Poor and uneducated folk breed more. Social programs don't significantly alter birth rates; number of people below the poverty line is a much better indicator:
People who believe that ignorance is a synonym of stupidity are ignorant.
This holds true even if you have a stunted vocabulary and believe just that. It holds true also if you ignorantly mistake stunted vocabularies for semantic drift.
Quartz drawing primitives are vector based, and Cocoa [Touch] interface layouts use resize masks to provide resolution and orientation independence, but all graphics contexts and supported image formats on IOS are bitmap only. The resource loading system will let you support all current resolutions by creating three versions of your image - image.png, image@2x.png, image-ipad.png - but that doesn't future-proof you.
You could use the Fiasco fractal library to compress your ultra high rez original copy, then decompress it into a bitmap appropriate to whatever resolution you detect at run-time; couple that with the other technologies that already make resolution independence easy and you're pretty future-proof. Not sure where you can get the original Fiasco, but it's part of the netpbm source distribution, and under a GPL license.
But the App Store is not compatible with the GPL.:-)
Or pay $99 for AppleCare up front and the replacement is free if it happens within two years. I'm pretty sure that means Apple expects the MTBF on batteries is over two years.
For what it's worth my 30 month old 3G is showing degradation, but my wife is using it now for light duties, and still typically goes several days between charges.
Anything over 18 months and I'm pretty comfortable that a phone has depreciated enough to replace, not repair.
Stick with the Android Market, which is fortunately the path of least resistance.
Not that this is how the world should be. Carriers should be held accountable for extending unlimited credit to consumers. There should not be a choice between freedom from carrier shovelware and OS version restrictions (iOS) and freedom from app censorship (Android). There should not be a significant risk with installing apps outside the Google marketplace.
But given this is how the world is, a NORMAL phone user sticks with the Android Market, and is pretty safe. AFAIK, anyway. I chose freedom from carrier bullshit over freedom from App Store bullshit, and remain an iOS user.
I think we're talking about very different circumstances. TFA doesn't disclose amounts, but I would expect at least a thousand times larger as a starting point for a bill racked up in that way, and being careless with my phone and leaving it unlocked and in reach of a child is a different level of personal responsibility to having malware take over my phone.
The bill may be defaulted, in which case the provider is lucky to get much at all, possibly selling the debt to a collection agency, and losing a customer.
The bill may be reduced to a payable amount, in which case the provider is lucky to get much at all, and possibly loses a customer.
Bad PR, though let's face it, this doesn't mean much to multi-million customer organisations (at least, until it starts happening to tens of thousands of them).
Any consumer protection agencies (do those exist in the US?) may side with the customer on this type of problem.
The customer is likely to complain long and loud given their phone has no record of the messages and no record of incoming warnings, racking up a large support call cost.
If I were a wireless provider, I'd be all over telling my competitor's customers that we're the SAFE provider, and they should switch now.
Is it detrimental to the weak or less powerful to keep a functioning government during an emergency?
Wikipedia has a nice article on ex post facto law. It's unconstitutional in the U.S., but happens anyway. it's constitutionally OK in Westminster systems like the UK and Australia, but viewed unfavourably - and happens anyway.
(Also, GP, retrospective is probably not the word you intended to use; try retroactive).
Web security should never depend on a user recognising a specific pattern of pixels, either by determining whether that vertical bar with some marks at the top and bottom is a "1" or an "l" or by figuring out if the displayed UI element is part of the web page or not.
And, if your bank's website doesn't use two-factor authentication, disable it now.
Two years ago I went through metal detectors and bag scanners to visit "Liberty" Island.
(And yeah, same thing for museums, summer palace, and forbidden city in Beijing - but metal detectors are a far cry from an unshielded X-ray machine scanning my eyes and testes).
It's irresponsible for an IT department to avoid saying they require the capability to remote wipe in order to connect a device. The article really isn't very clear on whether the iPhone owner was informed or not - she didn't seem to know, but wilful ignorance is in vogue these days, so there's every chance she could have and should have known.
It's also irresponsible for an organisation to require individuals to use personal equipment to process confidential or sensitive data. If you're in such an important position that it would cost the company money for you to not be able to check your mail in the bathroom, spending a few hundred on a company smartphone shouldn't be a big deal.
If your company does either or both of those, buy a smart phone, claim it against your tax, and leave it in a desk at work.
Technically possible isn't even remotely the same as permissible. Confidential data usually comes with an NDA explicitly forbidding stupid shit like forwarding every email you get out to a third party.
I'm pretty sure the TSA are already capable of causing you to miss your flight because they didn't like your face. "Please step this way sir, we need to ask you some questions."
Being asked to do something illegal in your job, like molest a child, doesn't grant you immunity from prosecution. Being asked to do something thoroughly immoral in your job, like intimidate people until they're more terrified of the security line than the flight, doesn't grant you immunity from social persecution. Needing to feed your family doesn't mean society will forgive you any action - consider whores, muggers, fraudsters, extortionists, and drug dealers.
The people we all should be and remain angry at are every single person involved in the entire farce, including the lowlife scum who didn't hand in their notice the second they were trained in the "right" way to molest a child.
Or better yet, refuse to do it, and see how a jury feels about wrongful dismissal for refusing to rub a child's genitals.
I will applaud Apple for closing any hole used to jailbreak without a USB cable involved, whether it gets to malware stage or not.
Apple seem to respond faster to these sorts of vulnerabilities than they do to ones that are only usable if you have physical control over the device, so I don't think there's any cause for concern that Apple will step up their counter-jailbreak programme if theoretical attacks become reality.
Because the registries are driven by bottom-up policy processes in which all the stakeholders who care to get involved have a hand in determining the right way to distribute addresses. Current thinking is that addresses are a global public good, and should be distributed based on responsible and efficient need, not based on depth of pocket.
I believe this is what you're looking for. Mac OS X has a sandbox facility built in to the kernel that allows you to specify a profile for applications to limit the system calls, and arguments to system calls, that can be made.
The two biggest flaws are that badly written applications need a ton of permissions to even work, or specific permissions that mean an attacker could do something terrible anyway; and that application updates can introduce new permission requirements, forcing you to keep the sandbox profile up to date to retain functionality.
Both could be fixed by application developers embracing the sandbox technology. Chrome for OS X uses this system facility to protect parts of itself, for example, so it's generally designed to only require a simple profile and updates include a new profile where necessary.
Safest is still a snapshotted VM that you roll back daily, but that's far from the most convenient:-)
Eh, not really. IPv4 will be gone. If you are an ISP, and you pursue Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) as your solution, you growth limit yourself. It's equivalent to fixing your available bandwidth permanently - you can't add more customers past a certain point without significantly degrading performance for all customers. In a few years, you'll need to deploy IPv6 anyway; your customers will pay a price for the capital cost of your CGN gear, then your customers will pay a further price for the capital cost of your v6 gear.
If you're only concerned about web+mail, deploy dual stack lite. Browsers and mail clients do IPv6 transparently already. CPE devices support v6 out of the box at the sub-$100 price range (Netcomm, Billion, and, uh, the one used in the big v6 trial by xs4all in the Netherlands). Going DS-Lite means that as more software supports v6, and more services appear on v6, the pressure on your public v4 addresses drops over time. You can sustain DS-Lite throughout transition. The capital cost is similar to CGN, and the ongoing expenses of v6 are generally covered by your existing v4 expenses (ie, bits you pay going over a v6 session are bits you no longer pay for over your v4, and if your upstream is charging you more for v6 it's time to go provider independent!)
Some of the services that don't work over CGN include, by the way, XBox Live, BitTorrent, many network games, and most VOIP solutions. Some services do work over CGN, but rely on a reasonable proportion of Internet users having a public address to do so, and thus aren't long term viable: Skype, some of the smarter BitTorrent clients that do hole punching. Some services rely on emerging protocols for dealing with CGNs, like FaceTime: ICE, STUN, and TURN.
You can get a taste for life under a CGN by configuring your home NAT device to ignore uPnP requests, and disabling any manual forwarding settings.
Also, the summary is full of shit regarding the changing estimation. The linked articles are pretty clear that it's still early 2011. Available metrics (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ is one of the best) show a pretty unchanging date; that link, in fact, includes a few graphs down the bottom showing the change in predicted date over time. If you're an ISP, you've got a reasonably reliable date to plan around, and it should see you unrestricted on your IPv4 clear through to 2012, plenty of time to get ipv6 upstream (typically free or very cheap, when taken alongside your v4) and implement dual stack in your core.
You can save more time than seconds simply by leaving a bigger gap. You lose a lot of time slowing down and speeding back up because the car in front of you is slowing down to turn, and you were too close to let your gap simply eat up their deceleration. Traffic jams are mostly comprised of the fractions of seconds everyone loses because they're constantly needing to react to the car in front, instead of maintaining a steady, but slower, pace.
My commute time isn't really different for leaving a gap, since it's counter-intuitive and too few other drivers do it, but my commute is far less stressful both for me and for anyone who needs to merge into my lane. Sucks to be rear-ended because other people think they're better drivers than they are, too.
Here's to the future, and hoping it comes soon!:-)
Doesn't matter if it's a child, a drunk, a goat, or an insurance fraudster. Doesn't matter if they're playing, standing waiting for a pedestrian crossing, or taking a leak on a fire hydrant. If it's alive, and very close to the road, there's a risk it will begin a motion that ends in intersection with the car. Mitigate the risk: slow down, change lanes. A computer will ALSO be able to see if the lane is clear beside, if the vehicle behind is maintaining a safe distance, at the same time, with a decision made and enacted in milliseconds.
It's still possible that the accident is unavoidable. I'd expect computers to do a much better job much more often. Computers, for one, won't fail to recognise that an adult standing waiting at a pedestrian crossing may be jostled, stumble, and fall into your path, even though they're neither a child nor playing.
Slashdot Mirror
Poor and uneducated folk breed more. Social programs don't significantly alter birth rates; number of people below the poverty line is a much better indicator:
Poverty lines.
Fertility rate.
The politics of the right will make things worse, not better.
People who believe that ignorance is a synonym of stupidity are ignorant.
This holds true even if you have a stunted vocabulary and believe just that. It holds true also if you ignorantly mistake stunted vocabularies for semantic drift.
I am happy to be disagreeing with you!
Troll thread is fun.
My experience is most games sell both a regular and an HD version.
:-)
What, steganography isn't good enough for you?
Would be good.
Quartz drawing primitives are vector based, and Cocoa [Touch] interface layouts use resize masks to provide resolution and orientation independence, but all graphics contexts and supported image formats on IOS are bitmap only. The resource loading system will let you support all current resolutions by creating three versions of your image - image.png, image@2x.png, image-ipad.png - but that doesn't future-proof you.
You could use the Fiasco fractal library to compress your ultra high rez original copy, then decompress it into a bitmap appropriate to whatever resolution you detect at run-time; couple that with the other technologies that already make resolution independence easy and you're pretty future-proof. Not sure where you can get the original Fiasco, but it's part of the netpbm source distribution, and under a GPL license.
But the App Store is not compatible with the GPL. :-)
Or pay $99 for AppleCare up front and the replacement is free if it happens within two years. I'm pretty sure that means Apple expects the MTBF on batteries is over two years.
For what it's worth my 30 month old 3G is showing degradation, but my wife is using it now for light duties, and still typically goes several days between charges.
Anything over 18 months and I'm pretty comfortable that a phone has depreciated enough to replace, not repair.
Stick with the Android Market, which is fortunately the path of least resistance.
Not that this is how the world should be. Carriers should be held accountable for extending unlimited credit to consumers. There should not be a choice between freedom from carrier shovelware and OS version restrictions (iOS) and freedom from app censorship (Android). There should not be a significant risk with installing apps outside the Google marketplace.
But given this is how the world is, a NORMAL phone user sticks with the Android Market, and is pretty safe. AFAIK, anyway. I chose freedom from carrier bullshit over freedom from App Store bullshit, and remain an iOS user.
I think we're talking about very different circumstances. TFA doesn't disclose amounts, but I would expect at least a thousand times larger as a starting point for a bill racked up in that way, and being careless with my phone and leaving it unlocked and in reach of a child is a different level of personal responsibility to having malware take over my phone.
If it were my child, and $10, sure, I'd pay it.
Off the top of my head...
If I were a wireless provider, I'd be all over telling my competitor's customers that we're the SAFE provider, and they should switch now.
Is it detrimental to the weak or less powerful to keep a functioning government during an emergency?
Wikipedia has a nice article on ex post facto law. It's unconstitutional in the U.S., but happens anyway. it's constitutionally OK in Westminster systems like the UK and Australia, but viewed unfavourably - and happens anyway.
(Also, GP, retrospective is probably not the word you intended to use; try retroactive).
Web security should never depend on a user recognising a specific pattern of pixels, either by determining whether that vertical bar with some marks at the top and bottom is a "1" or an "l" or by figuring out if the displayed UI element is part of the web page or not.
And, if your bank's website doesn't use two-factor authentication, disable it now.
Two years ago I went through metal detectors and bag scanners to visit "Liberty" Island.
(And yeah, same thing for museums, summer palace, and forbidden city in Beijing - but metal detectors are a far cry from an unshielded X-ray machine scanning my eyes and testes).
Yes, it goes both ways.
It's irresponsible for an IT department to avoid saying they require the capability to remote wipe in order to connect a device. The article really isn't very clear on whether the iPhone owner was informed or not - she didn't seem to know, but wilful ignorance is in vogue these days, so there's every chance she could have and should have known.
It's also irresponsible for an organisation to require individuals to use personal equipment to process confidential or sensitive data. If you're in such an important position that it would cost the company money for you to not be able to check your mail in the bathroom, spending a few hundred on a company smartphone shouldn't be a big deal.
If your company does either or both of those, buy a smart phone, claim it against your tax, and leave it in a desk at work.
Technically possible isn't even remotely the same as permissible. Confidential data usually comes with an NDA explicitly forbidding stupid shit like forwarding every email you get out to a third party.
I'm pretty sure the TSA are already capable of causing you to miss your flight because they didn't like your face. "Please step this way sir, we need to ask you some questions."
Being asked to do something illegal in your job, like molest a child, doesn't grant you immunity from prosecution. Being asked to do something thoroughly immoral in your job, like intimidate people until they're more terrified of the security line than the flight, doesn't grant you immunity from social persecution. Needing to feed your family doesn't mean society will forgive you any action - consider whores, muggers, fraudsters, extortionists, and drug dealers.
The people we all should be and remain angry at are every single person involved in the entire farce, including the lowlife scum who didn't hand in their notice the second they were trained in the "right" way to molest a child.
Or better yet, refuse to do it, and see how a jury feels about wrongful dismissal for refusing to rub a child's genitals.
He should of said so. Their is no reason to no the rite spelling of words, sense I can just look them all up.
And grammatical structure isn't important either, as taught to me by my good friends, Godwin and Hitler.
... or my good friends, Godwin, and Hitler.
Either way.
What's in a comma.
I will applaud Apple for closing any hole used to jailbreak without a USB cable involved, whether it gets to malware stage or not.
Apple seem to respond faster to these sorts of vulnerabilities than they do to ones that are only usable if you have physical control over the device, so I don't think there's any cause for concern that Apple will step up their counter-jailbreak programme if theoretical attacks become reality.
Because the registries are driven by bottom-up policy processes in which all the stakeholders who care to get involved have a hand in determining the right way to distribute addresses. Current thinking is that addresses are a global public good, and should be distributed based on responsible and efficient need, not based on depth of pocket.
I believe this is what you're looking for. Mac OS X has a sandbox facility built in to the kernel that allows you to specify a profile for applications to limit the system calls, and arguments to system calls, that can be made.
The two biggest flaws are that badly written applications need a ton of permissions to even work, or specific permissions that mean an attacker could do something terrible anyway; and that application updates can introduce new permission requirements, forcing you to keep the sandbox profile up to date to retain functionality.
Both could be fixed by application developers embracing the sandbox technology. Chrome for OS X uses this system facility to protect parts of itself, for example, so it's generally designed to only require a simple profile and updates include a new profile where necessary.
Safest is still a snapshotted VM that you roll back daily, but that's far from the most convenient :-)
Eh, not really. IPv4 will be gone. If you are an ISP, and you pursue Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) as your solution, you growth limit yourself. It's equivalent to fixing your available bandwidth permanently - you can't add more customers past a certain point without significantly degrading performance for all customers. In a few years, you'll need to deploy IPv6 anyway; your customers will pay a price for the capital cost of your CGN gear, then your customers will pay a further price for the capital cost of your v6 gear.
If you're only concerned about web+mail, deploy dual stack lite. Browsers and mail clients do IPv6 transparently already. CPE devices support v6 out of the box at the sub-$100 price range (Netcomm, Billion, and, uh, the one used in the big v6 trial by xs4all in the Netherlands). Going DS-Lite means that as more software supports v6, and more services appear on v6, the pressure on your public v4 addresses drops over time. You can sustain DS-Lite throughout transition. The capital cost is similar to CGN, and the ongoing expenses of v6 are generally covered by your existing v4 expenses (ie, bits you pay going over a v6 session are bits you no longer pay for over your v4, and if your upstream is charging you more for v6 it's time to go provider independent!)
Some of the services that don't work over CGN include, by the way, XBox Live, BitTorrent, many network games, and most VOIP solutions. Some services do work over CGN, but rely on a reasonable proportion of Internet users having a public address to do so, and thus aren't long term viable: Skype, some of the smarter BitTorrent clients that do hole punching. Some services rely on emerging protocols for dealing with CGNs, like FaceTime: ICE, STUN, and TURN.
You can get a taste for life under a CGN by configuring your home NAT device to ignore uPnP requests, and disabling any manual forwarding settings.
Also, the summary is full of shit regarding the changing estimation. The linked articles are pretty clear that it's still early 2011. Available metrics (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ is one of the best) show a pretty unchanging date; that link, in fact, includes a few graphs down the bottom showing the change in predicted date over time. If you're an ISP, you've got a reasonably reliable date to plan around, and it should see you unrestricted on your IPv4 clear through to 2012, plenty of time to get ipv6 upstream (typically free or very cheap, when taken alongside your v4) and implement dual stack in your core.
Break another window, the glazier in your home town needs to feed his kids.
You can save more time than seconds simply by leaving a bigger gap. You lose a lot of time slowing down and speeding back up because the car in front of you is slowing down to turn, and you were too close to let your gap simply eat up their deceleration. Traffic jams are mostly comprised of the fractions of seconds everyone loses because they're constantly needing to react to the car in front, instead of maintaining a steady, but slower, pace.
My commute time isn't really different for leaving a gap, since it's counter-intuitive and too few other drivers do it, but my commute is far less stressful both for me and for anyone who needs to merge into my lane. Sucks to be rear-ended because other people think they're better drivers than they are, too.
Here's to the future, and hoping it comes soon! :-)
The computer would need to:
Doesn't matter if it's a child, a drunk, a goat, or an insurance fraudster. Doesn't matter if they're playing, standing waiting for a pedestrian crossing, or taking a leak on a fire hydrant. If it's alive, and very close to the road, there's a risk it will begin a motion that ends in intersection with the car. Mitigate the risk: slow down, change lanes. A computer will ALSO be able to see if the lane is clear beside, if the vehicle behind is maintaining a safe distance, at the same time, with a decision made and enacted in milliseconds.
It's still possible that the accident is unavoidable. I'd expect computers to do a much better job much more often. Computers, for one, won't fail to recognise that an adult standing waiting at a pedestrian crossing may be jostled, stumble, and fall into your path, even though they're neither a child nor playing.