Just in case you don't read the anonymous cowards, I have some bad news. Rogers hiked their ETF sometime before the iPhone was introduced. It's now $400 + $100 if you cancel a data plan. My contract had some unclear wording about whether the data plan ETF fee actually applied to iPhones, but I suspect Rogers has a) fixed that and b) will interpret it in their favour anyway.
But yeah, it's still worth the contract. $500 for the ETF plus they don't screw you quite as badly on the monthly fee vs. $699 for the phone + maximal screwage plan.
It could be used as an advertising trick. If someone accuses T-Mobile of having an unusually large ETF they may be tempted to say "nuh uh, it's only $200."
As for confusing, well, the relationships between religions are confusing. The various Christian sects and their relationship to Judaism particularly so.
From your link it looks like they successfully acquired information that Apple provides system calls for (such as the address book) and perhaps managed to get some other stuff via some filesystem calls.
Calling public SDKs to get information you're supposed to have access to isn't "poking around on the system." Perhaps Apple should more carefully restrict some of that information (I don't see why an app should have access to the phone number, for example), but as it is, access to that information is provided.
The filesystem access IS poking around on the system, and perhaps poking around in other apps, but it's clearly an unintentional vulnerability. If that's your standard, I can write an iPhone app that will poke around on your desktop computer too - there are bound to be some exploitable vulnerabilities in your OS. Apple will probably close that hole and very likely already checks for apps that use it.
The combination of sandboxing and app review is a PITA for developers, users and Apple, but it has done a pretty good job of controlling malware so far.
Helium 3 might be usable as a fusion fuel, some day in the very distant future. If we ever get the easy fusion reactions working we can start thinking about using the more difficult ones, like 3He. Needless to say, that has no effect on current demand.
It seems the reason there's a shortage now is because the US government has decided all ports need to scan all cargo entering the US for radiation, and 3He is useful in neutron detectors. Unfortunately, the US military stopped stockpiling it when they thought they had plenty, and nobody was really using it.
I'm not sure how much tritium is released from these nuclear plants (from the article it seems nobody is sure). The reactors in Ontario occasionally accidentally release some tritium, usually a few grams. A few grams of tritium makes a few grams of 3He (eventually), which isn't much, even for 3He. It seems these reactors might be leaking a bit more than that, but it's not really clear. The tritium they're leaking is also very likely diluted in a lot of heavy water, making it quite difficult to recover.
So the leaked tritium is very likely irrelevant to the supply of 3He.
Yes. If it works it's great. Wasn't it Dell that screwed up their CPU throttling a while ago, and a bunch of people ended up with laptops that decided to run at 2 MHz whenever you actually asked them to do something?
Yes, it's quite true, "why" can regress infinitely. Nevertheless, you can use reasonable limits. Generally if you can't answer "why" to even one level, most people would question your claim to understanding.
The original example was inertia, and the context is physics. We know that inertia appears in the formula F=ma. We can predict it's effects very well. But that formula is descriptive, as far as inertia is concerned, rather than explanatory. It tells us there is a quantity called inertial mass, and suggests how we could measure it, but it doesn't tell us anything else about it. 'm' is just something Newton made up to describe what he saw. Based on that, it's not unreasonable to conclude that we don't really understand inertial mass, even though we can measure it and describe it's effects.
The current proposed explanation is that inertial mass is produced via an interaction with a Higgs field. You can then turn around and ask why a Higgs field supports this particular type of interaction. If you can't answer the Higgs question I might question whether you understand Higgs fields or not, but as far as inertia is concerned, you've successfully provided some explanatory power.
I believe the poster I replied to was speaking in general, not about this particular app.
If I submit a mobile banking app to a reviewed app store, it's quite likely the reviewers will think "hm, is this submitter the bank in question? No? Perhaps we should review this one REALLY carefully."
That is, if we're talking about this specific app then the whole thread is moot because the original poster's assertion that app store style review wouldn't catch this app is erroneous.
DECE isn't really about a new DRM format, it's about everyone using the same DRM format. That idea, and a centralized license manager, are both different approaches to solving the same problem: being able to play your DRMed files on different devices.
The author glosses over the specifics, but the basic conflict is as described.
Uh, you don't know much about iPhone development, hey?
The phone does not trust every app that comes out of the app store. Each app has to be individually signed for the phone it's operating on and apps are very well sandboxed. So well sandboxed that people complain about it constantly.
App store vetting is an additional level of security on top of the phone itself being pathologically paranoid.
Grabbing information you shouldn't have on the iPhone is likely going to require using restricted SDKs. Apps on the iPhone OS are quite well sandboxed. iPhone apps can definitely NOT poke around other apps' data, nor the system.
He's not abusing the word "understand" (well, maybe a little), he's just using it in a slightly different context. You may be able to predict your wife's behaviour, but if it came down to some sort of rule (she will always choose option 2 in the bottom half of an hour, option 1 in the top half for example) you might not say you understood her. You could predict her behaviour, but you would have no idea why she made choices that way. In reality, you do understand, at least to some degree, why she makes the choices she does.
Copernicus, Kepler et. al. correctly deduced that the planets move in ellipses around the sun (that is, how the planets move), but they had nothing to say about why they should do so. It wasn't until Newton came along that we understood some of the why.
It's true that our understanding of the mechanisms behind quite a bit of physics is a little fuzzy. Until fairly recently both inertial mass and gravitational mass just were. We didn't have any real explanation for why they exist, whether they were always equal, etc. The Higgs field explains much of that, and also connects it with some interesting cosmology fairly elegantly.
I didn't realize $4.99 + tax was advanced math. We almost always use math in a close enough context. Close doesn't count in pure math, but as soon as you apply it to something real you're always talking about close enough.
The law seems to rely on "a reasonable expectation." My reasonable expectation of privacy in my home with the blinds drawn isn't affected by my neighbour's penchant for posing nude in front of her open window. If I post details of myself online for everyone to see I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy whether or not there's a horde of others doing the same. If I take basic precautions to restrict access to that data (such as checking the box on Facebook that asks Facebook not to share my information with everyone) then I DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Yeah, CSI is going to be able to save some on their special effects budget. Other than that, it's kind of tough to think of an actual application. The summary makes some pretty fuzzy suggestions, but they don't really seem realistic.
More precisely, he believes his interpretation of witness testimony about events etc. over his interpretation of witness testimony about forensic findings. Never mind that the forensic findings are (or ought to be) independently verifiable.
So basically you're saying you believe witness testimony is more reliable than scientific evidence?
Certainly forensics should be scientifically validated and need to be evaluated in the context off all the evidence, but "paying little attention to forensic details" just because you don't personally understand them in full detail....
How is the testimony of an expert witness, which is scientifically verifiable, any less reliable than the testimony of the defendant, eye witnesses, doctors (expert witnesses themselves), police officers (also expert witnesses), etc?
The real problem is that Chinese students won't want to come to North America to work for food anymore, when they can stay at home and work for food. North America has a shortage of qualified domestic students who are willing to do the same.
"(BTW, slightly off topic, I saw a Blu-Ray movie with the FBI copyright warning in French, which I had never seen before on any DVD. That was a little creepy and funny at the same time.)"
The publisher probably just didn't want to produce different runs of discs for the US and Canada. All movies in Canada have the warning in both french and english. It's frequently an INTERPOL warning, but it's particularly entertaining when it's actually an FBI warning.
Slashdot Mirror
Just in case you don't read the anonymous cowards, I have some bad news. Rogers hiked their ETF sometime before the iPhone was introduced. It's now $400 + $100 if you cancel a data plan. My contract had some unclear wording about whether the data plan ETF fee actually applied to iPhones, but I suspect Rogers has a) fixed that and b) will interpret it in their favour anyway.
But yeah, it's still worth the contract. $500 for the ETF plus they don't screw you quite as badly on the monthly fee vs. $699 for the phone + maximal screwage plan.
It could be used as an advertising trick. If someone accuses T-Mobile of having an unusually large ETF they may be tempted to say "nuh uh, it's only $200."
Why would the word jewry be offensive?
As for confusing, well, the relationships between religions are confusing. The various Christian sects and their relationship to Judaism particularly so.
From your link it looks like they successfully acquired information that Apple provides system calls for (such as the address book) and perhaps managed to get some other stuff via some filesystem calls.
Calling public SDKs to get information you're supposed to have access to isn't "poking around on the system." Perhaps Apple should more carefully restrict some of that information (I don't see why an app should have access to the phone number, for example), but as it is, access to that information is provided.
The filesystem access IS poking around on the system, and perhaps poking around in other apps, but it's clearly an unintentional vulnerability. If that's your standard, I can write an iPhone app that will poke around on your desktop computer too - there are bound to be some exploitable vulnerabilities in your OS. Apple will probably close that hole and very likely already checks for apps that use it.
The combination of sandboxing and app review is a PITA for developers, users and Apple, but it has done a pretty good job of controlling malware so far.
Helium 3 might be usable as a fusion fuel, some day in the very distant future. If we ever get the easy fusion reactions working we can start thinking about using the more difficult ones, like 3He. Needless to say, that has no effect on current demand.
It seems the reason there's a shortage now is because the US government has decided all ports need to scan all cargo entering the US for radiation, and 3He is useful in neutron detectors. Unfortunately, the US military stopped stockpiling it when they thought they had plenty, and nobody was really using it.
I'm not sure how much tritium is released from these nuclear plants (from the article it seems nobody is sure). The reactors in Ontario occasionally accidentally release some tritium, usually a few grams. A few grams of tritium makes a few grams of 3He (eventually), which isn't much, even for 3He. It seems these reactors might be leaking a bit more than that, but it's not really clear. The tritium they're leaking is also very likely diluted in a lot of heavy water, making it quite difficult to recover.
So the leaked tritium is very likely irrelevant to the supply of 3He.
We may be a bit short of helium, but I don't think the bit that's produced from tritium decay is going to do much to fix anything.
Sure, but if you were writing a press release would you refer to your product as "middle of the pack," "bog standard," or "high-end?"
Divide their battery life specs by the same factor.
Yes. If it works it's great. Wasn't it Dell that screwed up their CPU throttling a while ago, and a bunch of people ended up with laptops that decided to run at 2 MHz whenever you actually asked them to do something?
Yes, it's quite true, "why" can regress infinitely. Nevertheless, you can use reasonable limits. Generally if you can't answer "why" to even one level, most people would question your claim to understanding.
The original example was inertia, and the context is physics. We know that inertia appears in the formula F=ma. We can predict it's effects very well. But that formula is descriptive, as far as inertia is concerned, rather than explanatory. It tells us there is a quantity called inertial mass, and suggests how we could measure it, but it doesn't tell us anything else about it. 'm' is just something Newton made up to describe what he saw. Based on that, it's not unreasonable to conclude that we don't really understand inertial mass, even though we can measure it and describe it's effects.
The current proposed explanation is that inertial mass is produced via an interaction with a Higgs field. You can then turn around and ask why a Higgs field supports this particular type of interaction. If you can't answer the Higgs question I might question whether you understand Higgs fields or not, but as far as inertia is concerned, you've successfully provided some explanatory power.
I believe the poster I replied to was speaking in general, not about this particular app.
If I submit a mobile banking app to a reviewed app store, it's quite likely the reviewers will think "hm, is this submitter the bank in question? No? Perhaps we should review this one REALLY carefully."
That is, if we're talking about this specific app then the whole thread is moot because the original poster's assertion that app store style review wouldn't catch this app is erroneous.
DECE isn't really about a new DRM format, it's about everyone using the same DRM format. That idea, and a centralized license manager, are both different approaches to solving the same problem: being able to play your DRMed files on different devices.
The author glosses over the specifics, but the basic conflict is as described.
Uh, you don't know much about iPhone development, hey?
The phone does not trust every app that comes out of the app store. Each app has to be individually signed for the phone it's operating on and apps are very well sandboxed. So well sandboxed that people complain about it constantly.
App store vetting is an additional level of security on top of the phone itself being pathologically paranoid.
Grabbing information you shouldn't have on the iPhone is likely going to require using restricted SDKs. Apps on the iPhone OS are quite well sandboxed. iPhone apps can definitely NOT poke around other apps' data, nor the system.
Oh, even better: it's just the old principal that no matter how big your hard drive, your data will always expand to fill it.
Sort of. Since it's maximizing entropy, it might be more accurate to say "information wants to be random."
He's not abusing the word "understand" (well, maybe a little), he's just using it in a slightly different context. You may be able to predict your wife's behaviour, but if it came down to some sort of rule (she will always choose option 2 in the bottom half of an hour, option 1 in the top half for example) you might not say you understood her. You could predict her behaviour, but you would have no idea why she made choices that way. In reality, you do understand, at least to some degree, why she makes the choices she does.
Copernicus, Kepler et. al. correctly deduced that the planets move in ellipses around the sun (that is, how the planets move), but they had nothing to say about why they should do so. It wasn't until Newton came along that we understood some of the why.
It's true that our understanding of the mechanisms behind quite a bit of physics is a little fuzzy. Until fairly recently both inertial mass and gravitational mass just were. We didn't have any real explanation for why they exist, whether they were always equal, etc. The Higgs field explains much of that, and also connects it with some interesting cosmology fairly elegantly.
Observations of pulsars show that the speed of gravity is definitely finite (that is, Newton was wrong), and is likely equal to the speed of light.
I didn't realize $4.99 + tax was advanced math. We almost always use math in a close enough context. Close doesn't count in pure math, but as soon as you apply it to something real you're always talking about close enough.
You might not like it so much when it started to get dark and you effectively couldn't take off your sunglasses.
The law seems to rely on "a reasonable expectation." My reasonable expectation of privacy in my home with the blinds drawn isn't affected by my neighbour's penchant for posing nude in front of her open window. If I post details of myself online for everyone to see I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy whether or not there's a horde of others doing the same. If I take basic precautions to restrict access to that data (such as checking the box on Facebook that asks Facebook not to share my information with everyone) then I DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Yeah, CSI is going to be able to save some on their special effects budget. Other than that, it's kind of tough to think of an actual application. The summary makes some pretty fuzzy suggestions, but they don't really seem realistic.
More precisely, he believes his interpretation of witness testimony about events etc. over his interpretation of witness testimony about forensic findings. Never mind that the forensic findings are (or ought to be) independently verifiable.
So basically you're saying you believe witness testimony is more reliable than scientific evidence?
Certainly forensics should be scientifically validated and need to be evaluated in the context off all the evidence, but "paying little attention to forensic details" just because you don't personally understand them in full detail....
How is the testimony of an expert witness, which is scientifically verifiable, any less reliable than the testimony of the defendant, eye witnesses, doctors (expert witnesses themselves), police officers (also expert witnesses), etc?
The real problem is that Chinese students won't want to come to North America to work for food anymore, when they can stay at home and work for food. North America has a shortage of qualified domestic students who are willing to do the same.
"(BTW, slightly off topic, I saw a Blu-Ray movie with the FBI copyright warning in French, which I had never seen before on any DVD. That was a little creepy and funny at the same time.)"
The publisher probably just didn't want to produce different runs of discs for the US and Canada. All movies in Canada have the warning in both french and english. It's frequently an INTERPOL warning, but it's particularly entertaining when it's actually an FBI warning.