You see Blackberry has a unique position in the market, it being not just the manufacturer but also the network operator. Thus for most normal Blackberry users (non-corporate),
That's actually an interesting point. In years past, the Blackberry fanboys used to tout how secure BB devices were when used with a BB enterprise server. It appears now that this claim was never true.
It makes perfect sense if Blackberry's main customer is the US govt.
If they are selling to the US government, they can privately tell the buyers about this "feature" (or is it a "misfeature"?), otherwise, I think that the CEO of Blackberry is about to become good friends with Gerald Ratner and Adam Osborne.
Why don't we kill all the politicians who betray us? Why do we forgive their lies and actually keep supporting them?
For the same reasons that people in power have always got away with their crimes: they are protected and the criminal nature of their actions is not clear.
However, when presented with irrefutable evidence that someone tried to engineer your death multiple times and zero consequences for lethal retaliation, of course you would push them out of the air lock.
Even as a child, the series seemed stupid to me. Why, after all the things that Doctor Smith does to sabotage them, do they not just push him out of an airlock? There is only so many times someone can be forgiven when lives are on the line.
Try the same thought experiment, but instead of "I will kill you", it should be: "you will lose your house". It makes a considerable difference to the outcome and people's view of your actions.
Essentially I was doing the speed limit (it was a 4 cylinder Jeep, speeding wasn't really an option)... when the light went yellow I was close enough to the intersection I had to decide if I would slam on my brakes and make a panic stop, or acknowledge no way in hell I can stop.
Not in California then? California has laws that specify the minimum time the yellow light must be active, based on the speed limit in force at the intersection. A city near me had to refund thousands of tickets when it was caught operating a set of traffic lights with the yellow light time too short.
Your confusing the chance of an accident and severity of accidents. Speeding increases the severity but not in moderation the chance.
Actually, speeding can often reduce the chance of having an accident. The safest speed to travel at (defined as least likely to die) is the median traffic speed. Often this median speed is above the speed limit. Yes, if you get into an accident at higher speeds, you are more likely to die, but the reduction in the likelihood of being involved in an accident outweighs the other factors.
You reference an article from 2004. In 2004 Microsoft had $36.8 billion in revenue. In 2015 it was $93.5 billion.
Is Microsoft really "done"?
I don't know about Microsoft, but Windows phone is "done". Market share never reached anything like critical mass and is now dropping. App developers are actively pulling their apps from Microsoft's app store. He's dead Jim.
Unfortunately, a lot of the press are going along with this proposal, despite its lack of support in any logic. Take the case of unbreakable encryption on phones. At the point that the phone is being held by the security services, what information can they not get? They can present a warrant to the app providers, email providers, etc. to get the information about the communications.
Who is the most likely target of abuse of these powers? Probably politicians. These politicians have to be either mind-numbingly arrogant, mind-numbingly stupid, or already being blackmailed to want this (arrogant because they think that no-one would ever dare to spy on them).
A solidly trained and experienced interrogator will get a confession out of you â"and you will provide it willingly. THAT is what real interrogation is about.
FTFY
The way US police are trained to interrogate people is focused entirely on eliciting a confession. It results in a shockingly high false confession rate.
This is just another thinly veiled attack on Christianity and other religions. As a Christian I find this offensive, but I expect no one cares since I'm also a white male.
If you or your religion cannot withstand parody, then you and/or your religion is weak. It's attitudes like yours that result in people being killed for printing cartoons that depict Mohammed with a bomb on his head.
Free speech goes both ways. If you want to have the freedom to express your religion, then you must allow others to express views that oppose your religion. But perhaps what you really want is for the government to adopt and enforce your religion?
However, every US Resident not entitled to a US will have a Foreign Passport; which follows the same numbering rules.
In addition to the problem of stateless people, not entitled to any passport, do you really want your government delegating its ID management to other countries?
Oh, and numbers 4 and 5:
4. Passport numbers change with a newly issued passport.
5. What about people with two passports, or people who (after living in the USA for years) relinquish a foreign passport and get a US passport?
There's also the federally issued passport, which also has it's own number. I've never really understood why the passport isn't just the de-facto personal ID, it's a global standard ID system recognized by all countries (as far as I know).
Because:
1. Passports cost money,
2. Only a relatively small proportion of US citizens have passports, and
3. Not every US resident is entitled to a US passport.
In my particular case, I first learned I was on a terrorist watch list in 2004, when I renewed my drivers' license.
In my case, I am quite certain that I am not (or was not last year). I flew with my wife and daughter to Seattle (domestic). Both on the way there and the way back, my wife and I were "randomly" selected for the pre-check line (less intrusive scanning). Bizarrely, my daughter, who was travelling with us on the same booking, was not selected for pre-check for either flight.
We did see the airline employees (and police) politely telling someone that, no, they could not take their loaded speargun on the flight with them as hand baggage.
And yes, the CMU researchers are persona non gratis now, and we won't be sharing any details of zero day vulnerabilities or other interesting research with them again.
While those researchers are still at CMU, that should be "we won't be sharing any details of zero day vulnerabilities or other interesting research with anyone at CMU"
"This is an area of our law, an area of our law enforcement, where we can't be totally transparent, in the same way that the federal government can't be totally transparent about the massive intelligence operations they run," he said.
So, secret laws, then?
Of course you can be transparent -- about the process. Individual cases, yes, people understand that those details may need to be secret, but not the process. Otherwise people might think that there are secret laws in use here.
He includes Perl as a language that has both symbolic and mnemonic operators, and says that functionally they are equivalent, but this isn't really correct. In Perl, for example, "==" is not the same as "eq": one is a numeric comparison, the other is a string comparison and for consistent results the correct operator must be used.
The terrorism issue is relevant in that the only effective way to stop terrorists is to search email of vast numbers of persons before any crime has been committed.
What terrorists? There have been well-publicised cases where people have breached airport perimeters. If there were any serious terrorists, they would have planted a bomb on a plane, or, an even better target, the queue for the security check.
We should put the threat into context. How many people die every year in traffic accidents? How many people die because of lack of access to affordable healthcare? More lives could be saved through access to healthcare, support for the homeless, etc. than through the vast spending on "security".
No, the spending on security is really just spending on keeping the security apparatus in place. It's the self-sustaining and self-justifying military-industrial-intelligence complex.
You know AMD doesn't own chip fabs, right? They were spun out into Global Foundries.
But you are right about the cost of designing a new chip. I would expect the cost to design, validate, manufacture a competitive x86 chip is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
Pink slips, more likely (or whatever the Canadian equivalent is).
That's actually an interesting point. In years past, the Blackberry fanboys used to tout how secure BB devices were when used with a BB enterprise server. It appears now that this claim was never true.
If they are selling to the US government, they can privately tell the buyers about this "feature" (or is it a "misfeature"?), otherwise, I think that the CEO of Blackberry is about to become good friends with Gerald Ratner and Adam Osborne.
For the same reasons that people in power have always got away with their crimes: they are protected and the criminal nature of their actions is not clear.
However, when presented with irrefutable evidence that someone tried to engineer your death multiple times and zero consequences for lethal retaliation, of course you would push them out of the air lock.
Even as a child, the series seemed stupid to me. Why, after all the things that Doctor Smith does to sabotage them, do they not just push him out of an airlock? There is only so many times someone can be forgiven when lives are on the line.
Try the same thought experiment, but instead of "I will kill you", it should be: "you will lose your house". It makes a considerable difference to the outcome and people's view of your actions.
Not in California then? California has laws that specify the minimum time the yellow light must be active, based on the speed limit in force at the intersection. A city near me had to refund thousands of tickets when it was caught operating a set of traffic lights with the yellow light time too short.
Actually, speeding can often reduce the chance of having an accident. The safest speed to travel at (defined as least likely to die) is the median traffic speed. Often this median speed is above the speed limit. Yes, if you get into an accident at higher speeds, you are more likely to die, but the reduction in the likelihood of being involved in an accident outweighs the other factors.
I don't know about Microsoft, but Windows phone is "done". Market share never reached anything like critical mass and is now dropping. App developers are actively pulling their apps from Microsoft's app store. He's dead Jim.
Unfortunately, a lot of the press are going along with this proposal, despite its lack of support in any logic. Take the case of unbreakable encryption on phones. At the point that the phone is being held by the security services, what information can they not get? They can present a warrant to the app providers, email providers, etc. to get the information about the communications.
Who is the most likely target of abuse of these powers? Probably politicians. These politicians have to be either mind-numbingly arrogant, mind-numbingly stupid, or already being blackmailed to want this (arrogant because they think that no-one would ever dare to spy on them).
So you can cite some peer-reviewed research that shows this can you? Thought not.
FTFY
The way US police are trained to interrogate people is focused entirely on eliciting a confession. It results in a shockingly high false confession rate.
If you or your religion cannot withstand parody, then you and/or your religion is weak. It's attitudes like yours that result in people being killed for printing cartoons that depict Mohammed with a bomb on his head.
Free speech goes both ways. If you want to have the freedom to express your religion, then you must allow others to express views that oppose your religion. But perhaps what you really want is for the government to adopt and enforce your religion?
You don't need to go so far back.What about the recent attack on the MSF hospital in Afghanistan?
Do you think that the King cares about that? The car was on "the King's Road", or perhaps "the royal road".
In addition to the problem of stateless people, not entitled to any passport, do you really want your government delegating its ID management to other countries?
Oh, and numbers 4 and 5:
4. Passport numbers change with a newly issued passport.
5. What about people with two passports, or people who (after living in the USA for years) relinquish a foreign passport and get a US passport?
Because:
1. Passports cost money,
2. Only a relatively small proportion of US citizens have passports, and
3. Not every US resident is entitled to a US passport.
In my case, I am quite certain that I am not (or was not last year). I flew with my wife and daughter to Seattle (domestic). Both on the way there and the way back, my wife and I were "randomly" selected for the pre-check line (less intrusive scanning). Bizarrely, my daughter, who was travelling with us on the same booking, was not selected for pre-check for either flight.
We did see the airline employees (and police) politely telling someone that, no, they could not take their loaded speargun on the flight with them as hand baggage.
While those researchers are still at CMU, that should be "we won't be sharing any details of zero day vulnerabilities or other interesting research with anyone at CMU"
So, secret laws, then?
Of course you can be transparent -- about the process. Individual cases, yes, people understand that those details may need to be secret, but not the process. Otherwise people might think that there are secret laws in use here.
If only it were just the private sector... Public sector prison guards have powerful lobbying through their unions.
He includes Perl as a language that has both symbolic and mnemonic operators, and says that functionally they are equivalent, but this isn't really correct. In Perl, for example, "==" is not the same as "eq": one is a numeric comparison, the other is a string comparison and for consistent results the correct operator must be used.
What terrorists? There have been well-publicised cases where people have breached airport perimeters. If there were any serious terrorists, they would have planted a bomb on a plane, or, an even better target, the queue for the security check.
We should put the threat into context. How many people die every year in traffic accidents? How many people die because of lack of access to affordable healthcare? More lives could be saved through access to healthcare, support for the homeless, etc. than through the vast spending on "security".
No, the spending on security is really just spending on keeping the security apparatus in place. It's the self-sustaining and self-justifying military-industrial-intelligence complex.
Well, to be fair, CO2 emissions of the affected TDI models is probably lower in real life usage than on the test.
You know AMD doesn't own chip fabs, right? They were spun out into Global Foundries.
But you are right about the cost of designing a new chip. I would expect the cost to design, validate, manufacture a competitive x86 chip is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars.