I don't recall theft being mentioned in the original article.
Even Vietnam would frown on someone actually acknowledging that they had stolen someone else's property. Especially if the article included a full confession with details of how the property was stolen.
That is most likely the reason that theft was not mentioned in the article.
Most people would accept (except for the Apple conspiracy theorists) that Apple wouldn't have just given this guy a prototype next gen iPhone. That means that this guy is in possession of stolen property. Whether or not Vietnam has the legal infrastructure in place to handle this is another story, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the phone was probably not legitimately acquired.
That is a required clause in the content of the notification letter. Final notification is only part of the overall process, and not pertinent to someone just parking a fully registered car in someone else's space/property.
If a vehicle is abandoned and has not been claimed with sufficient time, then you can start the process (usually around a month after first notification).
For high value vehicles, or for situations where the owner opposes the transfer of title, then the process will involve the courts. The court, however, will NOT award you title of the vehicle, but may award reasonable storage/towing fees/expenses.
If something has really been abandoned, then the owner will usually not respond. At which point you can go through the appropriate salvage/junkage/abandonment regulations that do let you claim title.
The manufacturer of the dedicated Apple embedded 'system on a chip' processor is unlikely to give you a data sheet.
But, you're right, it's easier to design a functionally equivalent device from scratch rather than waste time trying to work out exactly how this one worked with an electron microscope.
Apple is like the Disneyland of the tech world. Just as Disney isn't simply an amusement park, Apple is not simply in the business of selling random hi-tech widgets. Both companies are all about the 'feel good' experience; it is how they differentiate themselves in the marketplace.
Apple's marketing staff would be unlikely to try something so risky as operate a bespoke marketing campaign that doesn't put them in a positive light. And a marketing strategy that takes the 'magic' out of their next product is as far from their modus operandi as it gets.
It was so much easier taking people off line 10 years ago. These days it's all laptops and UPSes and they're back up on a wireless link in under minute.
That's bullshit. It wasn't stolen. It was lost. He's now trying to cover it up by claiming theft.
Yes, it was stolen. This was covered heavily in previous articles on the 'lost' iPhone. The only way it could be said to not have been stolen was if Gray sold it or voluntarily gave it to the guy.
Taking something that is not yours, whether permanently or just to 'use and return', is the definition of stealing. It doesn't matter if the phone was unattended on a bar room seat, or if it was taken straight out of the guy's pocket.
Theft (by finding or otherwise) is extremely well defined in just about every penal and civil code in every jurisdiction worldwide. I would suggest you read up on your local laws before you decide to walk off with someone else's property and end up being prosecuted for theft.
"But the bike was just sitting abandoned on the side-walk! Finder's keepers losers weepers!" is not a valid legal defence. Nor was it a valid excuse when you were still in kindergarten.
Yeah, I meant the kind of dead-bolt that is keyed from both sides.
And Lexan windows would be a great component if you're trying to fortify your home from window smashing burglars. Also handy to protect you from stray bullets during a drive by shooting.
If a burgler is in my house and is trying to leave, I want him to. The last thing I would want him to do at the front door is to have to turn around and come back towards me and the loaded shotgun...
That's why I said they are a safety hazard and I don't activate the dead bolt when I'm still inside the house. Same applies if there is a fire and you're blocked off from wherever your keys are kept.
As for breaking a window to reach in and turn the lock--not going to happen. The whole purpose of a door is to secure my house. There is no window to break that will let you reach in and unlock the door--although there are several windows that can be broken to gain access simply by crawling through...
A well made door with an array of aesthetic stained glass windows can still secure the house - you can just use a deadbolt to avoid the easy break-in where the burglar can just smash a pane and unlock the door.
If your door is a solid 1.5" inch thick slab of reinforced hardwood, then being deadlocked is still useful to prevent easy egress for a burglar that has crawled in through one of your small windows (presumably while no-one's home) so he can unlock the front door for the rest of the 'moving crew'.
I use 'psychology/technology' as a modern analogue to whatever skilled professionals they could have recruited at the time to act as jurists.
The jury base would still need to be continually rotated to stop any systematic corruption.
The original British system of 'jury of your peers' was not necessarily devised to maximise justice, but also to minimise blame. It was advantageous for the British Lords when it was created, because it removed the 'blame' for conviction (due to perceived bias) from the single presiding Lord and distributed it to the commoners (who could be assumed unbiased).
Anyways--for all I care, a deadbolt should have NO key. If someone inside locks the damn thing, no one gets in unless they are willing to perform some impromptu demolition.
The purpose of a deadbolt isn't purely to stop people from getting in. It's also to stop people getting back out.
e.g. a burglar climbing into a window can't just take all your goodies out the front door; he has to move everything through the window.
Deadbolts are also handy on doors with glass panels. If you break the panel, you still can't just reach around and open the door.
That being said, they are also a safety hazard. That's why I never activate the dead bolt while I'm inside the house.
It's not the kind of test that would even be presented to the IRB as part of the study.
It looks more like the programmer has decided on a whim to video himself sticking his arm in the path of the knife wielding robot arm. And that's not the kind of test you do until you're confident it's safe. Nor is it the kind of test you'd try to get permission for in advance.
Assuming that the first guy to stick his hand under it is the programmer; I suspect you'll find that the control loop code is the cleanest, most concise, and most methodically tested code that you've ever seen you're in your life.
If this was not the purpose of having a randomly selected jury of your peers, then the constitution could have mandated more accurate ways to establish guilt/innocence.
eg. Having professional juries full of experts in psychology/technology/etc (depending on the case evidence) would definitely improve the accuracy rate of conviction. But, this would come at the cost of losing the opportunity of being judged by your peers against laws that 'the people' view as unjust.
WTF? Everyone bows to everyone else over there. Maybe I'm not hanging around in elite enough circles, but people who would be considered far superior socially than whatever standing I have still bow to me (maybe not as low, but they bow none the less). Also if you bow to someone else, they pretty much always bow back to you (and vice versa).
IMO it is definitely used as a sign of respect and/or humility. Refusal to bow is pretty much a sign of contempt and/or arrogance - maybe some people can get away with that, or maybe they are expected by custom to be above all others (ie. an emperor).
By choosing not to bow to someone, you are telling them they are beneath you. However, that doesn't necessarily hold true in reverse, where by bowing you may simply be showing respect (as opposed to declaring yourself as the inferior).
The current use of IPv4 addresses is far from optimally efficient, but I don't think it's as sparse as many people seem to imply.
For example, those search bots might be on non-co-located machines. Yeah, companies could start making greater use of NAT gateways and better CIDR suballocations, but that isn't going to be easy or convenient. For many of those companies, changing the infrastructure to do that is close to the effort required of just going straight for the better solution of dual stack IPv4/IPv6.
The article also estimates that the RAR allocations will deplete with at most a 6 month lag behind ARIN. So, the/8 depletion rate is a good indicator as to the rate that IPv4 addresses are being exhausted.
Also, according to the article, it's not so easy for the average organisation to hoard addresses:
Such a move could mean price increases as depletion nears. Under today's rules, a small organization would pay a minimum of $1,250 annually for a/24 assignment, which represents 256 addresses, the smallest block that can be portably routed on the Internet. Smaller allocations than this must be obtained from an ISP, at the cost of a few dollars per month per IP address. Larger organizations could pay between $4,500 and $18,000 per year, but in all cases address holders must provide justification to their registry to continue using IPv4 allocations.
And the percentage of addresses that are held by the 'old guard' are far too few, or too entrenched to do any more than stay the crunch for a few extra months.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't recall theft being mentioned in the original article.
Even Vietnam would frown on someone actually acknowledging that they had stolen someone else's property. Especially if the article included a full confession with details of how the property was stolen.
That is most likely the reason that theft was not mentioned in the article.
Most people would accept (except for the Apple conspiracy theorists) that Apple wouldn't have just given this guy a prototype next gen iPhone. That means that this guy is in possession of stolen property. Whether or not Vietnam has the legal infrastructure in place to handle this is another story, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the phone was probably not legitimately acquired.
That is a required clause in the content of the notification letter. Final notification is only part of the overall process, and not pertinent to someone just parking a fully registered car in someone else's space/property.
If a vehicle is abandoned and has not been claimed with sufficient time, then you can start the process (usually around a month after first notification).
For high value vehicles, or for situations where the owner opposes the transfer of title, then the process will involve the courts. The court, however, will NOT award you title of the vehicle, but may award reasonable storage/towing fees/expenses.
If something has really been abandoned, then the owner will usually not respond. At which point you can go through the appropriate salvage/junkage/abandonment regulations that do let you claim title.
Mod the parent up, +1 Informative.
It's truly scary how many other posts that display complete ignorance of the law have been modded +1 Insightful/Interesting/Informative.
The manufacturer of the dedicated Apple embedded 'system on a chip' processor is unlikely to give you a data sheet.
But, you're right, it's easier to design a functionally equivalent device from scratch rather than waste time trying to work out exactly how this one worked with an electron microscope.
Apple is like the Disneyland of the tech world. Just as Disney isn't simply an amusement park, Apple is not simply in the business of selling random hi-tech widgets. Both companies are all about the 'feel good' experience; it is how they differentiate themselves in the marketplace.
Apple's marketing staff would be unlikely to try something so risky as operate a bespoke marketing campaign that doesn't put them in a positive light. And a marketing strategy that takes the 'magic' out of their next product is as far from their modus operandi as it gets.
It was so much easier taking people off line 10 years ago. These days it's all laptops and UPSes and they're back up on a wireless link in under minute.
Don't worry, the helicopters will arrive shortly.
--
Black Van Guy
That's bullshit. It wasn't stolen. It was lost. He's now trying to cover it up by claiming theft.
Yes, it was stolen. This was covered heavily in previous articles on the 'lost' iPhone. The only way it could be said to not have been stolen was if Gray sold it or voluntarily gave it to the guy.
Taking something that is not yours, whether permanently or just to 'use and return', is the definition of stealing. It doesn't matter if the phone was unattended on a bar room seat, or if it was taken straight out of the guy's pocket.
Theft (by finding or otherwise) is extremely well defined in just about every penal and civil code in every jurisdiction worldwide. I would suggest you read up on your local laws before you decide to walk off with someone else's property and end up being prosecuted for theft.
"But the bike was just sitting abandoned on the side-walk! Finder's keepers losers weepers!" is not a valid legal defence. Nor was it a valid excuse when you were still in kindergarten.
Yeah, I meant the kind of dead-bolt that is keyed from both sides.
And Lexan windows would be a great component if you're trying to fortify your home from window smashing burglars. Also handy to protect you from stray bullets during a drive by shooting.
If a burgler is in my house and is trying to leave, I want him to. The last thing I would want him to do at the front door is to have to turn around and come back towards me and the loaded shotgun...
That's why I said they are a safety hazard and I don't activate the dead bolt when I'm still inside the house. Same applies if there is a fire and you're blocked off from wherever your keys are kept.
As for breaking a window to reach in and turn the lock--not going to happen. The whole purpose of a door is to secure my house. There is no window to break that will let you reach in and unlock the door--although there are several windows that can be broken to gain access simply by crawling through...
A well made door with an array of aesthetic stained glass windows can still secure the house - you can just use a deadbolt to avoid the easy break-in where the burglar can just smash a pane and unlock the door.
If your door is a solid 1.5" inch thick slab of reinforced hardwood, then being deadlocked is still useful to prevent easy egress for a burglar that has crawled in through one of your small windows (presumably while no-one's home) so he can unlock the front door for the rest of the 'moving crew'.
I use 'psychology/technology' as a modern analogue to whatever skilled professionals they could have recruited at the time to act as jurists.
The jury base would still need to be continually rotated to stop any systematic corruption.
The original British system of 'jury of your peers' was not necessarily devised to maximise justice, but also to minimise blame. It was advantageous for the British Lords when it was created, because it removed the 'blame' for conviction (due to perceived bias) from the single presiding Lord and distributed it to the commoners (who could be assumed unbiased).
Anyways--for all I care, a deadbolt should have NO key. If someone inside locks the damn thing, no one gets in unless they are willing to perform some impromptu demolition.
The purpose of a deadbolt isn't purely to stop people from getting in. It's also to stop people getting back out.
e.g. a burglar climbing into a window can't just take all your goodies out the front door; he has to move everything through the window.
Deadbolts are also handy on doors with glass panels. If you break the panel, you still can't just reach around and open the door.
That being said, they are also a safety hazard. That's why I never activate the dead bolt while I'm inside the house.
It's not the kind of test that would even be presented to the IRB as part of the study.
It looks more like the programmer has decided on a whim to video himself sticking his arm in the path of the knife wielding robot arm. And that's not the kind of test you do until you're confident it's safe. Nor is it the kind of test you'd try to get permission for in advance.
Assuming that the first guy to stick his hand under it is the programmer; I suspect you'll find that the control loop code is the cleanest, most concise, and most methodically tested code that you've ever seen you're in your life.
Is there a better link to that article that doesn't require a login/account?
Absolutely.
If this was not the purpose of having a randomly selected jury of your peers, then the constitution could have mandated more accurate ways to establish guilt/innocence.
eg. Having professional juries full of experts in psychology/technology/etc (depending on the case evidence) would definitely improve the accuracy rate of conviction. But, this would come at the cost of losing the opportunity of being judged by your peers against laws that 'the people' view as unjust.
WTF? Everyone bows to everyone else over there. Maybe I'm not hanging around in elite enough circles, but people who would be considered far superior socially than whatever standing I have still bow to me (maybe not as low, but they bow none the less). Also if you bow to someone else, they pretty much always bow back to you (and vice versa).
IMO it is definitely used as a sign of respect and/or humility. Refusal to bow is pretty much a sign of contempt and/or arrogance - maybe some people can get away with that, or maybe they are expected by custom to be above all others (ie. an emperor).
By choosing not to bow to someone, you are telling them they are beneath you. However, that doesn't necessarily hold true in reverse, where by bowing you may simply be showing respect (as opposed to declaring yourself as the inferior).
Or more precisely, 'bought and paid for' judges.
And when I say three girls, of course I meant four.
Points 2 and 3 are valid, but Point 1 is wrong.
In the original picture, all three girls are wearing bikinis with holes exposing their nipples and their crotches.
Could not he have clicked a link from an email, which would naturally have opened in his browser?
However, even today we see some cultures who shit in the water that they drink. India is one such culture, and it's prevalent in Africa, too.
I thought it was people shitting in the water upstream from where 'somebody else' drinks.
The current use of IPv4 addresses is far from optimally efficient, but I don't think it's as sparse as many people seem to imply.
For example, those search bots might be on non-co-located machines. Yeah, companies could start making greater use of NAT gateways and better CIDR suballocations, but that isn't going to be easy or convenient. For many of those companies, changing the infrastructure to do that is close to the effort required of just going straight for the better solution of dual stack IPv4/IPv6.
The article also estimates that the RAR allocations will deplete with at most a 6 month lag behind ARIN. So, the /8 depletion rate is a good indicator as to the rate that IPv4 addresses are being exhausted.
Also, according to the article, it's not so easy for the average organisation to hoard addresses:
Such a move could mean price increases as depletion nears. Under today's rules, a small organization would pay a minimum of $1,250 annually for a /24 assignment, which represents 256 addresses, the smallest block that can be portably routed on the Internet. Smaller allocations than this must be obtained from an ISP, at the cost of a few dollars per month per IP address. Larger organizations could pay between $4,500 and $18,000 per year, but in all cases address holders must provide justification to their registry to continue using IPv4 allocations.
And the percentage of addresses that are held by the 'old guard' are far too few, or too entrenched to do any more than stay the crunch for a few extra months.
According to the article, that time was yesterday.
The authors of TFA estimate that in less than a year ARIN will have no more /8 blocks left to allocate.
Not quite. No one's brought up Stephen Conroy yet.
Oops ... I see your point.