Pretty well seeing as I can just switch to someone who isn't Verizon if I don't like it. That's a lot easier than trying to pick a new government.
Really? I takes you four years to get a new government, and it seems like it'll be a cold day in hell before I can choose between more than the one broadband provider in my area.
And suddenly jailbreaking is the smart security option for all the users that Apple left behind.
Isn't that the general rule of thumb for devices once they reach the end of support - do all the fun hacky stuff that you want, and if you break it you end up with an excuse to upgrade:P
iOS 4 sucks on the iPhone 3G (nearly no new features, but much slower), so many are reluctant to update.
iOS4 doesn't suck on the 3G if you do a clean wipe of the OS before moving to 4. This has been a known issue for some time now. Wipe your 3G, then move to iOS4. I know plenty of folks running iOS4 on their 3G who absolutely love it. They have no issues with performance or it suck-ing.
If you upgraded and already experience performance issues, backup your phone, restore to factory settings, upgrade to iOS4, then restore from backup. Problem solved.
From personal experience, this doesn't do anything to fix the problem - it will come back after restoring from the backup.
In modern parlance, "bricked" means "mildly inconvenienced for about 30 minutes" rather than "made completely inoperable to the point where the hardware is now about as useful as a standard brick" and "zero day" means "sometime within the next 5 years after the actual software was released in the first place."
Well, hell hath no fury like a geek who's been mildly inconvenienced.
While it does say that at some point, right on the very first page of truecrypt.org it says "Encrypts a partition or drive where Windows is installed (pre-boot authentication)."
Also, I don't follow soccer, but I think you may have a confused understanding of the game. I seem to recall that there are only twenty-two players on a soccer field, not 300.
He was assuming some place other than the USA, where the would actually be spectators around the field, as well as the players on it:P
I'd suspect even Google would make more effort to lock down Android if stuff like Installous was floating around there (is it? I have no idea).
You don't need anything like Installous on Android, because Android doesn't limit where you can install apps from. Once you check the "Allow installation of non-Market applications" option, you can just point the browser at a link to a.apk file.
Google is addressing paid-app piracy, but not by locking down the OS. Instead, they're letting apps check with Google's servers to verify that the app has been purchased by the person who's running it.
How is that addressing the problem? Are they not aware that crackers can remove such simple protections (for examples see every desktop application ever pirated).
I'm watching the video, and the end result is "b:1/78 1.28% s:27/78 34.62%" indicating that out of 78 tests of two words per test it got a single word right 35% of the time, and both words right only once or 1% of the time.
Since both words need to be correct "solve the current CAPTCHA at an efficacy of 1%" would be closer to the truth.
My understanding is that only one of the words needs to be correct, but it has to be the "right" one (reCAPTCHA presents two words one it's very certain it knows what it is and one it's less certain, you have to get the one that it's very certain of in order to pass).
are happy that I can buy a new iPhone directly from Apple almost without any ties to any phonecompany and with all features enabled.
Although they have forgotten to remove the 20 megabyte at&t download limitation from itunes. Can jailbreak solve that? I'd like to download podcasts from 3g and I actually have free (national) calls and unlimited data for tethering or whatever. (the benefit of working for a big company that can make proper deals with the data carriers)
There is indeed a jailbreak app that can make apps think they're on wifi - My3G (and there are probably others).
If 55% is the average then there's something wrong with what the professor is doing and it is NOT the student's fault.
Maybe, maybe not. Quit assuming you know everything. It’s entirely possible to have an entire class of students who mostly don’t care about school and don’t want to learn – especially in lower learning where they didn’t pay to be there instead of working 8-hour shifts at Wendy’s. Especially if most of them can still get a D and not be held back a year.
One would assume that by the use of the word professor I would have made it clear that I wasn't talking about the lower levels of learning and was referring to the collegiate level - where an entire class not wanting to learn seems rather unlikely given that most classes either have alternatives or are simply not required.
And even if it were true that it was an entire class where the students didn't care about school and didn't want to learn, the professor is still doing something wrong as he or she should make it interesting enough that the students do become interested (or at least interested enough to not have a 55% average due to apathy).
You could argue that the professor was actually doing a great job there, by encouraging you college kids to grow up and be proactive about your education. A little warning could be nice, but it's not how the real world works.
The specific class was a course on an Eastern Religion, entirely optional and not required by any majors. Meant to be one of those "broaden your view of the world" classes and worth only two credits.
Personally, I feel it was more that the professor fried his brain doing drugs. Half way through some lectures it seemed like he started over. In one lecture he told the same story three times. I actually had a friend who took the same class a year or two after me, but it was under a different name and department. How do we know it was the same class? The course title on the syllabus wasn't changed and the material was exactly the same. So while a good theory, I don't think that's what he was intending to do.
Funny thing was the other course I took in the spring was a math course, where the average was 55% (which was also the "D" cut-off line). Quite a contrast going from one class where literally every second person enrolled went on to fail,
Wait, those kids actually FAILED when the average was a 55%? If 55% is the average then there's something wrong with what the professor is doing and it is NOT the student's fault.
Isn't the exactly what grading curves were meant for? I had a class where the professor was TERRIBLE, and would routinely have questions on the exam that weren't covered anywhere in the material (as confirmed to us by our TA, who several times had to look up the answers to the test in totally separate books from those assigned to us - by the end of the semester you could really tell how frustrated she was with the Prof.). I got a B in that class with a 60%.
I'm not even sure why I used "foobar". The actual class name is "DocumentFactoryFactory".... not much better.
You could do some refactoring...It'd probably be a lot of work, so you could out source it to one of those places that specialize in that, a "refactoring factory". But all of that would require a proposal document...a DocumentFactoryFactory Refactoring Factory Document, if you will.
You do know that a "bar" is not a standard unit of measurement, right? It's a made up indicator by the manufacturer of the phone. The algorithm used isn't standardized at all, it may be that if the phone detects a large drop in signal strength it takes a minute for the number of bars to drop down to what they "should" be at now. And a three bar loss on one phone may actually be less signal loss than a one bar loss on another phone.
My entire point is that Company A considered the idea obvious - that there were other problems is unrelated - freezing something to make it a popsicle is obvious, regardless of other problems. They didn't "sit on" the idea, they thought the idea was so simple that anyone and everyone could have thought of it (i.e. they thought if they applied for a patent it would be denied because it is obvious). The patent Company B got wasn't for fixing the transportation problem (that went away itself through general progress), it was for the making of the thing Company A thought was obvious and non-patentable.
What if the reason no one was doing it commercially was an external factor affecting cost.
Say Company A looked into producing them, but transporting them was too expensive - say the trucks used to transport regular popsicles was a few degrees too warm at the time, so they'd need their own trucks and that was too much investment for them at the time. They didn't patent making medicine popsicles at the time because that seemed obvious.
Five years go by and the standard temperature for refrigerated trucks has now lowered to be viable. Company B now has the idea to try to sell medicine popsicles and looks into it and it's now viable. They see no one else is doing it so they patent making medicine popsicles. Now Company A can't get into the business either, because they thought their idea was obvious and not worthy of a patent.
Why should we deny patent protection to an inventor who is disclosing his invention to the public, in favor of someone who, if they're being completely honest, sat on an invention and didn't disclose it to the public or add to the state of the art? We're supposed to be encouraging public disclosure of innovation... not simply undocumented, secret innovation. The latter, at best, is doing the same thing as submarine patent trolls... and I thought Slashdot hated submarine patents.
What if the reason they sat on the invention is because they thought it was completely obvious and not worthy of a patent? (This is assuming the patent really is about medicine popsicles, I didn't read the patent) I honestly wouldn't think freezing medicine and turning it into a medicine popsicle would be patentable as I would assume that "freeze [X] to turn it into a [X] popsicle" is obvious and not patentable, similar to how "[X] over the internet" should not be patentable (in general). Should I file a patent on everything I've ever thought or done on the off chance someone will later come along and want a patent on it and demand proof that I did it before them?
Seriously, wtf does an anechoic chamber have to do with cell phone reception? Are loud noises really that detrimental to signal strength?
From Wikipedia: "An anechoic chamber is a room designed to stop reflections of either sound or electromagnetic waves" (read the bold part as: Cellphone Signals)
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty well seeing as I can just switch to someone who isn't Verizon if I don't like it. That's a lot easier than trying to pick a new government.
Really? I takes you four years to get a new government, and it seems like it'll be a cold day in hell before I can choose between more than the one broadband provider in my area.
And suddenly jailbreaking is the smart security option for all the users that Apple left behind.
Isn't that the general rule of thumb for devices once they reach the end of support - do all the fun hacky stuff that you want, and if you break it you end up with an excuse to upgrade :P
iOS 4 sucks on the iPhone 3G (nearly no new features, but much slower), so many are reluctant to update.
iOS4 doesn't suck on the 3G if you do a clean wipe of the OS before moving to 4. This has been a known issue for some time now. Wipe your 3G, then move to iOS4. I know plenty of folks running iOS4 on their 3G who absolutely love it. They have no issues with performance or it suck-ing. If you upgraded and already experience performance issues, backup your phone, restore to factory settings, upgrade to iOS4, then restore from backup. Problem solved.
From personal experience, this doesn't do anything to fix the problem - it will come back after restoring from the backup.
In modern parlance, "bricked" means "mildly inconvenienced for about 30 minutes" rather than "made completely inoperable to the point where the hardware is now about as useful as a standard brick" and "zero day" means "sometime within the next 5 years after the actual software was released in the first place."
Well, hell hath no fury like a geek who's been mildly inconvenienced.
Is it actually doing something malicious or just displaying a message?
While it does say that at some point, right on the very first page of truecrypt.org it says "Encrypts a partition or drive where Windows is installed (pre-boot authentication)."
>>>Mac OS X
False advertising. Ooops. It doesn't work with all of Mac OS 10.x - only the more recent versions.
It probably says it runs Windows, but doesn't run on Windows 1.0, either...Lying bastards.
Nobody is saying that a specific kind of technology is impossible. Just that it's impossible that that technology will never kill anyone.
I'm very curious as to the number of trackpad related deaths...
Also, I don't follow soccer, but I think you may have a confused understanding of the game. I seem to recall that there are only twenty-two players on a soccer field, not 300.
He was assuming some place other than the USA, where the would actually be spectators around the field, as well as the players on it :P
I'd suspect even Google would make more effort to lock down Android if stuff like Installous was floating around there (is it? I have no idea).
You don't need anything like Installous on Android, because Android doesn't limit where you can install apps from. Once you check the "Allow installation of non-Market applications" option, you can just point the browser at a link to a .apk file.
Google is addressing paid-app piracy, but not by locking down the OS. Instead, they're letting apps check with Google's servers to verify that the app has been purchased by the person who's running it.
How is that addressing the problem? Are they not aware that crackers can remove such simple protections (for examples see every desktop application ever pirated).
I'm watching the video, and the end result is "b:1/78 1.28% s:27/78 34.62%" indicating that out of 78 tests of two words per test it got a single word right 35% of the time, and both words right only once or 1% of the time.
Since both words need to be correct "solve the current CAPTCHA at an efficacy of 1%" would be closer to the truth.
My understanding is that only one of the words needs to be correct, but it has to be the "right" one (reCAPTCHA presents two words one it's very certain it knows what it is and one it's less certain, you have to get the one that it's very certain of in order to pass).
There's probably not that level of penetration for just about any single consumer product.
Condoms :P
(Though that might be being optimistic)
are happy that I can buy a new iPhone directly from Apple almost without any ties to any phonecompany and with all features enabled.
Although they have forgotten to remove the 20 megabyte at&t download limitation from itunes. Can jailbreak solve that? I'd like to download podcasts from 3g and I actually have free (national) calls and unlimited data for tethering or whatever. (the benefit of working for a big company that can make proper deals with the data carriers)
There is indeed a jailbreak app that can make apps think they're on wifi - My3G (and there are probably others).
I'm not 100% positive, but I believe the federal return is free and the state return is $16 (for me in Wisconsin). I've used them the past two years.
Probably not. You have to manually initiate the process once the page loads.
Just because this website has the user initiate the exploit via a manual process, doesn't mean a nefarious website couldn't do it automatically.
If 55% is the average then there's something wrong with what the professor is doing and it is NOT the student's fault.
Maybe, maybe not. Quit assuming you know everything. It’s entirely possible to have an entire class of students who mostly don’t care about school and don’t want to learn – especially in lower learning where they didn’t pay to be there instead of working 8-hour shifts at Wendy’s. Especially if most of them can still get a D and not be held back a year.
One would assume that by the use of the word professor I would have made it clear that I wasn't talking about the lower levels of learning and was referring to the collegiate level - where an entire class not wanting to learn seems rather unlikely given that most classes either have alternatives or are simply not required.
And even if it were true that it was an entire class where the students didn't care about school and didn't want to learn, the professor is still doing something wrong as he or she should make it interesting enough that the students do become interested (or at least interested enough to not have a 55% average due to apathy).
You could argue that the professor was actually doing a great job there, by encouraging you college kids to grow up and be proactive about your education. A little warning could be nice, but it's not how the real world works.
The specific class was a course on an Eastern Religion, entirely optional and not required by any majors. Meant to be one of those "broaden your view of the world" classes and worth only two credits.
Personally, I feel it was more that the professor fried his brain doing drugs. Half way through some lectures it seemed like he started over. In one lecture he told the same story three times. I actually had a friend who took the same class a year or two after me, but it was under a different name and department. How do we know it was the same class? The course title on the syllabus wasn't changed and the material was exactly the same. So while a good theory, I don't think that's what he was intending to do.
Funny thing was the other course I took in the spring was a math course, where the average was 55% (which was also the "D" cut-off line). Quite a contrast going from one class where literally every second person enrolled went on to fail,
Wait, those kids actually FAILED when the average was a 55%? If 55% is the average then there's something wrong with what the professor is doing and it is NOT the student's fault.
Isn't the exactly what grading curves were meant for? I had a class where the professor was TERRIBLE, and would routinely have questions on the exam that weren't covered anywhere in the material (as confirmed to us by our TA, who several times had to look up the answers to the test in totally separate books from those assigned to us - by the end of the semester you could really tell how frustrated she was with the Prof.). I got a B in that class with a 60%.
I'm not even sure why I used "foobar". The actual class name is "DocumentFactoryFactory". ... not much better.
You could do some refactoring...It'd probably be a lot of work, so you could out source it to one of those places that specialize in that, a "refactoring factory". But all of that would require a proposal document...a DocumentFactoryFactory Refactoring Factory Document, if you will.
You do know that a "bar" is not a standard unit of measurement, right? It's a made up indicator by the manufacturer of the phone. The algorithm used isn't standardized at all, it may be that if the phone detects a large drop in signal strength it takes a minute for the number of bars to drop down to what they "should" be at now. And a three bar loss on one phone may actually be less signal loss than a one bar loss on another phone.
My entire point is that Company A considered the idea obvious - that there were other problems is unrelated - freezing something to make it a popsicle is obvious, regardless of other problems. They didn't "sit on" the idea, they thought the idea was so simple that anyone and everyone could have thought of it (i.e. they thought if they applied for a patent it would be denied because it is obvious). The patent Company B got wasn't for fixing the transportation problem (that went away itself through general progress), it was for the making of the thing Company A thought was obvious and non-patentable.
What if the reason no one was doing it commercially was an external factor affecting cost.
Say Company A looked into producing them, but transporting them was too expensive - say the trucks used to transport regular popsicles was a few degrees too warm at the time, so they'd need their own trucks and that was too much investment for them at the time. They didn't patent making medicine popsicles at the time because that seemed obvious.
Five years go by and the standard temperature for refrigerated trucks has now lowered to be viable. Company B now has the idea to try to sell medicine popsicles and looks into it and it's now viable. They see no one else is doing it so they patent making medicine popsicles. Now Company A can't get into the business either, because they thought their idea was obvious and not worthy of a patent.
Why should we deny patent protection to an inventor who is disclosing his invention to the public, in favor of someone who, if they're being completely honest, sat on an invention and didn't disclose it to the public or add to the state of the art? We're supposed to be encouraging public disclosure of innovation... not simply undocumented, secret innovation. The latter, at best, is doing the same thing as submarine patent trolls... and I thought Slashdot hated submarine patents.
What if the reason they sat on the invention is because they thought it was completely obvious and not worthy of a patent? (This is assuming the patent really is about medicine popsicles, I didn't read the patent) I honestly wouldn't think freezing medicine and turning it into a medicine popsicle would be patentable as I would assume that "freeze [X] to turn it into a [X] popsicle" is obvious and not patentable, similar to how "[X] over the internet" should not be patentable (in general). Should I file a patent on everything I've ever thought or done on the off chance someone will later come along and want a patent on it and demand proof that I did it before them?
My apologies, I had used iPhone.4 which I thought equated to "iPhone 4" but it apparently doesn't.
Seriously, wtf does an anechoic chamber have to do with cell phone reception? Are loud noises really that detrimental to signal strength?
From Wikipedia: "An anechoic chamber is a room designed to stop reflections of either sound or electromagnetic waves" (read the bold part as: Cellphone Signals)