Dude, feel free to hate Apple. And hate me too if you want.
But, I have no affiliations with Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc, and I don't work in marketing or advertising.
Yeah, WM7 phones had the same issues at launch, but I used the original iPhone as a counter-example because history has shown that at the time it was incredibly successful despite those things that you claim are major flaws. Those were all issues that were regularly echoed in this forum and on many other internet blogs and boards. Yet, people still bought this new at the time product. Whether or not you or I think the product was any good, the original iPhone was an enormous marketing success.
So when you're 'turfing a product with fatal flaws like for example a phone that can't multitask, has no apps and can't even set your "I like big butts" MP3 as a ringtone for your amply so endowed love interest like other phones can, that's a good spot to pretend those slights don't exist and instead go on about some minor flaw that absolutely nobody could care about before dismissing it as a minor issue not worthy of subtracting a star.
It's interesting you point out well known issues in the original iPhone that you feel are 'fatal flaws' in one of the most successful single products on the market at the time. By extension of its success, I'd say those features are were significantly less important to a huge majority of Apple's target audience, and were in fact the minor and not the major flaws.
Now imagine that Apple's advertising agency had a number of astro-turfers out there specifically seeding those 'flaws' into general discussion along with some overriding positives. Those that latch onto these 'problems' as being significant to them are effectively no longer Apple's target market. Assuming that group is a small enough percentage, the rhetoric that is generated by the ensuing discussions is more likely to push their target demographic more strongly into a purchase. It also polarises a market that may have previously been sluggish to adopt new technologies.
If I see a review and the 'major problems' list a bunch of things that I don't care about. Not only does the review appear balanced, but it ends up in fact being overtly positive of the product, irrespective of how many 'stars' are given.
If I was being to paid to astroturf a product, I'd prepare a number of generally positive and a few 'negative' reviews that pointed out a few flaws in the product. Of course those would only be flaws that the majority of people will either not care about, or will see as positive to themselves. The idea is to seed a small element of trust in the product, and take away the feeling of blind risk from the potential customer.
In some of those reviews I'd also mention another product or two that I felt were 'better', again only in some specific way that most people wouldn't care about. This seeds an element of legitimacy to the product, especially when comparing it against known good competition. The idea is not to get 100% of people thinking your product is the best, but to catch a large number of customers that would have otherwise never even considered your product.
The third sneaky thing that I'd do would be to review a competing product or two with a very minor mention of the product I'm being paid to astroturf. In that review I'd be generally positive, while at the same time throwing in a few questions that seeded some doubt and uncertainty about some seemingly important aspect of the competitor's product that my actual product reviews (and legitimate advertisements) had covered as being fully supported. In this way, the person 'researching' the general class of product is likely to do some further research into 'my' products - specifically searching for these 'missing' or 'doubtful' aspects that I've alluded to.
The above tactics are readily seen across the board in general advertisements where a company will harp on about some new 'feature' that they have - especially a feature that competing products don't officially advertise or mention - thus implying that the feature does not (or may not) exist in those other products. In reality the feature is a straw man style argument that compares apples/oranges in a way that less than 10% of the potential market would see as an invalid or incomplete comparison.
How does anyone know that there aren't people out there readily using any or all of the above tactics?
Heck, there was a story recently about the TSA busting a guy with C4 by using an explosive detection device.
Funnily enough, that story is about the TSA congratulating itself for detecting a small amount of detonatorless explosive (1/2 ounce of C4 in a tobacco tin), in checked luggage. - ie. a non-threat to anyone on the plane.
The really sad thing is that the luggage would have been searched (and the C4 found) not because the explosive itself was detected, but because trace amounts of probably unrelated residue on the outside of the bag were detected. I suspect that 99% of 'trace' detections lead to searches that don't end up finding anything; mainly because there are too many legitimate ways that 'explosive' residue can find its way onto a bag.
DNA testing is far more useful to prove exclusion with great confidence, because the 'match' size is only one to one. But - that does NOT mean we can extend this methodology to prove a positive match against a database with thousands of random entries. If a sample does not match the suspect, then it can generally be shown that the sample did NOT originate from the suspect - the inverse however, is not necessarily true.
When samples do match to some degree, it can only be shown that there is some likelihood that a sample came from the suspect - a likelihood that is completely dependent on the search criteria and database size when matching the sample to a list of 'suspects'. The bigger the database, the less reliable the result.
For example, if a there are three unrelated people in a room, and I take a sample from each one of them, then a lab could determine with extreme confidence which sample goes with which person. If I do the same with 10000 random people in the room, the probability of correctly identifying a given sample falls dramatically - in fact, it is likely that the sample will 'match' hundreds of people.
As can be seen from the above examples, Gataca / [insert favourite TV crime show] style DNA matching is still far from realistic with current technology.
Why is it that people always go to the "well someone could take it from you!" argument regarding introducing guns in an environment? Forcibly removing a weapon from one WELL TRAINED in it's use (air marshals, not TSA goons), while the assailant is unarmed, without said assailant being shot to death is an EXTREMELY low probability scenario.
Firstly, a long range weapon like a rifle is almost guaranteed to be taken away from you by one or more well trained 'suicidal' assailants in a close quarters situation - no matter how well trained you are. Unless of course you don't really care who you shoot and pretty much blow away anyone coming within 10 feet of you. The "well someone could take it away from you!" argument comes up because certain types of weapons are not appropriate for certain situations. That doesn't mean there isn't a type of gun that could be used, but an assault rifle isn't one of them.
Secondly, the odds of a gun on the plane without the assault rifle wielding marshal is virtually zero. So inappropriately adding one to the environment is a recipe for a disaster (or series of disasters) far worse than the perceived problem.
If implemented, the terrorism no longer comes from the radical nuts, but the 'protectors' themselves. Accidentally wander into the wrong part of the plane (or by extension bus/train/street/building/etc) looking for a toilet - and get plugged. Simple as that. Sort of like bringing the War in Afghanistan back into the USA where due process is suspended and the gun toting law is above the law.
Don't know about you, but that scenario scares me far more than the odds of a radical nut blowing up a plane, or somehow overpowering the crew and passengers and crashing it into a populated area.
A jump seat at the front and rear of every plane occupied by a uniformed marshal with a clearly visible assault rifle would stop pretty much all of this nonsense.
Doing that puts obviously visible assault rifles onto the plane, ready to be re-appropriated in any number of scenarios. After which, the lock on the cockpit door doesn't stand a chance.
Please tell me I missed your sarcasm.
Re:Reminds Me of Something the Sony CEO Said ...
on
Has iTunes Been Hacked?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
So you closed the vulnerability and kept the stash?
Close the vulnerability? Don't be daft man! That sounds like the kind of automatic update that is best left enabled.
The truly sad thing is that if for some reason you needed to find a high level radiation monitor, the first place you'd probably think of looking would be a nuclear reactor facility.
However, for some reason, this facility doesn't have one kicking around? And in the last month they haven't even seen the need to get one sent to them? That is indeed a sad, sad, indictment on an industry in dire need to avoid as much negative publicity as possible.
It's almost as if this facility was run by the anti-nuclear movement.
Let's assume they just considered the statistics for the USA. And while they're at it, include all the people permanently disabled, the people bankrupted by medical expenses, and anyone directly affected by the death/incapacitation of their primary caregiver due to a car accident.
Take that number and run it over a few years and all of a sudden you end up with an equally huge number.
For me, the 1 Million worldwide number (although obviously chosen to maximise impact) doesn't seem particularly sensationalist.
As I said above: if I have to babysit the car why not just drive myself anyway? Cars are also in an environment where things happen very, very rapidly. In a plane there is usually far more time for a pilot to realize there is a problem and take over - the exceptions being take off and landing when the pilot is flying. In a car if the computer mistakes a shadow for a pedestrian and swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid it there will probably not be time to react.
That reminds of the situation where fighter jet pilots would disengage the ground-hugging auto-pilot when coming over the top of a rise and being suddenly greeted by a fast approaching cliff face. This inevitably caused the plane to crash, as the auto-pilot was completely aware of all parameters and was operating far beyond the capabilities of the human pilot. However, since the pilot's reactions were nowhere near as fast, the act of pulling back on the stick (thus disengaging the auto-pilot) was the worst thing they could have done.
The simplified explanation is that corporate tax is paid on whatever is left over in the bank account after paying out all those other things. Fringe benefits tax catches the situations such as your CEO car example to stop companies buying things for employees with pre-tax dollars instead of paying out a taxable wage.
Many corporations reinvest their profits or pay dividends which reduce their tax burden (or in reality push the profit and thus tax burden onto another entity or person). However, it is not always expedient for them to blow 100% of their cash reserve just to avoid paying a 30% tax on the same amount. And it is sometimes wiser to purchase fixed assets that may not be 100% depreciable in the first year instead of wasting money leasing them just to avoid paying tax.
Companies are also lucky in that generally all of their operational costs are tax deductible, whereas you and I are only able to deduct costs directly related to that earning. ie. We can't deduct the cost of food, rent, or transport to/from work, even though we still need those things to survive. Whereas, pretty much anything a company does is directly related to generation of revenue, and thus deductible to some degree.
So when you hear about a company paying tax (or not paying tax), it is basically talking about tax on income that was surplus to its operational requirements. It is indeed possible for a company to reduce its tax burden to zero by simply paying out the remaining profits and pushing the tax burden onto the recipient(s). But, if they keep it, it gets taxed.
Most of those embedded systems don't have a programatically (or automatically) controllable core voltage rail. In that case (given a constant voltage), the speed increase is linearly proportional to F, so you're better off just getting your stuff over and done with and then going into idle.
If the core voltage is configurable, then underclocking becomes significantly more useful as power consumed is proportional to V squared. Since decreasing the operational voltage generally also requires the clock rate to be reduced, the term underclocking generally assumes both conditions are being met to maximise the benefits.
all of the binaries in/System on a Mac OS X site are signed by Apple to prevent tampering...by the user
Right, so removing the user's freedom to change their system and locking their hardware to a single OS would be exactly what is violating the clear intention (and now the letter) of the GPL. Sounds like the GPLv3 is working perfectly, then.
As far as OSX is concerned, nothing locks the hardware to the OS (maybe the other way round, but that isn't the issue). And any GPL2 code that is signed and run in the Apple/system folder can be modified, recompiled and run unsigned in userland or another OS. It just can't be modified, recompiled, and run unsigned as OSX/system software.
So, yes the GPL3 may be 'working', but only if your definition of 'working' is: failure to provide a usable license platform to allow a company such as Apple (or Microsoft) to use protected system level software that is under that license.
IMO the GPL2 hit a sweet spot that encouraged development on two fronts - as a userland application supported by the masses of the open source community, and as a protected system level application that is supported by a commercial entity (or entities). And it forces all commercial players to release their changes back to the community.
No one is going to develop or support a source tree that they can't actually use or benefit from. And if 'signed' changes made to a pre-existing GPL2 project by a commercial entity are useful in any way, the new source code can still be ported to be useful in an open operating system. So, no the GPL3 is probably not working as intended - unless the intent is to stunt the sharing and development of source code between the commercial and community sectors.
It is not reasonable to expect an OS developer like Apple or Microsoft to leave gaping security holes in their systems just so they can use some GPL3 source code.
The summary is flat out wrong the way it is worded, but there are legitimate licensing issues.
They probably figure it is easier to maintain a single SMB/CIFS implementation rather than two, so they are ditching it on OS X as well (or they have other plans for OS X that we are not aware of yet).
Just about all of the binaries in/System on a Mac OS X site are signed by Apple to prevent tampering, either by the user or Eve trying to installing a rootkit. They probably don't want to turn over the signing keys for those, because they definitely don't want Eve patching their system, and as far as Apple engineers are concerned/System should have a big sticker on it reading "No user serviceable parts inside."
...and we know what happened the first time Eve combined an Apple with a little social engineering and subsequent rooting.
And it, like everything else, is vulnerable to the "analog hole". Yes, I know that at high security installations people are searched upon entry for cameras and audio recording devices, but unfortunately, the advance of technology makes it likely that it will eventually be trivial to conceal such devices from most kinds of search equipment (in general, the smaller something is, the easier it is to conceal it).
Ah yes, the good ol' a-hole vulnerability. And a micro-SDcard dipped in vaseline.
That's why you'd use one of the half dozen business card scanning/OCR apps that automatically does it for you. You even get to keep the full colour photo image of the card in your digital library for future reference.
Most people already have a system for processing business cards, whether it be electronic or physical. 2D bar codes are not there yet, and if someone offered me one, it would sit outside my usual contact system until I get around to processing it (if ever). Having a random business contact going directly into my phone's contact list is not particularly useful until I've qualified it and inserted appropriate commentry.
'I had a lovely conversation with two young entrepreneurs from New York and when it was time to part ways, I used that old line: 'Here, let me give you my card.'
Anyone that is serious about entrepeneurship in anything but name will always be prepared to exchange details in any number of ways. They will also always be 'on the lookout' for worthwhile partners, and will generally be quite inquisitive into other people's capabilities and contacts.
If for some reason, these "young and hip" dudes are too self absorbed to consider the benefits of generating a wide variety of contacts, then it stands to reason that it's unlikely they'll go very far in the business world as a entrepeneurs.
Were they just sweet talking Miss Jackson in an attempt to get laid? Maybe.
I'm a musician. It costs a lot more than $1 to make a song, so selling for $1 seems like a concession to me.
I don't think you understand NRE (non-recurring expenditure) as it pertains to developing a product. In your case, the initial investment required to create your product (ie. make your song) includes a number of NREs.
The sale price is set based on the per unit production/distribution cost plus some percentage of the NREs over an investment recovery period. The percentage of NRE is based on the estimated sale quantity. So if it costs you $7,000 to produce/manufacture/market your song, and the per unit production/distribution cost is $0.30, then you'll need to sell 10,000 units to break even at a sale price of $1.00.
If your song (or your marketing/sales capabiilty) is crap and you think that over a 5 year investment recovery period you'll only ever sell 1000 songs, then you need the unit price to be much higher if you want to make money. Of course the sales volume is tied to the sale price, so if you set the price at $10 per song, unless it's some earth shattering experience, you probably won't sell anywhere near even your low ball estimate.
How is this different from using the existing search?
Search for: "ford escort" -inurl:ford.com
Aside from paid ads, you won't have any results from ford.com
So, this tool is really for people who require pointy-clicky utilities. The rest of us had this capability years ago.
For specific one-off exclusions, explicit declaration in the search bar has always been an extremely useful tool.
However, in many general search cases the exception list becomes so large that you have to cut and paste it in from you're own database to avoid said cruft - and in my case that list is massive.
Google's new feature not only takes it one step further to help remove the sites that are never useful, but also makes it a one click affair. Combined with a method to detect entities gaming the system, it could also give Google an extra vector to help them improve the ranking of useful search results.
Possibly I don't understand the math. But I would think if an active jammer tried to provide incorrect timebase or ephemeris to create the error, that the GPS receiver would either interpret it as a calculatable DOP, or so far outside the limits that the navigation fix would be lost. I'm sure there are theoretical active attacks on GPS, but it seems for it to work, you'd have to obscure all authentic satellite signals, because any spoofed satellite either wouldn't appear in the almanac of the authentic satellite signals, or the spoofed satellite would appear to be in the wrong orbit of the authentic satellites' almanacs.
Yes, you'd have to over-power the existing satellite signals (ie. you can't just add a few random satellites to the mix). I've used some GPS emulators that do exactly that (of course, we use them in a shielded room and directly feed the antennas (as opposed to openly broadcasting).
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, feel free to hate Apple. And hate me too if you want.
But, I have no affiliations with Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc, and I don't work in marketing or advertising.
Yeah, WM7 phones had the same issues at launch, but I used the original iPhone as a counter-example because history has shown that at the time it was incredibly successful despite those things that you claim are major flaws. Those were all issues that were regularly echoed in this forum and on many other internet blogs and boards. Yet, people still bought this new at the time product. Whether or not you or I think the product was any good, the original iPhone was an enormous marketing success.
So when you're 'turfing a product with fatal flaws like for example a phone that can't multitask, has no apps and can't even set your "I like big butts" MP3 as a ringtone for your amply so endowed love interest like other phones can, that's a good spot to pretend those slights don't exist and instead go on about some minor flaw that absolutely nobody could care about before dismissing it as a minor issue not worthy of subtracting a star.
It's interesting you point out well known issues in the original iPhone that you feel are 'fatal flaws' in one of the most successful single products on the market at the time. By extension of its success, I'd say those features are were significantly less important to a huge majority of Apple's target audience, and were in fact the minor and not the major flaws.
Now imagine that Apple's advertising agency had a number of astro-turfers out there specifically seeding those 'flaws' into general discussion along with some overriding positives. Those that latch onto these 'problems' as being significant to them are effectively no longer Apple's target market. Assuming that group is a small enough percentage, the rhetoric that is generated by the ensuing discussions is more likely to push their target demographic more strongly into a purchase. It also polarises a market that may have previously been sluggish to adopt new technologies.
If I see a review and the 'major problems' list a bunch of things that I don't care about. Not only does the review appear balanced, but it ends up in fact being overtly positive of the product, irrespective of how many 'stars' are given.
If I was being to paid to astroturf a product, I'd prepare a number of generally positive and a few 'negative' reviews that pointed out a few flaws in the product. Of course those would only be flaws that the majority of people will either not care about, or will see as positive to themselves. The idea is to seed a small element of trust in the product, and take away the feeling of blind risk from the potential customer.
In some of those reviews I'd also mention another product or two that I felt were 'better', again only in some specific way that most people wouldn't care about. This seeds an element of legitimacy to the product, especially when comparing it against known good competition. The idea is not to get 100% of people thinking your product is the best, but to catch a large number of customers that would have otherwise never even considered your product.
The third sneaky thing that I'd do would be to review a competing product or two with a very minor mention of the product I'm being paid to astroturf. In that review I'd be generally positive, while at the same time throwing in a few questions that seeded some doubt and uncertainty about some seemingly important aspect of the competitor's product that my actual product reviews (and legitimate advertisements) had covered as being fully supported. In this way, the person 'researching' the general class of product is likely to do some further research into 'my' products - specifically searching for these 'missing' or 'doubtful' aspects that I've alluded to.
The above tactics are readily seen across the board in general advertisements where a company will harp on about some new 'feature' that they have - especially a feature that competing products don't officially advertise or mention - thus implying that the feature does not (or may not) exist in those other products. In reality the feature is a straw man style argument that compares apples/oranges in a way that less than 10% of the potential market would see as an invalid or incomplete comparison.
How does anyone know that there aren't people out there readily using any or all of the above tactics?
Heck, there was a story recently about the TSA busting a guy with C4 by using an explosive detection device.
Funnily enough, that story is about the TSA congratulating itself for detecting a small amount of detonatorless explosive (1/2 ounce of C4 in a tobacco tin), in checked luggage. - ie. a non-threat to anyone on the plane.
The really sad thing is that the luggage would have been searched (and the C4 found) not because the explosive itself was detected, but because trace amounts of probably unrelated residue on the outside of the bag were detected. I suspect that 99% of 'trace' detections lead to searches that don't end up finding anything; mainly because there are too many legitimate ways that 'explosive' residue can find its way onto a bag.
Mod parent up.
DNA testing is far more useful to prove exclusion with great confidence, because the 'match' size is only one to one. But - that does NOT mean we can extend this methodology to prove a positive match against a database with thousands of random entries. If a sample does not match the suspect, then it can generally be shown that the sample did NOT originate from the suspect - the inverse however, is not necessarily true.
When samples do match to some degree, it can only be shown that there is some likelihood that a sample came from the suspect - a likelihood that is completely dependent on the search criteria and database size when matching the sample to a list of 'suspects'. The bigger the database, the less reliable the result.
For example, if a there are three unrelated people in a room, and I take a sample from each one of them, then a lab could determine with extreme confidence which sample goes with which person. If I do the same with 10000 random people in the room, the probability of correctly identifying a given sample falls dramatically - in fact, it is likely that the sample will 'match' hundreds of people.
As can be seen from the above examples, Gataca / [insert favourite TV crime show] style DNA matching is still far from realistic with current technology.
Plausible deniability.
Why is it that people always go to the "well someone could take it from you!" argument regarding introducing guns in an environment? Forcibly removing a weapon from one WELL TRAINED in it's use (air marshals, not TSA goons), while the assailant is unarmed, without said assailant being shot to death is an EXTREMELY low probability scenario.
Firstly, a long range weapon like a rifle is almost guaranteed to be taken away from you by one or more well trained 'suicidal' assailants in a close quarters situation - no matter how well trained you are. Unless of course you don't really care who you shoot and pretty much blow away anyone coming within 10 feet of you. The "well someone could take it away from you!" argument comes up because certain types of weapons are not appropriate for certain situations. That doesn't mean there isn't a type of gun that could be used, but an assault rifle isn't one of them.
Secondly, the odds of a gun on the plane without the assault rifle wielding marshal is virtually zero. So inappropriately adding one to the environment is a recipe for a disaster (or series of disasters) far worse than the perceived problem.
If implemented, the terrorism no longer comes from the radical nuts, but the 'protectors' themselves. Accidentally wander into the wrong part of the plane (or by extension bus/train/street/building/etc) looking for a toilet - and get plugged. Simple as that. Sort of like bringing the War in Afghanistan back into the USA where due process is suspended and the gun toting law is above the law.
Don't know about you, but that scenario scares me far more than the odds of a radical nut blowing up a plane, or somehow overpowering the crew and passengers and crashing it into a populated area.
A jump seat at the front and rear of every plane occupied by a uniformed marshal with a clearly visible assault rifle would stop pretty much all of this nonsense.
Doing that puts obviously visible assault rifles onto the plane, ready to be re-appropriated in any number of scenarios. After which, the lock on the cockpit door doesn't stand a chance.
Please tell me I missed your sarcasm.
So you closed the vulnerability and kept the stash?
Close the vulnerability? Don't be daft man! That sounds like the kind of automatic update that is best left enabled.
Why use something which can be defeated with a $5 wrench [xkcd.com]?
Your $5 wrench isn't much use if the person who has the password is already dead.
That's because someone was doing it wrong.
The truly sad thing is that if for some reason you needed to find a high level radiation monitor, the first place you'd probably think of looking would be a nuclear reactor facility.
However, for some reason, this facility doesn't have one kicking around? And in the last month they haven't even seen the need to get one sent to them? That is indeed a sad, sad, indictment on an industry in dire need to avoid as much negative publicity as possible.
It's almost as if this facility was run by the anti-nuclear movement.
Let's assume they just considered the statistics for the USA. And while they're at it, include all the people permanently disabled, the people bankrupted by medical expenses, and anyone directly affected by the death/incapacitation of their primary caregiver due to a car accident.
Take that number and run it over a few years and all of a sudden you end up with an equally huge number.
For me, the 1 Million worldwide number (although obviously chosen to maximise impact) doesn't seem particularly sensationalist.
As I said above: if I have to babysit the car why not just drive myself anyway? Cars are also in an environment where things happen very, very rapidly. In a plane there is usually far more time for a pilot to realize there is a problem and take over - the exceptions being take off and landing when the pilot is flying. In a car if the computer mistakes a shadow for a pedestrian and swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid it there will probably not be time to react.
That reminds of the situation where fighter jet pilots would disengage the ground-hugging auto-pilot when coming over the top of a rise and being suddenly greeted by a fast approaching cliff face. This inevitably caused the plane to crash, as the auto-pilot was completely aware of all parameters and was operating far beyond the capabilities of the human pilot. However, since the pilot's reactions were nowhere near as fast, the act of pulling back on the stick (thus disengaging the auto-pilot) was the worst thing they could have done.
The simplified explanation is that corporate tax is paid on whatever is left over in the bank account after paying out all those other things. Fringe benefits tax catches the situations such as your CEO car example to stop companies buying things for employees with pre-tax dollars instead of paying out a taxable wage.
Many corporations reinvest their profits or pay dividends which reduce their tax burden (or in reality push the profit and thus tax burden onto another entity or person). However, it is not always expedient for them to blow 100% of their cash reserve just to avoid paying a 30% tax on the same amount. And it is sometimes wiser to purchase fixed assets that may not be 100% depreciable in the first year instead of wasting money leasing them just to avoid paying tax.
Companies are also lucky in that generally all of their operational costs are tax deductible, whereas you and I are only able to deduct costs directly related to that earning. ie. We can't deduct the cost of food, rent, or transport to/from work, even though we still need those things to survive. Whereas, pretty much anything a company does is directly related to generation of revenue, and thus deductible to some degree.
So when you hear about a company paying tax (or not paying tax), it is basically talking about tax on income that was surplus to its operational requirements. It is indeed possible for a company to reduce its tax burden to zero by simply paying out the remaining profits and pushing the tax burden onto the recipient(s). But, if they keep it, it gets taxed.
Most of those embedded systems don't have a programatically (or automatically) controllable core voltage rail. In that case (given a constant voltage), the speed increase is linearly proportional to F, so you're better off just getting your stuff over and done with and then going into idle.
If the core voltage is configurable, then underclocking becomes significantly more useful as power consumed is proportional to V squared. Since decreasing the operational voltage generally also requires the clock rate to be reduced, the term underclocking generally assumes both conditions are being met to maximise the benefits.
all of the binaries in /System on a Mac OS X site are signed by Apple to prevent tampering...by the user
Right, so removing the user's freedom to change their system and locking their hardware to a single OS would be exactly what is violating the clear intention (and now the letter) of the GPL. Sounds like the GPLv3 is working perfectly, then.
As far as OSX is concerned, nothing locks the hardware to the OS (maybe the other way round, but that isn't the issue). And any GPL2 code that is signed and run in the Apple /system folder can be modified, recompiled and run unsigned in userland or another OS. It just can't be modified, recompiled, and run unsigned as OSX /system software.
So, yes the GPL3 may be 'working', but only if your definition of 'working' is: failure to provide a usable license platform to allow a company such as Apple (or Microsoft) to use protected system level software that is under that license.
IMO the GPL2 hit a sweet spot that encouraged development on two fronts - as a userland application supported by the masses of the open source community, and as a protected system level application that is supported by a commercial entity (or entities). And it forces all commercial players to release their changes back to the community.
No one is going to develop or support a source tree that they can't actually use or benefit from. And if 'signed' changes made to a pre-existing GPL2 project by a commercial entity are useful in any way, the new source code can still be ported to be useful in an open operating system. So, no the GPL3 is probably not working as intended - unless the intent is to stunt the sharing and development of source code between the commercial and community sectors.
It is not reasonable to expect an OS developer like Apple or Microsoft to leave gaping security holes in their systems just so they can use some GPL3 source code.
Just about all of the binaries in /System on a Mac OS X site are signed by Apple to prevent tampering, either by the user or Eve trying to installing a rootkit. They probably don't want to turn over the signing keys for those, because they definitely don't want Eve patching their system, and as far as Apple engineers are concerned /System should have a big sticker on it reading "No user serviceable parts inside."
...and we know what happened the first time Eve combined an Apple with a little social engineering and subsequent rooting.
And it, like everything else, is vulnerable to the "analog hole". Yes, I know that at high security installations people are searched upon entry for cameras and audio recording devices, but unfortunately, the advance of technology makes it likely that it will eventually be trivial to conceal such devices from most kinds of search equipment (in general, the smaller something is, the easier it is to conceal it).
Ah yes, the good ol' a-hole vulnerability. And a micro-SDcard dipped in vaseline.
That's why you'd use one of the half dozen business card scanning/OCR apps that automatically does it for you. You even get to keep the full colour photo image of the card in your digital library for future reference.
Most people already have a system for processing business cards, whether it be electronic or physical. 2D bar codes are not there yet, and if someone offered me one, it would sit outside my usual contact system until I get around to processing it (if ever). Having a random business contact going directly into my phone's contact list is not particularly useful until I've qualified it and inserted appropriate commentry.
And even sadder is if the torrent stays at S:1, L:0.
According to Jackson:
'I had a lovely conversation with two young entrepreneurs from New York and when it was time to part ways, I used that old line: 'Here, let me give you my card.'
Anyone that is serious about entrepeneurship in anything but name will always be prepared to exchange details in any number of ways. They will also always be 'on the lookout' for worthwhile partners, and will generally be quite inquisitive into other people's capabilities and contacts.
If for some reason, these "young and hip" dudes are too self absorbed to consider the benefits of generating a wide variety of contacts, then it stands to reason that it's unlikely they'll go very far in the business world as a entrepeneurs.
Were they just sweet talking Miss Jackson in an attempt to get laid? Maybe.
Are they entrepeneurs? Not so much.
Or you could keep a 2D barcode on your phone, as a picture. Just open the pic and let them scan it.
Better:
Or you could keep a picture of your business card on your phone. Just open the pic and let them scan it.
Best:
Or you could keep a business card in your wallet. Just give it to them and let them scan it.
I'm a musician. It costs a lot more than $1 to make a song, so selling for $1 seems like a concession to me.
I don't think you understand NRE (non-recurring expenditure) as it pertains to developing a product. In your case, the initial investment required to create your product (ie. make your song) includes a number of NREs.
The sale price is set based on the per unit production/distribution cost plus some percentage of the NREs over an investment recovery period. The percentage of NRE is based on the estimated sale quantity. So if it costs you $7,000 to produce/manufacture/market your song, and the per unit production/distribution cost is $0.30, then you'll need to sell 10,000 units to break even at a sale price of $1.00.
If your song (or your marketing/sales capabiilty) is crap and you think that over a 5 year investment recovery period you'll only ever sell 1000 songs, then you need the unit price to be much higher if you want to make money. Of course the sales volume is tied to the sale price, so if you set the price at $10 per song, unless it's some earth shattering experience, you probably won't sell anywhere near even your low ball estimate.
How is this different from using the existing search?
Search for: "ford escort" -inurl:ford.com
Aside from paid ads, you won't have any results from ford.com
So, this tool is really for people who require pointy-clicky utilities. The rest of us had this capability years ago.
For specific one-off exclusions, explicit declaration in the search bar has always been an extremely useful tool.
However, in many general search cases the exception list becomes so large that you have to cut and paste it in from you're own database to avoid said cruft - and in my case that list is massive.
Google's new feature not only takes it one step further to help remove the sites that are never useful, but also makes it a one click affair. Combined with a method to detect entities gaming the system, it could also give Google an extra vector to help them improve the ranking of useful search results.
Possibly I don't understand the math. But I would think if an active jammer tried to provide incorrect timebase or ephemeris to create the error, that the GPS receiver would either interpret it as a calculatable DOP, or so far outside the limits that the navigation fix would be lost. I'm sure there are theoretical active attacks on GPS, but it seems for it to work, you'd have to obscure all authentic satellite signals, because any spoofed satellite either wouldn't appear in the almanac of the authentic satellite signals, or the spoofed satellite would appear to be in the wrong orbit of the authentic satellites' almanacs.
Yes, you'd have to over-power the existing satellite signals (ie. you can't just add a few random satellites to the mix). I've used some GPS emulators that do exactly that (of course, we use them in a shielded room and directly feed the antennas (as opposed to openly broadcasting).