This has the stink of a marketing department on it. Does anyone know what the actual size is? I'm guessing it's closer to 19 nm than to 10 nm. Still an impressive achievement if it meets their claims.
Well, general random logic is at 22nm, and memory class devices are usually a half-node ahead, so 16-18nm would be the size. Size is less important for general logic as most transistors will be larger than minimum size as transistors aren't the limiting factor - wiring is. Most transistors are larger because there's plenty of space as the wiring is keeping the transistor density low. Enough such that designers often put in extra transistors and gates in a design to be able to allow for metal layer redesigns without affecting transistor level placement.
In memory units, minimum transistors are the storage elements, so the smaller they are, the more you can fit in. Plus, their extreme regularity means you want to minimize the cell size as much as possible.
General logic is sparse enough that in what a few hundred thousand transistors occupies for random logic may be occupied by millions for memory blocks.
Iceland's citizenry turned out by the thousands to protest their PM's refusal to resign after the Panama Papers revealed his corruption. The Kremlin on the other hand has already called the Panama Papers a CIA plot, (big surprise there). Hopefully, if the Panama Papers do reveal Putin used a shell to hide his money, Russia's citizens will not stand for it and force his hand. Let's hope other nation's citizens follow suit, including here in the U.S.
Well, I'm sure if the Kremlin continues to deny it, then the US can seize the money. After all, if it's not money Putin publicly cares about, it's free for the taking, right?
Ditto any other sum of money revealed that people are disavowing - if no one claims it, then it's free for the taking.
We've been promised the paperless revolution for like 20 years now. But paper has been around for thousands of years and isn't going anywhere soon. For example, there is a huge amount of ceremony around the president signing legislation on paper. Even the pens he uses become mementos. Judging from my office, paper isn't going anywhere very soon.
Actually, the paperless revolution was supposed to happen at least 30 years ago - the promise probably being made 40 years ago with the arrival of personal computers. (20 years ago was 1996).
The irony of the situation is that offices are consuming more paper than ever before - even more than before the promise of the paperless office.
Yes, we don't have inter office memos and such, but it's more than made up for by the fact people print out a lot of documentation and because it's often sent out electronically, instead of sharing one printed copy, everyone gets their own, so one document which may be displayed on a slide for everyone to read is suddenly printed 3-4 times.
That not enough sodium in your diet can be detrimental to one's health. And more importantly, not enough Iodine, depending on location, can be pretty bad also.
Bring on the Iodised salt!
Come on people, is it that complicated? everything in moderation, and a well rounded and balanced diet?
Of course, if they can invent a Chocolate fork... I suspect they will do well.
It's actually the case where the vast majority of people take in more than enough sodium for their daily needs by two to three times. Or exceeding the maximum daily limit by two to three times.
Yes, most people take in twice to three times as much sodium as they need, daily.
Even the person who seems to eat only kale, fruit, veggies and nuts and exercises all the time, end up taking in just over the daily amount of sodium required.
If you think you're sodium deficient, you're most likely not.
Now, the good news is that even at three times the daily maximum is unlikely to have severe health consequences unless you already have heart problems. Sodium is water soluble and as long as you drink enough water it should be expelled by the body, so excess sodium goes out like excess vitamin C.
I have no doubt that the FBI's public proclamation of successfully unlocking the San Bernardino and now this intentionally leaked memo are part of a concerted effort to embarrass Apple by discrediting their encryption and privacy technology. I mean when was the last time you heard of the government bragging about having the ability to hack phones? You would expect the opposite since they wouldn't want such capabilities known. In the end Apple will win because this entire episode will motivate them to double down on their stated encryption/privacy policies and work even harder to lock down the phone to prying eyes.
Embarrass? I think the FBI made Apple's case for them - you can ask a lot of people and they say law enforcement should get the tools they need to access the phones, probably a good majority of them. However, Apple made good points as well so they don't want to see it as a way to get into "everyone's" phone, just "bad guys".
It seems more of a save-face maneuver because the courts could rule either way (and you know it's going to go to the Supreme Court). And it's not like Apple wouldn't find out anyways - if those phones are used in active cases, the defense has the complete right to question how the information was acquired, including technical details.
Performance will take a hit as well. I put the fastest SD card I could find in my phone and ran a disk read/write speed test on internal storage and then on the SD card, and the internal came out 2-3x quicker
Not at all surprising, actually. eMMC is pretty poky at 30-40MB/sec throughput, even in "fast" 8-bit mode, but SD cards and controllers they put on them can be far worse - usually they don't really use the high speed modes so you end up with 10MB/sec speeds.
And internal memory speeds are increasing - UFS memory can get 120MB/sec, and PCIe memory (used on the latest iPhones) is pushing 250MB/sec.
Even the fastest SD cards UHS-1 Class 3 are about 40MB/sec writes and 100MB/sec reads, if they actually use those modes. But now you're looking at pricey memory cards.
If you were raped you call the fucking cops - not ask your phone what to do.
Are people that retarded?!
It's never that easy - part of it lies in the culture of victim blaming (and with the fact that SJWs are brought up every time women's issues like rape (yes, makes get raped too, and it's a huge issue at around 10% of reported rape cases) illustrating the point). Rape victims almost always think they are the reason they got raped, and not only that, in a good majority of the time, it's from people they know - family members (direct, indirect), friends, or acquaintances.
It's why there's a help line - because a lot of victims really don't know what to do, who to trust, etc. So to suggest calling a helpline gives victims a chance to get some counselling first to get the courage they need to actually make a police report.
The imbecilic comment about how someone else will be able to patent them due to "first to file" has been delayed.
While a competitor may be "first to file", given GSK would've patented it elsewhere earlier pretty much invalidates that patent - only in the US do you actually get a 1 year grace period from public display to file a patent - everywhere else the instant you display it publicly renders it invalid for patent protection.
It's why we have patent treaties and such to allow for multiple country patent applications (which backdate the patent to the original application date), but even then there's limited time
In the actual story, it is revealed that in fact, they did precisely this. Unfortunately, Apple's half-assed fingerprint reader configuration refuses to let you unlock it with a fingerprint after 48 hours. When someone dies, chances are, you're dealing with funeral arrangements for way longer than this, so the last thing you're going to be thinking about is unlocking the phone within 48 hours. Worse, you can't change the passcode with just a print. You need the original passcode. And iPhone devices randomly lock you out so that you have to have the passcode even if you just used it with a fingerprint an hour before.
So basically, this whole problem is because Apple's fingerprint scheme is wholly inadequate as an alternate form of authentication, with severe flaws in its design that effectively reduce it to a password-only schemeâ"both randomly (without warning) and after such a short period of time that it is basically guaranteed to fail at the sorts of times when you most need it to work.
That and the fact that Apple's cloud backup is fundamentally defective by design, refusing to perform backups unless the device is A. asleep and B. connected to Wi-Fi, which is likely to not happen if somebody is in a hospital. It isn't even a user-controllable option, so those of us with unlimited data can't even choose to allow the iOS device to back itself up over the cellular connection.
With that said, assuming the device has not yet been turned completely off, it should be possible to swipe up from the bottom, go to a location with a known (trusted) Wi-Fi connection, turn on Wi-Fi, and wait for a backup to happen automatically. If the device has been allowed to power itself down, there's basically nothing anyone can do to retrieve data from the device.
The fingerprint reader is not half-assed. The fingerprint is treated as less secure than a passcode, because fingerprints are easy to fake. Just take any article about fingerprint readers and how you can fake it with some gelatin and a laser printer.
You're thinking fingerprints are equivalent in security, when in reality they're not. That's why Apple requires a passcode because those are more secure. This isn't amateur security hour. Think of it - if Apple allowed unlimited fingerprint usage, then it's trivial for the government to unlock any phone at any time - they just need your fingerprint and one of the dozens of ways to bypass any fingerprint reader out there and they're in trivially easy. Which to mean screams "Inadequate" and if it worked that way and that FBI's phone was a 5S or higher? Then they wouldn't need Apple's help, because faking it out probably would've been cheaper.
So no, fingerprint readers are just to make it so you can lock your phone with a super secure passcode, yet given most people check their phones thousands of times a day, keep them from re-entering their passcode (which would lower security). On passcode only phones, it's around 10-20% of people actually set it - because it's an inconvenience to have to enter it every time. Apple's method lets you use a 6-digit PIN or complex passcode, and use the fingerprint reader to bypass it quickly, and yet be difficult enough that failure results in locking into passcode only mode (3 attempts, 48 hours, or reboot).
That's not half-assed, that's security engineering.
And Apple's cloud backup? All they had to do was bring the phone to a known WiFI network. Perhaps say, the one at home? You know, like what Apple suggested to the FBI - to bring it to the workplace and charge it there hoping it does an iCloud backup. (Alas, the FBI made sure to change the account password hours later...). All a phone needs to do to backup is be locked, on AC power and on a known WiFi network.
Then you can get a court order (because Apple won't release data without one) to get at the backed up photos. A relatively simple process.
Of course, I'm a bit cynical, so ever notice how this guy comes public just a week after the FBI abandons its case? Perhaps almost in an attempt to stop playing the "terror" angle and perhaps play the "loved one" angle? (The phone in question has been locked years ago...).
This, along with the insane costs, are why I never really batted much of an eye towards VR stuff even as it started to mature. After seeing facebook buy the rift, I knew exactly how it would end up.
Ditto. Then I discovered that these things combine the worst of two things that didn't succeed - Kinect and 3DTVs. I mean, people hated Kinect because it forced them off the couch, and it appears most VR games have you moving in a space, so you not only needed the space Kinect required, but you have to get off. Or you ended up doing what most players did an sat on th e couch gesturing. PS VR seems to do the latter and Vive requires a space as well.
Then the whole glasses thing is what killed 3DTVs, and yet people want to strap huge honking (and heavier than the glasses) headsets? Yes, the good ones are balanced, but still.
Frankly, I think it's going to be like the scene in Tomorrowland where that girl walks in the alternate universe and runs into walls and stuff.
Today, it's hard to tell what to believe. Given the nature of the day, and all... Hmm... Is RedHat doing that? I'll have to play with that one - if it's true. I'll go clicking the links tomorrow.:/
I will admit it is hard to tell - this year's/. april fool's tricks certainly are way better than any previous year's tricks...
The Bitcoin mining reward halves every four years, making it less profitable in the future. Nearly 75% of Bitcoins that will ever exist have already been mined. Saying that miners will collectively be spending 30x more on electricity to mine 1/4 the Bitcoins they earn now is ludicrous.
That's where the second phase of bitcoin kicks in - mining is required in order to lock down the block chain from modification. So miners are rewarded a certain rate for validating the blockchain - they're not mining new bitcoins, but they're being paid to keep the blockchain in order. A transaction fee, if you will. Because if the miners stop working, bitcoin is dead and the miners are the ones producing blockchain hashes that lock the blockchain history.
When I tried to cancel TiVo by phone, their CSR claimed he was only authorized to suspend accounts, not cancel.
Then you should've asked to be sent to retentions, who are authorized.
And sometimes, retentions is a good thing - especially for service related things like TiVo. It's been known if the hardware is older that retentions may offer a $99 lifetime service plan, so even if you don't ever plan on using it ever again, it increases the resale value from nothing to around $150 for the older units.
Apple has been letting all of their computer products go stale (they're almost all red and 'Don't Buy' on the buyer's guide http://buyersguide.macrumors.c... I've been waiting for a substantial macbook pro or even air upgrade for awhile now and even at the March announcements when I hoped for Skylake CPU upgrade announcements...nothing.
It seems to me that Apple's priorities are phones and tablets and that anything that isn't a phone or a tablet just doesn't have their focus at the moment. Maybe because we can get by on the very stale but still very usable hardware that we bought years ago without actually NEEDING a hardware refresh, or maybe phones and tablets just generate relatively more profit for them. I don't know.
Both, actually. Apple concentrates on the profit centers for obvious reasons - and lets stuff that doesn't make as much money go a bit staler. It's why iPhones get updated regularly, iPads less so (less tablets shipping, less profit, which is why the iPad Air 3 ("iPad Pro 9.7", but really, it's a 3rd gen Air) was only just now updated), iPods haven't been updated since forever. Macs at least get some updates, but you are correct in that they also aren't heavy movers, and really are "good enough" right now and I'm sure the general population also feels the same.
There is a direct correlation between update frequency and revenues...
Their QA department somehow missed that iOS 9.3 made it so that links broke in the mobile browser.
How do you miss that? How shoddy do your testing practices have to be to miss that you've broken LINKS?!
No, links were not broken. Certain apps broke it by being stupid about how it does things.
What happens is some apps allow deep linking - so you can browse in Safari and then have a link open in an app. Perhaps you're shopping on Amazon and if you have the Amazon app, it will allow you to view the link in the Amazon app instead of just opening the page. The deep link will tell the Amazon app to not show its normal front page, but to go directly what the user was looking at. So if you did a search for an item, it would open with the search results.
The problem was, you're supposed to list the URLs you allow, using wildcards if necessary. Some apps, like Booking.com, instead enumerated EVERY link on their website and told the OS to use that, rather than wildcard linking. So the file they presented to the OS was around 2.8MB of URLs.
The problem is when the OS URL handler started looking through, well, it was not supposed to be presented with lists of thousands of URLs, which caused it to crash.
So yeah, the links worked, just some apps broke it. So of course it would pass QA because it was only stupidly coded apps that broke. The affected apps have been removed.
I like the original content push - it seems NetFlix is more willing to be original and take some chances rather than create yet another "CSI" or "Law and Order" or just some stupid hospital based soap opera. Not all the original content is great but it's mostly pretty solid with some standouts. I hope they continue to embrace original content. The back catalog stuff is sometimes interesting but mostly stuff I've already seen, it's a dead end.
Correction - you like it for now.
Netflix is producing content you like because you're their target demographic.
There are in general three business models for TV - ads, subscribers, and taxes. Ads is easy - TV programming is created to sell ads. Subscribers - TV programming is created to sell subscriptions,. Taxes - the government or some other body collects a fee (or it comes from general revenue) and pays to create TV programming.
Ads is the business model of most OTA (PBS, BBC, CBC and other similar stations excepted) and cable channels. A TV program exists to sell ads. Neilson ratings are used to collect this data to which stations use to set ad rates (the ratings you see on programming are typically for the entire program - live+same day, live+3 days, live+7days. The ratings stations and networks pay Neilson for are the "commercial" variant - the ratings on just the commercials themselves minus TV programming. This is why a TV program's rating is unimportant - what's more important is how well it sells ads). Naturally, if this is your business model, you want as many eyeballs as possible, so you want the widest audience as possible, and you create programming that appeals to the lowest common denominator.
Subscribers cover not just subscription channels like HBO, services like Netflix and Hulu, but also cable channels to a minor extent. In this case, the goal is to attract paying subscribers. So the companies do extensive demographic studies on who their subscribers are, and who are the people they want to attract. (Cable channels with the advent or threat of a la carte means the proportion of subscription payments to ad payments decreases, so they then switch to attract more eyeballs and less subscribers.). Here the general goal is NOT to attract as many eyeballs, but to attract the right kind of eyeballs - the ones with money and who would pay for the content. Since you're currently enjoying Netflix original content, that means Netflix is targeting you so you'd keep paying your Netflix fees.
And taxes pay for stuff like CBC, BBC, part of PBS and the like. The benefit of this is that kind of programming is not subject to advertiser whims, so they often do a lot more in-depth or consumer affairs type programming where it doesn't matter that they piss off companies - since those companies ads don't pay for programming, pulling the ads does nothing.
Enjoy it at the moment - Netflix may decide later to produce less content you like in favor of other content to attract a larger group of subscribers (i.e., they'd rather lose you if they can get 100 more subscribers).
Logically, especially since it is well known that Apple has plenty of cash on-hand to buy things, Apple should buy the vulnerabililty, instead of expecting to get it for free from the Feds. How greedy do you think ordinary folks are willing to let Apple be, in such circumstances?
Well, you know how much iOS vulnerabilities go for? Bug bounties that are offered by Google, Microsoft and everyone else pale. $10K? peanuts. An iOS vulnerability sells for $1M. Yes, a million dollars. Hell, Android vulnerabilities go for $30K or less.
Shoot, they offered 3 prizes of $1M each to break iOS - only one was collected.
I suspect Apple will probably audit their code like they did after Heartbleed and found the "goto fail" bug.
It's still very much constitutional for a judge to issue a warrant to search my home given probable cause. Now if Apple hasn't made their walled garden, and done just about everything they could to stop people from jail breaking phone then I'd agree with you. But the way Apple has behaved in regards to their phone they try to play the game of Land Lord, and in that case this is no different than a land lord being issued a warrant to have the home searched of a murder suspect. Now if you're going to insist that it's "unconstitutional" you're going to need to quote chapter and verse with a given argument. Otherwise it's the same old "unconstitutional" claim whenever something is done that one side or the other doesn't like. It's unconstitutional to propose a constitutional amendment to the 14th amendment. It's unconstitutional for any law you don't like, and that's all this argument has ever been.
Apple did not get a warrant to build the software. A warrant demands information that exists. Apple got a warrant for information Apple had stored for the phone - i.e., iTunes purchase history, iCloud data, including backups, etc, which they complied with fully.
The FBI had the courts do an ex-parte (the affected party is not part of the proceedings, i.e., Apple's presence wasn't requested or required) ruling to use the All Writs Act to create a writ on Apple - Apple is to create the software.
That's the request - Apple must create the software. Apple was not part of the proceedings (they were not required to be, and probably didn't even know about it). All Apple got one day was a court order forcing them to create the software.
Yes, Apple had no say in this - they feds came knocking and said "create this piece of software". Apple objected, and per their rights, sought a motion to vacate the order. And that's where this whole case blew up - Apple was ordered to create the software, Apple didn't want to, and was exercising their legal rights. Now what happened was the FBI withdrew their request that Apple create the software.
Using your example, say the murderer used some special kind of lock that is unpickable. They have a warrant to search the premises but can't get through the lock. So what the FBI did was use the courts to force the lock maker to create a key for them - the lock maker was not a part of the court case, it just got the request that said "you must create a key to unlock this lock".
The GPL removes no freedom at all. It only doesn't grant it. That means, if you really want to distribute closed source software based on GPL, you only need the permission of the copyright holders. The GPL does grant freedoms, the only freedoms it doesn't grant is the freedom to remove freedom. This isn't granted by states either (you may not imprison people, but the state can).
GPL does remove freedoms, though.
Take a piece of code under (modified 2 clause - assumed since 3-clause is incompatible) BSD. It gets incorporated under GPL (fine, that's why the authors picked BSD). Now, however, a patch is made to that code, which is GPL'd. That patch cannot be incorporated back into the upstream project because it's GPL'd which conflicts with the original project's BSD license.
It's not a hypothetical - it has happened before. GPL advocates say GPL protects against "code theft" by proprietary licenses "stealing" BSD code, when the GPL does exactly the same thing. Except instead of locking it away in a closed box, the GPL parades it around, proud it has taken BSD code and locked it up as if it was a proprietary license.
That's probably the most insulting part of GPL - the claim BSD allows locking up "with proprietary licenses" when in reality, the GPL does the same. SO yes, the GPL has removed freedoms from the code that was formerly BSD licensed.
I've never understood why legal banter always has to use the numeral and then toss the word in brackets beside it. Are they implying that I need to multiply the number by itself? "I hereby declare that I give 3 (three) fucks" so are you saying you give me 3 fucks? Or are you saying you give me 3(3) = 9 fucks? Please elaborate.
Clarity. Let's say the thing said "I give you 3 fucks". Now, due to a printing error, it looks like it reads "I give you 8 fucks" (or 6, or 9 which could also be plausible). Well crap, that's not how it was supposed to be. So they write "I give you 3 (three) fucks" which means legally, if a printing error occurs, the courts will look at it and use the written word over the numeral, seeing as the written number is the actual intent, the numeral could be in error. (This is why you write the value out in cheques as well - if there is a discrepancy, the written word is used over the numbers).
The reason for giving the numeral is it's more natural and it makes it easier to read. I mean, "I give you 58,008 foos" is easier to read than "I give you fifty-eight thousand eight foos". Most people will puzzle over that for several seconds trying to parse the number. So it's written "I give you 58,008 (fifty eight thousand eight) foos".
Honestly, I'd give up refunds if I could pay US prices for games. I'm a little worried that this will now give publishers a legitimate reason to charge Aussies more.
Uh, it's already WHY publishers charge more! It's why even physical goods sold in Australia cost more.
I mean, people love to complain about EU and AU pricing, but often it isn't as extortionate as it seems - sure that Apple MacBook costs $300 more, but that's because you're forced to buy the extended warranty. 2-3 year coverage, so they build the cost of the extra warranty into the price. Or more. It's just in the US, the minimum warranty is 90 days, but plenty of people will sell you extended warranties for more money to bring it to 2-3 years.
Yes, and companies like Apple were caught out trying to double-dip.
The part that I can't figure out is how the collections agency goes along with the valuation of the debt that they buy. You own a video store, and of course, you need some way to motivate people to return the movies (and rewind them, too, if you can remember that far back). So you charge a late fee, which motivates most people, but to further motivate them you have some insane rental agreement language that turns a $2 late fee into a $100 late fee if its not paid in 10 days or some other arbitrary period.
OK, maybe it's a legitimate contract, but really? The video store didn't incur anything like $100 in losses due to the unpaid late fee, at worst they were out the $2 or $5 or whatever the original rental fee was because somebody had the video an extra day and they couldn't generate another rental fee for renting out "Free Willy IV: Rocky vs. The Killer Whale" which never would sit unrented on the shelf anyway.
Well, the late fee is to encourage people to return it, because while it's late, you're not making any money on it. You rent it for a weekend for $5, with the intent to have it returned by opening of business on Monday so the store can have it on the shelf ready to rent Monday evening and making another few dollars again. That's why late fees are cumulative - it'll be $5 a day because while you have it, the store isn't able to make money by renting it other customers. So it has to be punitive.
After some arbitrary length of time, say a week to 10 days, it's written off - the store assumes you're not going to return it for whatever reason, and they need to acquire a new copy. Back then, VHS copies of movies for rent cost easily $50-100 (even though they could be bought for private viewing for $20-30). So the fee increases to reflect the fact that the copy is lost and it has to be written off - either a new copy acquired, or just gone.
And yes, the video rental business was all about opportunity. You might think "it's only a day" but if the movie was late in, and someone wanted it, then the rental fee was lost. And for older titles, they often only had the one copy, so a late return could very well mean loss of business for that rental.
Things have changed with Netflix - the Netflix queue was used to keep you with movies you wanted to watch (but with no particular order or must see immediately), rental discs don't cost 3-5x as much as retail discs, and if you really wanted to see that chick flick for your date, you bring up Netflix and stream it.
But in the past, you needed to keep tapes cycling through and being predictable was key - if a movie someone wanted to rent was out, you could look it up and see it was to be returned in a couple of days so they could borrow it then. But if it was late, you've just made the customer make a useless trip. And sometimes, they really did want it the day it was back - if it was late, the customer wouldn't need it anymore (perhaps for a party or other time-sensitive reason).
So how much, pray tell, would be an acceptable amount for Apple to charge Developers for hosting, payment acceptance, cataloging, and providing a storefront where ALL users of your target platform WILL (have) to come to for your Appy-App-Appness?
Don't forget ongoing maintenance.
Because there are plenty of developers who balked at Google's 30% cut, set up their own e-commerce server by installing Ubuntu on some VM hosting account and that's it, using Paypal or even their own processor.
And then you get stuff like heartbleed (there are STILL VULNERABLE SERVERS out there...) shellshock, SQL injections, wordpress bugs, and all sorts of other problems, because the app developer just set it up let it go and it's been running like that unpatched for years.
So yeah, letting apple take 30% to do the "un-fun" stuff of keeping the site secure, payment information secure, everything up to date, site online, hosting, e-commerce, etc? (And to be honest, if you're an app developer, you're probably not well versed enough in website security, e-commerce, etc., nevermind keeping personal information safe).
Oh yeah, and letting users redownload your app at will.
And technical support - if people have problems paying for your app, they call Apple, I'm sure you, Mr. App Developer, would rather work on your app than spend 3 hours daily telling people how to enter their credit card numbers on the form. (And I think it's even phone support, available 24/7).
It's interesting to see such a large company letting a bug like this slip by, especially in an operating system. You would think even with an Agile "ship it broken, we'll patch later" mentality, they would have armies of QA people and automated scripts banging away at every corner of the OS. Something like "clicking on any link in our bundled browser with JavaScript turned on crashes the application" seems to me like a showstopper bug.
No, it's because of the way the OS works with apps (which are sandboxed).
Basically when you install an app, it can register URLs so you can deep link into the app. So for example, you could have a Google search app, and if you did your search using Safari and Google, you could click a link to pass the view to the Google Search app directly which would take you to the results page immediately of the app, as if you use the app the whole time.
There are other examples, like being able to enter an artists' name and being able to see all the songs by the artist for sale in the iTunes store, or the ability to repeat the search for songs you own by that artist, again by the Music app.
The problem is, while the system supports wildcards, apps like Booking.com decided to enumerate every single URL in a huge 2.8MB table. End result is when searching for a handler for the URL, the OS dispatching the URL crashes because it was created with the assumption that the URL table would be fairly small (maybe a few hundred entries). Not thousands or tens or thousands of entries.
While to me, at first it seems like understanding the causation will follow pretty quickly - after all, this is energy stored in the ocean, so it's going to want to shed it somewhere, who knows for certain? A good use of research dollars.
Actually, ocean heat is generally released by hurricanes, tropical storms and cyclones. They're basically all natural heat engines, which given the amount of heat energy the ocean can store is the reason why the storms can be quite powerful. It's why they continue to grow until they either hit a patch of colder water, or hit land - once removed from the ocean heat (and humidity), they die off pretty quickly.
But they do cool the oceans off pretty dramatically. Something like Sandy caused 3-4C temperature reduction.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, general random logic is at 22nm, and memory class devices are usually a half-node ahead, so 16-18nm would be the size. Size is less important for general logic as most transistors will be larger than minimum size as transistors aren't the limiting factor - wiring is. Most transistors are larger because there's plenty of space as the wiring is keeping the transistor density low. Enough such that designers often put in extra transistors and gates in a design to be able to allow for metal layer redesigns without affecting transistor level placement.
In memory units, minimum transistors are the storage elements, so the smaller they are, the more you can fit in. Plus, their extreme regularity means you want to minimize the cell size as much as possible.
General logic is sparse enough that in what a few hundred thousand transistors occupies for random logic may be occupied by millions for memory blocks.
Well, I'm sure if the Kremlin continues to deny it, then the US can seize the money. After all, if it's not money Putin publicly cares about, it's free for the taking, right?
Ditto any other sum of money revealed that people are disavowing - if no one claims it, then it's free for the taking.
Actually, the paperless revolution was supposed to happen at least 30 years ago - the promise probably being made 40 years ago with the arrival of personal computers. (20 years ago was 1996).
The irony of the situation is that offices are consuming more paper than ever before - even more than before the promise of the paperless office.
Yes, we don't have inter office memos and such, but it's more than made up for by the fact people print out a lot of documentation and because it's often sent out electronically, instead of sharing one printed copy, everyone gets their own, so one document which may be displayed on a slide for everyone to read is suddenly printed 3-4 times.
It's actually the case where the vast majority of people take in more than enough sodium for their daily needs by two to three times. Or exceeding the maximum daily limit by two to three times.
Yes, most people take in twice to three times as much sodium as they need, daily.
Even the person who seems to eat only kale, fruit, veggies and nuts and exercises all the time, end up taking in just over the daily amount of sodium required.
If you think you're sodium deficient, you're most likely not.
Now, the good news is that even at three times the daily maximum is unlikely to have severe health consequences unless you already have heart problems. Sodium is water soluble and as long as you drink enough water it should be expelled by the body, so excess sodium goes out like excess vitamin C.
Embarrass? I think the FBI made Apple's case for them - you can ask a lot of people and they say law enforcement should get the tools they need to access the phones, probably a good majority of them. However, Apple made good points as well so they don't want to see it as a way to get into "everyone's" phone, just "bad guys".
It seems more of a save-face maneuver because the courts could rule either way (and you know it's going to go to the Supreme Court). And it's not like Apple wouldn't find out anyways - if those phones are used in active cases, the defense has the complete right to question how the information was acquired, including technical details.
Not at all surprising, actually. eMMC is pretty poky at 30-40MB/sec throughput, even in "fast" 8-bit mode, but SD cards and controllers they put on them can be far worse - usually they don't really use the high speed modes so you end up with 10MB/sec speeds.
And internal memory speeds are increasing - UFS memory can get 120MB/sec, and PCIe memory (used on the latest iPhones) is pushing 250MB/sec.
Even the fastest SD cards UHS-1 Class 3 are about 40MB/sec writes and 100MB/sec reads, if they actually use those modes. But now you're looking at pricey memory cards.
It's never that easy - part of it lies in the culture of victim blaming (and with the fact that SJWs are brought up every time women's issues like rape (yes, makes get raped too, and it's a huge issue at around 10% of reported rape cases) illustrating the point). Rape victims almost always think they are the reason they got raped, and not only that, in a good majority of the time, it's from people they know - family members (direct, indirect), friends, or acquaintances.
It's why there's a help line - because a lot of victims really don't know what to do, who to trust, etc. So to suggest calling a helpline gives victims a chance to get some counselling first to get the courage they need to actually make a police report.
While a competitor may be "first to file", given GSK would've patented it elsewhere earlier pretty much invalidates that patent - only in the US do you actually get a 1 year grace period from public display to file a patent - everywhere else the instant you display it publicly renders it invalid for patent protection.
It's why we have patent treaties and such to allow for multiple country patent applications (which backdate the patent to the original application date), but even then there's limited time
The fingerprint reader is not half-assed. The fingerprint is treated as less secure than a passcode, because fingerprints are easy to fake. Just take any article about fingerprint readers and how you can fake it with some gelatin and a laser printer.
You're thinking fingerprints are equivalent in security, when in reality they're not. That's why Apple requires a passcode because those are more secure. This isn't amateur security hour. Think of it - if Apple allowed unlimited fingerprint usage, then it's trivial for the government to unlock any phone at any time - they just need your fingerprint and one of the dozens of ways to bypass any fingerprint reader out there and they're in trivially easy. Which to mean screams "Inadequate" and if it worked that way and that FBI's phone was a 5S or higher? Then they wouldn't need Apple's help, because faking it out probably would've been cheaper.
So no, fingerprint readers are just to make it so you can lock your phone with a super secure passcode, yet given most people check their phones thousands of times a day, keep them from re-entering their passcode (which would lower security). On passcode only phones, it's around 10-20% of people actually set it - because it's an inconvenience to have to enter it every time. Apple's method lets you use a 6-digit PIN or complex passcode, and use the fingerprint reader to bypass it quickly, and yet be difficult enough that failure results in locking into passcode only mode (3 attempts, 48 hours, or reboot).
That's not half-assed, that's security engineering.
And Apple's cloud backup? All they had to do was bring the phone to a known WiFI network. Perhaps say, the one at home? You know, like what Apple suggested to the FBI - to bring it to the workplace and charge it there hoping it does an iCloud backup. (Alas, the FBI made sure to change the account password hours later...). All a phone needs to do to backup is be locked, on AC power and on a known WiFi network.
Then you can get a court order (because Apple won't release data without one) to get at the backed up photos. A relatively simple process.
Of course, I'm a bit cynical, so ever notice how this guy comes public just a week after the FBI abandons its case? Perhaps almost in an attempt to stop playing the "terror" angle and perhaps play the "loved one" angle? (The phone in question has been locked years ago...).
Ditto. Then I discovered that these things combine the worst of two things that didn't succeed - Kinect and 3DTVs. I mean, people hated Kinect because it forced them off the couch, and it appears most VR games have you moving in a space, so you not only needed the space Kinect required, but you have to get off. Or you ended up doing what most players did an sat on th e couch gesturing. PS VR seems to do the latter and Vive requires a space as well.
Then the whole glasses thing is what killed 3DTVs, and yet people want to strap huge honking (and heavier than the glasses) headsets? Yes, the good ones are balanced, but still.
Frankly, I think it's going to be like the scene in Tomorrowland where that girl walks in the alternate universe and runs into walls and stuff.
I will admit it is hard to tell - this year's /. april fool's tricks certainly are way better than any previous year's tricks...
That's where the second phase of bitcoin kicks in - mining is required in order to lock down the block chain from modification. So miners are rewarded a certain rate for validating the blockchain - they're not mining new bitcoins, but they're being paid to keep the blockchain in order. A transaction fee, if you will. Because if the miners stop working, bitcoin is dead and the miners are the ones producing blockchain hashes that lock the blockchain history.
Then you should've asked to be sent to retentions, who are authorized.
And sometimes, retentions is a good thing - especially for service related things like TiVo. It's been known if the hardware is older that retentions may offer a $99 lifetime service plan, so even if you don't ever plan on using it ever again, it increases the resale value from nothing to around $150 for the older units.
Both, actually. Apple concentrates on the profit centers for obvious reasons - and lets stuff that doesn't make as much money go a bit staler. It's why iPhones get updated regularly, iPads less so (less tablets shipping, less profit, which is why the iPad Air 3 ("iPad Pro 9.7", but really, it's a 3rd gen Air) was only just now updated), iPods haven't been updated since forever. Macs at least get some updates, but you are correct in that they also aren't heavy movers, and really are "good enough" right now and I'm sure the general population also feels the same.
There is a direct correlation between update frequency and revenues...
No, links were not broken. Certain apps broke it by being stupid about how it does things.
What happens is some apps allow deep linking - so you can browse in Safari and then have a link open in an app. Perhaps you're shopping on Amazon and if you have the Amazon app, it will allow you to view the link in the Amazon app instead of just opening the page. The deep link will tell the Amazon app to not show its normal front page, but to go directly what the user was looking at. So if you did a search for an item, it would open with the search results.
The problem was, you're supposed to list the URLs you allow, using wildcards if necessary. Some apps, like Booking.com, instead enumerated EVERY link on their website and told the OS to use that, rather than wildcard linking. So the file they presented to the OS was around 2.8MB of URLs.
The problem is when the OS URL handler started looking through, well, it was not supposed to be presented with lists of thousands of URLs, which caused it to crash.
So yeah, the links worked, just some apps broke it. So of course it would pass QA because it was only stupidly coded apps that broke. The affected apps have been removed.
Correction - you like it for now.
Netflix is producing content you like because you're their target demographic.
There are in general three business models for TV - ads, subscribers, and taxes. Ads is easy - TV programming is created to sell ads. Subscribers - TV programming is created to sell subscriptions,. Taxes - the government or some other body collects a fee (or it comes from general revenue) and pays to create TV programming.
Ads is the business model of most OTA (PBS, BBC, CBC and other similar stations excepted) and cable channels. A TV program exists to sell ads. Neilson ratings are used to collect this data to which stations use to set ad rates (the ratings you see on programming are typically for the entire program - live+same day, live+3 days, live+7days. The ratings stations and networks pay Neilson for are the "commercial" variant - the ratings on just the commercials themselves minus TV programming. This is why a TV program's rating is unimportant - what's more important is how well it sells ads). Naturally, if this is your business model, you want as many eyeballs as possible, so you want the widest audience as possible, and you create programming that appeals to the lowest common denominator.
Subscribers cover not just subscription channels like HBO, services like Netflix and Hulu, but also cable channels to a minor extent. In this case, the goal is to attract paying subscribers. So the companies do extensive demographic studies on who their subscribers are, and who are the people they want to attract. (Cable channels with the advent or threat of a la carte means the proportion of subscription payments to ad payments decreases, so they then switch to attract more eyeballs and less subscribers.). Here the general goal is NOT to attract as many eyeballs, but to attract the right kind of eyeballs - the ones with money and who would pay for the content. Since you're currently enjoying Netflix original content, that means Netflix is targeting you so you'd keep paying your Netflix fees.
And taxes pay for stuff like CBC, BBC, part of PBS and the like. The benefit of this is that kind of programming is not subject to advertiser whims, so they often do a lot more in-depth or consumer affairs type programming where it doesn't matter that they piss off companies - since those companies ads don't pay for programming, pulling the ads does nothing.
Enjoy it at the moment - Netflix may decide later to produce less content you like in favor of other content to attract a larger group of subscribers (i.e., they'd rather lose you if they can get 100 more subscribers).
Well, you know how much iOS vulnerabilities go for? Bug bounties that are offered by Google, Microsoft and everyone else pale. $10K? peanuts. An iOS vulnerability sells for $1M. Yes, a million dollars. Hell, Android vulnerabilities go for $30K or less.
Shoot, they offered 3 prizes of $1M each to break iOS - only one was collected.
I suspect Apple will probably audit their code like they did after Heartbleed and found the "goto fail" bug.
Apple did not get a warrant to build the software. A warrant demands information that exists. Apple got a warrant for information Apple had stored for the phone - i.e., iTunes purchase history, iCloud data, including backups, etc, which they complied with fully.
The FBI had the courts do an ex-parte (the affected party is not part of the proceedings, i.e., Apple's presence wasn't requested or required) ruling to use the All Writs Act to create a writ on Apple - Apple is to create the software.
That's the request - Apple must create the software. Apple was not part of the proceedings (they were not required to be, and probably didn't even know about it). All Apple got one day was a court order forcing them to create the software.
Yes, Apple had no say in this - they feds came knocking and said "create this piece of software". Apple objected, and per their rights, sought a motion to vacate the order. And that's where this whole case blew up - Apple was ordered to create the software, Apple didn't want to, and was exercising their legal rights. Now what happened was the FBI withdrew their request that Apple create the software.
Using your example, say the murderer used some special kind of lock that is unpickable. They have a warrant to search the premises but can't get through the lock. So what the FBI did was use the courts to force the lock maker to create a key for them - the lock maker was not a part of the court case, it just got the request that said "you must create a key to unlock this lock".
GPL does remove freedoms, though.
Take a piece of code under (modified 2 clause - assumed since 3-clause is incompatible) BSD. It gets incorporated under GPL (fine, that's why the authors picked BSD). Now, however, a patch is made to that code, which is GPL'd. That patch cannot be incorporated back into the upstream project because it's GPL'd which conflicts with the original project's BSD license.
It's not a hypothetical - it has happened before. GPL advocates say GPL protects against "code theft" by proprietary licenses "stealing" BSD code, when the GPL does exactly the same thing. Except instead of locking it away in a closed box, the GPL parades it around, proud it has taken BSD code and locked it up as if it was a proprietary license.
That's probably the most insulting part of GPL - the claim BSD allows locking up "with proprietary licenses" when in reality, the GPL does the same. SO yes, the GPL has removed freedoms from the code that was formerly BSD licensed.
Clarity. Let's say the thing said "I give you 3 fucks". Now, due to a printing error, it looks like it reads "I give you 8 fucks" (or 6, or 9 which could also be plausible). Well crap, that's not how it was supposed to be. So they write "I give you 3 (three) fucks" which means legally, if a printing error occurs, the courts will look at it and use the written word over the numeral, seeing as the written number is the actual intent, the numeral could be in error. (This is why you write the value out in cheques as well - if there is a discrepancy, the written word is used over the numbers).
The reason for giving the numeral is it's more natural and it makes it easier to read. I mean, "I give you 58,008 foos" is easier to read than "I give you fifty-eight thousand eight foos". Most people will puzzle over that for several seconds trying to parse the number. So it's written "I give you 58,008 (fifty eight thousand eight) foos".
Uh, it's already WHY publishers charge more! It's why even physical goods sold in Australia cost more.
I mean, people love to complain about EU and AU pricing, but often it isn't as extortionate as it seems - sure that Apple MacBook costs $300 more, but that's because you're forced to buy the extended warranty. 2-3 year coverage, so they build the cost of the extra warranty into the price. Or more. It's just in the US, the minimum warranty is 90 days, but plenty of people will sell you extended warranties for more money to bring it to 2-3 years.
Yes, and companies like Apple were caught out trying to double-dip.
Well, the late fee is to encourage people to return it, because while it's late, you're not making any money on it. You rent it for a weekend for $5, with the intent to have it returned by opening of business on Monday so the store can have it on the shelf ready to rent Monday evening and making another few dollars again. That's why late fees are cumulative - it'll be $5 a day because while you have it, the store isn't able to make money by renting it other customers. So it has to be punitive.
After some arbitrary length of time, say a week to 10 days, it's written off - the store assumes you're not going to return it for whatever reason, and they need to acquire a new copy. Back then, VHS copies of movies for rent cost easily $50-100 (even though they could be bought for private viewing for $20-30). So the fee increases to reflect the fact that the copy is lost and it has to be written off - either a new copy acquired, or just gone.
And yes, the video rental business was all about opportunity. You might think "it's only a day" but if the movie was late in, and someone wanted it, then the rental fee was lost. And for older titles, they often only had the one copy, so a late return could very well mean loss of business for that rental.
Things have changed with Netflix - the Netflix queue was used to keep you with movies you wanted to watch (but with no particular order or must see immediately), rental discs don't cost 3-5x as much as retail discs, and if you really wanted to see that chick flick for your date, you bring up Netflix and stream it.
But in the past, you needed to keep tapes cycling through and being predictable was key - if a movie someone wanted to rent was out, you could look it up and see it was to be returned in a couple of days so they could borrow it then. But if it was late, you've just made the customer make a useless trip. And sometimes, they really did want it the day it was back - if it was late, the customer wouldn't need it anymore (perhaps for a party or other time-sensitive reason).
Don't forget ongoing maintenance.
Because there are plenty of developers who balked at Google's 30% cut, set up their own e-commerce server by installing Ubuntu on some VM hosting account and that's it, using Paypal or even their own processor.
And then you get stuff like heartbleed (there are STILL VULNERABLE SERVERS out there...) shellshock, SQL injections, wordpress bugs, and all sorts of other problems, because the app developer just set it up let it go and it's been running like that unpatched for years.
So yeah, letting apple take 30% to do the "un-fun" stuff of keeping the site secure, payment information secure, everything up to date, site online, hosting, e-commerce, etc? (And to be honest, if you're an app developer, you're probably not well versed enough in website security, e-commerce, etc., nevermind keeping personal information safe).
Oh yeah, and letting users redownload your app at will.
And technical support - if people have problems paying for your app, they call Apple, I'm sure you, Mr. App Developer, would rather work on your app than spend 3 hours daily telling people how to enter their credit card numbers on the form. (And I think it's even phone support, available 24/7).
No, it's because of the way the OS works with apps (which are sandboxed).
Basically when you install an app, it can register URLs so you can deep link into the app. So for example, you could have a Google search app, and if you did your search using Safari and Google, you could click a link to pass the view to the Google Search app directly which would take you to the results page immediately of the app, as if you use the app the whole time.
There are other examples, like being able to enter an artists' name and being able to see all the songs by the artist for sale in the iTunes store, or the ability to repeat the search for songs you own by that artist, again by the Music app.
The problem is, while the system supports wildcards, apps like Booking.com decided to enumerate every single URL in a huge 2.8MB table. End result is when searching for a handler for the URL, the OS dispatching the URL crashes because it was created with the assumption that the URL table would be fairly small (maybe a few hundred entries). Not thousands or tens or thousands of entries.
Actually, ocean heat is generally released by hurricanes, tropical storms and cyclones. They're basically all natural heat engines, which given the amount of heat energy the ocean can store is the reason why the storms can be quite powerful. It's why they continue to grow until they either hit a patch of colder water, or hit land - once removed from the ocean heat (and humidity), they die off pretty quickly.
But they do cool the oceans off pretty dramatically. Something like Sandy caused 3-4C temperature reduction.