The problem with making the decision yourself is that it means you have to buy the app first to find out that you don't like it.
Yes it would be great if there was an alternate non-Apple sponsored app store that allowed those type of apps. But, I don't see Apple letting that happen until developers start jumping ship en masse.
With IPv6 (or with IPv4 for that matter) you can still throw up a single firewall. To duplicate the protection you get from using NAT, just make it reject all incoming connection requests.
The problem is that some of the machines on those Class A (and B) allocations aren't just sitting dormant on non-routable endpoints. They also happen to be spread around the internet in various sub-allocations that have been given to / shared with affiliated companies.
Any effort to forceably 'take back' those allocations would cause unpredictable routing issues around the internet - making those addresses extremely unreliable. And that is completely ignoring the enormous disruptions that would take place while said organisations attempted to transition to a new IP address range.
If the transition could be done in under a year or two, I'd be surprised. And as has been posted in many other previous comments, it would only buy an extra month or two before a full reclaimed Class A would then itself be exhausted.
At this point, large scale effort should not be wasted on dead-end strategies, when the same resources could be used to migrate towards IPv6.
The lawyers are also in a position where they have the expectation of 'expert knowledge' in the area of law. So, when the lawyer recommends that they must pursue a lawsuit or the company risks losing the trademark, the company executives will generally follow their recommendation. It's not as if Steve Jobs is going to study up on the intricacies of every legal case that Apple is involved with and override his own legal department.
It may have happened when certain design decisions were being weighed up against the engineering ramifications (eg. the iPhone 4 antenna issue), but I doubt he'd risk his company's trademark(s) so Apple could feel a little bit more community loving.
You tell them you just visited your cousin Jim, who had an old hard drive he didn't want anymore, and you needed a spare so he gave it to you, but not before he ran "dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda1" because he didn't want you having his old tax documents. All you've done with it since is install the OS...
>>"Its getting too melodramatic and mushy on these story ark endings as well"
Hey, my wife cried at the end of "Vincent". Some of the shows cater to the female Who fans.
The ending of Vincent was very emotional (and IMO the best episode of the season), but it didn't have the "bigger better faster stronger more melodramatic" incremental creep that seems to be the current trend.
It's like an arms race where as the hero gets more 'powerful', so do all the 'monsters'. After a certain point you end up with a stalemate where every man and their dog can cause the whole universe to implode with the flick of a finger. Or worse, the 'mere mortals' suddenly possess uncharacteristic 'advanced' knowledge or super powerful 'alien' weaponry. All in a feeble attempt to get the audience to see them as more significant than the story would otherwise imply.
There is no clear formula that relates the number of people killed (or the size of the explosion) with the emotional impact. Some of the most powerful story telling is done with only a few characters. Their interrelationships and circumstances are what create the emotional power behind the story.
A bank manager has very little ability to determine whether or not an applicant has all the requisite skills that would give them a hope of achieving success.
Whereas, a record company not only has people that can recognise which applicants have a reasonable chance of success, but also has the resources and knowledge to supplement the artist with whatever tools/skills they may be lacking.
Where a bank may look at the loan as a 1 in 20 long shot; a record company is able to reject 17 of the 'no hopers', help 2 bands break even, and make money from the 1 artist who does succeed.
So the risk to a record company is far lower than it would seem on the surface.
But, if the database already 'matched' his DNA closely enough to then test him, then we must either assume that DNA matching is infallible, or that it is only a small part of the total evidence found against this person. Since DNA testing is far from perfect, a second DNA test isn't going to do much more for accuracy.
Let's assume that DNA matching is 99% reliable. It can still be used to show that two samples do not match with close to 100% certainty. But, conversely it can only show that two samples match with an error rate of 1 in 100.
Now if all other evidence pointed towards this matched suspect being the culprit, and the suspect was not selected by way of trawling a database, then the DNA evidence is useful.
However, if you've trawled a database and found 500 matches to find your suspect (all likely being of people that look similar to eachother). Then, any evidence gathered that relates to genetics (eg. facial features, skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, height, etc) become a subset of this probability, not a multiplier. So, for example, your eye-witness's account is simply a subset of this probability, and should not be included as supporting evidence. This is because you are being tried simply due to the fact that you are one of 100s or 1000s or people that matched a profile. In other words, this information has already been pre-selected for and will always be true whether or not you are the right person. At most it could say that it establishes that you might be the criminal with a 1% probability.
Obviously, things that are not genetically related like clothing, distinguishing features (eg. fingerprints, tattoos, hair styling, etc), and whatever else the police have found are still valid points of evidence.
In fact, the above can also be said for any type of database style profiling. For example if the police have a facial description given to them by a witness, and use it to trawl a mug-shot book (with tens of thousands of faces, many that look similar). Then, using that person in the line-up adds very little (if any) further validity to the claim - ie. the person has been preselected from a huge list of possible candidates that already closely matched the description. Keep in mind that the actual perpetrator may not even be in the mug-shot book (or database), but chances are there will be quite a few people in there that do look very much like the guilty party (but have nothing to do with the crime under investigation).
To avoid wrongful convictions, the courts should disallow all evidence related to any type of large scale database trawling (or mug book, etc). I have no problem with the police using it as a starting point, but it should only be the remainder of the evidence (which must be unrelated to the database search query) that is allowed to be presented to the jury. (eg. in the above mug-shot book example, both the mug-shot and the eye-witness's description of the person's facial features must be removed from evidence.)
In fact, as part of the evidence, it should be stated what database was used to 'find' the person, and what information that database contained. It should then be understood, that this and all related information must be disallowed. Further to that, the police must be compelled to always disclose their usage of this kind of database to find their suspect(s), hiding this fact is equivalent to tampering with evidence.
I thought your original post was tongue-in-cheek, but you seem to be serious.
The assertion that someone has been 'made' into a 'serial killer' comes down to a combination of nature, nature and circumstance.
There may be a particular combination of genes that expose a predisposition to 'serial killing', but in reality that genetic pattern and combination of traits will likely also be shared with many other non-pathological diagnoses. Upbringing and experience will most likely have an even stronger influence on the likelihood that a person becomes a 'serial killer'.
It is also very probable that the inherited psychiatric disorder is otherwise benign (or even beneficial) and fairly common in the general public. If that disorder (or any number of related disorders) was combined with an extremely unsettling childhood and/or a certain combination of life experiences, then the person may be pushed down the path of 'serial killing'.
What if the above genetic 'disorder' turned out to be the same condition that many people here on Slashdot say makes them great programmers?
Well, the first off, PAE only gets you to 64gb of memory. While that should be plenty for most people for the foreseeable future, we all know that setting arbitrary and somewhat lower limits turns you into the most quoted man in history (640k should be enough for everyone....)
Even with 64GB of memory, the per process limit with PAE is still limited to less than 2GB.
This is equivalent to your current system with 2GB of memory having a per process limit of 64 megabytes. In that situation there would be no reason to even care that your total system memory was any larger; since most apps would have maxed out to a nearly unusably small memory window.
So there is no functional reason for Microsoft to spend any effort whatsoever making PAE support more than 64GB of total memory.
The problem with 'fixing the system' is that the power to do that is primarily in the hands of the big industry bodies. People see that these industry bodies are forever pushing the already broken system further and further away from any semblance of 'fairness'.
So from most people's points of view, if the system is that broken, and since these people have virtually no power to fix it, then they simply ignore it.
If the industry wants people to respect the system, then it's up to them to fix it.
That's because the stock market isn't purely a static selection of outcomes.
It dynamically pits each player against all the others, making the outcomes highly interdependent on iteratively changing variables. This creates randomness and volatility based on speculation beyond the intrinsic valuation of the stock(s).
Its not specifically "VOIP" that lets you do it. It's the fact that most telcos will just pass along the Calling Party Number handed to them on the ISDN setup message, as rightly they should. If I purchase a PRI from a telco to say, share between businesses in an office complex, and get assigned a block of 10 DIDs, when I place an outgoing call on the circuit, how does the telco know what CID to set for the business placing the call.
It should also be the responsibility of the up line provider to make sure that the advertised caller IDs are either blank or valid before passing them on. If an advertised caller ID isn't a subset of the valid subscribed numbers for its respective down line segment, then it should either be blanked or invalidated.
I completely agree with this. For those that want the additional 'universal voice mail access' service, let them enable it separately and force it to require a valid password/PIN.
He's got a point. Why can't voice mail run over some data connection authenticated by the phone's unique ID or something similar?
Because most people expect to be able to check voicemail even when the phone is not working or with them. People WANT a number they can call, from anywhere, and check voicemail.
'Most' people I know use their mobiles for pretty much everything. I would hazard a guess that it is an incredibly small percentage of mobile phone users that actually WANT a universally accessible voice mail service.
In fact, most people I know hardly ever bother to even check their voice mail - they rely purely on SMS and their phone's 'recent missed calls' list. If their phone stopped working or wasn't available, access to voice mail would be the least of their problems.
Now we have a prime minister in power who was not elected by the people. Hurray for democracy!
She was as much elected as was Rudd. When you vote, you vote for your local party representative (not directly for the PM). The party with the majority of parliamentary seats decides who is their PM.
Julia Gillard won the vote in her local electorate, so she is a valid minister (and was the nominated Deputy Prime Minister at the time of the last election). In fact, when Rudd was away or otherwise indisposed, she was the acting Prime Minister.
So yes, hurray for democracy; or more specifically, parliamentary democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with making the decision yourself is that it means you have to buy the app first to find out that you don't like it.
Yes it would be great if there was an alternate non-Apple sponsored app store that allowed those type of apps. But, I don't see Apple letting that happen until developers start jumping ship en masse.
With IPv6 (or with IPv4 for that matter) you can still throw up a single firewall. To duplicate the protection you get from using NAT, just make it reject all incoming connection requests.
The problem is that some of the machines on those Class A (and B) allocations aren't just sitting dormant on non-routable endpoints. They also happen to be spread around the internet in various sub-allocations that have been given to / shared with affiliated companies.
Any effort to forceably 'take back' those allocations would cause unpredictable routing issues around the internet - making those addresses extremely unreliable. And that is completely ignoring the enormous disruptions that would take place while said organisations attempted to transition to a new IP address range.
If the transition could be done in under a year or two, I'd be surprised. And as has been posted in many other previous comments, it would only buy an extra month or two before a full reclaimed Class A would then itself be exhausted.
At this point, large scale effort should not be wasted on dead-end strategies, when the same resources could be used to migrate towards IPv6.
The lawyers are also in a position where they have the expectation of 'expert knowledge' in the area of law. So, when the lawyer recommends that they must pursue a lawsuit or the company risks losing the trademark, the company executives will generally follow their recommendation. It's not as if Steve Jobs is going to study up on the intricacies of every legal case that Apple is involved with and override his own legal department.
It may have happened when certain design decisions were being weighed up against the engineering ramifications (eg. the iPhone 4 antenna issue), but I doubt he'd risk his company's trademark(s) so Apple could feel a little bit more community loving.
That's also why it's called 'plausible deniability' and not just deniability. If your excuse is highly unlikely, then you have a plausibility problem.
You tell them you just visited your cousin Jim, who had an old hard drive he didn't want anymore, and you needed a spare so he gave it to you, but not before he ran "dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda1" because he didn't want you having his old tax documents. All you've done with it since is install the OS...
...and a copy of Truecrypt into Program Files.
Don't forget to also hire a couple of armed security guards to personally watch over your bike.
Next someones going to suggest a repository is safer no thanks i'm smoking it!!!!
Give's a whole new meaning to terms like "checking out" and "branch/tag".
Oh, you meant suppository.
>>"Its getting too melodramatic and mushy on these story ark endings as well"
Hey, my wife cried at the end of "Vincent". Some of the shows cater to the female Who fans.
The ending of Vincent was very emotional (and IMO the best episode of the season), but it didn't have the "bigger better faster stronger more melodramatic" incremental creep that seems to be the current trend.
It's like an arms race where as the hero gets more 'powerful', so do all the 'monsters'. After a certain point you end up with a stalemate where every man and their dog can cause the whole universe to implode with the flick of a finger. Or worse, the 'mere mortals' suddenly possess uncharacteristic 'advanced' knowledge or super powerful 'alien' weaponry. All in a feeble attempt to get the audience to see them as more significant than the story would otherwise imply.
There is no clear formula that relates the number of people killed (or the size of the explosion) with the emotional impact. Some of the most powerful story telling is done with only a few characters. Their interrelationships and circumstances are what create the emotional power behind the story.
I think we have the making of a cast for the 2012 Christmas Special.
A bank manager has very little ability to determine whether or not an applicant has all the requisite skills that would give them a hope of achieving success.
Whereas, a record company not only has people that can recognise which applicants have a reasonable chance of success, but also has the resources and knowledge to supplement the artist with whatever tools/skills they may be lacking.
Where a bank may look at the loan as a 1 in 20 long shot; a record company is able to reject 17 of the 'no hopers', help 2 bands break even, and make money from the 1 artist who does succeed.
So the risk to a record company is far lower than it would seem on the surface.
But, if the database already 'matched' his DNA closely enough to then test him, then we must either assume that DNA matching is infallible, or that it is only a small part of the total evidence found against this person. Since DNA testing is far from perfect, a second DNA test isn't going to do much more for accuracy.
Let's assume that DNA matching is 99% reliable. It can still be used to show that two samples do not match with close to 100% certainty. But, conversely it can only show that two samples match with an error rate of 1 in 100.
Now if all other evidence pointed towards this matched suspect being the culprit, and the suspect was not selected by way of trawling a database, then the DNA evidence is useful.
However, if you've trawled a database and found 500 matches to find your suspect (all likely being of people that look similar to eachother). Then, any evidence gathered that relates to genetics (eg. facial features, skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, height, etc) become a subset of this probability, not a multiplier. So, for example, your eye-witness's account is simply a subset of this probability, and should not be included as supporting evidence. This is because you are being tried simply due to the fact that you are one of 100s or 1000s or people that matched a profile. In other words, this information has already been pre-selected for and will always be true whether or not you are the right person. At most it could say that it establishes that you might be the criminal with a 1% probability.
Obviously, things that are not genetically related like clothing, distinguishing features (eg. fingerprints, tattoos, hair styling, etc), and whatever else the police have found are still valid points of evidence.
In fact, the above can also be said for any type of database style profiling. For example if the police have a facial description given to them by a witness, and use it to trawl a mug-shot book (with tens of thousands of faces, many that look similar). Then, using that person in the line-up adds very little (if any) further validity to the claim - ie. the person has been preselected from a huge list of possible candidates that already closely matched the description. Keep in mind that the actual perpetrator may not even be in the mug-shot book (or database), but chances are there will be quite a few people in there that do look very much like the guilty party (but have nothing to do with the crime under investigation).
To avoid wrongful convictions, the courts should disallow all evidence related to any type of large scale database trawling (or mug book, etc). I have no problem with the police using it as a starting point, but it should only be the remainder of the evidence (which must be unrelated to the database search query) that is allowed to be presented to the jury. (eg. in the above mug-shot book example, both the mug-shot and the eye-witness's description of the person's facial features must be removed from evidence.)
In fact, as part of the evidence, it should be stated what database was used to 'find' the person, and what information that database contained. It should then be understood, that this and all related information must be disallowed. Further to that, the police must be compelled to always disclose their usage of this kind of database to find their suspect(s), hiding this fact is equivalent to tampering with evidence.
I thought your original post was tongue-in-cheek, but you seem to be serious.
The assertion that someone has been 'made' into a 'serial killer' comes down to a combination of nature, nature and circumstance.
There may be a particular combination of genes that expose a predisposition to 'serial killing', but in reality that genetic pattern and combination of traits will likely also be shared with many other non-pathological diagnoses. Upbringing and experience will most likely have an even stronger influence on the likelihood that a person becomes a 'serial killer'.
It is also very probable that the inherited psychiatric disorder is otherwise benign (or even beneficial) and fairly common in the general public. If that disorder (or any number of related disorders) was combined with an extremely unsettling childhood and/or a certain combination of life experiences, then the person may be pushed down the path of 'serial killing'.
What if the above genetic 'disorder' turned out to be the same condition that many people here on Slashdot say makes them great programmers?
Well, the first off, PAE only gets you to 64gb of memory. While that should be plenty for most people for the foreseeable future, we all know that setting arbitrary and somewhat lower limits turns you into the most quoted man in history (640k should be enough for everyone....)
Even with 64GB of memory, the per process limit with PAE is still limited to less than 2GB.
This is equivalent to your current system with 2GB of memory having a per process limit of 64 mega bytes. In that situation there would be no reason to even care that your total system memory was any larger; since most apps would have maxed out to a nearly unusably small memory window.
So there is no functional reason for Microsoft to spend any effort whatsoever making PAE support more than 64GB of total memory.
And more importantly, the kiosks should also have autorun disabled.
I doubt an actual virus writer would need to be crowd sourcing ideas.
The problem with 'fixing the system' is that the power to do that is primarily in the hands of the big industry bodies. People see that these industry bodies are forever pushing the already broken system further and further away from any semblance of 'fairness'.
So from most people's points of view, if the system is that broken, and since these people have virtually no power to fix it, then they simply ignore it.
If the industry wants people to respect the system, then it's up to them to fix it.
That's because the stock market isn't purely a static selection of outcomes.
It dynamically pits each player against all the others, making the outcomes highly interdependent on iteratively changing variables. This creates randomness and volatility based on speculation beyond the intrinsic valuation of the stock(s).
Shit, I'm fucking old too. Now GOMY.
Get off my yawn?
Its not specifically "VOIP" that lets you do it. It's the fact that most telcos will just pass along the Calling Party Number handed to them on the ISDN setup message, as rightly they should. If I purchase a PRI from a telco to say, share between businesses in an office complex, and get assigned a block of 10 DIDs, when I place an outgoing call on the circuit, how does the telco know what CID to set for the business placing the call.
It should also be the responsibility of the up line provider to make sure that the advertised caller IDs are either blank or valid before passing them on. If an advertised caller ID isn't a subset of the valid subscribed numbers for its respective down line segment, then it should either be blanked or invalidated.
I completely agree with this. For those that want the additional 'universal voice mail access' service, let them enable it separately and force it to require a valid password/PIN.
Think on the bright side, at least the door jamb and locks weren't damaged during the 'break and enter'.
He's got a point. Why can't voice mail run over some data connection authenticated by the phone's unique ID or something similar?
Because most people expect to be able to check voicemail even when the phone is not working or with them. People WANT a number they can call, from anywhere, and check voicemail.
'Most' people I know use their mobiles for pretty much everything. I would hazard a guess that it is an incredibly small percentage of mobile phone users that actually WANT a universally accessible voice mail service.
In fact, most people I know hardly ever bother to even check their voice mail - they rely purely on SMS and their phone's 'recent missed calls' list. If their phone stopped working or wasn't available, access to voice mail would be the least of their problems.
What you describe is similar to the way most people will find a new employer before they resign their existing employ.
Now we have a prime minister in power who was not elected by the people. Hurray for democracy!
She was as much elected as was Rudd. When you vote, you vote for your local party representative (not directly for the PM). The party with the majority of parliamentary seats decides who is their PM.
Julia Gillard won the vote in her local electorate, so she is a valid minister (and was the nominated Deputy Prime Minister at the time of the last election). In fact, when Rudd was away or otherwise indisposed, she was the acting Prime Minister.
So yes, hurray for democracy; or more specifically, parliamentary democracy.