> ...his implementation was vastly less successful than Microsoft's
The first Microsoft Windows was barely a crosshatch pattern on an ASCII screen. It competed UNFAVORABLY against AmigaOS which had true multitasking and MacOS which has true graphical windows. In every single measurement Microsoft's implementation of Windows sucked.
It took Microsoft from 1993 to 1996 (Win95) to 2001 (Win2K) (and using the kernel they stole from DEC's VMS) to be able to actually have usable windows doing different things. that's 13 years after Amiga and Mac had it down pat.
However, what Microsoft did was ensure that "everything runs Windows 3.1 software" so they left all the old cruft in, which made Microsoft Windows the least secure and most easily pwn3d operating system in the world -- ever -- on any platform -- ever -- in all of history.
So to compare them and include the word "successful" is a slap in the face of "success."
Ray and others like him and from that time contributed a lot to get a network of IMPs to become a network of IP processors to an ARPAnet backbone, NSFnet backbone, and eventually the commercial Internet.
Through it all email evolved but several things stayed: 1. Ray's use of the @ to separate man and machine. (Bitnet's broken % sign did not last long...) 2. Email as envisioned by many people has persevered and improved. 3. No 14-year old indian poser kid invented email
It's amazing how many people believe his story despite reality and factual proof to the contrary.
You outsmarted everyone! You're the South African Walter. How could I have missed it before -- illiteracy, inability to communicate with "normal" people, egomania, maladjusted personality disorder, and a deep desire to prove dominance withouth a shred of talent or ability -- those are the hallmarks :)
Welcome South African Walter. This topic is not about you. (Nor your show, should there be an LDC-Scorpion airing somewhere.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...also IOS running entirely in RAM
>Besides giving me a completely irrelevant answer, your answer also appears to be wrong. > >From A (not so) quick primer on iOS encryption
That also modifies the filesystem on the device. What the FBI has requested is -zero- modifications to the device. That is not (according to the declaration under oath) possible.
This is not unreasonable. For example (this is an example so as you know some parts apply and some parts don't)... you can boot Ubuntu-Live without ever touching the local drives. However, that requires more than the 1GB of RAM you'll find in the iPhone 5c.
There are other considerations that their "Secure Enclave" does that renders this difficult to accomplish. They're not saying impossible... I believe 6 coders, 2 support people, 1 doc person, 3 from legal... all for 4 weeks although that time might double.
That seems to be an unreasonable burden -- not because the government wouldn't pay _something_ for it, but because it's not Apple's desire[5th am] to write this code [1st am], sign this code[1st am], or in any way be a part of the process[AWA].
To the person who said: But it belongs to its owner and they're just asking for help getting into it: They can get into it. That's not what they want. I'll spell it out:
Owner: I want to get into that phone. break into it for me. Apple: You can get into it any time. Enter the wrong PIN ten times and your brand-new used iPhone 5c will be ready for you to setup. Owner: But I want my employee's data! Apple: Well 1)You could have setup MDM. You didn't? 2)You could have plugged it in at the office and let iCloud do the backup. You changed the password? Well you screwed up the data and your employee's dead. Go look in the mirror; point at yourself a few times; we're not the problem.
If you don't follow best practices, it doesn't make it Apple's problem, and that is the truth the FBI doesn't want to discuss.
Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Twitter to file as amicus curiae
I guess other companies, having read the filing, agree with Apple's point of view, not the trolls'. We won't know what the DoJ/FBI response is until they file it, of course, although lately they're more than happy to provide that in the media first. (Motion to compel before filed response, anyone?)
He has no need to read the filing. His talking points were supplied by either his prejudice, his masters, or his ethereal otherworld spirit.
The Government's request is outside the boundaries of lawful and it will not stand. The reasons have been discussed. Any attempt to shift this to "it's easy for them to decrypt" and "nothing will fall into the wrong hands" is a strawman argument.
That's what you say but you never point out where.
> the CALEA arguments may not work,
That's what you say, but you only say:
> as Apple won't be decrypting anything.
CALEA has a lot more than decryption in it, LOL.
> In fact, the court's order is very narrow in scope
That's what you say, but in fact the court is requiring Apple to write a minimalist RAM-only IOS that has restrictions against Apple's will. If you weren't a troll I'd say you missed that point, but it's obvious you never wanted to see it.
>Arguments about the All Writs Act may also fall short, i
Again you make something up that says "may... fall short" but offer nothing substantive.
For a troll you're a really awful one. I think you should go back to whomever paid you and tell them to send someone who can add source citations, and properly use English grammar.
Not to take away from the 1st and 5th Amendments and all the other problemss in the AWA, there's a technical issue not covered above:
The government has also asked that "GovtOS" run entirel in RAM, something that IOS doesn't currently do, and is too big to do.
While that's not detailed in the filing, it's covered in the Neuenschwander Declaration, page 52, item 19, lines 12-15.
That makes this whole thing an order of magnitude more complex from the "just go write software" perspective. It may not even be possible that an IOS so small could do what the government would want it to do afterward -- access the filesystem and export its contents.
Looks like Apple's counsel agrees with my comment from two days ago:
[quote]The code must contain a unique identifier “so that [it] would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE,” and it must be “‘signed’ cryptographically by Apple using its own proprietary encryption methods.” Ex Parte App. at 5, 7.
This amounts to compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.[/quote]
Apple Inc's motion to vacate order compelling... p.43
I've met some very competent lawyers in Australia... three of which I had drinks with in Melbourne.
If I recall correctly one of the discussions was about incompetent buffoonish lawyers making the rest look bad. At the time we were talking about Prenda Law but it's equally clear that Mr. Gibson is an incompetent buffoon.
Mr. Gibson, should you choose to continue wasting your client's money in this fruitless endeavor to squelch free speech you will not only prove yourself an incompetent buffoon, but also unethical for wasting a client's money, failing to represent the law to them, and if you file this in a court of law, committing fraud upon the court.
I wish you well in crawling back into that fine little hole from which you came, and sticking to pretend-lawyering at the bus-stop you preach at daily. One day, no worries, Mate, you'll earn enough for a car... or a law-book... or education to gain an understanding of the law.
If you have video of a man from birth to indictment you will have evidence of a criminal act committed.
LEOs "could get a warrant" but IN THAT WARRANT law enforcement would need to specify exactly what criminal events they are investigating.
That is one of the protections granted by the 4th Amendment. It prevents that "video of a man's life" looking for a crime, instead requiring LEOs to specify the crime and then attempt to locate evidence it *HAD* occurred, not that *some crime of any time* *will* occur.
The Fourth Amendment seeks to protect us from such a fishing expedition. It is unfortunate that the Court has elected to disregard these protections. It's not unusual in our FOIA-ignoring statute-offending police/security state and the-people-be-damned. It's just not how the Constitution is read when read with the eyes of those who don't want to repeat the past.
Walter O'Brien is a fake. He's an idiot. He is retarded. He is a moron. This article is about this moron retard idiot*. It's not about a loser of a show or the losers who troll this thread**.
The people still talking about the TV show are clearly trolling. Likely they are either one of the words above (you did look up the definition, right?) or they are paid to be one of the words above. Either way they are trolls.
Sean, you have the patience of a saint... or Job. The former go to Heaven. The latter got lots of punishment.
Best wishes for being the former!
Ehud * These are valid English words. Feel free to look them up. A quick google search provides valid contextual definitions. Don't be a moron idiot retarded person and do look them up.
** Note: this is a thread. It's not a "room". AOL's free 3.5" floppies are long gone and we don't walk in and say "HELLO ROOM" any more. It's a discussion led by comments about an article. I know this is confusing... to those who fit under point 1 above.
...or MLB or NHL or NCAA or the MPAA ... or anyone seeking to make financial windfalls by either providing under license or locking up and preventing others from accessing i̶m̶a̶g̶i̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ intellectual property.
The problem is our archaic laws and the nouveau judicial and lobbyist-fueled interpretation that seeks to support these lockdowns.
The title of this piece is telling. It's about trademarks. The NFL has not used "The Big Game" in commerce, and others have, predating their use. Each of those two criteria alone would -normally- doom a trademark application. Together it would guarantee no such trademark be granted. But... the NFL is a special beast.
Taxes? The NFL is special. Having its staff have an unheard-of number of injuries and concussions and brain damage and no inquiries, no congressional committees, no OSHA paperwork? The NFL is special.
Why should getting a trademark on something others have used and they never have be different?
The problem isn't really the NFL. It's the corrupt system that supports this and other abuses by other well-heeled parties.