101001010111

I'm perplexed how anyone could believe iOS is somehow different simply because Apple doesn't need to purchase a "rootkit" from a third party like CarrierIQ.

Apple, a hardware company, is well-suited to write their own "rootkit" in-house. They no doubt have their own techniques for getting the same information that CarrierIQ gathers.

To think Apple is not interested in the same information about their customers just seems incredibly naive or like some kind of cognitive dissonance.

If anything I would imagine Apple has set the bar for how much "intelligence" can be collected on its customers and the carriers are basically playing catch up.

I could be wrong. But that's how I see it.

I'm not making any such claim. But I'm curious why you want to see me as making that claim. Why would you be interested in evidence that open source projects produce generally/consistently better software than proprietary projects for the same sort of problems?

As for evidence that open source projects can (sometimes) produce "high quality" software, TCP/IP is the first example that comes to mind.

Once upon a time, there was a government software project, a government contractor and a grad student...

Assuming the usual kernels, we're all using that code, or derivatives of it, right now.

Having to defend against claims for damages that do not need to be supported by any proof of loss is itself a deterrent, whatever the amounts may be, in my opinion.

Universal's actual losses might be zero but as long as they can prove infringement and that the defendant (intentionally or not) was an infringer, they can get a judgment for damages.

Of course winning some copyright litigation and winning the larger battle over monopolistic control of music distribution channels may be two different things.

Not sure if it's a legitimate "problem" or not, but how about the availability of single chips, or 10-packs?

Assuming someone wanted to produce a prototype board, but didn't want to purchase 1000's of CPU chips, are there many CPU chip makers who offer low quantities like this?

I think it's safe to assume without digging up legislative history that those amounts represent a theoretical deterrent, not an estimated measure of lost profits.

Here are the questions I have every time I see these music lawsuits:

How many of the people using this Grooveshark service are present/former/would-be Universal customers?

How do you prove this? Should you attempt to prove it before deciding to sue?

What if the people using Grooveshark are just too cheap or too poor to ever buy Universal releases? Is that possible?

On the flipside, what if they are also Universal's best customers? Is that possible?

The article says they named specific uploaders in the complaint. Maybe they have been able make some assumptions about them as existing/potential customers? (e.g. They have some assets and/or they've bought Universal releases in the past.)

No fun!

Thanks for the reply.

Did you notice my choice to use the words "can produce" (as in "sometimes") not the word "produce" (as in "always")? I would never make the later statement: open projects always produce higher quality software than proprietary ones. That's not my belief.

As such, you are asking me in your last sentence if I have evidence to support a statement I would never make. Of course, the answer is no, because I would not bother to look for it.

But I would be interested to know why you would like to see such evidence if it exists? I could take a guess as to the reason(s) but I do not want to make assumptions.

I am not a cypherpunk, but can/should we differentiate between 1. encouraging those running OpenSSL/TLS servers to use a. sane defaults that allow forward secrecy and b. ephemeral TLS session ticket keys, 2. using Google's in-house EC cipher implementations and 3. doing 1. and 2.?

We could do 1. only and still reap some benefit, correct?

"broken proprietary software which the public isn't even allowed to fix."

This is recurring theme that traces back at least as early as the 1990's.

What's different now is that there is historical evidence that open source projects can produce higher quality software than proprietary ones.

Statically-compiled programs have no known predators. They typically die from old age.

This is the type of thinking that will hasten Facebook's demise. And it's a perfectly reasonable line of thought.

The next time you hear the phrase "It doesn't scale" in reference to something, ask yourself why it needs to. In some cases it might not.

Centralised approaches (e.g. websites on the open internet) obviously need to scale. Facebook is a public website. And it's on the open internet, for anyone with an account to see and ready to be hacked by those with skill who do not need accounts.

I always come back to this: How many people do you really need to be reading your profile? Friends, coworkers, family, ... potentially anyone, anywhere in the world with a computer and an internet connection? It just does not make sense.

The video is the asset.

Many ways to serve it. Many ways to retrieve it. And many ways to convert and play it.

The skills to do those things are perhaps assets.

But the software is all open source and free.

The price of using an iPad: No LaTex.

In my opinion, such a platform, or several, using an entirely different paradigm, already exist. To overtake Facebook, it is simply a matter of making it as easy to use as Facebook, and Facebook annoyances having reached a breaking point. Whether there is yet sufficient impetus to do the UI work and whether Facebook users are ready to move on to the next thing is another question.

I see them as the same. It may take some years for non-nerds to see the "uncoolness" of FB, but I believe they will see it, in time.