If they had gone with the embedded length option we'd be sitting around bitching about how short-sighted it was to use just two bytes for the length. Including how Dennis Ritchie supposedly said "64K strings should be enough for anybody".
One extra byte was clearly for that time, now days you would probably use 7 extra bytes (depending on memory model). This would of course not be hard coded.
Apps should not be able to read the data, other people should not be able to read the data, Apple should not be able to do it. If the data was encrypted, at least only apple would be able to read it, was that so hard to figure out???
Apple should have said what this really is about: Your iDevice can't determine its position by using the MAC addresses of nearby WiFi points unless Apple knows the locations of those WiFi points. And Apple's servers can't tell your iDevice where it is right now, unless the iDevice gives them the information that Apple's servers need to determine the location of your iDevice.
To unclear? I do not understand anything you write, and wonder if you do???
I wonder if all those people who helped OpenStreetMap are aware that OpenStreetMap knows the exact location where they were when they collected the data.
I wonder who thinks that OpenStreetMap does not know where you have been when you collected the data, but for someone it must have been news as you where moderated insightful. Frightening.
On the other hand, there is a website know where you can enter the MAC address of a router, and it will give you the location of that router, based on data on Google's servers. I hope Apple doesn't allow the same thing. I would hope even more that Google would put a stop to this. According to what Apple says, this is a black box: Only when the location software in the iPhone OS asks for the information about routers that are physically nearby will it receive location information. And in that case, anyone with a working GPS could have the same information anyway, so this is no privacy breach.
If you want predictable names from hardware, and you want to be able to add and remove devices the only solution would be to allocate enormous holes if you want to keep the current ethx naming scheme. i.e.
eth0 - eth999 on board eth1000 + slot * 1000 + port for cards etc
Most applications should not be written in C or C++., they should be written in a more high level language, where certain kinds of mistakes can not be made. Some time critical stuff can be written (as you suggest) in small parts in C to make it perform well. For some stuff you can not mix the C language with languages like Python, Java or C# because latency is a factor, and you want real time behaviour (that is, no garbage collection). Then C++ is a great choice.
I do not agree. most of the changes are good, and really needed. They will make programs easier to read and add expressiveness. How can you be against things like auto variables and lambda expressions?
No, it is only the one distributing the software that needs to agree to anything. As an end user you are free to *use* the GPL software without agreeing to anything.
In my country (to my knowledge, in modern time) no one has been put in jail because they criticize the government, and we have plenty of people that do criticize the government in news papers, radio, television and on the net. If they have been put to jail it has been because they have leaked classified information or been spying for foreign countries or similar. Not because they are crazy and believe that China and north Korea are the paradise on earth.
We even have such lunatics that regularly write such stuff in the papers!
You are wrong, saying that the product is wrong is like saying that Jobs might be wrong. And it was just a software problem. Maybe the software update will be an instruction video on how to hold your iphone...
No, you are wrong. Windows 3.x did cooperative multitasking poorly, but you could have several applications up at the same time, as long as they were not buggy. same for mac os = 9.
IOS has the technical ability to be a sane operating system with a true preemptive multitasking OS as core. For some reason Apple limits the applications of the OS to cooperate -- much more so than windows 3.x.
What he says is that ios is technically able to multitask (and are doing so on apple core utilities). For some *magic* reason an app developer is *restricted* to run in the foreground.
So as an non apple developer you must build programs with capabilities less then those for windows 3, just because apple wants you.
If Apple is so innocent, why do you even have to mention the names of the other companies???
If Apple is so guilty, then why NOT mention those other companies?
You have to answer that first before you are allowed any more paranoid rants. You are trying to defect all ills of the world to fall upon Apple's shoulders. Has any other company but Apple in fact even offered a bonus to workers who work on the products the companies are having produced there?
Even if all of them are evil, Apple is less so if only because of that one aspect. Yet, you single Apple out - so obviously you have some other motive in mind rather than Foxconn worker well being. It's pretty sick to take advantage of Chinese suicides to further your own holy crusade against Apple (and Apple only).
I did not single Apple out, did I??? In what way did I single out Apple???
What I basically said is: if you argue that someone is innocent, then its bad argumentation to line up a lot of others calling them equally guilty, and that was what Lunix Nutcase basically did.
*All* companies know why the salaries are lover in China, and how the workers are treated. So there you have it. The topic is Apple, The parant said that Apple did not do anything wrong, why the fuck should I line up all companies that abuse chinese workers, *WHY*.
Neither is a Atom CPU with a different logo painted on it (and to be specific so that you do not misinterpret me, I do not claim that the only difference of the A4 is the logo).
The parent of my post said was: "While the A4 is nothing revolutionary, it's not an off-the-shelf item either. Apple took a general purpose processor and re-designed it specifically for use in its mobile devices."
I see no evidence for that Apple redesigned anything. Do you know any re-design that is made "specifically for use in its mobile devices"?
You are correct, salt is never used in encryption, it is used to make it unfeasible to make rainbow tables. There is no (public) known fast way to get the AES key from a *choosen* plaintext with corresponding crypto text, it is still harder to get the key from a not choosen plaintext/cryptotext pair.
It is ridicules to believe anything of this has to do with the fear of loosing symmetrical keys, keys that are never used twice.
Slashdot Mirror
the bytecode is translated down to machine code, so it is only interpreted once, it is like java.
If they had gone with the embedded length option we'd be sitting around bitching about how short-sighted it was to use just two bytes for the length. Including how Dennis Ritchie supposedly said "64K strings should be enough for anybody".
One extra byte was clearly for that time, now days you would probably use 7 extra bytes (depending on memory model). This would of course not be hard coded.
Sony Corporation (50%)
Ericsson AB (50%)
Apps should not be able to read the data, other people should not be able to read the data, Apple should not be able to do it. If the data was encrypted, at least only apple would be able to read it, was that so hard to figure out???
Apple should have said what this really is about: Your iDevice can't determine its position by using the MAC addresses of nearby WiFi points unless Apple knows the locations of those WiFi points. And Apple's servers can't tell your iDevice where it is right now, unless the iDevice gives them the information that Apple's servers need to determine the location of your iDevice.
To unclear? I do not understand anything you write, and wonder if you do???
I wonder if all those people who helped OpenStreetMap are aware that OpenStreetMap knows the exact location where they were when they collected the data.
I wonder who thinks that OpenStreetMap does not know where you have been when you collected the data, but for someone it must have been news as you where moderated insightful. Frightening.
On the other hand, there is a website know where you can enter the MAC address of a router, and it will give you the location of that router, based on data on Google's servers. I hope Apple doesn't allow the same thing. I would hope even more that Google would put a stop to this. According to what Apple says, this is a black box: Only when the location software in the iPhone OS asks for the information about routers that are physically nearby will it receive location information. And in that case, anyone with a working GPS could have the same information anyway, so this is no privacy breach.
Are you stupid? Seriously?
If he did not it would matter, would it not? Everyone should get a vaccination except me, then I would risk nothing!!!
If you want predictable names from hardware, and you want to be able to add and remove devices the only solution would be to allocate enormous holes if you want to keep the current ethx naming scheme. i.e.
eth0 - eth999 on board
eth1000 + slot * 1000 + port for cards
etc
Do not be silly, the key could have been exchanged earlier, one time pad is an excellent encryption method that has been used in practice.
Most applications should not be written in C or C++., they should be written in a more high level language, where certain kinds of mistakes can not be made.
Some time critical stuff can be written (as you suggest) in small parts in C to make it perform well. For some stuff you can not mix the C language with languages like Python, Java or C# because latency is a factor, and you want real time behaviour (that is, no garbage collection). Then C++ is a great choice.
I do not agree. most of the changes are good, and really needed. They will make programs easier to read and add expressiveness. How can you be against things like auto variables and lambda expressions?
No, it is only the one distributing the software that needs to agree to anything. As an end user you are free to *use* the GPL software without agreeing to anything.
In debian it will be available soon in unstable, the RC is already available in experimental.
Package linux-image-2.6.37-rc7-686
* experimental (kernel): Linux 2.6.37-rc7 for modern PCs
2.6.37~rc7-1~experimental.1: i386
In my country (to my knowledge, in modern time) no one has been put in jail because they criticize the government, and we have plenty of people that do criticize the government in news papers, radio, television and on the net.
If they have been put to jail it has been because they have leaked classified information or been spying for foreign countries or similar. Not because they are crazy and believe that China and north Korea are the paradise on earth.
We even have such lunatics that regularly write such stuff in the papers!
Go to Apple and look what accessories cost (in general).
There is no way that Apple will be the low cost option.
Java might not be the best language around, but I find it much better than Objective C. What part of Objective C do you prefer?
You are wrong, saying that the product is wrong is like saying that Jobs might be wrong. And it was just a software problem. Maybe the software update will be an instruction video on how to hold your iphone...
No, you are wrong. Windows 3.x did cooperative multitasking poorly, but you could have several applications up at the same time, as long as they were not buggy. same for mac os = 9.
IOS has the technical ability to be a sane operating system with a true preemptive multitasking OS as core. For some reason Apple limits the applications of the OS to cooperate -- much more so than windows 3.x.
What he says is that ios is technically able to multitask (and are doing so on apple core utilities). For some *magic* reason an app developer is *restricted* to run in the foreground.
So as an non apple developer you must build programs with capabilities less then those for windows 3, just because apple wants you.
If Apple is so innocent, why do you even have to mention the names of the other companies???
If Apple is so guilty, then why NOT mention those other companies?
You have to answer that first before you are allowed any more paranoid rants. You are trying to defect all ills of the world to fall upon Apple's shoulders. Has any other company but Apple in fact even offered a bonus to workers who work on the products the companies are having produced there?
Even if all of them are evil, Apple is less so if only because of that one aspect. Yet, you single Apple out - so obviously you have some other motive in mind rather than Foxconn worker well being. It's pretty sick to take advantage of Chinese suicides to further your own holy crusade against Apple (and Apple only).
I did not single Apple out, did I??? In what way did I single out Apple???
What I basically said is: if you argue that someone is innocent, then its bad argumentation to line up a lot of others calling them equally guilty, and that was what Lunix Nutcase basically did.
*All* companies know why the salaries are lover in China, and how the workers are treated. So there you have it. The topic is Apple, The parant said that Apple did not do anything wrong, why the fuck should I line up all companies that abuse chinese workers, *WHY*.
Of course its not literally off-the-shelf.
Neither is a Atom CPU with a different logo painted on it (and to be specific so that you do not misinterpret me, I do not claim that the only difference of the A4 is the logo).
The parent of my post said was:
"While the A4 is nothing revolutionary, it's not an off-the-shelf item either. Apple took a general purpose processor and re-designed it specifically for use in its mobile devices."
I see no evidence for that Apple redesigned anything. Do you know any re-design that is made "specifically for use in its mobile devices"?
If Apple is so innocent, why do you even have to mention the names of the other companies???
You are not trying to spread the guilt, are you?
Of course it is an off-the-shelf processor, with an Apple logo on it.
Can I ask you what part that is not off the shelf (logo not counted)?
What part is redesigned *specifically* for their devices (logo not counted)?
GNU ocatave is free, altough I see no use of computers in math until university
You should do what is right. You should not follow orders that are not just.
Your argumentation is absurd, of course democratic governments can, and are, run badly. When this is the case, it must be corrected.
I wonder how you can ever have war criminals if soldiers are "just following orders".
I wonder if you think that soldiers in all of the world should just follow orders or if it is only in America this practice is to be followed.
You are correct, salt is never used in encryption, it is used to make it unfeasible to make rainbow tables. There is no (public) known fast way to get the AES key from a *choosen* plaintext with corresponding crypto text, it is still harder to get the key from a not choosen plaintext/cryptotext pair.
It is ridicules to believe anything of this has to do with the fear of loosing symmetrical keys, keys that are never used twice.