Malware already has access to the users machine, and can install key loggers, etc..
The fact that the post you replied to already mentioned this, but that you still think mentioning malware refutes something in the post that you replied to, tells us that you really have no clue what you are talking about with regards to computers, malware, security, and cookies.
You need to look no further than the Zimmerman case to figure out how this might effect you.
Zimmerman gets acquitted in a jury trial, so then the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder openly announces that he will see if he can find a federal charge to pin on Zimmerman.
They have chosen a target and are now fishing for a law within the vast sea of laws that we have enacted that the target has violated. I'm not saying that this is a new thing but once we throw the constraints of the 4th amendment out the window, every such fishing expedition will be successful. Then its simply a matter of being the one in the position to choose targets.
Not to mention that for the most part, guns are the great equalizer.
A tiny girl with a gun is just as deadly as a giant behemoth of a man with one. Equality, at least with regards to opportunity, is a somewhat important thing in American culture.
Guns arent the reason that we are violent, and the various gun control laws that we have tried havent addressed the problem. For instance an "assault weapon" ban was tried, expired in 2004, but the homicides rate which was falling before the bans sunset have continued to fall sharply.
It has been noted that an alarmingly large portion of gun-related homicides are whats often called "black-on-black" crime. Are we to believe that blacks are just naturally more violent than the other races, or could it be that the packing disproportionate percentage of poor people into urban centers might be the cause of the problem. Poverty often leads to crime, and criminal competition often leads to violent conflict. That its "black-on-black" indicates another problem, that black people are disproportionately poor.
The solution to these things is not gun control, but that doesnt stop the politicians from trying to use the symptom as an excuse to implement the non-solution.
Unless you have a cunning solution to the fact Americans are disproportionately more likely to kill each other that you can implemented PDQ then maybe taking away the easiest way for them to do it makes sense until then?
Are you sure that letting people shoot each other isnt a solution to the problem of people shooting each other?
Lets suppose that Apple builds of 65nm FAB for pushing out their custom ARM chips.. if they keep using it for 10 years, they will be 10 years behind the curve at the end of it.
That first year or two they might be able to use and sell 100% of the FAB's capacity inside their own products if they were bang on in sizing it (how do they know how much product they are going to sell next year?), but after that their products would be crap if they kept using it for the same purpose. FAB's get around this problem by altering what they use the FABs for over time. At the beginning its cutting edge chips, but at the end its support chips for shit like drive controllers, routers, and so on.
If you think that Apple can move as many AirPlays as they do iPhones, then you are completely retarded.
I don't think anybody is proposing to include a remote killswitch.
Yet.
If its electronic then I can build a device that can kill it remotely. It wont be a cheap device, and will also toast all the other electronics in the area, but I can do it.
Its a bet that is practically guaranteed to lose, so just like the lottery.
The issue isnt if they can they afford it. The issue is if it will save them money. It wont.
Apple would not just have to build the FAB, but they would also have to sell its service to others in order to make it worthwhile. Then they are in the full FAB business and then its not just $9.4 billion.. its $100 billion in R&D over the next 10 years, not to mention landing CxO's thats in-the-know about being a supplier and can make that work.
There is a reason that companies like Motorola got the fuck out of the FAB business.
Not to mention that California did have retail caps on the price of energy, and the way they implemented that ("soft caps") was part of the problem of their energy crisis. Once they became an importer of energy (while allowing exports!), all those nonsensical regulations became a weapon to be used against them.
The regulation apologists want you to think that the crisis was a manufactured financial one, rather than a over-regulated supply one. In reality it was both, with one enabling the other.
I started programming at a time when GOTO was still considered "kosher" (in C, no less) as a lot of algorithms were designed as state machines. To this day I still sometimes consider a goto, but even I stand in awe of the complete retardedness that is javascript.
What happened to languages that pick some things and then do them well? JavaScript seems to have evolved to try to do everything, and yet it doesnt do anything even close to well at all.
Lets not forget that after initial startup, he rarely then sinks any more of his own money in. He will let the project die if it cannot attract investors, which is actually the right course of action.
A new transportation system that would cost billions to build, would be completely uneconomical for patrons to use, and has a high risk of death with even the slightest malfunction at 4,000 MPH.
I'm not convinced that it would be uneconomical.
The cost of actual transport would be in the production of acceleration and overcoming losses from friction. The idea lends itself to believe it will experience very low amounts of friction. So how much energy is required to accelerate 4 tons (figure pulled from my ass, but these would be 6 passenger "capsules") to 4000 MPH, and how much does that energy cost in practice?
Quick reasoning in my head suggest far less than $100 to accelerate a 4-ton capsule to 4000 MPH, for it certainly seems reasonable that an average american car (also 4 tons) could accelerate to 40 mph and then stop at least 100 times on a single tank of gas (which is less than $100.)
The primary costs would clearly be in recurring maintenance. The recurring cost of maintenance is an engineering and initial investment problem.
A CxO in their right mind would be able to hire the guy...it takes integrity to stand up to a superior for what's just and what's legal; understanding the risk that you might be fired for it.
Exactly. I would certainly hire him if I had need for his services, and I bet the libertarian enclave that is growing in New Hampshire would also be happy to hire him.
It is unfortunate that so many think that dishonesty is not only acceptable, but that its actually right to be dishonest. No, it really isnt. Soon enough everyone in your organization will need to be dishonest, and the dishonesty itself will have to be the merit that pays the bills, or else it will all come tumbling down. It is also unfortunate that in government, dishonesty really can be the merit that pays the bills.
You're either naive or are trying to be deliberately misleading. That "median income" figure is median HOUSEHOLD income, where a household is approximately 2 parents and 2.3 kids.
Households, 2007-2011 : 114,761,359
Persons per household, 2007-2011 : 2.60
So you claim 4.3 people per household, but the actual numbers from the census indicate 2.6 persons per household. How could you be so wrong about such a basic figure in your argument? It would be something if you were at least close but you werent even close at all.
On the same page, home ownership sits at 66.1%.
Who are you trying to convince. and why are you trying to convince them with errors and lies?
Slashdot Mirror
The OP, which is most likely you posting AC
Your keen insight into things continues to undermine you.
Malware already has access to the users machine, and can install key loggers, etc..
The fact that the post you replied to already mentioned this, but that you still think mentioning malware refutes something in the post that you replied to, tells us that you really have no clue what you are talking about with regards to computers, malware, security, and cookies.
You need to look no further than the Zimmerman case to figure out how this might effect you.
Zimmerman gets acquitted in a jury trial, so then the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder openly announces that he will see if he can find a federal charge to pin on Zimmerman.
They have chosen a target and are now fishing for a law within the vast sea of laws that we have enacted that the target has violated. I'm not saying that this is a new thing but once we throw the constraints of the 4th amendment out the window, every such fishing expedition will be successful. Then its simply a matter of being the one in the position to choose targets.
Dead too, of course, but imagine the publicity!
Judging by what passes for "news" these days, and how so trivially the justice department was able to get away with wiretapping reporters...
This is the scumbag assaulting you with his 'life-saving device', yes?
No, he is assaulting me with a knife. Too bad he brought a knife to a gun fight.
Did the biblical reference fly right over your head? Cain killed his brother Abel, much to the shock of their parents Adam and Eve.
Not to mention that for the most part, guns are the great equalizer.
A tiny girl with a gun is just as deadly as a giant behemoth of a man with one. Equality, at least with regards to opportunity, is a somewhat important thing in American culture.
Guns arent the reason that we are violent, and the various gun control laws that we have tried havent addressed the problem. For instance an "assault weapon" ban was tried, expired in 2004, but the homicides rate which was falling before the bans sunset have continued to fall sharply.
It has been noted that an alarmingly large portion of gun-related homicides are whats often called "black-on-black" crime. Are we to believe that blacks are just naturally more violent than the other races, or could it be that the packing disproportionate percentage of poor people into urban centers might be the cause of the problem. Poverty often leads to crime, and criminal competition often leads to violent conflict. That its "black-on-black" indicates another problem, that black people are disproportionately poor.
The solution to these things is not gun control, but that doesnt stop the politicians from trying to use the symptom as an excuse to implement the non-solution.
Unless you have a cunning solution to the fact Americans are disproportionately more likely to kill each other that you can implemented PDQ then maybe taking away the easiest way for them to do it makes sense until then?
Are you sure that letting people shoot each other isnt a solution to the problem of people shooting each other?
Maybe because rational people dont shoot the messenger.
Is it his responsibility what other people are in violation of if they redistribute his code?
You seem to think that FAB's upgrade themselves.
Lets suppose that Apple builds of 65nm FAB for pushing out their custom ARM chips.. if they keep using it for 10 years, they will be 10 years behind the curve at the end of it.
That first year or two they might be able to use and sell 100% of the FAB's capacity inside their own products if they were bang on in sizing it (how do they know how much product they are going to sell next year?), but after that their products would be crap if they kept using it for the same purpose. FAB's get around this problem by altering what they use the FABs for over time. At the beginning its cutting edge chips, but at the end its support chips for shit like drive controllers, routers, and so on.
If you think that Apple can move as many AirPlays as they do iPhones, then you are completely retarded.
I don't think anybody is proposing to include a remote killswitch.
Yet.
If its electronic then I can build a device that can kill it remotely. It wont be a cheap device, and will also toast all the other electronics in the area, but I can do it.
Its a bet that is practically guaranteed to lose, so just like the lottery.
The issue isnt if they can they afford it. The issue is if it will save them money. It wont.
Apple would not just have to build the FAB, but they would also have to sell its service to others in order to make it worthwhile. Then they are in the full FAB business and then its not just $9.4 billion.. its $100 billion in R&D over the next 10 years, not to mention landing CxO's thats in-the-know about being a supplier and can make that work.
There is a reason that companies like Motorola got the fuck out of the FAB business.
Our CEO's are powerful enough to avoid being convicted of felonies to begin with.
Not to mention that California did have retail caps on the price of energy, and the way they implemented that ("soft caps") was part of the problem of their energy crisis. Once they became an importer of energy (while allowing exports!), all those nonsensical regulations became a weapon to be used against them.
The regulation apologists want you to think that the crisis was a manufactured financial one, rather than a over-regulated supply one. In reality it was both, with one enabling the other.
+Bravo, nailed it.
only if by 'properly written' you mean 'doesnt use anywhere near all of the available memory'
I'm not saying you should have voted for Romney, and before anyone says it, you were the one who threw your vote away, not us 3rd party voters.
Exactly. As Penn Fraser Jillette noted, when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get an ever increasing evil.
I started programming at a time when GOTO was still considered "kosher" (in C, no less) as a lot of algorithms were designed as state machines. To this day I still sometimes consider a goto, but even I stand in awe of the complete retardedness that is javascript.
What happened to languages that pick some things and then do them well? JavaScript seems to have evolved to try to do everything, and yet it doesnt do anything even close to well at all.
Is this because the 1's cancel?
From what you can tell? I'd love to know how you worked this out. It's less than half the figure you quoted.
It was introduced at ~$19/month in Japan and was later reduced to ~$12/month.
Was it reduced below ~$12/month since then or are you talking out your ass?
Lets not forget that after initial startup, he rarely then sinks any more of his own money in. He will let the project die if it cannot attract investors, which is actually the right course of action.
A new transportation system that would cost billions to build, would be completely uneconomical for patrons to use, and has a high risk of death with even the slightest malfunction at 4,000 MPH.
I'm not convinced that it would be uneconomical.
The cost of actual transport would be in the production of acceleration and overcoming losses from friction. The idea lends itself to believe it will experience very low amounts of friction. So how much energy is required to accelerate 4 tons (figure pulled from my ass, but these would be 6 passenger "capsules") to 4000 MPH, and how much does that energy cost in practice?
Quick reasoning in my head suggest far less than $100 to accelerate a 4-ton capsule to 4000 MPH, for it certainly seems reasonable that an average american car (also 4 tons) could accelerate to 40 mph and then stop at least 100 times on a single tank of gas (which is less than $100.)
The primary costs would clearly be in recurring maintenance. The recurring cost of maintenance is an engineering and initial investment problem.
A CxO in their right mind would be able to hire the guy...it takes integrity to stand up to a superior for what's just and what's legal; understanding the risk that you might be fired for it.
Exactly. I would certainly hire him if I had need for his services, and I bet the libertarian enclave that is growing in New Hampshire would also be happy to hire him.
It is unfortunate that so many think that dishonesty is not only acceptable, but that its actually right to be dishonest. No, it really isnt. Soon enough everyone in your organization will need to be dishonest, and the dishonesty itself will have to be the merit that pays the bills, or else it will all come tumbling down. It is also unfortunate that in government, dishonesty really can be the merit that pays the bills.
You're either naive or are trying to be deliberately misleading. That "median income" figure is median HOUSEHOLD income, where a household is approximately 2 parents and 2.3 kids.
Here it is, sir.
Households, 2007-2011 : 114,761,359
Persons per household, 2007-2011 : 2.60
So you claim 4.3 people per household, but the actual numbers from the census indicate 2.6 persons per household. How could you be so wrong about such a basic figure in your argument? It would be something if you were at least close but you werent even close at all.
On the same page, home ownership sits at 66.1%.
Who are you trying to convince. and why are you trying to convince them with errors and lies?