The small shape with sharp corners means you are always putting some force on the thing to plug it in. Over time I've had a number of connectors fail on cords, and had to throw away the cords.
But hey, they're easy to find so in the name of waste reduction you can go buy a new failcable every few months...
I have to make a correction here. Apple doesn't SUPPLY the adapter, but it does make one available for you to BUY (At increased cost). And even with the adapter in question, it still means you can't use your Apple charger to charge your friend's Micro-USB phone.
No, the iPhone 5 charges off USB like any other Apple device. The Apple charger has a USB socket. So anything that can charge off USB will charge from it. The iPhone 5 comes with a USB cable, both to charge and to interface it with a computer.
What it doesn't come with is an adapter for legacy 30-pin accessories. This you have to buy. It has nothing to do with USB charging, and has only to do with charging the iPhone 5 in docks made for previous generation iPhones and iPads.
In fact, I'm right now using a Garmin USB charger for my iPhone 4. The Garmin charger came with a ForeRunner 405, which also doesn't have a micro-usb port. Yet I can use the same chargers for either device - and this is what the EC agreement is about. Cable reduction is a plus, but they're not idiots, so understand a USB port isn't always going to be a suitable device interface. My Garmin 405 for instance is water resistant, something that would be greatly complicated by providing a USB port on the device itself. Instead it has a clamp that attaches to a few pads. It's a poor design (as is the entire 405), but not because of a lack of a USB port.
The idea is that if you forgot your charger cable, you could still charge your phone without buying a high priced proprietary charger.
No, the idea is to get rid of the proprietary charger. The wall wart. Apple have always charged off USB, and Apple USB chargers can be used to charge any device with a USB cable.
This is actually pretty typical when technocrats are in charge. Because they have huge stockpiles of paid-for dosimeters that workers use every day, but which saturate at very low levels, they decide they're going to use those by putting them behind a shield and then adjusting the readings correspondingly. Makes sense, except they give absolutely no consideration to appearances. Ignorant journalists and nutty lefty conspiracy theorists then have a field day.
Were these people on US soil when they performed these acts?
Am I the only US citizen that is concerned about this?
Is Saudi Arabia now able to extradite me because I read playboy?
If you upload porn to a server in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and certain other places - yes, they could very well charge you and get you extradited. However, for political and crimes of a purely moral nature most dictatorships are smart enough to keep a low profile. And democracies tend not to criminalize moral behavior and certainly not political expression. For those sort of things autocracies tend to be more concerned with policing the moral and policial behavior of their own population than worrying about someone who is not present within their borders. Also, extradition treaties exempt political and moral crimes. Most things they'd want you extradited for tend to be property crimes and organized crime (like hiring a hitman who goes there to kill someone), etc that is mostly uncontroversial. Like this Russian, who broke into American servers to steal from people there.
Bringing things onto a ship that are not legal in the host country through said host countries terrestrial communications is a good way to create an incident.
Depends on whether the host nation is one of the 193 ITU members or a signatory of ITU and other treaties. Basically, as a rule, transmitters and sometimes receivers (in closed states) are regulated. Radio waves, by their nature, are not regulated or even "owned" by anyone - this is agreed to by treaty. If the host nation is an ITU member, then as long as the transmitter sticks to the appropriate frequency band and is operated on the ship there's nothing to worry about because, basically, they will have already agreed that it's fine to transmit through their territorial airspace. If the state is advanced enough to care, then it's an ITU member.
Do you think it's fair to sit on Facebook all day while at work or even pay your bills?
You're talking about reasonable use policy violations. There are better ways of dealing with this than snooping - for starters, just go tell them to stop because their work is suffering. However, for use still considered reasonable and recognized as personal by everyone involved, like say sending an email to your physician, do you think it's fair to snoop?
While obviously employers have the right to set use policies, it's also in their interest to allow some personal use - because taking time off to go talk your physician, or you kid's principal, or report an auto accident, or whatnot is even more detrimental to work when you're not even in the office for several hours to begin with. Many permit this for obvious reasons. But once permitted and allowed, can they listen in to what they recognize as personal use? That's not as obvious. And of course if you try to prevent personal emergency time off for people you will soon find yourself with retention problems as the most qualified staff begins to trickle out the door.
You can only inspect ssh if it's using password authentication. With PK authentication it's not possible without knowing one of the keys in advance. So the thing to do for ssh is to install keys, test it, and then disable passwords. Set a password on the private key instead, if needed.
He locked himself in a cell in a basement somewhere in Shanghai and accidentally beat himself to death with a baseball bat. Tragic, but shit happens...
If they build a large amount of your parts in general, then it could be great insurance. Free trade prevents wars. What country is going to declare war on their best customer?
They can covertly aid our enemy to make sure we need more parts?
They can bully our friends and allies in their neighborhood, knowing their defenses are less effective?
You do know that the Mossad has been caught stealing and collecting American Top Secrets.
They're not going to use those against us or sell them to our enemies, so it's a pretty marginal concern.
The reason we don't let our friends and allies have access to everything we know is not because we begrudge them anything or don't trust them, but because the more who know the less secure it is, simply because there are more opportunities for leaks.
The so called "back door" can only be accessed through the JTAG port as well, so unless the military installed a JTAG bridge to communicate to the outside world and left it there, well then the "backdoor" is rather useless.
With pin access to the FPGA it's trivial to hook it up, no bridges or transceivers needed. If it's a BGA then get a breakout/riser board that provides pin access. This is off-the-shelf stuff. This means if the Chinese military gets their hands on the hardware they can reverse engineer it. They won't have to lean very hard on the manufacturer for them to cough up every last detail. In China you just don't say no to such requests if you know what's good for you and your business.
Hedging should always be extremely conservative, and that clearly wasn't the case here. Dimon said it himself when he said the position were put on to make money (and had been in years past).
For a bank with $2tn in assets, a $2bn loss is pretty conservative. Not good business practice, of course, but nothing to affect their solvency. Also not much a risk to the total system liquidity since they were the only ones.
The way poison seeders work is they will happily provide you 97% of the files. The remaining 3% you never get, and your client has a great preference built up for the seeders that got you to 97%. It will occasionally give one the boot and replace it, but with thousands of poison seeders your chances of getting a good one are very poor.
At least one popular client is smart enough to use block lists selectively. It happily downloads from the poison seeders, until they get slow to respond. Then it imposes the block list, kicks any peer on the block list, and rebuilds the peer table with non-blocked peers.
I was being a bit silly. I think it actually sounds like a good idea, especially the notion of moving towards an automated, self-sustaining, robotic mining, smelting and manufacturing station. It could then produce bulk materials for more mining stations - fuel, structural parts, bodywork, the big heavy stuff. From earth we then supply electronics, optics, maybe parts of wiring, bulk rubber/plastics/anything organic in origin. Put together another mining station and send it to the next asteroid. Rinse, lather, repeat, until we have 100s or 1000s of these out there. Work towards reducing the dependency on earth-supplied parts, although that requires a bit of a design shift away from anything organic (rubber, plastics, etc).
Why the moon? Why not bring it into low orbit around earth? What could possibly go wrong?
Seriously though, gold is a bubble metal. It has very limited practical value and is desirable only because it's desirable. Bring back billions of tons of the stuff and it ceases to be desirable, or at least will be no more special than iron or uranium. Mining an asteroid actually uses up real resources so is not a paper shuffling exercise that creates financial paper products. It had better result in something actually productively useful to pay for itself.
> A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6.
IPv6 isn't only about having more adresses. For instance, stateless address autoconfiguration is interesting in a local network.
Unfortunately the spec relies on the MAC address. This means if the host can make outbound connections to the public Internet you'll be broadcasting your MAC addr. Some software uses this as part of a hash to generate host-specific session keys and such, so sharing it with the whole world isn't always such a great idea. It would have been much better if the spec simply called for md5(macaddr) instead.
The thing the GP really wants is a firewall. If he doesn't want people on the internet connecting to his systems, all he has to do is say so. Firewalls have been around for a while and work just fine in IPv6; this is a solved problem.
I think he's suggesting he doesn't want say a web site to be able to differentiate access from different internal computers, and NAT makes them indistinguishable.
In some organizations this may be a legitimate concern; for instance, an employee may not be allowed how many people work on a particular project. By collecting host information this secrecy is compromised.
Of course, in this case the right policy is to restrict outbound access to go through a web proxy, or restrict outbound access period, because even natted IPv4 is going to leak internal organizational info. (Amazon, for instance, will know fairly precisely how many of their customers work at google in mountain view.)
NAT is a routing feature. Routing is handled by routers. NAT is not needed to route IPv6.
Firewalls implement traffic policies. Whatever restrictions were implied by NAT on v4 is implemented as explicit policy control for IPv6. Basically you tell the firewall what if anything on the inside should be accessible, and what on the outside if anything should be accessible for which hosts.
Using a crutch routing feature like NAT to implement traffic policy is a pretty damn retarded idea, it's fragile and barely works.
Now, there ARE legitimate migration issues with v6. They're not so much technical as practical. If an online game company for instance sees lots of bot access from a certain set of IP addresses they'll want to temporarily block this. This is often moderately effective to mitigate attacks. But with IPv6 renumbering hosts is trivial, and the attacker would just come back with a different address. So instead of blocking a few addresses and quickly figure out the subnet if any, you end up having to research how that particular downstream partitions the routing prefix and block that particular last hop's routing prefix. It's often not as easy as simply looking at the prefix half of the address.
I guess default is that it's not installed on Chrome. Default for some bizarre reason is to install this shovelware on Safari. Quit Safari, then remove with:
$ sudo -s
# rm -f/Library/Internet\ Plug-Ins/JavaAppletPlugin.plugin
# rm -rf/System/Library/Java/Support/CoreDeploy.bundle/Contents/JavaAppletPlugin.plugin
# exit
Slashdot Mirror
The small shape with sharp corners means you are always putting some force on the thing to plug it in. Over time I've had a number of connectors fail on cords, and had to throw away the cords.
But hey, they're easy to find so in the name of waste reduction you can go buy a new failcable every few months...
I have to make a correction here. Apple doesn't SUPPLY the adapter, but it does make one available for you to BUY (At increased cost). And even with the adapter in question, it still means you can't use your Apple charger to charge your friend's Micro-USB phone.
No, the iPhone 5 charges off USB like any other Apple device. The Apple charger has a USB socket. So anything that can charge off USB will charge from it. The iPhone 5 comes with a USB cable, both to charge and to interface it with a computer.
What it doesn't come with is an adapter for legacy 30-pin accessories. This you have to buy. It has nothing to do with USB charging, and has only to do with charging the iPhone 5 in docks made for previous generation iPhones and iPads.
In fact, I'm right now using a Garmin USB charger for my iPhone 4. The Garmin charger came with a ForeRunner 405, which also doesn't have a micro-usb port. Yet I can use the same chargers for either device - and this is what the EC agreement is about. Cable reduction is a plus, but they're not idiots, so understand a USB port isn't always going to be a suitable device interface. My Garmin 405 for instance is water resistant, something that would be greatly complicated by providing a USB port on the device itself. Instead it has a clamp that attaches to a few pads. It's a poor design (as is the entire 405), but not because of a lack of a USB port.
The iPhone 5 charger won't work for an HTC One X (for example), so they're definitely not complying.
Yes it will. The Apple charger has a USB port. You plug the HTC One X (for example) into it and charge. Assuming it can charge from a USB port.
The idea is that if you forgot your charger cable, you could still charge your phone without buying a high priced proprietary charger.
No, the idea is to get rid of the proprietary charger. The wall wart. Apple have always charged off USB, and Apple USB chargers can be used to charge any device with a USB cable.
This is actually pretty typical when technocrats are in charge. Because they have huge stockpiles of paid-for dosimeters that workers use every day, but which saturate at very low levels, they decide they're going to use those by putting them behind a shield and then adjusting the readings correspondingly. Makes sense, except they give absolutely no consideration to appearances. Ignorant journalists and nutty lefty conspiracy theorists then have a field day.
Were these people on US soil when they performed these acts?
Am I the only US citizen that is concerned about this?
Is Saudi Arabia now able to extradite me because I read playboy?
If you upload porn to a server in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and certain other places - yes, they could very well charge you and get you extradited. However, for political and crimes of a purely moral nature most dictatorships are smart enough to keep a low profile. And democracies tend not to criminalize moral behavior and certainly not political expression. For those sort of things autocracies tend to be more concerned with policing the moral and policial behavior of their own population than worrying about someone who is not present within their borders. Also, extradition treaties exempt political and moral crimes. Most things they'd want you extradited for tend to be property crimes and organized crime (like hiring a hitman who goes there to kill someone), etc that is mostly uncontroversial. Like this Russian, who broke into American servers to steal from people there.
Bringing things onto a ship that are not legal in the host country through said host countries terrestrial communications is a good way to create an incident.
Depends on whether the host nation is one of the 193 ITU members or a signatory of ITU and other treaties. Basically, as a rule, transmitters and sometimes receivers (in closed states) are regulated. Radio waves, by their nature, are not regulated or even "owned" by anyone - this is agreed to by treaty. If the host nation is an ITU member, then as long as the transmitter sticks to the appropriate frequency band and is operated on the ship there's nothing to worry about because, basically, they will have already agreed that it's fine to transmit through their territorial airspace. If the state is advanced enough to care, then it's an ITU member.
http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=ITUstates&_languageid=1
Do you think it's fair to sit on Facebook all day while at work or even pay your bills?
You're talking about reasonable use policy violations. There are better ways of dealing with this than snooping - for starters, just go tell them to stop because their work is suffering. However, for use still considered reasonable and recognized as personal by everyone involved, like say sending an email to your physician, do you think it's fair to snoop?
While obviously employers have the right to set use policies, it's also in their interest to allow some personal use - because taking time off to go talk your physician, or you kid's principal, or report an auto accident, or whatnot is even more detrimental to work when you're not even in the office for several hours to begin with. Many permit this for obvious reasons. But once permitted and allowed, can they listen in to what they recognize as personal use? That's not as obvious. And of course if you try to prevent personal emergency time off for people you will soon find yourself with retention problems as the most qualified staff begins to trickle out the door.
Worse, someone is generating fake certificates and impersonating them. Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen...
You can only inspect ssh if it's using password authentication. With PK authentication it's not possible without knowing one of the keys in advance. So the thing to do for ssh is to install keys, test it, and then disable passwords. Set a password on the private key instead, if needed.
He locked himself in a cell in a basement somewhere in Shanghai and accidentally beat himself to death with a baseball bat. Tragic, but shit happens...
Maybe, maybe not
If they build a large amount of your parts in general, then it could be great insurance. Free trade prevents wars. What country is going to declare war on their best customer?
They can covertly aid our enemy to make sure we need more parts?
They can bully our friends and allies in their neighborhood, knowing their defenses are less effective?
You do know that the Mossad has been caught stealing and collecting American Top Secrets.
They're not going to use those against us or sell them to our enemies, so it's a pretty marginal concern.
The reason we don't let our friends and allies have access to everything we know is not because we begrudge them anything or don't trust them, but because the more who know the less secure it is, simply because there are more opportunities for leaks.
The so called "back door" can only be accessed through the JTAG port as well, so unless the military installed a JTAG bridge to communicate to the outside world and left it there, well then the "backdoor" is rather useless.
With pin access to the FPGA it's trivial to hook it up, no bridges or transceivers needed. If it's a BGA then get a breakout/riser board that provides pin access. This is off-the-shelf stuff. This means if the Chinese military gets their hands on the hardware they can reverse engineer it. They won't have to lean very hard on the manufacturer for them to cough up every last detail. In China you just don't say no to such requests if you know what's good for you and your business.
Hedging should always be extremely conservative, and that clearly wasn't the case here. Dimon said it himself when he said the position were put on to make money (and had been in years past).
For a bank with $2tn in assets, a $2bn loss is pretty conservative. Not good business practice, of course, but nothing to affect their solvency. Also not much a risk to the total system liquidity since they were the only ones.
The way poison seeders work is they will happily provide you 97% of the files. The remaining 3% you never get, and your client has a great preference built up for the seeders that got you to 97%. It will occasionally give one the boot and replace it, but with thousands of poison seeders your chances of getting a good one are very poor.
At least one popular client is smart enough to use block lists selectively. It happily downloads from the poison seeders, until they get slow to respond. Then it imposes the block list, kicks any peer on the block list, and rebuilds the peer table with non-blocked peers.
As for TFA it has nothing to do with Android and everything to do with shitty governments wanting a pie in the sky.
Or a corrupt government that comes up with ridiculous requirements to eliminate everyone, except one local source from of the bidding process.
I was being a bit silly. I think it actually sounds like a good idea, especially the notion of moving towards an automated, self-sustaining, robotic mining, smelting and manufacturing station. It could then produce bulk materials for more mining stations - fuel, structural parts, bodywork, the big heavy stuff. From earth we then supply electronics, optics, maybe parts of wiring, bulk rubber/plastics/anything organic in origin. Put together another mining station and send it to the next asteroid. Rinse, lather, repeat, until we have 100s or 1000s of these out there. Work towards reducing the dependency on earth-supplied parts, although that requires a bit of a design shift away from anything organic (rubber, plastics, etc).
Why the moon? Why not bring it into low orbit around earth? What could possibly go wrong?
Seriously though, gold is a bubble metal. It has very limited practical value and is desirable only because it's desirable. Bring back billions of tons of the stuff and it ceases to be desirable, or at least will be no more special than iron or uranium. Mining an asteroid actually uses up real resources so is not a paper shuffling exercise that creates financial paper products. It had better result in something actually productively useful to pay for itself.
> A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6.
IPv6 isn't only about having more adresses. For instance, stateless address autoconfiguration is interesting in a local network.
Unfortunately the spec relies on the MAC address. This means if the host can make outbound connections to the public Internet you'll be broadcasting your MAC addr. Some software uses this as part of a hash to generate host-specific session keys and such, so sharing it with the whole world isn't always such a great idea. It would have been much better if the spec simply called for md5(macaddr) instead.
The thing the GP really wants is a firewall. If he doesn't want people on the internet connecting to his systems, all he has to do is say so. Firewalls have been around for a while and work just fine in IPv6; this is a solved problem.
I think he's suggesting he doesn't want say a web site to be able to differentiate access from different internal computers, and NAT makes them indistinguishable.
In some organizations this may be a legitimate concern; for instance, an employee may not be allowed how many people work on a particular project. By collecting host information this secrecy is compromised.
Of course, in this case the right policy is to restrict outbound access to go through a web proxy, or restrict outbound access period, because even natted IPv4 is going to leak internal organizational info. (Amazon, for instance, will know fairly precisely how many of their customers work at google in mountain view.)
it's fragile and barely works.
If in doubt, google "NAT traversal".
NAT is a routing feature. Routing is handled by routers. NAT is not needed to route IPv6.
Firewalls implement traffic policies. Whatever restrictions were implied by NAT on v4 is implemented as explicit policy control for IPv6. Basically you tell the firewall what if anything on the inside should be accessible, and what on the outside if anything should be accessible for which hosts.
Using a crutch routing feature like NAT to implement traffic policy is a pretty damn retarded idea, it's fragile and barely works.
Now, there ARE legitimate migration issues with v6. They're not so much technical as practical. If an online game company for instance sees lots of bot access from a certain set of IP addresses they'll want to temporarily block this. This is often moderately effective to mitigate attacks. But with IPv6 renumbering hosts is trivial, and the attacker would just come back with a different address. So instead of blocking a few addresses and quickly figure out the subnet if any, you end up having to research how that particular downstream partitions the routing prefix and block that particular last hop's routing prefix. It's often not as easy as simply looking at the prefix half of the address.
I guess default is that it's not installed on Chrome. Default for some bizarre reason is to install this shovelware on Safari. Quit Safari, then remove with: /Library/Internet\ Plug-Ins/JavaAppletPlugin.plugin /System/Library/Java/Support/CoreDeploy.bundle/Contents/JavaAppletPlugin.plugin
$ sudo -s
# rm -f
# rm -rf
# exit
Restart Safari. Gone!