticate the browser to the bank. Without that, the password would/could be utterly useless. ''
A very low-tech approach would be this: On your paper bank statement that you receive every month, print a list of twenty 10-digit access codes. Each access code can be only used by you, in the following month, and only once. One month delay so you can tell your bank if the statement didn't arrive or looked tampered with. There would still be some danger that someone could steal _one_ access code via fishing, but not more.
'' They're not even subtle about this anymore. They're openly shaking down their own artists.''
I'd say that the iTunes Music Store is very close to being big enough to support an artist. Remember that Apple could easily afford to pay 70 cents to an artist for every song sold, or seven dollars for every album sold. So if iTMS sales = 10 percent of total sales, it's getting worthwhile for the artist. And since the Apple Inc. vs. Apple Corps court case is settled, there are no legal obstacles for Apple to get into the music business in a big way.
Why should he be fired?
Even I as a lowly employee know that under no circumstances should I be posting on any share trading site about my company, without having discussed the situation thoroughly with our legal department first. Under no circumstances should I do anything that could annoy the SEC; and in one employment contract I was told that I am not even allowed to do anything that might _appear_ to be illegal or that some people might believe to be illegal.
Now I am not employed to run my companies' business, and I still have to know these things. As the CEO of the company, posting on a share trading site marks him as an outstanding idiot, bringing his company in disrepute, and possibly opening it up to severe penalties. That is grounds for immediate termination of his contract.
'' You're still in a stronger position if you negotiate the contract in the first place. The better thing to remember is: It's a contract, and you can negotiate it before you sign it. ''
I always thought whatever is in a contract with a consumer who _hasn't_ negotiated the contract is subject to consumer protection laws, and lots of things that would be entirely legal in a contract that could be held against you just don't count because of consumer protection laws. But as soon as you negotiate the contract, all that is gone. Your negotiation might improve what's written in the contract, but you might actually lose out because the original contract didn't actually count for anything.
'' Now, I'm sure Apple won't release substantial improvements under the GPL - they'll probably close it up. This isn't a good thing for open source. But the deal seems straightforward. Whenever Microsoft gets involved in anything "open", you have to look very carefully for hidden agendas, because of a long history of shenanigans. That's what gets people upset. ''
I don't think Apple will close this at all. What Apple is really after is allowing people to write closed-source printer drivers for MacOS X.
Lets say company X makes a printer and has written a proprietary driver for Windows; but there is no Mac driver. With GPL'd CUPS, they could create a printer driver that runs on MacOS X or Linux, but they had to license it under the GPL, which some companies really really hate to do. Apple allows them now to use CUPS to create a printer driver for any Apple operating system (that is for MacOS X mostly), and keep it proprietary. That's what Apple wants: More companies making printer drivers for Apple.
There may be an additional effect that it is easier now for Apple to integrate CUPS into MacOS X; with CUPS being under GPL, they had to keep it separate to avoid making MacOS X a "derived work". Now they can make everything link against CUPS.
I can't see Apple closing down CUPS, because they still can have all the benefits of open source. The only thing that will change is that Apple will not accept any submissions unless they transfer copyright to Apple. And once a company has created a (proprietary) MacOS X driver using CUPS, it would then be more tempting to release the driver under GPL so it can be used under Linux, increasing sales of their printers again.
'' Degrees of an ark however are an arbritary unit. Someone decided there would be 360 degrees in a circle but they could just as easily have decided that there were 400 or 64. ''
Full angle = 360 degrees = 400 grad = 2pi rad.
Just type "grad" into wikipedia.
'' Sadly this is probably true. All my maths teachers (after infant school) automatically used radians and rarely mentioned degrees. But that was back when we had O'levels instead of GCSEs and A'levels were difficult. I assume it's all been dumbed down now and that's why you think radians is degree level maths. You can't do calculus using degrees. ''
All GPS systems use degrees to specify locations.
Ever used a mitre saw? It uses degrees in angles.
What angle is the roof of your house? Radians or degrees?
Ever seen a road that goes up at a 0.1 radians angle? I haven't.
'' The AVEDEV function is implemented correctly in Excel 2007. I just checked. ''
Not according to Microsoft's new standard.
'' I agree with the general point that the spec. should be more carefully defined.
However, in practise does MS office not act as a reference implementation to clear
up ambiguities? ''
That's how Microsoft works. That's not how standards work.
The right way to handle this would be to take the whole thing away from Microsoft, who clearly doesn't have people who can do the job, and give it to people who have experience with standards, and let them create a workable standard. Then Microsoft can try to create an application that follows this standard, and they can try to translate old office documents to the standard.
On the other hand, you could save a lot of work by throwing away this whole nonsense, and let Microsoft use an existing, well-designed and carefully reviewed standard like the OpenDocument Standard.
'' I'm going to say a phrase:
:) ''
:-)
Motorola ROKR
Now, do you want to re-evaluate your claims that Apple knows what it's doing when it releases a product?
With the release of the ROKR, yes, I believe Apple knew exactly how much success that phone would or would not have
For the next twelve months, the battery is no problem. If a battery loses too much of its capacity or stops working, then it is broken and gets fixed under warranty. For the next six or so months, few batteries will need replacing, and then the number will grow slowly.
Within twelve months, plenty of people will figure out how to replace these batteries cheaper than Apple does and make money doing this. There will be alternatives to handling an exchange. For example, a repair shop could invest in half a dozen used iPhones, then let you swap your own (used) iPhone with low-capacity battery for a different (used) iPhone with a brand-new battery, so you don't have to wait and you don't have to return to the shop. Or they could let you trade in your used iPhone for a brand new one, then resell the old one with a new battery. Within eighteen months, batteries will probably be improved, so you might get more battery life than in a brand-new iPhone.
If you think Apple's battery replacement is to expensive, then it is a market opportunity for someone.
'' By the very fact that the MPAA didn't attempt to take down the site, it implies that it's operating legally.
By them making themselves easy to find and offering you an opportunity that you don't find elsewhere, you may well be tempted to try something you'd never try otherwise.
I think that qualifies as entrapment. ''
No, it is not entrapment. If a cop tells you: "Look, that guy left his wallet on the table, you could just take it.", that is entrapment. If the same cop tells you "Here is my wallet, you can have it", that is not entrapment, that is a present. Taking the wallet is no crime, it is perfectly legal.