My guess is that management attention is largely on the iPhone and iOS and the Mac gets the sloppy seconds.
That and the new HQ. Apple's chief designer Johnathan Ive has been working on designing the new HQ for the last several years which has taken his primary attention. He handed off his managerial duties to two deputies in the interim and only recently returned to the role. While Ive's work is on overall design and not necessarily the technical details, his design choices have influenced Apple's look and engineering. My guess is that his lieutenants did not have his managerial skills to take over adequately as they are no longer listed with the company.
Yet the Aussies raided him within a few days on "unrelated matters". Sure they did.
Well let's review the facts regarding the raid: Wright told his landlord he was leaving for Australia by December for London but extended his lease to January. He had apparently already began the moving process. So Australia waiting to raid his home and offices any later would have been foolish if they wanted any evidence.
Also The ATO ruled in December 2014 (a year prior to the raid) that cryptocurrency would be treated as an asset for capital gains: "The treatment of bitcoin for tax purposes in Australia has been the subject of considerable debate. The ATO ruled in December 2014 that cryptocurrency should be considered an asset for capital gains tax purposes." So Australia had no reason to raid his home for Bitcoin purposes.
I haven't seen the LN talk but if it's complete nonsense (I would not believe its primary advocate's protests) then he could be completely misunderstanding LN and still not be wrong about Bitcoin economics.
Then you should read or research it more. The original author of Lightning Networks, Joseph Poon, did say that he did not understand Wright's talk in the presentation.
The search for trivially simple answers often leads to foolish conclusions.
And which trivial answers do you object to not understanding? At any time if Wright wishes to publicly show the world he is Satoshi Nakimoto, he can by signing any message. The fact of the matter is that Wright at first claimed he was Nakimoto and then provided underwhelming evidence. When asked to present irrefutable evidence, he then backed down and refused.
Other than the fact that Wright has already claimed he was Nakimoto on many occasions. Also reading more about the situation, to prove that he was Nakimoto, Wright submitted a key signature. The problem was that the key signature provided was identical to one Nakimoto used in a 2009 forum posting. When asked to provide a unique key signature, Wright then refused to provide any more evidence.
According to a Bitcoin developer, Wright signed another message in his presence with what appears to be a private Nakimoto key but there is no recording of the event. It was not broadcast and we only have the word of the developer it happened as no one can verify the message.
Mere by claiming he was Nakimoto, Wright made himself the target of thieves. As for the target of governments, most governments understand the difference between paper wealth and actual wealth. Like stocks and bonds, Wright's Bitcoins are not worth taxing until he sells them.
I have never seen any benchmarks that show that the A11 beats Intel CPUs in pure performance. I've seen benchmarks where the A11 beats the Core processors in performance per watt which is more about efficiency.
I don't profess to understand Bitcoin completely but I thought Nakimoto owned a large number of coins that have never been spent. Since part of the system relies on assymetric key cryptography he could verify ownership by using Nakimoto's private key to sign something which the public key could verify. Also naming which his coins which the block chain could shown have never been spent. Sure it is possible Wright somehow stole or gained Nakimoto's key but ownership/knowledge of a private key is tantamount to ownership in the Bitcoin world.
I am surprised by the time estimate. Five years? Maybe. Two years: I don't think they are ready for that. Their Ax CPUs are good enough to power mobile devices and their small electronics like the AppleTV and the HomePod. I don't think they are ready for laptops and desktops yet.
ts only a little place. Any jammer which could cut Assange of 100% would affect coverage in the street, and probably be against local laws.
That relies on the notion that someone setting up a cell phone jammer never assessing the range, effectiveness, or selectivity of jamming or blocking methods.
and probably be against local laws.People rely on cell phones for safety.
And whose laws would be broken? First of all it would be Ecuador's laws that are in play and second, many government buildings around the world block and jam cell phone signals. How do you think they get around these laws unless there are granted clear exceptions. For example, I would guarantee you that you can't get a cell phone signal inside the NSA or FBI or CIA headquarters in the US. I would also guarantee you that can't get a cell phone signal inside the MI6 building in London. I would think various embassies around the world ensure that wifi/cell phone signals are blocked for security reasons.
From my viewpoint, Windows 10 still isn't quite ready in terms of the MS strategy to unify tablet and desktop interfaces. It is better than 8 in this regard. However, the disdain for Windows 10 isn't because people dislike it. Rather they disliked the various methods that MS employed to force Windows 10 onto people.
And I will say this once again: something being an alleged "human right" does not mean that the government of Ecuador must provide it to you.
According to you it's a human right. According to you. The UN doesn't recognize it. Ecuador doesn't recognize it. Even for Finland it's a proposal.
They are quite within their rights to deny anyone access to the internet service they have within their embassy whether you think "internet" is a human right or not. Or whether this "Progressive Humanity" thing thinks it is a human right.
By that logic, any coffee shop that doesn't have wifi is violating your human rights. Does that even remotely sound silly to you?
The distinction you are trying to make is without difference. Unless you are going to claim, that ownership of one's dwelling is required to exercise that right I cited. Be careful with your answer, because such a requirement would disqualify about 30% of Finns [tradingeconomics.com], for example.
Again do you understand what the term "guest" is? Because if you don't that means that you can go to someone else's house and start demanding rights? That is utterly ridiculous. Also your link is about Finland. You do know Finland is neither the UK nor Ecuador right? Again you do understand what sovereignty is right?
So what you're saying is that embassies don't understand what a Faraday cage is. Or that cell jamming technology doesn't exist. I'm not talking about Star Trek level technologies here.
This is a common myth. An embassy is not treated in law as part of the sending state. Rather, the privileges enjoyed by an embassy and its personnel are only those provided by the receiving state's laws implementing the Vienna Convention; outside of the privileges that the Vienna Convention provides, the receiving state's laws still apply, and the land still remains part of the receiving state's territory.
Can Julian Assange install a new internet connection inside the embassy for his use? The answer is not without the permission of Ecuador who does not seem agreeable to it.
Maybe just an optical link to a cell data connection on the balcony? It's expensive, so they'd have to sell some buttcoins.
And again, the government of Ecuador won't mind that he's breaching security of their sovereign territory at all? I don't doubt there are technical solutions to this; I seriously do not think Ecuador will allow any of them.
He's had a private home inside Equador's government facility for years! The distinction you listed is without difference.
I think you are confusing that he's LIVED in a residence inside an Ecuadorian government facility with that he OWNS a private residence inside an Ecuadorian government. Living there means he's a guest. But let's go with your presumption:A citizen of another country can own property inside Ecuador's embassy. That sounds extremely silly to me.
If, as Progressive Humanity claims, Internet access is a human right, no one can be deprived of it without due process.
I forget, is Progressive Humanity in any way associated with the government of Ecuador? No. So your point then is?
So, why is Mr. Assange losing his — without the said Progressive Humanity protesting?..
No Mr. Assange is an asshole who couldn't abide with agreements he made. Remember he made a previous agreement with Ecuador concerning his usage of their Internet. He appears to violate the agreement.
Sure. He can just contact any ISP he wants to have one installed what is considered sovereign territory of Ecuador. The country won't mind. Also all ISPs would love to get entangled in an international incident.
Internet access is a human right in someone's private home in that article. It is not a right in a government facility or a private business. In this case there are security concerns of free and open internet inside an embassy.
He is a guest in someone else's place. He was told what the rules were for a guest and failed to abide. If you were a guest in my home and I said you couldn't use my wifi to download porn, am I curtailing your free speech? The difference is you can leave as you the local authorities are not waiting for you outside to arrest you.
The article is light on details on the specifics but he was warned previously not to do it and he apparently violated it.
No I just think he doesn't understand that house arrest entails a lack of choices. For example I'm sure that Ecuador like all countries make sure that there is wifi security at their embassies. No rogue signals and the official wifi is secured. Also it's not like Assange could order up a different ISP to install something at the embassy.
I would think that in the UK they use surveillance to keep an eye on people. Will he be arrested the minute he leaves? Probably not. But unless he somehow can get to another embassy or country before they pick him up, he's stuck at the embassy.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that management attention is largely on the iPhone and iOS and the Mac gets the sloppy seconds.
That and the new HQ. Apple's chief designer Johnathan Ive has been working on designing the new HQ for the last several years which has taken his primary attention. He handed off his managerial duties to two deputies in the interim and only recently returned to the role. While Ive's work is on overall design and not necessarily the technical details, his design choices have influenced Apple's look and engineering. My guess is that his lieutenants did not have his managerial skills to take over adequately as they are no longer listed with the company.
Yet the Aussies raided him within a few days on "unrelated matters". Sure they did.
Well let's review the facts regarding the raid: Wright told his landlord he was leaving for Australia by December for London but extended his lease to January. He had apparently already began the moving process. So Australia waiting to raid his home and offices any later would have been foolish if they wanted any evidence.
Also The ATO ruled in December 2014 (a year prior to the raid) that cryptocurrency would be treated as an asset for capital gains: "The treatment of bitcoin for tax purposes in Australia has been the subject of considerable debate. The ATO ruled in December 2014 that cryptocurrency should be considered an asset for capital gains tax purposes." So Australia had no reason to raid his home for Bitcoin purposes.
I haven't seen the LN talk but if it's complete nonsense (I would not believe its primary advocate's protests) then he could be completely misunderstanding LN and still not be wrong about Bitcoin economics.
Then you should read or research it more. The original author of Lightning Networks, Joseph Poon, did say that he did not understand Wright's talk in the presentation.
The search for trivially simple answers often leads to foolish conclusions.
And which trivial answers do you object to not understanding? At any time if Wright wishes to publicly show the world he is Satoshi Nakimoto, he can by signing any message. The fact of the matter is that Wright at first claimed he was Nakimoto and then provided underwhelming evidence. When asked to present irrefutable evidence, he then backed down and refused.
Other than the fact that Wright has already claimed he was Nakimoto on many occasions. Also reading more about the situation, to prove that he was Nakimoto, Wright submitted a key signature. The problem was that the key signature provided was identical to one Nakimoto used in a 2009 forum posting. When asked to provide a unique key signature, Wright then refused to provide any more evidence.
According to a Bitcoin developer, Wright signed another message in his presence with what appears to be a private Nakimoto key but there is no recording of the event. It was not broadcast and we only have the word of the developer it happened as no one can verify the message.
Mere by claiming he was Nakimoto, Wright made himself the target of thieves. As for the target of governments, most governments understand the difference between paper wealth and actual wealth. Like stocks and bonds, Wright's Bitcoins are not worth taxing until he sells them.
I have never seen any benchmarks that show that the A11 beats Intel CPUs in pure performance. I've seen benchmarks where the A11 beats the Core processors in performance per watt which is more about efficiency.
He doesn't have to even do that. Using the private key, Wright could sign a message that the public key would verify.
I don't profess to understand Bitcoin completely but I thought Nakimoto owned a large number of coins that have never been spent. Since part of the system relies on assymetric key cryptography he could verify ownership by using Nakimoto's private key to sign something which the public key could verify. Also naming which his coins which the block chain could shown have never been spent. Sure it is possible Wright somehow stole or gained Nakimoto's key but ownership/knowledge of a private key is tantamount to ownership in the Bitcoin world.
I am surprised by the time estimate. Five years? Maybe. Two years: I don't think they are ready for that. Their Ax CPUs are good enough to power mobile devices and their small electronics like the AppleTV and the HomePod. I don't think they are ready for laptops and desktops yet.
ts only a little place. Any jammer which could cut Assange of 100% would affect coverage in the street, and probably be against local laws.
That relies on the notion that someone setting up a cell phone jammer never assessing the range, effectiveness, or selectivity of jamming or blocking methods.
and probably be against local laws.People rely on cell phones for safety.
And whose laws would be broken? First of all it would be Ecuador's laws that are in play and second, many government buildings around the world block and jam cell phone signals. How do you think they get around these laws unless there are granted clear exceptions. For example, I would guarantee you that you can't get a cell phone signal inside the NSA or FBI or CIA headquarters in the US. I would also guarantee you that can't get a cell phone signal inside the MI6 building in London. I would think various embassies around the world ensure that wifi/cell phone signals are blocked for security reasons.
I accidentally left out the word: "only". However, the disdain for Windows 10 isn't only because people dislike it.
From my viewpoint, Windows 10 still isn't quite ready in terms of the MS strategy to unify tablet and desktop interfaces. It is better than 8 in this regard. However, the disdain for Windows 10 isn't because people dislike it. Rather they disliked the various methods that MS employed to force Windows 10 onto people.
It might just be time for new people. He was there 21 years so it might just be time for him to go.
I believe that inside an embassy is a good use case for cell phone jammers.
And I will say this once again: something being an alleged "human right" does not mean that the government of Ecuador must provide it to you.
According to you it's a human right. According to you. The UN doesn't recognize it. Ecuador doesn't recognize it. Even for Finland it's a proposal.
They are quite within their rights to deny anyone access to the internet service they have within their embassy whether you think "internet" is a human right or not. Or whether this "Progressive Humanity" thing thinks it is a human right.
By that logic, any coffee shop that doesn't have wifi is violating your human rights. Does that even remotely sound silly to you?
The distinction you are trying to make is without difference. Unless you are going to claim, that ownership of one's dwelling is required to exercise that right I cited. Be careful with your answer, because such a requirement would disqualify about 30% of Finns [tradingeconomics.com], for example.
Again do you understand what the term "guest" is? Because if you don't that means that you can go to someone else's house and start demanding rights? That is utterly ridiculous. Also your link is about Finland. You do know Finland is neither the UK nor Ecuador right? Again you do understand what sovereignty is right?
So what you're saying is that embassies don't understand what a Faraday cage is. Or that cell jamming technology doesn't exist. I'm not talking about Star Trek level technologies here.
This is a common myth. An embassy is not treated in law as part of the sending state. Rather, the privileges enjoyed by an embassy and its personnel are only those provided by the receiving state's laws implementing the Vienna Convention; outside of the privileges that the Vienna Convention provides, the receiving state's laws still apply, and the land still remains part of the receiving state's territory.
Can Julian Assange install a new internet connection inside the embassy for his use? The answer is not without the permission of Ecuador who does not seem agreeable to it.
Maybe just an optical link to a cell data connection on the balcony? It's expensive, so they'd have to sell some buttcoins.
And again, the government of Ecuador won't mind that he's breaching security of their sovereign territory at all? I don't doubt there are technical solutions to this; I seriously do not think Ecuador will allow any of them.
He's had a private home inside Equador's government facility for years! The distinction you listed is without difference.
I think you are confusing that he's LIVED in a residence inside an Ecuadorian government facility with that he OWNS a private residence inside an Ecuadorian government. Living there means he's a guest. But let's go with your presumption:A citizen of another country can own property inside Ecuador's embassy. That sounds extremely silly to me.
If, as Progressive Humanity claims, Internet access is a human right, no one can be deprived of it without due process.
I forget, is Progressive Humanity in any way associated with the government of Ecuador? No. So your point then is?
So, why is Mr. Assange losing his — without the said Progressive Humanity protesting?..
No Mr. Assange is an asshole who couldn't abide with agreements he made. Remember he made a previous agreement with Ecuador concerning his usage of their Internet. He appears to violate the agreement.
Sure. He can just contact any ISP he wants to have one installed what is considered sovereign territory of Ecuador. The country won't mind. Also all ISPs would love to get entangled in an international incident.
Also he's inside a government facility which might have additional security concerns and regulations.
Internet access is a human right in someone's private home in that article. It is not a right in a government facility or a private business. In this case there are security concerns of free and open internet inside an embassy.
Unlikely. I'm pretty sure that most embassies employ various methods to prevent unauthorized wifi signals from penetrating the embassy.
He is a guest in someone else's place. He was told what the rules were for a guest and failed to abide. If you were a guest in my home and I said you couldn't use my wifi to download porn, am I curtailing your free speech? The difference is you can leave as you the local authorities are not waiting for you outside to arrest you.
The article is light on details on the specifics but he was warned previously not to do it and he apparently violated it.
No I just think he doesn't understand that house arrest entails a lack of choices. For example I'm sure that Ecuador like all countries make sure that there is wifi security at their embassies. No rogue signals and the official wifi is secured. Also it's not like Assange could order up a different ISP to install something at the embassy.
I would think that in the UK they use surveillance to keep an eye on people. Will he be arrested the minute he leaves? Probably not. But unless he somehow can get to another embassy or country before they pick him up, he's stuck at the embassy.