In this day and age of "Information Warfare" you should consider every system for moving data vulnerable and take measures to ensure that attempting to steal that data would be more work than what it's worth.
In the case of physically moving backup high-value drives/tapes to off-site storage, that would mean an armored courier. That data is money to somebody, so protect it like money. Sure it's more expensive that the local Speedy Messenger cargo van, but so is losing control of the data.
As far as a practical implementation, I imagine that behind the network's regular firewall, one would just place a container of tigers (a "Tigerbox") that way.
Wouldn't you want to use something more recent, like Leopardboxes?
It seems to me that gesture is indistinguishable from a swipe, which is used to scroll in some applications and to select for deletion (for instance, mail messages) in others.
But it's not indistinguishable from a swipe. A swipe is contact followed by the sideways motion with no release from the touchscreen until after the swipe. Tap and drag is tap-release-swipe in rapid succession.
If it works on a notebook touchpad, why not on a touchscreen?
Picture this: There's text on the screen you want to copy. You tap and then drag from the start of the text to the end, stopping the selection with another tap at the end. Once selected, you tap the selected text and a menu pops up: CUT or COPY as appropriate.
You then get to the screen where you want the text to go. Once you have a cursor in the input box, you double-tap and the clipboard text is pasted.
I can't think of any input conflict with this sequence. One would hope that Apple UI engineers tried this and found some good reason it wouldn't work, or else it would be there.
So tell me, how would you implement copy and paste in a multitouch environment? What gesture sequence would you use for select that hasn't already been assigned to another function?
Actually, I would have though of using something like a tap-and-drag, like when dragging icons using just the touchpad. I can't think of any function on my iPhone that uses this gesture.
For all its promise, however, the service providers exploring and testing such services have largely kept quiet -- "for fear of customer revolt," according to one executive involved.
Guess what pal..the word is now out.
Ever get the feeling the the Internet just isn't worth it anymore?
Don't forget the whining fanboi apple adulations. "Mac OS X is perfect, but I'm going to switch to Windows because of the translucent menu bar!!"
You exaggerate, but not by much. I've also heard nitpicks about the top menu bar having (gasp!) square corners on top instead of rounded corners. Oh for the love of all that is good in this world, are you going to let THAT bother you?
It fails because your Aunt Mathilda doesn't know the first thing about email encryption, nor does she care. Businesses won't mandate its use with the buying public because most of those customers will go somewhere else instead of changing their email habits. "Public keys? How does a key protect anything if it is public?" "Cryptographic signature verification?" Good luck explaining that the John and Jane Public.
I don't expect to see widespread use of email signing (or encryption for that matter) until:
(a) It is mandatory and automatic on all email clients; and (b) conforms to ONE standard (PGP? Digital certificates?).
I don;t know much about digital signing of email beyond setting up Mail to use it; and I do use it on all outgoing email. However, I have received only a handful of email messages that have been signed, and they all were from federal gov't research labs where PKI use is mandatory.
Which makes me wonder why e-mail hasn't killed off SMS on the iPhone.
Anyone have any explanation?
Not all phones can send email, but practically all can send text messages; hence, SMS is the common denominator in sending text between cellphones. That's my guess.
I'm confused--am I missing something obvious? How can a standard be patented? Isn't the whole point of a standard to specify a format or design requirement for something so that anybody that implements the standard will do it properly? I can understand patenting/copyrighting a particular implementation, but not the standard itself.
"You can survive a few holes then (hell, a plane coming in to Florida some years ago lost a good part of the upper fuselage, and other than one flight attendant being sucked out, nobody else was killed.)"
In all seriousness though, you're right that completely banning sale of incandescent bulbs is a bit extreme. Almost all my lights are CFLs or LEDs, but they can't replace everything. Not yet anyways.
This bill doesn't ban all incandescent bulbs. FTA:
Congress has not specifically outlawed incandescent bulbs, only inefficient ones.
In February, G.E. said that it was developing a high-efficiency incandescent that will radiate more than twice the light of conventional incandescents. It expects to make that one commercially available by 2010, and one that is twice as efficient a few years later.
I won't hold my breath on GE's prediction. I'm looking forward to LED solutions.
So if this law were passed, I'd be exposed to substantial liability when my neighbors use it to download porn.
Oh, I don't know about that.
From TFA: "This is what the SAFE Act requires: Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must etc. etc. etc."
Easy solution: don't learn about the activities going on over the connection. This may be a case where ignorance is indeed bliss.
What this (and the requirement by French law) proves is that there is an official means of unlocking the iPhone. I don't think anybody really doubted this, but there's the proof. I wonder how long it will take those smart hackers out there to figure out what changes when an iPhone is legitimately unlocked, and duplicate the result.
Slashdot Mirror
If it works on a notebook touchpad, why not on a touchscreen?
Picture this: There's text on the screen you want to copy. You tap and then drag from the start of the text to the end, stopping the selection with another tap at the end. Once selected, you tap the selected text and a menu pops up: CUT or COPY as appropriate.
You then get to the screen where you want the text to go. Once you have a cursor in the input box, you double-tap and the clipboard text is pasted.
I can't think of any input conflict with this sequence. One would hope that Apple UI engineers tried this and found some good reason it wouldn't work, or else it would be there.
I believe you are correct...iPhone SDK beta 3 has just been released(scroll down a bit to see it).
Ever get the feeling the the Internet just isn't worth it anymore?
I don't expect to see widespread use of email signing (or encryption for that matter) until:
(a) It is mandatory and automatic on all email clients; and
(b) conforms to ONE standard (PGP? Digital certificates?).
I don;t know much about digital signing of email beyond setting up Mail to use it; and I do use it on all outgoing email. However, I have received only a handful of email messages that have been signed, and they all were from federal gov't research labs where PKI use is mandatory.
I find it interesting that he couldn't be tracked down to be properly served, yet he could be tracked down to pay up.
(Had to say it)
Probably, I just may have overlooked it.
I'm confused--am I missing something obvious? How can a standard be patented? Isn't the whole point of a standard to specify a format or design requirement for something so that anybody that implements the standard will do it properly? I can understand patenting/copyrighting a particular implementation, but not the standard itself.
However, "iPhone" in the headline attracts more attention.
"You can survive a few holes then (hell, a plane coming in to Florida some years ago lost a good part of the upper fuselage, and other than one flight attendant being sucked out, nobody else was killed.)"
It sounds like you are thinking of this.
And this is easier than electrical tape...how?
Honest mistake? PR damage control? You decide.
From TFA:
"This is what the SAFE Act requires: Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must etc. etc. etc."
Easy solution: don't learn about the activities going on over the connection. This may be a case where ignorance is indeed bliss.
What this (and the requirement by French law) proves is that there is an official means of unlocking the iPhone. I don't think anybody really doubted this, but there's the proof. I wonder how long it will take those smart hackers out there to figure out what changes when an iPhone is legitimately unlocked, and duplicate the result.