I'm sure glad you're not making any decisions for me because you're conflating two different things: - Access to iCloud Data (the subject of TFA).
Apple has always divulged this data when presented with a warrant, whether in the U.S. or anywhere else that they operate: https://www.apple.com/lae/priv... - Access to information on devices:
Again, Apple co-operates with authorities when they can but cannot do so once a window of opportunity closes and the device is locked. This was the case for the Las Vegas shooter: http://thehill.com/policy/tech... and more generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Apple_encryption_dispute
One assumes that your other reasons for being "glad" you don't use Apple are just as ignorant as these.
You can leave the metaphysical bullshit like "how can we really know that we can know what we know" at the door.
Potential unused exploits by those who never use them are useless -- precisely because they go unused. Thus we use the metrics like the marketplace for exploits and we see that iOS is clearly the most valuable as it is the hardest nut to crack.
But the zealots think that it must all be a lie and the crackpots think that we can be sidetracked into metaphysical bullshit that calls into question what we know...
Tinfoilhat YEAH! Not only is the FBI trying to lull us all into thinking that iOS devices are harder to crack than the competition, EVERYONE ELSE is trying to convince us all of the same thing!!! That PROOVES it!!!! "/TinfoilHat
From the Jailbreaking communities that are shutting down because an exploit for unlocked iOS 11 has yet to be found to bug bounties where an exploit for a locked iDevice is the highest priced mobile platform, everyone says that iOS is the hardest nut to crack.
But the zealots and crackpots think that it must all be a lie...
Oh I agree that we mostly agree as well but this is the internet where the most fun is to be had from nitpicking .
The big thing about BFR is that it is being designed to be 100% reusable by the only people who have achieved 90% reusability. As such, i tend to believe Elon when he says that BFR will be good for 100+ launches with minimal refurbishment giving 24h turnaround times and prolonged by even more reuse after a refit. The model completely changes from expendable to airline and it’ll be both cheaper & quicker to book a BFR than have an expendable throw money away into the ocean.
Another wrinkle you may be missing is that once BFR is debugged, the build/fly ratio of Space-X goes waaay down so it takes much fewer launchers to attain current or even future projected launch rates. With a half a dozen BFRs the problem would already be finding enough work for them, not is one available/cheap enough. It so profoundly changes the market that Elon plans for a Space-X owned/operated multi-thousand network of satellites for internet access that needs to be replenished regularly and even suborbital passenger/cargo transport.
I don’t expect Space-X to get there by the early 2020s but the mid 2020s. By the late 2020s expendables (& even F9/FH) will be pretty much extinct for non government launches.
The reason I believe they will make it and am not waiting for them to prove it as you are is that the problems on the road to BFR seem to be more tractable than those for full reuse of F9/FH. Exciting times...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say - they're still going to try for a recoverable second stage, they're just making it much larger and more integrated rather than continuing to work on modifying the Falcon 9 analogs.
BFR will be cheaper to fly that F9/FH. Take another look at Elon's slides where he announced BFR.
Add to that that 2nd stage & shroud reuse has yet to be perfected and may never be because: - The F9/FH second stage is too small to have much of a weight margin for the landing legs, and the heat shield, - The means of protecting that 2nd stage large engine bell have yet to be determined - Shroud recovery seems to need a bouncy castle in order to recover undamaged sections (physically & from salt water) and the they have yet to attempt even a first version of one. - Weight distribution of the 2nd stage is different than that of the first stage. The only spot to put the heat shield is on the front but most of the weight is currently at the engine end. Coming in motor end first as they do on the 1s stage is not planned as it is coming in muuuch faster and needs atmospheric braking. Thus they're going to have to flip it when already in the atmosphere, something they most emphatically are not doing for 1st stages.
BFR 2nd stage avoids all these problems by: - Being much bigger so more weight margin - Aerobraking sideways then transitioning to tail first landing - Not needing a separate system for shroud recovery
It's potentially a much more productive approach, but at this point they're not exactly a whole lot closer to success than they are with the F9.
As for retiring the F9 ASAP - maybe. That's a big, expensive rocket to launch a 1000kg satellite into an unusual orbit though.
See above: 100% reusable with a much longer lifetime beats throwing away the second stage and the shrouds.
Maybe the refurbishment will actually be so cheap that it'll still look good compared to a Falcon, even after factoring in the risk of losing a much more expensive rocket to explosions.
Elon certainly thinks so.
Maybe they'll have enough capacity to bundle even those weird launches with a lot of other, more typical orbits.
What "weird launches"?
Maybe they'll just let other companies handle such niche launches.
Like Electron? Until Space-X has enough BFRs, certainly but when Space-X builds enough of them to make flying them on short notice possible, Electron is going to dry up like a beached jellyfish in the sun.
It would certainly be nice to have a cheap, reliable, flexible, heavily tested, and highly reusable launch system available. But at this point we only have intention and speculation to go on, and the whole thing smacks of an ITS scaled down to be profitable for mere orbital launches.
That was exactly the point of BFR versus ITS! BFR is big enough to have the weight margins necessary to be 100% reusable yet small enough to be useful for launching payloads on Earth _and_ Mars. Space-X thus gets it's commercial arm to develop BFR and gets a debugged Mars rocket design free.
ITS was just too big to be attractive to Terran customers and would have to have been developed 100% on Space-X's dime.
That is to say it's a rocket designed to go to Mars, compromised enough to be able to get thoroughly tested paying the bills at home. There's a pretty good chance they had to sacrifice a lot of orbital use-cases to keep Mars on the table.
What exactly are the orbital use-cases you think that they sacrificed in reducing ITS to BFR?
You appear to have missed the point in Elon's introduction or BFRv2 where he stated that BFR will be cheaper to fly than F9 or FH.
OK, Elon is an optimist and clearly thinks that the re-usability aspects of the platform are already reachable or will be by the time BFR is regularly flying. So, unless you are claiming that you know better than Elon does, my statement stands: Once BFR is debugged, Space-X will transition to it ASAP shutting down F9 & FH ASAP.
The transition from F9/FH to BFR for DOD launches will take longer than that for commercial flights as Space-X as Space-X will need to get BFR certified. I assume that having suffered through the reams of paperwork for it took for F9 certification, that getting BFR certified will be easier as Space-X is getting used to DOD procedures & vice-versa.
BFR will be 100% reusable without the second stage and shroud recovery that they have yet to perfect. Once BFR has been debugged and they have enough of them, I fully expect Space-X to shutdown all F9/FH opérations ASAP unless DOD launches still need them.
If FH allows them to have enough margin for Space-X to add a heat shield to the second stage and start recovering it as well, as had been mooted previously, FH might be even less expensive than F9.
It’s more a question if Elon thinks second stage recovery to be a useful endeavor or whether developing BFR asap is better/cheaper long term.
Shotwell is on the record stating that Space-X saw substantial savings on the first reuse which they very exhaustively vetted. Given that they have certainly streamlined the process, they’re certainly seeing even better savings.
Even though there are no indépendant figures on how much they are seeing it’s certainly already safe to say that they are already saving money.
You'll need to get off your mother's tit before telling me to grow up, junior.
New kexts are not loaded nor protected by SIP initially, they are placed in StagedExtensions and show up in System Preferences>Security & Privacy where "average users" can authorize them.
If "average users" are authorizing kexts, there should also be a GUI for "average users" to remove them.
All true but (IIRC): - New kexts need to be authorized to be moved from/Library/StagedExtensions to/Library/Extensions - You authorize this in Security Preferences>Security & Privacy>General where all StagedExtensions show up - Once you authorize the kext, it gets loaded (where they get protected by SIP) but poof, it never shows up in the Mac GUI anymore.
If there is a GUI to authorize new kexts, there should also be a GUI to unload them.
In my opinion any app that adds kexts like Bluestack should be publishing clear info during the install process on how to remove them.
The reason SIP was protecting the kext is because it was loaded into the actively running kernel. Unload the kext with "kextunload kextfile" and it is no longer protected by SIP and can be removed.
Yes, Apple could make this easier do so without using a shell. Ex: By putting a button in Preferences>Security that pops up a window displaying loaded kexts in a list & a button to unload them.
How DARE you inject a note of doubt into this subject! Did you not note in the abstract that data analysts at Uber who's job it is to filter the raw data in order to attempt to find patterns were called "flippant" by someone properly enraged that anyone could do so? There is NO room for doubt on this subject! If ANY women were sexually trafficked, EVERYONE involved is a sex offender and must be hounded until they die!
You don't live in a highly congested urban area and it shows in your comments. 1.5 time the usual distance is insufficient to "afford to brake slowly" per your first comment.
Rewarding tailgaters by moving out of their way in dense traffic where all lanes are full is not helping safety because it will only engender more tailgaters. When traffic is sufficiently sparse that there is a speed difference between lanes, we do move right here. The problem isn't when traffic is fluid nor when it is barely moving.
In your environment, you may be able to, not in mine. I live in a large municipal area with over 12 million people and dense traffic. Leaving >2 times the usual inter-car distance in front of you is self defeating as other cars will just accelerate to cut in front of you& then brake to avoid running into the vehicle in front of him. You are again left with left with the usual inter-car distance or often less and a vehicle actively braking causing you to have to brake to re-establish it.
For me a tailgater is note someone just uncomfortably close but someone who is so close that he cannot avoid rear-ending me because he is so close that he cannot react fast enough even if I have to brake moderately.
As welshie noted, I agree that brake lights are often the initiating act of slowdowns/jams as those behind you often brake harder than you did & it is self-reinforcing. Using motor/regenerative braking is best.
If everyone is accelerating when the car behind them gets closer all it takes is one tailgating asshole to produce a multiple car collision hasard of cars driving too close together.
Don't drive closer to the car in front of you than security dictates, even if there is a tailgater behind you.
The kodinstall.com link i gave details Plex, not Kodi, sorry for being the proximate source of confusion.
However you refer to Plex & Kodi too. Are you surprised that Kodi _and_ Plex are in the xbox store, that Plex has been in it for a while or that Kodi is now in it too?
I initially came in to ask if there was a Kodi port to the Playstation as well, googled kodi+playstation, came up with that link, posted that & then read it.
I had to reread the article three times because I couldn't believe that an article on kodiinstall.com could NOT be about installing Kodi & was instead about Plex which is how you beat me to acknowledging that.
I don't have a Xbox or a PS anymore but am curious: Why no Kodi on PS? Is there a technical reason? Opposition from Sony who want's everyone to use it's own stuff?
Source for the affirmation that the suppliers that furnish specifically for the iPhone X?
I don't give a shit whether you answer or not, joey boy. Your posts have been consistently absent of all useful information whereas I at least have been giving my references. I'm merely not letting your idiotic statements stand unchallenged.
The following URL gives the best analysis that I have seen so far by comparing multiple sources as well as better knowledge of the industry: https://www.thestreet.com/stor...
In particular:
Sinolink Securities and JL Warren Capital each cut their March quarter iPhone X shipment forecasts, though it's worth noting Sinolink's new estimate (35 million) is much higher than JL Warren's (25 million). Meanwhile, B. Riley FBR, Rosenblatt Securities and Loup Ventures' Gene Munster defended Apple.
Rosenblatt speculated that the Economic Daily News might be confusing iPhone 8 order cuts with iPhone X cuts, and said their supply chain checks pointed to healthy demand and no OLED panel or 3D sensor order cuts. On the other hand, JL Warren reported that some Apple suppliers have seen reduced orders.
What to make of all this? First of all, it's unlikely that Apple ever expected to sell 50 million iPhone X units in the March quarter, especially considering the consensus analyst estimate for the quarter's total iPhone sales is only at 62 million. As Munster notes, Apple has a history of initially placing outsized orders with iPhone suppliers to make sure it can meet demand, and later paring them back. It could be that the Economic Daily News was provided info from a supplier that had seen this phenomenon play out.
So, again: The habitual Apple doomsayers are claiming with zero proof that iPhone X sales are below expectation.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure glad you're not making any decisions for me because you're conflating two different things:
- Access to iCloud Data (the subject of TFA).
Apple has always divulged this data when presented with a warrant, whether in the U.S. or anywhere else that they operate:
https://www.apple.com/lae/priv...
- Access to information on devices:
Again, Apple co-operates with authorities when they can but cannot do so once a window of opportunity closes and the device is locked. This was the case for the Las Vegas shooter: http://thehill.com/policy/tech... and more generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Apple_encryption_dispute
One assumes that your other reasons for being "glad" you don't use Apple are just as ignorant as these.
Stop interrupting the dialectic.
Apple is doomed! DOOOMED!!! /s
You can leave the metaphysical bullshit like "how can we really know that we can know what we know" at the door.
Potential unused exploits by those who never use them are useless -- precisely because they go unused. Thus we use the metrics like the marketplace for exploits and we see that iOS is clearly the most valuable as it is the hardest nut to crack.
But the zealots think that it must all be a lie and the crackpots think that we can be sidetracked into metaphysical bullshit that calls into question what we know...
Tinfoilhat
YEAH! Not only is the FBI trying to lull us all into thinking that iOS devices are harder to crack than the competition,
EVERYONE ELSE is trying to convince us all of the same thing!!! That PROOVES it!!!!
"/TinfoilHat
From the Jailbreaking communities that are shutting down because an exploit for unlocked iOS 11 has yet to be found to bug bounties where an exploit for a locked iDevice is the highest priced mobile platform, everyone says that iOS is the hardest nut to crack.
But the zealots and crackpots think that it must all be a lie...
Autocorrect when using the french keyboard.
Autocorrect uses the current keyboard & as I'm conversing in both French & English I'm often switching between the two.
Oh I agree that we mostly agree as well but this is the internet where the most fun is to be had from nitpicking .
The big thing about BFR is that it is being designed to be 100% reusable by the only people who have achieved 90% reusability. As such, i tend to believe Elon when he says that BFR will be good for 100+ launches with minimal refurbishment giving 24h turnaround times and prolonged by even more reuse after a refit. The model completely changes from expendable to airline and it’ll be both cheaper & quicker to book a BFR than have an expendable throw money away into the ocean.
Another wrinkle you may be missing is that once BFR is debugged, the build/fly ratio of Space-X goes waaay down so it takes much fewer launchers to attain current or even future projected launch rates. With a half a dozen BFRs the problem would already be finding enough work for them, not is one available/cheap enough. It so profoundly changes the market that Elon plans for a Space-X owned/operated multi-thousand network of satellites for internet access that needs to be replenished regularly and even suborbital passenger/cargo transport.
I don’t expect Space-X to get there by the early 2020s but the mid 2020s. By the late 2020s expendables (& even F9/FH) will be pretty much extinct for non government launches.
The reason I believe they will make it and am not waiting for them to prove it as you are is that the problems on the road to BFR seem to be more tractable than those for full reuse of F9/FH. Exciting times...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say - they're still going to try for a recoverable second stage, they're just making it much larger and more integrated rather than continuing to work on modifying the Falcon 9 analogs.
BFR will be cheaper to fly that F9/FH. Take another look at Elon's slides where he announced BFR.
Add to that that 2nd stage & shroud reuse has yet to be perfected and may never be because:
- The F9/FH second stage is too small to have much of a weight margin for the landing legs, and the heat shield,
- The means of protecting that 2nd stage large engine bell have yet to be determined
- Shroud recovery seems to need a bouncy castle in order to recover undamaged sections (physically & from salt water) and the they have yet to attempt even a first version of one.
- Weight distribution of the 2nd stage is different than that of the first stage. The only spot to put the heat shield is on the front but most of the weight is currently at the engine end. Coming in motor end first as they do on the 1s stage is not planned as it is coming in muuuch faster and needs atmospheric braking. Thus they're going to have to flip it when already in the atmosphere, something they most emphatically are not doing for 1st stages.
BFR 2nd stage avoids all these problems by:
- Being much bigger so more weight margin
- Aerobraking sideways then transitioning to tail first landing
- Not needing a separate system for shroud recovery
It's potentially a much more productive approach, but at this point they're not exactly a whole lot closer to success than they are with the F9.
As for retiring the F9 ASAP - maybe. That's a big, expensive rocket to launch a 1000kg satellite into an unusual orbit though.
See above: 100% reusable with a much longer lifetime beats throwing away the second stage and the shrouds.
Maybe the refurbishment will actually be so cheap that it'll still look good compared to a Falcon, even after factoring in the risk of losing a much more expensive rocket to explosions.
Elon certainly thinks so.
Maybe they'll have enough capacity to bundle even those weird launches with a lot of other, more typical orbits.
What "weird launches"?
Maybe they'll just let other companies handle such niche launches.
Like Electron? Until Space-X has enough BFRs, certainly but when Space-X builds enough of them to make flying them on short notice possible, Electron is going to dry up like a beached jellyfish in the sun.
It would certainly be nice to have a cheap, reliable, flexible, heavily tested, and highly reusable launch system available. But at this point we only have intention and speculation to go on, and the whole thing smacks of an ITS scaled down to be profitable for mere orbital launches.
That was exactly the point of BFR versus ITS! BFR is big enough to have the weight margins necessary to be 100% reusable yet small enough to be useful for launching payloads on Earth _and_ Mars. Space-X thus gets it's commercial arm to develop BFR and gets a debugged Mars rocket design free.
ITS was just too big to be attractive to Terran customers and would have to have been developed 100% on Space-X's dime.
That is to say it's a rocket designed to go to Mars, compromised enough to be able to get thoroughly tested paying the bills at home. There's a pretty good chance they had to sacrifice a lot of orbital use-cases to keep Mars on the table.
What exactly are the orbital use-cases you think that they sacrificed in reducing ITS to BFR?
You appear to have missed the point in Elon's introduction or BFRv2 where he stated that BFR will be cheaper to fly than F9 or FH.
OK, Elon is an optimist and clearly thinks that the re-usability aspects of the platform are already reachable or will be by the time BFR is regularly flying. So, unless you are claiming that you know better than Elon does, my statement stands: Once BFR is debugged, Space-X will transition to it ASAP shutting down F9 & FH ASAP.
The transition from F9/FH to BFR for DOD launches will take longer than that for commercial flights as Space-X as Space-X will need to get BFR certified. I assume that having suffered through the reams of paperwork for it took for F9 certification, that getting BFR certified will be easier as Space-X is getting used to DOD procedures & vice-versa.
BFR will be 100% reusable without the second stage and shroud recovery that they have yet to perfect. Once BFR has been debugged and they have enough of them, I fully expect Space-X to shutdown all F9/FH opérations ASAP unless DOD launches still need them.
If FH allows them to have enough margin for Space-X to add a heat shield to the second stage and start recovering it as well, as had been mooted previously, FH might be even less expensive than F9.
It’s more a question if Elon thinks second stage recovery to be a useful endeavor or whether developing BFR asap is better/cheaper long term.
Shotwell is on the record stating that Space-X saw substantial savings on the first reuse which they very exhaustively vetted. Given that they have certainly streamlined the process, they’re certainly seeing even better savings.
Even though there are no indépendant figures on how much they are seeing it’s certainly already safe to say that they are already saving money.
http://spacenews.com/spacex-ga...
It was amusing to watch the 7 digit /. user tell me to grow up. It's hilarious watching him try to snootily tutor you.
You'll need to get off your mother's tit before telling me to grow up, junior.
New kexts are not loaded nor protected by SIP initially, they are placed in StagedExtensions and show up in System Preferences>Security & Privacy where "average users" can authorize them.
If "average users" are authorizing kexts, there should also be a GUI for "average users" to remove them.
All true but (IIRC): /Library/StagedExtensions to /Library/Extensions
- New kexts need to be authorized to be moved from
- You authorize this in Security Preferences>Security & Privacy>General where all StagedExtensions show up
- Once you authorize the kext, it gets loaded (where they get protected by SIP) but poof, it never shows up in the Mac GUI anymore.
If there is a GUI to authorize new kexts, there should also be a GUI to unload them.
In my opinion any app that adds kexts like Bluestack should be publishing clear info during the install process on how to remove them.
The reason SIP was protecting the kext is because it was loaded into the actively running kernel. Unload the kext with "kextunload kextfile" and it is no longer protected by SIP and can be removed.
Yes, Apple could make this easier do so without using a shell. Ex: By putting a button in Preferences>Security that pops up a window displaying loaded kexts in a list & a button to unload them.
What? Informative information on kernels in a Slashdot post!?! I'd thought that had left along with Taco...
To find the list of loaded kexts use "kextfind -loaded".
How DARE you inject a note of doubt into this subject! Did you not note in the abstract that data analysts at Uber who's job it is to filter the raw data in order to attempt to find patterns were called "flippant" by someone properly enraged that anyone could do so? There is NO room for doubt on this subject! If ANY women were sexually trafficked, EVERYONE involved is a sex offender and must be hounded until they die!
You don't live in a highly congested urban area and it shows in your comments. 1.5 time the usual distance is insufficient to "afford to brake slowly" per your first comment.
Rewarding tailgaters by moving out of their way in dense traffic where all lanes are full is not helping safety because it will only engender more tailgaters. When traffic is sufficiently sparse that there is a speed difference between lanes, we do move right here. The problem isn't when traffic is fluid nor when it is barely moving.
In your environment, you may be able to, not in mine. I live in a large municipal area with over 12 million people and dense traffic. Leaving >2 times the usual inter-car distance in front of you is self defeating as other cars will just accelerate to cut in front of you& then brake to avoid running into the vehicle in front of him. You are again left with left with the usual inter-car distance or often less and a vehicle actively braking causing you to have to brake to re-establish it.
For me a tailgater is note someone just uncomfortably close but someone who is so close that he cannot avoid rear-ending me because he is so close that he cannot react fast enough even if I have to brake moderately.
As welshie noted, I agree that brake lights are often the initiating act of slowdowns/jams as those behind you often brake harder than you did & it is self-reinforcing. Using motor/regenerative braking is best.
If everyone is accelerating when the car behind them gets closer all it takes is one tailgating asshole to produce a multiple car collision hasard of cars driving too close together.
Don't drive closer to the car in front of you than security dictates, even if there is a tailgater behind you.
The kodinstall.com link i gave details Plex, not Kodi, sorry for being the proximate source of confusion.
However you refer to Plex & Kodi too. Are you surprised that Kodi _and_ Plex are in the xbox store, that Plex has been in it for a while or that Kodi is now in it too?
I initially came in to ask if there was a Kodi port to the Playstation as well, googled kodi+playstation, came up with that link, posted that & then read it.
I had to reread the article three times because I couldn't believe that an article on kodiinstall.com could NOT be about installing Kodi & was instead about Plex which is how you beat me to acknowledging that.
I don't have a Xbox or a PS anymore but am curious: Why no Kodi on PS? Is there a technical reason? Opposition from Sony who want's everyone to use it's own stuff?
Lol, read the article I cited & it shows how to install Plex, not Kodi.
Anyone know if there are plans to port Kodi to the PS4?
Is Kodi just arriving on the Xbox One?!? It has been on the Playstation since the PS3.
https://kodiinstall.com/instal...
Source for the affirmation that the suppliers that furnish specifically for the iPhone X?
I don't give a shit whether you answer or not, joey boy. Your posts have been consistently absent of all useful information whereas I at least have been giving my references. I'm merely not letting your idiotic statements stand unchallenged.
The following URL gives the best analysis that I have seen so far by comparing multiple sources as well as better knowledge of the industry:
https://www.thestreet.com/stor...
In particular:
Sinolink Securities and JL Warren Capital each cut their March quarter iPhone X shipment forecasts, though it's worth noting Sinolink's new estimate (35 million) is much higher than JL Warren's (25 million). Meanwhile, B. Riley FBR, Rosenblatt Securities and Loup Ventures' Gene Munster defended Apple.
Rosenblatt speculated that the Economic Daily News might be confusing iPhone 8 order cuts with iPhone X cuts, and said their supply chain checks pointed to healthy demand and no OLED panel or 3D sensor order cuts. On the other hand, JL Warren reported that some Apple suppliers have seen reduced orders.
What to make of all this? First of all, it's unlikely that Apple ever expected to sell 50 million iPhone X units in the March quarter, especially considering the consensus analyst estimate for the quarter's total iPhone sales is only at 62 million. As Munster notes, Apple has a history of initially placing outsized orders with iPhone suppliers to make sure it can meet demand, and later paring them back. It could be that the Economic Daily News was provided info from a supplier that had seen this phenomenon play out.
So, again: The habitual Apple doomsayers are claiming with zero proof that iPhone X sales are below expectation.