tinus_hn

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38725130

If you really want ‘intellectual curiosity’ and ‘discussion’ you will have to change your and your colleagues stance on using the voting system as disagree buttons and enforce it, and stop the part where people are blocked if they disagree with the mob, because everyone is pressing the disagree button (and some people the ‘super disagree’ flag button).

Of course the way you run the site is up to you but if you do not change it you will get to enjoy a boring agreefest with only hivemind opinions, endless fistbumping around rehashed ideas.

And fine if you have opinions on how I word my thoughts, but there’s also the other side of others calling disagreeing trolling and implying that you think something doesn’t work as well as they think it does means you’re too stupid to understand it. Action leads to reaction and fairness demands that calling me out means you also have to call out the other side. The other side that downdisagreed my original post, which you can’t argue is inflammatory, so far that it gets hidden and I get blocked from responding. While it is a valid point, and it ultimately gets agreed to 1 again. I don’t care about the points but you can’t have a discussion if you can’t respond to people.

So this ‘allows applications to track location’ actually allows applications to track coarse location which then does not allow them to refine using GPS.

And if Apple is responsible for noting who owns the devices next up you will come whining about how that mean Apple doesn’t allow you to sell your devices without informing them.

Whine whine whine from a non paying customer. You don’t like the products, you’re supposedly not going to buy them. What are you whining about, that a product exists that you don’t like? Nobody cares.

If you are in a city you see 50 SSIDs at any given moment. Are you at those 50 locations at the same time? No. Is there a way to triangulate where you are exactly? No, its unreliable and not an exact science.

Should be behind a permissions check, but not the end of the world.

Ultimately either Apple will successfully block Beeper permanently or they will DMCA them and the courts will have their say. We’ll see.

Whining about keys with Apple and thieves doesn’t change a thing about that, it’s just your philosophy. Registering the device to the owner is the responsibility of the owner. It would be nice if Apple would be more insistent, even though then you would whine more ‘because Apple is shoving advertising for its services down peoples throats’ or ‘because Apple is forcing people into accepting iCloud’ but we can just disregard your whining. As you agree it would be better and would have prevented the problem in the article. But that doesn’t change the fact the responsibility is with the owner. Not with Apple. The owner made the mistake, and he agrees with it.

And requiring Apple to be perfect just because they don’t subscribe to your lofty philosophy is ridiculous. If you buy the devices you accept the agreement which, just like the agreement that comes with any similar device, plainly states that the devices and the software they run are not perfect, the product is as-is, don’t like it return it.

If companies were beholden to your philosophies we would get nowhere. That’s why no company does that. It just doesn’t work.

Here they simply provide someone else’s library to perform the authentication. That’s just basic copyright infringement, however lofty the goal.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/858511/what-is-com-apple...

https://www.theregister.com/2003/08/11/habeas_cans_spammer/

You can’t write an emulator and sell it including the bios written by Sony. Has been enforced many times. Similarly, you can’t do what Beeper is doing here.

There is no way for the device to make the distinction if the owner does not register himself as the owner and the thief does. Then the thief is the owner and the device will protect itself from the real owner. There is just no way around it. That is a mistake made by the person writing the blog, they admit it and they say Apple should have made it more obvious which is a reasonable request. Not Apple should have not made the protection, that is an unreasonable request.

You might have philosophical problems with this kind of protection, fine, then don’t buy the devices because they have it, they are advertised to have it and you can’t get them without it.

Don’t buy a device that you know doesn’t do what you want and then go whining on the internet that it doesn’t do what you want. That’s a you problem.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38534247

Beeper is requesting money for illegally distributing Apples copyrighted code which they then use in a questionable way. Cry me a river.

Nothing more than the typical ‘hurr durr Apple bad’ commenting common on this site. Dull, pointless, not interesting.

On one hand it’s reasonable because the inventors spent money on researching the new things that are in the new standard. On the other hand it can be rather unfortunate, especially if it’s software, because with open-source there is no way to pay and get a license.

Also as there is only one browser engine, the system only contains the bugs that are in one browser engine. Most operating systems have bugs in the browser engine that comes with the OS, and bugs in the engine users actually use which is more bugs.

There is protection in a few notable jurisdictions so a violation would make the product illegal in those jurisdictions, which is a problem if it’s an online product.

The people in the estate didn’t do the work, yes they have monetary rights, but it’s not like they deserve to be credited for the existence of these characters.

Good idea, doesn’t work.

It’s not a straightforward copyright issue but in many jurisdictions that is not allowed. Company A did the work, they should be allowed to profit.

I hope there’s still the possibility of appeal and this bad judgement is reversed.

That’s not a balance, it’s just hollow grandstanding.