The sky is always falling for the doom-and-gloom crowd.
"If we leave these caves we're all going to die! Lions will eat us all!" "Fire is dangerous! It'll kill us all!" "Cooking meat releases chemicals that will kill us!" "Growing plants ourselves? That's certain death!" "If we stay in one place we'll all die!" "Towns are evil and will destroy civilization as we know it!"
I mean, can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable?
Just because you get hardware from an OEM doesn't mean it's ready for production. Most likely the software on it, well, sucks, and needs to be brought to a level of functionality that people accept.
95% of the time the OEM will just build the OS and see if it works. It's up to you, the vendor, to ensure that the OS and whatever else there is works the way it's supposed to. That includes updating, performance, power management, UI, drivers, correct build options, etc. You have to test to make sure that everything works, that everything works the way it's supposed to, and works the way that you want it to.
Getting a box from the OEM is only one step in a long process.
If they're only covering the hardware cost, this project will fail like that cooler/blender thing. I mean, just shipping from the US to everyone will cost at least $20-25. Did they even factor that in? How about, you know, a box and documentation? That's another $15-30/device. What about power cords and adapters?
TL;DR: There's a huge amount of work needed once you actually get the hardware, because the software probably will suck. They didn't account for that, and the project will fail.
Clinton didn't want to read her email on a computer in her SCIF...she wanted her BlackBerry. It was good enough for everyone else in the government, but it wasn't good enough for her.
"this could constitute a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act"
What exactly would constitute a violation of the FTC act? Their footnote states
"Specifically, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce"
What about using SilverPush would be unfair or deceptive?
The FTC is attempting to assert jurisdiction, but there's nothing here to regulate. Why is the FTC attempting to regulate apps? Why don't they do something useful and regulate adware?
More Calea info. CALEA applies to manufacturers of equipment. However, it's unclear to me if handset manufacturers are considered telecom equipment manufacturers or not. Also, if Apple claims CALEA I would assume they they would already be abiding by the provisions in CALEA.
What the FBI is asking for, though, goes way beyond CALEA, in that they're trying to compel Apple to do a specific action that goes beyond wiretapping and communications intercepts.
A nuclear attack isn't about destroying a city; it wouldn't take very much to, say, make it so a financial district or a couple of buildings would be unlivable for a few years. It would also wreak havoc on the local, and possibly global, economy.
Would it be hard? It depends. There are plenty of soft targets. I mean, just look what an e-coli outbreak can do.
Marketing: "Let's add some extra cores that are only used by benchmark apps so we'll look better in reviews." Product: "Sure." Press: "wow, the Samsung he is faster! BuyBuyBuy it!" User: "bleh"
Your phone is your hardware key. With your phone in hand, they can assume (or ensure) that your authorization and identity are mostly guaranteed.
This is essentially what Apple did with ITunes and iPods; the iPod is a hardware key for access to DRM content. I assume it's the same with the iPhone/FairPlay video.
TouchID works on different principles, but the idea is the same: security is (mostly) guaranteed with hardware. Apple can guarantee authorization and identity with TouchID. That makes it a bit more dangerous, because you can accidentally grant authorization to someone. But at least Apple can argue that it was you who did the grant and not person Z.
I'm not sure there's a right to repair, but it was always convenient that I could repair hardware. As things go more solid-state and have tighter tolerances the repairability obviously goes down...and security adds another level of issues on top of all that.
I think it's prudent for Apple to lock down hardware, especially given the world we live in. It would be nice, though, that instead of locking everything down the OS could run in a reduced state. Of course, for some components that would be impossible - like if the screen got replaced you'd be screwed. How do you tell the user that "the screen is unauthorized - do you want to use it anyway?" if the screen has been compromised and could tap on anything?
As a first-gen feature, I'm not surprised that the 53 lock was all-or-nothing. Hopefully future revisions will be more granular in their disabling.
I thought that was more of a convenient frame of reference that makes things easier. The sun does not actually go around the sun, it's just more convenient to assume that the earth orbits the sun.
This prevents MTM hardware attacks on your phone. The interesting question is "how is apple authenticating its hardware?" I mean, it's just a screen and a button with a cable, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Unreliable DSL is a plant problem, not a technology problem.
"Don't click on my head"
I'm not sure that's very naive at all. In fact, "help us your we'll kill your family" is a very powerful motivator.
My iMac is almost 7 years old and it's mostly fine. It was, though, top of the line. Are those 600 million PCs core2 duos, i3s, or what?
The sky is always falling for the doom-and-gloom crowd.
"If we leave these caves we're all going to die! Lions will eat us all!"
"Fire is dangerous! It'll kill us all!"
"Cooking meat releases chemicals that will kill us!"
"Growing plants ourselves? That's certain death!"
"If we stay in one place we'll all die!"
"Towns are evil and will destroy civilization as we know it!"
I mean, can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable?
There haven't been humans for 66 million years either.
Just because you get hardware from an OEM doesn't mean it's ready for production. Most likely the software on it, well, sucks, and needs to be brought to a level of functionality that people accept.
95% of the time the OEM will just build the OS and see if it works. It's up to you, the vendor, to ensure that the OS and whatever else there is works the way it's supposed to. That includes updating, performance, power management, UI, drivers, correct build options, etc. You have to test to make sure that everything works, that everything works the way it's supposed to, and works the way that you want it to.
Getting a box from the OEM is only one step in a long process.
If they're only covering the hardware cost, this project will fail like that cooler/blender thing. I mean, just shipping from the US to everyone will cost at least $20-25. Did they even factor that in? How about, you know, a box and documentation? That's another $15-30/device. What about power cords and adapters?
TL;DR: There's a huge amount of work needed once you actually get the hardware, because the software probably will suck. They didn't account for that, and the project will fail.
State would have bought it for her, and she didn't want it. It's not like she couldn't have approved the expense.
The math is simple. Even the VP is more important than SecState.
Clinton didn't want to read her email on a computer in her SCIF...she wanted her BlackBerry. It was good enough for everyone else in the government, but it wasn't good enough for her.
"this could constitute a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act"
What exactly would constitute a violation of the FTC act? Their footnote states
"Specifically, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce"
What about using SilverPush would be unfair or deceptive?
The FTC is attempting to assert jurisdiction, but there's nothing here to regulate. Why is the FTC attempting to regulate apps? Why don't they do something useful and regulate adware?
More Calea info. CALEA applies to manufacturers of equipment. However, it's unclear to me if handset manufacturers are considered telecom equipment manufacturers or not. Also, if Apple claims CALEA I would assume they they would already be abiding by the provisions in CALEA.
What the FBI is asking for, though, goes way beyond CALEA, in that they're trying to compel Apple to do a specific action that goes beyond wiretapping and communications intercepts.
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/CA...
A nuclear attack isn't about destroying a city; it wouldn't take very much to, say, make it so a financial district or a couple of buildings would be unlivable for a few years. It would also wreak havoc on the local, and possibly global, economy.
Would it be hard? It depends. There are plenty of soft targets. I mean, just look what an e-coli outbreak can do.
Marketing: "Let's add some extra cores that are only used by benchmark apps so we'll look better in reviews."
Product: "Sure."
Press: "wow, the Samsung he is faster! BuyBuyBuy it!"
User: "bleh"
I'm not sure if you noticed, but Obama is the President and the FBI is running the investigation.
Try harder. You can imagine anything if you try.
Your phone is your hardware key. With your phone in hand, they can assume (or ensure) that your authorization and identity are mostly guaranteed.
This is essentially what Apple did with ITunes and iPods; the iPod is a hardware key for access to DRM content. I assume it's the same with the iPhone/FairPlay video.
TouchID works on different principles, but the idea is the same: security is (mostly) guaranteed with hardware. Apple can guarantee authorization and identity with TouchID. That makes it a bit more dangerous, because you can accidentally grant authorization to someone. But at least Apple can argue that it was you who did the grant and not person Z.
If it's a new version, shouldn't it be called SpaceShipThree?
Maybe if you had, you know, invested in more HUMINT the Paris attacks wouldn't have happened.
I'm not sure there's a right to repair, but it was always convenient that I could repair hardware. As things go more solid-state and have tighter tolerances the repairability obviously goes down...and security adds another level of issues on top of all that.
I think it's prudent for Apple to lock down hardware, especially given the world we live in. It would be nice, though, that instead of locking everything down the OS could run in a reduced state. Of course, for some components that would be impossible - like if the screen got replaced you'd be screwed. How do you tell the user that "the screen is unauthorized - do you want to use it anyway?" if the screen has been compromised and could tap on anything?
As a first-gen feature, I'm not surprised that the 53 lock was all-or-nothing. Hopefully future revisions will be more granular in their disabling.
So, what kind of speed do they get with the incoherent optical receivers? 1 kb/sec?
Like a whole bunch of psychological studies, it only applies to college students who incur no costs.
I thought that was more of a convenient frame of reference that makes things easier. The sun does not actually go around the sun, it's just more convenient to assume that the earth orbits the sun.
This prevents MTM hardware attacks on your phone. The interesting question is "how is apple authenticating its hardware?" I mean, it's just a screen and a button with a cable, right?
If you pay them enough, contractors will do the work on-site. It's not a pain, it's SOP.