Yeah so secure you can't actually load files onto the phone without jumping through hoops in iTunes. It tells me a file generated by Lame is unsupported and then copies it anyhow and guess what? It plays just fine.
He's bringin it up because there's nothing about absoulte speed here. Samsung is saying they made their processor faster by a larger margin than qualcom did this year but they are not saying it's faster than qualcoms. they did the same thing with the A10. samsung claimed a faster clock speed and big improvements in battery usage. Meanwhile the slower clock spees A10 is actually faster to do anything, and uses less battery.
his point is samsung spec are completely non-informative.
...and actually deceitful; which is far worse to the consumer.
Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that.
Sorry, no. It may not be tied to products that they're currently shipping, but there's a huge spectrum between initial idea and final product, and Apple has far less investment towards the idea end of the spectrum than any of their major competitors. By the time you can patent something, it's already towards the product end (and have you actually looked at the Apple patent portfolio? They patented a more efficient take-away pizza box, for example, which doesn't really tell you anything about pure research spending).
But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.
It doesn't count because it's playing accounting games. The line between development and product is very blurry. Apple classifies a lot of things are R&D that other companies count as product development. This inflates Apple's R&D spending on the balance sheet, but means that you can't really compare. R&D is a pipeline and things always have to start closer to the pure research end. Most of Apple's R&D is building on pure research done by other organisations. This has changed a bit recently (particularly in machine learning), but they're still a long way behind most other big tech companies on research spending. Microsoft, until they restructured MSR a year or so ago, had the opposite problem: they were spending over $5bn/year on research and turning very little of it into products. Neither extreme is particularly healthy for a company. You need the research end to feed the pipeline, but then you need the pipeline from research to product.
Disclaimer: I work in a university and collaborate with Apple, Google, and Microsoft on several projects.
Everything is fine and dandy until your "Disclaimer", which clearly alludes to the fact that Apple DOES, in fact, grant money to Universities for Research projects.
I just used the handy reference of Apple's Patent Portfolio to point out that Apple does do "pure Research". And they do. You point out the Pizza Box; so f-ing what? That certainly wasn't "Product" oriented (at least not in the sense that Apple would go into the Pizza-Box business), and in fact was about creating a box that had significantly-higher post-consumer recycled content, while retaining structural integrity. Another recent Patent of this sort was for their Modular Apple Store Displays. Again, they felt it was unique enough to protect; but Apple isn't going into the office-furniture business. Again, so what?
But there are a LOT of "grey area" patents, that likely aren't really intended for actual "D"; but are framed as possible improvements or alternatives for methods and technologies being used in their current products, such as these in the past year:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...
Apple spends serious coin on Research and Development; far more than their competition.
This is almost true, though the vast majority of Apple's R&D funding is firmly at the D end of the spectrum. IBM used to spend a lot more than Apple on research, though they've cut down a lot. Microsoft still does (around $5bn/year on MSR). These companies and Google (and Oracle, and so on) all throw grants at universities for research, which Apple doesn't. It wasn't until last the last few months that Apple even published any of their research.
Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that. Just because they don't throw money at universities for tax writeoffs doesn't mean that they don't do pure research themselves.
But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.
Not inferior, but perhaps a modern equivalent to the Spruce Goose.
I don't see the analogy.
The Spruce Goose was a technologically-unsound (but it DID fly!) airplane that Howard Huge built as a testament to his ego. It was never really intended to be practical in a commercial sense.
But when all is said and done, Apple Park is simply an office complex that employs a somewhat unconventional design for its main building (but no more so than many other unconventional-looking buildings around the world), deploying completely off-the-shelf technology for its power-source; but which is, in the end, little different from the scores of conventional commercial buildings I see where I live with a huge back-lot solar-panel-farm to supply some or all of their power.
Why doesn't it bode well? They are building miniature electronics, not airliners. What do you think an R&D team needs? Wind tunnels to check the corners of the iPhone have the correct roundness?
How much physical room does it take to do any of the other things that happen at HQ?
Other than symbolizing the relative insignificance of Apples investment in R&D, this albatross is a monument to the failure of the internet to do, well, anything other than mimic TV and landline.
You need to do some fact checking before you spew your hate.
Apple spends serious coin on Research and Development; far more than their competition.
I have said it before: the ring is a massive Reality Distortion Field Generator.
As per usual Apple is late to market with an inferior product.
Apple Haters have been carrying around a small portable reality distortion generators with them for years that allows them to see Apple's growth as retraction. They appear to have a boundless power source and are so strong no reality is able to break through no matter how discordant the internal view becomes!
So when did YOU turn into an Apple Hater?
And yes, as with most large-scale construction. Projects, this one is a little late; but INFERIOR?!? Relative to WHAT? The Large Hadron Collider???
Don't take any device that couples magnetic energy in there. No credit cards, no spinning hard disks, a lot of electronic devices will be toasted upon entry and should you happen to have any leftover metal parts from some past surgery (staples, clips, knees or hips) you don't likely want to try and enter either... Figure on having similar entry restrictions as MRI machines, including the faraday shielded room for this thing.. I wonder what a set of wire rimmed glasses will do in there, in fact anything that approximates a loop of wire could have serious issues if it's conductive.
Basically they put you INSIDE a huge electromagnet with fairly high flux values. They resonate the whole thing to a specific frequency by inserting some capacitance, then size their collector (which is still larger than most cell phones) can collect power from the magnetic fields. Room size will be limited, basically because of the power density required to get useful power transfer is still really high and it will approach unsafe levels as the room gets larger.
Not to mention... I dare you to grab the center pole.... It's going to have more than hundred amps flowing though it at RF (1.3 Mhz) frequencies that, despite what they say in their "safety" calculations, sure seems to be at power levels that can cause serious RF burns...
While someone needs to put a stick in Intel's ass, I don't believe for a minute that this will remain a cheaper alternative, if AMD starts getting some traction.
Oh, and I didn't see anything about power usage. AMD has always sucked in that regard.
IPC is interesting in that it gives a sense of how cores are designed, but workloads aren't constrained by IPC or clock speed per se; they're constrained by thermal and power constraints. And AMD compares very favorably there, too: the Intel chip is a 140W part, so can use about 50 percent more power than the AMD.
And besides Ashes of the Singularity I can't think of any that use more that four. Heck, Far Cry 3 only needed four cores because the devs bound to core 3 by mistake. There was a fan patch that forced it to bind to core two and got it running on dual cores. Multi core programing is dammed hard. It hasn't been worth it except for a handful of apps like video encoders...
What's so hard?
It's just a matter of semaphores and some intelligent decisions on what goes where.
While someone needs to put a stick in Intel's ass, I don't believe for a minute that this will remain a cheaper alternative, if AMD starts getting some traction.
Oh, and I didn't see anything about power usage. AMD has always sucked in that regard.
admin:123456, with an open telnet port, and the first thing it does, is try to get the outside IP and contact 3 different Chinese dyndns servers to make sure their trojan horse inside your network is known to the world...
This is done on purpose, i'm sure of it.
Oh, I agree; and likely with the tacit approval/urging of the FiveEyes guys.
The problem with IoT is almost 100% due to default passwords or no passwords. The solution is not to add another complicated layer on top. This is bullshit. We just need to start producing products with unique passwords. Simple.
I just bought a new TP-Link Ethernet over Power adapter kit with built-in WiFi and to my surprise, it comes with a little card with the unique password for my particular unit, in case I ever have to reset it to factory. No more default password for every unit. It's that simple folks.
You're absolutely right that that alone would make most of these mass-attacks completely impractical. Kudos to TP-Link for not being as lazy as the rest of the shitbox IoT vendors out there. Jeez, even a PW that was generated from the Serial No. would be better than "admin", or "1234", or whatever most default PWs are...
HomeKit fixes the security holes quite nicely, thank you; even more so if you use Bluetooth rather than WiFi.
Then, the issue becomes all the other shitbox back-of-the-napkin "Protocols" that are insecure. If your IoT device supports one of those in addition to HomeKit, you could still be unsafe.
How the fuck can you revive something that wasn't even dead in the first place? Fucking clickbait summary yet again, making it sound like Jurrasic Park shit when it's just natural bacterial abilities to restore consciousness when conditions are right.
Buddy, why pick on science? Law does not accept supernatural explanation as defense. Why don't you religious nuts demand religious explanations to be given equal footing with forensic evidence in court cases?
"you'll soon see the real reason why the Android platform has so many phones in the wild"
It's about choice. It's about competition. It's about all those things that will make America... (sorry, scratch that)
There's undoubtedly a lot of crappy Android phones on the market but there's also a lot of great phones among them. My current Moto Play Z is the greatest phone I ever had. Great battery life, SD storage, dual sim and everything works smoothly and reliably. At least as good as any Apple product but plays much better with others.
Did I mention it's also a lot cheaper?
How much is your personal identity information worth to you?
There is a difference between Price and Value. Most people don't understand that.
It will be really easy to tell when Trumps phone is being hijacked, the messages will be coherent. Also, is Trump on some kind of medication that the American people should be made aware of?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah so secure you can't actually load files onto the phone without jumping through hoops in iTunes. It tells me a file generated by Lame is unsupported and then copies it anyhow and guess what? It plays just fine.
What's your point?
But you are stuck with Apple. Not worth it.
I don't see it as "stuck" with anything but a "secure" device and "secure" Apps.
It that's "stuck", then consider me happily glued.
He's bringin it up because there's nothing about absoulte speed here. Samsung is saying they made their processor faster by a larger margin than qualcom did this year but they are not saying it's faster than qualcoms. they did the same thing with the A10. samsung claimed a faster clock speed and big improvements in battery usage. Meanwhile the slower clock spees A10 is actually faster to do anything, and uses less battery.
his point is samsung spec are completely non-informative.
...and actually deceitful; which is far worse to the consumer.
Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that.
Sorry, no. It may not be tied to products that they're currently shipping, but there's a huge spectrum between initial idea and final product, and Apple has far less investment towards the idea end of the spectrum than any of their major competitors. By the time you can patent something, it's already towards the product end (and have you actually looked at the Apple patent portfolio? They patented a more efficient take-away pizza box, for example, which doesn't really tell you anything about pure research spending).
But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.
It doesn't count because it's playing accounting games. The line between development and product is very blurry. Apple classifies a lot of things are R&D that other companies count as product development. This inflates Apple's R&D spending on the balance sheet, but means that you can't really compare. R&D is a pipeline and things always have to start closer to the pure research end. Most of Apple's R&D is building on pure research done by other organisations. This has changed a bit recently (particularly in machine learning), but they're still a long way behind most other big tech companies on research spending. Microsoft, until they restructured MSR a year or so ago, had the opposite problem: they were spending over $5bn/year on research and turning very little of it into products. Neither extreme is particularly healthy for a company. You need the research end to feed the pipeline, but then you need the pipeline from research to product.
Disclaimer: I work in a university and collaborate with Apple, Google, and Microsoft on several projects.
Everything is fine and dandy until your "Disclaimer", which clearly alludes to the fact that Apple DOES, in fact, grant money to Universities for Research projects.
I just used the handy reference of Apple's Patent Portfolio to point out that Apple does do "pure Research". And they do. You point out the Pizza Box; so f-ing what? That certainly wasn't "Product" oriented (at least not in the sense that Apple would go into the Pizza-Box business), and in fact was about creating a box that had significantly-higher post-consumer recycled content, while retaining structural integrity. Another recent Patent of this sort was for their Modular Apple Store Displays. Again, they felt it was unique enough to protect; but Apple isn't going into the office-furniture business. Again, so what?
But there are a LOT of "grey area" patents, that likely aren't really intended for actual "D"; but are framed as possible improvements or alternatives for methods and technologies being used in their current products, such as these in the past year: http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...
http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...
http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...
http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...
http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...
Don't know about the new Slamdung SoC; but the A10 in the iPhone 7 still outperforms the Qualcomm 835.
And the A11 is just around the corner.
Just sayin'...
Apple spends serious coin on Research and Development; far more than their competition.
This is almost true, though the vast majority of Apple's R&D funding is firmly at the D end of the spectrum. IBM used to spend a lot more than Apple on research, though they've cut down a lot. Microsoft still does (around $5bn/year on MSR). These companies and Google (and Oracle, and so on) all throw grants at universities for research, which Apple doesn't. It wasn't until last the last few months that Apple even published any of their research.
Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that. Just because they don't throw money at universities for tax writeoffs doesn't mean that they don't do pure research themselves.
But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.
I wondered why big posters of them were so blurry. Clearly it's because they'd been enlarde by a factor of 2 or 3..
It also explains why the posters became even worse after CDs came out.
And who knows if they even went back to the original artwork and optically-enlarged them? That would have been the best way to preserve any detail...
Not inferior, but perhaps a modern equivalent to the Spruce Goose.
I don't see the analogy.
The Spruce Goose was a technologically-unsound (but it DID fly!) airplane that Howard Huge built as a testament to his ego. It was never really intended to be practical in a commercial sense.
But when all is said and done, Apple Park is simply an office complex that employs a somewhat unconventional design for its main building (but no more so than many other unconventional-looking buildings around the world), deploying completely off-the-shelf technology for its power-source; but which is, in the end, little different from the scores of conventional commercial buildings I see where I live with a huge back-lot solar-panel-farm to supply some or all of their power.
BIG difference!
Its an annular campus. Think, think...
Ringworld.
Why doesn't it bode well? They are building miniature electronics, not airliners. What do you think an R&D team needs? Wind tunnels to check the corners of the iPhone have the correct roundness?
How much physical room does it take to do any of the other things that happen at HQ?
Other than symbolizing the relative insignificance of Apples investment in R&D, this albatross is a monument to the failure of the internet to do, well, anything other than mimic TV and landline.
You need to do some fact checking before you spew your hate.
Apple spends serious coin on Research and Development; far more than their competition.
It hardly looks anything like an 80's rock album cover. ELO, Boston, Kansas and Journey did it better, stardust.
That's because all they had to do was a 12 inch airbrush painting.
I have said it before: the ring is a massive Reality Distortion Field Generator.
As per usual Apple is late to market with an inferior product.
Apple Haters have been carrying around a small portable reality distortion generators with them for years that allows them to see Apple's growth as retraction. They appear to have a boundless power source and are so strong no reality is able to break through no matter how discordant the internal view becomes!
So when did YOU turn into an Apple Hater?
And yes, as with most large-scale construction. Projects, this one is a little late; but INFERIOR?!? Relative to WHAT? The Large Hadron Collider???
Don't take any device that couples magnetic energy in there. No credit cards, no spinning hard disks, a lot of electronic devices will be toasted upon entry and should you happen to have any leftover metal parts from some past surgery (staples, clips, knees or hips) you don't likely want to try and enter either... Figure on having similar entry restrictions as MRI machines, including the faraday shielded room for this thing.. I wonder what a set of wire rimmed glasses will do in there, in fact anything that approximates a loop of wire could have serious issues if it's conductive.
Basically they put you INSIDE a huge electromagnet with fairly high flux values. They resonate the whole thing to a specific frequency by inserting some capacitance, then size their collector (which is still larger than most cell phones) can collect power from the magnetic fields. Room size will be limited, basically because of the power density required to get useful power transfer is still really high and it will approach unsafe levels as the room gets larger.
Not to mention... I dare you to grab the center pole.... It's going to have more than hundred amps flowing though it at RF (1.3 Mhz) frequencies that, despite what they say in their "safety" calculations, sure seems to be at power levels that can cause serious RF burns...
Exactly.
While someone needs to put a stick in Intel's ass, I don't believe for a minute that this will remain a cheaper alternative, if AMD starts getting some traction.
Oh, and I didn't see anything about power usage. AMD has always sucked in that regard.
From the Ars Technica article:
IPC is interesting in that it gives a sense of how cores are designed, but workloads aren't constrained by IPC or clock speed per se; they're constrained by thermal and power constraints. And AMD compares very favorably there, too: the Intel chip is a 140W part, so can use about 50 percent more power than the AMD.
Hmmm, interesting. Thanks!
And besides Ashes of the Singularity I can't think of any that use more that four. Heck, Far Cry 3 only needed four cores because the devs bound to core 3 by mistake. There was a fan patch that forced it to bind to core two and got it running on dual cores. Multi core programing is dammed hard. It hasn't been worth it except for a handful of apps like video encoders...
What's so hard?
It's just a matter of semaphores and some intelligent decisions on what goes where.
Hell, Apple already did the hard part for you, and then gave it to the planet for free...
While someone needs to put a stick in Intel's ass, I don't believe for a minute that this will remain a cheaper alternative, if AMD starts getting some traction.
Oh, and I didn't see anything about power usage. AMD has always sucked in that regard.
admin:123456, with an open telnet port, and the first thing it does, is try to get the outside IP and contact 3 different Chinese dyndns servers to make sure their trojan horse inside your network is known to the world...
This is done on purpose, i'm sure of it.
Oh, I agree; and likely with the tacit approval/urging of the FiveEyes guys.
Sometimes it really IS a Conspiracy.
The problem with IoT is almost 100% due to default passwords or no passwords. The solution is not to add another complicated layer on top. This is bullshit. We just need to start producing products with unique passwords. Simple. I just bought a new TP-Link Ethernet over Power adapter kit with built-in WiFi and to my surprise, it comes with a little card with the unique password for my particular unit, in case I ever have to reset it to factory. No more default password for every unit. It's that simple folks.
You're absolutely right that that alone would make most of these mass-attacks completely impractical. Kudos to TP-Link for not being as lazy as the rest of the shitbox IoT vendors out there. Jeez, even a PW that was generated from the Serial No. would be better than "admin", or "1234", or whatever most default PWs are...
HomeKit fixes the security holes quite nicely, thank you; even more so if you use Bluetooth rather than WiFi.
Then, the issue becomes all the other shitbox back-of-the-napkin "Protocols" that are insecure. If your IoT device supports one of those in addition to HomeKit, you could still be unsafe.
But as far as HomeKit itself, it is quite secure.
Well, Apple is losing ground on China, I'm pretty sure they don't want to lose a market as big as Europe... just saying.
You apparently haven't been paying attention.
At the rate that Apple is "losing ground", your hypothetical grandchildren will still be buying Apple stock at over $100 a share.
BREAKING NEWS - 7 billion versions of the human immune system get to work and find the antibody!
Isn't working so well for MRSA. Or HIV.
Yes, there are AIDS-resistant people. But that doesn't seem to be capable of being generalized into a vaccine/cure.
And MRSA is having a field-day, out-evolving our immune systems and antimicrobial drugs.
How the fuck can you revive something that wasn't even dead in the first place? Fucking clickbait summary yet again, making it sound like Jurrasic Park shit when it's just natural bacterial abilities to restore consciousness when conditions are right.
Bacteria are conscious???
Buddy, why pick on science? Law does not accept supernatural explanation as defense. Why don't you religious nuts demand religious explanations to be given equal footing with forensic evidence in court cases?
Because they are brainwashed. Seriously.
"you'll soon see the real reason why the Android platform has so many phones in the wild"
It's about choice. It's about competition. It's about all those things that will make America... (sorry, scratch that)
There's undoubtedly a lot of crappy Android phones on the market but there's also a lot of great phones among them. My current Moto Play Z is the greatest phone I ever had. Great battery life, SD storage, dual sim and everything works smoothly and reliably. At least as good as any Apple product but plays much better with others.
Did I mention it's also a lot cheaper?
How much is your personal identity information worth to you?
There is a difference between Price and Value. Most people don't understand that.
It will be really easy to tell when Trumps phone is being hijacked, the messages will be coherent. Also, is Trump on some kind of medication that the American people should be made aware of?
Boy, that's no shit! To both statements.