I'm kind of curious -- now that the App Store is ramping up with useful stuff (there are, for example, at least two SSH apps posted now, with more to come), what's the compelling reason to jailbreak? Is it just tethering?
And I don't get what "attorney-client privilege" has to do with MobileMe... surely a law firm would run something like Exchange and use the iPhone's ActiveSync support, or alternately, Lotus Notes with the upcoming Notes client for the iPhone? It's not as if Apple's model suggests that enterprise business customers would use MobileMe.
A little offtopic but I don't understand why people say there is no explicit "right to privacy" in American law. I wonder if this was a talking point invented for some political reason at one point that filtered out into the mass consciousness somehow.
Anyway, Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The word "privacy" is not used but this is a right to privacy in a large sense, isn't it? That the government can't search you, can't search your house, can't go through your papers, without a warrant?
This particular case is more of a civil action since the government didn't do it, but I find it a little unreasonable to say there is "no" right to privacy or that the Supreme Court "created" all our privacy rights, when there is clearly at least some privacy explicitly written in the Constitution.
Nonsense, this is not a manned program. He needs to read up on early rocket development, like the launch history of the V2 which failed over and over again, as a reminder that this stuff is hard and error is part of the process.
The problem I have with looking at a series of accidents and claiming the result of those accidents to be unlikely is that you're not evaluating the possibility that any number of alternate series of accidents could lead to the same result. By (simplistic) analogy this is like looking at a series of 6-sided die rolls like 2,2,5,3,1, noticing that they sum to 13, and claiming that the odds of this result were 7776 to 1 against -- that's only the odds of that particular ordering, not the odds that the rolls would sum to 13.
For #2, we need a better roster of Earth-like planets, which is only starting to come in.
I don't necessarily dispute the reasoning behind your claim, but it's mighty unscientific of you to make a blanket assertion with no evidence. How do you know what the odds are that intelligent life would form? We don't have any experimental evidence beyond the absence of radio transmissions.
No, US Dollars are backed by (some) gold and (mostly) US Treasury bonds held by the Federal Reserve. US Treasury bonds are backed by the federal government, which has met its obligations to its creditors consistently for a long time through its unlimited power of taxation over the entire US economy.
Well, I guess, but we've really swallowed the cow already. Our best available science predicts dire consequences from current and future CO2 levels, so it's reasonable to look for potential fixes that may have other consequences that will need to be studied carefully.
It's certainly good to address the problem at its cause, by releasing less CO2 in the first place, but there are practical limits to reductions and many methods used to reduce CO2 will have their own side effects. Even wind/solar would have SOME negative effects, some of which would likely be unanticipated.
It's incorrect to say that Apple's upward trend occurred after the Intel migration; in fact their market share was rising for a while before that. The Intel migration probably helped, but the iPod may have had more to do with it.
Don't forget the "Personal Responsibility" message, in that the humans eventually have to stand up to the efficient, automatic government computer that takes care of everything for them.
I think it depends on whether you believe what people say when they buy a Mac, which is almost always that they do it to get MacOS (and other Mac software), or people on Slashdot who don't like MacOS and say that people only buy Macs because they are idiots blinded by Teh Shiny.
I'm not a fan of the latter theory, since I like MacOS and many very smart people I know like MacOS.
Nah, they are a software company. The truth is that they can't be profitable selling Mac OSX at $150 a copy to compete with Windows, because they need a large developer team to keep pace with Microsoft and they have fewer unit sales.
So if Microsoft spends $1 billion on development, Apple probably needs to spend at least $500 million to keep up. Microsoft can distribute that cost among 20 million users at $50 each, charge $100 and make half profit. If Apple has 2 million users that comes out to $250 per user spent on development. (These aren't intended to be real numbers, just an approximation of the magnitude of the respective numbers).
Very few people would spend $500 on a boxed OSX so it's necessary to bundle with hardware that's intentionally kept unique, and lower-end models are limited in certain ways as a form of price discrimination. The uniqueness is part of the package, but it's also a way to obfuscate direct price comparisons.
Apple sells OSX UPGRADES at a reasonable price, but there's no way you'd catch them selling an "OEM" version anywhere close to $200 -- there'd be no ROI.
This is the only strategy a commercial OS vendor could resonably hope to use in a Microsoft-dominated market.
I like your idea, but why don't we apply this to all public school cirriculum? Instead of teachers following standards which are (hopefully) developed with some attempt to teach the truth, let's just have crackpots line up in the classroom each day and give each of them have 15 minutes to "express" their "ideas".
Now that would be an education! Forget facts, forget utility, forget our scientific and technological progress as a society. Let's just turn education into a cesspool of propaganda. That's the ticket!
Re:Blog, Submit, Rinse and Repeat
on
Google Lively Review
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
At the risk of stating the obvious -- yes. Slashdot editors frequently approve self-posted links and have done so for a long, long time.
I don't know, I think I like it. Read literally, it suggests that he was struck so much, he's unable to say "fuck". But he is saying "fuck", so it's self-contradictory. Nice touch.
Now hold on. I read the article, and it didn't say what the vulnerability was. So your assertion that a particular technique would protect against this particular vulnerability must be based on knowledge of what the vulnerability entails, but the article is claiming that this is some big secret. Care to elaborate?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I remember Red Hat 5.0 (Hurricane) too.
I'm kind of curious -- now that the App Store is ramping up with useful stuff (there are, for example, at least two SSH apps posted now, with more to come), what's the compelling reason to jailbreak? Is it just tethering?
And I don't get what "attorney-client privilege" has to do with MobileMe... surely a law firm would run something like Exchange and use the iPhone's ActiveSync support, or alternately, Lotus Notes with the upcoming Notes client for the iPhone? It's not as if Apple's model suggests that enterprise business customers would use MobileMe.
Sigh... apparently my joke about Asimov's old paper establishing "unionized" as a shibboleth for chemists was a little too obscure.
A little offtopic but I don't understand why people say there is no explicit "right to privacy" in American law. I wonder if this was a talking point invented for some political reason at one point that filtered out into the mass consciousness somehow.
Anyway, Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The word "privacy" is not used but this is a right to privacy in a large sense, isn't it? That the government can't search you, can't search your house, can't go through your papers, without a warrant?
This particular case is more of a civil action since the government didn't do it, but I find it a little unreasonable to say there is "no" right to privacy or that the Supreme Court "created" all our privacy rights, when there is clearly at least some privacy explicitly written in the Constitution.
With apologies to Issac Asimov, what does chemistry have to do with this story?
Nonsense, this is not a manned program. He needs to read up on early rocket development, like the launch history of the V2 which failed over and over again, as a reminder that this stuff is hard and error is part of the process.
That statement is only true of CRT monitors. There is no current process to make a curved LCD.
Is it just me, or did you just divide the entire Earth into two categories:
1. Places where you're likely to get robbed, and
2. in front of your PC?
You're not wrong, but keep in mind that anyone commenting on Apple who gets the ticker symbol wrong really looks like they have no clue.
The problem I have with looking at a series of accidents and claiming the result of those accidents to be unlikely is that you're not evaluating the possibility that any number of alternate series of accidents could lead to the same result. By (simplistic) analogy this is like looking at a series of 6-sided die rolls like 2,2,5,3,1, noticing that they sum to 13, and claiming that the odds of this result were 7776 to 1 against -- that's only the odds of that particular ordering, not the odds that the rolls would sum to 13.
For #2, we need a better roster of Earth-like planets, which is only starting to come in.
For #3, there are too many possible reasons.
I don't necessarily dispute the reasoning behind your claim, but it's mighty unscientific of you to make a blanket assertion with no evidence. How do you know what the odds are that intelligent life would form? We don't have any experimental evidence beyond the absence of radio transmissions.
You should read his whole comment -- the printer is not plugged in to the UPS.
No, US Dollars are backed by (some) gold and (mostly) US Treasury bonds held by the Federal Reserve. US Treasury bonds are backed by the federal government, which has met its obligations to its creditors consistently for a long time through its unlimited power of taxation over the entire US economy.
Personally, I sometimes like a mobile version, depending on the site. An example where I agree with you is CNN -- their mobile site is truly bad.
Well, I guess, but we've really swallowed the cow already. Our best available science predicts dire consequences from current and future CO2 levels, so it's reasonable to look for potential fixes that may have other consequences that will need to be studied carefully.
It's certainly good to address the problem at its cause, by releasing less CO2 in the first place, but there are practical limits to reductions and many methods used to reduce CO2 will have their own side effects. Even wind/solar would have SOME negative effects, some of which would likely be unanticipated.
It's incorrect to say that Apple's upward trend occurred after the Intel migration; in fact their market share was rising for a while before that. The Intel migration probably helped, but the iPod may have had more to do with it.
Don't forget the "Personal Responsibility" message, in that the humans eventually have to stand up to the efficient, automatic government computer that takes care of everything for them.
Exactly how small is "small"? Because a Linksys duct-taped to a Pringles can isn't going to cut it, even if you bolt some solar panels to the bottom.
I think it depends on whether you believe what people say when they buy a Mac, which is almost always that they do it to get MacOS (and other Mac software), or people on Slashdot who don't like MacOS and say that people only buy Macs because they are idiots blinded by Teh Shiny.
I'm not a fan of the latter theory, since I like MacOS and many very smart people I know like MacOS.
Nah, they are a software company. The truth is that they can't be profitable selling Mac OSX at $150 a copy to compete with Windows, because they need a large developer team to keep pace with Microsoft and they have fewer unit sales.
So if Microsoft spends $1 billion on development, Apple probably needs to spend at least $500 million to keep up. Microsoft can distribute that cost among 20 million users at $50 each, charge $100 and make half profit. If Apple has 2 million users that comes out to $250 per user spent on development. (These aren't intended to be real numbers, just an approximation of the magnitude of the respective numbers).
Very few people would spend $500 on a boxed OSX so it's necessary to bundle with hardware that's intentionally kept unique, and lower-end models are limited in certain ways as a form of price discrimination. The uniqueness is part of the package, but it's also a way to obfuscate direct price comparisons.
Apple sells OSX UPGRADES at a reasonable price, but there's no way you'd catch them selling an "OEM" version anywhere close to $200 -- there'd be no ROI.
This is the only strategy a commercial OS vendor could resonably hope to use in a Microsoft-dominated market.
I like your idea, but why don't we apply this to all public school cirriculum? Instead of teachers following standards which are (hopefully) developed with some attempt to teach the truth, let's just have crackpots line up in the classroom each day and give each of them have 15 minutes to "express" their "ideas".
Now that would be an education! Forget facts, forget utility, forget our scientific and technological progress as a society. Let's just turn education into a cesspool of propaganda. That's the ticket!
At the risk of stating the obvious -- yes. Slashdot editors frequently approve self-posted links and have done so for a long, long time.
I don't know, I think I like it. Read literally, it suggests that he was struck so much, he's unable to say "fuck". But he is saying "fuck", so it's self-contradictory. Nice touch.
Just TWO rods to the hogshead? Gas mileage sure isn't what it was in the days of Grandpa Simpson, who claimed 40.
Now hold on. I read the article, and it didn't say what the vulnerability was. So your assertion that a particular technique would protect against this particular vulnerability must be based on knowledge of what the vulnerability entails, but the article is claiming that this is some big secret. Care to elaborate?