This is China we're talking about. They keep the number of laws down to simplify things. They just have a few laws that make it illegal to "do anything we don't want you to do".
I'm betting the average citizen owning anything that could be used against the govt is specifically outlawed. But then this is a developer, so depending on who's getting paid and how much, he may or may not be considered "government" by the local law.
Macs went to EFI over four years ago. Hard to believe it took the windows machines this long to take the leap?
BIOS is the bane of the PC service tech. That's where manufacturers lock up the hardware and prevent you from being able to fix it or work on it. Good bye, and good riddance.
Another example of who NOT to vote for. Hello I'm running for office and support using loopholes to get around the intended restrictions our current laws are trying to enforce. Oh and I'm running to be a judge too.
'It's only a matter of time before regulators catch wind of just how many times we're being charged for the exact same thing.'"
Next they'll go after the newspapers, magazines, blogs, radio, and television for all charging me for their services when I should just get it all in unlimited form from one place for one price.
I wouldn't want it to be legal everywhere in the country because I don't actually like having slot machines everywhere I look (which is the case in places where it is legal); but I don't mind having it legal in a couple states plus a couple other places.
Here in Iowa, there's a state run lottery and scratch ticket and soforth, and yes, every bar and most every kind of store has at least one of these machines in it. I don't see that as a bad thing. I favor the saying, "Support the Lottery, it's a tax on people who are bad at math". But there's the small entertainment aspect. You can't really expect that anywhere near 100% of the people that play the lotto etc are expecting to "win big". Most are happy with winning small from time to time while dreaming about winning big. That's really how the system should work. It's only when people are playing because they need to win that problems set in.
I don't even count "gambling addiction" because a person can become addicted to anything, there's no reason to beat up on gambling in specific because of addiction, it doesn't even count in my book any more than being addicted to stamp collecting. It's about as productive, and can be as costly. No excuse to think about banning stamp collecting.
The more I look at that description and think about it, the more skeptical I become. It reminds me of someone trying to sell a perpetual motion machine. You have this battery to start it, and it shines this light. And all around it are solar panels, that absorb the light and keep the battery charged. Of course this doesn't work, there's never any net gain, and since there's losses in the system, it fails.
Here, the wind speeds the vehicle up to say 15mph, same as the wind. The wheels rob the vehicle of some speed in exchange to spin the propeller backwards. (which I must admit is a very interesting, novel approach!) which provides a force on the wind blowing the vehicle, which by itself would appear to accelerate the vehicle faster than 15mph.
But I see no reason why the drag from the wheels isn't exactly canceling out the benefit of rotating the propeller. And then the losses of friction etc step in, and you end up with a vehicle traveling slightly slower than the speed of the wind.
Basically, you can't turn the propeller without investing energy, because you're turning it against a resistance, namely the wind blowing on it. The more you want to resist the wind, (the faster you want to go than the wind) the more energy is required on the prop. And so as this theoretical vehicle accelerates and more energy is available from the wheels, (and is being robbed from the vehicle speed) the more energy you have to invest in the propeller. It's the same as a perpetual motion machine. You can't get more out without putting more in, and you can't put more in until you've gotten more out.
But then of course everyone asks "but he proved it with his prototype. I would ask if this was a sustained speed. Here's a scenario where it could work for a short time only:
First it looks like the blades on the prop can be pitched. That makes sense for control anyway. Lets say the car is blown up to speed while the blades are pitched at 0 degrees. Power is drawn from the wheels to spin up the prop. This slows the vehicle initially but the wind is constant and eventually the prop is up to full speed (perhaps very fast!) and the wind continues to blow and brings the vehicle back up to about it's speed. (probably only close, due to various friction elements)
Then suddenly the blades on the prop are pitched heavily, and now there's a good wind blowing out the back.
The vehicle would surely lurch forward. This is spending the energy of the inertia of the prop to accelerate the vehicle. This will only last a short time. Yes, the vehicle is traveling faster now and the wheels are turning faster, but you can't rob power off the wheels to keep the prop up to speed because that would slow the vehicle down. Remember the perpetual motion machine above. Any energy you take from the wheels to spin the prop to keep it up to speed must provide equal or less energy in the end to the prop than you are taking from the wheels. And the vehicle's acceleration crests.
At this point the prop will be spinning slower but still backward, enough to reach equilibrium, such that the energy of pushing on the prop to accelerate the vehicle is equal to the energy being taken from the wheels.
And then it starts to slow down, slowly, due to drag. And during which the prop slows down, STOPS, and reverses direction.
How can it stop and even reverse direction while the wheels still turn? Good question! The prop is currently working against the wind. Energy must be invested in the motor, not merely to spin it in the direction you want, but to even resist being spup the other way. It's easier to understand if you look at a prop being spun freely by the wind. If you put a dead battery on the terminals, the battery will start to charge, but the blades will slow down. You are providing a load on the prop, and are withdrawing energy from the prop's speed and transferring it to the battery. Energy is always moved around, never created or destroyed. In the
gambling is a form of entertainment. Even people with "money problems" (and they didn't discuss the magnitude, heck most people would say they have "money problems" of some sort) need entertainment. Gambling, done properly, can be a reasonably cheap form of entertainment. Particularly quarter slots.
But a previous poster was onto something when they said the previous players that day deserved a refund since they were also playing on a 'defective' machine that could have been meant to give out more than it did to them. "can't have it both ways" was the comment, spot on.
Taken another way, why can't *I* demand they take the machine to get inspected if I play it all day and don't win as much as I think I should have? If they can have it checked for faults not in their favor, and have them be binding, then so can I. You can't adjust the amount of review based on the outcome, which is exactly what they are doing here. It'd be like calling the opposing team for a review every time the refs made a call against you, but never when they made a call in your favor. In those cases both sides have equal power to call review. The same should apply here also.
Not entirely correct, historically it meant an exploit that was discovered by the vendor by the fact that it was being exploited. Meaning, they had zero days to develop a patch.
I would slightly adjust (loosen) that definition and say that it's an exploit for which there is not currently a patch available (number of days the patch has been available: zero) whether or not the vendor is aware of it. (and that has just suddenly started being exploited on a broad scale in the wild)
Reason is, we've many times seen things widely described as 'zero day', that when the dust settled, it turned out to be an issue the vendor had known about for anywhere from weeks to even years and had simply not seen it being exploited. (often with references to the 9 months ago when it was submitted and registered in their bugbase) So they believed it would be "extremely difficult to exploit AND extremely difficult to patch" and thus landed at the bottom of the fixit queue.
And if it then starts getting exploited heavily in the wild suddenly, they scramble to make a fix for it and we see "OMG ZERO DAY!" all over the news.
If I buy something, I can use it however I like. You can't have it both ways.
aaahhh, and then we get into the joys of LICENSING
They're not selling it to you, they're just letting you borrow it, on their terms. You're basically licensing (renting/leasing) their network. They can place restrictions on your use of their property.
I wonder though, where the line would have to be drawn.... what level of recording/observation are people allowed to use on you if you're in the public? For example, could I set up a full-body-scanner between the trees in my front yard such that you got scanned as you walked by on the sidewalk?
I suppose you could start by saying "passive" methods only.
they obviously have something to hide, but it's probably more of a fear of what might happen. I doubt many cops go into a situation intending to behave illegally. There's so many laws that if taken literally can make their jobs really hard to do. I'm not really defending the cops on this, just saying I can somewhat relate and see their problem with it.
That being said, I'd personally like to see a federal law or constitutional amendment etc that explicitly gives people the right to record (audio, video) anyone on public property or their own property without their consent. Including cops. And without any requirement for you to notify them they are/may be recorded. If you're in the public, or you're in someone else's private, you should have no expectation of privacy, outside certain limits. (bathroom for example)
Perhaps not a botnet this time, but after giving the admin password during installation, any payload could have been installed.
"User gives random downloaded software his admin password and bad things happen. Film at 11."
duh. The reason this is not common on the mac is you haven't completely compromised the machine at that point. Doing things like enrolling in a botnet require additional exploitation. Hence it's far less valuable to trojan a mac user because you've got a lot more work to do still before you own the machine.
The basics of social engineering your foot in the door will always be there, for any platform. What you can accomplish with a mere foot in the door is what defines how many feet you are going to be seeing.
Windows security is not well layered, it's more absolute. You're either a basic user that can't do a lot of things that many users need to be able to do, (discouraging people from even wanting to BE a basic user) or you're essentially root. One exploit = totally owned.
Is there going to be a huge market for antivirus software for cell phones within the next few years?
For every "unlocked" phone that allows you to install unsigned software, yes. That's the price you pay for unlocked hardware. There are exceptions to the rule, (OS X) but they are very few and far between.
Protecting your users from bad people isn't really very difficult. (firewall) Protecting them from themselves, that's a trick. (AV software)
I'm surprised we haven't seen a much faster rise in malware for unlocked phones in the last few years.
The question the modern capitalist must ask themselves is a question of priority. What is more important to you, the lives of poor individuals or profits?
The answer is C: the size of the retirement nest eggs of the congresscritters. (aka "B")
If apple was being honest about the reasons for not including flash, things like problems with sandboxing and concurrent app access etc, this probably inciodentally solves those problems so Steve may not actually care.
Island: any piece of sub-continental land that is surrounded by water.
So, antarctica, asia, japan, iceland, see, they're ALL islands by the broader definition. Technically, if you had even a small lake on the moon, everything else, all the other land, would be an "island". But then we get into "what's a continent?" Most agree that australia is a continent, so I suppose that knocks it out of the running for islandness.
By most common discussion though, japan is about the largest landmass still considered an "island". The reason australia seems to draw this debate more often is because of the distance it is from other land masses. But then the same is true for antarctica, but it just doesn't get anywhere near the press as australia.
Slashdot Mirror
This is China we're talking about. They keep the number of laws down to simplify things. They just have a few laws that make it illegal to "do anything we don't want you to do".
I'm betting the average citizen owning anything that could be used against the govt is specifically outlawed. But then this is a developer, so depending on who's getting paid and how much, he may or may not be considered "government" by the local law.
people are just dying to visit the place!
You need to check out rEFIt. Works awesome on the mac, allows you to TRIPLE BOOT, linux, mac os, and windows. very nice interface even.
EFI is a much more customizable system than BIOS ever was.
Macs went to EFI over four years ago. Hard to believe it took the windows machines this long to take the leap?
BIOS is the bane of the PC service tech. That's where manufacturers lock up the hardware and prevent you from being able to fix it or work on it. Good bye, and good riddance.
I remember playing that on the Apple ][ a long long time ago. And I did it with only a side-view too.
so what's so hard about that?
I thought judges were rehabilitated lawyers?
Another example of who NOT to vote for. Hello I'm running for office and support using loopholes to get around the intended restrictions our current laws are trying to enforce. Oh and I'm running to be a judge too.
Is this the world's favorite new way to waste time, suing google for recording publicly available information from wifi spots as they drive?
idiots. ALL idiots.
'It's only a matter of time before regulators catch wind of just how many times we're being charged for the exact same thing.'"
Next they'll go after the newspapers, magazines, blogs, radio, and television for all charging me for their services when I should just get it all in unlimited form from one place for one price.
that doesn't even begin to make sense.
agreed. the meaning of a word is not defined by webster, but by the interpretation of the current generation.
I wouldn't want it to be legal everywhere in the country because I don't actually like having slot machines everywhere I look (which is the case in places where it is legal); but I don't mind having it legal in a couple states plus a couple other places.
Here in Iowa, there's a state run lottery and scratch ticket and soforth, and yes, every bar and most every kind of store has at least one of these machines in it. I don't see that as a bad thing. I favor the saying, "Support the Lottery, it's a tax on people who are bad at math". But there's the small entertainment aspect. You can't really expect that anywhere near 100% of the people that play the lotto etc are expecting to "win big". Most are happy with winning small from time to time while dreaming about winning big. That's really how the system should work. It's only when people are playing because they need to win that problems set in.
I don't even count "gambling addiction" because a person can become addicted to anything, there's no reason to beat up on gambling in specific because of addiction, it doesn't even count in my book any more than being addicted to stamp collecting. It's about as productive, and can be as costly. No excuse to think about banning stamp collecting.
The more I look at that description and think about it, the more skeptical I become. It reminds me of someone trying to sell a perpetual motion machine. You have this battery to start it, and it shines this light. And all around it are solar panels, that absorb the light and keep the battery charged. Of course this doesn't work, there's never any net gain, and since there's losses in the system, it fails.
Here, the wind speeds the vehicle up to say 15mph, same as the wind. The wheels rob the vehicle of some speed in exchange to spin the propeller backwards. (which I must admit is a very interesting, novel approach!) which provides a force on the wind blowing the vehicle, which by itself would appear to accelerate the vehicle faster than 15mph.
But I see no reason why the drag from the wheels isn't exactly canceling out the benefit of rotating the propeller. And then the losses of friction etc step in, and you end up with a vehicle traveling slightly slower than the speed of the wind.
Basically, you can't turn the propeller without investing energy, because you're turning it against a resistance, namely the wind blowing on it. The more you want to resist the wind, (the faster you want to go than the wind) the more energy is required on the prop. And so as this theoretical vehicle accelerates and more energy is available from the wheels, (and is being robbed from the vehicle speed) the more energy you have to invest in the propeller. It's the same as a perpetual motion machine. You can't get more out without putting more in, and you can't put more in until you've gotten more out.
But then of course everyone asks "but he proved it with his prototype. I would ask if this was a sustained speed. Here's a scenario where it could work for a short time only:
First it looks like the blades on the prop can be pitched. That makes sense for control anyway. Lets say the car is blown up to speed while the blades are pitched at 0 degrees. Power is drawn from the wheels to spin up the prop. This slows the vehicle initially but the wind is constant and eventually the prop is up to full speed (perhaps very fast!) and the wind continues to blow and brings the vehicle back up to about it's speed. (probably only close, due to various friction elements)
Then suddenly the blades on the prop are pitched heavily, and now there's a good wind blowing out the back.
The vehicle would surely lurch forward. This is spending the energy of the inertia of the prop to accelerate the vehicle. This will only last a short time. Yes, the vehicle is traveling faster now and the wheels are turning faster, but you can't rob power off the wheels to keep the prop up to speed because that would slow the vehicle down. Remember the perpetual motion machine above. Any energy you take from the wheels to spin the prop to keep it up to speed must provide equal or less energy in the end to the prop than you are taking from the wheels. And the vehicle's acceleration crests.
At this point the prop will be spinning slower but still backward, enough to reach equilibrium, such that the energy of pushing on the prop to accelerate the vehicle is equal to the energy being taken from the wheels.
And then it starts to slow down, slowly, due to drag. And during which the prop slows down, STOPS, and reverses direction.
How can it stop and even reverse direction while the wheels still turn? Good question! The prop is currently working against the wind. Energy must be invested in the motor, not merely to spin it in the direction you want, but to even resist being spup the other way. It's easier to understand if you look at a prop being spun freely by the wind. If you put a dead battery on the terminals, the battery will start to charge, but the blades will slow down. You are providing a load on the prop, and are withdrawing energy from the prop's speed and transferring it to the battery. Energy is always moved around, never created or destroyed. In the
I've actually seen a (one) user with Bing as their home page. Not sure what would cause that to happen.
your search engine of choice?
google. check
yahoo. check
dogpile. really?
bing. what?
gambling is a form of entertainment. Even people with "money problems" (and they didn't discuss the magnitude, heck most people would say they have "money problems" of some sort) need entertainment. Gambling, done properly, can be a reasonably cheap form of entertainment. Particularly quarter slots.
But a previous poster was onto something when they said the previous players that day deserved a refund since they were also playing on a 'defective' machine that could have been meant to give out more than it did to them. "can't have it both ways" was the comment, spot on.
Taken another way, why can't *I* demand they take the machine to get inspected if I play it all day and don't win as much as I think I should have? If they can have it checked for faults not in their favor, and have them be binding, then so can I. You can't adjust the amount of review based on the outcome, which is exactly what they are doing here. It'd be like calling the opposing team for a review every time the refs made a call against you, but never when they made a call in your favor. In those cases both sides have equal power to call review. The same should apply here also.
Not entirely correct, historically it meant an exploit that was discovered by the vendor by the fact that it was being exploited. Meaning, they had zero days to develop a patch.
I would slightly adjust (loosen) that definition and say that it's an exploit for which there is not currently a patch available (number of days the patch has been available: zero) whether or not the vendor is aware of it. (and that has just suddenly started being exploited on a broad scale in the wild)
Reason is, we've many times seen things widely described as 'zero day', that when the dust settled, it turned out to be an issue the vendor had known about for anywhere from weeks to even years and had simply not seen it being exploited. (often with references to the 9 months ago when it was submitted and registered in their bugbase) So they believed it would be "extremely difficult to exploit AND extremely difficult to patch" and thus landed at the bottom of the fixit queue.
And if it then starts getting exploited heavily in the wild suddenly, they scramble to make a fix for it and we see "OMG ZERO DAY!" all over the news.
If I buy something, I can use it however I like. You can't have it both ways.
aaahhh, and then we get into the joys of LICENSING
They're not selling it to you, they're just letting you borrow it, on their terms. You're basically licensing (renting/leasing) their network. They can place restrictions on your use of their property.
I wonder though, where the line would have to be drawn.... what level of recording/observation are people allowed to use on you if you're in the public? For example, could I set up a full-body-scanner between the trees in my front yard such that you got scanned as you walked by on the sidewalk?
I suppose you could start by saying "passive" methods only.
http://html5test.com/
things like this will have to do until we see something like ACID support HTML5.
they obviously have something to hide, but it's probably more of a fear of what might happen. I doubt many cops go into a situation intending to behave illegally. There's so many laws that if taken literally can make their jobs really hard to do. I'm not really defending the cops on this, just saying I can somewhat relate and see their problem with it.
That being said, I'd personally like to see a federal law or constitutional amendment etc that explicitly gives people the right to record (audio, video) anyone on public property or their own property without their consent. Including cops. And without any requirement for you to notify them they are/may be recorded. If you're in the public, or you're in someone else's private, you should have no expectation of privacy, outside certain limits. (bathroom for example)
Perhaps not a botnet this time, but after giving the admin password during installation, any payload could have been installed.
"User gives random downloaded software his admin password and bad things happen. Film at 11."
duh. The reason this is not common on the mac is you haven't completely compromised the machine at that point. Doing things like enrolling in a botnet require additional exploitation. Hence it's far less valuable to trojan a mac user because you've got a lot more work to do still before you own the machine.
The basics of social engineering your foot in the door will always be there, for any platform. What you can accomplish with a mere foot in the door is what defines how many feet you are going to be seeing.
Windows security is not well layered, it's more absolute. You're either a basic user that can't do a lot of things that many users need to be able to do, (discouraging people from even wanting to BE a basic user) or you're essentially root. One exploit = totally owned.
Is there going to be a huge market for antivirus software for cell phones within the next few years?
For every "unlocked" phone that allows you to install unsigned software, yes. That's the price you pay for unlocked hardware. There are exceptions to the rule, (OS X) but they are very few and far between.
Protecting your users from bad people isn't really very difficult. (firewall) Protecting them from themselves, that's a trick. (AV software)
I'm surprised we haven't seen a much faster rise in malware for unlocked phones in the last few years.
The question the modern capitalist must ask themselves is a question of priority. What is more important to you, the lives of poor individuals or profits?
The answer is C: the size of the retirement nest eggs of the congresscritters. (aka "B")
If apple was being honest about the reasons for not including flash, things like problems with sandboxing and concurrent app access etc, this probably inciodentally solves those problems so Steve may not actually care.
And it's a EULA btw.
Island: any piece of sub-continental land that is surrounded by water.
So, antarctica, asia, japan, iceland, see, they're ALL islands by the broader definition. Technically, if you had even a small lake on the moon, everything else, all the other land, would be an "island". But then we get into "what's a continent?" Most agree that australia is a continent, so I suppose that knocks it out of the running for islandness.
By most common discussion though, japan is about the largest landmass still considered an "island". The reason australia seems to draw this debate more often is because of the distance it is from other land masses. But then the same is true for antarctica, but it just doesn't get anywhere near the press as australia.
unless there are undead lawyers.
They're called Estate Lawyers
They're the complement to "ambulance chaser", they're more of a "hearse chaser".