I think the point is that with open source the.00005% of the population who has the time and expertise to analyze the code -- has the opportunity to do so, and share their findings with the rest of us.
And yet it took many years before the OpenSSL bug was found. This "many eyes make all bugs shallow" meme has been found to be a fairy tale.
Not only that, but no one but Google has the entire source for Android, so any claims for openness of the source is irrelevant anyway.
And iBeacon hardware can trivially also work the same way as wifi tracking, by just tracking the bluetooth id your phone is emitting all the time instead.
No it can't. It doesn't work that way. This isn't pairing with Bluetooth. iBeacon does not create a bidirectional communication with the phone. The iBeacon transmits BLE frames. The phone does not reply.
I would be more optimistic if it weren't for the fact that Apple went and deliberately developed "iBeacon", more or less deliberately designed for every sort of horrid 'location based service' and 'relevant offer' crap in the book.
Phones see where the iBeacons are. The iBeacons don't see where the phones are.
And if Apple were tracking your location via info sent from your phone on the internet, packet sniffers would have found it by now. There was a red herring a couple of years ago, that turned out to be a cell-tower cache file that might get backed up on iCloud. Other than that, nothing but Apple haters making empty accusations.
iBeacons are the exact opposite. They give information to an app on the phone about what iBeacon they are near. No such app, or don't give permission to any app, and nobody knows anything.
The iBeacon doesn't get to know anything. They aren't gathering info on you.
Because you can't do anything at all without first getting an Apple ID. On Android though you can get around without Google+, you just have to give up some apps.
It's no more necessary to have an Apple ID to use an iPhone than it is to have a Google+ ID to use an Android.
yes somehow you think that, when it comes down to user data, they don't want to make money from selling it to partners?
Indeed. Because Apple has far more to lose from the news story that would follow from them doing that, then they have from doing it.
Google is rapidly becoming a pariah for their behaviour in lacking respect for privacy. Why would Apple want to follow them when they have a much more successful business model of their own.
So you give access to an unknown app from a non-Google Play store, having first rooted your device to give it extra privileges. And somehow you think that enhances your privacy?!
How about the reverse? I want something that lies to the spy-apps on my phone about the names of all the available wifi access points in my vicinity. The goal is to make it harder for the data-stalkers to connect the dots between my phone and my friend's phone just because we are in proximity to the same wifi access points at some point in time.
Another reason to prefer iOS. Apps have no access to wi-fi info of any sort.
They don't connect the dots for everybody for free. Become a strategic partner (that is: find a way to bring them more money) and they'll be happy do connect the dots for you. So don't be naive: Apple cares about its customers only when it can turn that care into profit.
Naive would be taking your word for what Apple do based on no more than your gut feel. I have about a decade's worth of experience about what Apple say and what they do. You are a random guy off the internet.
My experience is that Google have little respect for my privacy, and their business model is to use my private information for profit. Apple has much more respect for my privacy and their business model is to make products that I might want to buy.
What should the program have claimed to have been?
I don't care. What I care about is what the organisers of the "test" told the judges. I was under the impression they had told the judges it was a 13 years old boy from the Ukraine. Now I look again, it's not clear who told them that. Which brings another problem: we don't know what the judges were told. Given the effort to invite a celebrity to take part as one of the judges, you'd have thought there would be video of the contest. But no.
If you've been around tech for a while, you will have come across some of Kevin Warwick's bullshit claims to the press before. He's a charlatan. So therefore we need more than his say so that he conducted the test in a reasonable way.
We also need independent reproduction of the result. You know, the scientific method and all that.
Did Lance Armstrong really win the Tour De France 7 times, or did he cheat? You apparently can't tell the difference.
Did a student who smuggled in some crib notes into an exam really pass the exam, or did he cheat? You apparently can't tell the difference.
You present a false dichotomy. The Turing test was neither beaten, nor tricked. The reality is a third option: It wasn't a real Turing test. Even putting aside questions about Kevin Warwick, and the lack of peer review, we know that the judges were primed with excuses about why the chatbot might make irrational, strange or poor English answers. Priming the judges with excuses for the chatbot is cheating every bit as much as Armstrong's drugs,and the exam cheat's crib notes. There is therefore no genuine result from any of these tests.
And none of these cheats mean that there is anything wrong with a bicycle race, an exam, or the Turing test per se.
The problem is that priming the judges with excuses about why the candidate may make incorrect, irrational, or poor language answers is not part of the test.
If the unprimed judges themselves came to the conclusion they were speaking to a 13 year old from the Ukraine, then that would not be a problem. But that's not what happened.
If 30-odd years of experience didn't produce a language that had fewer design defects then Apple would be quite pathetic in the language design area indeed.
Absolutely. So why still use C?
There's a value as a lowest common denominator when doing cross platform engines. But other than that, it's good to use something more modern.
I didn't say it wasn't true. It's that people here usually used in a fallacious way. Addressing an argument where the causation has already been pointed out. Almost as if the fact that two things are correlated proves that one did not cause the other.
That's why it's similar to the security through obscurity meme. Security through obscurity is flawed, just as every other form of security is. But as one element of security it does indeed have positive not negative value.
There's two sides to it. Other cars that can recharge from Tesla supercharger, and third party charging stations that can supercharge Tesla cars. Both are good for Musk's company.
This is one place where legislated standards would be a really bad idea. The charging process is one that benefits from every innovation that makes it a quicker or cheaper process. Companies should be allowed to change as they see fit.
Save legislated standards for situations where there is no innovation, only protectionism going on.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point is that with open source the .00005% of the population who has the time and expertise to analyze the code -- has the opportunity to do so, and share their findings with the rest of us.
And yet it took many years before the OpenSSL bug was found. This "many eyes make all bugs shallow" meme has been found to be a fairy tale.
Not only that, but no one but Google has the entire source for Android, so any claims for openness of the source is irrelevant anyway.
And iBeacon hardware can trivially also work the same way as wifi tracking, by just tracking the bluetooth id your phone is emitting all the time instead.
No it can't. It doesn't work that way. This isn't pairing with Bluetooth. iBeacon does not create a bidirectional communication with the phone. The iBeacon transmits BLE frames. The phone does not reply.
I would be more optimistic if it weren't for the fact that Apple went and deliberately developed "iBeacon", more or less deliberately designed for every sort of horrid 'location based service' and 'relevant offer' crap in the book.
Phones track iBeacons. iBeacons can't track phones.
Whether you want the services enabled by iBeacons is entirely up to you, at least on iOS.
If your network relies on a feature which means less privacy for users, then I have no sympathy.
I've even less sympathy considering that you haven't had a problem yet, but are just whining on an assumption.
Phones see where the iBeacons are. The iBeacons don't see where the phones are.
And if Apple were tracking your location via info sent from your phone on the internet, packet sniffers would have found it by now. There was a red herring a couple of years ago, that turned out to be a cell-tower cache file that might get backed up on iCloud. Other than that, nothing but Apple haters making empty accusations.
iBeacons are the exact opposite. They give information to an app on the phone about what iBeacon they are near. No such app, or don't give permission to any app, and nobody knows anything.
The iBeacon doesn't get to know anything. They aren't gathering info on you.
Because you can't do anything at all without first getting an Apple ID. On Android though you can get around without Google+, you just have to give up some apps.
It's no more necessary to have an Apple ID to use an iPhone than it is to have a Google+ ID to use an Android.
And that's a very good thing.
Apple have done nothing to betray their user's privacy. Google's business model is based on doing exactly that.
yes somehow you think that, when it comes down to user data, they don't want to make money from selling it to partners?
Indeed. Because Apple has far more to lose from the news story that would follow from them doing that, then they have from doing it.
Google is rapidly becoming a pariah for their behaviour in lacking respect for privacy. Why would Apple want to follow them when they have a much more successful business model of their own.
So you give access to an unknown app from a non-Google Play store, having first rooted your device to give it extra privileges. And somehow you think that enhances your privacy?!
How about the reverse? I want something that lies to the spy-apps on my phone about the names of all the available wifi access points in my vicinity. The goal is to make it harder for the data-stalkers to connect the dots between my phone and my friend's phone just because we are in proximity to the same wifi access points at some point in time.
Another reason to prefer iOS. Apps have no access to wi-fi info of any sort.
BTW, this app does the same on a rooted Android device.
You have to root it? So much for Android being open. I thought the criticism of iPhone was that you had to root (jailbreak) it to do various things.
They don't connect the dots for everybody for free. Become a strategic partner (that is: find a way to bring them more money) and they'll be happy do connect the dots for you. So don't be naive: Apple cares about its customers only when it can turn that care into profit.
Naive would be taking your word for what Apple do based on no more than your gut feel. I have about a decade's worth of experience about what Apple say and what they do. You are a random guy off the internet.
My experience is that Google have little respect for my privacy, and their business model is to use my private information for profit. Apple has much more respect for my privacy and their business model is to make products that I might want to buy.
What should the program have claimed to have been?
I don't care. What I care about is what the organisers of the "test" told the judges. I was under the impression they had told the judges it was a 13 years old boy from the Ukraine. Now I look again, it's not clear who told them that. Which brings another problem: we don't know what the judges were told. Given the effort to invite a celebrity to take part as one of the judges, you'd have thought there would be video of the contest. But no.
If you've been around tech for a while, you will have come across some of Kevin Warwick's bullshit claims to the press before. He's a charlatan. So therefore we need more than his say so that he conducted the test in a reasonable way.
We also need independent reproduction of the result. You know, the scientific method and all that.
Did Lance Armstrong really win the Tour De France 7 times, or did he cheat? You apparently can't tell the difference.
Did a student who smuggled in some crib notes into an exam really pass the exam, or did he cheat? You apparently can't tell the difference.
You present a false dichotomy. The Turing test was neither beaten, nor tricked. The reality is a third option: It wasn't a real Turing test. Even putting aside questions about Kevin Warwick, and the lack of peer review, we know that the judges were primed with excuses about why the chatbot might make irrational, strange or poor English answers. Priming the judges with excuses for the chatbot is cheating every bit as much as Armstrong's drugs,and the exam cheat's crib notes. There is therefore no genuine result from any of these tests.
And none of these cheats mean that there is anything wrong with a bicycle race, an exam, or the Turing test per se.
The problem is that priming the judges with excuses about why the candidate may make incorrect, irrational, or poor language answers is not part of the test.
If the unprimed judges themselves came to the conclusion they were speaking to a 13 year old from the Ukraine, then that would not be a problem. But that's not what happened.
If 30-odd years of experience didn't produce a language that had fewer design defects then Apple would be quite pathetic in the language design area indeed.
Absolutely. So why still use C?
There's a value as a lowest common denominator when doing cross platform engines. But other than that, it's good to use something more modern.
I'm afraid it means you don't know what you're talking about. Both with regards to the languages, and who you're talking to.
bro.
I didn't say it wasn't true. It's that people here usually used in a fallacious way. Addressing an argument where the causation has already been pointed out. Almost as if the fact that two things are correlated proves that one did not cause the other.
That's why it's similar to the security through obscurity meme. Security through obscurity is flawed, just as every other form of security is. But as one element of security it does indeed have positive not negative value.
Security through obscurity is worthless.
That stupid meme needs to die. Along with "correlation doesn't imply causation".
Like this.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com...
When you have a roof rack, you lose the ability to park in tight spaces.
So were ICE cars to start with. It took 50 years or so before they become affordable by average people. It's not going to take as long this time.
There's two sides to it. Other cars that can recharge from Tesla supercharger, and third party charging stations that can supercharge Tesla cars. Both are good for Musk's company.
This is one place where legislated standards would be a really bad idea. The charging process is one that benefits from every innovation that makes it a quicker or cheaper process. Companies should be allowed to change as they see fit.
Save legislated standards for situations where there is no innovation, only protectionism going on.
A cynical PR ploy
Oh fuck off. It's a good thing for everybody. Save the snide comments for people that are doing bad things.