AND, OR, NOT, NAND, NOR, XOR and XNOR are still the 7 basic logic elements that make up all digital electronics and programming
Of which, NAND and NOR are the primitives - you can constract any gate (and thus truth table result) you want out of purely NAND or purely NOR gates.
Why you pick one over the other is down to limitations of CMOS - PMOS transistors have to be much larger than NMOS ones to be as fast. NAND puts the fast NMOS transistors in series giving you much faster switching than if the PMOS transistors were in series (as it would be in a NOR gate)
(and Google's employees working on multiple products were uncertain of what they could and couldn't do with the data)
The answer to that is obvious - do nothing. If you don't know if you can take YouTube viewing data and use it to influence search results, then simply don't. That puts the data from YouTube in a different silo than the search data. Failure to do so means one privacy policy is breached which people will call out Google on and lower their trustworthiness. Which is fine - Google's got a lot of goodwill banked up.
Of course, it's not in Google's interest to do that.
Privacy policies outline the minimum protection to your data. There's no ceiling - you can say in your privacy policy that you'll sell my information to the highest bidder, but in actuality, decide no one wants the data and end up not sharing it or even deleting it, thus giving the user MORE privacy than the policy says. That's allowable.
Bonus if we could get that done with vote tracibility. Know how your neighbors voted, if you wish. If you aren't comfortable with that, then don't vote like a jackass.
Is voting for abortion being a jackass? Against? Voting for gay marriage? Against? Hell, in the US, I'm sure you can say the same about creationism (which what, 40% of the people believe in?). Unionize? Break the unions?
The secret ballot is actually one of the most important tools - because coercion is real and has been demonstrated. Hell, there is evidence for example, in voting to unionize. In places with secret ballots the rate of unionization is far lower than at places where the voting is open - not by a little bit, but by a lot (a lot of old style thuggery and bullying).
And yes, you'll find without a secret ballot a lot more vote buying. The population doesn't care about ACTA - so all pro-ACTA forces have to do is say "Vote yes and we'll pay you $10". If you're a "I don't care, but by doing this I get a free $10, I'm game!". And your vote tracability website offers perfect proof and a perfect list of people to send the money to. These people who would probably just ignored the vote to begin with have now got economic interest.
Open voting simply does not work at all - there have been way too many documented instances of coercion. It's why we have secret ballots to begin with.
Need one final example? Take our fine goverment representatives. On critical issues (e.g., budgets) the party "whips" will basically demand the members vote one way. Anyone who doesn't is reprimanded out from plum positions (getting kicked out of cabinet, tossed onto the backbenches, basically being ignored, etc). And you know it's an open vote when they can do things like "Republicans X, Y and Z voted against the motion while Democrats A, B and C voted for the motion".
I don't think they gave enough details to know for sure that is what's going on - most users won't have configured their phone to install apk's that didn't come from the Android phone, does this attack work against them?
If they are going to go through the trouble to issue an advisory, they should explain how the attack works so we can educate our users.
Given it's the FBI, I'm guessing a LOT of people probably have the Amazon store installed as welll, which means the checkbox is checked. Or, don't underestimate the ability of people to check said checkbox if the web page tells them to.
All you need is a sufficiently motivated user and they'll become the most technically adept person around who can follow instructions. Why they can't do this during a tech support call confounds me, and it's probably more of a behavioral thing.
The attack is simple. The web page offers up some reason for the user to install the APK - either some popular app for free "Bad Piggies - Full No-Ads FREE!" or other app "APPS FOR FREE! DOWNLOAD!" that the user can be easily tricked into installing. Then they just tap the link, Android downloads it and they tap the APK in the download list to install it. Ignore the permission list (I want my free apps, dammit! Or my free porn! etc.) and boom, the virus is installed.
It's a variant of double-clicking attachments in emails. And yes, people are that stupid. it's relatively new for phones because well, people expect their phones to be phones and not computers - what harm could happen?
Which is fair, but how will splitting the privacy policies back into various areas HELP privacy? Doesn't putting them all in one place for Google products make it easier? And even if split, do they not get how Google tracks everything anyway? Very strange way to help people I'd think.
Well, before, Google had a different privacy policy for every product. This resulted in your YouTube browsing habits not being able to be shared with your GMail history, Google homepage not being able to search your e-mail or possibly throwing up your email search results when you search, etc.
By unifying the privacy policy, Google made it easier to combine the data about you from many silos into one. Perhaps you were doing some Google searches about say, gay marriage. Now your YouTube ads for that next cat video can suggest gay marriage pastors. Or election ads about gay marriage.
Or perhaps you're trying to keep your online activities separate. Perhaps you enjoy downloading the latest music and movies, but keep that separated somehow from your other activities. Perhaps using another browser. Or perhaps another computer. Problem is, you use Google on both, and eventually Google links both your nefarious pirate ways with your real life ways, so the MPAA and RIAA can now positively identify you through Google. (Ask Jammie Thomas).
All the EU is doing is basically telling Google to put the data back in their individual silos and stop mising and churning it. Of course, law enforcement and IP lovers will be a lot less happy if they can't get at your user profile and prove that you are the person being accused through Google's profiling of your activities (the links are more tenuous when data is isolated. When they're combined, they're very powerful).
Of course, this also allows Google to aid in finding people who do bad things - they can link the searches to the youtube videos to the G+ postings and all that. Perhaps even to their facebook account and get a name/location/etc.
Oh yeah, trust me, it's not just advertisers/insurance people interested in your habits. And heck,one silo also means that false information can be rapidly corrected (yay!), alongside with notes on the false information in case you used it elsewhere, providing more linking data.
Just like with all software, you need to trust your source.
True. However, with Android, all it takes is a friend to show you how to get "cool appz for free!!!" by installing this that and the other thing and big list of apps for you. Stuff like APKTor (is that still around?).
Of course, we had viruses before - I know one developer on PalmOS actually had a virus labelled after one of his products - a bug in his (legitimate) app actually destroyed a few Palms when it did an anti-piracy check.
No, sorry, it is not a re-enactment. He just went for a supersonic flight as a passenger.
You could argue that he was a passenger on his first attempt as well. After all, for the supersonic part, he really couldn't do much than sit on his hands.
It's actually a facinating look at human history - between rockets and missiles and the early space missions. How much should the human be involved (or even should they?). During the early days it was a serious question of just how much should the human be involved and what to do with bad inputs. With full modelling of feedback loops.
And yes, a lot of early arguments for humans in the loop boiled down to bravado and the like (being that the early astronauts came from test pilot track and such). Even if they didn't really do much other than look pretty during the part you wanted to test.
Not to understate his achievement of course (he is Chuck freakin' Yeager!), but this was during the age of early flight computers and autopilots and space exploration.
There's been an issue with air speed indicators showing false readings as you approach the sound barrier. I've heard stories of prop plane pilots thinking they broke the sound barrier in that era (which is supposed to be impossible).
Well, the entire plane may not have broken the sound barrier, but in modern days, the sound barrier does pose lots of technical challenges for parts of the plane. Propellers are often speed limited to prevent the tips from going supersonic (and helicopters have it worse - thanks to the long rotors means it's only a mix of RPM and speed).
Breaking the sound barrier in an entire aircraft is news, but breaking the sound barrier itself isn't. Heck, crack a whip and you'll see it in action (it's where the crack comes from - little sonic boom).
And yes, airspeed indicators get increasingly inaccurate because they rely on pressure difference to measure speed. Go fast enough, and you get heating due to frictional effects with air, and the buffeting caused by approaching supersonic speeds also influences the pitot tube.
Altitude plays a key role too - speed of sound varies by height - it's slower in thinner air (it's why you really want a Machmeter as it compensates). Going supersonic at sealevel is extremely difficult, but it gets much easier at altitude.
Also the space suit and capsule you can do it in are technically challenging but really it can be done with rather old tech.
Technically, he's not the first to do a supersonic jump. An earlier recorded event had a test pilot and his specialist violently ejected from their SR-71 when it broke up at Mach 3+.
Of course, it wasn't too high up (only 70k ft) but it was supersonic (just horizontally, instead of vertically). I would be surprised if a lot of what was learned came from that event.
yea nothings better than going to work smelling like an ass when you just had to bike 10 miles in 100 degree heat!
1) Can get you an office with a door. If not, get a fan for your cube.
2) People will not want to book meetings with you in it. Especially long ones. 2a) People especially will not want to invite you to first-thing-in-the-morning meetings.
3) Check if your office has a set of showers. A lot of places have shower facilities for those who need to freshen up.
I suppose the worst part is well, he's the only one caught.
Remember when Sony shut down PSN? It wasn't because they detected a breach, but because they found a bunch of people getting free DLC. Yes, free DLC. Basically people were turning their retail PS3s into developer PS3s and accessing the developer PSN store, which gives free DLC for testing purposes.
After that, they discovered the breaches. But that was too late - who knew how long the data was accessible. This guy was stupid and bragged. The smart ones don't brag, but quietly make use of the data. Do it well enough and the logs would get wiped out as part of the natural rotation.
At least this guy basically told everyone that Sony was vulnerable.
#2 Can we blow this up? Slashdot. Reddit. Anywhere you post political talk -- they need to see this. I'm not a fringe candidate. Any research at all reveals I am a calm and rational proponent of the ideas of liberty. Video Bloggers? What do you think?
It seems the theory is, "Make a big enough stink, this ABC affiliate will cave." It doesn't look like there's been any back-and-forth with ABC on this, though. And she did include her name and email address. And their phone number is right on their website.
The problem is, Joe Q. Public does not care. Slashdot? Reddit? They'd be lucky to know about those sites, even if their friends send them links constantly.
No, the only way to "blow it up" is to get your voice out there in the mainstream media. Write an op-ed in the papers. Possibly buy some advertising. Get the word out there that you exist.
On the day of the debate - run your own commentary - in real time, as the debate goes on. If you've done it right, people will be bringing your commentary up (especially said mainstream media) as well.
Trying to get that ABC affiliate to cave? Remember - never mess with the ones who own the press.because they'll always have the final say. You might get invited to the debate, but everytime you speak, they may have "technical" troubles or cut to advertising when it's your turn. Or just make it look like you're a wacko in the runup ads for the debate.
Or even worse, invite other fringe parties to your podium, calling it the "fringe party podium" during the debate - in the name of fairness, it's everyone who couldn't (note the word I used) pay for the position (even though it's because you refused the money).
I thought Oracle v. Google said APIs weren't copyrightable. As such, GPL-only APIs make no sense because the API can't be copyrighted to begin with.
Since the GPL requires copyright to work, and APIs are not copyrightable, there should be no such thing.
Can't really have it both ways - can't have GPL-only APIs here, and have Java APIs that are completely uncopyrightable Which is it - APIs are copyrightable (and thus can be GPL-enforcable), in which case Oracle was right, or APIs are not copyrightable (and GPL is not enforcable since copyright defaults don't exist), and Google/Android is right?
One of the thorny aspects of the Oracle v. Google.
While the ideal use-case would be to force graphics drivers to be open, the unintended side effect may be that drivers don't use the API, and instead reimplement their own versions if they need it, or just put up with lousier graphics performance, neither of which do any good for Linux (or Android). Or graphics moves into user space.
Webkit doesn't follow the W3C standards. They follow whatg and their own. My fear is W3C which is about to finalize HTML 5 will be incompatible with webkit and Google will do a microsoft and try to make it like IE 6 in order to corner the mobile web market.
Webkit dominates the mobile web market already. Android uses webkit by default, as does iOS. And Blackberry's new browser is webkit based.
The only mobile OS to come with a non-webkit browser is Windows Phone.
Short of installing Firefox or Opera, webkit pretty much is the dominant browser engine. Maybe second after IE (if you combine Chrome+Safari since they use webkit internally).
Geez, who would've thought an Apple project would out-IE IE.
HTML V5 is frankly half ass and piss poor, it sucks CPU cycles like a drunk sucking down free drinks and without GPU acceleration is completely unusable on anything low power
That's not an HTML5 problem. That's a web browser problem. If the web browsers aren't offering you enough controls to adjust how the HTML5 stuff works, find another. Or bug them to fix their Javascript speed and such.
The main reason HTML5 is better is you're not beholden to Adobe to fix Flash issues. Instead, between Chrome, IE, Firefox and Safari, either they will implement controls internally or offload it to plugins. Like how every browser can have popup blockers now, they can implement HTML5 object blockers as well.
ICANN doesn't give a rat's ass about the validity of data in WHOIS, and hasn't for a long time. Someone (perhaps in law enforcement?) probably put a little pressure on them something recently and now they are putting on a show.
Not law enforcement - they don't really care because if they need to, they can just ask and most registrars will just gladly hand it over. May take a warrant or so.
No, this would be for those who want that information but cannot obtain it like that - think the **AAs for that. Find a domain that if you follow this sort of path here through to this other site and this new host, eventually points to a 1 second sample of something that maybe possibly could be a piece of music - piracy! Just look up the contact information in WHOIS and sue them for copyright infringement!
No law enforcement needed - makes it all much easier and cheaper.
Plus think of who owns those pesky domains like "thepiratebay" or "wikileaks" - just have to make them do something that'll force them to turn over their domains...
It's not just car parts. It's happening in the aircraft industry and else where. There's also the issue of refurbished parts being sold as new...
Aviation is well known since the big busts in the 80s orcehstrated by fake FAA part tags and such. It was so bad it even got onto the presidential airplane (Air Force One, when he's on board).
The FAA went around a busted a bunch of dealers of counterfeit parts because it was such a huge problem that practically every commercial jet had at least one counterfeit. Even worse, they were documented as real so no one really knew (the counterfeiters were the ones profiting - the airlines and everyone else didn't know they were buying counterfeit parts).
When you consider a screw that costs 10 cents at Home Depot will probably cost $4-10 for aviation, the urge to counterfeit is very real. Even parts that are worn out or expired would get new coats of paint and resold as new.
Of course, if there's anything to show for it, is to show really how capitalistic the Chinese are - if there's a way to make a buck (scamming or otherwise), they'll do it. We've seen it happen through the many recalls - lead in toys and paint, melamine in milk (watered down - but melamine added to boost protein so hide watering down), etc. If there's a way to cut a corner, they'll find it.
Wasn't the alternative bankruptcy? Did they purposely sabotage the company? Didn't they lose the invested money too? Then why is it paying something being an asshole?
Well, what happened was pretty scummy. After all, what happened was all of a sudden, an unconfirmed rumor popped up that OnLive was bankrupt. The official company line though was everything was fine. Then two weeks later everyone got the news that OnLive was taken over by OnLIve.
Effectively, the investors in the original OnLive could've gotten out (but instead lost it all), while the CEO and management, and half of the engineers got "transferred" to the new company and the rest were pretty much shown the door.
The execs losing their investment? Most likely not - it pwas probably written in that they got 100 cents on the dollar for their investments by the new OnLive. Everyone else, got screwed as usualy.
Hell, even the employees with no jobs were basically kicked out without severance, or the option to plead their case in bankruptcy court. The company effectively went bankrupt, fired everyone, got "bought out", management re-hired, and half the fired engineers re-hired.
It's basically a way to downsize without paying benefits and screwing over investors, while management walks away with nothing's changed. Probably a very creative loophole in the law.
Ok, so my list of phones to not buy currently stands at (these have all done me or someone I know wrong):
Apple Nokia Motorolla Samsung HTC Blackberry LG
Um, is there anything left?
In any event, I'm actually looking at a Win8 phone for my next phone. My last 2 Android phones have been full of buggy crap that wasn't maintained by the handset maker. I only use 6 things with my phone: voice, sms, email, browser, maps, and music. Any phone will do that now. What I hear about the Windows phones is that they're not big on the apps, they're not sexy, but they work. That's what I want. I'm not an Apple person and BlackBerry has no future, so Win8 phone it is.
Lots left, actually.
ZTE Huawei (they both are making inroads to the North American market). They both do Win8 and Android phones. Of course, they're also in bed with the Chinese government...
There are plenty of other providers as well, but many of those are simply OEM'd designs from ODMs like HTC.
Plenty more small providers as well, as well as industrial ones like Symbol. Or you can get an HP/Palm WebOS one used.
So it is possible to create a large volume of "trades" without actually ever buying or selling anything? I am surprised that isn't gamed on regular basis - shaking up the stock market with minimal investment
Something similar to penny stock spiking by spam...
No, once a trade goes through, it's final. Unless the exchange rolls back the trade, that is.
What happened is the algorithm placed orders - either bids or asks - and then cancelled them. The deal with the stock market is just because you put in an order, doesn't meant it'll be fulfilled. You can put in a bid (request to buy) AAPL or GOOG for say, $1. Doesn't mean you'll get the stock the moment you put it in - you'll be waiting for a little while (and it'll probably be cancelled by your broker after a little while). Likewise, if you own the stock, you can put in an ask (request to sell) said stock too - perhaps you want to sell AAPL or GOOG for $1000. Again, doesn't mean you'll actually do it.
What happens is the trading computers maintain a sorted list of bids (highest to lowest) and a list of asks (lowest to highest). As orders come in, the computers add it to the list. If the bid is high enough, or the ask low enough, the trade happens and the stock price's "last trade" price is set to whatever it happened at (note - as part of the order, you can specify how many shares you want to buy or sell, and the computers can do partial trades). Note that what happens if you happen to have a bid that's higher than the lowest ask, or an ask lower than the highest bid usually results in a trade happening at whatever the bidder or seller wanted (so you can't sell say, AAPL or GOOG at $1 just to tank their stock temporarily). If you put in a low ask, you'll get more money than you expected. If you put in a high bid, you'll pay less than you expected.
Order cancellations happen all the time - perhaps you had a bid order and you no longer have confidence in the company - you can always cancel your existing bid order and it'll be removed from the trading computers.
Of course, if you're trying to shake the market up by putting in high bids and low asks - you can very well end up buying or selling the stock, at which point you're committed.
I can change my IP address to anything I want. Sure, if it's in use, there will be collisions and what not, but if I get lucky, it's unused. But from the standpoint of the argument, which IP address does my ISP think I have? The one I got via DHCP from their servers? Or the one I manually set (assume it's still one of the ISPs pool of numbers and I got lucky with one that was currently free). Also assume my MAC address is spoofed to BEEFCAKE or what have you.
Try that and it'll probably not work, especially on cable systems where the headend is the DHCP server. Sure your IP will be different if you use a different MAC (provided you're provisioned for multiple IPs or released the old one). However, once issued, that IP is allocated to your modem for the duration of the lease. If you try switching addresses, the headend won't bother forwarding packets (and probably drop the invalid packets you send).
DOCSIS modems often "lock" to the first available MAC address that shows up during startup, too (a powercycle lets you change your MAC), so they're not as transparent bridges as you think.
Parents should raise their children. Maybe if we did not make it free to have kids by picking up the tab for them the less responsible people would have less of them.
Great. Now explain Africa, where families are easily having 8-10 children each. Compare with say, Europe, or North America, where the average family is 2.6 kids.
Less responsible people will, by default, be less responsible - they'll just continue to pop out kids to satisfy primal urges. The responsible ones are the ones who use both a mix of birth control and self-control (and accidents still do happen, so short of mass vasectomies or hysterectomies...).
In fact, one of the reasons why poor families have more kids (even though it makes less sense - more mouths to feed and all) is because hvaing more kids mean having more people who can work the fields and make food and such.
(One could twist it into saying child labor laws cause poverty, too, since children aren't allowed to work to earn money without strict controls. Then again, these children will probably skip school to work, too.).
If you want a more radical solution - well, birth licenses. If you're not responsible enough, the government can prevent you from popping out kids you obviously cannot support. Oh wait, we have that too, it's called "One child policy" that doesn't seem to be working all that great ("little emperors", severely skewed male-female ratios, and an underground economy in abortions).
The responsible ones aren't the ones you need to care about. It's the irresponsible ones, and they'll continue to be irresponsible, government aid or no government aid. Oh, and the responsible ones will have to pay either way - think those kids the irresponsible ones are popping out will grow up to be upstanding citizens? Like spam, society will pay for someone's irresponsibility.
I doubt it. Our apple overlords will categorise this as 'Undesirable' as it allows their phone users to communicate in ways that they want, and not in ways that are overlord approved.
Given iOS has no APIs for making phone calls without involving the dialler or sending SMSes without invoking Messages, this app would have to be entirely self-contained. Effectively, it's a VoIP phone app that does SMS and MMS, just offering strong encryption.
And there are plenty of VoIP phone apps on iOS. As are private network "free" texting type apps. This is nothing special other than offering encryption.
So in the end, it's just another VoIP app, or "free texting" app, of which there are tons. Like say, Skype.
Well, Sandisk is probably the biggest competitor, for a few obvious reasons (no software required, but it also means no software to sync music).
But Android PMPs would be the biggest competitor. Not ones like Archos which are out there but generally low-quality, but Sony and Samsung have Android PMPs. The biggest drawback though, is that they run Gingerbread (they both have 2012 copyright dates too - imagine buying a brand new Android device and getting an outdated OS with no announcement if you're getting ICS (nevermind JB)).
These Androids will have full access to the Play store, so they're not using Appslib or other custom store crap.
Shortage of materials is really hard on direct to consumer retail. They have stock which they pay warehousing and interest on, so it usually costs more whcih consumers are are not buying at commercial quantities are willing to pay. OTOH, they expect for a retailer to have stock, so consumers get really annoyed and shop elsewhere.
Not to mention that this was also during the busy holiday season, to hard drives were going to sell no matter what as they got gobbled up as presents. Costco decided it would be better to serve the interests of its customers by rationing the quantity so more harried shoppers could get them than to simply let them go and replace the inventory with other stuff.
Customer service is an art - it can involve giving up immediate profit for longer term profit, as well as angering the few to please the many. PC stores often limited sales to "1 per customer per day unless buying a PC" so they'd have sufficient stock for their PC buyers (and builders - that one hard drive may allow them to sell a motherboard, CPU, graphics card, case, power supply, etc...).
It's a problem faced by toy stores every year - insufficient stock of the year's hottest new toy. And Apple has encountered rioting when the rules weren't followed (forcing them to enforce a world wide 2-per-customer-online-reservation system).
Got an in-demand item that's rapidly running out of stock? You could raise prices, let some scalper do it for you, or try to limit so more people have the opportunity to buy. The former is usually unattractive (especially if the price was announced beforehand) and can be seen as gouging. Scalpers aren't the kind of customers you want - the thought of profits would easily get them to outshove their way in any lineup - waiting in line a week before release is nothing compared to the profit of buying up the entire stock and selling it at grossly inflated prices (in other goods, good ROI). The latter isn't great for customers (there can be very legitimate reasons to buy more than 2).
Heck, black friday sales - scalpers are easily the ones who can wait all through wednesday night and thursday for buying some hugely discounted item and reselling (though fortunately for everyone, the items on heavy discount are typically stuff that are outdated).
Slashdot Mirror
Of which, NAND and NOR are the primitives - you can constract any gate (and thus truth table result) you want out of purely NAND or purely NOR gates.
Why you pick one over the other is down to limitations of CMOS - PMOS transistors have to be much larger than NMOS ones to be as fast. NAND puts the fast NMOS transistors in series giving you much faster switching than if the PMOS transistors were in series (as it would be in a NOR gate)
The answer to that is obvious - do nothing. If you don't know if you can take YouTube viewing data and use it to influence search results, then simply don't. That puts the data from YouTube in a different silo than the search data. Failure to do so means one privacy policy is breached which people will call out Google on and lower their trustworthiness. Which is fine - Google's got a lot of goodwill banked up.
Of course, it's not in Google's interest to do that.
Privacy policies outline the minimum protection to your data. There's no ceiling - you can say in your privacy policy that you'll sell my information to the highest bidder, but in actuality, decide no one wants the data and end up not sharing it or even deleting it, thus giving the user MORE privacy than the policy says. That's allowable.
Is voting for abortion being a jackass? Against? Voting for gay marriage? Against? Hell, in the US, I'm sure you can say the same about creationism (which what, 40% of the people believe in?). Unionize? Break the unions?
The secret ballot is actually one of the most important tools - because coercion is real and has been demonstrated. Hell, there is evidence for example, in voting to unionize. In places with secret ballots the rate of unionization is far lower than at places where the voting is open - not by a little bit, but by a lot (a lot of old style thuggery and bullying).
And yes, you'll find without a secret ballot a lot more vote buying. The population doesn't care about ACTA - so all pro-ACTA forces have to do is say "Vote yes and we'll pay you $10". If you're a "I don't care, but by doing this I get a free $10, I'm game!". And your vote tracability website offers perfect proof and a perfect list of people to send the money to. These people who would probably just ignored the vote to begin with have now got economic interest.
Open voting simply does not work at all - there have been way too many documented instances of coercion. It's why we have secret ballots to begin with.
Need one final example? Take our fine goverment representatives. On critical issues (e.g., budgets) the party "whips" will basically demand the members vote one way. Anyone who doesn't is reprimanded out from plum positions (getting kicked out of cabinet, tossed onto the backbenches, basically being ignored, etc). And you know it's an open vote when they can do things like "Republicans X, Y and Z voted against the motion while Democrats A, B and C voted for the motion".
Given it's the FBI, I'm guessing a LOT of people probably have the Amazon store installed as welll, which means the checkbox is checked. Or, don't underestimate the ability of people to check said checkbox if the web page tells them to.
All you need is a sufficiently motivated user and they'll become the most technically adept person around who can follow instructions. Why they can't do this during a tech support call confounds me, and it's probably more of a behavioral thing.
The attack is simple. The web page offers up some reason for the user to install the APK - either some popular app for free "Bad Piggies - Full No-Ads FREE!" or other app "APPS FOR FREE! DOWNLOAD!" that the user can be easily tricked into installing. Then they just tap the link, Android downloads it and they tap the APK in the download list to install it. Ignore the permission list (I want my free apps, dammit! Or my free porn! etc.) and boom, the virus is installed.
It's a variant of double-clicking attachments in emails. And yes, people are that stupid. it's relatively new for phones because well, people expect their phones to be phones and not computers - what harm could happen?
Replace dancing pigs with free porn, free apps, etc. and there's your infection vector. Oh, and the permission list for Android? That's just a minor speedbump. Heck, in ICS and later, the "install button" moved to the top so you don't have to move your eyes through the list of permissions to begin with (and many are collapsed).
Well, before, Google had a different privacy policy for every product. This resulted in your YouTube browsing habits not being able to be shared with your GMail history, Google homepage not being able to search your e-mail or possibly throwing up your email search results when you search, etc.
By unifying the privacy policy, Google made it easier to combine the data about you from many silos into one. Perhaps you were doing some Google searches about say, gay marriage. Now your YouTube ads for that next cat video can suggest gay marriage pastors. Or election ads about gay marriage.
Or perhaps you're trying to keep your online activities separate. Perhaps you enjoy downloading the latest music and movies, but keep that separated somehow from your other activities. Perhaps using another browser. Or perhaps another computer. Problem is, you use Google on both, and eventually Google links both your nefarious pirate ways with your real life ways, so the MPAA and RIAA can now positively identify you through Google. (Ask Jammie Thomas).
All the EU is doing is basically telling Google to put the data back in their individual silos and stop mising and churning it. Of course, law enforcement and IP lovers will be a lot less happy if they can't get at your user profile and prove that you are the person being accused through Google's profiling of your activities (the links are more tenuous when data is isolated. When they're combined, they're very powerful).
Of course, this also allows Google to aid in finding people who do bad things - they can link the searches to the youtube videos to the G+ postings and all that. Perhaps even to their facebook account and get a name/location/etc.
Oh yeah, trust me, it's not just advertisers/insurance people interested in your habits. And heck,one silo also means that false information can be rapidly corrected (yay!), alongside with notes on the false information in case you used it elsewhere, providing more linking data.
True. However, with Android, all it takes is a friend to show you how to get "cool appz for free!!!" by installing this that and the other thing and big list of apps for you. Stuff like APKTor (is that still around?).
True me, "paid apps for free" trumps "security". Think dancing pigs.
Of course, we had viruses before - I know one developer on PalmOS actually had a virus labelled after one of his products - a bug in his (legitimate) app actually destroyed a few Palms when it did an anti-piracy check.
You could argue that he was a passenger on his first attempt as well. After all, for the supersonic part, he really couldn't do much than sit on his hands.
It's actually a facinating look at human history - between rockets and missiles and the early space missions. How much should the human be involved (or even should they?). During the early days it was a serious question of just how much should the human be involved and what to do with bad inputs. With full modelling of feedback loops.
And yes, a lot of early arguments for humans in the loop boiled down to bravado and the like (being that the early astronauts came from test pilot track and such). Even if they didn't really do much other than look pretty during the part you wanted to test.
Not to understate his achievement of course (he is Chuck freakin' Yeager!), but this was during the age of early flight computers and autopilots and space exploration.
Well, the entire plane may not have broken the sound barrier, but in modern days, the sound barrier does pose lots of technical challenges for parts of the plane. Propellers are often speed limited to prevent the tips from going supersonic (and helicopters have it worse - thanks to the long rotors means it's only a mix of RPM and speed).
Breaking the sound barrier in an entire aircraft is news, but breaking the sound barrier itself isn't. Heck, crack a whip and you'll see it in action (it's where the crack comes from - little sonic boom).
And yes, airspeed indicators get increasingly inaccurate because they rely on pressure difference to measure speed. Go fast enough, and you get heating due to frictional effects with air, and the buffeting caused by approaching supersonic speeds also influences the pitot tube.
Altitude plays a key role too - speed of sound varies by height - it's slower in thinner air (it's why you really want a Machmeter as it compensates). Going supersonic at sealevel is extremely difficult, but it gets much easier at altitude.
Technically, he's not the first to do a supersonic jump. An earlier recorded event had a test pilot and his specialist violently ejected from their SR-71 when it broke up at Mach 3+.
Of course, it wasn't too high up (only 70k ft) but it was supersonic (just horizontally, instead of vertically). I would be surprised if a lot of what was learned came from that event.
1) Can get you an office with a door. If not, get a fan for your cube.
2) People will not want to book meetings with you in it. Especially long ones.
2a) People especially will not want to invite you to first-thing-in-the-morning meetings.
3) Check if your office has a set of showers. A lot of places have shower facilities for those who need to freshen up.
I suppose the worst part is well, he's the only one caught.
Remember when Sony shut down PSN? It wasn't because they detected a breach, but because they found a bunch of people getting free DLC. Yes, free DLC. Basically people were turning their retail PS3s into developer PS3s and accessing the developer PSN store, which gives free DLC for testing purposes.
After that, they discovered the breaches. But that was too late - who knew how long the data was accessible. This guy was stupid and bragged. The smart ones don't brag, but quietly make use of the data. Do it well enough and the logs would get wiped out as part of the natural rotation.
At least this guy basically told everyone that Sony was vulnerable.
The problem is, Joe Q. Public does not care. Slashdot? Reddit? They'd be lucky to know about those sites, even if their friends send them links constantly.
No, the only way to "blow it up" is to get your voice out there in the mainstream media. Write an op-ed in the papers. Possibly buy some advertising. Get the word out there that you exist.
On the day of the debate - run your own commentary - in real time, as the debate goes on. If you've done it right, people will be bringing your commentary up (especially said mainstream media) as well.
Trying to get that ABC affiliate to cave? Remember - never mess with the ones who own the press.because they'll always have the final say. You might get invited to the debate, but everytime you speak, they may have "technical" troubles or cut to advertising when it's your turn. Or just make it look like you're a wacko in the runup ads for the debate.
Or even worse, invite other fringe parties to your podium, calling it the "fringe party podium" during the debate - in the name of fairness, it's everyone who couldn't (note the word I used) pay for the position (even though it's because you refused the money).
I thought Oracle v. Google said APIs weren't copyrightable. As such, GPL-only APIs make no sense because the API can't be copyrighted to begin with.
Since the GPL requires copyright to work, and APIs are not copyrightable, there should be no such thing.
Can't really have it both ways - can't have GPL-only APIs here, and have Java APIs that are completely uncopyrightable Which is it - APIs are copyrightable (and thus can be GPL-enforcable), in which case Oracle was right, or APIs are not copyrightable (and GPL is not enforcable since copyright defaults don't exist), and Google/Android is right?
One of the thorny aspects of the Oracle v. Google.
While the ideal use-case would be to force graphics drivers to be open, the unintended side effect may be that drivers don't use the API, and instead reimplement their own versions if they need it, or just put up with lousier graphics performance, neither of which do any good for Linux (or Android). Or graphics moves into user space.
Webkit dominates the mobile web market already. Android uses webkit by default, as does iOS. And Blackberry's new browser is webkit based.
The only mobile OS to come with a non-webkit browser is Windows Phone.
Short of installing Firefox or Opera, webkit pretty much is the dominant browser engine. Maybe second after IE (if you combine Chrome+Safari since they use webkit internally).
Geez, who would've thought an Apple project would out-IE IE.
That's not an HTML5 problem. That's a web browser problem. If the web browsers aren't offering you enough controls to adjust how the HTML5 stuff works, find another. Or bug them to fix their Javascript speed and such.
The main reason HTML5 is better is you're not beholden to Adobe to fix Flash issues. Instead, between Chrome, IE, Firefox and Safari, either they will implement controls internally or offload it to plugins. Like how every browser can have popup blockers now, they can implement HTML5 object blockers as well.
Not law enforcement - they don't really care because if they need to, they can just ask and most registrars will just gladly hand it over. May take a warrant or so.
No, this would be for those who want that information but cannot obtain it like that - think the **AAs for that. Find a domain that if you follow this sort of path here through to this other site and this new host, eventually points to a 1 second sample of something that maybe possibly could be a piece of music - piracy! Just look up the contact information in WHOIS and sue them for copyright infringement!
No law enforcement needed - makes it all much easier and cheaper.
Plus think of who owns those pesky domains like "thepiratebay" or "wikileaks" - just have to make them do something that'll force them to turn over their domains...
Aviation is well known since the big busts in the 80s orcehstrated by fake FAA part tags and such. It was so bad it even got onto the presidential airplane (Air Force One, when he's on board).
The FAA went around a busted a bunch of dealers of counterfeit parts because it was such a huge problem that practically every commercial jet had at least one counterfeit. Even worse, they were documented as real so no one really knew (the counterfeiters were the ones profiting - the airlines and everyone else didn't know they were buying counterfeit parts).
When you consider a screw that costs 10 cents at Home Depot will probably cost $4-10 for aviation, the urge to counterfeit is very real. Even parts that are worn out or expired would get new coats of paint and resold as new.
Of course, if there's anything to show for it, is to show really how capitalistic the Chinese are - if there's a way to make a buck (scamming or otherwise), they'll do it. We've seen it happen through the many recalls - lead in toys and paint, melamine in milk (watered down - but melamine added to boost protein so hide watering down), etc. If there's a way to cut a corner, they'll find it.
Well, what happened was pretty scummy. After all, what happened was all of a sudden, an unconfirmed rumor popped up that OnLive was bankrupt. The official company line though was everything was fine. Then two weeks later everyone got the news that OnLive was taken over by OnLIve.
Effectively, the investors in the original OnLive could've gotten out (but instead lost it all), while the CEO and management, and half of the engineers got "transferred" to the new company and the rest were pretty much shown the door.
The execs losing their investment? Most likely not - it pwas probably written in that they got 100 cents on the dollar for their investments by the new OnLive. Everyone else, got screwed as usualy.
Hell, even the employees with no jobs were basically kicked out without severance, or the option to plead their case in bankruptcy court. The company effectively went bankrupt, fired everyone, got "bought out", management re-hired, and half the fired engineers re-hired.
It's basically a way to downsize without paying benefits and screwing over investors, while management walks away with nothing's changed. Probably a very creative loophole in the law.
Lots left, actually.
ZTE
Huawei
(they both are making inroads to the North American market). They both do Win8 and Android phones. Of course, they're also in bed with the Chinese government...
There are plenty of other providers as well, but many of those are simply OEM'd designs from ODMs like HTC.
Plenty more small providers as well, as well as industrial ones like Symbol. Or you can get an HP/Palm WebOS one used.
No, once a trade goes through, it's final. Unless the exchange rolls back the trade, that is.
What happened is the algorithm placed orders - either bids or asks - and then cancelled them. The deal with the stock market is just because you put in an order, doesn't meant it'll be fulfilled. You can put in a bid (request to buy) AAPL or GOOG for say, $1. Doesn't mean you'll get the stock the moment you put it in - you'll be waiting for a little while (and it'll probably be cancelled by your broker after a little while). Likewise, if you own the stock, you can put in an ask (request to sell) said stock too - perhaps you want to sell AAPL or GOOG for $1000. Again, doesn't mean you'll actually do it.
What happens is the trading computers maintain a sorted list of bids (highest to lowest) and a list of asks (lowest to highest). As orders come in, the computers add it to the list. If the bid is high enough, or the ask low enough, the trade happens and the stock price's "last trade" price is set to whatever it happened at (note - as part of the order, you can specify how many shares you want to buy or sell, and the computers can do partial trades). Note that what happens if you happen to have a bid that's higher than the lowest ask, or an ask lower than the highest bid usually results in a trade happening at whatever the bidder or seller wanted (so you can't sell say, AAPL or GOOG at $1 just to tank their stock temporarily). If you put in a low ask, you'll get more money than you expected. If you put in a high bid, you'll pay less than you expected.
Order cancellations happen all the time - perhaps you had a bid order and you no longer have confidence in the company - you can always cancel your existing bid order and it'll be removed from the trading computers.
Of course, if you're trying to shake the market up by putting in high bids and low asks - you can very well end up buying or selling the stock, at which point you're committed.
Try that and it'll probably not work, especially on cable systems where the headend is the DHCP server. Sure your IP will be different if you use a different MAC (provided you're provisioned for multiple IPs or released the old one). However, once issued, that IP is allocated to your modem for the duration of the lease. If you try switching addresses, the headend won't bother forwarding packets (and probably drop the invalid packets you send).
DOCSIS modems often "lock" to the first available MAC address that shows up during startup, too (a powercycle lets you change your MAC), so they're not as transparent bridges as you think.
Great. Now explain Africa, where families are easily having 8-10 children each. Compare with say, Europe, or North America, where the average family is 2.6 kids.
Less responsible people will, by default, be less responsible - they'll just continue to pop out kids to satisfy primal urges. The responsible ones are the ones who use both a mix of birth control and self-control (and accidents still do happen, so short of mass vasectomies or hysterectomies...).
In fact, one of the reasons why poor families have more kids (even though it makes less sense - more mouths to feed and all) is because hvaing more kids mean having more people who can work the fields and make food and such.
(One could twist it into saying child labor laws cause poverty, too, since children aren't allowed to work to earn money without strict controls. Then again, these children will probably skip school to work, too.).
If you want a more radical solution - well, birth licenses. If you're not responsible enough, the government can prevent you from popping out kids you obviously cannot support. Oh wait, we have that too, it's called "One child policy" that doesn't seem to be working all that great ("little emperors", severely skewed male-female ratios, and an underground economy in abortions).
The responsible ones aren't the ones you need to care about. It's the irresponsible ones, and they'll continue to be irresponsible, government aid or no government aid. Oh, and the responsible ones will have to pay either way - think those kids the irresponsible ones are popping out will grow up to be upstanding citizens? Like spam, society will pay for someone's irresponsibility.
Given iOS has no APIs for making phone calls without involving the dialler or sending SMSes without invoking Messages, this app would have to be entirely self-contained. Effectively, it's a VoIP phone app that does SMS and MMS, just offering strong encryption.
And there are plenty of VoIP phone apps on iOS. As are private network "free" texting type apps. This is nothing special other than offering encryption.
So in the end, it's just another VoIP app, or "free texting" app, of which there are tons. Like say, Skype.
Well, Sandisk is probably the biggest competitor, for a few obvious reasons (no software required, but it also means no software to sync music).
But Android PMPs would be the biggest competitor. Not ones like Archos which are out there but generally low-quality, but Sony and Samsung have Android PMPs. The biggest drawback though, is that they run Gingerbread (they both have 2012 copyright dates too - imagine buying a brand new Android device and getting an outdated OS with no announcement if you're getting ICS (nevermind JB)).
These Androids will have full access to the Play store, so they're not using Appslib or other custom store crap.
Not to mention that this was also during the busy holiday season, to hard drives were going to sell no matter what as they got gobbled up as presents. Costco decided it would be better to serve the interests of its customers by rationing the quantity so more harried shoppers could get them than to simply let them go and replace the inventory with other stuff.
Customer service is an art - it can involve giving up immediate profit for longer term profit, as well as angering the few to please the many. PC stores often limited sales to "1 per customer per day unless buying a PC" so they'd have sufficient stock for their PC buyers (and builders - that one hard drive may allow them to sell a motherboard, CPU, graphics card, case, power supply, etc...).
It's a problem faced by toy stores every year - insufficient stock of the year's hottest new toy. And Apple has encountered rioting when the rules weren't followed (forcing them to enforce a world wide 2-per-customer-online-reservation system).
Got an in-demand item that's rapidly running out of stock? You could raise prices, let some scalper do it for you, or try to limit so more people have the opportunity to buy. The former is usually unattractive (especially if the price was announced beforehand) and can be seen as gouging. Scalpers aren't the kind of customers you want - the thought of profits would easily get them to outshove their way in any lineup - waiting in line a week before release is nothing compared to the profit of buying up the entire stock and selling it at grossly inflated prices (in other goods, good ROI). The latter isn't great for customers (there can be very legitimate reasons to buy more than 2).
Heck, black friday sales - scalpers are easily the ones who can wait all through wednesday night and thursday for buying some hugely discounted item and reselling (though fortunately for everyone, the items on heavy discount are typically stuff that are outdated).