So let's follow the rabbit a little bit further down this hole: If the police manage to set a precedent that cell phone location data can be used to establish the location of a given suspect to a particular crime, then what happens when the criminals start leaving their cell phones at home? Does that now qualify as an alibi?
Is our legal system really ready to go that far down the hole?
... It reads: Your price is guaranteed to remain $8.99 through at least October 8, 2016 so long as you stay a member....
I think I've been a member longer then you. Mine reads, "Your price is guaranteed to remain $7.99 through at least May 9, 2016 so long as you stay a member."
Well, I didn't entirely remember the two-year delayed increase for grandfathered customers until I read through this post... but upon reflection, I did indeed read about this, two years ago when it was originally announced. The problem is, when I read about it then, the price increase was supposed to be from $7.99 to $8.99 for existing customers. So which is it, really? Did plans change at some point, or did someone get their facts wrong?
... So back to my point, you're not making a living with "toys" unless you're selling them or intentionally trying to demean the tools you work with.
I would opine that this is a very cynical (and self contradictory) point of view. As I noted in one of my previous responses, everything depends upon your point of view. My referring to computers as toys does not in any way diminish my ability to use them as tools... nor does it follow that I am somehow diminishing my computer is some fashion, merely by calling it a toy. Computers are toys. They are also tools. In fact, from my point of view, to refuse to acknowledge that a given device is multifaceted and well capable of simultaneously being both tool and toy is an example of you intentionally diminishing them; you're trying to force them into a box. You're creating narrowly defined constraints that simply don't need to exist. (To give you one very literal example: You could very easily conduct a business call on an iPhone or Android smartphone, while simultaneously playing a video game on the very same device, entirely unbeknownst to the party (or parties) on the other end of that phone call. It might not be a very wise choice to do so... but it can be done, technically.)
As for my allegation of contradiction: really, you seem to have already acknowledged that these various innovations are capable of both: You yourself pointed out that an iPad can be used as a toy in one setting, and as a tool in another setting. So how can it possibly be demeaning to freely acknowledge the multi-functional nature of any given gadget?
Word meanings change over time. What was historically a derogatory term in certain contexts, need not remain so forever.
1. an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something.
* an object, especially a gadget or machine, regarded as providing amusement for an adult
The fact that I happen to make a living using some of those toys is really immaterial.
Does it not by definition cease being a toy at this point?
Does a video game cease to be fun, just because you're good enough to compete in tournaments and win cash prizes? Does a race car driver cease to enjoy the drive just because he makes a living by outracing other racers? Does a musician grow weary of the beat, simply because he's amassed multiple platinum albums?
And the crux of the matter is, each one of these questions might be answered differently, depending upon your personality. So, for me, and my personality... no: the computer in front of me has not ceased to be a toy. Nor have the programming languages which I work with on a daily basis. Nor has the compiler I use to create productivity software. They all still offer me opportunities for enjoyment, even as they happen to also offer me a means of supporting my family... and they are still my favorite toys. (In fact, if that were not so, then I would probably be searching for another line of work.)
What about those of us who sometimes enjoy the intellectual banter involved in pointing out logical fallacies often made in weak arguments? As an example: In the argument made herein by this team at the University of Michigan, it seems to me that they're assuming that people who would notice and be bothered by errors, would naturally overlap with people who arrogantly correct every stupid little error that they notice. This sounds a awful lot like a "False Cause" fallacy to me. Likewise, it appears that they make no distinction between actual jerks, and professional educators and/or parents who would very obviously be negligent if they didn't comment on errors made by children and/or pupils under their tutelage... which could easily bin their argument into both the "Black-or-White" fallacy and the "Faulty Generalization" fallacy.
(I have a sneaking suspicion that the U-of-M team would instantly label me a jerk -- especially if I'm right -- but somehow, this doesn't really bother me all that much. Does that also make me a jerk?)
... Since the target audience consists mainly of programmers building websites and web applications, it doesn't make sense to limit it to developers building native apps for iOS and OS X....
Another limitation which has been a source of annoyance for me personally is that desktop Safari is exclusively available on the Mac. There was a time when a fully supported version of Safari for Windows existed... that has since been discontinued. So here's to hoping that this Tech Preview version also manages to properly resurrect Safari on Windows.
(Note that I'm a MacHead at home, who is forced into the Windows mold at work... and I'm quite certain that many other MacHeads share my fate. There is, of course, a lengthy method for installing Webkit nightly builds under Windows... for those who are extremely dedicated. Unfortunately, that method has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of making it past the corporate software approval processes... for those of us who just want it, rather then need it for business purposes.)
A fourth option is becoming more and more likely with these actions by Wired and by others: soon enough, someone will develop a "smart" ad filter, which downloads the ads from sites which attempt to prohibit access to ad-block users, but do not actually render those ads to the screen, thus hiding their presence from the website. (Naturally, the default behavior will still be to not download ads at all, in order to save bandwidth.)
My eyes and ears do not belong to you, Wired. The days of loud and obnoxious ads perpetually invading webpages and assaulting our senses has passed: it's time to find less obtrusive ways to monetize your content... not more obtrusive ways. Otherwise, you risk losing your audience entirely.
It's technically legal to produce the basic bricks, since the applicable patents expired in 1989. As for trademarked Lego properties (like the mini-figures, for example) or any which are covered by more recent patents, you can still get away with it as long as you're only producing toys for personal use, and make no attempt to sell them.
But back to the OP's topic: The feasibility of making Lego compatible bricks with cheap 3D printers isn't actually the only question that you're going to have to face; you also need to take into account materials cost. Sure, the "Ultimaker 3D Printer" itself is quite expensive at US $2K -- but even if you gave up on cheaper options and decided to cough up that chunk of change, you also have to keep in mind that the plastic filament to feed the beast also costs money, to the tune of $20 to $80 per spool, depending upon what you're doing. On top of that, not every "printed" component comes out quite right... so you're likely to blow plenty of cash on ultimately wasted filament. Mind you, there are also so many other really cool things you could do with a 3D printer, besides making Lego bricks... but those things will just require that much more filament, and ultimately accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, that of saving money.
So the bottom line is, if you're going to get into 3D printing at all, you really need to do it "for the love of the game" as they say, not to save money. If all you want is cheaper Lego compatible bricks... then you'll probably be better off in the long run just buying generic brand bricks.
By the simple act of reading Slashdot, you've already placed yourself in the minority of users who are more likely to go that far. Know your audience; I specifically tailored my comment to this audience. But let's come back around to that at the end. First, I'd like to address this:
... So if you are going to do such a thing, first go over the fine print. Also be sure that you not want to use the service anywhere else, as that would make you a hypocrite....
This is a judgement call. Personally, I don't think you can assume that someone is a hypocrite just because they take measures to reclaim the internet connection they paid for, even if that person does take advantage of the service outside of their home network. I offered an example of a Superbowl party next door, but there could easily be any number of other justifications for taking such actions, perhaps even including paranoia over the previously mentioned copyright/porn issues.
But take this scenario as alternative example: Your next door neighbor and you both have Comcast. Your neighbor is a heavy BitTorrent user, and routinely saturates his own connection to the point where it's entirely unusable for anything else. You happen to know this because you were sipping tea on your back deck, and overheard him griping to his best bud over brews in his backyard, about how annoying it is that he can't play online games without first killing all of his torrents... and his bud advises him to just shift that torrent traffic over to a neighbor's WiFi connection. You sit silently out of sight as they go back inside, but you're actually fuming, and thinking to yourself, "Wait... that's me! WTF?!?"
The following day, your connection totally craps out... so he presumably followed his bud's advice. And being the intelligent Slashdot reading geek that you are, you promptly secure your network. Nothing at all hypocritical about it.
Or, to rephrase your earlier statement: the majority of users (even Slashdot reading geeks) will never go that far -- unless an adverse situation arises. Personally, I'm currently not affected by this issue, as I have Verizon FiOS, and (to my knowledge) Verizon has not yet implemented such a feature... but if I ever do find myself in such an adverse situation, you can bet that I won't feel the least bit guilty about cutting off access to whoever is leaching off of my connection.
How will ISPs help enforce copyright laws if they don't know who is using your router?
Wouldn't that be a problem when your neighbor has child pr0n on his box?
These are both misunderstandings based upon Juniper's misuse of the term "public wifi hotspot". These hotspots are not usually public, strictly speaking; they are only accessible to other customers of the internet provider, and each of those users have to log into the hotspot with their carrier provided account in order to use it. Thus, their network activity can (theoretically) be tracked back to them, based upon their login credentials.
Another concern often voiced is the notion of random people taking up all of your bandwidth: This is addressed by the simple fact that the providers are all perfectly capable of serving significantly more bandwidth then the (insert-your bandwidth limit here) that you're paying for. However, what that doesn't address is collisions and QoS measures... so one or more customers of your provider, all connecting through your router for some weird reason, (such as a Superbowl party at your neighbor's house, for example) could theoretically establish so many simultaneous connections, as to make it seem like they've saturated all of your bandwidth... when really, they've just maxed out the thread count on the router. The solution to this scenario is not entirely intuitive -- but there is indeed a solution:
First, don't assume that you can trust the configuration software on the provider's router. If they've decided that they want to use their hardware as a hotspot, they'll eventually figure out how to leave "public" access turned on, even if you attempt to turn wifi off entirely. So instead, just disconnect the wifi antenna from the provider's router. If the antenna is internal or otherwise cannot be physically disconnected, then just Faraday cage the heck out of that thing, with multiple layers of heavy duty aluminum foil and cardboard. Once you've verified that no wireless signals can reach the provider's router, you can safely configure (and properly secure) your own personal router, on the inside of your network.
Pro-tip: This requirement is very easy to circumvent.
1) Open an account with another webmail provider who doesn't have these requirements, (such as gmail.com)
2) Configure that alternate account to access your Yahoo account via POP3,
3) Never visit those yahoos again.
It is actually possible to delete an app without deleting the associated data -- it's just not particularly user friendly, as it requires a full device backup-and-restore operation. In short: perform a backup of all device data to a computer* (as opposed to iCloud). Then, find the synced copy of the problematic app binary on your computer -- likely, buried somewhere within the iTunes Media folder. Delete that binary from your computer -- but not from the iOS device -- perform a full wipe of the iOS device, and restore from the backup you just made. iTunes will be unable to reinstall the app itself for you, but it will restore the data associated with that app. Then, simply re-download a fresh copy of the app from the App Store, and you should be good-to-go, with no data loss.
* Note that I've only personally tested this procedure on a Mac; it's possible that some steps are slightly different on Windows based computers.
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that if a document is indeed "classified", then FOIA requests are pretty much pointless, regardless of which branch of the government happened to produce (or obtain a copy of) the document.
Except this particular vulnerability has precisely nothing to do with jailbreaking. To the contrary, it's a flaw with Apple's own way for enterprise customers to install unapproved apps....
While your first sentence is reasonable, (but strictly speaking, does not actually negate anything I said, aside from implying a minimization of the relevancy of my comment) your second sentence is technically incorrect: The enterprise certs are working exactly as they were intended. The real issue is that a malicious entity happened to obtain access to such certs. So the questions are: How did they obtain the certs? And how can Apple prevent future compromises of this nature?
If we apply Hanlon's Razor, I'd think it's a pretty good bet that the malicious entity simply signed up for the developer program, themselves. Thus, the easiest way that Apple could stop that from happening in the future is to increase developer fees, which would unfortunately also have the negative side effect of locking out smaller iOS developers entirely. Finding the threshold at which malicious entity interest is minimized, while also minimizing the discouragement of legitimate small developers, is obviously a calculated balancing act... but will never be entirely foolproof. The fact that this kind of malicious act has only been reported this once suggests that Apple has a pretty clear idea of what they're doing.
In any case, it seems pretty clear that Apple has already revoked the certs and suspended the developer account in question, so this particular hack is effectively in the clean-up phase now.
(The rest of your response just sounds to me like the usual soapbox "Apple bad! Big business bad! They're all out to get the little guy!" commentary, so I seriously doubt that anything I could say is going to dissuade you from your point of view. Suffice to say, we'll just have to agree to disagree.)
Every now and then, I read a comment from someone about how Apple must "hate" the jailbreakers, because they keep closing off the flaws which make jailbreaks possible. The reality -- as effectively demonstrated in this instance -- is that the flaws which allow jailbreaks also just happen to open your phone up to malware. Apple is far more concerned with what a malicious entity might do to their customer base through these flaws, then with what the jailbreakers are doing to their own phones. Would, that more people understood this.
... Now they are launching a Kickstarter campaign because they need a bigger space.
No, they don't need a "bigger" space; they just need to recreate themselves within the worlds which they celebrate. That is to say, create a virtual museum using the Unreal Engine, and then release it on every platform that supports UE. You'd be guaranteed to increase your audience dramatically.
Slashdot Mirror
So let's follow the rabbit a little bit further down this hole: If the police manage to set a precedent that cell phone location data can be used to establish the location of a given suspect to a particular crime, then what happens when the criminals start leaving their cell phones at home? Does that now qualify as an alibi?
Is our legal system really ready to go that far down the hole?
Streisand... paging Barbara Streisand...
(I mean, seriously... do people who come into money just abruptly lose sight of all common sense?)
... For Webb, I fear, Tuesday wasn't a productive day. ...
Or, depending upon which set of conspiracy theories you subscribe to, perhaps today was a very productive day for Mr. Webb...
... It reads: Your price is guaranteed to remain $8.99 through at least October 8, 2016 so long as you stay a member. ...
I think I've been a member longer then you. Mine reads, "Your price is guaranteed to remain $7.99 through at least May 9, 2016 so long as you stay a member."
Well, I didn't entirely remember the two-year delayed increase for grandfathered customers until I read through this post... but upon reflection, I did indeed read about this, two years ago when it was originally announced. The problem is, when I read about it then , the price increase was supposed to be from $7.99 to $8.99 for existing customers. So which is it, really? Did plans change at some point, or did someone get their facts wrong?
... So back to my point, you're not making a living with "toys" unless you're selling them or intentionally trying to demean the tools you work with.
I would opine that this is a very cynical (and self contradictory) point of view. As I noted in one of my previous responses, everything depends upon your point of view. My referring to computers as toys does not in any way diminish my ability to use them as tools... nor does it follow that I am somehow diminishing my computer is some fashion, merely by calling it a toy. Computers are toys. They are also tools. In fact, from my point of view, to refuse to acknowledge that a given device is multifaceted and well capable of simultaneously being both tool and toy is an example of you intentionally diminishing them; you're trying to force them into a box. You're creating narrowly defined constraints that simply don't need to exist. (To give you one very literal example: You could very easily conduct a business call on an iPhone or Android smartphone, while simultaneously playing a video game on the very same device, entirely unbeknownst to the party (or parties) on the other end of that phone call. It might not be a very wise choice to do so... but it can be done, technically.)
As for my allegation of contradiction: really, you seem to have already acknowledged that these various innovations are capable of both: You yourself pointed out that an iPad can be used as a toy in one setting, and as a tool in another setting. So how can it possibly be demeaning to freely acknowledge the multi-functional nature of any given gadget?
Word meanings change over time. What was historically a derogatory term in certain contexts, need not remain so forever.
Not at all, but then I'm not sure that fun or enjoy are the defining definitions of a toy either.
Excerpted from a Google search for define toy:
1. an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something.
* an object, especially a gadget or machine, regarded as providing amusement for an adult
(emphasis mine)
The fact that I happen to make a living using some of those toys is really immaterial.
Does it not by definition cease being a toy at this point?
Does a video game cease to be fun, just because you're good enough to compete in tournaments and win cash prizes? Does a race car driver cease to enjoy the drive just because he makes a living by outracing other racers? Does a musician grow weary of the beat, simply because he's amassed multiple platinum albums?
And the crux of the matter is, each one of these questions might be answered differently, depending upon your personality. So, for me, and my personality... no: the computer in front of me has not ceased to be a toy. Nor have the programming languages which I work with on a daily basis. Nor has the compiler I use to create productivity software. They all still offer me opportunities for enjoyment, even as they happen to also offer me a means of supporting my family... and they are still my favorite toys. (In fact, if that were not so, then I would probably be searching for another line of work.)
Everything depends upon your point of view.
I looked down the entire list: well, yeah... they're all toys. What's wrong with that?
I love my toys. The fact that I happen to make a living using some of those toys is really immaterial.
What about those of us who sometimes enjoy the intellectual banter involved in pointing out logical fallacies often made in weak arguments? As an example: In the argument made herein by this team at the University of Michigan, it seems to me that they're assuming that people who would notice and be bothered by errors, would naturally overlap with people who arrogantly correct every stupid little error that they notice. This sounds a awful lot like a "False Cause" fallacy to me. Likewise, it appears that they make no distinction between actual jerks, and professional educators and/or parents who would very obviously be negligent if they didn't comment on errors made by children and/or pupils under their tutelage... which could easily bin their argument into both the "Black-or-White" fallacy and the "Faulty Generalization" fallacy.
(I have a sneaking suspicion that the U-of-M team would instantly label me a jerk -- especially if I'm right -- but somehow, this doesn't really bother me all that much. Does that also make me a jerk?)
... Since the target audience consists mainly of programmers building websites and web applications, it doesn't make sense to limit it to developers building native apps for iOS and OS X. ...
Another limitation which has been a source of annoyance for me personally is that desktop Safari is exclusively available on the Mac. There was a time when a fully supported version of Safari for Windows existed... that has since been discontinued. So here's to hoping that this Tech Preview version also manages to properly resurrect Safari on Windows.
(Note that I'm a MacHead at home, who is forced into the Windows mold at work... and I'm quite certain that many other MacHeads share my fate. There is, of course, a lengthy method for installing Webkit nightly builds under Windows... for those who are extremely dedicated. Unfortunately, that method has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of making it past the corporate software approval processes... for those of us who just want it, rather then need it for business purposes.)
Outrageous! Who would be so incompetent as to let this happen?? Let's all switch from iPhones to Androids, immediately!
Huh? It's Android that got hit, not iPhones? Oh. Right, than...
(Delete, delete, delete...)
Outrageous! Who would be so incompetent as to let this happen?? Let's all switch from Androids to iPhones, immediately!
A fourth option is becoming more and more likely with these actions by Wired and by others: soon enough, someone will develop a "smart" ad filter, which downloads the ads from sites which attempt to prohibit access to ad-block users, but do not actually render those ads to the screen, thus hiding their presence from the website. (Naturally, the default behavior will still be to not download ads at all, in order to save bandwidth.)
My eyes and ears do not belong to you, Wired. The days of loud and obnoxious ads perpetually invading webpages and assaulting our senses has passed: it's time to find less obtrusive ways to monetize your content... not more obtrusive ways. Otherwise, you risk losing your audience entirely.
I wonder if this is even legal?
It's technically legal to produce the basic bricks, since the applicable patents expired in 1989. As for trademarked Lego properties (like the mini-figures, for example) or any which are covered by more recent patents, you can still get away with it as long as you're only producing toys for personal use, and make no attempt to sell them.
But back to the OP's topic: The feasibility of making Lego compatible bricks with cheap 3D printers isn't actually the only question that you're going to have to face; you also need to take into account materials cost. Sure, the "Ultimaker 3D Printer" itself is quite expensive at US $2K -- but even if you gave up on cheaper options and decided to cough up that chunk of change, you also have to keep in mind that the plastic filament to feed the beast also costs money, to the tune of $20 to $80 per spool, depending upon what you're doing. On top of that, not every "printed" component comes out quite right... so you're likely to blow plenty of cash on ultimately wasted filament. Mind you, there are also so many other really cool things you could do with a 3D printer, besides making Lego bricks... but those things will just require that much more filament, and ultimately accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, that of saving money.
So the bottom line is, if you're going to get into 3D printing at all, you really need to do it "for the love of the game" as they say, not to save money. If all you want is cheaper Lego compatible bricks... then you'll probably be better off in the long run just buying generic brand bricks.
The majority of users will never go that far. ...
By the simple act of reading Slashdot, you've already placed yourself in the minority of users who are more likely to go that far. Know your audience; I specifically tailored my comment to this audience. But let's come back around to that at the end. First, I'd like to address this:
... So if you are going to do such a thing, first go over the fine print. Also be sure that you not want to use the service anywhere else, as that would make you a hypocrite. ...
This is a judgement call. Personally, I don't think you can assume that someone is a hypocrite just because they take measures to reclaim the internet connection they paid for, even if that person does take advantage of the service outside of their home network. I offered an example of a Superbowl party next door, but there could easily be any number of other justifications for taking such actions, perhaps even including paranoia over the previously mentioned copyright/porn issues.
But take this scenario as alternative example: Your next door neighbor and you both have Comcast. Your neighbor is a heavy BitTorrent user, and routinely saturates his own connection to the point where it's entirely unusable for anything else. You happen to know this because you were sipping tea on your back deck, and overheard him griping to his best bud over brews in his backyard, about how annoying it is that he can't play online games without first killing all of his torrents... and his bud advises him to just shift that torrent traffic over to a neighbor's WiFi connection. You sit silently out of sight as they go back inside, but you're actually fuming, and thinking to yourself, "Wait... that's me! WTF?!?"
The following day, your connection totally craps out... so he presumably followed his bud's advice. And being the intelligent Slashdot reading geek that you are, you promptly secure your network. Nothing at all hypocritical about it.
Or, to rephrase your earlier statement: the majority of users (even Slashdot reading geeks) will never go that far -- unless an adverse situation arises. Personally, I'm currently not affected by this issue, as I have Verizon FiOS, and (to my knowledge) Verizon has not yet implemented such a feature... but if I ever do find myself in such an adverse situation, you can bet that I won't feel the least bit guilty about cutting off access to whoever is leaching off of my connection.
How will ISPs help enforce copyright laws if they don't know who is using your router?
Wouldn't that be a problem when your neighbor has child pr0n on his box?
These are both misunderstandings based upon Juniper's misuse of the term "public wifi hotspot". These hotspots are not usually public, strictly speaking; they are only accessible to other customers of the internet provider, and each of those users have to log into the hotspot with their carrier provided account in order to use it. Thus, their network activity can (theoretically) be tracked back to them, based upon their login credentials.
Another concern often voiced is the notion of random people taking up all of your bandwidth: This is addressed by the simple fact that the providers are all perfectly capable of serving significantly more bandwidth then the (insert-your bandwidth limit here) that you're paying for. However, what that doesn't address is collisions and QoS measures... so one or more customers of your provider, all connecting through your router for some weird reason, (such as a Superbowl party at your neighbor's house, for example) could theoretically establish so many simultaneous connections, as to make it seem like they've saturated all of your bandwidth... when really, they've just maxed out the thread count on the router. The solution to this scenario is not entirely intuitive -- but there is indeed a solution:
First, don't assume that you can trust the configuration software on the provider's router. If they've decided that they want to use their hardware as a hotspot, they'll eventually figure out how to leave "public" access turned on, even if you attempt to turn wifi off entirely. So instead, just disconnect the wifi antenna from the provider's router. If the antenna is internal or otherwise cannot be physically disconnected, then just Faraday cage the heck out of that thing, with multiple layers of heavy duty aluminum foil and cardboard. Once you've verified that no wireless signals can reach the provider's router, you can safely configure (and properly secure) your own personal router, on the inside of your network.
Pro-tip: This requirement is very easy to circumvent.
1) Open an account with another webmail provider who doesn't have these requirements, (such as gmail.com)
2) Configure that alternate account to access your Yahoo account via POP3,
3) Never visit those yahoos again.
Problem solved.
What? Why would you ever want to do away with those commercials, when they're so perfectly ripe for comic spoofing?
It is actually possible to delete an app without deleting the associated data -- it's just not particularly user friendly, as it requires a full device backup-and-restore operation. In short: perform a backup of all device data to a computer* (as opposed to iCloud). Then, find the synced copy of the problematic app binary on your computer -- likely, buried somewhere within the iTunes Media folder. Delete that binary from your computer -- but not from the iOS device -- perform a full wipe of the iOS device, and restore from the backup you just made. iTunes will be unable to reinstall the app itself for you, but it will restore the data associated with that app. Then, simply re-download a fresh copy of the app from the App Store, and you should be good-to-go, with no data loss.
* Note that I've only personally tested this procedure on a Mac; it's possible that some steps are slightly different on Windows based computers.
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that if a document is indeed "classified", then FOIA requests are pretty much pointless, regardless of which branch of the government happened to produce (or obtain a copy of) the document.
Except this particular vulnerability has precisely nothing to do with jailbreaking. To the contrary, it's a flaw with Apple's own way for enterprise customers to install unapproved apps. ...
While your first sentence is reasonable, (but strictly speaking, does not actually negate anything I said, aside from implying a minimization of the relevancy of my comment) your second sentence is technically incorrect: The enterprise certs are working exactly as they were intended. The real issue is that a malicious entity happened to obtain access to such certs. So the questions are: How did they obtain the certs? And how can Apple prevent future compromises of this nature?
If we apply Hanlon's Razor, I'd think it's a pretty good bet that the malicious entity simply signed up for the developer program, themselves. Thus, the easiest way that Apple could stop that from happening in the future is to increase developer fees, which would unfortunately also have the negative side effect of locking out smaller iOS developers entirely. Finding the threshold at which malicious entity interest is minimized, while also minimizing the discouragement of legitimate small developers, is obviously a calculated balancing act... but will never be entirely foolproof. The fact that this kind of malicious act has only been reported this once suggests that Apple has a pretty clear idea of what they're doing.
In any case, it seems pretty clear that Apple has already revoked the certs and suspended the developer account in question, so this particular hack is effectively in the clean-up phase now.
(The rest of your response just sounds to me like the usual soapbox "Apple bad! Big business bad! They're all out to get the little guy!" commentary, so I seriously doubt that anything I could say is going to dissuade you from your point of view. Suffice to say, we'll just have to agree to disagree.)
Every now and then, I read a comment from someone about how Apple must "hate" the jailbreakers, because they keep closing off the flaws which make jailbreaks possible. The reality -- as effectively demonstrated in this instance -- is that the flaws which allow jailbreaks also just happen to open your phone up to malware. Apple is far more concerned with what a malicious entity might do to their customer base through these flaws, then with what the jailbreakers are doing to their own phones. Would, that more people understood this.
I can build them a nice place in Second Life.
Go for it. I'm sure they'd be thrilled at a pro-bono offer of development expertise and time, regardless of which engine you happen to prefer.
..... What? Not what you had in mind?
... Now they are launching a Kickstarter campaign because they need a bigger space.
No, they don't need a "bigger" space; they just need to recreate themselves within the worlds which they celebrate. That is to say, create a virtual museum using the Unreal Engine, and then release it on every platform that supports UE. You'd be guaranteed to increase your audience dramatically.
To wit: eat your own dog food, as they say.
Ah... there's the reference I was looking for; it was just buried a bit. You get to keep your geek card, Ross.