There is ultimately only one form of authority: Might makes right.
It was on that authority that the United States was created: By winning a war of independance.
It is on that authority that all governments stand: For if they cannot grant their laws power by the threat of violence, the laws have no effective existance.
Try using that logic to get a plastic bag at a Safeway in San Mateo County, California.
Yeah right, it is soo typical if this entitlement generation to find excuses like that. If you accept that the material itself can be illegally acquired by simply clicking the links, what is the issue with taking the site down?
If you accept that the drugs can be illegally acquired simply by approaching the undercover cop and offering them money, what is the issue with the sting operation being disbanded?
NB: In case you were wondering, me linking or not linking does not make my site illegal; you clicking or not clicking in a jurisdiction where you clicking would be illegal is an illegal act by YOU, not an illegal act by me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
Since the property has not changed hands (it's still owned by the same holding company), the tax rate effectively never corrects on commercial property, and the burden, over time falls more and more upon non-commercial property owners, while the commercial property owners get a free ride
What stops citizens from doing this? At least two states will grant a corporate license via the internet.
Technically nothing, but there are all sorts of zoning, tax, mortgage origination, and other hoops to jump through that generally make it pay better in bulk, which means for corporations, as opposed to private individuals. The one place I've seen where it's pretty much down to a turn the crank process is for TICs (Tenants In Common) in San Francisco, which I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, due to bylaws which require your neighbors having to approve the sale if you ever want to leave. I'd rather have a condo.
My meta-advice would be to go back to the proposition process, and remove prop 13 protection for non-residential and non-residential commercial properties, but as previously noted, this would be unlikely to be successful in changing the vector, since the people you hurt the most with it will be the large holding companies, like the Kaiser Family Trust, and the real estate moguls, like the Schwarzeneggers.
Because informed voters are extremely dangerous, keeping people uninformed is a top priority for any pseudo-democratic government.
Informed voters are NOT dangerous!
They only become dangerous when you allow them ballot options which would result in substantive change. As long as you provide them only Aristotelian A/B choices similar to "Heads, I win"/"Tails, you lose", then things keep moving in the direction that the people whose job it is to draft the choices want them to move.
This is one of the reasons that the California voter initiative process pissed them off, and it's the reason that recent initiative results have simply been ignored, and the powers behind big government has done what it wanted to do in the first place anyway, from funding projects that failed to pass public muster, to ignoring constitutional changes, to slipping in language to prop 13 at the last minute to have it also apply to commercial property, after public debate was complete.
The upshot, in particular of the prop 13 change, was that each property owned by a large company is actually owned by a newly incorporated holding company. Then, rather than selling the property, as is done with non-commercial property, and having its tax rate corrected at that point, they sell the holding company to another company. Since the property has not changed hands (it's still owned by the same holding company), the tax rate effectively never corrects on commercial property, and the burden, over time falls more and more upon non-commercial property owners, while the commercial property owners get a free ride.
So as long as the outcome of a vote won't rock the status quo boat, it really doesn't matter which option of those presented wins, nothing changes the progression vector.
It's kind of elegant engineering, if you think about it; it's on the order of the "Demopoll" concept in Frank Herbert's "The Whipping Star".
Given that you once again provided no citations (assuming you are the same person, and not a new one who also fails to provide citations for your attack posts), I guess you are talking about David Duke, who first tried to run as a presidential candidate as a Democrat in 1988, and then as a Republican in 1992, and failed to get traction in either case because neither party would have him?
So your reasoned and well thought out political argument is the same one used by children who do not want to pick up their toys, to wit: "You touched it last!"; is that the gist of it?
What I got from those incidents was that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want anything to do with the KKK, regardless of their preferences -- which, given the Duke candidacies, appears to be "either of the two major parties where we can get our camel's nose into their tent", rather than an expressed preference.
Unless you has someone else in mind? Citation needed.
"Which part of the brain do you need to zap to"...
...make you think it's a really good idea to zap vague areas of your brain with electricity based on the hilariously incomplete field of neuroscience?
Several answers:
* The part that makes someone an experimental neuroscientist of the type which are currently conducting this research? * The part that allow Marie Curie to kill herself with radiation poisoning before it was known radiation was dangerous? * The part that caused Thomas Edison to do shotgun testing of materials for a lightbulb filament? * The part that caused Johnny Knoxville to make the Jackass series? * The part that caused Geoffrey Robson to kill himself while working to improve wingsuits? * The part that caused Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Edward H. White, and Roger B. Chaffee to allow themselves to be bolted into Apollo 1? * The part that caused Vijay Pande to believe crowd-sourcing science was a good idea? * etc.
The GOP is an opt in grouping of individuals based upon having similar views. These views include disbelief in climate change and skepticism science in general[...]
Citation needed - their platform is here, and contains none of the things you claim it contains:
don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Having the right to own a gun does not require you to own one. Exercising that right and owning one does not require you to serve in a militia.
Also, you are not using the definitions of "militia" and "regulated" from the 15 April 1755 version of Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language".
If you want to be entirely accurate, it refers to able-bodied males of a certain age range who have received some training in group tactics utilizing arms. Owning the arms in the first place is a necessary, but not sufficient, precondition for joining a militia and receiving that training, just as age, maleness, and being able-bodied were each necessary, but not sufficient, preconditions. Finally, there was the precondition of training having been competed, before a militia could be considered to be "well regulated".
Requiring someone to be a member of a militia before they are allowed to own arms is therefore putting the cart before the horse.
You should also be aware that "arms" was intentionally used, as it was a broader term that would also encompass privately owned cannon mounted on trading vessels, and from exploding bombardment loads for those cannons, all the way down to hunting knives or pitchforks. The framers of the constitution were perfectly aware of what a "gun" was, and deliberately chose the broader term to include stronger weapons than guns. They effectively, by that choice, included all of the best military weapons available of their day.
Is Google's dropping of XMPP purely a business decision to focus on Hangouts, or were there other reasons?
Alternative scenario...
Government: "We have a FISA warrant which lets us monitor all your XMPP traffic" Google:... Google: clickity clickity clickity clickity... Google: "What's XMPP?"
It's how they do all the other processors as well:
o manufacture o test o blow fuses as needed for failed tests o bin the part a an xxxyyyzzz part
One of the reasons Apple machines tend to be more expensive is they pay a premium for higher performance "speed burt" relative to other laptop vendors, so the chips that rate out at supporting a higher speed burst clocking go into the Apple bin.
Similarly, RAM chips get binned as well; those that bin out as supporting within tolerance frequency and volage following functions go into the Apple bin, the next best go into the Crucial bin, and the rest go into the "everybody else" bin.
By doing this, they can increase their effective fab yields per die, even if they fail to increase their yields of a particular high end chip.
This also allows re-binning; that when you have a bunch of medium-end parts, and get a buttload of orders for low end parts. In order to meet demand for the low end parts, you don't go out and manufacture low end parts based on the demand; instead you take a bunch of next-higher-up parts, and blow their fuses in order to make them into lower end parts, and re-bin them. Voila! Just In Time "manufacturing".
By making an explicit change to a classification, they are admitting to lower than expected successful fab yields for the areas of the CPU they are fusing off.
What we should actually be asking ourselves is what this means for the future of transactional memory, if they are unable to get their yields up in order to meet demand, which may be high in certain government and scientific applications. If it exceeds capacity, expect either mutiple fab retools, or it being dropped as a feature at some point in the future.
You cannot get in your car, drive to their house and then shoot them, as you are nolonger being threatened by said intruder. Hacking back is exactly that.
Not according to the State of California.
According to the State of California, if I go out on the Internet to the web site of a company in Texas and purchase an item, and have it shipped to me in California, the transaction took place in my home. This is their legal rationale for being able to collect sales tax on the transaction without violating the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
Therefore, if I "hack back" someone who has hacked me, their initial hacking took place wherever they are located, but my "hack back", in defence of the computer located in my home, took place in my home.
So this is precisely the same as if someone broke into my house and tampered with my machine to steal bank account and other information, and during the tampering, I, in my home, shot them.
It really doesn't matter that the bullet landed somewhere in Taipei, the transaction happened in California in my hose, just as if I had purchased something.
Yes, but the implicit license is no license (copyright law). If you want to freak out the lawyers call it Public Domain and be done with it. Sure way to short-circuit a lawyer's brain.
It's a way to short-circuit your lawyers brain, since then you are not held harmless from damages arising from the use, misuse, or abuse of the software.
To the people who might want to use the code, their lawyers see it as a nifty scapegoat, should damages arise from use, misuse, or abuse of their product which incorporates your software. When apportioning damages to the plaintiff, should they win their case, it'd be up to your lawyers and their lawyers to argue about it, only their layers get to see your code, and your lawyers don't get to see their code.
Seriously, you can not disclaim association with the code, unless things were amended so that declaring something to be "Public Domain" transferred the liability to the public at large, and there was an implicit "hold harmless" clause for the author of the work.
So effectively, only stupid people declare things to be "in the public domain" these days.
The place I see this effect is driving home from the AMC 20 in Santa Clara on 101, and the idiots in the rice rockets who (A) thing they are playing a video game, (B) think that video game physics perfectly mirror reality, so things that work there work in the meat word, and (C) think everyone else drives the same way they do, so it's OK to drive that way because the only people who will get in accidents are the people who don't play the game as well as they play it.
Personally, If I were a CHP, I'd fill my monthly no-such-thing-as-a-quota on Friday and Saturday night, and maybe Sunday, if it was a 3 day weekend, and then take the rest of the week off and windsurf. Instead, these guys simply don't get pulled over.
The reason professional race car drivers don't drive like assholes on the freeway is they realize that not everyone is a professional race car driver.
Your father has some slipshod Visual BASIC scripts in place instead of a real application. His business deserves its failure for being run so stupidly.
If by "stupidly", you mean it as a synonym for "using Microsoft products in such a way that Microsoft could yank the rug out from under them in the first place", then yes. If by "slipshod", you mean "thrown together by idiots", then no. It was the best available component technology of its day.
It's also why so many companies don't want to give up using XP, and are giving the finger to Microsoft, HP, and so on, for as long as they can get away with giving them the finger.
Most of the businesses with these attributes were acquired with the business systems in place as charity to keep them afloat, and the people who work there employed. So it's not like my father personally made the decision to use the Microsoft products.
The only people who profit from building the same vertical market business practice solution over and over and over are the assholes of the world, like Oracle, EDS, and IBM Global Services, whose business model is predicated on giving the customer exactly what they ask for, as opposed to solving their business practice problem for them. Then they iteratively charge them a fortune to make changes until they get to a successive approximation that's still mediocre but "good enough" for the business to limp along. Both the accounting and moving industries are famous for having systems like this.
Frankly, I'd rather see the SMBs use commercial components and glue code than tithe to those assholes.
Also you should realize that the VB involved is compiled VB, in as much that Java or Dalvic or Go or C# apps can be said to have been compiled: interpreted bytecode is interpreted bytecode, so if you were going to do something dumbass and suggest Java as an alternative, VB is no worse than Java, and is in many ways better, since there's no Larry Ellison involved with doing things like dropping timezone patching to keep the license fees for new runtimes flowing in.
Finally, you should know that Google, Twitter, Facebook, and so on are all using JavaScript and Python and, yes, occasionally ActionScript interpreted bytecode (read: Flash) to run their businesses, because it allows them to make changes to business logic quickly. Only when *they* do it, you'd probably call it "being agile", right?
So those "stupid" people using VB are in pretty damn good company.
Bottom line is that these SMBs have no fucking way of affording updating all their systems at once just so they can hire a new employee, and anyone who says otherwise, including an asshole who thinks they should be exposed to second system syndrome in the process, is a pretentious prick.
"You're forgetting about that whole Windows software compatibility thing."
My fathers businesses continue to use XP precisely because of software compatibility.
The business systems in place have business logic built in Visual BASIC which glues together a bunch of (mostly Microsoft) components. Change a component, and the component breaks; change the OS, and the glue breaks, and EVERYTHING dies.
HP is looking at a cash cow of significant reinvestment in hardware; Microsoft, by EOLing XP in the first place, is looking at a cash cow not only new OSs, but new component sales. SMB (small and medium business) is looking at astronomical costs to keep their workflows running. I have no idea why Microsoft, HP, et. al. think that SMB is the cow from which they are going to be able to get milk, given that larger businesses have established a regulatory environment in which most SMB is barely scraping by as it is.
Personally, I can think of at least three companies where my father will just close the doors, rather than facing a significant reinvestment. At best, he will not grow them or hire new employees to run the XP machines which he can no longer purchase in order to incrementally add the next new employee. In fact, thinking of it that way, as hardware slowly fails, it's more likely he will just lay off one employee per one dead XP machine, at least in the most marginal of these businesses.
Jailbreaking did not come about for bypassing security or stealing iPhones. It came about because Apple wouldn't sell their GSM-capable phones on vendors other than AT&T, which meant that they also could not be used outside the US, which is the only place the things were being sold. So some Russian hackers came up with a jailbreak, but it wasn't so they could run arbitrary applications, it was so they could run a single application to rewrite the SIM vendor check, disable the carrier lock, and use the damn things on GSM carriers other than AT&T. T-Mobile in the US is one such carrier, and AT&T had demanded, and got, the carrier lock in exchange for letting Apple demand infrastructure changes to AT&T's network for things like "Visual Voice Mail".
The vast majority of these iPhones were legally sold for the full price in the US; Apple put a limit on the number of iPhones you could buy, in order to thwart this thriving export business, because technically, the carrier networks are fairly fragile things, and the phones had not been certified to the carrier networks on which they were being used, or by the regional equivalent of the FCC -- hence they were called "gray market" iPhones in these countries.
The benefit to Apple turned out to be immense, since with tools available for writing *an app* for the unlocking, it was relatively easy to classdump the objC files, and use the other APIs -- and apps were born. Steve actually didn't *want* Apps on the iPhone: he was deathly afraid of building another Newton, and the Apps he gave you were the ones he thought you needed, and no more. He didn't even want there to be ringtones that he and Jon Ivy hadn't approved (a pain in the ass when there are a small number of ringtones, 11,000 employees, and about half of them ate lunch in Cafe Macs in a two hour window).
For six months, many engineers inside Apple, including myself, were jailbreaking our own phones, and using the hacker tools because there *was no* formal API or dev kit. I personally wrote an X Code plugin for making iPhone Apps using the hacker tools, and we passed it around internally at Apple.
A startup was going to make a business of selling an SDK for the iPhone -- Apple _bought them_, and *that's* where Apple got their formal SDK, which they then went through and cleaned up APIs, and partitioned the data you could access from one app to another.
Everything that people jailbreak the things for these days is to get around data partitioning or carrier usage restrictions, i.e. things like using the phone as a WiFi hotspot for a laptop, without paying additional fees or metered rates to the carriers for the greater laptop bandwidth usage capability, or to be able to do the carrier unlock to get around per-region carrier lock-in contracts that Apple had signed.
The bottom line is that Apple could have avoided almost of of the hacking that happened fairly early on by not putting the carrier lock in the baseband firmware, which was a dumbass design decision based on the Samsung baseband chip having the feature implemented already, and having it up in user space in the commcenter program instead.
And their device would be a lot less interesting, and Android might have followed that lead, and been a lot less interesting as well. And Apple wouldn't have made tons of money on Apps because there would be no AppStore.
But as long as there are carrier locks, and more or less absurd carrier restrictions on bandwidth for phones s. hotspots (yes, Sprint, I'm talking to you), there will be jailbreaking. This is a DRM issue, and if jailbreaking is the only way to bypass DRM, then jailbreaking will happen.
Bottom line philosophy lesson: There will always be people who say "These devices are made of atoms. I paid for these atoms. I own them. They will God Damn Well Do What I Tell Them To Do".
They could, but then no one would buy the stuff they want to replace it with. This is likely a way for them to remonetize the existing VMS customer base, who isn't upgrading at this point because It Just Works(tm), and who isn't buying new hardware because It's Sufficient(tm).
This is the same problem Microsoft Windows XP are posing for Microsoft.
Especially when they are peeing in a public restroom, and they get footage of themselves, and anyone else that happens to be there. I expect they will work in mirrors when the officer is washing their hands.
And with no way to turn it for lunch breaks, we can see when they take too long, or are technically off duty and make comments to other cops who are technically off duty.
The point I am trying to get across with this is that the teams doing this type of surveillance are made up of individuals, and as such, if you collect this information about your own citizens, you risk that information falling into unfriendly hands.
You take that risk regardless of what you gather it on, even against mortal enemies of your country.
There's zero risk of a betrayal exposing the information if you don't gather it at all in the first place. Information that doesn't exist doesn't fall into the wrong hands. International lines, fine. Within your own countries borders on your own citizens, not so fine.
The point I am trying to get across with this is that the teams doing this type of surveillance are made up of individuals, and as such, if you collect this information about your own citizens, you risk that information falling into unfriendly hands.
Consider that if Edward Snowden took even just traffic analysis information with him to China, which would be easy to fit on a several DVDs, this information could be used for economic and industrial espionage purposes. It would be very easy to see which companies were talking to which other companies, and impute information about the deals going down between various actors.
This information could be used to great economic advantage. Who wouldn't want to know the next company with publically traded stock that Google, Apple, or Facebook is in acquisition talks.
That the information was collected at all in the first place is a loaded gun, and one disgruntled ex-employee or contractor is all it take to pull the trigger on that gun, and in many cases they would have to go to extremes of hiding behind China to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
There is ultimately only one form of authority: Might makes right.
It was on that authority that the United States was created: By winning a war of independance.
It is on that authority that all governments stand: For if they cannot grant their laws power by the threat of violence, the laws have no effective existance.
Try using that logic to get a plastic bag at a Safeway in San Mateo County, California.
Yeah right, it is soo typical if this entitlement generation to find excuses like that.
If you accept that the material itself can be illegally acquired by simply clicking the links, what is the issue with taking the site down?
If you accept that the drugs can be illegally acquired simply by approaching the undercover cop and offering them money, what is the issue with the sting operation being disbanded?
NB: In case you were wondering, me linking or not linking does not make my site illegal; you clicking or not clicking in a jurisdiction where you clicking would be illegal is an illegal act by YOU, not an illegal act by me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
Since the property has not changed hands (it's still owned by the same holding company), the tax rate effectively never corrects on commercial property, and the burden, over time falls more and more upon non-commercial property owners, while the commercial property owners get a free ride
What stops citizens from doing this? At least two states will grant a corporate license via the internet.
Technically nothing, but there are all sorts of zoning, tax, mortgage origination, and other hoops to jump through that generally make it pay better in bulk, which means for corporations, as opposed to private individuals. The one place I've seen where it's pretty much down to a turn the crank process is for TICs (Tenants In Common) in San Francisco, which I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, due to bylaws which require your neighbors having to approve the sale if you ever want to leave. I'd rather have a condo.
My meta-advice would be to go back to the proposition process, and remove prop 13 protection for non-residential and non-residential commercial properties, but as previously noted, this would be unlikely to be successful in changing the vector, since the people you hurt the most with it will be the large holding companies, like the Kaiser Family Trust, and the real estate moguls, like the Schwarzeneggers.
"Filthy, Tricksy Hobbitses!"
There. I said it first.
Because informed voters are extremely dangerous, keeping people uninformed is a top priority for any pseudo-democratic government.
Informed voters are NOT dangerous!
They only become dangerous when you allow them ballot options which would result in substantive change. As long as you provide them only Aristotelian A/B choices similar to "Heads, I win"/"Tails, you lose", then things keep moving in the direction that the people whose job it is to draft the choices want them to move.
This is one of the reasons that the California voter initiative process pissed them off, and it's the reason that recent initiative results have simply been ignored, and the powers behind big government has done what it wanted to do in the first place anyway, from funding projects that failed to pass public muster, to ignoring constitutional changes, to slipping in language to prop 13 at the last minute to have it also apply to commercial property, after public debate was complete.
The upshot, in particular of the prop 13 change, was that each property owned by a large company is actually owned by a newly incorporated holding company. Then, rather than selling the property, as is done with non-commercial property, and having its tax rate corrected at that point, they sell the holding company to another company. Since the property has not changed hands (it's still owned by the same holding company), the tax rate effectively never corrects on commercial property, and the burden, over time falls more and more upon non-commercial property owners, while the commercial property owners get a free ride.
So as long as the outcome of a vote won't rock the status quo boat, it really doesn't matter which option of those presented wins, nothing changes the progression vector.
It's kind of elegant engineering, if you think about it; it's on the order of the "Demopoll" concept in Frank Herbert's "The Whipping Star".
Given that you once again provided no citations (assuming you are the same person, and not a new one who also fails to provide citations for your attack posts), I guess you are talking about David Duke, who first tried to run as a presidential candidate as a Democrat in 1988, and then as a Republican in 1992, and failed to get traction in either case because neither party would have him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke
So your reasoned and well thought out political argument is the same one used by children who do not want to pick up their toys, to wit: "You touched it last!"; is that the gist of it?
What I got from those incidents was that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want anything to do with the KKK, regardless of their preferences -- which, given the Duke candidacies, appears to be "either of the two major parties where we can get our camel's nose into their tent", rather than an expressed preference.
Unless you has someone else in mind? Citation needed.
"Which part of the brain do you need to zap to" ...
...make you think it's a really good idea to zap vague areas of your brain with electricity based on the hilariously incomplete field of neuroscience?
Several answers:
* The part that makes someone an experimental neuroscientist of the type which are currently conducting this research?
* The part that allow Marie Curie to kill herself with radiation poisoning before it was known radiation was dangerous?
* The part that caused Thomas Edison to do shotgun testing of materials for a lightbulb filament?
* The part that caused Johnny Knoxville to make the Jackass series?
* The part that caused Geoffrey Robson to kill himself while working to improve wingsuits?
* The part that caused Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Edward H. White, and Roger B. Chaffee to allow themselves to be bolted into Apollo 1?
* The part that caused Vijay Pande to believe crowd-sourcing science was a good idea?
* etc.
Pick your part.
The GOP is an opt in grouping of individuals based upon having similar views. These views include disbelief in climate change and skepticism science in general[...]
Citation needed - their platform is here, and contains none of the things you claim it contains:
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
No, I'm not a Republican, I'm just sick of seeing shit slung at political groups without supporting evidence.
Talk about a wild midseason replacement!
Each week, we eliminate some of them, until the live broadcast, at which point America texts in their votes, and they pick one to be black hole?
don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Having the right to own a gun does not require you to own one.
Exercising that right and owning one does not require you to serve in a militia.
Also, you are not using the definitions of "militia" and "regulated" from the 15 April 1755 version of Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language".
If you want to be entirely accurate, it refers to able-bodied males of a certain age range who have received some training in group tactics utilizing arms. Owning the arms in the first place is a necessary, but not sufficient, precondition for joining a militia and receiving that training, just as age, maleness, and being able-bodied were each necessary, but not sufficient, preconditions. Finally, there was the precondition of training having been competed, before a militia could be considered to be "well regulated".
Requiring someone to be a member of a militia before they are allowed to own arms is therefore putting the cart before the horse.
You should also be aware that "arms" was intentionally used, as it was a broader term that would also encompass privately owned cannon mounted on trading vessels, and from exploding bombardment loads for those cannons, all the way down to hunting knives or pitchforks. The framers of the constitution were perfectly aware of what a "gun" was, and deliberately chose the broader term to include stronger weapons than guns. They effectively, by that choice, included all of the best military weapons available of their day.
say the NSA is tracking 500 million people worldwide
do you really think that there is a guy sitting in the NSA tracking you for no reason?
I don't know... given your scenario, apparently there is a guy at the NSA tracking the majority of 500 million people for no reason...
That's an easy loophole to plug: just require registration to buy a phone. It is that way in Germany, I think.
That's an easy rule to plug: steal someone's phone instead.
Is Google's dropping of XMPP purely a business decision to focus on Hangouts, or were there other reasons?
Alternative scenario...
Government: "We have a FISA warrant which lets us monitor all your XMPP traffic" ... ...
Google:
Google: clickity clickity clickity clickity
Google: "What's XMPP?"
The real reason for this change is fab yields.
It's how they do all the other processors as well:
o manufacture
o test
o blow fuses as needed for failed tests
o bin the part a an xxxyyyzzz part
One of the reasons Apple machines tend to be more expensive is they pay a premium for higher performance "speed burt" relative to other laptop vendors, so the chips that rate out at supporting a higher speed burst clocking go into the Apple bin.
Similarly, RAM chips get binned as well; those that bin out as supporting within tolerance frequency and volage following functions go into the Apple bin, the next best go into the Crucial bin, and the rest go into the "everybody else" bin.
By doing this, they can increase their effective fab yields per die, even if they fail to increase their yields of a particular high end chip.
This also allows re-binning; that when you have a bunch of medium-end parts, and get a buttload of orders for low end parts. In order to meet demand for the low end parts, you don't go out and manufacture low end parts based on the demand; instead you take a bunch of next-higher-up parts, and blow their fuses in order to make them into lower end parts, and re-bin them. Voila! Just In Time "manufacturing".
By making an explicit change to a classification, they are admitting to lower than expected successful fab yields for the areas of the CPU they are fusing off.
What we should actually be asking ourselves is what this means for the future of transactional memory, if they are unable to get their yields up in order to meet demand, which may be high in certain government and scientific applications. If it exceeds capacity, expect either mutiple fab retools, or it being dropped as a feature at some point in the future.
You cannot get in your car, drive to their house and then shoot them, as you are nolonger being threatened by said intruder. Hacking back is exactly that.
Not according to the State of California.
According to the State of California, if I go out on the Internet to the web site of a company in Texas and purchase an item, and have it shipped to me in California, the transaction took place in my home. This is their legal rationale for being able to collect sales tax on the transaction without violating the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
Therefore, if I "hack back" someone who has hacked me, their initial hacking took place wherever they are located, but my "hack back", in defence of the computer located in my home, took place in my home.
So this is precisely the same as if someone broke into my house and tampered with my machine to steal bank account and other information, and during the tampering, I, in my home, shot them.
It really doesn't matter that the bullet landed somewhere in Taipei, the transaction happened in California in my hose, just as if I had purchased something.
Yes, but the implicit license is no license (copyright law). If you want to freak out the lawyers call it Public Domain and be done with it. Sure way to short-circuit a lawyer's brain.
It's a way to short-circuit your lawyers brain, since then you are not held harmless from damages arising from the use, misuse, or abuse of the software.
To the people who might want to use the code, their lawyers see it as a nifty scapegoat, should damages arise from use, misuse, or abuse of their product which incorporates your software. When apportioning damages to the plaintiff, should they win their case, it'd be up to your lawyers and their lawyers to argue about it, only their layers get to see your code, and your lawyers don't get to see their code.
Seriously, you can not disclaim association with the code, unless things were amended so that declaring something to be "Public Domain" transferred the liability to the public at large, and there was an implicit "hold harmless" clause for the author of the work.
So effectively, only stupid people declare things to be "in the public domain" these days.
It causes bad drivers.
The place I see this effect is driving home from the AMC 20 in Santa Clara on 101, and the idiots in the rice rockets who (A) thing they are playing a video game, (B) think that video game physics perfectly mirror reality, so things that work there work in the meat word, and (C) think everyone else drives the same way they do, so it's OK to drive that way because the only people who will get in accidents are the people who don't play the game as well as they play it.
Personally, If I were a CHP, I'd fill my monthly no-such-thing-as-a-quota on Friday and Saturday night, and maybe Sunday, if it was a 3 day weekend, and then take the rest of the week off and windsurf. Instead, these guys simply don't get pulled over.
The reason professional race car drivers don't drive like assholes on the freeway is they realize that not everyone is a professional race car driver.
Your father has some slipshod Visual BASIC scripts in place instead of a real application. His business deserves its failure for being run so stupidly.
If by "stupidly", you mean it as a synonym for "using Microsoft products in such a way that Microsoft could yank the rug out from under them in the first place", then yes. If by "slipshod", you mean "thrown together by idiots", then no. It was the best available component technology of its day.
It's also why so many companies don't want to give up using XP, and are giving the finger to Microsoft, HP, and so on, for as long as they can get away with giving them the finger.
Most of the businesses with these attributes were acquired with the business systems in place as charity to keep them afloat, and the people who work there employed. So it's not like my father personally made the decision to use the Microsoft products.
The only people who profit from building the same vertical market business practice solution over and over and over are the assholes of the world, like Oracle, EDS, and IBM Global Services, whose business model is predicated on giving the customer exactly what they ask for, as opposed to solving their business practice problem for them. Then they iteratively charge them a fortune to make changes until they get to a successive approximation that's still mediocre but "good enough" for the business to limp along. Both the accounting and moving industries are famous for having systems like this.
Frankly, I'd rather see the SMBs use commercial components and glue code than tithe to those assholes.
Also you should realize that the VB involved is compiled VB, in as much that Java or Dalvic or Go or C# apps can be said to have been compiled: interpreted bytecode is interpreted bytecode, so if you were going to do something dumbass and suggest Java as an alternative, VB is no worse than Java, and is in many ways better, since there's no Larry Ellison involved with doing things like dropping timezone patching to keep the license fees for new runtimes flowing in.
Finally, you should know that Google, Twitter, Facebook, and so on are all using JavaScript and Python and, yes, occasionally ActionScript interpreted bytecode (read: Flash) to run their businesses, because it allows them to make changes to business logic quickly. Only when *they* do it, you'd probably call it "being agile", right?
So those "stupid" people using VB are in pretty damn good company.
Bottom line is that these SMBs have no fucking way of affording updating all their systems at once just so they can hire a new employee, and anyone who says otherwise, including an asshole who thinks they should be exposed to second system syndrome in the process, is a pretentious prick.
Have a nice day.
"You're forgetting about that whole Windows software compatibility thing."
My fathers businesses continue to use XP precisely because of software compatibility.
The business systems in place have business logic built in Visual BASIC which glues together a bunch of (mostly Microsoft) components. Change a component, and the component breaks; change the OS, and the glue breaks, and EVERYTHING dies.
HP is looking at a cash cow of significant reinvestment in hardware; Microsoft, by EOLing XP in the first place, is looking at a cash cow not only new OSs, but new component sales. SMB (small and medium business) is looking at astronomical costs to keep their workflows running. I have no idea why Microsoft, HP, et. al. think that SMB is the cow from which they are going to be able to get milk, given that larger businesses have established a regulatory environment in which most SMB is barely scraping by as it is.
Personally, I can think of at least three companies where my father will just close the doors, rather than facing a significant reinvestment. At best, he will not grow them or hire new employees to run the XP machines which he can no longer purchase in order to incrementally add the next new employee. In fact, thinking of it that way, as hardware slowly fails, it's more likely he will just lay off one employee per one dead XP machine, at least in the most marginal of these businesses.
HP may not be smiling as brightly as they think.
They have it backwards... as humans get unhealthier, the trees suffer.
So exercise and eat right... remember for every mile you jog, you save a tree!
This blogger does not get it. Big time.
Jailbreaking did not come about for bypassing security or stealing iPhones. It came about because Apple wouldn't sell their GSM-capable phones on vendors other than AT&T, which meant that they also could not be used outside the US, which is the only place the things were being sold. So some Russian hackers came up with a jailbreak, but it wasn't so they could run arbitrary applications, it was so they could run a single application to rewrite the SIM vendor check, disable the carrier lock, and use the damn things on GSM carriers other than AT&T. T-Mobile in the US is one such carrier, and AT&T had demanded, and got, the carrier lock in exchange for letting Apple demand infrastructure changes to AT&T's network for things like "Visual Voice Mail".
The vast majority of these iPhones were legally sold for the full price in the US; Apple put a limit on the number of iPhones you could buy, in order to thwart this thriving export business, because technically, the carrier networks are fairly fragile things, and the phones had not been certified to the carrier networks on which they were being used, or by the regional equivalent of the FCC -- hence they were called "gray market" iPhones in these countries.
The benefit to Apple turned out to be immense, since with tools available for writing *an app* for the unlocking, it was relatively easy to classdump the objC files, and use the other APIs -- and apps were born. Steve actually didn't *want* Apps on the iPhone: he was deathly afraid of building another Newton, and the Apps he gave you were the ones he thought you needed, and no more. He didn't even want there to be ringtones that he and Jon Ivy hadn't approved (a pain in the ass when there are a small number of ringtones, 11,000 employees, and about half of them ate lunch in Cafe Macs in a two hour window).
For six months, many engineers inside Apple, including myself, were jailbreaking our own phones, and using the hacker tools because there *was no* formal API or dev kit. I personally wrote an X Code plugin for making iPhone Apps using the hacker tools, and we passed it around internally at Apple.
A startup was going to make a business of selling an SDK for the iPhone -- Apple _bought them_, and *that's* where Apple got their formal SDK, which they then went through and cleaned up APIs, and partitioned the data you could access from one app to another.
Everything that people jailbreak the things for these days is to get around data partitioning or carrier usage restrictions, i.e. things like using the phone as a WiFi hotspot for a laptop, without paying additional fees or metered rates to the carriers for the greater laptop bandwidth usage capability, or to be able to do the carrier unlock to get around per-region carrier lock-in contracts that Apple had signed.
The bottom line is that Apple could have avoided almost of of the hacking that happened fairly early on by not putting the carrier lock in the baseband firmware, which was a dumbass design decision based on the Samsung baseband chip having the feature implemented already, and having it up in user space in the commcenter program instead.
And their device would be a lot less interesting, and Android might have followed that lead, and been a lot less interesting as well. And Apple wouldn't have made tons of money on Apps because there would be no AppStore.
But as long as there are carrier locks, and more or less absurd carrier restrictions on bandwidth for phones s. hotspots (yes, Sprint, I'm talking to you), there will be jailbreaking. This is a DRM issue, and if jailbreaking is the only way to bypass DRM, then jailbreaking will happen.
Bottom line philosophy lesson: There will always be people who say "These devices are made of atoms. I paid for these atoms. I own them. They will God Damn Well Do What I Tell Them To Do".
Why can't HP open-source the OS now?
They could, but then no one would buy the stuff they want to replace it with. This is likely a way for them to remonetize the existing VMS customer base, who isn't upgrading at this point because It Just Works(tm), and who isn't buying new hardware because It's Sufficient(tm).
This is the same problem Microsoft Windows XP are posing for Microsoft.
Me too!
Especially when they are peeing in a public restroom, and they get footage of themselves, and anyone else that happens to be there. I expect they will work in mirrors when the officer is washing their hands.
And with no way to turn it for lunch breaks, we can see when they take too long, or are technically off duty and make comments to other cops who are technically off duty.
The point I am trying to get across with this is that the teams doing this type of surveillance are made up of individuals, and as such, if you collect this information about your own citizens, you risk that information falling into unfriendly hands.
You take that risk regardless of what you gather it on, even against mortal enemies of your country.
There's zero risk of a betrayal exposing the information if you don't gather it at all in the first place. Information that doesn't exist doesn't fall into the wrong hands. International lines, fine. Within your own countries borders on your own citizens, not so fine.
I have to point out this little tidbit:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/06/09/911-whistleblower-snowden-defected-china-whatever-he-knows-they-likel
The point I am trying to get across with this is that the teams doing this type of surveillance are made up of individuals, and as such, if you collect this information about your own citizens, you risk that information falling into unfriendly hands.
Consider that if Edward Snowden took even just traffic analysis information with him to China, which would be easy to fit on a several DVDs, this information could be used for economic and industrial espionage purposes. It would be very easy to see which companies were talking to which other companies, and impute information about the deals going down between various actors.
This information could be used to great economic advantage. Who wouldn't want to know the next company with publically traded stock that Google, Apple, or Facebook is in acquisition talks.
That the information was collected at all in the first place is a loaded gun, and one disgruntled ex-employee or contractor is all it take to pull the trigger on that gun, and in many cases they would have to go to extremes of hiding behind China to do it.