For Hollywood, copyright has one meaning: inflating their profits. Unfortunately, almost everyone in America has forgotten that copyright is supposed to exist to improve the people's access to works of art and science, not just to make money for copyright holders, and so Hollywood manages to get away with their abuse of our legal system.
That and all the money they spend on lobbyists and pressuring actresses to have casting couch sessions with congressmen doesn't hurt either, I suspect!:P
This philosophy makes me sad. Not because it's wrong, or because it's right, but because it indicates that people think the most compelling reason to do something is because of monetary or other material gain.
Why does it have to be one or the other though?
I've always endorsed the old saying, "do something you love and you never have to work a day in your life." Money is (ideally) supposed to be a reward for a job well done, so I think it seems a bit arrogant on your part to make the assertion that the motivation of an artist automatically has to be either his art or his bank account.
Personally, I used to sideline as a professional vocalist and I liked to think I made money, enjoyed my work along with the joy that it brought others, along with being proud of all the effort that I put into the job that I did!
(I would argue that we would have just the same, if not more, cultural and technical innovation if we had much weaker copyright and patent systems, because people would actually have to work hard to produce things of extraordinary value in order to gain from them.)
I think that would be true if people weren't so willing to always go for the cheaper option even if it's total crap. Research and Development costs money, so Patents (in theory at least;) are supposed to allow a company to protect that investment by preventing companies from churning out cheaper products due to not having to pass the R&D costs back to the consumers, which isn't exactly going to help innovation flourish either.;)
Don't get me wrong, though, I do think strong reforms are certainly needed to correct the way the present patent system is being implemented, as currently the reality is far from the ideal theory that led to the original development of the patent system, as right now IMO it's doing far more harm than good in assuring that innovation is encouraged/rewarded!
Really? Funny, when last I checked, I can write software using whatever programming language I want, and whatever technology is feasible, on my laptop. Nobody tells me what languages I am allowed to use or requires me to use their method of processing purchases. I can even run a different operating system with a completely different design in a virtual machine, if I feel that a different operating system would be better for developing my software.
So where is that dictation you were talking about?
Ultimately, no matter what mobile platform you're developing for, you do have play by some rules, so if you don't like the strictures that Apple imposes on development for their platform, then just stick to developing for a different platform who's rules you can live with!
Personally though, speaking both as a consumer and an IT person, I have to say I prefer iOS because it may cause some extra work for the developers (and I'm speaking from personal experience there too;), but I've found the end result of that extra work is far more stability than is present on the majority of applications for other platforms, who rely on other development methods!
While I can't speak for others, I tend to value the stability and ease of use of my applications as a consumer over you as you as a developer having to work a little more at doing your job, which I can't help but wonder if that might be the real reason behind a lot of the outcry I hear about lack of choices!;)
But even though this is the major issue, it's not something I couldn't get past because I don't think it was done maliciously--I just find the twisting-of-words denial by Steve Jobs to be kind of outrageous. There was a clear and obvious intent to mislead in his words.
Well, I think if there is one thing that this discussion thread shows that we can hopefully both agree on, it's that the definition of "tracking" clearly means different things to different people, so perhaps it's worth bearing in mind that while Steve Jobs (or anyone else for that matter) can be saying something that you view as completely false, it doesn't have to automatically mean that they're being intentionally misleading when doing so!;)
You seem to be doing some confusing line treading when you state try to have it both ways. Apple doesn't track you, according to you, because the file exists "locally" only (which is not confirmed) and not sent back to Apple.
Um...No..See that's actually been pretty well established at this point that the data collection is basically a location log gathered via pinging cell towers on the device itself (not GPS) and isn't transmitted back to Apple either directly from the iPhone or via iTunes (barring data retention on iPhone backup files):
http://goo.gl/iHxq3
It's also been clear from the beginning of this whole issue that it wasn't believed to be the case: http://goo.gl/Jmcfg
But then later you seem to suggest that Apple's EULA says they they do track users. Steve Jobs can't have it both ways, and neither can you.
Sorry about the confusion on that last point, I suppose I should've been more clear. In regards to Apple, when I talked about the EULA and support pages in my previous post you were correct that I was referring to information gathered for advertising purposes, not potentially personally identifiable location information, hence the point I was trying to make was that it didn't strike me that Apple is any more obfuscatory about the information it collects and transmits back than Google is by comparison.
Just as a side note, I feel I should also add that the reason I'm actually much more likely to trust Apple's honesty regarding their policies because they primarily make money off their hardware sales, whereas Google's primary source of revenue is advertising (and they're well known for collecting and retaining personal information en masse) so IMO that gives them a much better motivation to lie about their data collection/retention policies than Apple.;)
That said, most of your argument is "Apple doesn't track you, your iPhone does. It only becomes Apple tracking you if they upload the file."
I feel like that's a pretty silly argument.
Perhaps, but I don't think it's necessarily an invalid one though. Anyone (myself included) who does development/diagnostic work on any kind of electronic device and software can tell you that logging is an invaluable resource for troubleshooting and improving software/overall device performance and stability so I think it's an important to make the distinction between logging device information locally and transmitting information for "tracking."
On that note I'd like to ask you yet again (as I'm honestly curious to know) why you view this whole situation with the iPhone as being any different from your computer and/or server being setup by default to automatically log potentially personally identifiable information about your usage but not upload those logs back to the developers of the OS?
Because if you don't consider what I just described to be tracking, but you do consider it in regards to the iPhone in the case, then somehow I can't help but think that you might actually be the one who's trying to have it both ways here...;)
Regardless of what you may believe about Steve Job's contributions to the world and to personal computing, you really can't deny that he's a pretty big asshole (maybe not a "total" asshole, but at least an 85% asshole). Here we have him simultaneously slinging some rather deceptive mud at Android while simultaneously lying totally.
How is it deceptive exactly? As others have already pointed out, Apple actually provides a better system then Android does as it records the necessary information on the iPhone regarding cell tower locations and unlike Android, it doesn't send it back to a central database!
Apple tracks you. There's a file. It's created. It keeps track of all the locations you've been to. That's tracking, Apple is doing it. Therefore, Apple is tracking you. End of discussion.
No, it's not the end, because the issue isn't that simple. Again, Apple merely creates a local log ON THE DEVICE to try to allow better reception by creating a record of cell phone towers that the iPhone has used in the past to make it easier to get better reception in the future. I've yet to see any evidence that the file is uploaded to Apple or anyone else, or that it could even could provide an exact location for you, rather than a general area fix!
Now what Apple might NOT be doing is *collecting* the tracking information they gather. They may simply leave it to rot on your phone without gathering it to a central location and parsing it. That does not mean Apple is not tracking me; it just means Apple does not know where I am. There's a big difference there, but both things *matter*.
Er, why? Again, this is something that pretty much every smartphone out nowadays does automatically as a method of boosting performance, so I'm not sure why it matters if it's limited to the local device and is recording only one tower entry at a time, as that doesn't give anybody any data that's remotely close to the type of accuracy required for tracking you!
The mere fact that it exists means that it can therefore be used against me by LEA, malicious software, and thieves.
Considering I have yet to see an actual piece of malware on the iPhone in the wild, I think that seems like an overreaction. Say what you want about "walled gardens" Apple's done a great job of locking down the device and screening applications to prevent that sort of software from emerging on the iTunes App Store, unlike Google's approach to the Android marketplace (not that I'm bitter due to having to go through and clean out malware apps from client's phones, of course;)!
If Steve Jobs says "Apple does not track you", then he is explicitly and blatantly lying. If he wanted to address Apple's intent, or practices, or whatever -- he could, but saying that Apple does not track me is tantamount to saying that the file does not exist -- which is provably false. In short, it's a lie.
No, he said "Apple doesn't track you," because the log file exists on the device LOCALLY, therefore because it is not sent back to Apple, hence Apple doesn't track you! Let me give you an example here, let's say you have an Ubuntu server you keep at home, and but after setup it automatically enables certain types of logging wich then saves very limited but potentially useful diagnostic information that could POTENTIALLY be used by someone else to gather information about your usage practices however it's not transmitted back to the Ubuntu foundation (or anywhere else), would you then say that the Ubuntu Foundation is tracking you?;)
Does Android track people? Sometimes. If you run maps, it forwards that location data to Google which is anonymized and used for traffic pattern analysis etc. It does not track me all the time. Latitude does, but that's opt-in. Without enabling latitude, there's no personally identifiable record
You numbers are wrong, just look at all the non-Apple smartphones that are on the market. Those also happen to double as portable media players.
No, as I said in my post, I was talking about portable media player sales which are categorized differently than smartphones because while a smartphone can make phone calls without a wi-fi connection AND play music whereas portable media players can play people's music without requiring them to sign a contract with a wireless carrier (or using wi-fi dependent equivalent service)!
It's an Apple to Oranges comparison because it's called a Smartphone, not a SmartMusicPlayer, as most people buy a Smartphone primarily for the purpose of some sort of communication, not to play media on it!
The iPod was and remains a great device but it's usefulness is going to be short lived if current market trends continue.
For hard-drive "classic" iPods I agree and I think Apple has already nearly finished working to phase those out completely at this point for that reason.
I suspect the reason recent iPod sales are fluctuating so much for iPods is that while I think the iPod touch is going to eventually succeed in replacing the "Classic" iPod in terms of functionality, I think the Flash Storage capacity still isn't at the point where it needs to be in order to support both heavy media player use AND iOS applications for people who don't want to be burdened by the cost of the data plan of the iPhone!
But as time goes on, and the cost of Flash memory goes down, while the efficiency of storage increases, I fully expect that will change!
Historically Apple having any kind of lead has been a temporary thing.
I'm curious to know what your definition of temporary is given the fact that since 2004 the iPod has had over 90% of the market for hard drive-based players and over 72% of the market for all types of portable music players?
Oh, right. When we had one of those (I think it was a G5), we always said "That sure is a nice case", as it absolutely genuinely was, but also in contrast that nothing else worked on the box.;-)
Again, it's funny you should say that, as that certainly describes all of the PCs I've ever worked on, except I usually say, "that sure is a nice paint job," but I always end up several screws short of what's actually needed after putting a PC back together!
Whereas, whenever I take a Mac apart and put it pack together I end up with several left over, so I again, I would say that at least with Apple, you don't end up getting screwed over in that way with Mac/iOS case designs, LOL!
Re: the iPhone sales, are you saying that a large number of people _didn't_ swarm to it because it was now fashionable to own an iPhone? I know a number of people who swarmed out to buy one, only to get rid of it some months later for some combination of cost reduction and better features elsewhere.
Well, obviously I can't speak to your friends experiences, but I would point out that as far as I'm aware Apple has one of the lowest, if not THE lowest percentage of returns in the consumer electronics industry in general!
A good recent example of this was iPad had about 2% of Verizon Wireless in store returns, which may sound like a lot at first to some people but when you compare that to the 16% return rate of the Galaxy Tab you end up with one of the biggest reasons I'm so skeptical of all the hype generated by Android!
I'll freely admit that I'm certainly not the world's biggest fan of the Genius Bar, but there's a reason that even in mainstream PC publications Apple generally comes out way ahead of the competition in terms of customer satisfaction/support surveys, as they've always put a lot of money and resources into Applecare not to mention building an actual support base/community by supporting a lot of training and lines of communication between them and people who provide support working at third party companies with the Apple Authorized Service Provider program!
Again, when you compare what Apple's done there to the competition, who generally treats consumer level support as more of an afterthought in their business model, not to mention having the nerve to charge third party support companies for what is essentially a REALLY expensive rubber stamp logo to hang on their window or business card, you really see the contrast there.;)
To be fair, that behavior does actually makes sense on the part of the competition though, considering a lot of what they sell are essentially meant to be ultra cheap, ultra disposable computers that are reliant on the business model of high sales margins in order to be able to make money, rather then Apple's business model of producing high quality, high profit margin products that may end up making more money with the tradeoff of lower sales numbers and lower market share!
Apple's business model has always been focused on working to build brand loyalty over time, so by focusing on building higher margin, higher quality computers, they're willing to invest a lot more in building their Q&A and Support Infrastructure to a more ideal level for the average non-techie consumer as they tend to think (rightfully so in my case and in the case of everyone I know that has been using them for years;) that doing it that way encourages people to buy from them again!
Hence, I think the reason they've never wanted to build low end machines is less about money, fashion, etc., and more about concern that it might unnecessarily dilute the quality of their brand which is much more vital to them in order to be successful using the business model they've chosen to pursue than pricing and/or market share is!
Any decision like easy-access panels and room to tinker interferes with the more important fashion design.
You know, it's funny you should say that, as I still have yet to see a PC maker/parts manufacturer come up with a mainstream case design that's even remotely as easy to provide access for servicing/tinkering with as this was:
A lot of us who worked on those systems back in the day (and some of the later ones that are still working nowadays unlike their PC counterparts I might note) can't help but feel screwed about the amount of hassle that doing something as simple as opening up a case on a desktop PC has entailed for us after viewing how easy the alternative design that Apple came up with for the Power Macs made things!;)
Don't get me wrong, there are designs that Apple doesn't want you to mess around with (The Mini is a great example) but for something that's meant to be expandable, they do go to an effort to make it easier for you than the average PC company!
Apple is not a consumer electronics company. They are not an enthusiast electronics company.
They are an electronics fashion company.
Hmm...Yes, I can see how you can say that because clearly over 16.4 MILLION iPhones sold in just ONE QUARTER is obviously not indicative of a successful mainstream consumer electronics device!;)
The problem with terror alerts is that they are vague.
Even if they gave us more specifics, there's no associated reasonable response to them.
They look sort of like DEFCON levels, but they're not. DEFCON levels signal that it's time for specific groups to perform certain actions. At DEFCON 4 intelligence guys are activated and base security goes up. At DEFCON 3 you're organizing the troops and starting to make active preparations for war. And so on.
No, there is a response that goes along with the alert levels as here in the SFBay Area, BART and other public transit agencies generally use those alerts as an excuse to close all the restrooms in their buildings in an effort to cut janitorial costs to "reasonable" levels!
Now I'll never get the image of dozens of naked Jeff Albertsons sitting in cubicles eating cheesey poofs, surfing the web, having holy wars about Perl vs Python vs Ruby etc.
BTW, how will the pizza delivery be handled? You could really give a pizza delivery person a jolt when they walk into the room with the extra super deluxe monster extra everything pizzas....
Nonsense! My god man, if porn has taught us anything over the years, it's that Pizza delivery people will just take the opportunity to get naked as well!
Mod parent up please! My brother's legally blind, has very poor hand use and is confined to a wheelchair, but even he can still use OS X just fine as long as someone's configured Universal Access for him beforehand!
I was hoping the Demi-God of Irony, Rod Serling, would influence the God of Inevitabile Ill Fortune, Edward Murphy, in ensuring that every single one of those 100,000 containers was filled with the entirety of the first run of DVD copies of the movie Titanic when it was originally released!
I'm betting that Murphy was able to divert my prayers to Serling for the same reason that (for those of you who are wondering) George Nichols wasn't appointed in his position instead, which is that as we've all suspected over the years, even the Gods are not above Murphy's law!
I suppose I should've tried aiming for the Blue-Ray release instead, that would've only taken three containers to fill instead of all of them!
Just like back in the day when Nintendo limited the number of games any one developer could have on the market at once, I suspect Microsoft wants to limit the number of titles (so that the money consumers spend on games gets spread over fewer titles, thus more profit per title). I suspect they also want to keep a lid on the number of free/near free titles (the more free options there are, the less likely it is that people will buy the expensive premium titles since the free ones give them enough things to play)
Of course that only worked for Nintendo because they were the dominant player in the market at the time during the glory years of the SNES!
Somehow I don't think Ballmer and co have quite figured out the idea that while they can fool themselves by pretending Windows Phone 7 is actually just Windows 7 on a phone the reality is that even corporate customers are opting for BlackBerry OS devices over any kind of Windows Mobile based device at this point!
I didn't miss it at all. I merely pointed out that you are not stuck with whatever the vendor shoves down your throat, nor do you need worry about legal troubles you'll face if you begin distributing or using a version that you've modified.
This tells me that you clearly did miss his point which (as I read it) was that no one cares about any of any of this minutiae besides the FLOSS advocating techie crowd!
Don't get me wrong, if you care about that's fine for you, but for the rest of us who don't want to have spend money just to hire somebody to install a free unauthorized firmware update (which we'll most likely end up spending even more money on to get it to work any time an issue comes up as the result of the firmware update as it's not covered by any warranty), or (in the case of those of us who are tech savy enough to do it ourselves) having to spend way too much of our own time hacking our phone's firmware into working just to do a simple update!
I also think that while a lot of FLOSS advocates' concerns that I've read over the years are entirely valid, I just don't think the Android platform is a good rallying point to push the case for the freedom model of OS design/development and here's why:
You can still jailbreak your iPhone if you want the freedom over the easy to use functionality of the iOS, but with Android the easy to use functionality is pretty much crippleware as Carrier and Handset imposed limitations are constantly present on the majority of the devices which prevent needed security and feature improvements from being installed on my phone, so as a result, the consumer (and by that I mean me;) am thereby forced into taking the freedom option, which in this case, I DO NOT WANT as it comes at the cost of the easy to use functionality which inevitably means that I end up spending a bunch of time screwing around trying to get things that should be very straightforward to work!
Hence, the bottom line here is that I (and a lot of other people) won't be looking at Android phones until the ease of use and functionality surpass the iOS as I will take those two features over freedom any day!
Then frankly, as so much else in your reply plainly shows - you're not worth debating. You haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about.
Yeah, because nothing says how informed you are about a subject like the presentation of an Ad hominem argument to the person you've been debating with!;)
Flexible? Not even close - pretty much all an ELV can do is send things up, it cannot bring things back. Consider the Hubble servicing missions, impossible without either the Shuttle or throwing away the tools and servicing equipment after each flight.
I disagree, while I admit perhaps flexible was the wrong word, I would say if anything, using the method of creating/developing several designs to be tailored to the specific mission needs (Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo) instead of trying to take a one method for all purposes (Space Shuttle) approach is a far more optimal solution.
Remember though, when NASA saw how expensive the Shuttle was becoming, in order to keep backing in place for the program, they recommended adopting the mandate that the Shuttle should take over doing all space launches exclusively to justify the massive expenditures, which to be fair did kind of make sense at the time as the demand for satellite launches was still primarily coming from the Military and some Government agencies so demand wasn't nearly as high as it would eventually rise to in the last couple of decades.
However you also have to remember that as more and more private companies started using satellites from the 80s onwards, and as the Shuttle was simply not able to sustain nearly the number of launches that were originally promised in the conceptual design, it eventually become easier and more cost-effective for companies to use alternate launch methods besides the Shuttle for delivering payloads into space, hence in retrospect I would say that sticking to a (admittedly completely redesigned) ELV based launch program would've worked much better in the long run.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not really sure why you assume that we need some additional way to "bring things back." I mean we brought "things" and more importantly, people back just fine (as evidenced via the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs) without having the need to create a reusable launch vehicle that could potentially explode on impact.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the attraction of the original idea behind the conception of the Shuttle Program, namely to have almost a commuter level ease and frequency of reusability of a launch vehicle, so I'm not really disparaging the concept, I'm merely saying that the reality of how the program turned out was an overcomplex, over-expensive mess of what it was supposed to be, hence my view that the ELV approach could have worked out better.
Consider Spacelab - each launch of which would have required a quarter of a billion dollars for the lab, and yet more for the crew. (Which wouldn't have been very flexible at all because it's configuration would be fixed, rather than being modified/upgraded after each flight. It also would have been extremely expensive when you figure in the lab itself, as a free flyer, would have clocked in somewhere between a quarter and a half a billion dollars.)
I'm not really as inclined to answer that until you can show me the source of your numbers as IMO, the type of estimate you're talking about crosses the line from hypothetically plausible in a debate setting, to involving so many different factors as to be completely unprovable.
Reliable? The difference in reliability between the Shuttle and any other booster that's even close in reliability is statistically insensible. Ditto between the Shuttle and any manned capsule.
I'm not sure what "statistically insensible" means, but I stand by my conclusions regarding reliability by looking at the percentage of total ELV based missions successfully completed versus comparing the numbers of vs the number of canceled/incomplete/failed missions (also including the various objectives of those missions).
Cost effective? Well, that depends on how you define it. You certainly can launch *cheaper*, but a Yugo is cheaper than a pickup truck or a minivan and is als
Without the shuttle, and the orbital missions it enabled and was needed to service, most of NASA would have simply shut down, and other launch endeavors would have moved into private development, which they mostly have anyway.
If you were talking about this happening in the present day I might agree with that, but considering this was in the 70s you have to remember there really weren't very many private companies launching satellites into space, so given that it really wouldn't have been worth it to try to privatize it given the amount of money required to develop and build the infrastructure required for new launch sites.
You also might want to remember that national security concerns would've most likely prohibited a push to privatization in the 70s as back then the NRO was still reliant on having to retrieve reconnaissance photos by bringing satellites back down, developing the film of the pictures they took while in orbit, and then having to launch them back up, hence the NIC and DoD would never have permitted that level of privatization to something that tactically crucial!
Even with a big NASA and a known end to the shuttle program, we don't have a realistic plan to go to Mars. And really, there ain't much for us on the Moon.
To be fair, it's not like there's really much for us to do on Mars either, but actually the whole point of my original post was that the way you end up with "realistic" plans is by not allocating the majority of your resources to insanely overpriced and overcomplex things like the shuttle that suck money away from designing, testing and implementing new methods and technologies that could make it realistic (not to mention cheaper) for us to go there if we did want to.
What the shuttle and orbital missions have done in the meantime is take all of the skunk-works engineering that went into Apollo and morphed rocket science into a profession of verifying the reliability and safety of the product.
No way. If you compare the safety and reliability records of the Shuttles versus ELVs by looking at the percentage of successfully completed mission objectives, ELVs are clearly more reliable!
Incidentally, I should point out that I'm not even getting into discussion here regarding fatalities, which as I stated in my previous post I view as a failure not just on the Shuttle program (although there's certainly blame that should be placed there), but on the part of NASA's gradual culture shift that's been going on more and more in the last several decades.
I'm continually surprised by the number of people mourning the loss of the Space Shuttle as a major blow to space exploration considering if anything, the Shuttle program did more to kill space exploration than any other singular factor!
While I disagree with Michael Griffin's views on a lot of issues, the scathing paper he wrote in 2007 criticizing the merits of the Shuttle program should be required reading for both present and future NASA employees as it provides a substantial contribution to the case for why the Space Shuttle did more to kill our ability to explore space than any other factors did by wasting so much money, time, and resources away from the development of ELVs.
ELVs to this day remain a far more flexible, reliable and cost effective means of getting payloads into orbit and beyond than the Shuttle has ever been.
To be fair, the loss of both shuttles can be attributed a great deal to the culture shift at NASA, as there was a time when the organization prided itself on having the best engineers in the world, however all too often they have now been ignored in favor of the overly unrealistic views of scientists and management, the latter have shown a clear trend over the past several decades of ignoring safety concerns in favor of maintaining launch dates despite the inevitably fatal consequences of such an attitude.
More than one former NASA employee that I know has plans to hold a party during the launch of Atlantis' final flight in June (if funding for the mission goes through, if not, it will be at Endeavour's launch in April) not to commemorate the Shuttle program but rather to celebrate the future potential of Space Exploration when the Shuttle program finally dies!
It's impossible to virtualize the Trust chip unless you know the master keys locked inside the silicon.
No amount of packet sniffing/injection will enable you to forge a Trusted communication.
I'm not sure what point a has to do with point b though. I understand that they're cryptographically signed however that still doesn't answer the previous posts' point about why spoofing the correct authentication that the chip should provide the server with wouldn't work.
Do not underestimate Trusted Computing. I'm a programmer, I've read the 300+ page technical specification on this chip, I know DRM is impossible and the reasons it Always Fails.
Then you should also know that if anything this system actually strikes me as even more likely to fail than software DRM is as there is no way to patch the underlying encryption methods so when someone inevitably comes up with a workaround it would make it impossible to patch without forcing all the users to buy a whole new computer (as most users can't be expected to replace their CPUs themselves).
While I appreciate your in depth explanation of the concept behind this "standard," I guess personally I'm inclined to take a longer view on this issue, in the sense that I've seen myriads of supposed services/systems that companies and governments have been coming out with that are supposedly able to completely secure their computers and yet methods always end up emerging (or are already around and are instantly implemented by people who are aware of them) to circumvent these systems, so as a result I've remained firmly skeptical of any system/service industry groups and security vendors try to push on me and my clients.
Incidentally the fact that Microsoft seems to be one of the big pushers of this service is obviously really not helping to alleviate my skepticism at all, particularly given how they've constantly pushed their DRM systems as being "unhackable" to various corporate management shills who are gullible/incompetent enough to believe them.
This Trust stuff is really really nasty, and unbelievably insane.
I do agree your overall point completely, and like all other forms of DRM, this strikes me as yet another completely useless measure that will merely end up inconveniencing users and doing nothing to address the problems it was originally created to solve.
Just watch your country go down in flames, and the same fucking politicians stepping up and "saving it", from the problems of their own creation!
Actually I think the real problem it terms of politics in this country lies with the lack of people who can complain about government when asked but can't be bothered to vote!
The corrupt practices of politicians are the symptom of the problem, not the disease itself!
IMHO, the real disease is how the means of political action and change in this country ends up being forestalled by the general public's growing sense of apathetic helplessness regarding the perceived (rightly or wrongly) universal lack of integrity in the practicing of politics and the personal character of politicians in America means that the situation is so futile as to not be worth bothering about!
I live in the SFBay Area and as such I am a proud member of the smallest political minority group which consists of the people who have voted in every election (including special elections) since turning 18! The reason that I've always voted is that ultimately I believe that we, the American people are the solution to politics if we do vote, but we're the problem if we don't!
Although I know a lot of people have expressed similar views since our nation's founding, I believe Benjamin Franklin said it first (and best):
Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."
In summary: if you aren't voting, sit down, shut up and quit your whining!
No, actually you misunderstood my post, as it was intended to be funny...Much as it pains me to admit it, however, it clearly didn't succede in that regard as I've now had to explain it to you.:(
Don't worry though, next time I'll make sure to use the humor tag when posting to prevent confusion!
Slashdot Mirror
For Hollywood, copyright has one meaning: inflating their profits. Unfortunately, almost everyone in America has forgotten that copyright is supposed to exist to improve the people's access to works of art and science, not just to make money for copyright holders, and so Hollywood manages to get away with their abuse of our legal system.
That and all the money they spend on lobbyists and pressuring actresses to have casting couch sessions with congressmen doesn't hurt either, I suspect! :P
This philosophy makes me sad. Not because it's wrong, or because it's right, but because it indicates that people think the most compelling reason to do something is because of monetary or other material gain.
Why does it have to be one or the other though?
I've always endorsed the old saying, "do something you love and you never have to work a day in your life." Money is (ideally) supposed to be a reward for a job well done, so I think it seems a bit arrogant on your part to make the assertion that the motivation of an artist automatically has to be either his art or his bank account.
Personally, I used to sideline as a professional vocalist and I liked to think I made money, enjoyed my work along with the joy that it brought others, along with being proud of all the effort that I put into the job that I did!
(I would argue that we would have just the same, if not more, cultural and technical innovation if we had much weaker copyright and patent systems, because people would actually have to work hard to produce things of extraordinary value in order to gain from them.)
I think that would be true if people weren't so willing to always go for the cheaper option even if it's total crap. Research and Development costs money, so Patents (in theory at least ;) are supposed to allow a company to protect that investment by preventing companies from churning out cheaper products due to not having to pass the R&D costs back to the consumers, which isn't exactly going to help innovation flourish either. ;)
Don't get me wrong, though, I do think strong reforms are certainly needed to correct the way the present patent system is being implemented, as currently the reality is far from the ideal theory that led to the original development of the patent system, as right now IMO it's doing far more harm than good in assuring that innovation is encouraged/rewarded!
Really? Funny, when last I checked, I can write software using whatever programming language I want, and whatever technology is feasible, on my laptop. Nobody tells me what languages I am allowed to use or requires me to use their method of processing purchases. I can even run a different operating system with a completely different design in a virtual machine, if I feel that a different operating system would be better for developing my software.
So where is that dictation you were talking about?
For Android, it's right here: http://developer.android.com/sdk/terms.html
Ultimately, no matter what mobile platform you're developing for, you do have play by some rules, so if you don't like the strictures that Apple imposes on development for their platform, then just stick to developing for a different platform who's rules you can live with!
Personally though, speaking both as a consumer and an IT person, I have to say I prefer iOS because it may cause some extra work for the developers (and I'm speaking from personal experience there too ;), but I've found the end result of that extra work is far more stability than is present on the majority of applications for other platforms, who rely on other development methods!
While I can't speak for others, I tend to value the stability and ease of use of my applications as a consumer over you as you as a developer having to work a little more at doing your job, which I can't help but wonder if that might be the real reason behind a lot of the outcry I hear about lack of choices! ;)
But even though this is the major issue, it's not something I couldn't get past because I don't think it was done maliciously--I just find the twisting-of-words denial by Steve Jobs to be kind of outrageous. There was a clear and obvious intent to mislead in his words.
Well, I think if there is one thing that this discussion thread shows that we can hopefully both agree on, it's that the definition of "tracking" clearly means different things to different people, so perhaps it's worth bearing in mind that while Steve Jobs (or anyone else for that matter) can be saying something that you view as completely false, it doesn't have to automatically mean that they're being intentionally misleading when doing so! ;)
You seem to be doing some confusing line treading when you state try to have it both ways. Apple doesn't track you, according to you, because the file exists "locally" only (which is not confirmed) and not sent back to Apple.
Um...No..See that's actually been pretty well established at this point that the data collection is basically a location log gathered via pinging cell towers on the device itself (not GPS) and isn't transmitted back to Apple either directly from the iPhone or via iTunes (barring data retention on iPhone backup files): http://goo.gl/iHxq3
It's also been clear from the beginning of this whole issue that it wasn't believed to be the case: http://goo.gl/Jmcfg
But then later you seem to suggest that Apple's EULA says they they do track users. Steve Jobs can't have it both ways, and neither can you.
Sorry about the confusion on that last point, I suppose I should've been more clear. In regards to Apple, when I talked about the EULA and support pages in my previous post you were correct that I was referring to information gathered for advertising purposes, not potentially personally identifiable location information, hence the point I was trying to make was that it didn't strike me that Apple is any more obfuscatory about the information it collects and transmits back than Google is by comparison.
Just as a side note, I feel I should also add that the reason I'm actually much more likely to trust Apple's honesty regarding their policies because they primarily make money off their hardware sales, whereas Google's primary source of revenue is advertising (and they're well known for collecting and retaining personal information en masse) so IMO that gives them a much better motivation to lie about their data collection/retention policies than Apple. ;)
That said, most of your argument is "Apple doesn't track you, your iPhone does. It only becomes Apple tracking you if they upload the file."
I feel like that's a pretty silly argument.
Perhaps, but I don't think it's necessarily an invalid one though. Anyone (myself included) who does development/diagnostic work on any kind of electronic device and software can tell you that logging is an invaluable resource for troubleshooting and improving software/overall device performance and stability so I think it's an important to make the distinction between logging device information locally and transmitting information for "tracking."
On that note I'd like to ask you yet again (as I'm honestly curious to know) why you view this whole situation with the iPhone as being any different from your computer and/or server being setup by default to automatically log potentially personally identifiable information about your usage but not upload those logs back to the developers of the OS?
Because if you don't consider what I just described to be tracking, but you do consider it in regards to the iPhone in the case, then somehow I can't help but think that you might actually be the one who's trying to have it both ways here...;)
Regardless of what you may believe about Steve Job's contributions to the world and to personal computing, you really can't deny that he's a pretty big asshole (maybe not a "total" asshole, but at least an 85% asshole). Here we have him simultaneously slinging some rather deceptive mud at Android while simultaneously lying totally.
How is it deceptive exactly? As others have already pointed out, Apple actually provides a better system then Android does as it records the necessary information on the iPhone regarding cell tower locations and unlike Android, it doesn't send it back to a central database!
Apple tracks you. There's a file. It's created. It keeps track of all the locations you've been to. That's tracking, Apple is doing it. Therefore, Apple is tracking you. End of discussion.
No, it's not the end, because the issue isn't that simple. Again, Apple merely creates a local log ON THE DEVICE to try to allow better reception by creating a record of cell phone towers that the iPhone has used in the past to make it easier to get better reception in the future. I've yet to see any evidence that the file is uploaded to Apple or anyone else, or that it could even could provide an exact location for you, rather than a general area fix!
Now what Apple might NOT be doing is *collecting* the tracking information they gather. They may simply leave it to rot on your phone without gathering it to a central location and parsing it. That does not mean Apple is not tracking me; it just means Apple does not know where I am. There's a big difference there, but both things *matter*.
Er, why? Again, this is something that pretty much every smartphone out nowadays does automatically as a method of boosting performance, so I'm not sure why it matters if it's limited to the local device and is recording only one tower entry at a time, as that doesn't give anybody any data that's remotely close to the type of accuracy required for tracking you!
The mere fact that it exists means that it can therefore be used against me by LEA, malicious software, and thieves.
Considering I have yet to see an actual piece of malware on the iPhone in the wild, I think that seems like an overreaction. Say what you want about "walled gardens" Apple's done a great job of locking down the device and screening applications to prevent that sort of software from emerging on the iTunes App Store, unlike Google's approach to the Android marketplace (not that I'm bitter due to having to go through and clean out malware apps from client's phones, of course ;)!
If Steve Jobs says "Apple does not track you", then he is explicitly and blatantly lying. If he wanted to address Apple's intent, or practices, or whatever -- he could, but saying that Apple does not track me is tantamount to saying that the file does not exist -- which is provably false. In short, it's a lie.
No, he said "Apple doesn't track you," because the log file exists on the device LOCALLY, therefore because it is not sent back to Apple, hence Apple doesn't track you! Let me give you an example here, let's say you have an Ubuntu server you keep at home, and but after setup it automatically enables certain types of logging wich then saves very limited but potentially useful diagnostic information that could POTENTIALLY be used by someone else to gather information about your usage practices however it's not transmitted back to the Ubuntu foundation (or anywhere else), would you then say that the Ubuntu Foundation is tracking you? ;)
Does Android track people? Sometimes. If you run maps, it forwards that location data to Google which is anonymized and used for traffic pattern analysis etc. It does not track me all the time. Latitude does, but that's opt-in. Without enabling latitude, there's no personally identifiable record
You numbers are wrong, just look at all the non-Apple smartphones that are on the market. Those also happen to double as portable media players.
No, as I said in my post, I was talking about portable media player sales which are categorized differently than smartphones because while a smartphone can make phone calls without a wi-fi connection AND play music whereas portable media players can play people's music without requiring them to sign a contract with a wireless carrier (or using wi-fi dependent equivalent service)!
It's an Apple to Oranges comparison because it's called a Smartphone, not a SmartMusicPlayer, as most people buy a Smartphone primarily for the purpose of some sort of communication, not to play media on it!
The iPod was and remains a great device but it's usefulness is going to be short lived if current market trends continue.
For hard-drive "classic" iPods I agree and I think Apple has already nearly finished working to phase those out completely at this point for that reason.
I suspect the reason recent iPod sales are fluctuating so much for iPods is that while I think the iPod touch is going to eventually succeed in replacing the "Classic" iPod in terms of functionality, I think the Flash Storage capacity still isn't at the point where it needs to be in order to support both heavy media player use AND iOS applications for people who don't want to be burdened by the cost of the data plan of the iPhone!
But as time goes on, and the cost of Flash memory goes down, while the efficiency of storage increases, I fully expect that will change!
Historically Apple having any kind of lead has been a temporary thing.
I'm curious to know what your definition of temporary is given the fact that since 2004 the iPod has had over 90% of the market for hard drive-based players and over 72% of the market for all types of portable music players?
[The PowerMac case]
Oh, right. When we had one of those (I think it was a G5), we always said "That sure is a nice case", as it absolutely genuinely was, but also in contrast that nothing else worked on the box. ;-)
Again, it's funny you should say that, as that certainly describes all of the PCs I've ever worked on, except I usually say, "that sure is a nice paint job," but I always end up several screws short of what's actually needed after putting a PC back together!
Whereas, whenever I take a Mac apart and put it pack together I end up with several left over, so I again, I would say that at least with Apple, you don't end up getting screwed over in that way with Mac/iOS case designs, LOL!
Re: the iPhone sales, are you saying that a large number of people _didn't_ swarm to it because it was now fashionable to own an iPhone? I know a number of people who swarmed out to buy one, only to get rid of it some months later for some combination of cost reduction and better features elsewhere.
Well, obviously I can't speak to your friends experiences, but I would point out that as far as I'm aware Apple has one of the lowest, if not THE lowest percentage of returns in the consumer electronics industry in general!
A good recent example of this was iPad had about 2% of Verizon Wireless in store returns, which may sound like a lot at first to some people but when you compare that to the 16% return rate of the Galaxy Tab you end up with one of the biggest reasons I'm so skeptical of all the hype generated by Android!
I'll freely admit that I'm certainly not the world's biggest fan of the Genius Bar, but there's a reason that even in mainstream PC publications Apple generally comes out way ahead of the competition in terms of customer satisfaction/support surveys, as they've always put a lot of money and resources into Applecare not to mention building an actual support base/community by supporting a lot of training and lines of communication between them and people who provide support working at third party companies with the Apple Authorized Service Provider program!
Again, when you compare what Apple's done there to the competition, who generally treats consumer level support as more of an afterthought in their business model, not to mention having the nerve to charge third party support companies for what is essentially a REALLY expensive rubber stamp logo to hang on their window or business card, you really see the contrast there. ;)
To be fair, that behavior does actually makes sense on the part of the competition though, considering a lot of what they sell are essentially meant to be ultra cheap, ultra disposable computers that are reliant on the business model of high sales margins in order to be able to make money, rather then Apple's business model of producing high quality, high profit margin products that may end up making more money with the tradeoff of lower sales numbers and lower market share!
Apple's business model has always been focused on working to build brand loyalty over time, so by focusing on building higher margin, higher quality computers, they're willing to invest a lot more in building their Q&A and Support Infrastructure to a more ideal level for the average non-techie consumer as they tend to think (rightfully so in my case and in the case of everyone I know that has been using them for years ;) that doing it that way encourages people to buy from them again!
Hence, I think the reason they've never wanted to build low end machines is less about money, fashion, etc., and more about concern that it might unnecessarily dilute the quality of their brand which is much more vital to them in order to be successful using the business model they've chosen to pursue than pricing and/or market share is!
Any decision like easy-access panels and room to tinker interferes with the more important fashion design.
You know, it's funny you should say that, as I still have yet to see a PC maker/parts manufacturer come up with a mainstream case design that's even remotely as easy to provide access for servicing/tinkering with as this was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4
A lot of us who worked on those systems back in the day (and some of the later ones that are still working nowadays unlike their PC counterparts I might note) can't help but feel screwed about the amount of hassle that doing something as simple as opening up a case on a desktop PC has entailed for us after viewing how easy the alternative design that Apple came up with for the Power Macs made things! ;)
Don't get me wrong, there are designs that Apple doesn't want you to mess around with (The Mini is a great example) but for something that's meant to be expandable, they do go to an effort to make it easier for you than the average PC company!
Apple is not a consumer electronics company. They are not an enthusiast electronics company.
They are an electronics fashion company.
Hmm...Yes, I can see how you can say that because clearly over 16.4 MILLION iPhones sold in just ONE QUARTER is obviously not indicative of a successful mainstream consumer electronics device! ;)
The problem with terror alerts is that they are vague.
Even if they gave us more specifics, there's no associated reasonable response to them.
They look sort of like DEFCON levels, but they're not. DEFCON levels signal that it's time for specific groups to perform certain actions. At DEFCON 4 intelligence guys are activated and base security goes up. At DEFCON 3 you're organizing the troops and starting to make active preparations for war. And so on.
No, there is a response that goes along with the alert levels as here in the SFBay Area, BART and other public transit agencies generally use those alerts as an excuse to close all the restrooms in their buildings in an effort to cut janitorial costs to "reasonable" levels!
Now I'll never get the image of dozens of naked Jeff Albertsons sitting in cubicles eating cheesey poofs, surfing the web, having holy wars about Perl vs Python vs Ruby etc.
BTW, how will the pizza delivery be handled? You could really give a pizza delivery person a jolt when they walk into the room with the extra super deluxe monster extra everything pizzas....
Nonsense! My god man, if porn has taught us anything over the years, it's that Pizza delivery people will just take the opportunity to get naked as well!
Mod parent up please! My brother's legally blind, has very poor hand use and is confined to a wheelchair, but even he can still use OS X just fine as long as someone's configured Universal Access for him beforehand!
I was hoping the Demi-God of Irony, Rod Serling, would influence the God of Inevitabile Ill Fortune, Edward Murphy, in ensuring that every single one of those 100,000 containers was filled with the entirety of the first run of DVD copies of the movie Titanic when it was originally released!
I'm betting that Murphy was able to divert my prayers to Serling for the same reason that (for those of you who are wondering) George Nichols wasn't appointed in his position instead, which is that as we've all suspected over the years, even the Gods are not above Murphy's law!
I suppose I should've tried aiming for the Blue-Ray release instead, that would've only taken three containers to fill instead of all of them!
Just like back in the day when Nintendo limited the number of games any one developer could have on the market at once, I suspect Microsoft wants to limit the number of titles (so that the money consumers spend on games gets spread over fewer titles, thus more profit per title). I suspect they also want to keep a lid on the number of free/near free titles (the more free options there are, the less likely it is that people will buy the expensive premium titles since the free ones give them enough things to play)
Of course that only worked for Nintendo because they were the dominant player in the market at the time during the glory years of the SNES!
Somehow I don't think Ballmer and co have quite figured out the idea that while they can fool themselves by pretending Windows Phone 7 is actually just Windows 7 on a phone the reality is that even corporate customers are opting for BlackBerry OS devices over any kind of Windows Mobile based device at this point!
I didn't miss it at all. I merely pointed out that you are not stuck with whatever the vendor shoves down your throat, nor do you need worry about legal troubles you'll face if you begin distributing or using a version that you've modified.
This tells me that you clearly did miss his point which (as I read it) was that no one cares about any of any of this minutiae besides the FLOSS advocating techie crowd!
Don't get me wrong, if you care about that's fine for you, but for the rest of us who don't want to have spend money just to hire somebody to install a free unauthorized firmware update (which we'll most likely end up spending even more money on to get it to work any time an issue comes up as the result of the firmware update as it's not covered by any warranty), or (in the case of those of us who are tech savy enough to do it ourselves) having to spend way too much of our own time hacking our phone's firmware into working just to do a simple update!
I also think that while a lot of FLOSS advocates' concerns that I've read over the years are entirely valid, I just don't think the Android platform is a good rallying point to push the case for the freedom model of OS design/development and here's why:
You can still jailbreak your iPhone if you want the freedom over the easy to use functionality of the iOS, but with Android the easy to use functionality is pretty much crippleware as Carrier and Handset imposed limitations are constantly present on the majority of the devices which prevent needed security and feature improvements from being installed on my phone, so as a result, the consumer (and by that I mean me ;) am thereby forced into taking the freedom option, which in this case, I DO NOT WANT as it comes at the cost of the easy to use functionality which inevitably means that I end up spending a bunch of time screwing around trying to get things that should be very straightforward to work!
Hence, the bottom line here is that I (and a lot of other people) won't be looking at Android phones until the ease of use and functionality surpass the iOS as I will take those two features over freedom any day!
Then frankly, as so much else in your reply plainly shows - you're not worth debating. You haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about.
Yeah, because nothing says how informed you are about a subject like the presentation of an Ad hominem argument to the person you've been debating with! ;)
Flexible? Not even close - pretty much all an ELV can do is send things up, it cannot bring things back. Consider the Hubble servicing missions, impossible without either the Shuttle or throwing away the tools and servicing equipment after each flight.
I disagree, while I admit perhaps flexible was the wrong word, I would say if anything, using the method of creating/developing several designs to be tailored to the specific mission needs (Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo) instead of trying to take a one method for all purposes (Space Shuttle) approach is a far more optimal solution.
Remember though, when NASA saw how expensive the Shuttle was becoming, in order to keep backing in place for the program, they recommended adopting the mandate that the Shuttle should take over doing all space launches exclusively to justify the massive expenditures, which to be fair did kind of make sense at the time as the demand for satellite launches was still primarily coming from the Military and some Government agencies so demand wasn't nearly as high as it would eventually rise to in the last couple of decades.
However you also have to remember that as more and more private companies started using satellites from the 80s onwards, and as the Shuttle was simply not able to sustain nearly the number of launches that were originally promised in the conceptual design, it eventually become easier and more cost-effective for companies to use alternate launch methods besides the Shuttle for delivering payloads into space, hence in retrospect I would say that sticking to a (admittedly completely redesigned) ELV based launch program would've worked much better in the long run.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not really sure why you assume that we need some additional way to "bring things back." I mean we brought "things" and more importantly, people back just fine (as evidenced via the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs) without having the need to create a reusable launch vehicle that could potentially explode on impact.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the attraction of the original idea behind the conception of the Shuttle Program, namely to have almost a commuter level ease and frequency of reusability of a launch vehicle, so I'm not really disparaging the concept, I'm merely saying that the reality of how the program turned out was an overcomplex, over-expensive mess of what it was supposed to be, hence my view that the ELV approach could have worked out better.
Consider Spacelab - each launch of which would have required a quarter of a billion dollars for the lab, and yet more for the crew. (Which wouldn't have been very flexible at all because it's configuration would be fixed, rather than being modified/upgraded after each flight. It also would have been extremely expensive when you figure in the lab itself, as a free flyer, would have clocked in somewhere between a quarter and a half a billion dollars.)
I'm not really as inclined to answer that until you can show me the source of your numbers as IMO, the type of estimate you're talking about crosses the line from hypothetically plausible in a debate setting, to involving so many different factors as to be completely unprovable.
Reliable? The difference in reliability between the Shuttle and any other booster that's even close in reliability is statistically insensible. Ditto between the Shuttle and any manned capsule.
I'm not sure what "statistically insensible" means, but I stand by my conclusions regarding reliability by looking at the percentage of total ELV based missions successfully completed versus comparing the numbers of vs the number of canceled/incomplete/failed missions (also including the various objectives of those missions).
Cost effective? Well, that depends on how you define it. You certainly can launch *cheaper*, but a Yugo is cheaper than a pickup truck or a minivan and is als
Without the shuttle, and the orbital missions it enabled and was needed to service, most of NASA would have simply shut down, and other launch endeavors would have moved into private development, which they mostly have anyway.
If you were talking about this happening in the present day I might agree with that, but considering this was in the 70s you have to remember there really weren't very many private companies launching satellites into space, so given that it really wouldn't have been worth it to try to privatize it given the amount of money required to develop and build the infrastructure required for new launch sites.
You also might want to remember that national security concerns would've most likely prohibited a push to privatization in the 70s as back then the NRO was still reliant on having to retrieve reconnaissance photos by bringing satellites back down, developing the film of the pictures they took while in orbit, and then having to launch them back up, hence the NIC and DoD would never have permitted that level of privatization to something that tactically crucial!
Even with a big NASA and a known end to the shuttle program, we don't have a realistic plan to go to Mars. And really, there ain't much for us on the Moon.
To be fair, it's not like there's really much for us to do on Mars either, but actually the whole point of my original post was that the way you end up with "realistic" plans is by not allocating the majority of your resources to insanely overpriced and overcomplex things like the shuttle that suck money away from designing, testing and implementing new methods and technologies that could make it realistic (not to mention cheaper) for us to go there if we did want to.
What the shuttle and orbital missions have done in the meantime is take all of the skunk-works engineering that went into Apollo and morphed rocket science into a profession of verifying the reliability and safety of the product.
No way. If you compare the safety and reliability records of the Shuttles versus ELVs by looking at the percentage of successfully completed mission objectives, ELVs are clearly more reliable!
Incidentally, I should point out that I'm not even getting into discussion here regarding fatalities, which as I stated in my previous post I view as a failure not just on the Shuttle program (although there's certainly blame that should be placed there), but on the part of NASA's gradual culture shift that's been going on more and more in the last several decades.
I'm continually surprised by the number of people mourning the loss of the Space Shuttle as a major blow to space exploration considering if anything, the Shuttle program did more to kill space exploration than any other singular factor!
While I disagree with Michael Griffin's views on a lot of issues, the scathing paper he wrote in 2007 criticizing the merits of the Shuttle program should be required reading for both present and future NASA employees as it provides a substantial contribution to the case for why the Space Shuttle did more to kill our ability to explore space than any other factors did by wasting so much money, time, and resources away from the development of ELVs.
ELVs to this day remain a far more flexible, reliable and cost effective means of getting payloads into orbit and beyond than the Shuttle has ever been.
To be fair, the loss of both shuttles can be attributed a great deal to the culture shift at NASA, as there was a time when the organization prided itself on having the best engineers in the world, however all too often they have now been ignored in favor of the overly unrealistic views of scientists and management, the latter have shown a clear trend over the past several decades of ignoring safety concerns in favor of maintaining launch dates despite the inevitably fatal consequences of such an attitude.
More than one former NASA employee that I know has plans to hold a party during the launch of Atlantis' final flight in June (if funding for the mission goes through, if not, it will be at Endeavour's launch in April) not to commemorate the Shuttle program but rather to celebrate the future potential of Space Exploration when the Shuttle program finally dies!
It's impossible to virtualize the Trust chip unless you know the master keys locked inside the silicon.
No amount of packet sniffing/injection will enable you to forge a Trusted communication.
I'm not sure what point a has to do with point b though. I understand that they're cryptographically signed however that still doesn't answer the previous posts' point about why spoofing the correct authentication that the chip should provide the server with wouldn't work.
Do not underestimate Trusted Computing. I'm a programmer, I've read the 300+ page technical specification on this chip, I know DRM is impossible and the reasons it Always Fails.
Then you should also know that if anything this system actually strikes me as even more likely to fail than software DRM is as there is no way to patch the underlying encryption methods so when someone inevitably comes up with a workaround it would make it impossible to patch without forcing all the users to buy a whole new computer (as most users can't be expected to replace their CPUs themselves).
While I appreciate your in depth explanation of the concept behind this "standard," I guess personally I'm inclined to take a longer view on this issue, in the sense that I've seen myriads of supposed services/systems that companies and governments have been coming out with that are supposedly able to completely secure their computers and yet methods always end up emerging (or are already around and are instantly implemented by people who are aware of them) to circumvent these systems, so as a result I've remained firmly skeptical of any system/service industry groups and security vendors try to push on me and my clients.
Incidentally the fact that Microsoft seems to be one of the big pushers of this service is obviously really not helping to alleviate my skepticism at all, particularly given how they've constantly pushed their DRM systems as being "unhackable" to various corporate management shills who are gullible/incompetent enough to believe them.
This Trust stuff is really really nasty, and unbelievably insane.
I do agree your overall point completely, and like all other forms of DRM, this strikes me as yet another completely useless measure that will merely end up inconveniencing users and doing nothing to address the problems it was originally created to solve.
Just watch your country go down in flames, and the same fucking politicians stepping up and "saving it", from the problems of their own creation!
Actually I think the real problem it terms of politics in this country lies with the lack of people who can complain about government when asked but can't be bothered to vote!
The corrupt practices of politicians are the symptom of the problem, not the disease itself!
IMHO, the real disease is how the means of political action and change in this country ends up being forestalled by the general public's growing sense of apathetic helplessness regarding the perceived (rightly or wrongly) universal lack of integrity in the practicing of politics and the personal character of politicians in America means that the situation is so futile as to not be worth bothering about!
I live in the SFBay Area and as such I am a proud member of the smallest political minority group which consists of the people who have voted in every election (including special elections) since turning 18! The reason that I've always voted is that ultimately I believe that we, the American people are the solution to politics if we do vote, but we're the problem if we don't!
Although I know a lot of people have expressed similar views since our nation's founding, I believe Benjamin Franklin said it first (and best):
Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
In summary: if you aren't voting, sit down, shut up and quit your whining!
You misunderstand "first-to-file", then.
No, actually you misunderstood my post, as it was intended to be funny...Much as it pains me to admit it, however, it clearly didn't succede in that regard as I've now had to explain it to you. :(
Don't worry though, next time I'll make sure to use the humor tag when posting to prevent confusion!
...If the only way they can get fans is by filing a patent claim!