Out of curiousity, what troubles have you had with an OSX NFS client to a Linux server? I use the automountd approach (access/net/SERVERNAME/SHARENAME), and it’s pretty good. It does get stupid if the NFS server goes away for any reason. Usually have to restart the Mac before things are normal again if the server reboots or any of the NFS/sunrpc daemons crash. And of course I still need Netatalk for TimeMachine.
Other than that, I find NFS is faster than Netatalk by a goodly bit. I have been meaning to try a good benchmark of CIFS, NFS, and Netatalk with 10.11 as the special sauce for CIFS is supposedly even more special now...
I don't think this proves libraries per-se are bad, but blindly depending on out-of-house software repositories for every build or (worse) every startup/deploy is crazy.
We're a Java house (go ahead, get your ki[c]ks in...), and we use around 100 open source libraries. They're all mirrored locally in an Ivy repository we maintain. No new versions get checked in unless they've passed a reasonable level of scrutiny, and nothing gets deleted unless we delete it.
It’s not a continuous broadcast. When key & car are in range, car broadcasts a challenge, and key replies. Most models only do it at door open & engine start. They don’t continuously require it since if the process failed for some reason as you’re going down the highway & the engine just cut out... Not good
There’s some rudimentary obufscation at the protocol level, and recent-ish models have a reasonable degree of replay attack prevention. This attack appears to just amplify the radio signal in both direction with a repeater near the car & the key. You’d need one person ready to drive the car away and another to get close enough to the owner.
It’s only going to be good for one use though. Unless you can steal the key or stay on top of the owner, the car won’t re-start after you turn it off. Maybe you could slip the repeater in their bag or something to buy a little more time, but it’s pretty limited. Okay if you’re planning to scrap the car for parts, not so much if you expect to be able to keep driving it or sell it off after stealing it. It doesn’t look like this attack does anything to clone the key or defeat the challenge/response between key & car. It just lets you carry out that C/R at a distance.
Honestly, I might like a set of these to enable remote start at long range on my own car.
So you use nothing but cash ever? Good on you, but given that I was on 27 cameras and a dozen license plate scanners just driving to the store, I have to be realistic about how much I'm being tracked and at least get a bit of convenience in exchange for it. ApplePay is a solution to tracking, at least versus swipe or chip credit cards.
Each payment uses a one-time-use card number. Apple (or your bank, not sure which) generates a batch of card numbers, and they're stored in the Secure Element of your phone. Each time you use ApplePay, the vendor gets one of those numbers. Pay the same vendor 10 times, they get 10 numbers. No ability to correlate your purchasing history. Swipe or chip credit cards always use the same number, so your purchases can be tracked. The magstripe has your card holder name in it too, so they get that too.
Nothing about the purchase details is sent to Apple. Apple sends the card numbers to your phone, and the numbers go from your phone directly to the payment networks. Amount, vendor, etc. don't go to Apple.
Why on earth would I want to use my phone instead?
1. Because if you drop your NFC card, it only takes me two seconds to pick it up and use to to buy stuff. If you lose your phone, it's no good for purchases without your fingerprint.
2. If Trader Joe gets hacked, the credit card number behind your NFC card is in their database and gets sold en masse to carders. You get to deal with the fall out from the unauthorized transactions. You're not liable for the fraud, but at best you have to deal with getting a new card, and at worst you have to dispute a bunch of charges. ApplePay sends a one-time-use card number during each transaction. Even if Trader Joe gets hacked, your card number is already invalid & can't be used for additional charges.
3. If privacy is a thing you care about, Trader Joe has your card # as above & can use it to correlate your purchases and direct market you. One-time-use card #'s break that. (Which is among the reasons Wal*Mart has thus far resisted taking ApplePay NFC payments.)
My better half has an '01 VW Cabi (another MK3.5...). It's not standard CAN bus, but it does have a fair bit of integration between the various modules, all accessible through the OBD port. Radio is queryable (or was when it was still factory...), which suggests that attack against radio would be a starting point to the rest. The other "interesting" stuff like ABS, etc. shows up too. It's not as strongly integrated as the newer standard CAN bus V/A Group cars are, but still a lot of stuff that can talk to other stuff.
I think the FBI is content with having a publicly known method (IE real courts, not FISA) that they can access devices of not-all-that-savy criminals via standard warrant procedures. I doubt there are many at FBI that believe they can actually stop a highly dedicated adversary from using off the shelf encryption to prevent access. They’re looking for a non-extralegal way to get the low hanging fruit.
For everything else, it’s entirely plausible that NSA has a catalog of bootloader exploits for you-name-it and the ability to build their own custom software to brute force any passcodes. They just don’t want to use those for common thugs since disclosing they exist gives Apple et al. a chance to fix the vulnerabilities they’re using, closing off their access.
The iPhone case (they thought) struck a good balance between public outcry (ter’ism!) and information not really valuable enough to pursue extralegal means since the guy’s dead already. Looked like a good test case to get force of law behind making manufactures build their backdoors for them. If they succeed, they just get a warrant to get all the “easy” stuff without having to spill the beans on anything they’ve developed on their own. They can keep the top-secret expoits to use against data which is considered worth the risk of exploit disclosure, in cases where they have no intent of going to trial, etc.
Does your radio support metadata for song title etc. transmitted over FM? Lots of even older cars had the capability even if very few radio stations in the US transmit anything. Wouldn’t surprise me much if even some basic radios that don’t have screens to display the info are ultimately built on chips that include the decode capability & just never display it. Find an exploit in the parser for metadata, 0wn the radio. Is the radio on CAN bus? Good chance that it is. Next stop, the antilock brake controller. Well... I guess that’s not exactly the next stop, but that’s kind of the problem.
Just because you didn’t pair with Bluetooth doesn’t mean there isn’t an attack against the BT stack. Anything with an antenna attached to anything with a processor can be fuzzed remotely. Best-worst case is you over run something and DoS it, causing “weird” stuff for the interface in the car. Worst-worst case is you 0wn it and have access to the CAN bus to do more.
All you need is a vulnerability in the TPMS parsing code, and you have an exploit of the module that houses it. Near 100% odds that module is on a CAN bus and could be your foothold into more destructive systems.
As far as cars that “don’t have” TPMS, don’t be so sure that absense of the light on your dash means it’s not there. I’d be shocked if there aren’t at least some vendors that ship one system with a radio receiver integrated for all models. Program it to not care about absent senors (no warning light) and don’t put the sensors in the wheel. Might still be listening with flawed parsing code exposed. Plug something into your OBD2 port that will enumerate all devices on CAN bus and see what’s listening. Even on my super basic model Toyota Yaris, there are a LOT of things responding on the CAN.
Spoken like a true American. Moar is always better value, even if you don’t need all of it, right? Would you like your Pi[drive] supersized?
Consider it in terms of “cost per GB you actually use.” If you’re doing some kind of small embedded thing that needs maybe 200GB of storage for data logging (which is a pretty enormous amount for many purpose), then the cost of that 4TB drive was actually $0.75/GB. The cheaper PiDrive is $0.1571/GB in that case. That’s only counting the number of GB’s you actually needed in the division. Less waste is the better value in this case.
Getting ~200GB storage in flash form would run you a bit more than double that according to a quick Amazon search.
Then there’s the power issue. It would be nice if TFA or even WD’s site including actual power requirements, but I can’t find anything. It does look like they’ve included a unique (to me anyways) USB cable that lets both the drive and the Pi draw power directly from a wall wart, rather than drawing power through the Pi’s USB plug & power regulator. Flash probably still draws a lot less power overall if you’re trying to run on batteries, but at much greater cost. I didn’t see pricing on the 1TB version, but the costs probably compare even better on that to flash.
But that’s actually another case where encryption technology is being perfected to destroy the ability to give in to legal demands. If you use TLS with perfect forward secrecy correctly enabled, you wouldn’t be able to turn over anything to LEO that would allow them to decrypt captured traffic. Without the ephemeral data from the initial session initiation on both sides of the negotiation, you can’t decrypt.
Of course a bank is already streaming any interesting data about your activity to the Feds, never mind needing to get a warrant or decrypt anything.
Have you perhaps heard the term, “jailbreak”? That would be running unsigned code on an iPhone. There are no publically known bootloader-level jailbreaks for the iPhone 5c/s & later. NSA or another TLA could still have a very top secret exploit that allows them to run whatever they want.
If the bootloader is 100% secure, then yes, you need Apple’s keys. Find an exploit in the bootloader (or in any code that you can access on a locked phone), and odds are pretty good you can load what you want and unlock it without Apple. Anyone who has such an exploit is going to treat it like the Allies treated the fact Enigma was broken during WW2. As soon as the existance & method of the attack is known to Apple, they can patch it in their next device, closing that avenue of access.
FBI realistically doesn’t care what’s on the phone. They just want to legally strong-arm Apple into unlocking any phone they want without having to spill the beans about their (possible) exploit. Using this phone seemed like a good test case (cause ter’ists!!!), though some of the details that have emerged about the incompetence of how the phone was treated has made it a bit less of an ideal case.
This could get interesting. It always bugged me a bit that you’re paying a company (you’re their client) to give you a stamp of approval, and the only thing you need to avoid a bunch of liability is that stamp of approval. Doesn’t seem like there’s any disincentive to them to just pass you if you give them enough money. Maybe they fail you, you pay a bunch of hush^Wconsulting money for them to help you get compliant, then they pass you.
There’s definitely a lot of good things in PCI-DSS, but there’s a difference between getting a bunch of checkmarks on a list versus actually incorporating the security recommendations into your development cycle and systems design.
What???!!! An exam that actually tests whether you can think and apply your knowledge to solve problems rather than mindlessly reguritate disconnected facts from a text book or lecture? Sweet Finagle, what will they think of next????
Seriously, any test you can “cheat” on with notes is likely useless. There are very few real-world situations in which it’s necessary to vomit up facts on command without consulting any kind of reference. The medical field is probably one of the few exceptions, but other than that, if bringing notes into the test makes a different, the test is flawed.
The difference is that all of the XProtect & related functionality can be disabled. It’s not easy to disable it (easy in the sense you’d stumble on it accidentally), and your average parent / grandparent user of Mac OS would never figure out how to disable it. Which is good, because they have no clue of the implications of doing so.
If as a trained and knowledgable IT professional, you want to run completely unprotected, you set some kernel flags in your EFI, and reboot. Execute whatever you like, overwrite anything on the drive as root, no questions asked. That’s probably not a great idea as the vast majority of the time those features protect even seasoned (or is that salty) professionals from shooting themselves in the foot. But if you really want to run something Apple has determined to be dangerous, you can still do it.
My opinion of Apple would fall sharply if they ever removed the disable options on their desktop OS. So long as that option is there, having it default to ON is the right option for the vast majority of users.
Seems like trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. The weight of a GPU chip and a couple of extra VRAM chips isn’t going to break anyone’s back. The extra weight on a “gaming laptop” usually comes from the extra battery capacity (to support the power sucking GPU), and the fact that the screen itself is usally on the larger side. Plus whatever “bling” they put to make the case look all cool... Any intelligently designed laptop is going to have a shared heat pipe / cooling system that covers the CPU, GPU, and northbridge, so there’s not much to be saved there. I’d venture that the weight of the connector and cover for it, plus the extra hardware to stiffen up the case around that, etc. is probably going to weigh more than the GPU & RAM plus a little bit of extra heat pipe you’re removing. If you have a laptop with a dual embedded / discreet GPU setup, you can even skip the big battery to run on the lower power GPU normally since gamers are probably plugged into AC when they’re playing on the bigger GPU.
Now... If your goal is to sell people who already own a laptop a new GPU module in a couple of years, that makes sense, at least for AMD.
Indeed. I hate how science ignorant anti-nukes pile onto reactor SCRAMs as if they’re evidence of how dangerous a nuclear plant is. OH LOOK!!! IT SHUT DOWN!! OH KNOWS!!11! SO DANGEROUS!!!!11
Yes, it shutdown. Like it was designed to do in the event that anything happened that its control systems didn’t know to be safe. That’s evidence for how safe & well designed the plant is, not how dangerous.
If you want evidence of nuclear plants being un-safe, find reports where reactors didn’t SCRAM. I believe you’ll find a good example of one of those in Pripyat, Ukraine. (Which, BTW was a case where the reactor control system tried to do the right thing, but some highly evolved apes thought they knew better and overrode the safety systems, but anywho)
People have inalienable rights (by virtue of being born) and enumerated rights (from the Constitution, though that document also lists some rights considered to be inalienable). The government has no rights and only the powers granted it by the Constitution.
People have a right to privacy and a reasonable expectation for there to be limits on government surveillance, even in public. The government has no such right, and that includes individual agents of the government acting in their official capacity. You can absolutely legislate that the government cannot audio record citizens without impacting citizens' rights to record the government, including police action.
Your optimism shocks me... You think people picked up would be let go and the Gov would realize the error of their ways?
In Soviet 'Murka, they'd be charged with committing a terrorist act and some form of copyright infringement for unauthorized public performance of a work. And then tax dollars would be spent on an advertising campaign on the dangers of playing antisocial movies on the bus where your movie could be interpreted as a threat to commit an act of terror.
And the worst part is I only wish I was tinfoil hat, tongue in cheek here. I honestly don't think the above is even much of a stretch any more.
Apple's stance is to comply with the laws in the jurisdiction they operate in. In China, that means do what central government says. In the US, that means do what the laws say. Apple's stance in the US case is that FBI's request isn't supported by current US law. That's the way the law works in the US. The government tries to do a thing, and it's the citizen's right (including citizen corporations) to challenge that by due process in court. Apple is complying with US law in the US and Chinese law in China.
Also, nice impartial language in the summary, eds...
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiousity, what troubles have you had with an OSX NFS client to a Linux server? I use the automountd approach (access /net/SERVERNAME/SHARENAME), and it’s pretty good. It does get stupid if the NFS server goes away for any reason. Usually have to restart the Mac before things are normal again if the server reboots or any of the NFS/sunrpc daemons crash. And of course I still need Netatalk for TimeMachine.
Other than that, I find NFS is faster than Netatalk by a goodly bit. I have been meaning to try a good benchmark of CIFS, NFS, and Netatalk with 10.11 as the special sauce for CIFS is supposedly even more special now...
I don't think this proves libraries per-se are bad, but blindly depending on out-of-house software repositories for every build or (worse) every startup/deploy is crazy.
We're a Java house (go ahead, get your ki[c]ks in...), and we use around 100 open source libraries. They're all mirrored locally in an Ivy repository we maintain. No new versions get checked in unless they've passed a reasonable level of scrutiny, and nothing gets deleted unless we delete it.
It’s not a continuous broadcast. When key & car are in range, car broadcasts a challenge, and key replies. Most models only do it at door open & engine start. They don’t continuously require it since if the process failed for some reason as you’re going down the highway & the engine just cut out... Not good
There’s some rudimentary obufscation at the protocol level, and recent-ish models have a reasonable degree of replay attack prevention. This attack appears to just amplify the radio signal in both direction with a repeater near the car & the key. You’d need one person ready to drive the car away and another to get close enough to the owner.
It’s only going to be good for one use though. Unless you can steal the key or stay on top of the owner, the car won’t re-start after you turn it off. Maybe you could slip the repeater in their bag or something to buy a little more time, but it’s pretty limited. Okay if you’re planning to scrap the car for parts, not so much if you expect to be able to keep driving it or sell it off after stealing it. It doesn’t look like this attack does anything to clone the key or defeat the challenge/response between key & car. It just lets you carry out that C/R at a distance.
Honestly, I might like a set of these to enable remote start at long range on my own car.
So you use nothing but cash ever? Good on you, but given that I was on 27 cameras and a dozen license plate scanners just driving to the store, I have to be realistic about how much I'm being tracked and at least get a bit of convenience in exchange for it. ApplePay is a solution to tracking, at least versus swipe or chip credit cards.
Each payment uses a one-time-use card number. Apple (or your bank, not sure which) generates a batch of card numbers, and they're stored in the Secure Element of your phone. Each time you use ApplePay, the vendor gets one of those numbers. Pay the same vendor 10 times, they get 10 numbers. No ability to correlate your purchasing history. Swipe or chip credit cards always use the same number, so your purchases can be tracked. The magstripe has your card holder name in it too, so they get that too.
Nothing about the purchase details is sent to Apple. Apple sends the card numbers to your phone, and the numbers go from your phone directly to the payment networks. Amount, vendor, etc. don't go to Apple.
1. Because if you drop your NFC card, it only takes me two seconds to pick it up and use to to buy stuff. If you lose your phone, it's no good for purchases without your fingerprint.
2. If Trader Joe gets hacked, the credit card number behind your NFC card is in their database and gets sold en masse to carders. You get to deal with the fall out from the unauthorized transactions. You're not liable for the fraud, but at best you have to deal with getting a new card, and at worst you have to dispute a bunch of charges. ApplePay sends a one-time-use card number during each transaction. Even if Trader Joe gets hacked, your card number is already invalid & can't be used for additional charges.
3. If privacy is a thing you care about, Trader Joe has your card # as above & can use it to correlate your purchases and direct market you. One-time-use card #'s break that. (Which is among the reasons Wal*Mart has thus far resisted taking ApplePay NFC payments.)
My better half has an '01 VW Cabi (another MK3.5...). It's not standard CAN bus, but it does have a fair bit of integration between the various modules, all accessible through the OBD port. Radio is queryable (or was when it was still factory...), which suggests that attack against radio would be a starting point to the rest. The other "interesting" stuff like ABS, etc. shows up too. It's not as strongly integrated as the newer standard CAN bus V/A Group cars are, but still a lot of stuff that can talk to other stuff.
Dunno how much difference '98 to '01 made.
I think the FBI is content with having a publicly known method (IE real courts, not FISA) that they can access devices of not-all-that-savy criminals via standard warrant procedures. I doubt there are many at FBI that believe they can actually stop a highly dedicated adversary from using off the shelf encryption to prevent access. They’re looking for a non-extralegal way to get the low hanging fruit.
For everything else, it’s entirely plausible that NSA has a catalog of bootloader exploits for you-name-it and the ability to build their own custom software to brute force any passcodes. They just don’t want to use those for common thugs since disclosing they exist gives Apple et al. a chance to fix the vulnerabilities they’re using, closing off their access.
The iPhone case (they thought) struck a good balance between public outcry (ter’ism!) and information not really valuable enough to pursue extralegal means since the guy’s dead already. Looked like a good test case to get force of law behind making manufactures build their backdoors for them. If they succeed, they just get a warrant to get all the “easy” stuff without having to spill the beans on anything they’ve developed on their own. They can keep the top-secret expoits to use against data which is considered worth the risk of exploit disclosure, in cases where they have no intent of going to trial, etc.
Does your radio support metadata for song title etc. transmitted over FM? Lots of even older cars had the capability even if very few radio stations in the US transmit anything. Wouldn’t surprise me much if even some basic radios that don’t have screens to display the info are ultimately built on chips that include the decode capability & just never display it. Find an exploit in the parser for metadata, 0wn the radio. Is the radio on CAN bus? Good chance that it is. Next stop, the antilock brake controller. Well... I guess that’s not exactly the next stop, but that’s kind of the problem.
Just because you didn’t pair with Bluetooth doesn’t mean there isn’t an attack against the BT stack. Anything with an antenna attached to anything with a processor can be fuzzed remotely. Best-worst case is you over run something and DoS it, causing “weird” stuff for the interface in the car. Worst-worst case is you 0wn it and have access to the CAN bus to do more.
All you need is a vulnerability in the TPMS parsing code, and you have an exploit of the module that houses it. Near 100% odds that module is on a CAN bus and could be your foothold into more destructive systems.
As far as cars that “don’t have” TPMS, don’t be so sure that absense of the light on your dash means it’s not there. I’d be shocked if there aren’t at least some vendors that ship one system with a radio receiver integrated for all models. Program it to not care about absent senors (no warning light) and don’t put the sensors in the wheel. Might still be listening with flawed parsing code exposed. Plug something into your OBD2 port that will enumerate all devices on CAN bus and see what’s listening. Even on my super basic model Toyota Yaris, there are a LOT of things responding on the CAN.
Nope. Just on a tangent.
And eleven out of ten times, they are in fact THAT dumb.
(And the other time it's an off-by-one erro
"This call may be recorded for quality assurance."
I'd like to subpoena some quality, please.
Spoken like a true American. Moar is always better value, even if you don’t need all of it, right? Would you like your Pi[drive] supersized?
Consider it in terms of “cost per GB you actually use.” If you’re doing some kind of small embedded thing that needs maybe 200GB of storage for data logging (which is a pretty enormous amount for many purpose), then the cost of that 4TB drive was actually $0.75/GB. The cheaper PiDrive is $0.1571/GB in that case. That’s only counting the number of GB’s you actually needed in the division. Less waste is the better value in this case.
Getting ~200GB storage in flash form would run you a bit more than double that according to a quick Amazon search.
Then there’s the power issue. It would be nice if TFA or even WD’s site including actual power requirements, but I can’t find anything. It does look like they’ve included a unique (to me anyways) USB cable that lets both the drive and the Pi draw power directly from a wall wart, rather than drawing power through the Pi’s USB plug & power regulator. Flash probably still draws a lot less power overall if you’re trying to run on batteries, but at much greater cost. I didn’t see pricing on the 1TB version, but the costs probably compare even better on that to flash.
But that’s actually another case where encryption technology is being perfected to destroy the ability to give in to legal demands. If you use TLS with perfect forward secrecy correctly enabled, you wouldn’t be able to turn over anything to LEO that would allow them to decrypt captured traffic. Without the ephemeral data from the initial session initiation on both sides of the negotiation, you can’t decrypt.
Of course a bank is already streaming any interesting data about your activity to the Feds, never mind needing to get a warrant or decrypt anything.
Have you perhaps heard the term, “jailbreak”? That would be running unsigned code on an iPhone. There are no publically known bootloader-level jailbreaks for the iPhone 5c/s & later. NSA or another TLA could still have a very top secret exploit that allows them to run whatever they want.
If the bootloader is 100% secure, then yes, you need Apple’s keys. Find an exploit in the bootloader (or in any code that you can access on a locked phone), and odds are pretty good you can load what you want and unlock it without Apple. Anyone who has such an exploit is going to treat it like the Allies treated the fact Enigma was broken during WW2. As soon as the existance & method of the attack is known to Apple, they can patch it in their next device, closing that avenue of access.
FBI realistically doesn’t care what’s on the phone. They just want to legally strong-arm Apple into unlocking any phone they want without having to spill the beans about their (possible) exploit. Using this phone seemed like a good test case (cause ter’ists!!!), though some of the details that have emerged about the incompetence of how the phone was treated has made it a bit less of an ideal case.
This could get interesting. It always bugged me a bit that you’re paying a company (you’re their client) to give you a stamp of approval, and the only thing you need to avoid a bunch of liability is that stamp of approval. Doesn’t seem like there’s any disincentive to them to just pass you if you give them enough money. Maybe they fail you, you pay a bunch of hush^Wconsulting money for them to help you get compliant, then they pass you.
There’s definitely a lot of good things in PCI-DSS, but there’s a difference between getting a bunch of checkmarks on a list versus actually incorporating the security recommendations into your development cycle and systems design.
What???!!! An exam that actually tests whether you can think and apply your knowledge to solve problems rather than mindlessly reguritate disconnected facts from a text book or lecture? Sweet Finagle, what will they think of next????
Seriously, any test you can “cheat” on with notes is likely useless. There are very few real-world situations in which it’s necessary to vomit up facts on command without consulting any kind of reference. The medical field is probably one of the few exceptions, but other than that, if bringing notes into the test makes a different, the test is flawed.
So does that mean Google+ users can now be . . .
Wait for it...
Anonymous?
The difference is that all of the XProtect & related functionality can be disabled. It’s not easy to disable it (easy in the sense you’d stumble on it accidentally), and your average parent / grandparent user of Mac OS would never figure out how to disable it. Which is good, because they have no clue of the implications of doing so.
If as a trained and knowledgable IT professional, you want to run completely unprotected, you set some kernel flags in your EFI, and reboot. Execute whatever you like, overwrite anything on the drive as root, no questions asked. That’s probably not a great idea as the vast majority of the time those features protect even seasoned (or is that salty) professionals from shooting themselves in the foot. But if you really want to run something Apple has determined to be dangerous, you can still do it.
My opinion of Apple would fall sharply if they ever removed the disable options on their desktop OS. So long as that option is there, having it default to ON is the right option for the vast majority of users.
Seems like trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. The weight of a GPU chip and a couple of extra VRAM chips isn’t going to break anyone’s back. The extra weight on a “gaming laptop” usually comes from the extra battery capacity (to support the power sucking GPU), and the fact that the screen itself is usally on the larger side. Plus whatever “bling” they put to make the case look all cool... Any intelligently designed laptop is going to have a shared heat pipe / cooling system that covers the CPU, GPU, and northbridge, so there’s not much to be saved there. I’d venture that the weight of the connector and cover for it, plus the extra hardware to stiffen up the case around that, etc. is probably going to weigh more than the GPU & RAM plus a little bit of extra heat pipe you’re removing. If you have a laptop with a dual embedded / discreet GPU setup, you can even skip the big battery to run on the lower power GPU normally since gamers are probably plugged into AC when they’re playing on the bigger GPU.
Now... If your goal is to sell people who already own a laptop a new GPU module in a couple of years, that makes sense, at least for AMD.
Indeed. I hate how science ignorant anti-nukes pile onto reactor SCRAMs as if they’re evidence of how dangerous a nuclear plant is. OH LOOK!!! IT SHUT DOWN!! OH KNOWS!!11! SO DANGEROUS!!!!11
Yes, it shutdown. Like it was designed to do in the event that anything happened that its control systems didn’t know to be safe. That’s evidence for how safe & well designed the plant is, not how dangerous.
If you want evidence of nuclear plants being un-safe, find reports where reactors didn’t SCRAM. I believe you’ll find a good example of one of those in Pripyat, Ukraine. (Which, BTW was a case where the reactor control system tried to do the right thing, but some highly evolved apes thought they knew better and overrode the safety systems, but anywho)
Different thing entirely.
People have inalienable rights (by virtue of being born) and enumerated rights (from the Constitution, though that document also lists some rights considered to be inalienable). The government has no rights and only the powers granted it by the Constitution.
People have a right to privacy and a reasonable expectation for there to be limits on government surveillance, even in public. The government has no such right, and that includes individual agents of the government acting in their official capacity. You can absolutely legislate that the government cannot audio record citizens without impacting citizens' rights to record the government, including police action.
Your optimism shocks me... You think people picked up would be let go and the Gov would realize the error of their ways?
In Soviet 'Murka, they'd be charged with committing a terrorist act and some form of copyright infringement for unauthorized public performance of a work. And then tax dollars would be spent on an advertising campaign on the dangers of playing antisocial movies on the bus where your movie could be interpreted as a threat to commit an act of terror.
And the worst part is I only wish I was tinfoil hat, tongue in cheek here. I honestly don't think the above is even much of a stretch any more.
Apple's stance is to comply with the laws in the jurisdiction they operate in. In China, that means do what central government says. In the US, that means do what the laws say. Apple's stance in the US case is that FBI's request isn't supported by current US law. That's the way the law works in the US. The government tries to do a thing, and it's the citizen's right (including citizen corporations) to challenge that by due process in court. Apple is complying with US law in the US and Chinese law in China.
Also, nice impartial language in the summary, eds...