Exchange Server is one of the killer points, yes. The other one is Domain Login with the attendant domain-wide security model. As a *nix booster, I must say those two continue to absolutely show up *nix to this day. Those two give more than enough of a "point".
Both Mac OS X and RedHat Linux have answers to both domain login and domain-wide security. The Linux implementation is somewhat less robust (i.e. it's possible to escape exclusion groups, and there's no external group membership resolver like there is on Mac OS X, so there's still the 16 group limit), but it at least is a proof by existence that the claim is wrong. And you can always install the Samba implementation manually on any Linux or BSD box.
If you want to get technical, had Windows not added the proprietary field, we're just talking a KDC implementation, as in Heimdal Kerberos, or before that, MIT Kerberos, and that's been around since Project Athena, which means early 1980's, which means over 30 years. Microsoft's implementation was 1995 or so, and it was the late 90's before they made it non-interoperable with the proprietary field, so they are predated by at least a decade.
Kerberos was interesting, in that it abused the setgroups() and cr->ngroups to store the Kerberos key in the last two groups field, but at that point you were not really using groups anyway (since you were using remote Andrew FS or similar, and it was doing server side credentials enforcement).
So TL;DR: they absolutely did not, and do not, "show up *nix".
President Obama is invested in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund as one of his largest holdings, apart from bonds and T-bills -- Source: http://www.davemanuel.com/pols... -- which in turn is invested in:
Telecoms: AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. Class A Oil companies: Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. Pharma companies: Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer Inc., Merck & Co. Inc., Gilead Sciences Inc., Allergan plc, Amgen Inc., Banks: Wells Fargo & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Visa Inc. Class A Healthcare problem companies: Philip Morris International Inc., Altria Group Inc., McDonald's Corp., Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. Healthcare solution companies: UnitedHealth Group Inc., CVS Health Corp., Medtronic plc
All the e-readers I've used allow you to choose a different font as well. I have not used a Kindle but it probably has that option somewhere.
So does Kindle. What he's bitching about is that the Kindle supplied font he was using as a workaround for his having bad eyes is no longer usable as a workaround, because the update included a slightly different version of the font, such that it no longer appears to be bolded, as it did previously.
He doesn't want to up the point size on the font, which the Kindle would allow, and which also work around the problem. Presumably, this is an "I'm not old, dammit!" reaction to the use of the larger point size as a workaround.
He doesn't want to use the publisher font (also an option), because the publisher (presumably) picked a font that *also* does not work around his eye problems, either.
Or none of these things, and he's just one of those people who are pissy about wanting to side-load custom fonts, and apply them to his entire library, and this is his wedge issue to allow him to ride that particular hobby horse.
Or not even that, he's just being pissy about the fact modern technology is moving away from accessibility in many ways, and he's using this as a wedge issue because he wants to be able to intermediate presentation to do things like automatically text-to-speech.
Because if he *REALLY* cared about the font, it's a completely work-aroundable problem. All you have to do is DRM-strip the book in question, replace the font in the book image with whatever font you want (which makes it a "publisher font", as far as the Kindle knows), and then set the device to use the "publisher font", and presto, you have whatever damn font you want, without Amazon needing to allow side-loading of pirated fonts. Which is apparently something they are contractually prohibited from doing.
In point of fact, there are many blogs that discuss how to perform the procedure on individual books, such that they are using whatever font you want them to use. I'm partial to this one, since it demonstrates the control panel image on the Kindle as part of the setup process for doing the conversion, and the particular image they used shows that the Helvetica font on the device appears to be bolded, compared to all the other available font selections.
Blog demonstrating replacing the font used by a book on a Kindle:
No, there's a security exchange between the CPU and the touch sensor, and by replacing one it needs to have a new exchange only customers and third party repair have not been told how to do this (possibly needing validation with Apple back office servers).
So you're saying the replacement device was/NOT/ identical, because it was incapable of duplicating the crypto exchange.
I'm pretty sure you are saying exactly what the GP said, yet you are disagreeing with them?!?
"Open a book, magazine or other document on the Kindle. Press the “Menu” button on the bottom of the device. The text size options are displayed with the current size underlined. Press the right arrow on the 5-way controller to increase the font size."
There, fixed, unless you are being an ass about how many character there are horizontally and vertically as well.
If you need the "large print edition" of something, quit trying to pretend your are not getting old, or that you eyes are better than they actually are, and give in to the "usability for humans with sub-par ocular hardware" settings, and be done with it.
Why should the touch ID sensor need to, or be actually doing, store any data or provide authentication?
Because the encryption key for the device is stored in an NVRAM knapsack in the touch sensor. The CPU uses a public key to establish an encrypted connection via the bus which connects it to the touch sensor, and then sends a block down to decrypt the contents of the knapsack, and then uses that to decrypt the user data key that's stored in the NVRAM attached to the CPU, and then uses that to decrypt the user data.
By forcing a pairing of the touch sensor with the CPU, it means you can not do a two stage attack by topping just one chip, you'd have to top both chips, and if you did that, your half-of-a-key-pair that you obtained wouldn't work with another device.
The way Apple handles this in the repair cases is it just replaces your device guts with completely new device guts (so that your cheesy engraving is not taken away -- and neither are your scratches in non-critical areas), and pops a new sensor chip (with an uninitialized PROM) into the device, and sends those guts to someone else as a refurbish.
But that does mean that third party repair for either of the two components is theoretically possible, but practically speaking, Apple will not sell you the chip you need to replace to do the same repair that an authorized service center would do. On the other hand... it means that Apple won't get the blame if you put in some third party battery or charging circuitry, and burn down your damn house because you wanted to save $5 or whatever.
That's not bricking. Bricking would be MS rendering components in the computer or the entire computer unusable.
Microsoft will generally not brick your computer.
They may decide, however, that if you have replaced sufficient components of the computer, that it is not the same computer for which the OS has been licensed, and refuse you the right to run the OS. You're still free, however, to either put some of the old components back so that that's no longer the case, or boot Linux on the thing instead.
In the case of the OP, technically, they've replaced enough components that Apple has decided that it's not the machine for which iOS was licensed to run, which is very similar in scope.
While it's more specific than sequence homology predicts, it's less specific than the laser focus it's portrayed as having.
I understand the need to portray it as being as close to perfect as possible to preserve funding (and the research *should* be funded!), right now, the best method we have of ensuring that off-target mutations do not occur is via post-sequencing.
CRISPR/Cas9 Guide https://www.addgene.org/CRISPR... Salient quote: "The randomness of NHEJ-mediated DSB repair has important practical implications, because a population of cells expressing Cas9 and a gRNA will result in a diverse array of mutations (for more information, jump to Plan Your Experiment). In most cases, NHEJ gives rise to small InDels in the target DNA which result in in-frame amino acid deletions, insertions, or frameshift mutations leading to premature stop codons within the open reading frame (ORF) of the targeted gene. Ideally, the end result is a loss-of-function mutation within the targeted gene; however, the “strength” of the knock-out phenotype for a given mutant cell is ultimately determined by the amount of residual gene function."
P.S.: And you know as well as I do that the 'P' in "CRISPR" stands for "Palindromic".
why didn't you just ask it once? what is the reason for asking it several times? what made you decide to type the same question out with different words? what good is asking the same thing over and over doing?
Perhaps like one of my less technical managers, they felt that by asking the same question a different way, they would get a different answer, since they didn't like the answer the first 11 ways they asked the question, asking it a slightly different way a 12th time would magically change the laws of physics so that they could have the answer they wanted, and I was just being obstructionist by insisting gravity pulls towards the center of mass instead of towards, you know, Cleveland or something.
The article you reference does not demonstrate any side effects.
However, it is a valid concern, in that in vitro CRISPR/CAS9 and CRISPR/CPF1 edits has historically hit identical palindromic sequences that happened to be outside the target edit area, since the palindromes in question are only 24 or so base pairs in length. You have to expect that there will be other instances elsewhere in the genome.
If you read the article, the experiment was conducted on pluripotent stem cells created from skin cells taken from the patient, and done in vitro.
The eventual hope in this case is implantation of the in vitro stem cells in order to correct the defect.
This means that any side effects can be avoid by separating the edited cells into individual cells, and then culturing each batch to the point some of the batch can be taken and fully sequenced to verify that the only change in the gene sequences relative to the (fully sequenced) parent organisms genome, is the target gene sequence alone. This would be done before implantation, which would guarantee that the gene sequence causing the disease was the only one impacted by the therapy.
Practically speaking, we have AAVV/AAV-2 techniques -- utilizing Adeno-associated virus vectors, in other words -- that tend to be much more accurate. This is the type of vector that was utilized by the CEO of BioViva, Elizabeth "Liz" Parrish:
That what helped Apple to stand out the crowd was much stronger marketing muscle (started to grow in the 8 bit computers era) and making no trade offs for crappy hardware like caring about running on systems with 4 MB of RAM. In long term it helped making them look like a quality and luxury brand. (Same applies to Apple vs Windows).
No, what made Apple stand out is that the platform itself was very, very, very compelling.
People wanted to program for it badly enough that they were willing to jailbreak the devices using systemic exploits to do it, and then work on developing an SDK for it, to the point of reverse engineering the APIs for all the frameworks on the thing, and then making modifications to the scratch register usage in the compiler, because Apple did not use the standard (at the time) ARM ABI or calling conventions.
Jailbreaks initially came about so as to rewrite the baseband seczone and then put a new (valid) TEA signature on the thing, so as to remove the carrier lock, since Apple sold the things into a limited market, but people *EVERYWHERE* wanted an iPhone. It got so bad at one point that Apple limited the number of iPhones you were allowed to purchase, and entire shipments were hijacked at gunpoint.
That never happened with Nokia phones. Ever.
When Steve released the thing, the Application story was that "You'll use web apps. Period.". Steve was deathly allergic to the idea of building another Apple Newton, and wanted it to be a closed system.
Only the damn thing wouldn't stay closed, and when it surfaced that the boot ROM had the same buffer overflow flaw in the signature validation code that was in Samsung and Sony devices which used Samsung OEM'ed processors, it was "game over" for at least two years on spinning new silicon.
Seriously: No one ever bothered with the Nokia phones.
Even if there had been a capability baseline (all the Apple phones has the same sensor capabilities, the same screen aspect ratio, and, initially, the same screen resolution) so that you could write one piece of code for a Nokia phone, and it wouldn't be missing features and/or run like crap and/or have to scale everything into ugliness due to using whatever the cheapest bulk available LCD resolution and aspect ration the thing had when Nokia was pricing parts right before going to manufacture -- the damn things were not compelling enough that people *wanted* to develop for them.
The only people who developed for Nokia were the ones the phone company paid to put simple games on then through the phone company stores, or the ones that Nokia solicited themselves, or the *very few* vertical market applications which would fit on the things and remain useful.
Nokia phones were crap feature phones with a JVM "in case", and while you *could* write binary applications for them, it was a massive PITA, and they weren't portable between models, and Nokia didn't pre-release models to developers -- which is kind of what you have to do, if you are going to be shipping a bunch of hardware incompatible devices, and the apps would only run on the older devices no longer being built.
Sorry.
Build a compelling product that developers want to develop for, and they will *break into* the thing to do it, even if it means sending the device to someone in Korea who's willing to remove surface mount chips to get at the JTAG port, and then reattach the chips to the device in a reflow oven, because he happens to have one, because he's an engineer at Samsung who works on Samsung phones, and the things are more compelling than what his company has him working on most of the time.
You realize they were selling the 7650 in 2002, with a 32 bit ARM9 CPU, able to run fullfledged applications like email programs and java based arbitrary applications, right?
Nokia was doing smartphones back before Apple even entered the business.
The 7650 was retconned into being called a smart phone. It was not in fact a smart phone, even though it had a 600 Euro price tag, because the JNI's were not there for the Java "apps". You could write/play games, and not much else. 3.6M of memory is not a lot, especially if you are running a JVM, since they tend to be "forgetful" about giving memory back.
As you note: Nokia was on a downward spiral, and the fact of a declining-but-then-60% market share would allow them some time to save themselves, but they apparently were not interested in doing do, content with their "But we have 60% of the market!".
Microsoft taking their carcass, and, for wont of better words, turning them into a Men-In-Black style "Edgar Suit" and wearing the corpse didn't help, but it certainly didn't give Nokia the "But we have 60% of the market!" cancer in the first place.
Even if they had not sold themselves to Microsoft in order to save themselves from bankruptcy, Nokia was not "just about to pull a unicorn out of its butt".
You realize Nokia was selling smartphones since 2002, long before Apple released its first iPhone in 2007, right?
I realize they were marketing feature phones as if they were actually smart-phones in order to try and rehabilitate their primary product into a product that the market was willing to buy.
You realize a feature phone isn't a smart phone, and Nokia didn't start selling the Nseries until April of 2006, right? And that they were still predominantly a dum phone selling company, even after that point, right?
>The country has lost what were its only significant export products for several years: the mobile phones of Nokia.
Thanks Microsoft.
It's totally not Microsoft's faults that no one wanted to buy the phones that Nokia wanted to be able to keep selling, but for which there was pretty much zero market.
If you disagree, you are welcome to go into the dumb-phone market with your own investors, and I happen to know a country where you could locate your company, with a reasonable expectations of being able to hire a bunch of unemployed dumb-phone engineers on the cheap...
Typically, when threatened with being laid off, fulltime employees will announced their intention to draw six months of unemployment benefits to take a vacation and then find a new job. My roommate did that following the dot com bust. He couldn't get back into the industry and took a cashier job with Walmart in 2002. He's still working there today.
After the dotbomb... the sit on your ass cubicle warmer jobs never came back.
These are all the people that were hired without any training, but an interest in the subject, because the companies were so desperate to "scale" that they pulled them out of the educational system early to demonstrate to the VCs that they were "staffing up". They are basically cubicle warmers, if they never made the transition to "apprenticed geeks coming up the old fashioned way". Most companies don't want such people, even if they've previously made the transition, since in many cases, experience does nothing for your ability to work on a team, the way a formal education would.
And yet on the IRS tax forms it's just a single question "Have you had health insurance", last year at least they didn't request any information to collaborate it...no policy numbers, corp, etc.
I didn't say they were telling the truth, and I (I hope) implied the opposite: They just want you to voluntarily disclose your social. I'm well aware that it's a check box.
Slashdot Mirror
Exchange Server is one of the killer points, yes. The other one is Domain Login with the attendant domain-wide security model. As a *nix booster, I must say those two continue to absolutely show up *nix to this day. Those two give more than enough of a "point".
Both Mac OS X and RedHat Linux have answers to both domain login and domain-wide security. The Linux implementation is somewhat less robust (i.e. it's possible to escape exclusion groups, and there's no external group membership resolver like there is on Mac OS X, so there's still the 16 group limit), but it at least is a proof by existence that the claim is wrong. And you can always install the Samba implementation manually on any Linux or BSD box.
If you want to get technical, had Windows not added the proprietary field, we're just talking a KDC implementation, as in Heimdal Kerberos, or before that, MIT Kerberos, and that's been around since Project Athena, which means early 1980's, which means over 30 years. Microsoft's implementation was 1995 or so, and it was the late 90's before they made it non-interoperable with the proprietary field, so they are predated by at least a decade.
Kerberos was interesting, in that it abused the setgroups() and cr->ngroups to store the Kerberos key in the last two groups field, but at that point you were not really using groups anyway (since you were using remote Andrew FS or similar, and it was doing server side credentials enforcement).
So TL;DR: they absolutely did not, and do not, "show up *nix".
Pinky: I think so, Brain, but... where are we going to get a Giant Magellan?
Richard Stallman Does This.
He has his graduate students do his typing for him; too many EMACS related Vulcan Nerve Pinches have left him with severe carpal-tunnel syndrome.
Oh. Not *those* kind of "pupils". Never mind.
"Does the Obama Administration..."
Yes, they understand that.
President Obama is invested in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund as one of his largest holdings, apart from bonds and T-bills -- Source: http://www.davemanuel.com/pols... -- which in turn is invested in:
Telecoms: AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. Class A
Oil companies: Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp.
Pharma companies: Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer Inc., Merck & Co. Inc., Gilead Sciences Inc., Allergan plc, Amgen Inc.,
Banks: Wells Fargo & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Visa Inc. Class A
Healthcare problem companies: Philip Morris International Inc., Altria Group Inc., McDonald's Corp., Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc.
Healthcare solution companies: UnitedHealth Group Inc., CVS Health Corp., Medtronic plc
Among others -- Source: https://personal.vanguard.com/...
So perhaps this explains the issues he's interested in, and the things he votes and advocates for and against.
Identical devices with unique keys are by definition *NOT* identical.
Or to car analogy it: two otherwise identical cars with different VIN numbers are *NOT* identical.
All the e-readers I've used allow you to choose a different font as well. I have not used a Kindle but it probably has that option somewhere.
So does Kindle. What he's bitching about is that the Kindle supplied font he was using as a workaround for his having bad eyes is no longer usable as a workaround, because the update included a slightly different version of the font, such that it no longer appears to be bolded, as it did previously.
He doesn't want to up the point size on the font, which the Kindle would allow, and which also work around the problem. Presumably, this is an "I'm not old, dammit!" reaction to the use of the larger point size as a workaround.
He doesn't want to use the publisher font (also an option), because the publisher (presumably) picked a font that *also* does not work around his eye problems, either.
Or none of these things, and he's just one of those people who are pissy about wanting to side-load custom fonts, and apply them to his entire library, and this is his wedge issue to allow him to ride that particular hobby horse.
Or not even that, he's just being pissy about the fact modern technology is moving away from accessibility in many ways, and he's using this as a wedge issue because he wants to be able to intermediate presentation to do things like automatically text-to-speech.
Because if he *REALLY* cared about the font, it's a completely work-aroundable problem. All you have to do is DRM-strip the book in question, replace the font in the book image with whatever font you want (which makes it a "publisher font", as far as the Kindle knows), and then set the device to use the "publisher font", and presto, you have whatever damn font you want, without Amazon needing to allow side-loading of pirated fonts. Which is apparently something they are contractually prohibited from doing.
In point of fact, there are many blogs that discuss how to perform the procedure on individual books, such that they are using whatever font you want them to use. I'm partial to this one, since it demonstrates the control panel image on the Kindle as part of the setup process for doing the conversion, and the particular image they used shows that the Helvetica font on the device appears to be bolded, compared to all the other available font selections.
Blog demonstrating replacing the font used by a book on a Kindle:
http://blog.the-ebook-reader.c...
No, there's a security exchange between the CPU and the touch sensor, and by replacing one it needs to have a new exchange only customers and third party repair have not been told how to do this (possibly needing validation with Apple back office servers).
So you're saying the replacement device was /NOT/ identical, because it was incapable of duplicating the crypto exchange.
I'm pretty sure you are saying exactly what the GP said, yet you are disagreeing with them?!?
Or buy another Windows license, or call Microsoft and tell them what happened......
There are plenty of options in the Windows case that aren't available in the iOS case.
Really? Because the recommendation at the end of the article was "Call Apple Support".
How to fix it:
"Open a book, magazine or other document on the Kindle. Press the “Menu” button on the bottom of the device. The text size options are displayed with the current size underlined. Press the right arrow on the 5-way controller to increase the font size."
There, fixed, unless you are being an ass about how many character there are horizontally and vertically as well.
If you need the "large print edition" of something, quit trying to pretend your are not getting old, or that you eyes are better than they actually are, and give in to the "usability for humans with sub-par ocular hardware" settings, and be done with it.
Why should the touch ID sensor need to, or be actually doing, store any data or provide authentication?
Because the encryption key for the device is stored in an NVRAM knapsack in the touch sensor. The CPU uses a public key to establish an encrypted connection via the bus which connects it to the touch sensor, and then sends a block down to decrypt the contents of the knapsack, and then uses that to decrypt the user data key that's stored in the NVRAM attached to the CPU, and then uses that to decrypt the user data.
By forcing a pairing of the touch sensor with the CPU, it means you can not do a two stage attack by topping just one chip, you'd have to top both chips, and if you did that, your half-of-a-key-pair that you obtained wouldn't work with another device.
The way Apple handles this in the repair cases is it just replaces your device guts with completely new device guts (so that your cheesy engraving is not taken away -- and neither are your scratches in non-critical areas), and pops a new sensor chip (with an uninitialized PROM) into the device, and sends those guts to someone else as a refurbish.
But that does mean that third party repair for either of the two components is theoretically possible, but practically speaking, Apple will not sell you the chip you need to replace to do the same repair that an authorized service center would do. On the other hand... it means that Apple won't get the blame if you put in some third party battery or charging circuitry, and burn down your damn house because you wanted to save $5 or whatever.
That's not bricking. Bricking would be MS rendering components in the computer or the entire computer unusable.
Microsoft will generally not brick your computer.
They may decide, however, that if you have replaced sufficient components of the computer, that it is not the same computer for which the OS has been licensed, and refuse you the right to run the OS. You're still free, however, to either put some of the old components back so that that's no longer the case, or boot Linux on the thing instead.
In the case of the OP, technically, they've replaced enough components that Apple has decided that it's not the machine for which iOS was licensed to run, which is very similar in scope.
Maybe he shouldn't have legal issues? Just keep his head down?
That's a fantastic idea! No one should ever make waves, or make things uncomfortable for The Powers That Be(tm)!
Everybody wins! [If they happen to be one of The Powers That Be(tm); otherwise they lose...]
While we are at it, let's put the final nails in the coffin of all investigative, yet inconvenient, reporting!
Also: I want a pony...
Sorry, but the length guide is *not* sufficient.
While it's more specific than sequence homology predicts, it's less specific than the laser focus it's portrayed as having.
I understand the need to portray it as being as close to perfect as possible to preserve funding (and the research *should* be funded!), right now, the best method we have of ensuring that off-target mutations do not occur is via post-sequencing.
See these papers regarding "Dammit, I missed!":
New Sequencing Methods Reveal Off-Target Effects of CRISPR/Cas9
https://www.genomeweb.com/sequ...
Unbiased detection of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas9 and TALENs using integrase-defective lentiviral vectors
http://www.nature.com/nbt/jour...
Analysis of off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
CRISPR-Cas9 Specificity: Taming Off-target Mutagenesis
http://www.genecopoeia.com/res...
Digenome-seq: genome-wide profiling of CRISPR-Cas9 off-target effects in human cells
http://www.nature.com/nmeth/jo...
Quantifying on- and off-target genome editing
http://www.cell.com/trends/bio...
CRISPR/Cas9 Guide
https://www.addgene.org/CRISPR...
Salient quote: "The randomness of NHEJ-mediated DSB repair has important practical implications, because a population of cells expressing Cas9 and a gRNA will result in a diverse array of mutations (for more information, jump to Plan Your Experiment). In most cases, NHEJ gives rise to small InDels in the target DNA which result in in-frame amino acid deletions, insertions, or frameshift mutations leading to premature stop codons within the open reading frame (ORF) of the targeted gene. Ideally, the end result is a loss-of-function mutation within the targeted gene; however, the “strength” of the knock-out phenotype for a given mutant cell is ultimately determined by the amount of residual gene function."
P.S.: And you know as well as I do that the 'P' in "CRISPR" stands for "Palindromic".
why didn't you just ask it once? what is the reason for asking it several times? what made you decide to type the same question out with different words? what good is asking the same thing over and over doing?
Perhaps like one of my less technical managers, they felt that by asking the same question a different way, they would get a different answer, since they didn't like the answer the first 11 ways they asked the question, asking it a slightly different way a 12th time would magically change the laws of physics so that they could have the answer they wanted, and I was just being obstructionist by insisting gravity pulls towards the center of mass instead of towards, you know, Cleveland or something.
"Anderson here is our expert in all matters related to the drawing of red lines..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The article you reference does not demonstrate any side effects.
However, it is a valid concern, in that in vitro CRISPR/CAS9 and CRISPR/CPF1 edits has historically hit identical palindromic sequences that happened to be outside the target edit area, since the palindromes in question are only 24 or so base pairs in length. You have to expect that there will be other instances elsewhere in the genome.
If you read the article, the experiment was conducted on pluripotent stem cells created from skin cells taken from the patient, and done in vitro.
The eventual hope in this case is implantation of the in vitro stem cells in order to correct the defect.
This means that any side effects can be avoid by separating the edited cells into individual cells, and then culturing each batch to the point some of the batch can be taken and fully sequenced to verify that the only change in the gene sequences relative to the (fully sequenced) parent organisms genome, is the target gene sequence alone. This would be done before implantation, which would guarantee that the gene sequence causing the disease was the only one impacted by the therapy.
Practically speaking, we have AAVV/AAV-2 techniques -- utilizing Adeno-associated virus vectors, in other words -- that tend to be much more accurate. This is the type of vector that was utilized by the CEO of BioViva, Elizabeth "Liz" Parrish:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That what helped Apple to stand out the crowd was much stronger marketing muscle (started to grow in the 8 bit computers era) and making no trade offs for crappy hardware like caring about running on systems with 4 MB of RAM. In long term it helped making them look like a quality and luxury brand. (Same applies to Apple vs Windows).
No, what made Apple stand out is that the platform itself was very, very, very compelling.
People wanted to program for it badly enough that they were willing to jailbreak the devices using systemic exploits to do it, and then work on developing an SDK for it, to the point of reverse engineering the APIs for all the frameworks on the thing, and then making modifications to the scratch register usage in the compiler, because Apple did not use the standard (at the time) ARM ABI or calling conventions.
Jailbreaks initially came about so as to rewrite the baseband seczone and then put a new (valid) TEA signature on the thing, so as to remove the carrier lock, since Apple sold the things into a limited market, but people *EVERYWHERE* wanted an iPhone. It got so bad at one point that Apple limited the number of iPhones you were allowed to purchase, and entire shipments were hijacked at gunpoint.
That never happened with Nokia phones. Ever.
When Steve released the thing, the Application story was that "You'll use web apps. Period.". Steve was deathly allergic to the idea of building another Apple Newton, and wanted it to be a closed system.
Only the damn thing wouldn't stay closed, and when it surfaced that the boot ROM had the same buffer overflow flaw in the signature validation code that was in Samsung and Sony devices which used Samsung OEM'ed processors, it was "game over" for at least two years on spinning new silicon.
Seriously: No one ever bothered with the Nokia phones.
Even if there had been a capability baseline (all the Apple phones has the same sensor capabilities, the same screen aspect ratio, and, initially, the same screen resolution) so that you could write one piece of code for a Nokia phone, and it wouldn't be missing features and/or run like crap and/or have to scale everything into ugliness due to using whatever the cheapest bulk available LCD resolution and aspect ration the thing had when Nokia was pricing parts right before going to manufacture -- the damn things were not compelling enough that people *wanted* to develop for them.
The only people who developed for Nokia were the ones the phone company paid to put simple games on then through the phone company stores, or the ones that Nokia solicited themselves, or the *very few* vertical market applications which would fit on the things and remain useful.
Nokia phones were crap feature phones with a JVM "in case", and while you *could* write binary applications for them, it was a massive PITA, and they weren't portable between models, and Nokia didn't pre-release models to developers -- which is kind of what you have to do, if you are going to be shipping a bunch of hardware incompatible devices, and the apps would only run on the older devices no longer being built.
Sorry.
Build a compelling product that developers want to develop for, and they will *break into* the thing to do it, even if it means sending the device to someone in Korea who's willing to remove surface mount chips to get at the JTAG port, and then reattach the chips to the device in a reflow oven, because he happens to have one, because he's an engineer at Samsung who works on Samsung phones, and the things are more compelling than what his company has him working on most of the time.
*That's* why Nokia took the dirt nap.
You realize they were selling the 7650 in 2002, with a 32 bit ARM9 CPU, able to run fullfledged applications like email programs and java based arbitrary applications, right?
Nokia was doing smartphones back before Apple even entered the business.
The 7650 was retconned into being called a smart phone. It was not in fact a smart phone, even though it had a 600 Euro price tag, because the JNI's were not there for the Java "apps". You could write/play games, and not much else. 3.6M of memory is not a lot, especially if you are running a JVM, since they tend to be "forgetful" about giving memory back.
But nice try.
As you note: Nokia was on a downward spiral, and the fact of a declining-but-then-60% market share would allow them some time to save themselves, but they apparently were not interested in doing do, content with their "But we have 60% of the market!".
Microsoft taking their carcass, and, for wont of better words, turning them into a Men-In-Black style "Edgar Suit" and wearing the corpse didn't help, but it certainly didn't give Nokia the "But we have 60% of the market!" cancer in the first place.
Even if they had not sold themselves to Microsoft in order to save themselves from bankruptcy, Nokia was not "just about to pull a unicorn out of its butt".
You realize Nokia was selling smartphones since 2002, long before Apple released its first iPhone in 2007, right?
I realize they were marketing feature phones as if they were actually smart-phones in order to try and rehabilitate their primary product into a product that the market was willing to buy.
You realize a feature phone isn't a smart phone, and Nokia didn't start selling the Nseries until April of 2006, right? And that they were still predominantly a dum phone selling company, even after that point, right?
>The country has lost what were its only significant export products for several years: the mobile phones of Nokia.
Thanks Microsoft.
It's totally not Microsoft's faults that no one wanted to buy the phones that Nokia wanted to be able to keep selling, but for which there was pretty much zero market.
If you disagree, you are welcome to go into the dumb-phone market with your own investors, and I happen to know a country where you could locate your company, with a reasonable expectations of being able to hire a bunch of unemployed dumb-phone engineers on the cheap...
2) Finland's economic woes, which has led to UH's belt-tightening, are directly tied to the falling exports of mobile phones by Nokia.
Nokia taking a dirt nap is because Nokia *isn't*/*wasn't* a technology company.
Typically, when threatened with being laid off, fulltime employees will announced their intention to draw six months of unemployment benefits to take a vacation and then find a new job. My roommate did that following the dot com bust. He couldn't get back into the industry and took a cashier job with Walmart in 2002. He's still working there today.
After the dotbomb... the sit on your ass cubicle warmer jobs never came back.
These are all the people that were hired without any training, but an interest in the subject, because the companies were so desperate to "scale" that they pulled them out of the educational system early to demonstrate to the VCs that they were "staffing up". They are basically cubicle warmers, if they never made the transition to "apprenticed geeks coming up the old fashioned way". Most companies don't want such people, even if they've previously made the transition, since in many cases, experience does nothing for your ability to work on a team, the way a formal education would.
Well said.
And yet on the IRS tax forms it's just a single question "Have you had health insurance", last year at least they didn't request any information to collaborate it...no policy numbers, corp, etc.
I didn't say they were telling the truth, and I (I hope) implied the opposite: They just want you to voluntarily disclose your social. I'm well aware that it's a check box.