It's not that they don't apply, but I'm not convinced thet actually say what the article writer is suggesting they say. The first sentence prevents communication through a work-related website without school administration and parents having access to that communication. The second sentence prevents communication through a nonwork-related website "that allows exclusive access with a current or former student". The issue appears to be this "exclusive access", which really just sounds like they're extending the work-related website policy to nonwork-related websites as well. In other words, if the school administration or the student's teachers have access to the communication, then the teacher would not have "exclusive access" to the student, and therefore that would be okay.
Basically, it's forbidding "secret" communication. As along as the communication is out in the open, and in accordance with the school's written policy, then it's okay.
I haven't read the entire Bill, but I'm not sure I agree with the article's interpretation of it. The section that the article writer has a problem with says this:
Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.
The article writer is concerned about the second sentence, stating that "(i)t’s the actual friending, messaging, and whatever other direct connection you can make on a social network that will not be allowed". However, the second sentence really doesn't say that. In fact, the start of the paragraph, which the article writer skipped over, states:
By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with sexual harassment policies, and appropriate use of electronic media as described in the act, including social networking sites.
So really, the law is just stating that schools are required to define, in writing, exactly how students can and cannot communicate using various means, including social networking sites. In other words, the law is not banning anything, but merely forcing the schools to establish and communicate their own rules.
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
His views on Intelligent Design don't cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist. It's mostly just an interesting talking point.
What does cast doubt on his views as a climate scientist is the fact that he signed the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming. This declaration basically states that the signers believe that God created a planet far too resilient for mere mortals to possibly mess it up, and that we must continue our reliance on fossil fuels. So, essentially, it doesn't matter what the data says, Dr. Spencer's faith will always trump the science. He's convinced that God would never allow AGW to occur.
Dr. Spencer is a true Denier. Nothing you can show him will shake his absolute conviction that AGW can't happen. All the data in the world will not change his mind. That is why he's not credible.
Sadly all you need to do is go back and look at the journals and articles of the 70's. And you will find exactly the same hysteria, and use of 'consensus' including the top scientists of the time agreeing that it was the greatest catastrophe that mankind will ever face.
The summary on the second link is also interesting (emphasis added):
So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming.
You guys do know what Alt-Tab does in Windows, right? right?
Question: When you're working on a real desktop (you know, like, with paper and stuff), and say you're doing work where you've got a multi-page document you're working on, and a reference book or two, and maybe a couple other charts and figures, or perhaps a sample document that you're basing your work on, do you choose a small desktop about the size of an 8.5" x 11" piece of paper and just constantly swap which one is on top, or do you spread out a bit so you can see what you're working on all at once?
ALT-TAB is for switching tasks. Multiple monitors is for spreading out and seeing multiple materials while doing one task. It's not necessary for every task, but it's almost essential for some.
I seem to find that banks seem to continuously be the worst for not allowing things other than [a-zA-Z0-9]
Even worse: my bank requires a numeric-only password, with a max of 7 digits, which basically ensures that everyone is going to use a phone number as their password.
1. Several researchers agree with Microsoft. 2. A noted botnet expert disagrees with Microsoft. 3. A (different) internationally-known botnet expert disagrees with the noted botnet expert, thereby agreeing with Microsoft.
Okay, not likely. I should know better than to try to defend Slashdot "editors", who are only marginally more useful than the Slashdot programmers, who I noticed have changed the header and footer of the comment section, and in doing so broke the "post anonymously" button (again), and also all links in the thread (which were partly broken before, but now they're completely broken). Morans.
Works for that, too. Both parties are filled with asshats trying legislate their idea of "morality", when the basis of "morality" should be how actions directly affect others and not much beyond that.
Except that, in my experience, when conservative "asshats" try to legislate morality, it tends to involve limiting how people live their own lives, but when liberal "asshats" try to legislate morality, it tends to involve limiting how people affect others' lives.
But was there even a real threat? Just because someone says "I could hack your systems" doesn't mean that person actually can do it, or will do it. And just because they paid the "hackers" off, doesn't mean they'll necessarily keep to their word and not attack them, nor does it mean no one else will attack them just for the lulz.
The only responsible thing to do is to invest in security. Instead, they invested in extortion. You know what happens when you invest in extortion? You bring about more extortion in the future. That is not in their rational self interest?
Is this supporting terrorists or supporting stockholders?
"Supporting terrorists" is a stupid description, and the idiot who said that needs a kick in the teeth. However, also stupid was paying these jackasses. Take every precaution you can, get the authorities involved as a backup, maybe even alert your shareholders to the threat, but do not pay extortionist script kiddies.
The article may be FUD, but the whole idea is pointless. What value would a new TLD add to the Internet anyway? For that matter, what value do the existing TLDs add to the Internet? If they were actually used properly, and therefore had any meaning, then they would add value. But they aren't used properly, and hence have absolutely no meaning. They should be abolished completely. Why do I need to type "slashdot.org" (or "slashdot.com", or "slashdot.net", which all take me to the same place). Why not just type "slashdot"? What value does having ".org" (and ".com" and ".net") introduce, other than generating more revenue for the domain registrar?
This was introduced for one reason: to put $185,000 per TLD into ICANN's pocket, and generate additional revenue for domain registrars.
So, there are "delayed-differential loops with decadal timescales and nonlinearities" post-1960, but not pre-1960, when "the correlation between solar activity and temperature is excellent".
Look, I'm not trying to convince you. You're already convinced. But I keep hearing the "solar warming" crowd saying "I've found the One True Variable that all the climatologists just happened to have completely ignored in their research, and it is the absolute cause of all warming". This is bullshit. Solar activity has been factored in and ruled out as the principal cause— though it does have an effect. You don't have to agree with their findings, though you could at least read the research. But whether you bother to look into the research or not, you're just flat out wrong in thinking that solar activity hasn't been factored in.
You mean, aside from the fact that the last forty or fifty years we were in a grand maximum of solar activity, the highest seen on earth since the very beginning of the Holocene? And that, given the unknowns and the egregious speculation that has occurred in lieu of actual research concerning the feedback, this is a confounding factor that has been more or less completely ignored by the AGW zealots?
Completely ignored? So responses like the three explanations listed here, as well as all of the discussion in the comment section, is "completely ignoring" the issue? Or how about this article, featuring Stanford University "completely ignoring" the impact of solar activity. New Scientist also "completely ignored" solar activity in this article as well.
For something that the "AGW zealots" have "completely ignored", Google seems to find a hell of a lot of sources discussing how solar activity has some effect on global warming, but is not the primary cause.
... giving activists a bad name, and will probably provoke the creation of more draconian laws or harsher penalties.
Which is a hallmark of activists that are actually close to achieving something.
Except that they're not even trying to achieve anything. They're doing it because they feel like it. They think it's funny and fun. They won't accomplish anything because they're not trying to accomplish anything. They're not activists, but they will damage the credibility of activists.
I hope these guys are as good as they claim to be, otherwise we will be seeing their faces with the caption "Further arrests from anonymous hacking group"
I don't. I look forward to seeing them shut down.
As much as I agree with some of their target selections, they're just an annoying bunch of juvenile delinquents who are giving activists a bad name, and will probably provoke the creation of more draconian laws or harsher penalties.
Yeah, they really seem to be taking an ass-backwards approach here. Considering the problem they're trying to solve is that there are too many jobs and too few qualified candidates, focusing their efforts on people who think that the hardest part of programming is syntax makes absolutely no sense at all.
What good guys? Isn't posting her rant on Youtube a copyright infringement?
Copyright applies only to content that has been "fixed", which, in the terms of copyright law, basically means that it has been recorded or transcribed or otherwise put into a tangible form. So, if I make a speech out loud, there is nothing "fixed", and therefore there is no copyright. However, if I write that speech down, then there is copyright on the written speech. Alternately, if I make an audio recording of the speech, there is copyright on that audio recording.
If I make an audio recording of a speech, the copyright is mine not because I thought of the words, but because I made the recording. If somebody else made that recording of my speech, then that recording belongs to them, not to me.
Alamo Drafthouse made the recording of a speech which, I think it's reasonable to assume, the woman did not first prepare on paper before making her phone call. Therefore, Alamo Drafthouse likely holds the copyright on that recording. They definitely hold the copyright on the video (a derivative work) that they created based on that recording.
If someone trademarks a term derived from my trademark before I create a new trademark derived from my trademark, can that someone really claim that I'm infringing?
The gist of the complaint, though, is that Google led Isys to believe that they were not going to create a similarly named product, because they were going to call their product "Speedbook" instead. This left the door open for Isys to use that name if they wanted, and Google continued to let them believe that they could do this for 18 months, then tried to block the trademark registration, probably by filing an Opposition Proceeding, and then finally announced their own similarly named product.
If all of that is true (and I'm not saying it is or isn't), then the responsible and non-evil thing for Google to do would have been to let Isys know 18 months ago that they were going to use that name, so Isys could have selected a different name and spent 18 months marketing that name instead. The damage allegedly done to Isys is that it's a little late in the game for them to change the name now.
I'm curious how Google delayed their trademark registration. Now, I've never filed for a trademark, but I always had the impression that you filled a trademark at a government office, not at Google HQ.
I've also never filed for a trademark, but a trademark, unlike a patent, apparently, isn't just automatically granted because you filed the paperwork and paid the fees. There is a process where the details of the trademark application are made public, and third parties have the opportunity to submit comments and criticisms of the trademark application if they feel it is not a valid trademark. It is possible, although I'm only guessing here, that this is what Google did.
Third, and after the examination of the mark has concluded with no issues to be addressed or an applicant has responded adequately to an examining attorney's concerns, the application will be published for opposition. During this 30-day period third-parties who may be affected by the registration of the trademark may step forward to file an Opposition Proceeding to stop the registration of the mark. If an Opposition proceeding is filed it institutes a case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to determine both the validity of the grounds for the opposition as well as the ability of the applicant to register the mark at issue.
So, why can't they show it/test it for at least ONE plane.
What if that one plane isn't subject to these issues? What if the problem is a particular configuration of avionics or a particular construction that doesn't apply to the one particular plane that you chose to test? Or, better yet, what if the problem isn't caused by a particular kind of device, but a particular instance of that device? Maybe the device is manufactured somewhat inconsistently, and as a result only 1 out of every 100 devices they manufacture has precisely the right qualities to cause interference on a particular plane.
It's an incredibly difficult thing to prove conclusively. Honestly, in the age of security officials groping passengers and photographing them semi-nude, is it really that big a deal to shut off your phone for a few minutes just to be on the safe side?
If this were a truly serious problem, we'd have planes dropping out of the sky like rain. I couldn't say that there isn't a potential for a problem. I can say that the risk must be very, very small.
The thing is, they're not claiming that it is a truly serious problem, or that the risk is anything other than very, very small. In fact, they highlight only 75 incidents (note: "incident" is a specific aviation term that is differentiated from "accident") that may, or may not, have been attributed to personal electronic devices.
So, while you're correct in saying that we do this test every day, it's also true that the tests don't show 100% success. There are certain cases, however rare, where these devices may cause problems. We don't know enough about the variables to prove conclusively and repeatably where exactly the problem exists, so we err on the side of caution and impose a relatively minor inconvenience (seriously, you can live without Angry Birds for a few minutes at the start and end of a flight).
It's petty vandalism, and as such the vandals should pay back Apple any cost to undo the vandalism and accept the legally required slap on the wrist.
Actually, many stores put temporary walls up around them while they're under construction to block outsiders' views of what's being constructed. The big black wall that they put this logo on appears to me to be one of those temporary walls. It is of no actual value, and will be torn down when the store is ready to be unveiled. Somebody might have to go out there and remove the logo, but it was merely stapled in place, so this will not take any significant time or effort.
Yeah, I'd like to see a comparison of bank passwords to Sony/Gawker passwords.
I don't have a Sony or Gawker password, but I can tell you that my Slashdot password is more secure than my bank password. However, that's not by my choice. The credit union I use has this pathetic system that requires passwords to be exactly 7 characters and ONLY numeric. Very annoying.
Also, when speaking out a password it is annoying. Then, at least for me, it is hard to remember the location of the capital letters.
For starters, you shouldn't be speaking out a password, unless it's the password to something really trivial and low security, in which case go ahead and use a simple all lowercase password. As for remembering the location of the capital letters, use a simple pattern.
For example, if you take the word "password", replace a couple letters with numbers, such as "p4ssw0rd", and then just hold down the SHIFT key for every second character, you get "p$sSw)rD", which is many times more secure, and simple to memorize, because you're not memorizing the actual password, just the pattern used to type it.
The point about how difficult it is to type these passwords on a phone, however, is absolutely valid. Even worse is when I have to type my fairly secure wi-fi password on my Kobo. Painful.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that they don't apply, but I'm not convinced thet actually say what the article writer is suggesting they say. The first sentence prevents communication through a work-related website without school administration and parents having access to that communication. The second sentence prevents communication through a nonwork-related website "that allows exclusive access with a current or former student". The issue appears to be this "exclusive access", which really just sounds like they're extending the work-related website policy to nonwork-related websites as well. In other words, if the school administration or the student's teachers have access to the communication, then the teacher would not have "exclusive access" to the student, and therefore that would be okay.
Basically, it's forbidding "secret" communication. As along as the communication is out in the open, and in accordance with the school's written policy, then it's okay.
I haven't read the entire Bill, but I'm not sure I agree with the article's interpretation of it. The section that the article writer has a problem with says this:
Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.
The article writer is concerned about the second sentence, stating that "(i)t’s the actual friending, messaging, and whatever other direct connection you can make on a social network that will not be allowed". However, the second sentence really doesn't say that. In fact, the start of the paragraph, which the article writer skipped over, states:
By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with sexual harassment policies, and appropriate use of electronic media as described in the act, including social networking sites.
So really, the law is just stating that schools are required to define, in writing, exactly how students can and cannot communicate using various means, including social networking sites. In other words, the law is not banning anything, but merely forcing the schools to establish and communicate their own rules.
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
His views on Intelligent Design don't cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist. It's mostly just an interesting talking point.
What does cast doubt on his views as a climate scientist is the fact that he signed the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming. This declaration basically states that the signers believe that God created a planet far too resilient for mere mortals to possibly mess it up, and that we must continue our reliance on fossil fuels. So, essentially, it doesn't matter what the data says, Dr. Spencer's faith will always trump the science. He's convinced that God would never allow AGW to occur.
Dr. Spencer is a true Denier. Nothing you can show him will shake his absolute conviction that AGW can't happen. All the data in the world will not change his mind. That is why he's not credible.
Sadly all you need to do is go back and look at the journals and articles of the 70's. And you will find exactly the same hysteria, and use of 'consensus' including the top scientists of the time agreeing that it was the greatest catastrophe that mankind will ever face.
Horseshit. And here's a pretty pie chart to back that up. And a more detailed graph as well.
The summary on the second link is also interesting (emphasis added):
So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming.
You guys do know what Alt-Tab does in Windows, right? right?
Question: When you're working on a real desktop (you know, like, with paper and stuff), and say you're doing work where you've got a multi-page document you're working on, and a reference book or two, and maybe a couple other charts and figures, or perhaps a sample document that you're basing your work on, do you choose a small desktop about the size of an 8.5" x 11" piece of paper and just constantly swap which one is on top, or do you spread out a bit so you can see what you're working on all at once?
ALT-TAB is for switching tasks. Multiple monitors is for spreading out and seeing multiple materials while doing one task. It's not necessary for every task, but it's almost essential for some.
I seem to find that banks seem to continuously be the worst for not allowing things other than [a-zA-Z0-9]
Even worse: my bank requires a numeric-only password, with a max of 7 digits, which basically ensures that everyone is going to use a phone number as their password.
Maybe what he's trying to say is this:
1. Several researchers agree with Microsoft.
2. A noted botnet expert disagrees with Microsoft.
3. A (different) internationally-known botnet expert disagrees with the noted botnet expert, thereby agreeing with Microsoft.
Okay, not likely. I should know better than to try to defend Slashdot "editors", who are only marginally more useful than the Slashdot programmers, who I noticed have changed the header and footer of the comment section, and in doing so broke the "post anonymously" button (again), and also all links in the thread (which were partly broken before, but now they're completely broken). Morans.
Works for that, too. Both parties are filled with asshats trying legislate their idea of "morality", when the basis of "morality" should be how actions directly affect others and not much beyond that.
Except that, in my experience, when conservative "asshats" try to legislate morality, it tends to involve limiting how people live their own lives, but when liberal "asshats" try to legislate morality, it tends to involve limiting how people affect others' lives.
Personally, I'm less offended by the latter.
But was there even a real threat? Just because someone says "I could hack your systems" doesn't mean that person actually can do it, or will do it. And just because they paid the "hackers" off, doesn't mean they'll necessarily keep to their word and not attack them, nor does it mean no one else will attack them just for the lulz.
The only responsible thing to do is to invest in security. Instead, they invested in extortion. You know what happens when you invest in extortion? You bring about more extortion in the future. That is not in their rational self interest?
Is this supporting terrorists or supporting stockholders?
"Supporting terrorists" is a stupid description, and the idiot who said that needs a kick in the teeth. However, also stupid was paying these jackasses. Take every precaution you can, get the authorities involved as a backup, maybe even alert your shareholders to the threat, but do not pay extortionist script kiddies.
The article may be FUD, but the whole idea is pointless. What value would a new TLD add to the Internet anyway? For that matter, what value do the existing TLDs add to the Internet? If they were actually used properly, and therefore had any meaning, then they would add value. But they aren't used properly, and hence have absolutely no meaning. They should be abolished completely. Why do I need to type "slashdot.org" (or "slashdot.com", or "slashdot.net", which all take me to the same place). Why not just type "slashdot"? What value does having ".org" (and ".com" and ".net") introduce, other than generating more revenue for the domain registrar?
This was introduced for one reason: to put $185,000 per TLD into ICANN's pocket, and generate additional revenue for domain registrars.
So, there are "delayed-differential loops with decadal timescales and nonlinearities" post-1960, but not pre-1960, when "the correlation between solar activity and temperature is excellent".
Look, I'm not trying to convince you. You're already convinced. But I keep hearing the "solar warming" crowd saying "I've found the One True Variable that all the climatologists just happened to have completely ignored in their research, and it is the absolute cause of all warming". This is bullshit. Solar activity has been factored in and ruled out as the principal cause— though it does have an effect. You don't have to agree with their findings, though you could at least read the research. But whether you bother to look into the research or not, you're just flat out wrong in thinking that solar activity hasn't been factored in.
You mean, aside from the fact that the last forty or fifty years we were in a grand maximum of solar activity, the highest seen on earth since the very beginning of the Holocene? And that, given the unknowns and the egregious speculation that has occurred in lieu of actual research concerning the feedback, this is a confounding factor that has been more or less completely ignored by the AGW zealots?
Completely ignored? So responses like the three explanations listed here, as well as all of the discussion in the comment section, is "completely ignoring" the issue? Or how about this article, featuring Stanford University "completely ignoring" the impact of solar activity. New Scientist also "completely ignored" solar activity in this article as well.
For something that the "AGW zealots" have "completely ignored", Google seems to find a hell of a lot of sources discussing how solar activity has some effect on global warming, but is not the primary cause.
... giving activists a bad name, and will probably provoke the creation of more draconian laws or harsher penalties.
Which is a hallmark of activists that are actually close to achieving something.
Except that they're not even trying to achieve anything. They're doing it because they feel like it. They think it's funny and fun. They won't accomplish anything because they're not trying to accomplish anything. They're not activists, but they will damage the credibility of activists.
I hope these guys are as good as they claim to be, otherwise we will be seeing their faces with the caption "Further arrests from anonymous hacking group"
I don't. I look forward to seeing them shut down.
As much as I agree with some of their target selections, they're just an annoying bunch of juvenile delinquents who are giving activists a bad name, and will probably provoke the creation of more draconian laws or harsher penalties.
Yeah, they really seem to be taking an ass-backwards approach here. Considering the problem they're trying to solve is that there are too many jobs and too few qualified candidates, focusing their efforts on people who think that the hardest part of programming is syntax makes absolutely no sense at all.
Score one for the good guys.
What good guys? Isn't posting her rant on Youtube a copyright infringement?
Copyright applies only to content that has been "fixed", which, in the terms of copyright law, basically means that it has been recorded or transcribed or otherwise put into a tangible form. So, if I make a speech out loud, there is nothing "fixed", and therefore there is no copyright. However, if I write that speech down, then there is copyright on the written speech. Alternately, if I make an audio recording of the speech, there is copyright on that audio recording.
If I make an audio recording of a speech, the copyright is mine not because I thought of the words, but because I made the recording. If somebody else made that recording of my speech, then that recording belongs to them, not to me.
Alamo Drafthouse made the recording of a speech which, I think it's reasonable to assume, the woman did not first prepare on paper before making her phone call. Therefore, Alamo Drafthouse likely holds the copyright on that recording. They definitely hold the copyright on the video (a derivative work) that they created based on that recording.
If someone trademarks a term derived from my trademark before I create a new trademark derived from my trademark, can that someone really claim that I'm infringing?
The gist of the complaint, though, is that Google led Isys to believe that they were not going to create a similarly named product, because they were going to call their product "Speedbook" instead. This left the door open for Isys to use that name if they wanted, and Google continued to let them believe that they could do this for 18 months, then tried to block the trademark registration, probably by filing an Opposition Proceeding, and then finally announced their own similarly named product.
If all of that is true (and I'm not saying it is or isn't), then the responsible and non-evil thing for Google to do would have been to let Isys know 18 months ago that they were going to use that name, so Isys could have selected a different name and spent 18 months marketing that name instead. The damage allegedly done to Isys is that it's a little late in the game for them to change the name now.
I'm curious how Google delayed their trademark registration. Now, I've never filed for a trademark, but I always had the impression that you filled a trademark at a government office, not at Google HQ.
I've also never filed for a trademark, but a trademark, unlike a patent, apparently, isn't just automatically granted because you filed the paperwork and paid the fees. There is a process where the details of the trademark application are made public, and third parties have the opportunity to submit comments and criticisms of the trademark application if they feel it is not a valid trademark. It is possible, although I'm only guessing here, that this is what Google did.
Here's Wikipedia's explanation of the process:
Third, and after the examination of the mark has concluded with no issues to be addressed or an applicant has responded adequately to an examining attorney's concerns, the application will be published for opposition. During this 30-day period third-parties who may be affected by the registration of the trademark may step forward to file an Opposition Proceeding to stop the registration of the mark. If an Opposition proceeding is filed it institutes a case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to determine both the validity of the grounds for the opposition as well as the ability of the applicant to register the mark at issue.
So, why can't they show it/test it for at least ONE plane.
What if that one plane isn't subject to these issues? What if the problem is a particular configuration of avionics or a particular construction that doesn't apply to the one particular plane that you chose to test? Or, better yet, what if the problem isn't caused by a particular kind of device, but a particular instance of that device? Maybe the device is manufactured somewhat inconsistently, and as a result only 1 out of every 100 devices they manufacture has precisely the right qualities to cause interference on a particular plane.
It's an incredibly difficult thing to prove conclusively. Honestly, in the age of security officials groping passengers and photographing them semi-nude, is it really that big a deal to shut off your phone for a few minutes just to be on the safe side?
If this were a truly serious problem, we'd have planes dropping out of the sky like rain. I couldn't say that there isn't a potential for a problem. I can say that the risk must be very, very small.
The thing is, they're not claiming that it is a truly serious problem, or that the risk is anything other than very, very small. In fact, they highlight only 75 incidents (note: "incident" is a specific aviation term that is differentiated from "accident") that may, or may not, have been attributed to personal electronic devices.
So, while you're correct in saying that we do this test every day, it's also true that the tests don't show 100% success. There are certain cases, however rare, where these devices may cause problems. We don't know enough about the variables to prove conclusively and repeatably where exactly the problem exists, so we err on the side of caution and impose a relatively minor inconvenience (seriously, you can live without Angry Birds for a few minutes at the start and end of a flight).
It's petty vandalism, and as such the vandals should pay back Apple any cost to undo the vandalism and accept the legally required slap on the wrist.
Actually, many stores put temporary walls up around them while they're under construction to block outsiders' views of what's being constructed. The big black wall that they put this logo on appears to me to be one of those temporary walls. It is of no actual value, and will be torn down when the store is ready to be unveiled. Somebody might have to go out there and remove the logo, but it was merely stapled in place, so this will not take any significant time or effort.
This was a truly harmless prank.
Yeah, I'd like to see a comparison of bank passwords to Sony/Gawker passwords.
I don't have a Sony or Gawker password, but I can tell you that my Slashdot password is more secure than my bank password. However, that's not by my choice. The credit union I use has this pathetic system that requires passwords to be exactly 7 characters and ONLY numeric. Very annoying.
Also, when speaking out a password it is annoying. Then, at least for me, it is hard to remember the location of the capital letters.
For starters, you shouldn't be speaking out a password, unless it's the password to something really trivial and low security, in which case go ahead and use a simple all lowercase password. As for remembering the location of the capital letters, use a simple pattern.
For example, if you take the word "password", replace a couple letters with numbers, such as "p4ssw0rd", and then just hold down the SHIFT key for every second character, you get "p$sSw)rD", which is many times more secure, and simple to memorize, because you're not memorizing the actual password, just the pattern used to type it.
The point about how difficult it is to type these passwords on a phone, however, is absolutely valid. Even worse is when I have to type my fairly secure wi-fi password on my Kobo. Painful.
It's just a matter of time before everyone realizes that Alex Chiu is right! :)