Right and Steve Jobs did an stellar job; that was yesterday this is today. What Apple did the last three years is only relevant so far as it is predictive of what its likely to be capable of this year and in the future.
If I had the position in Apple you do they only question I'd be concerned with is can they continue to generate positive returns; either through asset appreciation or by giving me cash?
Its not "free cash" its very direct ROI. Investors generally want dividends when they don't feel the cash a company is holding is being leveraged properly. The reason you invest is because you expect the asset will grow. If all a company you have stock in is doing is holding a bunch of cash in bank accounts well; shit you could do that; without the risks.
APPL needs to either needs to tell investors it has some plan to exercise that money or it should disperse it as dividends. Dividend disbursements are away to get strong hands to hold a stock; when you reach a plateau in share price valuation. Once a stock stops going up (somewhat predictably) over a time, either it sells off (I don't think anyone at Apple wants that), or becomes a volatile thing that gets day traded, which is tough place to be because judgment gets passed on management each and every day at those companies.
If I interpret your remarks correctly, you're suggesting I should unplug (or heavily firewall, even more so than the NAT I use today) my iMac because Apple no longer pushes security updates for it, or be or else be criminally liable.
Criminally liable no but it should be against the civil code just equipment violations on a motor vehicle are. Firewall, patch, replace the equipment, disable vulnerable services, fix the problem however you like; but you are not entitled to degrade the public network. If you are found to be than you should be made to do something about it or stop using it.
The answer is people need to be held accountable for their machines. The Internet is a public good just like roads. We don't let you operate an unsafe vehicle on our public roads, you can't operate an unsafe computer on our Internet.
If you machine is spamming or propagating malware yes your access should be terminated until you fix it. Just because someone else may have done the damage by infecting your box does not mean you are not still obligated to fix the problem, just like if someone smashes your head lights while you car is parked some place YOU still have to fix them.
Wrong -- the way to do is every node has the public key. The owners keep the private key. The nodes pass instructions around the network. Any node can submit an instruction to the network so the owners can use any node. Each node verifies the instruction is legit by the fact that it decrypts with the public key. Ideally the owners would just many different nodes to place new instructions on the network; that would help prevent security people from finding the source so easily. Another feature would be propagating messages that don't decrypt as well, treat them as noops; but pass them along anyway so people can't redially identify central distribution points by just analyzing network traffic. Nodes would at random but infrequent intervals introduce fuzz messages of that sort onto the network.
Maybe but URL filtering in under 1ms with any sizeable list of URLs is going to be pretty darn impossible. Its pretty tough to do much of any thing to traffic that requires any sort of lookup that fast. I mean DRAM fetch is 5+ns.
Even if you can search your lookup table fast enough keep in mind you are not just comparing values at fixed offsets like NAT and IP Access lists and similar need to you first have to figure out is this traffic http? Locate the host header and read until new line. Non of that is especially time consuming but its still going to be a chuck of that already tight ms.
*Its a storage unit for information; lots of people use safe's for that *Its designed to keep others not its owner out, exactly what the encryption is doing *It needs a key or combination to open it; you need a key to decrypt
They seem pretty damn similar to me. The Constitutions spells out my rights to "personal papers and effects". I am normally a pretty strict constructionist but I think its reasonable to character as a persons electronic documents as "papers" or if you don't want to do that than as "effects" and I really do think the same rules for how an when the government may take possession of them should be applied!
Right opiates work by bonding to chemical receptors in the brain. If a vaccination makes one non-responsive IV opiate drugs like heroin then it must be making significant and lasting changes to neural chemistry. Who knows what all affects that might result in, given or still limited understanding of the brain?
I don't think conviction of a non capital crime should permit the state to make permanent changes to persons body. That is slippery slope our society needs to stay the heck away from. I really think no matter how good an idea it might seem, no matter how many people it might "help" we really need to agree that there are lines we just won't cross because they run counter to the character of our society.
Now they CAN use they discovered in pursuit of an otherwise legal search. IE If they get a warrant to open your safe, in search of forged bonds and also find the kilo of coke in their they can absolutely used it as evidence in the existing case and even charge you with additional crimes.
If they get a warrant to search your safe and they find drugs in your fridge than they would not be able to use it. The court would say "You had a warrant to search a safe you had not reason be looking in the fridge, anything you found there or looked into further as a result is fruit of the poison tree."
We "know" you have money hidden in that off shore account. We know you have your pgp private key on your hard disk. We need you decrypt the hard disk so we can decrypt the message from the bank we intercepted using the pgp key.
They know the key is there, they don't know what the key is; so yes they need you to decrypt it. I think this is actually a pretty reasonable ruling. It treats an encrypted hard disk just like we treat a safe in the physical world.
The government can compel you to open it If they can name something specif they are looking for inside and show that its reasonably likely to be there. They can't do it just because. If they don't have any evidence to show your computer was used in the crime you are being charged with and there is likely very specific evidence they expect find on it they can't make you decrypt it just to go fishing.
I think if we operating under the hypothetical that he can pull off time travel here in 2012; it follows he will be able to find 5dc power source to tie across the pins of his device in '95.
Also a modern smart phone would be plenty impressive. Suppose you took a jail broken iphone back there with telnetd running and gcc installed. I suspect people would be pretty impressed with the pocket sized UNIX workstation.
the objective was always the same then as it is now - get the job done in a reasonable time. In 1995, we had to invest a lot of time optimising and hand coding ASM to meet that objective due to the mentioned limitations in PC's.
I suspect that part of the activity turned lots of marginal authors into much better ones. I suspect that is happening less today, because we can just throw some hardware at it.
I think the parent was suggesting that 90% of computer users are doing the sames things they were doing with computers in '95, that is not dependent on the number of computer users. So yes there certainly more computer users today than in '95, but I suspect what the parent states is also true, the same tasks are being performed with them.
So some does what is determined to be illegal and predatory business; to effective levy an economic rent on you and me. He then pretty well buys off the justice system so the prosecution settles for him paying his debt to society largely with more copies of his own shovelware given to schools and government, that costs him next to nothing to produce and actually if anything further secure his companies dominant position.
He becomes amazingly rich at least partly at the expense of everyone who has ever gone near PC here in the states, but its okay because he is now giving it away?
If I stole your car but gave it to charity later would you be alright with it? Is it the fact that he spread it out more that makes it okay? Lift a few hundred from one and its serious crime but nick a penny from 300,000 and that's cool?
In this era of the Affordable Care Act, Home Land Security, and the notion Commerce Clause means the EPA, Dpt of Education, DOE, and FCC can do whatever they want any time any place its the states need to make a stand.
If State Legislatures don't WAKE THE F***K UP and push back they will be irrelevant. Its time to remind dear old Uncle Sam the cooperative federalism only means you cooperate when you support what the federal government is doing. Citizen show some spine and back your legislators and governors if the stand against Washington, don't dessert them when Washington pushes back but cutting access to funds, blocking air travel etc; these things are important but the very character of our nation is at stake!
Seems the system would stabilize to me. If you shed important parts of your y when you pass it to a son chances are that son won't survive to reproduce or won't be fertile. So that loss is going to be a dead end. Some else's offspring with a better copy of their y will procreate and propagate that copy, might be a complete copy, have shed something vestigial, or even mutated in some not wholly unfavorable way, but is viable in any case
The only users who should be affected are home home users, and its not going harm the economy any if John and Sally can't get to Facebook until they pay their local Nerd Herd agent $60 to fix their PC. Hell it might help the economy because its going to spur some activity, and result in those machines getting cleaned and patched which will in turn prevent future frauds and botnets.
As to the F500's, and even the smaller down to a hindered or so head count shops. This should be a non issue. First they probably have cleaned things up by now. They probably do have the tools to find and fix compromised systems if someone would just get off their rear ends.
Second if they don't know where the infected boxes are and don't have the minimal logging it would take to find them etc, they do have a firewall which can do NAT. Lets face it if you can't tell if your systems have correct DNS settings you are not running DNSSEC or anything that would cause an issue. A line or two on your firewall device could get added to simply DNAT and thing destine to a DNS port to a trusted server. Oh larger shops might have to add an additional line or two to exempt a system like their own NS server but even so its about 20 min worth of work on a Sunday night for one person, and few staples in the Change control docs Monday morning.
Frankly if your letting DNS out to the big bad internet from your client PCs, you really need to replace the people in your IT Security and Infrastructure groups anyway; they don't know what they are doing.
There is your proof. They want you think about it as "a place where various parties can come together to talk and organize things" sounds totally benign doesn't it?
Except that is not at all what the UN does. They have "peace keeping" forces that pick winners and losers in all sorts of conflicts the world over. They operate an economic cartel were they 'decide' who is an is not allowed to sell the products on the world market. They have courts (even if member nations don't always respect their judgements; which btw is usually big nations like us nobody would try to force into compliance)! Oh and they sure collect a whole hell of lot of money for a group that is just about talking and organizing; and if that money is really supposed to be for charity how come it seems to so often end up in the pockets of people running the UN? Other groups like the International Red Cross seems to be able to operate for more than a year or two between any of their leadership being accused of embezzlement.
If you ask me the biggest threat to our National Sovereignty which our Constitutional freedoms are dependent upon is likely the UN, what do we do about? We let them set up shop on our own coast and funnel heaps of money to them! Its time to throw the bums out!
The UN is totally dysfunctional in way that makes Washington DC look like a Bastian of efficiency, honesty, and virtue. The problem with the UN is there is also the matter that the UN is made up of members that have little to no respect for basic human freedoms, and that includes places like Western Europe where its say illegal to question certain historic view points. That same organization than has the gal to berate us here in the USA on human rights for say executing adult criminals (18 years old), while they would classify all kinds of behavior as criminal which we would never criminalize in the first place.
No I am not a fan of government but when it comes to Internet governance I would much much rather have the USA (who is entitled to by the way as we build the thing) with its still relatively strong Constitutional protections running the Net, than some international body.
Personally if the rest of the world thinks they should govern the Net I say let them build their own, but as soon as packet touches one of our Edge routers, OUR RULES APPLY.
The whole problem is employers paying for health care at all. This whole nonsense got started because of a moronic tax policy that allowed both the employer and employee to not pay income on compensation in the form of certain benefits.
So to lure to employees and doge some taxes employers started offering to pay for medial insurance. The insurance companies like that and encouraged it because it made their administration simpler and eliminated their need to go try and figure out how to market to individuals. To keep the practice intact they came up with this whole stupid system of groups rates etc etc.
A better solution would be to all compensation is taxable as income (and lower the over all tax rate accordingly). That would remove the incentive for employees to seek employers offering health insurance and for employers to offer it. It would remove this whole issue of religious freedom, because once its your money its yours to do with as you like. You want to buy a policy that covers contraception great, you want one that does not cover it you find a provider who offers it.
The final solution over all is force insurance companies to be insurance companies and end the heal management regime. You obligate medical practitioners (doctors) and providers (hospitals, nursing homes, etc) to publish a price book (prices can be whatever they like) on some periodic basis. Everyone MUST be charged the same rate. Big Insurance Inc cannot negotiate special rates where they pay $40 for a patient to receive a few stitches at the ER but if I show up without insurance and offer to pay cash the price is $1200 (true story). At that point insurance companies are forced back into the risk sharing game an could only add cost to the patient in terms of overhead to basic care / services. You reason for buying insurance would be the same reason you buy home owners, not because you want them to cut your law every week but because you want to be covered in the event something disastrous happens.
No that would be at the very least assault; in most places you are not allowed to assault someone for simple trespassing. The fact that a person is present makes it very different then your drone (property) being on mine.
I don't know the details but yes you are allowed to fly over private property. I think you have to be above a certain altitude though. If your drone flys over within shotgun distance it's likely fair game, so to speak
Yes and no. I think the risk is somewhat mitigated by the fact that these are species that already lost evolutions little challenge. Its true that some of the stresses the wiped them out in the first place my be gone, or different. Some of the critters that once ate them may also be different in number for example.
Its more likely though that the environmental shifts these things failed to cope with in the past have continued and that they are even less 'fit' for today's world than when they left it. They might not be able to survive at all outside of cultivation.
Slashdot Mirror
That is very true; but it does not change the point I was trying to make and it does not describe the market of the past two decades very well.
Right and Steve Jobs did an stellar job; that was yesterday this is today. What Apple did the last three years is only relevant so far as it is predictive of what its likely to be capable of this year and in the future.
If I had the position in Apple you do they only question I'd be concerned with is can they continue to generate positive returns; either through asset appreciation or by giving me cash?
Its not "free cash" its very direct ROI. Investors generally want dividends when they don't feel the cash a company is holding is being leveraged properly. The reason you invest is because you expect the asset will grow. If all a company you have stock in is doing is holding a bunch of cash in bank accounts well; shit you could do that; without the risks.
APPL needs to either needs to tell investors it has some plan to exercise that money or it should disperse it as dividends. Dividend disbursements are away to get strong hands to hold a stock; when you reach a plateau in share price valuation. Once a stock stops going up (somewhat predictably) over a time, either it sells off (I don't think anyone at Apple wants that), or becomes a volatile thing that gets day traded, which is tough place to be because judgment gets passed on management each and every day at those companies.
If I interpret your remarks correctly, you're suggesting I should unplug (or heavily firewall, even more so than the NAT I use today) my iMac because Apple no longer pushes security updates for it, or be or else be criminally liable.
Criminally liable no but it should be against the civil code just equipment violations on a motor vehicle are. Firewall, patch, replace the equipment, disable vulnerable services, fix the problem however you like; but you are not entitled to degrade the public network. If you are found to be than you should be made to do something about it or stop using it.
The answer is people need to be held accountable for their machines. The Internet is a public good just like roads. We don't let you operate an unsafe vehicle on our public roads, you can't operate an unsafe computer on our Internet.
If you machine is spamming or propagating malware yes your access should be terminated until you fix it. Just because someone else may have done the damage by infecting your box does not mean you are not still obligated to fix the problem, just like if someone smashes your head lights while you car is parked some place YOU still have to fix them.
Wrong -- the way to do is every node has the public key. The owners keep the private key. The nodes pass instructions around the network. Any node can submit an instruction to the network so the owners can use any node. Each node verifies the instruction is legit by the fact that it decrypts with the public key. Ideally the owners would just many different nodes to place new instructions on the network; that would help prevent security people from finding the source so easily. Another feature would be propagating messages that don't decrypt as well, treat them as noops; but pass them along anyway so people can't redially identify central distribution points by just analyzing network traffic. Nodes would at random but infrequent intervals introduce fuzz messages of that sort onto the network.
Maybe but URL filtering in under 1ms with any sizeable list of URLs is going to be pretty darn impossible. Its pretty tough to do much of any thing to traffic that requires any sort of lookup that fast. I mean DRAM fetch is 5+ns.
Even if you can search your lookup table fast enough keep in mind you are not just comparing values at fixed offsets like NAT and IP Access lists and similar need to you first have to figure out is this traffic http? Locate the host header and read until new line. Non of that is especially time consuming but its still going to be a chuck of that already tight ms.
How is different? Really explain that one to me!
*Its a storage unit for information; lots of people use safe's for that
*Its designed to keep others not its owner out, exactly what the encryption is doing
*It needs a key or combination to open it; you need a key to decrypt
They seem pretty damn similar to me. The Constitutions spells out my rights to "personal papers and effects". I am normally a pretty strict constructionist but I think its reasonable to character as a persons electronic documents as "papers" or if you don't want to do that than as "effects" and I really do think the same rules for how an when the government may take possession of them should be applied!
Right opiates work by bonding to chemical receptors in the brain. If a vaccination makes one non-responsive IV opiate drugs like heroin then it must be making significant and lasting changes to neural chemistry. Who knows what all affects that might result in, given or still limited understanding of the brain?
I don't think conviction of a non capital crime should permit the state to make permanent changes to persons body. That is slippery slope our society needs to stay the heck away from. I really think no matter how good an idea it might seem, no matter how many people it might "help" we really need to agree that there are lines we just won't cross because they run counter to the character of our society.
Now they CAN use they discovered in pursuit of an otherwise legal search. IE If they get a warrant to open your safe, in search of forged bonds and also find the kilo of coke in their they can absolutely used it as evidence in the existing case and even charge you with additional crimes.
If they get a warrant to search your safe and they find drugs in your fridge than they would not be able to use it. The court would say "You had a warrant to search a safe you had not reason be looking in the fridge, anything you found there or looked into further as a result is fruit of the poison tree."
That depends on how specific you need to be.
We "know" you have money hidden in that off shore account. We know you have your pgp private key on your hard disk. We need you decrypt the hard disk so we can decrypt the message from the bank we intercepted using the pgp key.
They know the key is there, they don't know what the key is; so yes they need you to decrypt it. I think this is actually a pretty reasonable ruling. It treats an encrypted hard disk just like we treat a safe in the physical world.
The government can compel you to open it If they can name something specif they are looking for inside and show that its reasonably likely to be there. They can't do it just because. If they don't have any evidence to show your computer was used in the crime you are being charged with and there is likely very specific evidence they expect find on it they can't make you decrypt it just to go fishing.
I think if we operating under the hypothetical that he can pull off time travel here in 2012; it follows he will be able to find 5dc power source to tie across the pins of his device in '95.
Also a modern smart phone would be plenty impressive. Suppose you took a jail broken iphone back there with telnetd running and gcc installed. I suspect people would be pretty impressed with the pocket sized UNIX workstation.
the objective was always the same then as it is now - get the job done in a reasonable time. In 1995, we had to invest a lot of time optimising and hand coding ASM to meet that objective due to the mentioned limitations in PC's.
I suspect that part of the activity turned lots of marginal authors into much better ones. I suspect that is happening less today, because we can just throw some hardware at it.
I think the parent was suggesting that 90% of computer users are doing the sames things they were doing with computers in '95, that is not dependent on the number of computer users. So yes there certainly more computer users today than in '95, but I suspect what the parent states is also true, the same tasks are being performed with them.
Whoa, we don't use terms like hooker, john, and pimp; they are not politically correct.
hooker -- sex worker
john -- extra legal customer
pimp -- executive level sex worker
So some does what is determined to be illegal and predatory business; to effective levy an economic rent on you and me. He then pretty well buys off the justice system so the prosecution settles for him paying his debt to society largely with more copies of his own shovelware given to schools and government, that costs him next to nothing to produce and actually if anything further secure his companies dominant position.
He becomes amazingly rich at least partly at the expense of everyone who has ever gone near PC here in the states, but its okay because he is now giving it away?
If I stole your car but gave it to charity later would you be alright with it? Is it the fact that he spread it out more that makes it okay? Lift a few hundred from one and its serious crime but nick a penny from 300,000 and that's cool?
In this era of the Affordable Care Act, Home Land Security, and the notion Commerce Clause means the EPA, Dpt of Education, DOE, and FCC can do whatever they want any time any place its the states need to make a stand.
If State Legislatures don't WAKE THE F***K UP and push back they will be irrelevant. Its time to remind dear old Uncle Sam the cooperative federalism only means you cooperate when you support what the federal government is doing. Citizen show some spine and back your legislators and governors if the stand against Washington, don't dessert them when Washington pushes back but cutting access to funds, blocking air travel etc; these things are important but the very character of our nation is at stake!
Seems the system would stabilize to me. If you shed important parts of your y when you pass it to a son chances are that son won't survive to reproduce or won't be fertile. So that loss is going to be a dead end. Some else's offspring with a better copy of their y will procreate and propagate that copy, might be a complete copy, have shed something vestigial, or even mutated in some not wholly unfavorable way, but is viable in any case
The only users who should be affected are home home users, and its not going harm the economy any if John and Sally can't get to Facebook until they pay their local Nerd Herd agent $60 to fix their PC. Hell it might help the economy because its going to spur some activity, and result in those machines getting cleaned and patched which will in turn prevent future frauds and botnets.
As to the F500's, and even the smaller down to a hindered or so head count shops. This should be a non issue. First they probably have cleaned things up by now. They probably do have the tools to find and fix compromised systems if someone would just get off their rear ends.
Second if they don't know where the infected boxes are and don't have the minimal logging it would take to find them etc, they do have a firewall which can do NAT. Lets face it if you can't tell if your systems have correct DNS settings you are not running DNSSEC or anything that would cause an issue. A line or two on your firewall device could get added to simply DNAT and thing destine to a DNS port to a trusted server. Oh larger shops might have to add an additional line or two to exempt a system like their own NS server but even so its about 20 min worth of work on a Sunday night for one person, and few staples in the Change control docs Monday morning.
Frankly if your letting DNS out to the big bad internet from your client PCs, you really need to replace the people in your IT Security and Infrastructure groups anyway; they don't know what they are doing.
There is your proof. They want you think about it as "a place where various parties can come together to talk and organize things" sounds totally benign doesn't it?
Except that is not at all what the UN does. They have "peace keeping" forces that pick winners and losers in all sorts of conflicts the world over. They operate an economic cartel were they 'decide' who is an is not allowed to sell the products on the world market. They have courts (even if member nations don't always respect their judgements; which btw is usually big nations like us nobody would try to force into compliance)! Oh and they sure collect a whole hell of lot of money for a group that is just about talking and organizing; and if that money is really supposed to be for charity how come it seems to so often end up in the pockets of people running the UN? Other groups like the International Red Cross seems to be able to operate for more than a year or two between any of their leadership being accused of embezzlement.
If you ask me the biggest threat to our National Sovereignty which our Constitutional freedoms are dependent upon is likely the UN, what do we do about? We let them set up shop on our own coast and funnel heaps of money to them! Its time to throw the bums out!
The UN is totally dysfunctional in way that makes Washington DC look like a Bastian of efficiency, honesty, and virtue. The problem with the UN is there is also the matter that the UN is made up of members that have little to no respect for basic human freedoms, and that includes places like Western Europe where its say illegal to question certain historic view points. That same organization than has the gal to berate us here in the USA on human rights for say executing adult criminals (18 years old), while they would classify all kinds of behavior as criminal which we would never criminalize in the first place.
No I am not a fan of government but when it comes to Internet governance I would much much rather have the USA (who is entitled to by the way as we build the thing) with its still relatively strong Constitutional protections running the Net, than some international body.
Personally if the rest of the world thinks they should govern the Net I say let them build their own, but as soon as packet touches one of our Edge routers, OUR RULES APPLY.
The whole problem is employers paying for health care at all. This whole nonsense got started because of a moronic tax policy that allowed both the employer and employee to not pay income on compensation in the form of certain benefits.
So to lure to employees and doge some taxes employers started offering to pay for medial insurance. The insurance companies like that and encouraged it because it made their administration simpler and eliminated their need to go try and figure out how to market to individuals. To keep the practice intact they came up with this whole stupid system of groups rates etc etc.
A better solution would be to all compensation is taxable as income (and lower the over all tax rate accordingly). That would remove the incentive for employees to seek employers offering health insurance and for employers to offer it. It would remove this whole issue of religious freedom, because once its your money its yours to do with as you like. You want to buy a policy that covers contraception great, you want one that does not cover it you find a provider who offers it.
The final solution over all is force insurance companies to be insurance companies and end the heal management regime. You obligate medical practitioners (doctors) and providers (hospitals, nursing homes, etc) to publish a price book (prices can be whatever they like) on some periodic basis. Everyone MUST be charged the same rate. Big Insurance Inc cannot negotiate special rates where they pay $40 for a patient to receive a few stitches at the ER but if I show up without insurance and offer to pay cash the price is $1200 (true story). At that point insurance companies are forced back into the risk sharing game an could only add cost to the patient in terms of overhead to basic care / services. You reason for buying insurance would be the same reason you buy home owners, not because you want them to cut your law every week but because you want to be covered in the event something disastrous happens.
No that would be at the very least assault; in most places you are not allowed to assault someone for simple trespassing. The fact that a person is present makes it very different then your drone (property) being on mine.
I don't know the details but yes you are allowed to fly over private property. I think you have to be above a certain altitude though. If your drone flys over within shotgun distance it's likely fair game, so to speak
Yes and no. I think the risk is somewhat mitigated by the fact that these are species that already lost evolutions little challenge. Its true that some of the stresses the wiped them out in the first place my be gone, or different. Some of the critters that once ate them may also be different in number for example.
Its more likely though that the environmental shifts these things failed to cope with in the past have continued and that they are even less 'fit' for today's world than when they left it. They might not be able to survive at all outside of cultivation.