These two things really are orthogonal. Activation Lock can be done even with jailbreaking. Apple could allow jailbreaking on a properly activated phone. But they won't and we all know that it is NOT for preventing theft. Activation lock can help the theft issue. It can also tighten down the jailbreaking (even though it is a different thing).
St^H^HTim: I'm still not gonna buy your junk... even less so now.
Why do we still even need ethernet? How often do you need something other than IPv4/6 which could be done as its own layer since no one uses a bus topology anymore (did that ever get faster than a total shared 10 megabit capacity?).
Not to mention all the people who will use whatever technology they come up with, at higher transmit powers, to kill cell phones everywhere (although in a movie theater, this might be a good thing). If the system requires authentication to work, no one will do it. If it's a coded signal, they better find a way to avoid a replay attack.
This is clearly intended to help drivers avoid having to open those big folding maps that the NHTSA has never even attempted to control or ban, like they should.
The researchers have contacted Apple about their exploit but haven't heard back from the company and aren't sharing more details of their hack until they do.
With this attitude, don't expect Apple to ever contact them.
The researchers have contacted Apple about their exploit but haven't heard back from the company and aren't sharing more details of their hack until they do.
Well, that seems to be simple... Apple will just never contact them.
Then we'll see "self pix" like remote TV reporting. No need for a camera person to tag along and no need for a remote van with that tall transmitter tower that can get mixed up with the electrical wires overhead.
There's only ONE exactly like that, but the network allocation of 2001:0db8 has 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,333 of them (not counting a few needed to manage the space). Too bad it's all reserved, so not even you can have one like that.
Someone doesn't understand what NAT does. The T part means translation. It's not needed in IPv6 anymore, but can be used for obfuscation. The NAT box keeps track of the translation so that traffic handles won't know where the real origin is. With a limited address space like you get in IPv4, which is usually just ONE address, then NAT translates everything to that address. With IPv6 NAT can translate the internal network structure into random IPv6 addresses in the standard/64 minimal assignment. So it doesn't need port numbers to keep things separate. And this can all be controlled by policy configuration.
I hate coders like you: I have to jump all over the place to see what's happening in some function you call that isn't located right where the call is located. So now I end having to use 3 monitors and a couple dozen windows just to see all the logic of what is happening.
Too Big; Don't Buy. Well, unless you want it that big.
I'd be quite happy with 2304x1296. It just need to be a little taller than 1200 (1080 would never work out). I have 1920x1200 now and it's just a wee bit too small. It seems my only option is 2560x1600.
I also need the right spectrum. The monitors we bought from Dell at work really sucked because of the wavelengths chosen for each of the primary colors. They split wide apart. Nobody specs that, so there is no way to tell when buying online. I'm currently using an NEC MultiSync EA241WM. I had that at work, so I bought one for home, too. It has the spectrum that works best for me (colors don't split apart in my glasses).
It's no longer the computer that is, or should be, interesting. It's all about what you can do with them. How about a hac^H^H^Hprogramming club instead?
But once W3C makes it part of HTML5, then anything w/o DRM support is not standards compliant. or will you show me a fully standards compliant browser that gives me this choice... and is available in pure source code that I can compile and use the compiled result?
I prefer to have browsers that are NOT made by corporations. Browser developers will have to choose between making a browser without DRM and not be considered HTML5 compliant, and paying tens of thousands of dollars to corporations just to get a license key to decode the DRM. Putting DRM is HTML5 as a standard locks out all but corporate made browsers. It also locks out full browser source code that you can compile for yourself and end up with a fully standards compliant browser.
Let corporations come up with that own standard for a uniform ADD ON for DRM. They already know how to do that. Open and non-open should have a clear dividing line. Doing this won't prevent having DRM protected content (install the DRM plugin and you have it) displayable. It will just give people a choice that either way leaves them with a standards compliant browser.
... HTML5 is not YET (apparently this is coming soon) a real standard. So the only users using it should be those interested in helping to test out the standard. In the mean time ALL web sites should provide a graceful degrade down to HTML4 so their site works in an HTML4-only browser as well as HTML4 can do (which DOES include video, even if most of you web programmers are too lame to understand how to do it). And you don't have to always embed the video... just make a hyperlink and play it that way. That's worked for over a decade.
Where are you gonna post it to make money? Whatever site does that I won't be visiting at all, because there's too much good free stuff to bother with a pay site. And if everyone does this and posts to the pay site, it will end up costing too much and the whole idea of viewing online videos is dead other than for the big companies that have all that marketing to bring in the numbers for their big movies. And besides, if I can see it, I can rip it off, anyway, as can most others (the HDCP technology to feed it encrypted all the way to the monitor is not widely deployed for computers).
Supply and demand. There's still way too much supply.
Slashdot Mirror
So why did they need to hide it? Why all the secrecy?
I disagree with #1 ... unless it's OPTIONAL for the owner.
These two things really are orthogonal. Activation Lock can be done even with jailbreaking. Apple could allow jailbreaking on a properly activated phone. But they won't and we all know that it is NOT for preventing theft. Activation lock can help the theft issue. It can also tighten down the jailbreaking (even though it is a different thing).
St^H^HTim: I'm still not gonna buy your junk ... even less so now.
Why do we still even need ethernet? How often do you need something other than IPv4/6 which could be done as its own layer since no one uses a bus topology anymore (did that ever get faster than a total shared 10 megabit capacity?).
Not to mention all the people who will use whatever technology they come up with, at higher transmit powers, to kill cell phones everywhere (although in a movie theater, this might be a good thing). If the system requires authentication to work, no one will do it. If it's a coded signal, they better find a way to avoid a replay attack.
This is clearly intended to help drivers avoid having to open those big folding maps that the NHTSA has never even attempted to control or ban, like they should.
... that should be quite a bad smell.
The researchers have contacted Apple about their exploit but haven't heard back from the company and aren't sharing more details of their hack until they do.
With this attitude, don't expect Apple to ever contact them.
The researchers have contacted Apple about their exploit but haven't heard back from the company and aren't sharing more details of their hack until they do.
Well, that seems to be simple ... Apple will just never contact them.
Tie it in with a dedicated phone system so it can be sending the pictures back to the police headquarters continuously.
Then we'll see "self pix" like remote TV reporting. No need for a camera person to tag along and no need for a remote van with that tall transmitter tower that can get mixed up with the electrical wires overhead.
What can this do to help us extend the length of fiber optics, or lower the transmitter power on long runs like overseas?
There's only ONE exactly like that, but the network allocation of 2001:0db8 has 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,333 of them (not counting a few needed to manage the space). Too bad it's all reserved, so not even you can have one like that.
... because all the porn, music, movie, and warez sites are moving to IPv6 to hide.
Someone doesn't understand what NAT does. The T part means translation. It's not needed in IPv6 anymore, but can be used for obfuscation. The NAT box keeps track of the translation so that traffic handles won't know where the real origin is. With a limited address space like you get in IPv4, which is usually just ONE address, then NAT translates everything to that address. With IPv6 NAT can translate the internal network structure into random IPv6 addresses in the standard /64 minimal assignment. So it doesn't need port numbers to keep things separate. And this can all be controlled by policy configuration.
Because it is known that tornado winds can reach at least 320 MPH.
I hate coders like you: I have to jump all over the place to see what's happening in some function you call that isn't located right where the call is located. So now I end having to use 3 monitors and a couple dozen windows just to see all the logic of what is happening.
Too Big; Don't Buy. Well, unless you want it that big.
I'd be quite happy with 2304x1296. It just need to be a little taller than 1200 (1080 would never work out). I have 1920x1200 now and it's just a wee bit too small. It seems my only option is 2560x1600.
I also need the right spectrum. The monitors we bought from Dell at work really sucked because of the wavelengths chosen for each of the primary colors. They split wide apart. Nobody specs that, so there is no way to tell when buying online. I'm currently using an NEC MultiSync EA241WM. I had that at work, so I bought one for home, too. It has the spectrum that works best for me (colors don't split apart in my glasses).
It's no longer the computer that is, or should be, interesting. It's all about what you can do with them. How about a hac^H^H^Hprogramming club instead?
But once W3C makes it part of HTML5, then anything w/o DRM support is not standards compliant. or will you show me a fully standards compliant browser that gives me this choice ... and is available in pure source code that I can compile and use the compiled result?
I prefer to have browsers that are NOT made by corporations. Browser developers will have to choose between making a browser without DRM and not be considered HTML5 compliant, and paying tens of thousands of dollars to corporations just to get a license key to decode the DRM. Putting DRM is HTML5 as a standard locks out all but corporate made browsers. It also locks out full browser source code that you can compile for yourself and end up with a fully standards compliant browser.
Let corporations come up with that own standard for a uniform ADD ON for DRM. They already know how to do that. Open and non-open should have a clear dividing line. Doing this won't prevent having DRM protected content (install the DRM plugin and you have it) displayable. It will just give people a choice that either way leaves them with a standards compliant browser.
... HTML5 is not YET (apparently this is coming soon) a real standard. So the only users using it should be those interested in helping to test out the standard. In the mean time ALL web sites should provide a graceful degrade down to HTML4 so their site works in an HTML4-only browser as well as HTML4 can do (which DOES include video, even if most of you web programmers are too lame to understand how to do it). And you don't have to always embed the video ... just make a hyperlink and play it that way. That's worked for over a decade.
Where are you gonna post it to make money? Whatever site does that I won't be visiting at all, because there's too much good free stuff to bother with a pay site. And if everyone does this and posts to the pay site, it will end up costing too much and the whole idea of viewing online videos is dead other than for the big companies that have all that marketing to bring in the numbers for their big movies. And besides, if I can see it, I can rip it off, anyway, as can most others (the HDCP technology to feed it encrypted all the way to the monitor is not widely deployed for computers).
Supply and demand. There's still way too much supply.
Yeah, punch cards had this feature whereby you could randomize the order of the lines.
... NOT being distracted by Facebook and Twitter. Good thing those and the whole internet were not around back then.