I know you can't stop spammers and bad people, but Skype and McAfee and Apple aren't *supposed* to act like spammers and bad people! You should be able to trust companies like that to not screw up your machine.
Installing Safari will in no way "screw up your machine". Yeah it'll take up some hard drive space but other than that it's just going to sit around and not do anything, good or evil. Should the Apple have made it an install you had to opt-out of? No, it's definitely on the wrong side of things. Installs should be intentional activities which are opted into, not opted out of.
On the other hand browser toolbars are active things that can possibly "screw up your machine". Browser toolbars change how your browser works and can possibly horribly interact with other parts of your browser, which is what happened with the Skype Toolbar and Firefox. It's an entirely different animal than Apple installing Safari on your machine.
Overall I definitely agree with you that it is wrong for companies to push their products in this manner but there are different levels of wrong, it's not all black and white.
Note that the date of the article discussing graphine with a bandgap is after the date of the article linked in the slashdot summary discussing that graphine can't have a bandgap. Sounds like the authors of the articles need to talk to some more people and get their facts ironed out.
When they first introduced the tactic, it was not listed under "optional installs", but right alongside iTunes under "updates" or whatever, so it looked like an update to something you already had.
It still wasn't an automatic install. You could uncheck the box and it wouldn't install. By definition, an automatic install is an install that happens no matter what you do.
Now it's debatable as to whether or not Apple was trying to deceive people into thinking that the install was something they probably should do. The fact that Apple later moved the install into an "optional" section at least shows that they made a move in the right direction.
Apple installing safari automatically (but apple is already evil so that wasn't too much of a surprise).
Apple never automatically installed Safari on Windows machines. When you use Apple's updater it will have Safari checked as an additional, optional install but you can uncheck that and Safari won't be installed. It's not hidden or automatic, the user can check or uncheck the box as they desire.
There is probably a legal precedent somewhere. Laptops have been around for a long time enough, that someone whacked someone else on the head with a laptop.
C is row-major order so the resulting 1 dimensional memory structure is each subarray repeated the number of times of the subarray before it. This means that if you have:
int foo[2][3];
The resulting structure goes like this:
position 0 | [0][0] position 1 | [0][1] position 2 | [0][2] position 3 | [1][0] position 4 | [1][1] position 5 | [1][2]
Apple stopped caring about geeks when they introduced the Macintosh.
I mostly agree with this, The Lisa and Macintosh were a major step away from the nearly completely-open philosophy that the Apple II series embodied.
However, I'd say that Mac OS X, the introduction of the Intel Macs, and the wealth of open source projects that Apple supports all represent a big move back toward that old, open philosophy. It's not 100% because Apple does have quite a few examples of very closed architectures but those are mostly in specialized appliance-type devices that really are meant to work without anyone needing to get under the hood.
The basic premise seems to me to be that Amazon will be able to offer huge discounts on apps because the developer nominally 'agrees' that their recommended sale price is offensively high - because the pricing strategy compels them to.
It's all pretty ridiculous. Let the developer set the price to whatever they want. If it sells, cool, if not then someone else will come around with a similar product at a better price. Then the new product will sell.
Eventually each developer will either figure out how to best price his products or he will fail miserably. There's plenty of developers aching to take his place. Welcome to the free market!
I think those of us who once identified as "apple geeks" have all moved on or are very close to moving on.
Nah, there's still a ton of us that like the products. Yeah some of the policies don't align with what I agree with but you're going to find that in nearly every product. I suppose some day it could reach a tipping point for me but for now I don't see any grass that is greener on the other side.
I know quite a few people who seem to be in the same situation as myself. Not that I'm doing a detailed statistical analysis or anything but I don't see a mass migration of "Apple geeks" away from Apple. I think most of us have just gotten tired of explaining why we like the Apple products and so we just smile and nod when people rant against them.
From the first page, footnote 2 on the linked PDF:
In case a mobile phone does not have this connector integrated in the device, an Adaptor may be available to ensure compatibility. An "Adaptor" is defined as a device with a Micro-USB receptacle/plug connecting to a specific non Micro-USB connector. An Adaptor can also be a detachable cable.
This means that Apple can continue to use the Dock Connector and just provide a Dock Connector to micro-USB cable or adapter.
Oh, and I probably misconstrued what you were asking for. Are you looking for a physical button that would activate a "back" feature? I'm not so sure that would be necessary since it's just as simple to have a software button on the touchscreen. I just looked and Mobile Safari does indeed have a software back button.
It seems to me that since you are already interacting with the program on the screen a hardware button designed just to go "back" wouldn't be that useful.
The lack of a back button and the lack of the notification pull-down are the major things that would ever prevent me from getting an iPhone...
You could always just use a 3rd party web browser, some of them have back buttons and other features not found in Mobile Safari.
As for a notification pull-down menu, submit the idea to the folks at Apple. Believe it or not they do take suggestions and over the years they have made many modifications based on those suggestions. It certainly can't hurt.
Thank goodness the (closed source) iPhone is more secure than those nasty open source devices.
In what way does this have anything to do with security? They are essentially outputting an audio signal for power and taking in an audio signal for data input. No security was needed or involved, any application can output and input sound via the audio jack.
Seems to me you are making a security issue out of nothing. Either that or you are completely misconstruing the point of the article. Then again the submission did over-sensationalize the original web site, since there is absolutely no mention there of a need to avoid jailbreaking or high costs to use the dock connector. This is just an alternate input/output for the iPhone, one that other people have used before.
I think the sad thing here is that this guy's future is pretty well screwed for what was (from memory) a fairly impetuous and unsophisticated crime.
We all make our choices and have to live with the consequences. If there aren't any consequences for what are obviously illegal and immoral actions then we all might as well just do anything we want and anyone can do anything to us that they want. I don't know about you but I don't think anarchy is a fun or rewarding state in which to live.
Yes, he is getting punished. Is his life ruined? Hardly. He'll have a harder time getting employment or being trusted than if he hadn't gone to prison but you know what, he's proven that he's untrustworthy! I mean he invaded someone else's privacy and published it across the internet, what company is going to want that kind of security risk?
What will happen is he'll do his time and then he'll have to re-build his reputation. Get a job at a company where there's a low risk of him giving away inside information and then work up to better and more trustworthy positions. It's definitely not the end of everything for him, lots of people have gone through similar situations and come out ok. It's a good life lesson for him and a good example to other people: don't engage in breaking other people's privacy or you'll have to suffer consequences.
I understand that breaking into someone else's email account is illegal, but I don't get this influencing-the-election angle. Isn't this what typically happens during an election? Journalists, competitors and other parties exposing information about the candidates?
There's a difference between illegal influence and legal influence. The legal system is put into place to curtail abuses and circumventing it opens us up to increased abuses. This is not to say that there can't be legal abuses, just that the legality of actions will tend to curb abuses.
If there isn't a serious threat of imprisonment for abusing the system then we quickly degenerate into any action being justifiable in the repudiation of a candidate. Person A thinks he has good reason to destroy a candidate and thus breaks into an account owned by them and plants false information or simply releases true information in a damning pattern. The laws and the penal system constrain this sort of behavior because they regulate how personal information can be controlled and released by all parties, hopefully in a fair manner for all sides.
There's also the factor of major verses minor players. Major players will usually have more assets who are able to perform hacking and data mining than minor players. The laws serve as a balancer between the major and minor players because the minor players can usually rely on the authorities to protect them to some extent. If the laws are subverted then this situation degrades even further.
No system is perfect but at least some protection is better than none, clearly there has to be a serious threat of punishment for subverting the system of laws in order for the system to have a chance at working.
Seriously guys, when you're incarcerated, you don't have a choice which facility you will be housed in. The USBOP is obviously making an example out of this guy, and I can totally understand why. What I don't understand is why this article seems to be doing a lot of crying on behalf of Kernell. Don't commit the crime if you're going to whine all the way to prison. It's that simple.
The minimum security federal prison in Ashland is widely-known as being one of the easiest in which to do time.
Yeah he could have been put in a halfway house but that would really have been just a slap on the wrist for interfering with a federal election. It doesn't matter that all he did was guess a password, his actions directly influenced a major election. Imagine if there was little or no punishment for this offense, there's a lot of people who would happily take some time in a halfway house in order to get paid to interfere with an election in this manner. If the penalty is time in a federal prison, even a club fed like the one in Ashland, less people would be willing to take the hit.
Elections need to be protected from this sort of interference and one of the best ways is to have the threat of serious incarceration.
You still get unlimited data, it just comes slower after a certain point. Sounds reasonable to me, compared to some other plans.
You never got unlimited data, you had the ability to use the service 24/7 at whatever data rate was available. That means you would have a finite amount of data downloaded. Now they are saying that at a certain point the data rate will be slower, thus you will be able to download less.
Either way it's limited, it's just more limited now.
Far better than the AT&T bait and switch with iPad plans... remember that? Changed before the device was even available for a full month.
I don't know about you but I got grandfathered on my plan. I still get unlimited data from AT&T for the same price as before. There was no bait-and-switch involved. If you got the plan before the change then you can have unlimited data for $30/month, if you got the plan after the change then you can get 2GB for $25/month and each additional 2GB is $25.
That would be because continuing after orgasm is painful for a man. Things get... over-sensitive.
Says you. Personally I don't usually have much problem continuing at least for a little bit, although the erection isn't sustainable for too long after. Over-sensitivity isn't usually a problem.
It's ok though, that's when you use other things like fingers, lips, and your tongue to continue until the refractory period has passed!
However this trademark is quite likely invalid, 'cause you probably can't trademark a shoe store called Shoe Store.
Ahh but you can trademark a shoe store named "S Store", just like it is possible to trademark an application store named "App Store". It is possible to trademark a modified version of a common name for an object as long as that modified version has "distinctive character".
Honestly, for most other markets the software was called "programs". It's mostly on the Apple side that they called the software "applications". It's really only the popularity of the "App Store" that has made the word "app" more popular when referring to software. In fact, Apple was using the ".app" extension for software on their platforms as far back as 1999 with the betas of Mac OS X.
I'm not saying that this can't be challenged, just that there is a valid reason for Apple to try to get and maintain this trademark.
Slashdot Mirror
So they've gone from one-button-is-the-best-interface to something rediculous.
Erm, Apple is already way past one-button mice. Take a look at the Magic Mouse.
This patent is the next step up from that.
I know you can't stop spammers and bad people, but Skype and McAfee and Apple aren't *supposed* to act like spammers and bad people! You should be able to trust companies like that to not screw up your machine.
Installing Safari will in no way "screw up your machine". Yeah it'll take up some hard drive space but other than that it's just going to sit around and not do anything, good or evil. Should the Apple have made it an install you had to opt-out of? No, it's definitely on the wrong side of things. Installs should be intentional activities which are opted into, not opted out of.
On the other hand browser toolbars are active things that can possibly "screw up your machine". Browser toolbars change how your browser works and can possibly horribly interact with other parts of your browser, which is what happened with the Skype Toolbar and Firefox. It's an entirely different animal than Apple installing Safari on your machine.
Overall I definitely agree with you that it is wrong for companies to push their products in this manner but there are different levels of wrong, it's not all black and white.
Graphene actually can be made to have a bandgap so this problem may only be a temporary one.
Here's a paper which discusses graphene's band gap: Direct observation of a widely tunable bandgap in bilayer graphene
Here's a free article discussing this: Tunable Graphene Bandgap Opens The Way To Nanoelectronics And Nanophotonics
In fact, here's an article about IBM doing research on this very topic: IBM opens bandgap for graphene
Note that the date of the article discussing graphine with a bandgap is after the date of the article linked in the slashdot summary discussing that graphine can't have a bandgap. Sounds like the authors of the articles need to talk to some more people and get their facts ironed out.
When they first introduced the tactic, it was not listed under "optional installs", but right alongside iTunes under "updates" or whatever, so it looked like an update to something you already had.
It still wasn't an automatic install. You could uncheck the box and it wouldn't install. By definition, an automatic install is an install that happens no matter what you do.
Now it's debatable as to whether or not Apple was trying to deceive people into thinking that the install was something they probably should do. The fact that Apple later moved the install into an "optional" section at least shows that they made a move in the right direction.
Apple installing safari automatically (but apple is already evil so that wasn't too much of a surprise).
Apple never automatically installed Safari on Windows machines. When you use Apple's updater it will have Safari checked as an additional, optional install but you can uncheck that and Safari won't be installed. It's not hidden or automatic, the user can check or uncheck the box as they desire.
There is probably a legal precedent somewhere. Laptops have been around for a long time enough, that someone whacked someone else on the head with a laptop.
Google is your friend.
C is row-major order so the resulting 1 dimensional memory structure is each subarray repeated the number of times of the subarray before it. This means that if you have:
The resulting structure goes like this:
Note: of course that's just plain old C but it's also valid Objective-C.
If you want to wrap that functionality in a Objective-C (or C++) class for object-oriented goodness then go for it!
Well Objective-C is a strict superset of C so multidimensional arrays aren't that difficult:
Apple stopped caring about geeks when they introduced the Macintosh.
I mostly agree with this, The Lisa and Macintosh were a major step away from the nearly completely-open philosophy that the Apple II series embodied.
However, I'd say that Mac OS X, the introduction of the Intel Macs, and the wealth of open source projects that Apple supports all represent a big move back toward that old, open philosophy. It's not 100% because Apple does have quite a few examples of very closed architectures but those are mostly in specialized appliance-type devices that really are meant to work without anyone needing to get under the hood.
The basic premise seems to me to be that Amazon will be able to offer huge discounts on apps because the developer nominally 'agrees' that their recommended sale price is offensively high - because the pricing strategy compels them to.
It's all pretty ridiculous. Let the developer set the price to whatever they want. If it sells, cool, if not then someone else will come around with a similar product at a better price. Then the new product will sell.
Eventually each developer will either figure out how to best price his products or he will fail miserably. There's plenty of developers aching to take his place. Welcome to the free market!
I think those of us who once identified as "apple geeks" have all moved on or are very close to moving on.
Nah, there's still a ton of us that like the products. Yeah some of the policies don't align with what I agree with but you're going to find that in nearly every product. I suppose some day it could reach a tipping point for me but for now I don't see any grass that is greener on the other side.
I know quite a few people who seem to be in the same situation as myself. Not that I'm doing a detailed statistical analysis or anything but I don't see a mass migration of "Apple geeks" away from Apple. I think most of us have just gotten tired of explaining why we like the Apple products and so we just smile and nod when people rant against them.
Is it possible to do this with an iPod Touch?
Yes, it should be possible since the newer iPod Touches use basically the same audio jack as the iPhone.
Shouldn't Apple be using micro-USB soon anyway? They "voluntarily" agreed along with other major manufacters [sic]
Yep, and an adapter is a valid method of providing the micro-USB interface.
From the first page, footnote 2 on the linked PDF:
In case a mobile phone does not have this connector integrated in the device, an Adaptor may be available to ensure compatibility. An "Adaptor" is defined as a device with a Micro-USB receptacle/plug connecting to a specific non Micro-USB connector. An Adaptor can also be a detachable cable.
This means that Apple can continue to use the Dock Connector and just provide a Dock Connector to micro-USB cable or adapter.
Oh, and I probably misconstrued what you were asking for. Are you looking for a physical button that would activate a "back" feature? I'm not so sure that would be necessary since it's just as simple to have a software button on the touchscreen. I just looked and Mobile Safari does indeed have a software back button.
It seems to me that since you are already interacting with the program on the screen a hardware button designed just to go "back" wouldn't be that useful.
The lack of a back button and the lack of the notification pull-down are the major things that would ever prevent me from getting an iPhone...
You could always just use a 3rd party web browser, some of them have back buttons and other features not found in Mobile Safari.
As for a notification pull-down menu, submit the idea to the folks at Apple. Believe it or not they do take suggestions and over the years they have made many modifications based on those suggestions. It certainly can't hurt.
Thank goodness the (closed source) iPhone is more secure than those nasty open source devices.
In what way does this have anything to do with security? They are essentially outputting an audio signal for power and taking in an audio signal for data input. No security was needed or involved, any application can output and input sound via the audio jack.
Seems to me you are making a security issue out of nothing. Either that or you are completely misconstruing the point of the article. Then again the submission did over-sensationalize the original web site, since there is absolutely no mention there of a need to avoid jailbreaking or high costs to use the dock connector. This is just an alternate input/output for the iPhone, one that other people have used before.
I think the sad thing here is that this guy's future is pretty well screwed for what was (from memory) a fairly impetuous and unsophisticated crime.
We all make our choices and have to live with the consequences. If there aren't any consequences for what are obviously illegal and immoral actions then we all might as well just do anything we want and anyone can do anything to us that they want. I don't know about you but I don't think anarchy is a fun or rewarding state in which to live.
Yes, he is getting punished. Is his life ruined? Hardly. He'll have a harder time getting employment or being trusted than if he hadn't gone to prison but you know what, he's proven that he's untrustworthy! I mean he invaded someone else's privacy and published it across the internet, what company is going to want that kind of security risk?
What will happen is he'll do his time and then he'll have to re-build his reputation. Get a job at a company where there's a low risk of him giving away inside information and then work up to better and more trustworthy positions. It's definitely not the end of everything for him, lots of people have gone through similar situations and come out ok. It's a good life lesson for him and a good example to other people: don't engage in breaking other people's privacy or you'll have to suffer consequences.
I understand that breaking into someone else's email account is illegal, but I don't get this influencing-the-election angle. Isn't this what typically happens during an election? Journalists, competitors and other parties exposing information about the candidates?
There's a difference between illegal influence and legal influence. The legal system is put into place to curtail abuses and circumventing it opens us up to increased abuses. This is not to say that there can't be legal abuses, just that the legality of actions will tend to curb abuses.
If there isn't a serious threat of imprisonment for abusing the system then we quickly degenerate into any action being justifiable in the repudiation of a candidate. Person A thinks he has good reason to destroy a candidate and thus breaks into an account owned by them and plants false information or simply releases true information in a damning pattern. The laws and the penal system constrain this sort of behavior because they regulate how personal information can be controlled and released by all parties, hopefully in a fair manner for all sides.
There's also the factor of major verses minor players. Major players will usually have more assets who are able to perform hacking and data mining than minor players. The laws serve as a balancer between the major and minor players because the minor players can usually rely on the authorities to protect them to some extent. If the laws are subverted then this situation degrades even further.
No system is perfect but at least some protection is better than none, clearly there has to be a serious threat of punishment for subverting the system of laws in order for the system to have a chance at working.
Seriously guys, when you're incarcerated, you don't have a choice which facility you will be housed in. The USBOP is obviously making an example out of this guy, and I can totally understand why. What I don't understand is why this article seems to be doing a lot of crying on behalf of Kernell. Don't commit the crime if you're going to whine all the way to prison. It's that simple.
The minimum security federal prison in Ashland is widely-known as being one of the easiest in which to do time.
Yeah he could have been put in a halfway house but that would really have been just a slap on the wrist for interfering with a federal election. It doesn't matter that all he did was guess a password, his actions directly influenced a major election. Imagine if there was little or no punishment for this offense, there's a lot of people who would happily take some time in a halfway house in order to get paid to interfere with an election in this manner. If the penalty is time in a federal prison, even a club fed like the one in Ashland, less people would be willing to take the hit.
Elections need to be protected from this sort of interference and one of the best ways is to have the threat of serious incarceration.
You still get unlimited data, it just comes slower after a certain point. Sounds reasonable to me, compared to some other plans.
You never got unlimited data, you had the ability to use the service 24/7 at whatever data rate was available. That means you would have a finite amount of data downloaded. Now they are saying that at a certain point the data rate will be slower, thus you will be able to download less.
Either way it's limited, it's just more limited now.
Far better than the AT&T bait and switch with iPad plans... remember that? Changed before the device was even available for a full month.
I don't know about you but I got grandfathered on my plan. I still get unlimited data from AT&T for the same price as before. There was no bait-and-switch involved. If you got the plan before the change then you can have unlimited data for $30/month, if you got the plan after the change then you can get 2GB for $25/month and each additional 2GB is $25.
That would be because continuing after orgasm is painful for a man. Things get... over-sensitive.
Says you. Personally I don't usually have much problem continuing at least for a little bit, although the erection isn't sustainable for too long after. Over-sensitivity isn't usually a problem.
It's ok though, that's when you use other things like fingers, lips, and your tongue to continue until the refractory period has passed!
I don't want to cause undue alarm, but you need to search the web TODAY about carrots and developmental abnormalities.
No no no no no no!
All of the real research is being done into dihydrogen monoxide, that insidious compound that has been known to be associated with many diseases!
Although I hear that they are finding that hydrogen hydroxide can be useful in dealing with dihydrogen monoxide problems.
However this trademark is quite likely invalid, 'cause you probably can't trademark a shoe store called Shoe Store.
Ahh but you can trademark a shoe store named "S Store", just like it is possible to trademark an application store named "App Store". It is possible to trademark a modified version of a common name for an object as long as that modified version has "distinctive character".
Honestly, for most other markets the software was called "programs". It's mostly on the Apple side that they called the software "applications". It's really only the popularity of the "App Store" that has made the word "app" more popular when referring to software. In fact, Apple was using the ".app" extension for software on their platforms as far back as 1999 with the betas of Mac OS X.
I'm not saying that this can't be challenged, just that there is a valid reason for Apple to try to get and maintain this trademark.