Another nice Simpsons reference - the Comic Book Guy, "Last night's Itchy and Scratchy was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever!", from "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show". Kodos!
Not sure what you mean. But yes, this does require a high skill level - we don't know how many TMP chips this guy trashed before getting it to work on one, or what his success rate would be on the next one. If he gets a laptop full of Chinese secrets and is asked to crack the TPM chip, he might well fry it on the first attempt, and you don't get second attempts on this kind of thing. It's not the kind of exploit that can be scripted and downloaded by any kiddie.
If it's that easy for one ordinary person to do that much damage, then I think you have to call into question, philosophically, if it's really him that did the damage. Information can be copied, as a fundamental principle. They have created information, and people are copying it. Is that Burt's fault? By enabling information - whose inherent property is its reproducibility - to be reproduced, has he not just allowed the natural order to be established? I guess that's just a long-winded way of saying "information wants to be free", which is not a sound-bite that I usually adhere to, because "free" can be mistaken for "as in beer", whereas I think the phrase means "as in freedom".
And no, I'm not just a freetard, I do buy stuff. Games, music, movies, all very copyable, I do believe in paying for worthy content.
I look at it this way: an iPhone or iPad isn't a computer, in the sense that the Apple][ or Commodore 64 was a computer. It's an appliance, and should not be thought of as other than a black box. There still is, and I think always will be a market for a generic programmable computer such as the Mac, PC, etc. so there isn't really a fundamental problem.
And when you find out that it was a false accusation, and you just killed a bunch of people who were just having a sex party with a willing participant, what do you do then?
I care about it, but if there is some truth that the rules are so stacked against us that we can never know, then why worry about it? If we see some evidence of it, then fine, let's pursue it, but don't get distracted trying to disprove something that can never be disproven.
It doesn't matter. If we are living in a holographic simulation, well, that simulation is our reality. We are part of a system - if that system is artifical, and we are artificial, it doesn't matter. We do what we do in the context of our existence, we can do no other.
Even if there is a real human body in a slimy podule somewhere, that body is no use to me anyway as it has atrophied muscles and a nutrition system that is entirely dependent on the machines. The Matrix is a movie, if it happened for real then there would be no break-outs.
If the iPad fails, it will still drive the rest of the industry to up their game in the tablet space. The original iPhone wasn't all that great, but look at what we have now. You might still not like the iPhone, but would Android and WebOS be where they are now without it?
If China rips off the iPod, Apple will know. They can buy and dismantle a knock-off, dump the ROMs, and prove that they have been ripped off. In Apple's case they can also lock down iTunes, or just rake in the iTunes revenue from the rip-off product users, but other manufacturers don't necessarily have that option.
If China rips off Google Search, Google will not know, or not be able to prove it, since all the code will be on a server in China.
So, if Google got wind that their Chinese employees were ripping off their code, that's a big deal. Big enough to pull out of China?
If it's like the iPhone, you will be able to use it over your wifi. Does it need to be connected all the time, everywhere? Are you going to whip out your i (that's my name prediction) and go online in the middle of nowhere? No, I don't think so, and the bandwidth that you will expect on a device of this size will disappoint you on 3G. Sure, it will have 3G, and you will be able to use it, but I expect that 95% of use of this device will be in the home.
iPad? iSlate? iTab? iNeedOneOfThese? No, just i. That's what I think. The device will be called the i, and it will run iOS (followed by another quick lawsuit and settlement with Cisco).
I last tried it about an hour ago. It took 45 seconds of constant hard drive activity to load a 385MB file, whereas Multi-Edit takes... 4 seconds to show me the first screenfull of the file.
I'm not programming *for* Windows, but I am programming *on* Windows. And I would not want to give up my paid-for copy of Multi-Edit even if you gave me a hundred free editors. Nothing I have seen comes even close.
The main reason I don't use Vi(m) is that it loads the entire file into memory right away, whereas Multi-Edit only loads the first few k of a file and displays that, and reads more of the file as and when it needs to. When you're regularly dealing with many several-hundred-megabyte files over slow network connections, this makes a huge difference.
I'm not so sure, is it that ridiculous that a programmer might shell out $200 for a good text editor? I have, trying to work without Multi-Edit available to me seems like having an arm amputated. I got used to it 16 or so years ago, and have used it ever since.
Slashdot Mirror
Governments are going to want to tax this.
The egg production industry has economies of scale and security of supply that a single-chicken-owner can't match.
Another nice Simpsons reference - the Comic Book Guy, "Last night's Itchy and Scratchy was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever!", from "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show". Kodos!
What if you can't change the proxy setting?
Are all these chips laid out identically? That would be a bit silly.
Not sure what you mean. But yes, this does require a high skill level - we don't know how many TMP chips this guy trashed before getting it to work on one, or what his success rate would be on the next one. If he gets a laptop full of Chinese secrets and is asked to crack the TPM chip, he might well fry it on the first attempt, and you don't get second attempts on this kind of thing. It's not the kind of exploit that can be scripted and downloaded by any kiddie.
If it's that easy for one ordinary person to do that much damage, then I think you have to call into question, philosophically, if it's really him that did the damage. Information can be copied, as a fundamental principle. They have created information, and people are copying it. Is that Burt's fault? By enabling information - whose inherent property is its reproducibility - to be reproduced, has he not just allowed the natural order to be established? I guess that's just a long-winded way of saying "information wants to be free", which is not a sound-bite that I usually adhere to, because "free" can be mistaken for "as in beer", whereas I think the phrase means "as in freedom".
And no, I'm not just a freetard, I do buy stuff. Games, music, movies, all very copyable, I do believe in paying for worthy content.
I look at it this way: an iPhone or iPad isn't a computer, in the sense that the Apple][ or Commodore 64 was a computer. It's an appliance, and should not be thought of as other than a black box. There still is, and I think always will be a market for a generic programmable computer such as the Mac, PC, etc. so there isn't really a fundamental problem.
And when you find out that it was a false accusation, and you just killed a bunch of people who were just having a sex party with a willing participant, what do you do then?
They should just call it the "i".
I care about it, but if there is some truth that the rules are so stacked against us that we can never know, then why worry about it? If we see some evidence of it, then fine, let's pursue it, but don't get distracted trying to disprove something that can never be disproven.
It doesn't matter. If we are living in a holographic simulation, well, that simulation is our reality. We are part of a system - if that system is artifical, and we are artificial, it doesn't matter. We do what we do in the context of our existence, we can do no other.
Even if there is a real human body in a slimy podule somewhere, that body is no use to me anyway as it has atrophied muscles and a nutrition system that is entirely dependent on the machines. The Matrix is a movie, if it happened for real then there would be no break-outs.
If the iPad fails, it will still drive the rest of the industry to up their game in the tablet space. The original iPhone wasn't all that great, but look at what we have now. You might still not like the iPhone, but would Android and WebOS be where they are now without it?
If China rips off the iPod, Apple will know. They can buy and dismantle a knock-off, dump the ROMs, and prove that they have been ripped off. In Apple's case they can also lock down iTunes, or just rake in the iTunes revenue from the rip-off product users, but other manufacturers don't necessarily have that option.
If China rips off Google Search, Google will not know, or not be able to prove it, since all the code will be on a server in China.
So, if Google got wind that their Chinese employees were ripping off their code, that's a big deal. Big enough to pull out of China?
Good job I'm already posting rather than modding, becaue I couldn't choose between "Insightful" and "Redundant" anyway.
What's wrong with a little bit of pointless fun?
You can already get an iPhone stylus:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/cellphone/a31f/
If it's like the iPhone, you will be able to use it over your wifi. Does it need to be connected all the time, everywhere? Are you going to whip out your i (that's my name prediction) and go online in the middle of nowhere? No, I don't think so, and the bandwidth that you will expect on a device of this size will disappoint you on 3G. Sure, it will have 3G, and you will be able to use it, but I expect that 95% of use of this device will be in the home.
That's the "crying" emote.
iPad? iSlate? iTab? iNeedOneOfThese? No, just i. That's what I think. The device will be called the i, and it will run iOS (followed by another quick lawsuit and settlement with Cisco).
I last tried it about an hour ago. It took 45 seconds of constant hard drive activity to load a 385MB file, whereas Multi-Edit takes... 4 seconds to show me the first screenfull of the file.
I'm not programming *for* Windows, but I am programming *on* Windows. And I would not want to give up my paid-for copy of Multi-Edit even if you gave me a hundred free editors. Nothing I have seen comes even close.
The main reason I don't use Vi(m) is that it loads the entire file into memory right away, whereas Multi-Edit only loads the first few k of a file and displays that, and reads more of the file as and when it needs to. When you're regularly dealing with many several-hundred-megabyte files over slow network connections, this makes a huge difference.
I'm not so sure, is it that ridiculous that a programmer might shell out $200 for a good text editor? I have, trying to work without Multi-Edit available to me seems like having an arm amputated. I got used to it 16 or so years ago, and have used it ever since.
Authors can get advances from publishers, but I guess you're right, I don't know if many first-time authors can get that.