Interesting question. I guess you could argue that a theoretical shortcoming isn't a vulnerability if there's no practical exploit.
But that ignores the temporal part of it. It is only not a vulnerability, because it's not practically exploitable right now. Things change, technology changes, new avenues for attacking the shortcoming open up.
It's like the recent proven exploit we saw a few days ago on a quantum message transfer. The method had been theorized, but never been shown. Now that it's been shown, it can be taken more seriously.
Or maybe they don't target some of these other nations because everyone already assumes a high level of corruption, and the censorship in those countries are at a high enough level that the people that really need to be informed and can try for change - their own citizens - are never going to see the leaks anyway.
At first your response seemed callous, but the more I think about it, the more I like it - if I amend it to "some Apple users."
It's because the thought process does not start with an insult - it starts with two. First, that some Apple people are sheep; second, that anti-Apple people expect unreasonable things of Apple.
So in the end, we have that extremists on either side are foolish. I guess I'd just hoped that Slashdot could be more mature. Maybe it is, and its just that those that shout the loudest are often the most biased, drowning out the more reasonable commons.
Can you explain your thought process to me, beginning to end? I don't see how this is the connection people are making, I really don't.
Sure, with the iPad, companies feel pressure to be "hip" and offer their content in a native app. But this has nothing to do with an app. It has to do with NYP purposefully denying anyone on an iPad not using the app. That is the sole decision of the NYP.
All of these new device ecosystems in the mobile world bring new avenues for media consumption. All Apple (and others) have done is open up new possibilities. It is the media providers that decide to restrict you to just one.
And just to clarify - I don't like Apple's ecosystem and I wouldn't buy into it, because I like to tinker. Most people don't. Sometimes I lost sight of that fact, posting on and reading tech websites. But it comes rushing back when talking to family members and friends with technology problems. They don't know how things work, they don't care, and they don't want to have to mess with it. To many, what Apple offers is attractive for precisely that reason. And because of that, I can't, in good faith, claim that Apple is good or bad for what they do - it really all depends on your needs.
All the posts thus far are taking shots at Apple. That seems really misguided.
It's the NY Post that is restricting people from accessing the same content over the same internet, simply because of the device. They're the ones making you download an app to get the content you want, probably allowing them to get higher-profit ads.
This isn't Apple's fault, for not letting you spoof the user agent string. No one should ever have to spoof a user agent. All it should be used for is to tell the server what you're running so it can serve you better. The NY Post is using it to ignore the fact that you have a perfectly functioning and capable client in order to suit their desires.
I know that in the tech world, we often jump to tech solutions to problems. But that doesn't fix anything, really, nor for most users. The target of ire here should be the NY Post and their abuse of internet standards and openness. The focus should be on getting them to behave better, to set a precedent so others don't do the same thing. A work-around that will help the 1% of us tech users is insignificant.
OT: New poster here. How do I add linebreaks in my posts? Simple carriage returns seem to get eaten.
Oh, old oil pumps are still very useful in semiconductors - especially if they can use fluorinated oils. If nothing else, they can be used to rough a chamber before the hi-vac pump takes over, or to regen a cryo or rough out a diff pump. Use as a rough pump - and not for process - doesn't require any great precision, just that the pressure gets low enough for the hi-vac to take over.
In my experience, it's actually the grad students...:p Often undergrads are still in the crap-their-pants-in-fear stage - either for their own safety or for damage caused to equipment. In grad school, the peak of the distribution hits complacency...
I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction.
The more apt conclusion might be something along the lines of "corruption and self-preservation do not heed party lines." Or maybe that when pursuing an ideal they hold dear, the nuances of the stepping stone get there become blurry to them. An "ends justify the means" kind of approach.
Saying Dems and Repubs are basically the same is wrong on so many levels, just being the generalization that it is. This article has nothing to do with philosophy or nuances in positions. This has nothing to do with party at all. It's a human nature problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I was speaking hypothetically. This, as you say, is proven.
Interesting question. I guess you could argue that a theoretical shortcoming isn't a vulnerability if there's no practical exploit.
But that ignores the temporal part of it. It is only not a vulnerability, because it's not practically exploitable right now. Things change, technology changes, new avenues for attacking the shortcoming open up.
It's like the recent proven exploit we saw a few days ago on a quantum message transfer. The method had been theorized, but never been shown. Now that it's been shown, it can be taken more seriously.
That's okay, the show has fallen a long, long way, and spends more time creating drama plotlines than anything.
Going back to old episodes is so refreshing.
Or maybe they don't target some of these other nations because everyone already assumes a high level of corruption, and the censorship in those countries are at a high enough level that the people that really need to be informed and can try for change - their own citizens - are never going to see the leaks anyway.
At first your response seemed callous, but the more I think about it, the more I like it - if I amend it to "some Apple users."
It's because the thought process does not start with an insult - it starts with two. First, that some Apple people are sheep; second, that anti-Apple people expect unreasonable things of Apple.
So in the end, we have that extremists on either side are foolish. I guess I'd just hoped that Slashdot could be more mature. Maybe it is, and its just that those that shout the loudest are often the most biased, drowning out the more reasonable commons.
A much more eloquent and concise response than my own. This exactly captures it.
Can you explain your thought process to me, beginning to end? I don't see how this is the connection people are making, I really don't. Sure, with the iPad, companies feel pressure to be "hip" and offer their content in a native app. But this has nothing to do with an app. It has to do with NYP purposefully denying anyone on an iPad not using the app. That is the sole decision of the NYP. All of these new device ecosystems in the mobile world bring new avenues for media consumption. All Apple (and others) have done is open up new possibilities. It is the media providers that decide to restrict you to just one.
Awesome. Thanks.
And just to clarify - I don't like Apple's ecosystem and I wouldn't buy into it, because I like to tinker. Most people don't. Sometimes I lost sight of that fact, posting on and reading tech websites. But it comes rushing back when talking to family members and friends with technology problems. They don't know how things work, they don't care, and they don't want to have to mess with it. To many, what Apple offers is attractive for precisely that reason. And because of that, I can't, in good faith, claim that Apple is good or bad for what they do - it really all depends on your needs.
All the posts thus far are taking shots at Apple. That seems really misguided. It's the NY Post that is restricting people from accessing the same content over the same internet, simply because of the device. They're the ones making you download an app to get the content you want, probably allowing them to get higher-profit ads. This isn't Apple's fault, for not letting you spoof the user agent string. No one should ever have to spoof a user agent. All it should be used for is to tell the server what you're running so it can serve you better. The NY Post is using it to ignore the fact that you have a perfectly functioning and capable client in order to suit their desires. I know that in the tech world, we often jump to tech solutions to problems. But that doesn't fix anything, really, nor for most users. The target of ire here should be the NY Post and their abuse of internet standards and openness. The focus should be on getting them to behave better, to set a precedent so others don't do the same thing. A work-around that will help the 1% of us tech users is insignificant. OT: New poster here. How do I add linebreaks in my posts? Simple carriage returns seem to get eaten.
Oh, old oil pumps are still very useful in semiconductors - especially if they can use fluorinated oils. If nothing else, they can be used to rough a chamber before the hi-vac pump takes over, or to regen a cryo or rough out a diff pump. Use as a rough pump - and not for process - doesn't require any great precision, just that the pressure gets low enough for the hi-vac to take over.
In my experience, it's actually the grad students... :p Often undergrads are still in the crap-their-pants-in-fear stage - either for their own safety or for damage caused to equipment. In grad school, the peak of the distribution hits complacency...
If I had karma, I'd mod you up. Interesting story, I wasn't familiar with the origins.
I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction. The more apt conclusion might be something along the lines of "corruption and self-preservation do not heed party lines." Or maybe that when pursuing an ideal they hold dear, the nuances of the stepping stone get there become blurry to them. An "ends justify the means" kind of approach. Saying Dems and Repubs are basically the same is wrong on so many levels, just being the generalization that it is. This article has nothing to do with philosophy or nuances in positions. This has nothing to do with party at all. It's a human nature problem.