Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Bose is worried (Score 0) 161

by abhi_beckert (#47541923) Attached to: Bose Sues New Apple Acquisition Beats Over Patent Violations

Bose and Beats are both highly brand-focused. Bose targets the more mature quality-seeking crowd, while Beats targets the bass-hungry and fashion-conscious youth. There's some overlap, but generally I'd say their targets kept competition to a minimum, and they've pretty much cornered those targets

Apple has the best of both worlds being viewed both as high quality and a status symbol. If they start using their monster marketing teams to align peoples' view of Beats with that of Apple, Bose stands a chance of being pushed out of the market by a frightening direct competition. They've got good reason to try to stall the acquisition as much as possible

Bose also targets youth, although they do a terrible job of it and are getting their ass kicked by Beats.

And Beats also targets musicians with their "Pro" headphone which is not bass hungry at all and has higher quality than anything Bose has ever shipped. As far as I can tell, Beats Pro are some of the best studio headphones money can buy at the moment. If they weren't so expensive I would probably own a pair.

Comment: Re:Typical (Score -1, Troll) 161

by abhi_beckert (#47541919) Attached to: Bose Sues New Apple Acquisition Beats Over Patent Violations

"Those who can't create, litigate" --- who does this remind you of over last 2-3 years? Funny to see Apple whine about plays outta their OWN playbook

Apple filed a patent lawsuit against HTC in 2010, and Samsung in 2011. According to Wikipedia, are the only two patent lawsuits Apple has ever filed in the entire history of the company.

Both those lawsuits only happened after Apple spent years trying to negotiate their disagreements without involving the legal system.

A company that has only filed two lawsuits hardly has a "playbook" for suing people for patent infringement.

Comment: Re:Stronger than steel (Score 4, Interesting) 82

by abhi_beckert (#47209623) Attached to: Biodegradable Fibers As Strong As Steel Made From Wood Cellulose

Stronger than steel is cool and all, but that doesn't necessarily mean "all the same properties of steel". Durability, heat tolerance, reaction to moisture and a host of other things are likely to mean it's not a drop-in replacement for fibreglass/plastic/metal.

Fibreglass is terrible at all of the things you just listed and we use it for all kinds of things. It just has to be coated with a thin protective layer.

Comment: Re:Seems correct (Score 1) 53

Maybe Apple or the carriers will cut a deal... or maybe their marketing material will just start referring to "apple phones."

Apple is also a trademark, so they are not allowed to use that in advertising either.

I'm not familiar with Mexican law either but these laws are pretty well unified by international treaties. You cannot use another company's trademark in your advertising material unless you have permission. Any carrier who sells the iPhone to customers would have permission to use the trademark, so this tells me the carrier does not sell iPhones and therefore has no business using iPhone in their ads.

Comment: Re:Welcome to your new walled garden (Score 1) 225

by abhi_beckert (#47106055) Attached to: Google Starts Blocking Extensions Not In the Chrome Web Store

Chromium is open source so if you don't like it, fork you own copy and get whatever useless toolbars that install without permission that you want.

Darwin is open source too, so you can fork it and install whatever apps you want.

The fact is most people stick with the official release. Your platform is not "open" if your official release if third party extensions aren't allowed.

It's worth mentioning the (non-mobile) version of Safari does allow arbitrary third party extensions. There are some warnings to the user that it might be malware, but they don't block installation.

Comment: Re:Encryption (Score 4, Informative) 220

by abhi_beckert (#47096275) Attached to: PHK: HTTP 2.0 Should Be Scrapped

Last I heard, it still supports unencrypted, but only if both the client and server ask for it. If either one asks for encryption, then the connection is encrypted, even if there's no authentication (i.e. certificate). With no certificate, it's still possible to pull an active(MitM) attack, which is much harder to pull off at a large scale without anyone noticing (i.e. you can just collect all data you see).

A server cannot ask for encryption.

Unless the client establishes a secure connection in the first place, the server has no way of knowing if the client is actually who they claim to be. If the client attempts to establish a secure connection and the server responds with "I can't give you a secure connection" then the client needs to assume there is a man in the middle attack going on and refuse to communicate with the server.

There is no way around it, security needs to be initiated on the client and the server cannot be allowed to refuse a secure connection.

HSTS is a partial solution for this problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security)

Comment: Moving goal posts (Score 4, Insightful) 220

by abhi_beckert (#47096243) Attached to: PHK: HTTP 2.0 Should Be Scrapped

I don't think HTTP has any problems with security. All the real world problems with HTTP security are caused by:

  * dismally slow roll out of dnssec. It should have been finished years ago, but it has barely even started.
  * the high price of acquiring an SSL certificate (it's just bits!).
  * slow rollout of IPv6 (SSL certificates generally require a unique IP and we don't have enough to give every domain name a unique IP).
  * arguments in the industry about how to revoke a compromised SSL certificate, which has lead to revocation being almost useless.
  * SSL doesn't really work when there are thousands of certificate authorities, so some changes are needed to cope with the current situation (eg: dsnssec could be used to prevent two certificate authorities from signing the same domain name)

Comment: In soviet russia, the car drives you (Score 1) 301

There shouldn't need to be a person in the car at all. I want my autonomous car to drop me off in the taxi zone outside work, then wander off by itself to find free parking. When I finish work I'll summon it via my phone, and it'll meet me on the street outside the office.

Comment: Re:Auto switches (Score 1) 415

You sir, have obviously never encountered the problem. The message does one of two things: 1) Gets marked as delivered but is never delivered because the person has no iDevice or 2) Gets marked as undeliverable and is not resent as a text. I have a friend who has been trying to fix this for months and at first her messages disappeared into the abyss. Now they just fail to deliver and I have to manually resend it.

I have encountered the problem, and solved it for friends/family.

Since I'm an iOS developer, anybody who has any problem with their iPhone asks me how to fix it. And since I'm a tin-foil-hat-toting privacy advocate, I have studied various articles that reverse engineer how iMessage works. I know exactly what "delivered" means —it means some device somewhere decrypted the message. Apple's server cannot decrypt the message as they do not have the private key, so therefore they cannot possibly send a delivery confirmation.

Go ahead and try it out. Disable wifi and cellular data on an iPhone but leave the non-data cellular connection active, then send an iMessage to it.

The message will not change to "delivered" unless some other device is registered (and connected to the internet) to receive messages at that phone number. After some minutes, the blue message box on the sending device will change colour to green, signifying an SMS has been sent. Depending how good your cell carrier is, the SMS will be delivered instantly or after a few days (SMS is not a reliable messaging protocol...). This assumes you have not disabled SMS fallback on the sending device, which is the default.

I just did the test, and it proved my theory. Disconnecting my phone/ipad/mac caused a sending device to fail to show "delivered", and several minutes later my phone received an SMS message.

The system is overly complicated, mostly as a byproduct of Apple's end-to-end encryption system, which leads to a lot of customer confusion and miss-information when they try to diagnose one of the many things that can go wrong. But I know what I'm talking about, delivered means it was delivered to a device registered receive iMessages at that phone number.

Comment: Re:Auto switches (Score 1) 415

Apparently Apple knows less about their own products than I do as an Apple developer.

Wrong. Your understanding of iMessage is incorrect, see below.

If the phone does not decrypt the message and send an acknowledgment within a few minutes, it will be sent as an SMS instead.

Incorrect. Fallback to SMS works in the case where the message fails to send not if it fails to receive which is why it will not fall back to SMS if the receiver's phone/ipad/laptop is simply switched off.

According to the article, the iMessage is sent and status immediately changes to "delivered". That means he has at least one device registered to receive iMessages at that phone number and it is turned on and received the message.

Incorrect again. It means that it has been delivered to the email account associated with the iMessage account.

His claim to have logged out of iMessage on all his devices is bullshit. He forgot one.

Incorrect yet again. Even if he turns of iMessage the receiver needs to have done the same thing or else his messages to her will be delivered to the email account associated with her iMessage account.

You're wrong, I know from experience that sending an iMessage to someone outside cell network range causes it to fall back to sending an SMS.

Also, I had a friend who would constantly receive double messages, because she had poor cell network coverage in her home, phone/sms worked fine but data had huge packet loss. iMesasge couldn't reach her and would fallback to SMS 50% of the time. When she reads the SMS the phone would connect to wifi and she'd receive the iMessage while reading the SMS, hens the regular complaints about double messages.

Comment: Re:Public transit (Score 1) 389

So if they can't enforce a fine, then what happens if you don't pay the straffavgift? It sounds like they don't have any authority to actually run things. While I appreciate the enforcement of privacy, does that also apply to businesses? Are they not allowed to keep track of who shop-lifted or passed bad forms of payment or otherwise caused problems and they don't want to let into their business again?

I don't know about Sweden but in most countries any business can refuse to server any customer for whatever reason they want, so long as it isn't race or gender or something discriminatory.

Here in Australia shoplifting will probably just get you kicked out of the store and told never to come back. The reason is the person doing the shoplifting (often a kid) might simply tell the cops that they're innocent. From then on the store will have to either drop their accusation or take it to court, which involves sending many thousands of dollars to your legal team, for no gain at all. You already recovered the stolen merchandise, so are not eligible for any compensation.

Unless they're a repeat offender, a judge will probably let them off with a slap on the wrist. Sending some poor kid who doesn't no better into the prison system over a stolen CD is a bad idea —inevitably that will lead them to commit more serious crimes later in life.

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.

Working...