So this is bad news for the iPhone but it seems like any carrier of the iPhone should want to implement a simple filter to remove any malicious SMSs from the system.
First, twitter didn't fail; twitter removed trending topics from the sidebar. You could still search but it was not giving you trends. I strongly suspect that this is because of the load on their database server trying to load in the new entires while serving data. While you may consider trending topics to be the end all be all of twitter it should at least be noted that it is a relatively new feature and twitter does have a tendency for very slow development.
The link posted by the submitter is too annoying to read (who uses over content ads?) Here is a link to a much less ad encumbered article on the same subject:
http://www.physorg.com/news164424219.html
I would disagree with your statement that "The exploit is to remotely cause unauthorized code to run," since they provide no way to obtain remote access. That is the exploit is, as I state above, to run unauthorized code. As it stands you have both install that code and have physical access to the device to run the code.
The title and summary are very misleading. The exploit is to run unauthorized code. They have not presented an injection path. While this is not good it is not as bad as having a "Remote iPhone Crack."
Perhaps doctors should speak with Astronomers about finding needles in hay stacks. It would appear that the problem is with too much information. That is a solvable problem by computers and people. Computers reduce the data and humans decide what is what. That is if a human can see a contrast or pattern difference then just have a computer highlight the regions of each slide which "differ greatly" from the "standard." If you cannot define a "standard" then the problem is clearly much harder than anyone above is making it out to be.
Where did you get your numbers? They are out of wack with reality for the vast majority of states (see link below). Also FEMA is not a tax but a government agency. Finally, many would argue that increasing the tax on gasoline would lead to a more sustainable economy less dependent on oil in general and more centralized. Here is a link to the gasoline taxes by state. http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/
I was under the impression that your "LITE" application example was banned by the in App purchasing methods offered through Apple. That is if an App is free then it is always free, if an App is paid for THEN it can charge you more.
I do program my own analysis software. But it answers very specific questions, the huge difference between what a scientist does and what WA has done is that a scientist answers very specific questions and WA claims to answer pretty much anything. After having used it the answers are pretty much useless unless you are trying to win a bar bet. So if their software could answer scientifically significant questions without the need for human intervention then I would agree with you. As it stand they are asking to be cited for searching a database and running mathematica. Mathematica is nice, it can solve some equations fast than I can but in the end if I am going to rely on it I have to derive it because it also produces useless incorrect answers at times, so it it at best a more complex calculator and and worse a calculator which may or may not give you the right answer.
How is it reasonable to ask for attribution for having a computer perform a calculation on someone else's data? Wolfram Alpha has do nothing except code a turing machine, I do not cite HP when I do a calculation on my calculator and I see no reason why more complex but equally wrote calculations should be. I ask the computer a question and it gives an answer, is the question or code used to find the answer the insightful/citable part of the idea?
Hence the need for an active coolant instead of simply radiative or conductive cooling. You need a heat bath to dump the heat into to cool something down. That is the part that is hard to come by in space. Sure everything is very cold but it is not very conductive.
There is a huge technical problem that many of the above posters have ignored. To use "space" as a heat sink requires you to conduct that head to space. However, space is very close to vacuum and thus it is near impossible to conduct heat away. The other option is to radiate heat away this requires that you have something which is very efficient at radiating in the peak frequency for the nominal temperature of the radiator. To make a long story short you cannot use radiative cooling to cool something to near zero in space because you are being bathed by 2.7k blackbody radiation.
You are wrong. Flat wrong. I know for a fact that Physics text books are not dominated by IP costs. One author I know was paid 5000 USD for his work and would see nothing more unless the book sold many more copies than expected. So, unless only 100 people were expected to buy the book, the dominate cost of the book (around 50) was NOT his IP. This could be different in different fields but it is certainly not the case that you put forward in all fields either.
The percent effective you quote is for real life use NOT laboratory use. There is a rather large difference. The number you quote rolls in people not remembering to take the pill at all or on time while the number quoted in the study likely only includes those people who had their injects regularly.
The link you post is for average use. The pill is far better than 1% effective over the course of a year if used properly. Since the study being presented here is about injections it is possible that the reason 1/3 of the test subjects were not used was they did not come for their injections so you are comparing real life with NOT real life.
When researchers don't address a loss of a 3rd of their sample they are not doing their job. Something is fishy from that end.
Also who wants only a 1/100 chance of NOT getting your SO pregnant? For most Americans that would be on the order of once year (assuming the women is only fertile for a few days a month).
Correct me if I am missing something but you are suggesting that 18000 US corporations will leave the US, firing all their employees, for Bermuda where they will hire...? If they could move shop to Bermuda and cut costs by paying people less (you do know US employees are paid much more than the average) why aren't the doing so now? Clearly you or I are missing something.
Slashdot Mirror
How the heck does this method send an SMS without using the carrier?
My best guess would be the cell providers. They want someway to control the devices on their network or update them remotely if so needed.
So this is bad news for the iPhone but it seems like any carrier of the iPhone should want to implement a simple filter to remove any malicious SMSs from the system.
First, twitter didn't fail; twitter removed trending topics from the sidebar. You could still search but it was not giving you trends. I strongly suspect that this is because of the load on their database server trying to load in the new entires while serving data. While you may consider trending topics to be the end all be all of twitter it should at least be noted that it is a relatively new feature and twitter does have a tendency for very slow development.
The link posted by the submitter is too annoying to read (who uses over content ads?) Here is a link to a much less ad encumbered article on the same subject: http://www.physorg.com/news164424219.html
I would disagree with your statement that "The exploit is to remotely cause unauthorized code to run," since they provide no way to obtain remote access. That is the exploit is, as I state above, to run unauthorized code. As it stands you have both install that code and have physical access to the device to run the code.
The title and summary are very misleading. The exploit is to run unauthorized code. They have not presented an injection path. While this is not good it is not as bad as having a "Remote iPhone Crack."
Perhaps doctors should speak with Astronomers about finding needles in hay stacks. It would appear that the problem is with too much information. That is a solvable problem by computers and people. Computers reduce the data and humans decide what is what. That is if a human can see a contrast or pattern difference then just have a computer highlight the regions of each slide which "differ greatly" from the "standard." If you cannot define a "standard" then the problem is clearly much harder than anyone above is making it out to be.
Except for the part where the software causes your machine to be more accessible to attackers, yup other than that perfect analog.
Will do, just make sure it is a stove which uses inductive heating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooker#Benefits
Where did you get your numbers? They are out of wack with reality for the vast majority of states (see link below). Also FEMA is not a tax but a government agency. Finally, many would argue that increasing the tax on gasoline would lead to a more sustainable economy less dependent on oil in general and more centralized. Here is a link to the gasoline taxes by state. http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/
I was under the impression that your "LITE" application example was banned by the in App purchasing methods offered through Apple. That is if an App is free then it is always free, if an App is paid for THEN it can charge you more.
I do program my own analysis software. But it answers very specific questions, the huge difference between what a scientist does and what WA has done is that a scientist answers very specific questions and WA claims to answer pretty much anything. After having used it the answers are pretty much useless unless you are trying to win a bar bet. So if their software could answer scientifically significant questions without the need for human intervention then I would agree with you. As it stand they are asking to be cited for searching a database and running mathematica. Mathematica is nice, it can solve some equations fast than I can but in the end if I am going to rely on it I have to derive it because it also produces useless incorrect answers at times, so it it at best a more complex calculator and and worse a calculator which may or may not give you the right answer.
How is it reasonable to ask for attribution for having a computer perform a calculation on someone else's data? Wolfram Alpha has do nothing except code a turing machine, I do not cite HP when I do a calculation on my calculator and I see no reason why more complex but equally wrote calculations should be. I ask the computer a question and it gives an answer, is the question or code used to find the answer the insightful/citable part of the idea?
Hence the need for an active coolant instead of simply radiative or conductive cooling. You need a heat bath to dump the heat into to cool something down. That is the part that is hard to come by in space. Sure everything is very cold but it is not very conductive.
There is a huge technical problem that many of the above posters have ignored. To use "space" as a heat sink requires you to conduct that head to space. However, space is very close to vacuum and thus it is near impossible to conduct heat away. The other option is to radiate heat away this requires that you have something which is very efficient at radiating in the peak frequency for the nominal temperature of the radiator. To make a long story short you cannot use radiative cooling to cool something to near zero in space because you are being bathed by 2.7k blackbody radiation.
As a citizen I would like to thank you for helping a fellow human. Standing up for the rights of those around us makes us all stronger.
Your signature is in interesting contrast to your post.
You are wrong. Flat wrong. I know for a fact that Physics text books are not dominated by IP costs. One author I know was paid 5000 USD for his work and would see nothing more unless the book sold many more copies than expected. So, unless only 100 people were expected to buy the book, the dominate cost of the book (around 50) was NOT his IP. This could be different in different fields but it is certainly not the case that you put forward in all fields either.
Perhaps the customers do not want to be contacted by you since they didn't send you an email?
The percent effective you quote is for real life use NOT laboratory use. There is a rather large difference. The number you quote rolls in people not remembering to take the pill at all or on time while the number quoted in the study likely only includes those people who had their injects regularly.
The link you post is for average use. The pill is far better than 1% effective over the course of a year if used properly. Since the study being presented here is about injections it is possible that the reason 1/3 of the test subjects were not used was they did not come for their injections so you are comparing real life with NOT real life.
When researchers don't address a loss of a 3rd of their sample they are not doing their job. Something is fishy from that end.
Also who wants only a 1/100 chance of NOT getting your SO pregnant? For most Americans that would be on the order of once year (assuming the women is only fertile for a few days a month).
How is this insightful? Funny maybe but not insightful.
Correct me if I am missing something but you are suggesting that 18000 US corporations will leave the US, firing all their employees, for Bermuda where they will hire...? If they could move shop to Bermuda and cut costs by paying people less (you do know US employees are paid much more than the average) why aren't the doing so now? Clearly you or I are missing something.