GCC can compile Objective-C too. The jailbreak toolchain uses it.
I don't see why you couldn't get the jailbreak toolchain working just fine on Linux. If you're happy with jailbreak development, you're all set. If you want official development, you have to figure out some way to sign your apps. As far as I know, you need a Mac for that, but you can do it via SSH.
"The high GHz stuff, what you need for big bandwidth links, gets rather directional, is quite short range (air even attenuates it) and doesn't pass through hardly any barriers, even walls. This is all aside from the general difficulties making stuff that signals cheap at those frequencies."
When you're talking about very wide band transmissions, that's not a disadvantage. You want that thing as directional, short range and attenuated as possible so more than one person in the neighbourhood can use it.
Large parts of OS X already run on ARM, in iPods, iPhones and iPads. Underneath iOS is the Darwin kernel, the same as OS X, and it contains quite a bit of the command line userspace as well. One of the big differences is the GUI: OS X uses Aqua and iOS doesn't, but a good deal of Cocoa has been ported.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple has all of OS X running on ARM down in a basement somewhere.
If that were true, the hackers would have a MUCH easier time of it.
You can only install Cydia when you've got root access to the phone. THAT's why you can do whatever you want.
There are a few things you can do from an app by using Apple's private frameworks. They're pretty minor, like using the proximity sensor and getting raw touch events. You can't just go and do anything you want, like a jailbroken app can do.
You don't need iWork. It works with any app that supports it.
As for iTunes, simple, maybe. Civilized... possibly. Apple originally suggested there would be a common document area all apps could access with 4.0, but later backed off on it and came up with the app-specific transfer mechanism and an app-to-app transfer method. It does involve quite a bit of hassle - apps would have to be able to recognize their own files and you'd need some sort of file management right on the phone. Also, with multitasking, file locking etc.
There are rights placed on freedom of speech in the US as well. Inciting imminent violence is one of them. So I guess you guys don't have freedom of speech either, hey?
It seems Ann Coulter can say "you know, I think we should probably kill all the Canadians" in the US, but she can't say "let's go kill all the Canadians right now." In Canada both statements get her charged.
Doesn't seem like a particularly good place to draw the line between freedom of speech and no freedom of speech to me.
The wikipedia article you linked to says none of the claims were upheld. I can sue you for defamation in the US for pretty much anything. Doesn't mean I'll win.
Canada's version of freedom of speech seems to be stronger than the US's. Except for hate speech (which the US has some laws against as well), the charter right in Canada covers everything - for example, if this case didn't involve hate speech and was in Canada, the person who got his web page shut down would have a valid claim against the hosting company. In the US the freedom of speech clause only applies to the government and the hosting company can do whatever it wants.
A leader has the responsibility to say "hey, this is kind of dumb idea. It would be better for the country if you didn't do this" if he or she thinks such is the case.
You keep using phrases like "interfere with" and "bully pulpit." Nothing like a little hyperbole to foster rational discussion hey?
I would like to see Apple freely allow jailbreaking (at your own risk) and with it installing whatever apps you want, but the app store definitely needs to have a price of entry. I pay it (and have since the SDK came out) happily.
OS 4.1 has been released to developers for quite a while. The vulnerability in question was actually in previous versions (also released to developers for even longer), and the iPhone Dev Team specifically said they weren't making a jailbreak for those intermediate versions in the hope that Apple wouldn't fix the vulnerability in question until after 4.1.
They didn't hack 4.1 in a day. They hacked 4.02 some time ago and held onto the exploit hoping Apple wouldn't find and fix it.
Apple locks down cell phones, which have historically always been locked down. When the iPhone came out it was generally much more open than most other phones. Now it's openness has lagged behind with Android's introduction.
OS X doesn't impose a lot of restrictions, just like other desktop/laptop operating systems. Apple does do their best to limit it to running on Apple hardware. That's pretty much equivalent to what Dell et. al. do with their copies of Windows, locking them up in "restore disks" that refuse to install on anything but the individual model they were purchased for. Apple also doesn't do any license checking, which has gotten really, really obnoxious in Windows over the years.
OS X's not being locked down isn't due to any incompetence.
In the (fourish) year history of the iPhone there have been two (real) remote exploits, both of which were used for jailbreaking and apparently for nothing else, and a parade of local exploits. The first remote exploit took a while to fix, the second was fixed pretty fast.
The remote ones are an advantage to an attacker. The local ones are an advantage to the owner.
Apple's done a pretty good job of keeping the platform secure from attackers. They've probably done too good a job of keeping it secure from the user, but I don't think they've had a very serious go at the latter.
No, it represents a problem in what people understand to be the process of falsification in science.
If I come up with a model that predicts change between 0 and +4C in the next 10 years, and the actual measured change is +5, then yes indeed, my model has been falsified.
In terms of actual global warming, if my error bars are, say, -5 to +5 and the actual change falls within that range, then the hypothesis of global warming hasn't been falsified. Rather, my data has nothing to say about whether global warming is occurring or not (although it could probably be used to put some upper limits on the amount of warming). Contrary to popular belief, not finding a significant change is NOT evidence that there is no change.
A third possibility is that I actually power my study to produce actual negative results. Perhaps I collect data that has a 95% chance of observing any change > 2 degrees. If I don't see a significant change then I can conclude that the amount of global warming occurring is likely below that 2 degree threshold.
Only problem is the intolerant religious folk are so thick on the ground it's tough not to be standing next to one of them when some other intolerant religious folk decide to take a poke at him.
#2b, Fundamental freedoms: "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"
I haven't heard about anybody in your government doing anything to stop this guy. Have you? Lots of people have gone on record saying it's a really, really bad idea and they wish he'd reconsider, but why should they be impeached for that? You wouldn't be trying to suppress freedom of speech, would you?
To start with, the story is about elementary schools. The stuff they learn isn't published in any journals, open or not. When you start working up to specialized senior undergrad courses you might find things that are published in journals. Not everything, but a few things. There are some grad courses that can be taught entirely from journal papers. And guess what? They frequently are. The vast majority of courses that are taught with textbooks don't address "cutting edge stuff." The rest generally do teach from journals because the stuff they're covering isn't in any textbooks yet.
There's also the issue students understanding the journal article. For grad courses students might as well get used to it, because they're going to have to know how to do it anyway. For others, textbooks are an invaluable resource that gives background information and simplifies explanations.
Finally, I don't know much about elementary textbooks, but the ones I used in university were written by leaders in the field who most certainly did have lots of grants. Now, as a working scientist, I see that this is still the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Polio probably would have aggravated her condition too.
The author of the Google Voice app said he'd heard from Apple that it would probably get accepted as soon as he resubmitted. So yes, probably.
GCC can compile Objective-C too. The jailbreak toolchain uses it.
I don't see why you couldn't get the jailbreak toolchain working just fine on Linux. If you're happy with jailbreak development, you're all set. If you want official development, you have to figure out some way to sign your apps. As far as I know, you need a Mac for that, but you can do it via SSH.
Chrome OS is designed to force people to use Google's web apps. Well, actually, it's to force people to look at Google's ads, but same difference.
Android has this pesky ability to run native apps. Bad.
"The high GHz stuff, what you need for big bandwidth links, gets rather directional, is quite short range (air even attenuates it) and doesn't pass through hardly any barriers, even walls. This is all aside from the general difficulties making stuff that signals cheap at those frequencies."
When you're talking about very wide band transmissions, that's not a disadvantage. You want that thing as directional, short range and attenuated as possible so more than one person in the neighbourhood can use it.
Large parts of OS X already run on ARM, in iPods, iPhones and iPads. Underneath iOS is the Darwin kernel, the same as OS X, and it contains quite a bit of the command line userspace as well. One of the big differences is the GUI: OS X uses Aqua and iOS doesn't, but a good deal of Cocoa has been ported.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple has all of OS X running on ARM down in a basement somewhere.
If that were true, the hackers would have a MUCH easier time of it.
You can only install Cydia when you've got root access to the phone. THAT's why you can do whatever you want.
There are a few things you can do from an app by using Apple's private frameworks. They're pretty minor, like using the proximity sensor and getting raw touch events. You can't just go and do anything you want, like a jailbroken app can do.
You don't need iWork. It works with any app that supports it.
As for iTunes, simple, maybe. Civilized... possibly. Apple originally suggested there would be a common document area all apps could access with 4.0, but later backed off on it and came up with the app-specific transfer mechanism and an app-to-app transfer method. It does involve quite a bit of hassle - apps would have to be able to recognize their own files and you'd need some sort of file management right on the phone. Also, with multitasking, file locking etc.
Just like you can't release the source code to a Windows app without open sourcing the Windows API, right?
Of course. All rights are limited. The charter just goes ahead and says so. Freedom of speech in the US is limited as well.
There are rights placed on freedom of speech in the US as well. Inciting imminent violence is one of them. So I guess you guys don't have freedom of speech either, hey?
It seems Ann Coulter can say "you know, I think we should probably kill all the Canadians" in the US, but she can't say "let's go kill all the Canadians right now." In Canada both statements get her charged.
Doesn't seem like a particularly good place to draw the line between freedom of speech and no freedom of speech to me.
The wikipedia article you linked to says none of the claims were upheld. I can sue you for defamation in the US for pretty much anything. Doesn't mean I'll win.
Canada's version of freedom of speech seems to be stronger than the US's. Except for hate speech (which the US has some laws against as well), the charter right in Canada covers everything - for example, if this case didn't involve hate speech and was in Canada, the person who got his web page shut down would have a valid claim against the hosting company. In the US the freedom of speech clause only applies to the government and the hosting company can do whatever it wants.
A leader has the responsibility to say "hey, this is kind of dumb idea. It would be better for the country if you didn't do this" if he or she thinks such is the case.
You keep using phrases like "interfere with" and "bully pulpit." Nothing like a little hyperbole to foster rational discussion hey?
The fact that Apple hasn't changed the root password since the second beta release of the SDK is particularly telling.
God no. The app store is full of crap as it is.
I would like to see Apple freely allow jailbreaking (at your own risk) and with it installing whatever apps you want, but the app store definitely needs to have a price of entry. I pay it (and have since the SDK came out) happily.
OS 4.1 has been released to developers for quite a while. The vulnerability in question was actually in previous versions (also released to developers for even longer), and the iPhone Dev Team specifically said they weren't making a jailbreak for those intermediate versions in the hope that Apple wouldn't fix the vulnerability in question until after 4.1.
They didn't hack 4.1 in a day. They hacked 4.02 some time ago and held onto the exploit hoping Apple wouldn't find and fix it.
Uh, what?
Apple locks down cell phones, which have historically always been locked down. When the iPhone came out it was generally much more open than most other phones. Now it's openness has lagged behind with Android's introduction.
OS X doesn't impose a lot of restrictions, just like other desktop/laptop operating systems. Apple does do their best to limit it to running on Apple hardware. That's pretty much equivalent to what Dell et. al. do with their copies of Windows, locking them up in "restore disks" that refuse to install on anything but the individual model they were purchased for. Apple also doesn't do any license checking, which has gotten really, really obnoxious in Windows over the years.
OS X's not being locked down isn't due to any incompetence.
In the (fourish) year history of the iPhone there have been two (real) remote exploits, both of which were used for jailbreaking and apparently for nothing else, and a parade of local exploits. The first remote exploit took a while to fix, the second was fixed pretty fast.
The remote ones are an advantage to an attacker. The local ones are an advantage to the owner.
Apple's done a pretty good job of keeping the platform secure from attackers. They've probably done too good a job of keeping it secure from the user, but I don't think they've had a very serious go at the latter.
No, it represents a problem in what people understand to be the process of falsification in science.
If I come up with a model that predicts change between 0 and +4C in the next 10 years, and the actual measured change is +5, then yes indeed, my model has been falsified.
In terms of actual global warming, if my error bars are, say, -5 to +5 and the actual change falls within that range, then the hypothesis of global warming hasn't been falsified. Rather, my data has nothing to say about whether global warming is occurring or not (although it could probably be used to put some upper limits on the amount of warming). Contrary to popular belief, not finding a significant change is NOT evidence that there is no change.
A third possibility is that I actually power my study to produce actual negative results. Perhaps I collect data that has a 95% chance of observing any change > 2 degrees. If I don't see a significant change then I can conclude that the amount of global warming occurring is likely below that 2 degree threshold.
Yeah, science can be kind of tricky.
Only problem is the intolerant religious folk are so thick on the ground it's tough not to be standing next to one of them when some other intolerant religious folk decide to take a poke at him.
Silly. Islam is a bunch of silly superstitions that unfortunately some people believe in enough to do stupid stuff that evil people tell them to.
Of course, so is Christianity.
We do actually have freedom of speech: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_2
#2b, Fundamental freedoms: "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"
I haven't heard about anybody in your government doing anything to stop this guy. Have you? Lots of people have gone on record saying it's a really, really bad idea and they wish he'd reconsider, but why should they be impeached for that? You wouldn't be trying to suppress freedom of speech, would you?
"Bible Burning and Weenie Roast"
Shall we find out? I'll bring the marshmallows.
To start with, the story is about elementary schools. The stuff they learn isn't published in any journals, open or not. When you start working up to specialized senior undergrad courses you might find things that are published in journals. Not everything, but a few things. There are some grad courses that can be taught entirely from journal papers. And guess what? They frequently are. The vast majority of courses that are taught with textbooks don't address "cutting edge stuff." The rest generally do teach from journals because the stuff they're covering isn't in any textbooks yet.
There's also the issue students understanding the journal article. For grad courses students might as well get used to it, because they're going to have to know how to do it anyway. For others, textbooks are an invaluable resource that gives background information and simplifies explanations.
Finally, I don't know much about elementary textbooks, but the ones I used in university were written by leaders in the field who most certainly did have lots of grants. Now, as a working scientist, I see that this is still the case.