Yes, but not yet. However since you have changed the specifications, there will be an additional cost and stated delivery date per the contract will necessarily change as well. Is this what they call feature bloat? Maybe it will become vaporware.
I have no idea if Apple made concessions to Time on the issue of subscriber privacy, but knowing them I think it's unlikely.
Neither do I. Were I Time, I'd have held out for terms that favor me. Why let apple be king? If I produce valuable content (apple does not, emphatically), I can choose to play or not. I contend that Apple's terms were unsuitable- this is contained within the world of iOS, not the WHOLE world of digital content. Let Time make its own digital delivery scheme- in or out of Apple's.
I'm actually with Apple on this one. The terms for Newsstand make it clear that subscribers should have a choice about the disposition of their personal information
Is this about privacy, or extorting content providers? On Slashdot, folks hate Microsoft for the power they wield- does Apple get a pass?
Neither Apple nor Time Inc. would discuss the exact financial terms of the agreement, but Mr. Cue said Time Inc.'s heft did not influence them. "We offer the same terms to everyone no matter how big or how small," he said.
does not mean the rate wasn't negotiated lower, with other concessions on behalf of Apple. Time has a huge library. Key word: "offer"... The terms are necessarily complex with a deal that involves this much money.
I take it you work for apple. (been there since 2007, maybe- too young, too naÃve.
Alternatively, just shut up. Because you've absolutely no fucking clue how hard it is to create and operate a backend.
Yes, of course. All your content are belong to us....
Regardless of whether you respect Time Inc.'s collection, I'm sure you'll disagree with me that you yourself have "no fucking clue how hard it is to create and operate" a respectable journalistic enterprise. Thanks for your rational discussion- were you ever to persuade me of the validity of your argument, you lost me suggesting I've "absolutely no fucking clue". Fuck you very much, sir/madam for making Slashdot a place to "discuss" anything- off to Twitter with you.
have been the issue all along. And Time have done the right thing by holding out for better terms. Thirty percent (though not sure if that's on a continuing basis, regardless) is absurd.
Relevant quote:
"They want you to be subscribing to them, and the last time we looked they weren't making the magazines," Bewkes said of Apple.
Torrents of Windows disks should never ever be trusted, and if you disagree with me, then I think you are only shooting yourself in the foot when you 'drive your Windows', in terms of actual security.
Do you mean "an American agency" in the general sense (this I could understand), the FAA (again, I could understand, but this agency is woefully underfunded) or specifically the the NTSB (the agency solely and independently responsible for investigating this accident)? The NTSB, though not perfect, has an excellent reputation for "an American agency", and IMHO has historically demonstrated considerable "common sense". Their recommendations, however are too often ignored or delayed by political maneuvering. One recent exception comes as a result of Colgan Air Flight 3407, and has resulted in revised FTDT regulations
While most of us are not in such a great position to do this, all that's needed is to continue to wait it out. Once supply channels are full and beginning to back up, the prices will begin to fall again. When it comes to consumable hardware (HDD's, fans, power supplies, etc.), I like to buy it when prices are low even if I don't need it at the time- eventually I will. Haven't bought a drive since before the floods. Holding out til I break or they do.
Naturally its an overreach to suggest at this point in the evolution of AI that we can emulate the abilities of the human mind in this regard, but why are we not yet able to tap the advantages computers have and yet perform a more human like approach to passwords. My point is that just like in advances in particle physics and biology these days, someone at the university level must be looking at ways to better this archaic system of password authentication.
For example, policy where I work disallows repeating or sequential characters (even as part of a complex password)- they've just reduced the pool of available passwords in fear of a dictionary attack. They're solving the wrong problem. When will we progress beyond this?
I posted early in this thread before I had a chance to see everyone else thoughts. Now I see everyone talking about brute force attacks with GPUs and salted hash tables and 10^24, dictionary words only vs special characters etc. Do passwords get cracked with brute force in practice? Does any website/intranet expect to be attacked this way (not that anyone would admit to being a victim of this)? If you believe that you will be a potential victim of a brute force attack, then you believe someone will have uninterrupted access to your "secure" resource and you haven't really secured anything. Seems to me your solving the wrong problem. Extremely secure passwords are not a panacea to computer security. In fact passwords need only be mildly secure and just one aspect of the overall approach to securing your resource.
My early post suggested expanding the idea of "passwords" to include dynamic info that only the user would know rather than just a passphrase- some sites are already doing this. The replies suggested that sharing this info with the secured site means that it would no longer be only me who knew it. But that's already true then, isn't it? My point is the problem needs to be looked at differently- instead of letting computers do security like a computer, we should make them do it like humans. How do humans secure real (vice virtual) assets? What are we good at and where are our failures? It should actually be easier to achieve the sought after increase in security than what we are currently doing. The only brute force cracks are distributed test projects and complex passwords are more often less secure. If you cannot remember your password, you're gonna have to record it somewhere.
...is why is it all so difficult to come up with some scheme to secure internet accessible resources. Corporate policy for me require password changes every 90 days and disallows any of the last eight passwords, and the use of letters and numbers. Effectively, I'm forced to write it down, negating all their efforts at obscurity. When will some bright CS geek invent a real solution to this problem. Is it that hard? Can't it be as simple as probing me for dynamic info that only I would know? How about visual methods- ask me who's in this picture of my co-workers or what is this family snapshot from my past, etc.?
...should be a timepiece only, as opposed to a flight computer/heart rate monitor/altimeter/gps/etc. It should also be analog, but might benefit from a dual digital display for multiple functions like times zones, day/dates and chronometer/stop watch. I see Travolta in magazine ads for expensive Breitlings that have builtin CR3 flight computers and think WTF? Real airplanes have all that shit built in already or you bring along a proper purpose built GPS unit to serve that purpose.
As for why analog, its for the same reason any proper metering unit is analog- the human mind is designed to read analog easier. Think flight instrumentation: airspeed, altitude and attitude could not be interpreted through a numerical digital display the way analog is interpreted without great mental effort. The mind is far better suited to analog display. So it should be with a watch.
This is the second time I have submitted an article for Slashdot that is rejected and later appears on the frontpage with lots of activity. Fully 12 hours previous to Prokur's post, I submitted my own. This is further proof that Slashdot is totally random with regard to timeliness. I'm tiring of the lack of respect...
If you haven't read it yet, time to get a free edition of Cory Doctorow's book foretelling exactly what we're talking about here- not so much for originality as for an interesting account of what it would be like to digitally and physically transcend mortality.
If indeed they turn out to be viable, they would be worth a fortune or maybe even priceless. If the Burmese and UK governments are involved, I would bet they won't end up owned by private parties- they'll likely fly less under those circumstances.
Yes, the past romanticises everything. The Spitfire was pretty, but the old engineers i worked with when I started would recollect its awful design flaws
That pretty much sums up the British automobile industry as well- warm beer and all...
...for most citizens in Mexico City proper. Coincidentally I sit at this moment about 60 miles away from Popo, and selfishly I'm hoping it holds off blowing it's top for a few more hours at least until I can return home to the US. When I was assigned this trip a month ago I was worried about earthquakes and lack of oxygen. Now this...
Uncharacteristically the weather is great and visibility today is spectacular. Could that be an omen?
TCAS issues RAs to every party of a "TCAS" conflict. But since not all traffic is so equipped, not all conflicts result in a TCAS RAs and "see and avoid" will take precedence. So to answer your question, if I get an RA, it means the other conflicting traffic is too. In the DHL mishap, the Russian aircrew disregarded the RA and tried to comply with ATC instructions. If I know the other parties are disregarding an RA (how would I? it's against the rules to disregard RAs) I would too in order to avoid collision. Silent TCAS means "see and avoid".
One notable failure of TCAS was human instead of technical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_collision/. In the US, TCAS commands require mandatory compliance- ICAO rules were not the same but may have been updated to the same compliance. The system otherwise has prevented numerous collisions, and in my experience is nearly flawless if crews are properly trained.
True. US aviation labor is governed by Railway Labor Act (http://railwaylaboract.com/airline.labor.relations.htm/ Job actions are illegal until the NMB releases either party to proceed: "As long as the NMB maintains a matter within its mediation jurisdiction, neither labor nor management lawfully are free to engage in self-help, such as by a labor strike or by the implementation of management's proposed rates of pay and working conditions. "
Thank you for seeing it that way. The US government has finally decided to do this and modified 50 year old FTDT (flight time duty time) regulations to be more in line with science and reality. By the end of 2013, pilots will have greater rest requirements that incorporate circadian aspects of physiology- all thanks to pilots unions lobbying efforts.
Funny you should mention that. The older C-band radar was better for detecting weather, but most aircraft now use X-band for predictive windshear capabilities. X-band however can detect aircraft and I often see faint returns superimposed on TCAS targets- not to a degree that would make it useful however.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but not yet. However since you have changed the specifications, there will be an additional cost and stated delivery date per the contract will necessarily change as well. Is this what they call feature bloat? Maybe it will become vaporware.
I have no idea if Apple made concessions to Time on the issue of subscriber privacy, but knowing them I think it's unlikely.
Neither do I. Were I Time, I'd have held out for terms that favor me. Why let apple be king? If I produce valuable content (apple does not, emphatically), I can choose to play or not. I contend that Apple's terms were unsuitable- this is contained within the world of iOS, not the WHOLE world of digital content. Let Time make its own digital delivery scheme- in or out of Apple's.
I'm actually with Apple on this one. The terms for Newsstand make it clear that subscribers should have a choice about the disposition of their personal information
Is this about privacy, or extorting content providers? On Slashdot, folks hate Microsoft for the power they wield- does Apple get a pass?
Neither Apple nor Time Inc. would discuss the exact financial terms of the agreement, but Mr. Cue said Time Inc.'s heft did not influence them. "We offer the same terms to everyone no matter how big or how small," he said.
does not mean the rate wasn't negotiated lower, with other concessions on behalf of Apple. Time has a huge library. Key word: "offer"... The terms are necessarily complex with a deal that involves this much money.
Alternatively, just shut up. Because you've absolutely no fucking clue how hard it is to create and operate a backend.
Yes, of course. All your content are belong to us.... Regardless of whether you respect Time Inc.'s collection, I'm sure you'll disagree with me that you yourself have "no fucking clue how hard it is to create and operate" a respectable journalistic enterprise. Thanks for your rational discussion- were you ever to persuade me of the validity of your argument, you lost me suggesting I've "absolutely no fucking clue". Fuck you very much, sir/madam for making Slashdot a place to "discuss" anything- off to Twitter with you.
"They want you to be subscribing to them, and the last time we looked they weren't making the magazines," Bewkes said of Apple.
Torrents of Windows disks should never ever be trusted, and if you disagree with me, then I think you are only shooting yourself in the foot when you 'drive your Windows', in terms of actual security.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;841290 Had to replace a library of MS software after a hardware failure and a corrupt backup. Obtained via torrent and all passed checksum.
Do you mean "an American agency" in the general sense (this I could understand), the FAA (again, I could understand, but this agency is woefully underfunded) or specifically the the NTSB (the agency solely and independently responsible for investigating this accident)? The NTSB, though not perfect, has an excellent reputation for "an American agency", and IMHO has historically demonstrated considerable "common sense". Their recommendations, however are too often ignored or delayed by political maneuvering. One recent exception comes as a result of Colgan Air Flight 3407, and has resulted in revised FTDT regulations
While most of us are not in such a great position to do this, all that's needed is to continue to wait it out. Once supply channels are full and beginning to back up, the prices will begin to fall again. When it comes to consumable hardware (HDD's, fans, power supplies, etc.), I like to buy it when prices are low even if I don't need it at the time- eventually I will. Haven't bought a drive since before the floods. Holding out til I break or they do.
For example, policy where I work disallows repeating or sequential characters (even as part of a complex password)- they've just reduced the pool of available passwords in fear of a dictionary attack. They're solving the wrong problem. When will we progress beyond this?
My early post suggested expanding the idea of "passwords" to include dynamic info that only the user would know rather than just a passphrase- some sites are already doing this. The replies suggested that sharing this info with the secured site means that it would no longer be only me who knew it. But that's already true then, isn't it? My point is the problem needs to be looked at differently- instead of letting computers do security like a computer, we should make them do it like humans. How do humans secure real (vice virtual) assets? What are we good at and where are our failures? It should actually be easier to achieve the sought after increase in security than what we are currently doing. The only brute force cracks are distributed test projects and complex passwords are more often less secure. If you cannot remember your password, you're gonna have to record it somewhere.
...is why is it all so difficult to come up with some scheme to secure internet accessible resources. Corporate policy for me require password changes every 90 days and disallows any of the last eight passwords, and the use of letters and numbers. Effectively, I'm forced to write it down, negating all their efforts at obscurity. When will some bright CS geek invent a real solution to this problem. Is it that hard? Can't it be as simple as probing me for dynamic info that only I would know? How about visual methods- ask me who's in this picture of my co-workers or what is this family snapshot from my past, etc.?
As for why analog, its for the same reason any proper metering unit is analog- the human mind is designed to read analog easier. Think flight instrumentation: airspeed, altitude and attitude could not be interpreted through a numerical digital display the way analog is interpreted without great mental effort. The mind is far better suited to analog display. So it should be with a watch.
Oh yea, and thanks again Timothy.
This is the second time I have submitted an article for Slashdot that is rejected and later appears on the frontpage with lots of activity. Fully 12 hours previous to Prokur's post, I submitted my own. This is further proof that Slashdot is totally random with regard to timeliness. I'm tiring of the lack of respect...
If you haven't read it yet, time to get a free edition of Cory Doctorow's book foretelling exactly what we're talking about here- not so much for originality as for an interesting account of what it would be like to digitally and physically transcend mortality.
Oh, BTW. I usually dump after I wake in the morning rather than before going to sleep. To each his own...
Your sense of humor is apparently misunderstood under appreciated. Not everyone with mod points know what to do with them.
If indeed they turn out to be viable, they would be worth a fortune or maybe even priceless. If the Burmese and UK governments are involved, I would bet they won't end up owned by private parties- they'll likely fly less under those circumstances.
Yes, the past romanticises everything. The Spitfire was pretty, but the old engineers i worked with when I started would recollect its awful design flaws
That pretty much sums up the British automobile industry as well- warm beer and all...
Uncharacteristically the weather is great and visibility today is spectacular. Could that be an omen?
TCAS issues RAs to every party of a "TCAS" conflict. But since not all traffic is so equipped, not all conflicts result in a TCAS RAs and "see and avoid" will take precedence. So to answer your question, if I get an RA, it means the other conflicting traffic is too. In the DHL mishap, the Russian aircrew disregarded the RA and tried to comply with ATC instructions. If I know the other parties are disregarding an RA (how would I? it's against the rules to disregard RAs) I would too in order to avoid collision. Silent TCAS means "see and avoid".
One notable failure of TCAS was human instead of technical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_collision/. In the US, TCAS commands require mandatory compliance- ICAO rules were not the same but may have been updated to the same compliance. The system otherwise has prevented numerous collisions, and in my experience is nearly flawless if crews are properly trained.
True. US aviation labor is governed by Railway Labor Act (http://railwaylaboract.com/airline.labor.relations.htm/ Job actions are illegal until the NMB releases either party to proceed: "As long as the NMB maintains a matter within its mediation jurisdiction, neither labor nor management lawfully are free to engage in self-help, such as by a labor strike or by the implementation of management's proposed rates of pay and working conditions. "
http://www.alpa.org/FTDTFightingFatigue/tabid/3370/Default.aspx/
Funny you should mention that. The older C-band radar was better for detecting weather, but most aircraft now use X-band for predictive windshear capabilities. X-band however can detect aircraft and I often see faint returns superimposed on TCAS targets- not to a degree that would make it useful however.