If I want a phone that's cheap then I want to use bad hardware. If I want to use bad hardware program efficiency becomes more not less important. Further to use HTML5 I need a rather expensive data connection, which means it is unlikely the phone is too cheap. OK so he say's he targeting 256m or Ram 700mhz processor.
Just to put this in perspective: iPhone 1 420mhz 128m ram iPhone 3G 412mhz 128m Ram iPhone 3GS (being sold for another 2 weeks, runs iOS 5) 600 mhz 256m Ram
So he's targeting the bottom of the smart phone market where iOS (at least up to version 5) and Android 2/3 run fine.
Sort of. You generally want more than HTTP. So you do a full v6 to v4 conversion box. That allows you to use v4 internally with v6 tunnels Then you start adding v6 to switches and routers so that you are running dual stack internally. At that point only a fraction remains on v4.
Carrier based NAT has been done for ages on mobile (cellular) telcos
No it isn't. They may be blocking unsolicited connections but it is not carrier NAT.
Now the ip addresses I was using about 10 years ago still haven't been reused, let's not forget about all those huge companies that were allocated (multiple)/8 space, has the *thinks* DEC space been handed back? What about IBMs? Why aren't they using private space internally?
We've still got a shed load of IP space out there, it just needs to be (forcibly) repatriated.
Lets assume you get those back. What does that buy another few hundred million addresses? Sure 10%, 20% extra space. So what? The internet is still growing exponentially. Look particularly at global expansion. In exchange for massively complicating the routing tables we buy extra months. Why bother?
Most consumer devices still don't support v6. But that's not a problem. Inside the house you run dual stack. Your v4 devices happily live on 192.168.1.x just like they always have. And when they call out they go out a dynamically allocated v4 address which is fine since they use DHCP (at the house level) today.
They are switching over. It takes the ISP years to do a full end to end switch and support it. The first step was phones and that's working. The next is home / small business and almost all the major ISPs have pilot projects running.
It is exponential growth. Drastic measures that would make routing a huge mess (well beyond what today's routers can handle in terms of table complexity without latency skyrocketing) but you a few months extra worth of IPv4 addresses.
No what will happen is that v4 addresses will be in a dynamically allocated pool and for communicated within your ISP's network you'll use v6. Everyone understands the v4 pool will exist. But things like: geolocation, session maintenance... will get much much worse.
And so far it has been phones then moving home / small business over.
That's fine. IPv6 equipment can support dual stack and mappings. Users can share dynamically allocated address from a pool, as it is needed less and less. The v4 internet as a low feature, legacy support system is not a problem.'
That's called carrier based NAT and ISP's do not want to go to it. The regulators have made it clear that carrier based NAT won't have legal shielding (i.e. they screw up as a result they are liable) and at the same time it is just as expensive as implementing v6. There will not be carrier based NAT.
Or you could use a cheaper technology and just have more volume. Whether you like what Apple is doing with the space savings is irrelevant. The point is this wasn't the cheap thing to do, it was expensive.
I have no idea how 114g feels vs. 140g. Probably not much. On the hand the Lumia 920 is 180g. I can imagine that starts to make a real difference in usage. Apple's shtick is thin and light in computers and it has worked out for them.
Apple isn't doing anything differently in this regard than any other phone manufacturer.
They use the highest density most expensive option. A few years ago this cost quite a bit more and fewer companies used them.
However, as a consumer, i'd rather a design concept like the motorola razr maxx, prepared to have a bit more thickness if it means the phone will last a weekend without charging.
I understand. I own the MacBook Pro Retina which made huge sacrifices for thin and light. People really like thin and light when they see it, when they try it. But just like the move from desktops to laptops, thin and light likely means 30% less device for 30% more money.
Apple from a profit standpoint would much rather have a big cheap battery than the incredibly expensive light thin batteries they have. Heck they would rather sell the phone hooked up to a car battery and give you 1000 hrs talk time. Light and thin is costing them money, this isn't about penny pinching.
... then US government is free to sue UK's Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Espionage isn't a tort it is a crime. You don't get sued, you get jailed.
Seriously. You're defying basic common sense. By your logic, if a web browser is used to read the corresponding news items on the Bureau's website, that could potentially constitute a crime under the Espionage Act on behalf of the browser maker. That's obviously false.
No there is a big difference. A browser renders all content without concern about the content. Common carrier laws apply to browsers. This app would be specifically designed to transmit military information that the government has already indicated is part fo the national defense and that they do not wish decimated. Knowingly going this far, without creating additional safeguards is problematic.
An analogy might be something like felony murder. If I'm engaging in a legal and perfectly safe activity and someone dies that probably is not a crime. If I'm doing something questionable and someone dies that becomes involuntary manslaughter. If I'm doing something illegal but only slightly, it rises to misdemeanor manslaughter. If on the other hand I'm committing a major crime and because I'm doing it kill someone accidentally it becomes felony murder.
A judge is unlikely to agree that because Apple was trying to fall just short of espionage, in decimating military information widely, that they should be excused when they accidentally stepped over the line. Their intent was clear. Lots of people have been jailed for espionage who just meant to fall slightly short of spying for the enemy.
Your problem is with the espionage act, not Apple.
Section 3 of the espionage act makes it a crime to convey false reports for the purpose of disruption. So for example if the U.K.'s Bureau of Investigative Journalism got something wrong and had anti-American motivations (which they might of)....
This is not something you do casually. You want to publish this stuff you don't write an app, you have your legal team examine each word and think carefully about it. In most cases you ask for a military review.
And if the app were go abroad and ever passed on information to foreigners which was under government quarantine that would be espionage. They would need to be insane to provide that app outside the United States under almost any circumstance.
Slashdot Mirror
If I want a phone that's cheap then I want to use bad hardware. If I want to use bad hardware program efficiency becomes more not less important. Further to use HTML5 I need a rather expensive data connection, which means it is unlikely the phone is too cheap. OK so he say's he targeting 256m or Ram 700mhz processor.
Just to put this in perspective:
iPhone 1 420mhz 128m ram
iPhone 3G 412mhz 128m Ram
iPhone 3GS (being sold for another 2 weeks, runs iOS 5) 600 mhz 256m Ram
So he's targeting the bottom of the smart phone market where iOS (at least up to version 5) and Android 2/3 run fine.
Worse in the Google no longer can correctly identify your city based on your IP sense
And who pays to replace all the routers that now need much longer routing tables as the address space is even more fragmented?
Sort of. You generally want more than HTTP. So you do a full v6 to v4 conversion box. That allows you to use v4 internally with v6 tunnels Then you start adding v6 to switches and routers so that you are running dual stack internally. At that point only a fraction remains on v4.
Carrier based NAT has been done for ages on mobile (cellular) telcos
No it isn't. They may be blocking unsolicited connections but it is not carrier NAT.
Now the ip addresses I was using about 10 years ago still haven't been reused, let's not forget about all those huge companies that were allocated (multiple) /8 space, has the *thinks* DEC space been handed back? What about IBMs? Why aren't they using private space internally?
We've still got a shed load of IP space out there, it just needs to be (forcibly) repatriated.
Lets assume you get those back. What does that buy another few hundred million addresses? Sure 10%, 20% extra space. So what? The internet is still growing exponentially. Look particularly at global expansion. In exchange for massively complicating the routing tables we buy extra months. Why bother?
And what about phones and other mobile devices? It is not just homes.
And how do these internets talk to one another?
Most consumer devices still don't support v6. But that's not a problem. Inside the house you run dual stack. Your v4 devices happily live on 192.168.1.x just like they always have. And when they call out they go out a dynamically allocated v4 address which is fine since they use DHCP (at the house level) today.
They are switching over. It takes the ISP years to do a full end to end switch and support it. The first step was phones and that's working. The next is home / small business and almost all the major ISPs have pilot projects running.
The internet is still growing exponentially better efficiency for the used addresses doesn't buy you much time. Not worth the hassle.
Actually they did. You setup a v4 anywhere in your v6 subnet and map to it. It is a local mapping though so that routing remains v6 only.
It is exponential growth. Drastic measures that would make routing a huge mess (well beyond what today's routers can handle in terms of table complexity without latency skyrocketing) but you a few months extra worth of IPv4 addresses.
On (1) I think you mean pools. Carriers don't generally use NAT.
On (3) the service can accept a v6 address. That will likely get better. If not generally v6's have the entire v4 space mapped inside a subnet.
On (4) . Yes. Good.
No what will happen is that v4 addresses will be in a dynamically allocated pool and for communicated within your ISP's network you'll use v6. Everyone understands the v4 pool will exist. But things like: geolocation, session maintenance... will get much much worse.
And so far it has been phones then moving home / small business over.
That's fine. IPv6 equipment can support dual stack and mappings. Users can share dynamically allocated address from a pool, as it is needed less and less. The v4 internet as a low feature, legacy support system is not a problem.'
What's a problem is making it the primary system.
That's called carrier based NAT and ISP's do not want to go to it. The regulators have made it clear that carrier based NAT won't have legal shielding (i.e. they screw up as a result they are liable) and at the same time it is just as expensive as implementing v6. There will not be carrier based NAT.
Those are mostly internal. Internal dual stack is easy.
Or you could use a cheaper technology and just have more volume. Whether you like what Apple is doing with the space savings is irrelevant. The point is this wasn't the cheap thing to do, it was expensive.
I have no idea how 114g feels vs. 140g. Probably not much. On the hand the Lumia 920 is 180g. I can imagine that starts to make a real difference in usage. Apple's shtick is thin and light in computers and it has worked out for them.
Apple isn't doing anything differently in this regard than any other phone manufacturer.
They use the highest density most expensive option. A few years ago this cost quite a bit more and fewer companies used them.
However, as a consumer, i'd rather a design concept like the motorola razr maxx, prepared to have a bit more thickness if it means the phone will last a weekend without charging.
I understand. I own the MacBook Pro Retina which made huge sacrifices for thin and light. People really like thin and light when they see it, when they try it. But just like the move from desktops to laptops, thin and light likely means 30% less device for 30% more money.
Apple from a profit standpoint would much rather have a big cheap battery than the incredibly expensive light thin batteries they have. Heck they would rather sell the phone hooked up to a car battery and give you 1000 hrs talk time. Light and thin is costing them money, this isn't about penny pinching.
Isn't this precisely the sort of argument W3C is for?
Espionage isn't a tort it is a crime. You don't get sued, you get jailed.
Seriously. You're defying basic common sense. By your logic, if a web browser is used to read the corresponding news items on the Bureau's website, that could potentially constitute a crime under the Espionage Act on behalf of the browser maker. That's obviously false.
No there is a big difference. A browser renders all content without concern about the content. Common carrier laws apply to browsers. This app would be specifically designed to transmit military information that the government has already indicated is part fo the national defense and that they do not wish decimated. Knowingly going this far, without creating additional safeguards is problematic.
An analogy might be something like felony murder. If I'm engaging in a legal and perfectly safe activity and someone dies that probably is not a crime. If I'm doing something questionable and someone dies that becomes involuntary manslaughter. If I'm doing something illegal but only slightly, it rises to misdemeanor manslaughter. If on the other hand I'm committing a major crime and because I'm doing it kill someone accidentally it becomes felony murder.
A judge is unlikely to agree that because Apple was trying to fall just short of espionage, in decimating military information widely, that they should be excused when they accidentally stepped over the line. Their intent was clear. Lots of people have been jailed for espionage who just meant to fall slightly short of spying for the enemy.
Your problem is with the espionage act, not Apple.
Evernote, Keynote, EA's Monopoly.
Section 3 of the espionage act makes it a crime to convey false reports for the purpose of disruption. So for example if the U.K.'s Bureau of Investigative Journalism got something wrong and had anti-American motivations (which they might of)....
This is not something you do casually. You want to publish this stuff you don't write an app, you have your legal team examine each word and think carefully about it. In most cases you ask for a military review.
And if the app were go abroad and ever passed on information to foreigners which was under government quarantine that would be espionage. They would need to be insane to provide that app outside the United States under almost any circumstance.