What works for one may not work for others. Do they all work on the same projects, do their personalities mesh, do they work on independent projects, and how much of the time, does the company enforce strict working hours? You kind of get the point. Some companies value the creative aspects of developers, some bury that and just want coders. What is you have?
Given unlimited space and budget I'd create a warren for them four or five offices with closable doors surrounding a conference table that is used solely for the developers, not shared to other tasks, put up a white board or better technology that captures the scrawls too, and make sure the conference table area support the local variety of network, not a problem if WiFi is permitted, but security concerns may require a post of hardwired ethernet connections. There should be plenty of space around the conference table so developers not involved can easily exit and enter their offices. This gives space to collaborate with team members and privacy when the developers need it to be distraction free. Visually think of lining a room with the offices and having say 20 feet of clear space in the middle to place a small conference table in. Want the developers to work through lunch or late nights during crunch time, make space for a small refrigerator. Put a microwave on top and include a water cooler (with hot water as well) and keep a spare bottle of water next to it. If the company really supports developers with small perks include an honor snack box and free coffee and tea... So, to recap. Provide privacy so they can think. Provide space for them to collaborate... Contrary to some people's thoughts there are people and there are tasks where one person is the better solution.
And anyone looking for a CTO or looking to invest in a startup, let me know! I know how to get development done.
You may also purchase a firearm. But under federal law you are prohibited from modifying it to become fully automatic. (Unless you are a licensed manufacturer). It is still your firearm, and they most certainly have the right under color of law to tell you what you can't do to enhance it. (I also personally think that had the defendant not been in jail elsewhere and had his side been represented in the seminal Supreme Court case testing this things might be different, but just my opinion.)
More torture for the car,
Nationwide insurance had to get a specific exception pushed through to allow me to put snow tire appropriate to my car on them. From the factory my convertible (yes I drove it in snowy weather) had nice wide low profile tires. And no appropriate compatible snow tires were offered. So I bought the standard steel rims for the non-turbo version of the car and put nice high-end snow tires on them. My insurance company agent noticed (ugly white painted steel wheels on nice pretty green car) and asked about them. I said I had the alloy tires in storage for winter and when we talked a bit more, because that size wheel and tire was not the factory tire for my specific model as insured, I technically violated my insurance policy. So he called the main office after giving me a temporary rider to my policy to get a permanent one added to my policy.
So I know first hand that since I agreed to the policy with its quirks and exclusions in the first place, I risked my coverage under that policy by making a well thought out and rational modification that increased the safety of the vehicle. But it is nice to know the insurance company was more rational than lots of current technology companies!
The only real reason I jailbreak my iPhone is to test my apps on jailbroken devices, and to use my phone unlocked overseas. I do find that some jailbreak-Apps do slow my phone down considerably and add to its instability. Oh, one last reason. To get terminal access and a process viewer on the phone which helps in debugging. Apple should include that with a special App from the developer site in my opinion. Then one less reason. And AT&T ought to be required to unlock a device when it is subject to an upgrade and a new locked device replaces it. Heck. My subsidized Razr was unlocked when I bought it direct from Cingular (AT&T). If the new iPhone uses a micro-sim I am going to need to find an adapter to the more used mini-sim (SIM card to most people, the one in iPhones now and widely elsewhere) else I would not be able to activate my ones back to the 2G (without hactivation tools, but I like testing non-jailbroken as well).
I tend to agree. It is already legal to unlock a phone as a specific exemption. And in the case of the iPhone a jailbreak is required to unlock it.
And I personally, though not a lawyer, see no more infringement of copyright that putting margin notes in a textbook. So I am pretty sure copyright is not affected.
Which leaves specific DMCA circumvention requirements, which by my reading of the DMCA have not been met. But that act was written by lawyers for lawyers to abuse and argue over in court.
This is not something where copyrighted work is distributed (well not Apple's copyrighted work, the authors of the jailbreak still own it.) The software uses your own Apple supplied cached copy of Apple's software used to restore your device. The one Apple licensed to you. So as an individual using the jailbreaking tools, you may be personally violating the DMCA, though doubtful, but decidedly the authors of the tools are not in my opinion. Especially in light of the Lexmark case.
Apple could resolve this and make a iPhone firmware set that really could not be compromised in any reasonable period of time. The number of people working to jailbreak iPhones worldwide has diminished to a small core, and if Apple tightens the noose, more will reappear on the scene. But I work in cryptography and can tell you that in a consumer device where usability is weighed against security, usability and convenience win. Imagine if your device was completely potted so that any internal failure meant a complete device swap. And so that once sealed up at the factory the sim in place was the sim you use forever. Sandbox all of Apple's own apps just like any other third party app. And want to do a complete restore, return the device to Apple or bring it in. Use PKI with a sufficiently large enough key to reduce likelihood of breaking it, and sign an individual update to tie that update to a specific phone before release of the update. And provide sufficient resources in reserve on the device to always allow an update to occur by transferring the file intact and doing the complete update cycle on the device. That is just the start but would pretty much break up the current jailbreak efforts. And as a last resort... put a "fuse" on the chips jtag inputs and blow them after final test. Why leave a useful diagnostic path when device replacement is the norm.... This would however increase the device cost quite a lot, and increase the engineering effort. But it would be fun to watch the mac fixit people try to do the break down! Oh, and when you pot it, after the initial coat make sure to use a metal filled epoxy and add in some chips in non-functional positions. And use the same material to bond things and package the ICs as the potting material where possible and critical. You want to make removal or xray of the potted assembly to be rougher and definitely result in a destructive analysis upon disassembly.
The remote wipe is a required feature for many enterprise users. The original iPhone OS caused grief when execs bought iPhones and they could not be wedged into the enterprise management in place already.
As to being required to return it to Apple, well, it is not an acknowledged product. Apple will likely be quiet until the real product is released. At least on the legal front. No messy need to enter the device into evidence and produce proof they actually own it.
Cool. I'd love to do it. And I have a great IP background. Figure $5000 minimum and more likely $10000 per patent. Then after the major folks catch on to the foundation doing this, look for cost to increase to $20-50,000 or more as objections get lodged with the USPTO.
You might find it cheaper just to have the Foundation create actual instances of the patent in action in distribution to the public to firmly establish prior art.
And, perhaps we need a reform at the patent office where they have a reduced cost to file release of IP to the public domain, where a patent application like document can be submitted where the concept is expressly released to the public domain. Say $100 filing fee. Another advantage of such a system is it needs no defense. Any prior patent is pre-emptive. SO... that makes the patent application have to distinguish its claims from the PD release document. I have likely 4000 or more ideas in my projects files I'd file this way, money permitting, if the USPTO was the holder of them. Just cool concepts I have no time to completely develop. And no money to file a normal patent for. And yes. I want my name on them, so just publishing in general doesn't help my career.
My much prior art (possibly, still looking for patent or patent app numbers) degrades graphics (and features) and buts up a small banner saying demo mode. In my prior comment I forgot to mention after enough time it adds motion and flashing to the banner. I look upon it as annoyance-ware. For RPG game work I have done, it just disallows saves of the character (well actually it just re-saves in the initial state "rolled"), so maybe I am to blame for some marathon gamers or contribute to the game addicts that never want to shut the box down.
Don't forget, you can drive with full features, but after 2 hours the windshield goes opaque the car automatically pulls over, and you see a message congratulating you on your wisdom to test drive a ford, and to press a sequence of buttons after 5 minutes to unblank the windscreen and continue driving, only to find you are back where you were 1 hour before (damn clever Ford engineers).
I do this already. I have graphics in games that get cruder after set periods of gameplay and "bonus" items appear less frequently. I also play with the random number generation after a period of time so the demo gets more repetitive. This is nothing new by Sony. I've been doing this for years. Including demos for major corporations that during a single play the game play gets "less fun" to encourage turnover at the booth. The game shipped with hardware or for $ does not have the same progressive deterioration. The patent number would be great because I will be commenting on this to the USPTO.
Off to search for the app so I now exactly what they're attempting to patent!
I would not count on cheap dev tools from Microsoft. Even when Apple shipped two 3rd party commercial compilers as well as there own Mac pascal products with ETO (their big developers kit) Apple seeded and continues to see paid developers with early releases for a cheap price, $249 for ETO renewal at one point, versus $1700 to renew my Microsoft "Universal" kit. And now Apple has looked at the success of the iPhone SDK at $99 and is lowering the Mac SDK to $99 as well (they do lose a few benefits like hardware discounts and such, but overall a good deal for more developers). And for the Mac. Just doing app development work and don't need advance access. The tools are on the install disk set for the OS at no extra charge. I don't think Microsoft bundles Visual Studio on their Windows 7 install disks. I have not checked for the new Mac developer $99 program, but for the iPhone that is $99 for the entire team. Under the older Apple Dev programs the Select and Premier paid levels (now replaced with the $99 level) had multiple sets of asset resources they could assign to other "free" apple dev members. I have spent more in 1 year for Microsoft tools for development than I spent in 5 years for Apple for each respective development program.
And having seen Microsoft's cost for sales of 3rd party products, the 30% Apple charges for vetting the App, hosting it, and dealing with the sales transaction fees, well, that is a great deal. Even the App store for Jailbroken iPhones is around that same percentage. And it beats the heck out of what a brick and mortar store returns to the developer.
When you think Microsoft will be a kinder environment for developers than Apple it might be time to start preparations for the disappointment to come.
I am somewhat older and charge an appropriate rate for experience. During this process of aging I have been told I am worth 2.5 times a less experienced programmer, but they can get the less experienced programmer for 1/2 my rate. Now do you really think I even want to work for that company when their management considers the younger programmer a better deal. DPHB at work... (Dilbert( Pointed Hair Boss) reference.)
Sadly the differential in requested rate in the down economy is less and they often still get junior contractors in and I get a shorted but much more lucrative contract to clean up the mess. Unfortunately if you just fix a bad design to work, then they're left with a bad design. And the DPHBs that cycle this way aren't interested in the real fix to the problem. So... It makes for repeat business later... All ya can do is warn 'em.
Big Tip: Take your girlfriend or wife or sheepishly wander in on your own and pick up some men's hair color or spring for the bucks to get a better job done at a salon. Then trim all but the most recent 5 to 10 years (depending on prestige clients) from the resume. Make sure all relevant experience is mentioned somewhere even if just a skills list. They can't actually ask you your age.
Gramps can eat the polar bear, use the skin and bones to make a boat, and come back and kick yer butt.
On the contrary. That is the parts cost. Manufacturing, etc. is not included. Not even the PCB it sits on. Current SSD prices are overinflated compared to other media because it is in a low uptake environment. The solid state memory on the iPhone, and presumably iPad will be as well, are the same tech for the chips built into the SSD devices. If you could ship 75 million 32GB SSDs your BOM cost for the memory would be around 23 bucks too. That is how many iPod Touches and iPhones are out there. The Nano iPod used a different controller architecture before this last version, but the latest iPod Nano is up at the SSD level controller tech as well. Similar logic to scatter gather writes, and remap, for wear leveling is the only difference and that is in the controller of the SSD not the memory chips themselves. If you look at the throughput of the memory reads and writes for the iPhone it is considerably faster than the low end USB dongles by a wide margin. I am not sure why you compare it to USB dongles with the SoC addresses it directly as a parallel path not serialized. Just because the device has a USB connection doesn't mean the memory internally is anything close to related to a serially addressed slow as a dog USB dongle.
3G option also adds GPS. Not in the presentation by Jobs. You actually had to go look at the Apple site for the info. Much like other things in life, research can find more details. Here's to hoping it is A-GPS ala the iPhone where the assist is optional, not like cheaper things called a-gps where the cell tower does computations for the phone. And I wish they had made the SIM card slot a real SIM card slot. There is not much advantage to using the micro SIM form factor and it makes being unlocked semi-useless in other countries I frequent (well hey, the 3G is unlocked as well for that 130 dollars)
And as to the cost for storage, compare it to a SSD not a USB dongle or SD card. The cost to Apple is about 23$ per 32GB. And they will drive the profit margin lower on the 16GB model in order to have their average be where they want it (and consequently raise the margin on the high end). If you want SD card speeds they have a dongle for that.
Lastly I hope the camera connector is the one I have already for my iPod Photo... Which is alas unsupported on current iPods and the iPhone devices of late...
Sounds like a wax coated cardboard sheet with a plastic overlay. A kids toy. I want to see a demo too. I can just imagine a waxed cardboard toy pad with a motor driven lifter for the erase... LOL
Amateur Radio actually uses theirs.
Likewise Apple supports an array of outside addresses for a purpose. HP and Digital are one company now... HP could easily migrate the old DEC address space...
But much more useful would be to take 224.0.0.0/4 and 240.0.0.0/4 the multicast and "reserved" ip4 spaces and release them to general use. That frees up over 500 million IP4 addresses. Then offer some incentive to actually move to IP6 like transfer legacy IP4 ARIN networks without a fee. Our ISP space is legacy and will cost us an arm and a leg every year to move to IP6. ARIN is supposed to be a non-profit, but realistically it charges an exorbitant amount for what Jon Postel did in is spare cycles. Admittedly a larger task today, but one that should be automatable pretty easily and the cost could be in the hundreds not thousands for initial allocations and a reasonable fee for annual reservations maintenance. Or even charge per "swip" if that is a real cost not just a rationalization by ARIN. The largest users get the biggest break in ARIN, the small players have huge costs comparatively. If you _really_ want to see IP4 space turnbacks to be reallocated then push ARIN to charge all users not just ISPs annually for their allocations, and extend that to the legacy IP4 folks as well. Charge per IP address in the CIDR without discounts for volume. Say $0.20 per IP address in the blocks. ARIN would have so much money in their NPO that they could donate the excess to support the various IETF initiatives to get some smaller players with good ideas involved. Or even buy some of the limiting patents on relevant technology then turn them out to the public domain. This would help most of the small players that keep the technology innovations flowing and hit most the large folks with lagging technology (and then justify why Comcast can charge me $10 a month for 5 IP addresses that don't actually cost them anything effectively annually, certainly nothing close to $10) But since the big players are also the primary ARIN BoD don't look for that to happen! It is a protectionist market and the ARIN BoD wants to maintain their joint competitive advantage over smaller players through control of the NPO.
I think you are getting first hand experience with being mistreated by a placement agency. An invaluable asset in terms of that knowledge. Going forward many companies have direct ads for interns or visit major campuses. I normally dislike FOAF anecdotes, but one friend of mine was at a small school near a major PAC 10 school. He learned when a placement "fair" for interns was going to take place with several companies he fancied at the larger school. He showed up with the CV and other materials in hand, a few recommendations from his profs and landed a nice internship. Clever counts. The staffing firm, if they are the ones paying you, may be taking 10 or more dollars US per hour off the top to cover their expenses and commissions. Their direct costs have not been reduced a whole lot by this downturn. So their overhead minimums are likely not too far away from what they were before. And the bigger the staffing firm, the bigger that overhead is. Early in my consulting career I had coworkers at $25 an hour where the job-shop made $25 on top of that so the employer paid $50. And in theory no one was supposed to talk about the amount they were paid as a contractual obligation. If you're not paid by the staffing company they took a healthy finders fee. While this is all fine for a high paid position as it is an expected expense, and the percentages drop on the hourly side (depending on the job-shop) and on the perm placement side it is overhead the company pays to get good talent they expect to have for a long time, not just the summer quarter. For internships you might consider directly contacting the HR departments (showing that initiative and personal interest in what that company does) and seeing about getting a better position as an intern and better pay.
It is likely a legal liability that would crush the researchers. Even if Conficker did the damage the researchers could be held liable because the courts have juries of non-technical people to render "justice". This is why many many technical lawsuits get settled at the last minute. The balance of evidence is continually weighed and after it reaches some presumed tipping point the parties settle. (Well the big guys, small fry are just outspent and they lose).
I'd love to have a reverse DNS service that returned conficker status (and other infections that can be benignly discovered) of the IP so I could give it a 25 point spam boost. That would tip it over for a lot of SPAM I think. (We have a 100 point scale, above 20 is SPAM, so characteristics score negative (good things) some score positive (bad things)) so I'd assume that through trial and error setting that threshold I block a lot more spam... And maybe have more restrictive filtering of access to our servers (dump the infected through a different path of access, maybe more lengthy filtering, more scrutiny, etc.)...
At idle I get about 12 watts to 14 watts (PPC vs Intel) for mac mini's on our APC monitored power controller. We watch closely as we only have a 2KW budget for the rack with all the equipment considered. Peak I have seen about 40 from a PPC and 65 or so from an Intel
If you want a DoS on a cell tower using iPhones just bring in a bunch with "TurboSIM" or the like hardware SIM adapters that spoof the IMEI to a common IMEI (usually a TESTING one). Those hardware adapters are the alternative to a software unlock that allows the SIMs proper data to be presented to the network allowing it to work as designed.
The thing Apple will not consider is the LEGAL jailbreak is what is under consideration. The people who would be Terrorists would not care if there was a DMCA exception to explicitly allow jailbreaking, just as there is an explicit exception to allow unlocking locked cell phones. The argument in the iPhone case is to take advantage of the current allowed exception that jailbreaking is implicit. And as such should be made clear and positive in the exceptions. I think if Apple is concerned about the corruption of the baseband firmware causing disruptions then they should just allow a easier path to unlock the phone. Personally I think that the FCC should disallow carrier locks that extend past the subscribers normal region. I'd happily pay AT&T the carrier subsidy (though it out be a rational amount, like 1 year not two, the actual cost of an iPhone over two years is outrageous when you compare a comparable Sprint, T-Mobile or even Verizon plan versus the AT&T plan for iPhone. Or even other AT&T plans!). But, When I travel overseas outside the range of the deathstar I use alternate SIMs from local carriers. Hmmm... less than 3 cents a minute using a local SIM card picked up at a phone shop overseas versus $3 to $5 depending on where I am for AT&T roaming. Not a hard choice. I think I'll jailbreak and unlock my phone. AT&T was not always this way (well Cingular at least) My trendy new RAZR fresh to the marketplace was factory unlocked. My friends Nokia was unlocked by a simple request and saying they'd be traveling overseas. They volunteered to unlock my "backup" Nokia E61 when I went looking for a new adapter for the "pop port" and some advice on data usage plans when roaming (mentioned trip to Ukraine, etc. very nice and knowledgeable staffer). Under the deathstar they are not nearly so accommodating to their customers. But. Apple holds the cards. They can change the game if they want to. Apple should "just say no" to AT&T when the restrictions are unreasonable. For example almost all original iPhones sold are out of contract. Allow them to be automatically unlocked next iTunes sync 2 years after activation.
Apple also is not accurate when talking about the jailbreak. Unlock has more chance of disturbing the baseband operation. Jailbreak is a much simpler operation that overrides security checks for execution of signed code. So jailbreaks per se are not a threat to national security, er cell phone towers, only to Apple's APP store. Unlock in its current form on the 3GS is very benign. It as one very clever hacker put it, leaves no traces on the baseband when done.
The tighter Apple closes their market on the iPhone, the more hacks will slip through their grasp.
$ nslookup
> server 207.69.131.9
Default server: 207.69.131.9
Address: 207.69.131.9#53
> comcast.sucks.com ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
> server www.microsoft.com
Default server: www.microsoft.com
Address: 207.46.193.254#53
Default server: www.microsoft.com
Address: 207.46.192.254#53
> comcast.sucks.com ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
>
So when I point lookups at the comcast ad servers even, or Microsoft, the lookups fail. Might be because we are on a business account here (to get a block of static IPs) but if our own captive ISP DNS servers are not reachable we'd have problems as we have some internal non-standard stuff going on for our internal networking. Our faked top level domain for our non-routable machines just would not show up. Again, might be because we are business clients of Comcast, but they have done all sorts of things like capped our bandwidth, excessively applied traffic shaping, etc. (corrected with a phone call mentioning we are business clients and _they_ committed to the usage rates we subscribed to.) But other than a few glitches we've been pretty happy with their service.
One check for the original author. Are the DNS servers "recommended" at your install time in an Earthlink domain or Comcast one.
In the let the compiler decide attitude of the C language families... Inmos C had the correct solution. You add two new keywords to the language, parallel and sequential.
sequential
{
stmt1;
stmt2;
stmt3;
}
as opposed to
parallel
{
stmt4;
stmt5;
stmt6;
}
The stmt1 must be executed before stmt2 which must be executed before stmt3 in the sequential construct. C languages actually already support this in a bit more awkward way with the ravel operator. But sequential is an easier to understand and read method, and balances nicely the parallel keyword. The compiler and runtime have been told that stmt4, stmt5, and stmt6 can be executed in parallel. There is implicit synchronization at the end of the statement block.
This is all well and good and many people look and say that it would not be so tough to do this in other ways, and so on. But combine this with fast iterators as are in Objective C 2.0 and it gets much more interesting. Or for the generalized case where any place a left brace is permissible, either of these two constructs could be substituted. This generalizes to braces enclosing a conventional block of statements as exists now, a forced sequential block of statements (so that side affects from say external inputs or other volatile entities can be dealt with at the specific case where needed) or a statement block where the contained statements may be executed in parallel. The programmer still has to have a bit of knowledge here, but the compiler and runtime can really lighten the load. And it does not have a syntax clash with either C, C++ or Objective C so could be adopted by all of them.
I used this back in 1980s and it was awesomely easy to deal with dispatch of hundreds of lightweight instances. Essentially fibers in a more modern vernacular. By partitioning the work between the complier and the runtime systems I ran the same binary code across quad processor and 64 processor arrays. (Ancillary to this discussion was that Inmos Transputers had also built in message passing on dedicated links in hardware. Of course Fortran was also supported as was Pascal, but the main pushed language was Occam. And hardware timers were there as a data type too to make scheduling a breeze. Processors w/o hardware timers just mimicked them in the runtime. And locks were supported in the hardware as well...)
The point is this was a elegantly solved problem in the 1980s that was mostly forgotten. It was a simple matter to have the runtime aware of the fabric an individual process could access and just turn stuff loose. But that part is a bit outside the main discussion, like I don't drift enough already!
Slashdot Mirror
What works for one may not work for others. Do they all work on the same projects, do their personalities mesh, do they work on independent projects, and how much of the time, does the company enforce strict working hours? You kind of get the point. Some companies value the creative aspects of developers, some bury that and just want coders. What is you have?
... So, to recap. Provide privacy so they can think. Provide space for them to collaborate ... Contrary to some people's thoughts there are people and there are tasks where one person is the better solution.
Given unlimited space and budget I'd create a warren for them four or five offices with closable doors surrounding a conference table that is used solely for the developers, not shared to other tasks, put up a white board or better technology that captures the scrawls too, and make sure the conference table area support the local variety of network, not a problem if WiFi is permitted, but security concerns may require a post of hardwired ethernet connections. There should be plenty of space around the conference table so developers not involved can easily exit and enter their offices. This gives space to collaborate with team members and privacy when the developers need it to be distraction free. Visually think of lining a room with the offices and having say 20 feet of clear space in the middle to place a small conference table in. Want the developers to work through lunch or late nights during crunch time, make space for a small refrigerator. Put a microwave on top and include a water cooler (with hot water as well) and keep a spare bottle of water next to it. If the company really supports developers with small perks include an honor snack box and free coffee and tea
And anyone looking for a CTO or looking to invest in a startup, let me know! I know how to get development done.
You may also purchase a firearm. But under federal law you are prohibited from modifying it to become fully automatic. (Unless you are a licensed manufacturer). It is still your firearm, and they most certainly have the right under color of law to tell you what you can't do to enhance it. (I also personally think that had the defendant not been in jail elsewhere and had his side been represented in the seminal Supreme Court case testing this things might be different, but just my opinion.)
More torture for the car, Nationwide insurance had to get a specific exception pushed through to allow me to put snow tire appropriate to my car on them. From the factory my convertible (yes I drove it in snowy weather) had nice wide low profile tires. And no appropriate compatible snow tires were offered. So I bought the standard steel rims for the non-turbo version of the car and put nice high-end snow tires on them. My insurance company agent noticed (ugly white painted steel wheels on nice pretty green car) and asked about them. I said I had the alloy tires in storage for winter and when we talked a bit more, because that size wheel and tire was not the factory tire for my specific model as insured, I technically violated my insurance policy. So he called the main office after giving me a temporary rider to my policy to get a permanent one added to my policy.
So I know first hand that since I agreed to the policy with its quirks and exclusions in the first place, I risked my coverage under that policy by making a well thought out and rational modification that increased the safety of the vehicle. But it is nice to know the insurance company was more rational than lots of current technology companies!
The only real reason I jailbreak my iPhone is to test my apps on jailbroken devices, and to use my phone unlocked overseas. I do find that some jailbreak-Apps do slow my phone down considerably and add to its instability. Oh, one last reason. To get terminal access and a process viewer on the phone which helps in debugging. Apple should include that with a special App from the developer site in my opinion. Then one less reason. And AT&T ought to be required to unlock a device when it is subject to an upgrade and a new locked device replaces it. Heck. My subsidized Razr was unlocked when I bought it direct from Cingular (AT&T). If the new iPhone uses a micro-sim I am going to need to find an adapter to the more used mini-sim (SIM card to most people, the one in iPhones now and widely elsewhere) else I would not be able to activate my ones back to the 2G (without hactivation tools, but I like testing non-jailbroken as well).
I tend to agree. It is already legal to unlock a phone as a specific exemption. And in the case of the iPhone a jailbreak is required to unlock it.
... put a "fuse" on the chips jtag inputs and blow them after final test. Why leave a useful diagnostic path when device replacement is the norm. ... This would however increase the device cost quite a lot, and increase the engineering effort. But it would be fun to watch the mac fixit people try to do the break down! Oh, and when you pot it, after the initial coat make sure to use a metal filled epoxy and add in some chips in non-functional positions. And use the same material to bond things and package the ICs as the potting material where possible and critical. You want to make removal or xray of the potted assembly to be rougher and definitely result in a destructive analysis upon disassembly.
And I personally, though not a lawyer, see no more infringement of copyright that putting margin notes in a textbook. So I am pretty sure copyright is not affected.
Which leaves specific DMCA circumvention requirements, which by my reading of the DMCA have not been met. But that act was written by lawyers for lawyers to abuse and argue over in court.
This is not something where copyrighted work is distributed (well not Apple's copyrighted work, the authors of the jailbreak still own it.) The software uses your own Apple supplied cached copy of Apple's software used to restore your device. The one Apple licensed to you. So as an individual using the jailbreaking tools, you may be personally violating the DMCA, though doubtful, but decidedly the authors of the tools are not in my opinion. Especially in light of the Lexmark case.
Apple could resolve this and make a iPhone firmware set that really could not be compromised in any reasonable period of time. The number of people working to jailbreak iPhones worldwide has diminished to a small core, and if Apple tightens the noose, more will reappear on the scene. But I work in cryptography and can tell you that in a consumer device where usability is weighed against security, usability and convenience win. Imagine if your device was completely potted so that any internal failure meant a complete device swap. And so that once sealed up at the factory the sim in place was the sim you use forever. Sandbox all of Apple's own apps just like any other third party app. And want to do a complete restore, return the device to Apple or bring it in. Use PKI with a sufficiently large enough key to reduce likelihood of breaking it, and sign an individual update to tie that update to a specific phone before release of the update. And provide sufficient resources in reserve on the device to always allow an update to occur by transferring the file intact and doing the complete update cycle on the device. That is just the start but would pretty much break up the current jailbreak efforts. And as a last resort
The remote wipe is a required feature for many enterprise users. The original iPhone OS caused grief when execs bought iPhones and they could not be wedged into the enterprise management in place already.
As to being required to return it to Apple, well, it is not an acknowledged product. Apple will likely be quiet until the real product is released. At least on the legal front. No messy need to enter the device into evidence and produce proof they actually own it.
Cool. I'd love to do it. And I have a great IP background. Figure $5000 minimum and more likely $10000 per patent. Then after the major folks catch on to the foundation doing this, look for cost to increase to $20-50,000 or more as objections get lodged with the USPTO.
... that makes the patent application have to distinguish its claims from the PD release document. I have likely 4000 or more ideas in my projects files I'd file this way, money permitting, if the USPTO was the holder of them. Just cool concepts I have no time to completely develop. And no money to file a normal patent for. And yes. I want my name on them, so just publishing in general doesn't help my career.
You might find it cheaper just to have the Foundation create actual instances of the patent in action in distribution to the public to firmly establish prior art.
And, perhaps we need a reform at the patent office where they have a reduced cost to file release of IP to the public domain, where a patent application like document can be submitted where the concept is expressly released to the public domain. Say $100 filing fee. Another advantage of such a system is it needs no defense. Any prior patent is pre-emptive. SO
My much prior art (possibly, still looking for patent or patent app numbers) degrades graphics (and features) and buts up a small banner saying demo mode. In my prior comment I forgot to mention after enough time it adds motion and flashing to the banner. I look upon it as annoyance-ware. For RPG game work I have done, it just disallows saves of the character (well actually it just re-saves in the initial state "rolled"), so maybe I am to blame for some marathon gamers or contribute to the game addicts that never want to shut the box down.
Don't forget, you can drive with full features, but after 2 hours the windshield goes opaque the car automatically pulls over, and you see a message congratulating you on your wisdom to test drive a ford, and to press a sequence of buttons after 5 minutes to unblank the windscreen and continue driving, only to find you are back where you were 1 hour before (damn clever Ford engineers).
I do this already. I have graphics in games that get cruder after set periods of gameplay and "bonus" items appear less frequently. I also play with the random number generation after a period of time so the demo gets more repetitive. This is nothing new by Sony. I've been doing this for years. Including demos for major corporations that during a single play the game play gets "less fun" to encourage turnover at the booth. The game shipped with hardware or for $ does not have the same progressive deterioration. The patent number would be great because I will be commenting on this to the USPTO.
Off to search for the app so I now exactly what they're attempting to patent!
All the best,
I would not count on cheap dev tools from Microsoft. Even when Apple shipped two 3rd party commercial compilers as well as there own Mac pascal products with ETO (their big developers kit) Apple seeded and continues to see paid developers with early releases for a cheap price, $249 for ETO renewal at one point, versus $1700 to renew my Microsoft "Universal" kit. And now Apple has looked at the success of the iPhone SDK at $99 and is lowering the Mac SDK to $99 as well (they do lose a few benefits like hardware discounts and such, but overall a good deal for more developers). And for the Mac. Just doing app development work and don't need advance access. The tools are on the install disk set for the OS at no extra charge. I don't think Microsoft bundles Visual Studio on their Windows 7 install disks. I have not checked for the new Mac developer $99 program, but for the iPhone that is $99 for the entire team. Under the older Apple Dev programs the Select and Premier paid levels (now replaced with the $99 level) had multiple sets of asset resources they could assign to other "free" apple dev members. I have spent more in 1 year for Microsoft tools for development than I spent in 5 years for Apple for each respective development program.
And having seen Microsoft's cost for sales of 3rd party products, the 30% Apple charges for vetting the App, hosting it, and dealing with the sales transaction fees, well, that is a great deal. Even the App store for Jailbroken iPhones is around that same percentage. And it beats the heck out of what a brick and mortar store returns to the developer.
When you think Microsoft will be a kinder environment for developers than Apple it might be time to start preparations for the disappointment to come.
I am somewhat older and charge an appropriate rate for experience. During this process of aging I have been told I am worth 2.5 times a less experienced programmer, but they can get the less experienced programmer for 1/2 my rate. Now do you really think I even want to work for that company when their management considers the younger programmer a better deal. DPHB at work ... (Dilbert( Pointed Hair Boss) reference.)
... It makes for repeat business later... All ya can do is warn 'em.
Sadly the differential in requested rate in the down economy is less and they often still get junior contractors in and I get a shorted but much more lucrative contract to clean up the mess. Unfortunately if you just fix a bad design to work, then they're left with a bad design. And the DPHBs that cycle this way aren't interested in the real fix to the problem. So
Big Tip: Take your girlfriend or wife or sheepishly wander in on your own and pick up some men's hair color or spring for the bucks to get a better job done at a salon. Then trim all but the most recent 5 to 10 years (depending on prestige clients) from the resume. Make sure all relevant experience is mentioned somewhere even if just a skills list. They can't actually ask you your age.
Gramps can eat the polar bear, use the skin and bones to make a boat, and come back and kick yer butt.
On the contrary. That is the parts cost. Manufacturing, etc. is not included. Not even the PCB it sits on. Current SSD prices are overinflated compared to other media because it is in a low uptake environment. The solid state memory on the iPhone, and presumably iPad will be as well, are the same tech for the chips built into the SSD devices. If you could ship 75 million 32GB SSDs your BOM cost for the memory would be around 23 bucks too. That is how many iPod Touches and iPhones are out there. The Nano iPod used a different controller architecture before this last version, but the latest iPod Nano is up at the SSD level controller tech as well. Similar logic to scatter gather writes, and remap, for wear leveling is the only difference and that is in the controller of the SSD not the memory chips themselves. If you look at the throughput of the memory reads and writes for the iPhone it is considerably faster than the low end USB dongles by a wide margin. I am not sure why you compare it to USB dongles with the SoC addresses it directly as a parallel path not serialized. Just because the device has a USB connection doesn't mean the memory internally is anything close to related to a serially addressed slow as a dog USB dongle.
And the 3G version includes GPS
3G option also adds GPS. Not in the presentation by Jobs. You actually had to go look at the Apple site for the info. Much like other things in life, research can find more details. Here's to hoping it is A-GPS ala the iPhone where the assist is optional, not like cheaper things called a-gps where the cell tower does computations for the phone. And I wish they had made the SIM card slot a real SIM card slot. There is not much advantage to using the micro SIM form factor and it makes being unlocked semi-useless in other countries I frequent (well hey, the 3G is unlocked as well for that 130 dollars)
... Which is alas unsupported on current iPods and the iPhone devices of late ...
And as to the cost for storage, compare it to a SSD not a USB dongle or SD card. The cost to Apple is about 23$ per 32GB. And they will drive the profit margin lower on the 16GB model in order to have their average be where they want it (and consequently raise the margin on the high end). If you want SD card speeds they have a dongle for that.
Lastly I hope the camera connector is the one I have already for my iPod Photo
Sounds like a wax coated cardboard sheet with a plastic overlay. A kids toy. I want to see a demo too. I can just imagine a waxed cardboard toy pad with a motor driven lifter for the erase ... LOL
It can be used as one wants but they also offer a license for the occasions like you've specified. Check out:
http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1
And why not just the most visionary people you can find?
Age discrimination. Its not just for breakfast or early bird specials anymore.
Amateur Radio actually uses theirs. Likewise Apple supports an array of outside addresses for a purpose. HP and Digital are one company now ... HP could easily migrate the old DEC address space...
But much more useful would be to take 224.0.0.0/4 and 240.0.0.0/4 the multicast and "reserved" ip4 spaces and release them to general use. That frees up over 500 million IP4 addresses. Then offer some incentive to actually move to IP6 like transfer legacy IP4 ARIN networks without a fee. Our ISP space is legacy and will cost us an arm and a leg every year to move to IP6. ARIN is supposed to be a non-profit, but realistically it charges an exorbitant amount for what Jon Postel did in is spare cycles. Admittedly a larger task today, but one that should be automatable pretty easily and the cost could be in the hundreds not thousands for initial allocations and a reasonable fee for annual reservations maintenance. Or even charge per "swip" if that is a real cost not just a rationalization by ARIN. The largest users get the biggest break in ARIN, the small players have huge costs comparatively. If you _really_ want to see IP4 space turnbacks to be reallocated then push ARIN to charge all users not just ISPs annually for their allocations, and extend that to the legacy IP4 folks as well. Charge per IP address in the CIDR without discounts for volume. Say $0.20 per IP address in the blocks. ARIN would have so much money in their NPO that they could donate the excess to support the various IETF initiatives to get some smaller players with good ideas involved. Or even buy some of the limiting patents on relevant technology then turn them out to the public domain. This would help most of the small players that keep the technology innovations flowing and hit most the large folks with lagging technology (and then justify why Comcast can charge me $10 a month for 5 IP addresses that don't actually cost them anything effectively annually, certainly nothing close to $10) But since the big players are also the primary ARIN BoD don't look for that to happen! It is a protectionist market and the ARIN BoD wants to maintain their joint competitive advantage over smaller players through control of the NPO.
I think you are getting first hand experience with being mistreated by a placement agency. An invaluable asset in terms of that knowledge. Going forward many companies have direct ads for interns or visit major campuses. I normally dislike FOAF anecdotes, but one friend of mine was at a small school near a major PAC 10 school. He learned when a placement "fair" for interns was going to take place with several companies he fancied at the larger school. He showed up with the CV and other materials in hand, a few recommendations from his profs and landed a nice internship. Clever counts. The staffing firm, if they are the ones paying you, may be taking 10 or more dollars US per hour off the top to cover their expenses and commissions. Their direct costs have not been reduced a whole lot by this downturn. So their overhead minimums are likely not too far away from what they were before. And the bigger the staffing firm, the bigger that overhead is. Early in my consulting career I had coworkers at $25 an hour where the job-shop made $25 on top of that so the employer paid $50. And in theory no one was supposed to talk about the amount they were paid as a contractual obligation. If you're not paid by the staffing company they took a healthy finders fee. While this is all fine for a high paid position as it is an expected expense, and the percentages drop on the hourly side (depending on the job-shop) and on the perm placement side it is overhead the company pays to get good talent they expect to have for a long time, not just the summer quarter. For internships you might consider directly contacting the HR departments (showing that initiative and personal interest in what that company does) and seeing about getting a better position as an intern and better pay.
It is likely a legal liability that would crush the researchers. Even if Conficker did the damage the researchers could be held liable because the courts have juries of non-technical people to render "justice". This is why many many technical lawsuits get settled at the last minute. The balance of evidence is continually weighed and after it reaches some presumed tipping point the parties settle. (Well the big guys, small fry are just outspent and they lose).
I'd love to have a reverse DNS service that returned conficker status (and other infections that can be benignly discovered) of the IP so I could give it a 25 point spam boost. That would tip it over for a lot of SPAM I think. (We have a 100 point scale, above 20 is SPAM, so characteristics score negative (good things) some score positive (bad things)) so I'd assume that through trial and error setting that threshold I block a lot more spam... And maybe have more restrictive filtering of access to our servers (dump the infected through a different path of access, maybe more lengthy filtering, more scrutiny, etc.)...
At idle I get about 12 watts to 14 watts (PPC vs Intel) for mac mini's on our APC monitored power controller. We watch closely as we only have a 2KW budget for the rack with all the equipment considered. Peak I have seen about 40 from a PPC and 65 or so from an Intel
If you want a DoS on a cell tower using iPhones just bring in a bunch with "TurboSIM" or the like hardware SIM adapters that spoof the IMEI to a common IMEI (usually a TESTING one). Those hardware adapters are the alternative to a software unlock that allows the SIMs proper data to be presented to the network allowing it to work as designed.
The thing Apple will not consider is the LEGAL jailbreak is what is under consideration. The people who would be Terrorists would not care if there was a DMCA exception to explicitly allow jailbreaking, just as there is an explicit exception to allow unlocking locked cell phones. The argument in the iPhone case is to take advantage of the current allowed exception that jailbreaking is implicit. And as such should be made clear and positive in the exceptions. I think if Apple is concerned about the corruption of the baseband firmware causing disruptions then they should just allow a easier path to unlock the phone. Personally I think that the FCC should disallow carrier locks that extend past the subscribers normal region. I'd happily pay AT&T the carrier subsidy (though it out be a rational amount, like 1 year not two, the actual cost of an iPhone over two years is outrageous when you compare a comparable Sprint, T-Mobile or even Verizon plan versus the AT&T plan for iPhone. Or even other AT&T plans!). But, When I travel overseas outside the range of the deathstar I use alternate SIMs from local carriers. Hmmm... less than 3 cents a minute using a local SIM card picked up at a phone shop overseas versus $3 to $5 depending on where I am for AT&T roaming. Not a hard choice. I think I'll jailbreak and unlock my phone. AT&T was not always this way (well Cingular at least) My trendy new RAZR fresh to the marketplace was factory unlocked. My friends Nokia was unlocked by a simple request and saying they'd be traveling overseas. They volunteered to unlock my "backup" Nokia E61 when I went looking for a new adapter for the "pop port" and some advice on data usage plans when roaming (mentioned trip to Ukraine, etc. very nice and knowledgeable staffer). Under the deathstar they are not nearly so accommodating to their customers. But. Apple holds the cards. They can change the game if they want to. Apple should "just say no" to AT&T when the restrictions are unreasonable. For example almost all original iPhones sold are out of contract. Allow them to be automatically unlocked next iTunes sync 2 years after activation.
Apple also is not accurate when talking about the jailbreak. Unlock has more chance of disturbing the baseband operation. Jailbreak is a much simpler operation that overrides security checks for execution of signed code. So jailbreaks per se are not a threat to national security, er cell phone towers, only to Apple's APP store. Unlock in its current form on the 3GS is very benign. It as one very clever hacker put it, leaves no traces on the baseband when done.
The tighter Apple closes their market on the iPhone, the more hacks will slip through their grasp.
$ nslookup
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
> server 207.69.131.9
Default server: 207.69.131.9
Address: 207.69.131.9#53
> comcast.sucks.com
> server www.microsoft.com
Default server: www.microsoft.com
Address: 207.46.193.254#53
Default server: www.microsoft.com
Address: 207.46.192.254#53
> comcast.sucks.com
>
So when I point lookups at the comcast ad servers even, or Microsoft, the lookups fail. Might be because we are on a business account here (to get a block of static IPs) but if our own captive ISP DNS servers are not reachable we'd have problems as we have some internal non-standard stuff going on for our internal networking. Our faked top level domain for our non-routable machines just would not show up. Again, might be because we are business clients of Comcast, but they have done all sorts of things like capped our bandwidth, excessively applied traffic shaping, etc. (corrected with a phone call mentioning we are business clients and _they_ committed to the usage rates we subscribed to.) But other than a few glitches we've been pretty happy with their service.
One check for the original author. Are the DNS servers "recommended" at your install time in an Earthlink domain or Comcast one.
In the let the compiler decide attitude of the C language families ... Inmos C had the correct solution. You add two new keywords to the language, parallel and sequential.
sequential
{
stmt1;
stmt2;
stmt3;
}
as opposed to
parallel
{
stmt4;
stmt5;
stmt6;
}
The stmt1 must be executed before stmt2 which must be executed before stmt3 in the sequential construct. C languages actually already support this in a bit more awkward way with the ravel operator. But sequential is an easier to understand and read method, and balances nicely the parallel keyword. The compiler and runtime have been told that stmt4, stmt5, and stmt6 can be executed in parallel. There is implicit synchronization at the end of the statement block.
This is all well and good and many people look and say that it would not be so tough to do this in other ways, and so on. But combine this with fast iterators as are in Objective C 2.0 and it gets much more interesting. Or for the generalized case where any place a left brace is permissible, either of these two constructs could be substituted. This generalizes to braces enclosing a conventional block of statements as exists now, a forced sequential block of statements (so that side affects from say external inputs or other volatile entities can be dealt with at the specific case where needed) or a statement block where the contained statements may be executed in parallel. The programmer still has to have a bit of knowledge here, but the compiler and runtime can really lighten the load. And it does not have a syntax clash with either C, C++ or Objective C so could be adopted by all of them.
I used this back in 1980s and it was awesomely easy to deal with dispatch of hundreds of lightweight instances. Essentially fibers in a more modern vernacular. By partitioning the work between the complier and the runtime systems I ran the same binary code across quad processor and 64 processor arrays. (Ancillary to this discussion was that Inmos Transputers had also built in message passing on dedicated links in hardware. Of course Fortran was also supported as was Pascal, but the main pushed language was Occam. And hardware timers were there as a data type too to make scheduling a breeze. Processors w/o hardware timers just mimicked them in the runtime. And locks were supported in the hardware as well...)
The point is this was a elegantly solved problem in the 1980s that was mostly forgotten. It was a simple matter to have the runtime aware of the fabric an individual process could access and just turn stuff loose. But that part is a bit outside the main discussion, like I don't drift enough already!