If you're going to smear an entire country like that, you're putting those who actually can and will do something in the same boat as those who don't give a fuck.
I'm with ScrewMaster on this one. Grishnakh's position would have us blaming MLK Jr along with disinterested Northern Whites for the civil rights abuses in 1950s-1960s South.
If you knew how to damage, disrupt, or otherwise cause havoc with the American energy grid (say, by using something like Stuxnet), and you were an enemy of America, don't you think that would be valuable?
Counter-argument: Attacking the US power grid is an economic attack, and the trade relationship between the US and China is such that we mostly sink or swim together.
Counter to the counter: Is that true? China's GDP kept growing through the Great Recession, albeit at a slower pace.
Disclaimer: I did not read TFA. Which companies were targeted? Were they energy companies involved in trading energy or creating energy, or something else?
Or maybe those responsible has pwned some computers at a business, which were only turned on between 9 and 5. While McAfee's conclusion is possible, I wouldn't consider it likely without some other evidence supporting it.
You deserve your mod points for insightful. However, I would point out Occam's Razor. Who would desire to steal sensitive information from energy companies? If you controlled a botnet made up of business/government PCs in Beijing, would you point it at energy companies, or something else? And if these attacks were coming from compromised computers, wouldn't they be more geographically and chronologically widespread? Most businesses leave PCs on overnight (I think), though perhaps China is more energy conscious. And I would expect to see IPs from all over China and/or East Asia at least, if it were a botnet of sorts.
I'm going to hypothesize that the attackers are connected to the Chinese government.
It is more like saying something in public, only you are doing it with text.
Try this analogy. Posting on a blog, or writing in the newspaper is like making a speech in a public square. Writing a status update on Facebook is like telling something to people at a dinner party (or at a backyard barbecue that is open to all your neighbors, depending on your security settings). Posting to Twitter is like shouting something during the Superbowl where everyone else is also shouting.
So simply adding more towers does not increase the amount of spectrum available, it only increases the number of geographic units that are covered.
Yes, but aside from the Superbowl example mentioned elsewhere, adding more towers will provide for more bandwidth/throughput for the end user in that area because he/she will be sharing that spectrum with less other users. If you have one tower covering an entire city, then all the mobile users in the city have to share that 1000 units of sprectrum. If you have 100 towers covering that city, then (assuming even user distribution), each user will have that many more units of spectrum available to them.
Of course, there are a lot of challenges and costs with dramatically increasing the amount of coverage, and we should expect those costs to be passed on to the consumer, but it seems too simple to say, "wireless spectrum is a finite resource, therefore wireless bandwidth is a finite resource." That may be technically true, but I think wireless "bandwidth" is a lot less finite than the spectrum.
And adding towers isn't the only possible solution. It all comes down to getting that wireless link to be as short as possible and getting that traffic onto wire. Imagine if whenever you were at home or work, your cell phone used WiFi instead of 3G/LTE/etc. Imagine if there was a WiFi router next to every traffic light.
Basically, as computing becomes more mobile, there will be more and more traffic jamming the airwaves, and we need to find ways around this congestion. Offloading it to wire is one option. More efficient encoding is another. I'm sure there are smart people out there who can think of more.
bandwidth is ruled by the laws of physics not by the "Invisible Hand".
What if a competing wireless provider built twice as many cell towers covering the same geographic area? If Verizon has X towers covering NYC, couldn't someone put in 2X and provide better throughput?
and an annual 10-30% increase in taxes is the new norm.
Your taxes have been going up 10-30% annually? Since when? I live in Southern California, and we recently increased our sales tax by about one point, depending on your exact location, but my federal taxes are staying relatively low (thanks to the extension of the Bush era cuts). Now, I fully expect to pay the piper eventually, but I haven't seen any increases yet, and I honestly don't expect to see them for at least a few more years, certainly not before the next presidential election.
IANANE (network engineer), but aren't the limits of wireless bandwidth indirectly proportional to the density of cell towers? If there were twice as many cell towers (and the cells themselves 1/4 the size), couldn't you handle much more cell phone traffic? Once you get to the tower, the bandwidth is only limited by the amount of pipe you lay, not the physics of electromagnetism.
No, I don't think so, but perhaps my post wasn't too clear. As I see it, there is nothing preventing me from going to my laptop and buying an e-Book from Amazon on their website, then going back to my iPad and reading it in the Kindle app. I can do the same thing by switching from the Kindle app to Safari on the iPad, saving a trip to the laptop. It seems, like suutar points out, that Apple is banking that the convenience factor will get them a lot of sales "commissions." And, of course, they will probably "alter it further" as they are wont to do.
I think the idea is that they will simply reject your app if you don't offer in-app purchases. This is probably not a requirement that scales very well, but other than Amazon, who are they really targeting?
This begs the question: If Amazon refuses, can/will Apple remote uninstall the already installed Kindle apps on various devices?
We are recent iPad owners, and my wife really wanted to read Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Since I didn't have an Amazon/Kindle account, I bought it for her through iBooks. Going forward, it seems at first glance that I would want all (or at least the vast majority) of my ebooks to be in the same format, so we won't have to worry as much about portability (once the iPad dies, or if we get a Kindle or an Android tablet). Does anyone have any insight as to whether or not this is very necessary, and if it is, which format/app is the best bet
At first, I thought this story was another reason for me to prefer the Kindle app, but it on a closer reading, it looks like Apple is simply saying that Amazon has to offer all it's books that are readable in the Kindle iPad app for sale in the Kindle iPad app. It doesn't look like they are forcing people to buy it there, or preventing you from reading books in your Kindle account that you bought elsewhere from being read on the iPad. So I see it as Apple using it's market muscle aggressively, but not necessarily unethically.
in USA they would've created some 500 million $ memorial and immortalized the event for at least a decade.
I agree that the security theater overreaction in the US is stupid, but I'd say there's quite a large difference between the Russian airport bombing and 9/11.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you have a critical mass of people ignoring a law, then it's easier to work within the system to get the law changed (or repealed).
And yet, the speed limit on the long, straight road near my house is still 40 mph.
If you're going to smear an entire country like that, you're putting those who actually can and will do something in the same boat as those who don't give a fuck.
I'm with ScrewMaster on this one. Grishnakh's position would have us blaming MLK Jr along with disinterested Northern Whites for the civil rights abuses in 1950s-1960s South.
What does it say about us that enough slashdotters know who Snooki is to mod that up to 5?
If you knew how to damage, disrupt, or otherwise cause havoc with the American energy grid (say, by using something like Stuxnet), and you were an enemy of America, don't you think that would be valuable?
Counter-argument: Attacking the US power grid is an economic attack, and the trade relationship between the US and China is such that we mostly sink or swim together.
Counter to the counter: Is that true? China's GDP kept growing through the Great Recession, albeit at a slower pace.
Disclaimer: I did not read TFA. Which companies were targeted? Were they energy companies involved in trading energy or creating energy, or something else?
How soon they forget.
Or maybe those responsible has pwned some computers at a business, which were only turned on between 9 and 5. While McAfee's conclusion is possible, I wouldn't consider it likely without some other evidence supporting it.
You deserve your mod points for insightful. However, I would point out Occam's Razor. Who would desire to steal sensitive information from energy companies? If you controlled a botnet made up of business/government PCs in Beijing, would you point it at energy companies, or something else? And if these attacks were coming from compromised computers, wouldn't they be more geographically and chronologically widespread? Most businesses leave PCs on overnight (I think), though perhaps China is more energy conscious. And I would expect to see IPs from all over China and/or East Asia at least, if it were a botnet of sorts.
I'm going to hypothesize that the attackers are connected to the Chinese government.
...she would have included at least one post about union activity.
It is more like saying something in public, only you are doing it with text.
Try this analogy. Posting on a blog, or writing in the newspaper is like making a speech in a public square. Writing a status update on Facebook is like telling something to people at a dinner party (or at a backyard barbecue that is open to all your neighbors, depending on your security settings). Posting to Twitter is like shouting something during the Superbowl where everyone else is also shouting.
So simply adding more towers does not increase the amount of spectrum available, it only increases the number of geographic units that are covered.
Yes, but aside from the Superbowl example mentioned elsewhere, adding more towers will provide for more bandwidth/throughput for the end user in that area because he/she will be sharing that spectrum with less other users. If you have one tower covering an entire city, then all the mobile users in the city have to share that 1000 units of sprectrum. If you have 100 towers covering that city, then (assuming even user distribution), each user will have that many more units of spectrum available to them.
Of course, there are a lot of challenges and costs with dramatically increasing the amount of coverage, and we should expect those costs to be passed on to the consumer, but it seems too simple to say, "wireless spectrum is a finite resource, therefore wireless bandwidth is a finite resource." That may be technically true, but I think wireless "bandwidth" is a lot less finite than the spectrum.
And adding towers isn't the only possible solution. It all comes down to getting that wireless link to be as short as possible and getting that traffic onto wire. Imagine if whenever you were at home or work, your cell phone used WiFi instead of 3G/LTE/etc. Imagine if there was a WiFi router next to every traffic light.
Basically, as computing becomes more mobile, there will be more and more traffic jamming the airwaves, and we need to find ways around this congestion. Offloading it to wire is one option. More efficient encoding is another. I'm sure there are smart people out there who can think of more.
who knows what throttling is. Maybe Edge?
I thought U2 was more concerned with the plight of the poor of the Third World than disaffected hipsters in the West.
bandwidth is ruled by the laws of physics not by the "Invisible Hand".
What if a competing wireless provider built twice as many cell towers covering the same geographic area? If Verizon has X towers covering NYC, couldn't someone put in 2X and provide better throughput?
and an annual 10-30% increase in taxes is the new norm.
Your taxes have been going up 10-30% annually? Since when? I live in Southern California, and we recently increased our sales tax by about one point, depending on your exact location, but my federal taxes are staying relatively low (thanks to the extension of the Bush era cuts). Now, I fully expect to pay the piper eventually, but I haven't seen any increases yet, and I honestly don't expect to see them for at least a few more years, certainly not before the next presidential election.
IANANE (network engineer), but aren't the limits of wireless bandwidth indirectly proportional to the density of cell towers? If there were twice as many cell towers (and the cells themselves 1/4 the size), couldn't you handle much more cell phone traffic? Once you get to the tower, the bandwidth is only limited by the amount of pipe you lay, not the physics of electromagnetism.
About 9% less than a metric shit ton.
God I hope not. The movie was the worst piece of crap that Bruce Willis has ever been in, and yes, I have seen Color of Night.
You're mis-reading it.
No, I don't think so, but perhaps my post wasn't too clear. As I see it, there is nothing preventing me from going to my laptop and buying an e-Book from Amazon on their website, then going back to my iPad and reading it in the Kindle app. I can do the same thing by switching from the Kindle app to Safari on the iPad, saving a trip to the laptop. It seems, like suutar points out, that Apple is banking that the convenience factor will get them a lot of sales "commissions." And, of course, they will probably "alter it further" as they are wont to do.
I think the idea is that they will simply reject your app if you don't offer in-app purchases. This is probably not a requirement that scales very well, but other than Amazon, who are they really targeting? This begs the question: If Amazon refuses, can/will Apple remote uninstall the already installed Kindle apps on various devices?
Amazon either needs to take a loss on eBooks sold on Apple's platform, or else raise prices.
What's the marginal cost of an ebook?
When did Murdoch by the NY Times? Also, article is not behind a paywall (was the link changed?).
We are recent iPad owners, and my wife really wanted to read Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Since I didn't have an Amazon/Kindle account, I bought it for her through iBooks. Going forward, it seems at first glance that I would want all (or at least the vast majority) of my ebooks to be in the same format, so we won't have to worry as much about portability (once the iPad dies, or if we get a Kindle or an Android tablet). Does anyone have any insight as to whether or not this is very necessary, and if it is, which format/app is the best bet
At first, I thought this story was another reason for me to prefer the Kindle app, but it on a closer reading, it looks like Apple is simply saying that Amazon has to offer all it's books that are readable in the Kindle iPad app for sale in the Kindle iPad app. It doesn't look like they are forcing people to buy it there, or preventing you from reading books in your Kindle account that you bought elsewhere from being read on the iPad. So I see it as Apple using it's market muscle aggressively, but not necessarily unethically.
TFA says, "In removing their WiFi passwords, anyone within range who has a web-enabled mobile device is able to reach the outside world."
What? If people have Net access at their houses in Cairo then this wouldn't be a story. What am I missing?
I've always considered Egypt to be on of the more progressive muslim states Apparently I was mistaken.
When the President has been in power for 29 years, I think it's safe to say that the State is not progressive.
.... to the That's How I Roll t-shirt.
Dubya, get off the Internet!
in USA they would've created some 500 million $ memorial and immortalized the event for at least a decade.
I agree that the security theater overreaction in the US is stupid, but I'd say there's quite a large difference between the Russian airport bombing and 9/11.