Ok, I just saw the video. Attacker, victim, third party wireless card, interact with bytecode device driver. Oh and I notice that the video is sponsored by - Microsoft.
But what did they expect to happen. Why didn't they first privately inform Apple and then if no action was taken go public. Two security researchers in search of the glory announce an Apple exploit. The Apple PR dept goes into overdrive and spins the issue. What did you expect from the PR dept of a major corporation - the truth. Welcome to the real world. Ah, if only it were so simple - A rundown.
August 4, 2006: Apple says ""give it [the exploit] to us now." In return, Maynor says:
""I'll work with an engineer to duplicate the vulnerability when I leave Vegas, but if this is a cross platform problem and you don't coordinate it you could be leaving millions of other users at risk."
They didn't care.
IOW Maynor refused to actually give info to Apple.
For OS X outsiders and people watching only "MOAB are nice guys trying to help" sites, MOAB actually tried and succeeded to DOS OS X default browser Safari on their day 29 error page.
It would be a bit understandable if they displayed that malformed jp2 to.apple.com IPs but they didn't. They attacked unsuspecting end user trying to inform himself/herself which is completely unacceptable. If you remember Safari is a tabbed browser, a huge chance of information loss was there too. OTOH they are so stupid, they couldn't even tell the difference between "Heise trying to DOS our site" and people looking at it.
The question is. When will we get (non Disney) content?
I'd imagine MPAA member execs will be a little cautious about entering a partnership with Apple after seeing Jobs' enthusiasm about music DRM turn into an about-face when confronted with interoperability regulation in the EU, You keep mistaking Jobs for one of your RIAA buddies.
I don't think they're getting sued, but the EU has been putting pressure on the iTunes store for some time. http://news.com.com/EU+takes+aim+at+Apple+over+iTu nes/2100-1041_3-6166226.html Errm, no, not really. Not only did "the comment represented the commissioner's personal views, not those of the Commission", she has since back-peddled, saying "that there is no reason to talk about legal action against [Apple] and that she merely wanted to raise questions.". Also "Somebody drew the comparison with Microsoft," which received a big antitrust blow from the EU a few years ago, Kuneva said. "No, this is not the case because the share of the market of Apple is really not a big one."
What I don't get is why people concentrate on the irrelevant issue of wether a driver works or not.
The article was about Apple bullying researchers, using odd legal tactics to prevent truth about their vulnerabilities for surfacing and hiring bloggers to cover their tracks.
If Microsoft had done this, it would be on front page on the newspapers, and the first item on Slashdot would be "Microsoft Bullying Security Researchers". But this is Apple, so it is probably OK for them to do it. Well, maybe people rather want to talk about something that could actually be true, not some lame attempt at an excuse from a blogger who has been fooled by a couple of grey dick-hats.
Okay, let me put it this way, maybe you understand then: PCs have a tiny marketshare.
Why would I care if PCs have a tiny marketshare? You're accusing me of some weird bias but you're not making any sense. No, both I and TFA make sense, but obviously you don't have enough to understand. Nobody but you has mentioned anything about you bias.
Huh? That makes even less sense than what my original post was responding to. Why would I care that Dell has a tiny marketshare? I'm neither a Dell shareholder nor an employee. Don't even own a Dell. Okay, let me put it this way, maybe you understand then: PCs have a tiny marketshare.
Apparently someone doesn't get the irony in the original post?
An article is posted about how the general public is getting shell-shocked from all the hyperbole and "OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE TOMORROW IN MASSIVE FLOODING/HEATING/STARVATION!" that most of the AGW supporters shout from the rooftops.
Someone jumps in to say it's all wrong that there have been HUGE ATMOSPHERIC CHANGES! to counter.
Of course, when one LOOKS at the actual data, the changes aren't even remotely close to huge...
They are huge, if you don't twist with the numbers. Go play with one of your beloved "If we do something the economy will be dead" doomsayers.
I find irony usually lost on the fundamentalists... Now on to the logical fallacy of the strawman you put up:
Are you that stupid? How much is your income compared to the GDP of the united states? If it doubled, would you notice or not?
Personally? Heck yes, I'd notice! I'd love it! Of course, would the GDP of the US actually notice? Not a chance. See, doubling from 0.018% to 0.036% may be significant if you're that 0.018%; but when we're talking about the other 99.982%, it's really not that much at all.
So what is your point? That you have no clue about climate? Thanks, we already knew.
Or to put it correctly (to fix your analogy) - assume you pay $0.18 of every $10,000 in taxes. You take home $100,000 per year, paying $1.80 in taxes. Would you really notice if your taxes doubled, to $3.60? I rather doubt it!
Well, the problem is THAT THE FUCKING CLIMATE changes, and you don't notice.
Kind of like the atmosphere doesn't experience HUGE CHANGES in that tiny change... Which the start of this thread addressed. Doubling MY income would be great for me, but it would be unnoticed in the GDP of the US. Which is really the correct analogy, not the strawman you constructed.
There have been huge atmospheric composition changes in the past 40 years, in particular, with the measured amount of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide increasing dramatically.
Ummm, yeah... Assuming the WORST case estimates over the last 40 years that CO2, methane, and NOx have doubled it still accounts for less than 0.036% of the Earth's atmosphere. Which means it went from 0.018% to 0.036%. Equivalent to a $0.18 change in a $1,000 bill.
Are you that stupid? How much is your income compared to the GDP of the united states? If it doubled, would you notice or not?
[The] sun is currently at its lowest output of total solar irradience in its 11 year cycle- and coincidentally the lowest in 30+ years despite a theoretical long term trend towards higher average solar output.
"Huge atmospheric composition changes" - this is the EXACT hyperbole the original article was talking about...
"Starting to decline" - Well, looks like Mr. Hyperbole is talking out of his ass. Let's ignore how you managed to find an old image to "prove" your point - even that shows that 2000 was the second warmest year of that timeframe, hardly a decline from all but one year from the 1990, let alone the other years from 1880 on.
But let's pretend you had been right - why would the max. temperature be in the 1990s when the MAXIMUM solar output was 2001? ARe you even trying to make sense?
From this Senate report The sheer stupidity of what is said aside - that's not a "Senate report", it's a Blog entry by a long time PR guy for the oil industry.
DUDE, you forgot death threats and all too! It is far worse then just the ability to make a living in the field you study, is goes to the ability to live in some cases. When a GW denier says "I won't see any results of Global Warming in my life-time" it's a scientific fact, when he hears it, it's a death threat.
Further, while HP leads worldwide PC sales, it is second to Dell within the US. How is that even possible?
Uh... Considering the article concerns (simple) analysis of numbers and statistics, the author should be able to wrap his mind around this relatively simple situation. Hell, if you can't even manage to understand his next sentence "Clearly, market share isn't a subject where numbers "speak for themselves.", then you are indeed beyond hope.
It is kind of irrelevant to the Zune/iPod debate, but the Mac marketshare is pretty important. If Macs had, say, a 50% marketshare, a lot more software would be developed for OSX (and probably less for Windows). Of course people who actually have a clue know that the Mac marketshare is pretty misleading in that regard, as long as A) the "market" includes PCs used as cash registers and similar things nobody ever buys any software for but what it shipped with, and B) that Mac users tend to buy more software than PC users.
Abstract
A system for generating hydrogen gas for use in a fuel cell includes a powder metal hydride source, a water source, a mixing device and a catalytic hydrogen generating chamber. A method of generating hydrogen for use in a fuel cell includes the steps of: providing a source of dry metal hydride fuel; providing a source of steam; providing a mixing/reaction chamber connected to the source of dry metal hydride fuel and to the source of steam; operating the mixing/reaction chamber to transport the dry metal hydride fuel from its source to a byproduct receptacle and feeding steam into the mixing/reaction chamber such that the steam reacts with the dry metal hydride fuel to produce hydrogen gas and a dry metal powder byproduct; removing the dry metal powder byproduct from the mixing/reaction chamber; and extracting the hydrogen gas from the mixing/reaction chamber.
Filed: August 28, 2003; Granted: February 20, 2007
All we're really doing is closing down factories and other energy-intensive manufacturing and moving it to China, which could surpass the United States as the biggest emitter of CO2 this year. And you've been claiming that since when? 1995?
My interest in past CO2 concentrations began by reading a (somewhat)
more
partisan summary of this information:
When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there
was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The
resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. . . .
Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling
of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by
32 percent across species.
And would you voluntarily give up using AC or heat? What about having your computer on less - meaning less/. ? How about riding a bike to work instead of driving? Yes, these are all things that could be done, but the vast majority of people wouldn't give them up voluntarily. Well, let's see. Not "needing" a temperature of 65F in the summer and 75F in the winter - check. Not using a CPU that idles at 100W - check. Riding by bike and train - check.
Yeah, if the price of energy rose by 25%, absolutely nobody would start thinking about using less energy for a change. They didn't the last time it rose by 25%. Well, then there obviously isn't a problem with energy prices going up, is there?
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by that? Am I mistaken that Jobs was enthusiastic about DRM in the early days? Why, yes of course. When have you ever not been?
But what did they expect to happen. Why didn't they first privately inform Apple and then if no action was taken go public. Two security researchers in search of the glory announce an Apple exploit. The Apple PR dept goes into overdrive and spins the issue. What did you expect from the PR dept of a major corporation - the truth. Welcome to the real world. Ah, if only it were so simple - A rundown. IOW Maynor refused to actually give info to Apple.
It would be a bit understandable if they displayed that malformed jp2 to
OTOH they are so stupid, they couldn't even tell the difference between "Heise trying to DOS our site" and people looking at it.
I'd imagine MPAA member execs will be a little cautious about entering a partnership with Apple after seeing Jobs' enthusiasm about music DRM turn into an about-face when confronted with interoperability regulation in the EU, You keep mistaking Jobs for one of your RIAA buddies.
http://news.com.com/EU+takes+aim+at+Apple+over+iT
But I guess I now see the light! I mean, this morning I weighed myself and I've added 22 grams to my 127 kg frame...
OMG! I NEED TO SCHEDULE A TRIPLE BYPASS AND A LAP-BAND RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I'M CLEARLY GONNA DIE!
Never mind that in the past I've weighed more and weighed less...
Oh, and about that "FUCKING CLIMATE" changing? Can you point to a time in history that it DIDN'T change?
Thank you!
Too bad those 22 grams you gained were pure LDL cholesterol - you are dead.But the point of this patent isn't to search one sorting faster, but to have multiple sortings.
Why would I care if PCs have a tiny marketshare? You're accusing me of some weird bias but you're not making any sense. No, both I and TFA make sense, but obviously you don't have enough to understand. Nobody but you has mentioned anything about you bias.
An article is posted about how the general public is getting shell-shocked from all the hyperbole and "OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE TOMORROW IN MASSIVE FLOODING/HEATING/STARVATION!" that most of the AGW supporters shout from the rooftops.
Someone jumps in to say it's all wrong that there have been HUGE ATMOSPHERIC CHANGES! to counter.
Of course, when one LOOKS at the actual data, the changes aren't even remotely close to huge...
They are huge, if you don't twist with the numbers. Go play with one of your beloved "If we do something the economy will be dead" doomsayers.I find irony usually lost on the fundamentalists... Now on to the logical fallacy of the strawman you put up:
Are you that stupid? How much is your income compared to the GDP of the united states? If it doubled, would you notice or not?
Personally? Heck yes, I'd notice! I'd love it! Of course, would the GDP of the US actually notice? Not a chance. See, doubling from 0.018% to 0.036% may be significant if you're that 0.018%; but when we're talking about the other 99.982%, it's really not that much at all.
So what is your point? That you have no clue about climate? Thanks, we already knew.Or to put it correctly (to fix your analogy) - assume you pay $0.18 of every $10,000 in taxes. You take home $100,000 per year, paying $1.80 in taxes. Would you really notice if your taxes doubled, to $3.60? I rather doubt it!
Well, the problem is THAT THE FUCKING CLIMATE changes, and you don't notice.Kind of like the atmosphere doesn't experience HUGE CHANGES in that tiny change... Which the start of this thread addressed. Doubling MY income would be great for me, but it would be unnoticed in the GDP of the US. Which is really the correct analogy, not the strawman you constructed.
Follow?
Yes, you are stupid, thanks for confirming.Ummm, yeah... Assuming the WORST case estimates over the last 40 years that CO2, methane, and NOx have doubled it still accounts for less than 0.036% of the Earth's atmosphere. Which means it went from 0.018% to 0.036%. Equivalent to a $0.18 change in a $1,000 bill.
Are you that stupid? How much is your income compared to the GDP of the united states? If it doubled, would you notice or not?[The] sun is currently at its lowest output of total solar irradience in its 11 year cycle- and coincidentally the lowest in 30+ years despite a theoretical long term trend towards higher average solar output.
While it is true that the sun is now at a minimum, it was at a MAXIMUM by 2001. Coincidentally, the temperatures peaked during the 1990s, and are starting to decline. Maybe that Mr. Fusion in the sky does have a significant impact?
"Huge atmospheric composition changes" - this is the EXACT hyperbole the original article was talking about...
"Starting to decline" - Well, looks like Mr. Hyperbole is talking out of his ass. Let's ignore how you managed to find an old image to "prove" your point - even that shows that 2000 was the second warmest year of that timeframe, hardly a decline from all but one year from the 1990, let alone the other years from 1880 on.But let's pretend you had been right - why would the max. temperature be in the 1990s when the MAXIMUM solar output was 2001? ARe you even trying to make sense?
From the first article: Uh... Considering the article concerns (simple) analysis of numbers and statistics, the author should be able to wrap his mind around this relatively simple situation.
Hell, if you can't even manage to understand his next sentence "Clearly, market share isn't a subject where numbers "speak for themselves.", then you are indeed beyond hope.
It doesn't make sense to you, because you just don't want to accept the fact that even Dell has a tenny-weeny marketshare.
You are right, the old "We don't need proof, climate has always changed, so it can't be man doing it" is a much better argument.
Oh well, it's something else completely, I guess.
"Kuneva's comment -- which the Commission stressed is purely her personal view"
And you've been claiming that since when? 1995?
My interest in past CO2 concentrations began by reading a (somewhat) more partisan summary of this information:
There this little problem with that claim: compare CO2 levels against biodiversity.