That's not how Apple development works. You code to their API using their dev tools and their compiler, and they will take care of it for you.
It sounds wild, but look at their history.
Apps built on Cocoa only needed a recompile to run on the new CPU arch when they switched to x86. Carbon-based apps could be a little more involved because it was their older API.
Yes, they had Rosetta, but that was only to translate unsupported legacy applications.
Actually, their whole migration to x86 impressed me more than the iPhone ever has.
It's pretty clear that with the invention of aircraft, we needed to revise the way we handle real estate.
Either you make it uniform and hand regulatory authority over to a federal agency, or you have a hodge-podge of state and local laws which make modern aviation either outright impossible or extremely burdensome.
Neither air travel nor deep mining were available technologies at the time the Constitution was written; to claim that the Constitution has some clear guidance on the matter is disingenuous at best.
The Supreme Court agreed with the nationwide "easement" that established regulated air space. I.e., the body explicitly granted the power to interpret the Constitution decided that the FAA was legally granted the authority to regulate national air space. That is the end of the discussion unless you wish to amend the Constitution further.
The US went chip & signature instead of chip & PIN, so the entire change is basically meaningless.
The US chips will be cracked in a matter of a months, maybe a more, and we gain almost nothing.
The chip & PIN system uses PKI and only communicates with the payment transaction system when the authorized user provides the PIN. Sure, you could have a rogue retailer push transactions in excess of what the buyer thought he was paying, but that will be caught and prosecuted swiftly.
The US system has no real authentication of the card user since (a) no one checks the signature to begin with, (b) most users leave an unintelligible scrawl, and (c) no retailer has a full-time handwriting expert on staff.
We finally had a good push to revamp the payment card infrastructure, and they totally blew it.
The way they're talking about replacement cost, it only really makes sense if they're talking about building again from scratch.
I assume existing applications would be developed to add all the lost functionality. If that's the game---a more practical take on "replacement" of the open source code---then you have to include integration and testing costs. Plus any opportunity costs for "lost" functionality that was not deemed worth reimplementing---because some things are very hard to do well, and the next developer might not bother unless there is overwhelming demand for it.
So even if you setup different goalposts compared to what the study examined, it's still going to be expensive. The only difference is there's just no widely-established standard for estimating how expensive.
You're asking a question without understanding the basic economics. Car batteries are in the $10K+ range. That is for the cheapest ones, and the price scales with capacity.
Yes, seriously, it's like 1/3 of the cost of the car for all-electric vehicles.
So they basically dump the ICE and some parts of the transmission. But they still had to do a lot of work to get a high-performance transmission working (so I assume that's not cheap), and they need a very heavy and expensive battery.
Just out of curiosity, were you bothered by the tax breaks that Escalade owners used to get?
People were pissed about the Escalade/Hummer tax breaks because it was blatant abuse---it was intended for business that required special vehicles to operate. Likewise, people were happy when the loophole was closed.
The credit for electrical vehicles it deliberately targeted at the consumer/commuter market to encourage adoption there.
I actually prefer the tax credit as a means of promoting new tech. Compared to government loans and other subsidies, the buyer's credit only encourages the companies which bring a compelling product to market. If your company makes a crap product that no one buys, you shouldn't get anything out of the government.
Maybe... unless gas prices stay low and perhaps get lower.
Historically, that does not happen. (At least not over the long term, which is the timeframe implied by vehicle ownership.)
While the strict value proposition of electrical vehicles is somewhat debatable at present, let's not pretend it's going to get any better.
I fully expect gas-guzzlers to be dinosaurs in my lifetime. I'm not sure if my next car will be electric, but I hope the durability of my current vehicle and the advances in battery tech make it so.
Since most companies would either develop proprietary solutions or buy at a substantial markup from an establish publisher, the actual cost to replace all that software would be much, much higher. And if an established organization offers a replacement, it will likely have competitors---which again gives a duplication of effort, even if it is much smaller duplication than proprietary redevelopment of the functionality. This is not addressed at all in the paper.
They do acknowledge that failed or superseded code is not included in their analysis, and there was certainly developer time spent on code that is not a part of the project, either because it was culled or never made the cut to begin with.
Given both of those factors, the $5 billion figure is a very low best-case value. The practical cost of replacement would be monumentally higher once the mundane practicalities come into play.
In the US, the mineral rights (and other natural resources) are often part of the real estate. Some places have legally segregated such rights from the surface estate, but they are still both considered property rights---which implies ownership.
The Outer Space Treaty says no one can own the Moon or other celestial bodies.
Since the way that the US handles natural resources implies ownership, it is a contradiction. And since treaties are second only to the Constitution in the US, it does seem that mining space is illegal for US-registered spacecraft.
If other countries have different laws, then they may have a loophole. But this is a facet of common law, so other countries will be in a similar conundrum. This treaty is about 50 years old; maybe it's time to revise it.
If the original article can't even write an accurate headline, what hope is there for Slashdot editors to do better? Based on past performance, I doubt they even read the articles they post.
As usual, the lack of government regulation has led the US to develop a system of proprietary fiefdoms.
There are several ATM networks, and there is generally a charge if your bank is not part of the network owning the ATM.
All American banks participate in the ACH, which is apparently behind the curve compared to your current system. We have nothing in the pipe for instantaneous transfers either. (We emulate instantaneous transfers with pre-approvals and floating funds.) The ACH is a 1980s-era relic that ought to have been replaced or redesigned at least twice by now.
The e-invoice system sounds amazing---the US will never have that. The banks have no interest in making your funds directly manageable, and the federal government has shown no interest in requiring them to do so.
I'm not sure how they can't decrypt them, since iMessages are synced quickly and easily across all devices that share the same Apple ID (if you want them to), so you'd just assume that since Apple knows your ID it would be able to decrypt the messages themselves that clearly pass through their servers.
Since you can sync PGP-encrypted emails across devices, they didn't need to invent anything new.
Even PFS has been around for a while, so each message could be encrypted with a different session key if they implemented that.
Encrypting text messages is no different than emails---you're just sending the message to a phone# or Apple ID instead of an email address.
One decent example of capitalism at work: the cable companies are reeling because they are losing revenue due to the "cord-cutters"
Cord-cutters are only able to cancel their cable TV service because they can receive video service over the internet. Every cutter, myself included, still watches videos for entertainment---just in a different format, on a different device, over a different connection.
This option doesn't apply to internet connectivity. If your landline service is inadequate, the performance and price of cellular and satellite services aren't likely to be any better. There is no alternative channel for receiving internet connectivity like there is for video content.
In short, the advent of the internet made TV cord-cutting possible. We would need something new for ISP cord-cutting to be appealing, and I know of nothing in existence or under development with that potential.
So, private companies, in their greedy quest for the almighty buck, did not see this as a profit-opportunity.
This is not necessarily true. Even large companies have limits.
If you have the manpower and equipment to upgrade 5 service regions annually, and Bumfuck, IN is the 28th most profitable region to upgrade, then the residents of Bumfuck will be waiting a long time. It is often the case that several possible actions are profitable, and so a company does what is *most* profitable.
And nevermind the fact that most areas have a monopoly or duopoly on ISPs, which means little or no competition and therefore little return on investments in infrastructure. The municipal authorities cannot fix that problem, but they can introduce a baseline service to create some pressure.
If the incumbent ISPs believe they can offer better, then maybe they will finally have a strong financial incentive to do so. If they cannot offer better than municipal governments, let them go bankrupt.
Social sites need to know your identity in order to show any content, most sites offering customization that users typically end up using, and many sites have forums and other interactive content.
The default should give most people what they need. Savvy users will allow tracking on some sites and not others---which requires manual configuration regardless of the defaults. So the default DNT setting effectively decides whether configuration is required by all users or some smaller subset of users.
With DNT disabled by default, a sizable majority of people will not need to reconfigure the product. Isn't that one of the primary reasons for making an option the default? Especially if a product is intended to be user-friendly.
While having DNT disabled by default is certainly not the most privacy-conscious option, it is the correct choice for mainstream browsers.
There are GPO settings to configure it, so it takes a domain admin maybe 5-10 minutes to log in and disable it globally. No scripting or registry hacks required.
It also states that sponsored links shown in search results are dependent on the amount of advertising funds Google receives from its clients. Ecommerce portal Flipkart noted that it found search results to have a direct correlation with the amount of money it spent on advertising with Google.
So sponsoring a link with more money gets it shown more frequently? Are they complaining about this?
It sounds like what they should expect---maybe even get in writing---when they give Google money.
The service is probably configured to restart on failure. This is why you don't terminate services from Task Manager. Killing the process there means it will not exit cleanly, which causes the service controller to interpret it as failed---and respond accordingly.
Either use the UI management console (services.msc) or the command line (net stop SERVICENAME).
If you insist on killing services using the wrong tool, you should set those services to "Take No Action" on first/second/subsequent failures in the service management console. There may still be events logged for abnormal termination, but the service controller will no longer restart the service.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not how Apple development works. You code to their API using their dev tools and their compiler, and they will take care of it for you.
It sounds wild, but look at their history.
Apps built on Cocoa only needed a recompile to run on the new CPU arch when they switched to x86. Carbon-based apps could be a little more involved because it was their older API.
Yes, they had Rosetta, but that was only to translate unsupported legacy applications.
Actually, their whole migration to x86 impressed me more than the iPhone ever has.
Such clauses are likely to be deemed unconscionable and thus unenforceable.
It's pretty clear that with the invention of aircraft, we needed to revise the way we handle real estate.
Either you make it uniform and hand regulatory authority over to a federal agency, or you have a hodge-podge of state and local laws which make modern aviation either outright impossible or extremely burdensome.
Neither air travel nor deep mining were available technologies at the time the Constitution was written; to claim that the Constitution has some clear guidance on the matter is disingenuous at best.
The Supreme Court agreed with the nationwide "easement" that established regulated air space. I.e., the body explicitly granted the power to interpret the Constitution decided that the FAA was legally granted the authority to regulate national air space. That is the end of the discussion unless you wish to amend the Constitution further.
Go be an armchair lawyer somewhere else.
Except selling a domain like that is explicitly against the rules and will result in you losing the domain.
Refer to section 4.b. i-iv in https://www.icann.org/resource...
Also note the date of the policy; this is not a new thing.
The US went chip & signature instead of chip & PIN, so the entire change is basically meaningless.
The US chips will be cracked in a matter of a months, maybe a more, and we gain almost nothing.
The chip & PIN system uses PKI and only communicates with the payment transaction system when the authorized user provides the PIN. Sure, you could have a rogue retailer push transactions in excess of what the buyer thought he was paying, but that will be caught and prosecuted swiftly.
The US system has no real authentication of the card user since (a) no one checks the signature to begin with, (b) most users leave an unintelligible scrawl, and (c) no retailer has a full-time handwriting expert on staff.
We finally had a good push to revamp the payment card infrastructure, and they totally blew it.
Did you read the article?
The way they're talking about replacement cost, it only really makes sense if they're talking about building again from scratch.
I assume existing applications would be developed to add all the lost functionality. If that's the game---a more practical take on "replacement" of the open source code---then you have to include integration and testing costs. Plus any opportunity costs for "lost" functionality that was not deemed worth reimplementing---because some things are very hard to do well, and the next developer might not bother unless there is overwhelming demand for it.
So even if you setup different goalposts compared to what the study examined, it's still going to be expensive. The only difference is there's just no widely-established standard for estimating how expensive.
You can fill it in with complete bunk.
Maybe if they see enough downloads from Mr ABC DEF at abc@def.com they will realize no one is interested in providing them personal information.
You're asking a question without understanding the basic economics. Car batteries are in the $10K+ range. That is for the cheapest ones, and the price scales with capacity.
Yes, seriously, it's like 1/3 of the cost of the car for all-electric vehicles.
So they basically dump the ICE and some parts of the transmission. But they still had to do a lot of work to get a high-performance transmission working (so I assume that's not cheap), and they need a very heavy and expensive battery.
Just out of curiosity, were you bothered by the tax breaks that Escalade owners used to get?
People were pissed about the Escalade/Hummer tax breaks because it was blatant abuse---it was intended for business that required special vehicles to operate. Likewise, people were happy when the loophole was closed.
The credit for electrical vehicles it deliberately targeted at the consumer/commuter market to encourage adoption there.
I actually prefer the tax credit as a means of promoting new tech. Compared to government loans and other subsidies, the buyer's credit only encourages the companies which bring a compelling product to market. If your company makes a crap product that no one buys, you shouldn't get anything out of the government.
Maybe... unless gas prices stay low and perhaps get lower.
Historically, that does not happen. (At least not over the long term, which is the timeframe implied by vehicle ownership.)
While the strict value proposition of electrical vehicles is somewhat debatable at present, let's not pretend it's going to get any better.
I fully expect gas-guzzlers to be dinosaurs in my lifetime. I'm not sure if my next car will be electric, but I hope the durability of my current vehicle and the advances in battery tech make it so.
Since most companies would either develop proprietary solutions or buy at a substantial markup from an establish publisher, the actual cost to replace all that software would be much, much higher. And if an established organization offers a replacement, it will likely have competitors---which again gives a duplication of effort, even if it is much smaller duplication than proprietary redevelopment of the functionality. This is not addressed at all in the paper.
They do acknowledge that failed or superseded code is not included in their analysis, and there was certainly developer time spent on code that is not a part of the project, either because it was culled or never made the cut to begin with.
Given both of those factors, the $5 billion figure is a very low best-case value. The practical cost of replacement would be monumentally higher once the mundane practicalities come into play.
In the US, the mineral rights (and other natural resources) are often part of the real estate. Some places have legally segregated such rights from the surface estate, but they are still both considered property rights---which implies ownership.
The Outer Space Treaty says no one can own the Moon or other celestial bodies.
Since the way that the US handles natural resources implies ownership, it is a contradiction. And since treaties are second only to the Constitution in the US, it does seem that mining space is illegal for US-registered spacecraft.
If other countries have different laws, then they may have a loophole. But this is a facet of common law, so other countries will be in a similar conundrum. This treaty is about 50 years old; maybe it's time to revise it.
They don't "free up" IPv4 addresses and then hand them out. Those addresses are auctioned.
So, yes, I do see them helping out. For a price.
Right now, IPv4 addresses sell for maybe $10 each. Not exactly profitable to rearchitect a network just yet.
But if you're going to do it anyway, or if the price goes up over time---of course you'll sell off what you don't need.
If the original article can't even write an accurate headline, what hope is there for Slashdot editors to do better? Based on past performance, I doubt they even read the articles they post.
Aside from the fact that copyright infringement is categorically not theft, good point.
Actually, since your entire point was equivocating infringement with theft, it was a terrible point. My mistake.
And then the Irish government tells them to piss off. Of course they're not going to do that. It would be a waste of time.
They want the data---even better if it sets a precedent that gives them more access in the future.
It's a long shot, but why not go for it? It only costs tax dollars. /s
As usual, the lack of government regulation has led the US to develop a system of proprietary fiefdoms.
There are several ATM networks, and there is generally a charge if your bank is not part of the network owning the ATM.
All American banks participate in the ACH, which is apparently behind the curve compared to your current system. We have nothing in the pipe for instantaneous transfers either. (We emulate instantaneous transfers with pre-approvals and floating funds.) The ACH is a 1980s-era relic that ought to have been replaced or redesigned at least twice by now.
The e-invoice system sounds amazing---the US will never have that. The banks have no interest in making your funds directly manageable, and the federal government has shown no interest in requiring them to do so.
Steam already has a backup/restore feature.
The only thing I'm not sure about is restoring to a new Steam installation, which presumably will not be capable of authenticating your account.
I have no idea f the account data is part of the backup or is otherwise extricable.
I'm not sure how they can't decrypt them, since iMessages are synced quickly and easily across all devices that share the same Apple ID (if you want them to), so you'd just assume that since Apple knows your ID it would be able to decrypt the messages themselves that clearly pass through their servers.
Since you can sync PGP-encrypted emails across devices, they didn't need to invent anything new.
Even PFS has been around for a while, so each message could be encrypted with a different session key if they implemented that.
Encrypting text messages is no different than emails---you're just sending the message to a phone# or Apple ID instead of an email address.
One decent example of capitalism at work: the cable companies are reeling because they are losing revenue due to the "cord-cutters"
Cord-cutters are only able to cancel their cable TV service because they can receive video service over the internet. Every cutter, myself included, still watches videos for entertainment---just in a different format, on a different device, over a different connection.
This option doesn't apply to internet connectivity. If your landline service is inadequate, the performance and price of cellular and satellite services aren't likely to be any better. There is no alternative channel for receiving internet connectivity like there is for video content.
In short, the advent of the internet made TV cord-cutting possible. We would need something new for ISP cord-cutting to be appealing, and I know of nothing in existence or under development with that potential.
So, private companies, in their greedy quest for the almighty buck, did not see this as a profit-opportunity.
This is not necessarily true. Even large companies have limits.
If you have the manpower and equipment to upgrade 5 service regions annually, and Bumfuck, IN is the 28th most profitable region to upgrade, then the residents of Bumfuck will be waiting a long time. It is often the case that several possible actions are profitable, and so a company does what is *most* profitable.
And nevermind the fact that most areas have a monopoly or duopoly on ISPs, which means little or no competition and therefore little return on investments in infrastructure. The municipal authorities cannot fix that problem, but they can introduce a baseline service to create some pressure.
If the incumbent ISPs believe they can offer better, then maybe they will finally have a strong financial incentive to do so. If they cannot offer better than municipal governments, let them go bankrupt.
Social sites need to know your identity in order to show any content, most sites offering customization that users typically end up using, and many sites have forums and other interactive content.
The default should give most people what they need. Savvy users will allow tracking on some sites and not others---which requires manual configuration regardless of the defaults. So the default DNT setting effectively decides whether configuration is required by all users or some smaller subset of users.
With DNT disabled by default, a sizable majority of people will not need to reconfigure the product. Isn't that one of the primary reasons for making an option the default? Especially if a product is intended to be user-friendly.
While having DNT disabled by default is certainly not the most privacy-conscious option, it is the correct choice for mainstream browsers.
It's not that bad. It's hardly a problem at all.
There are GPO settings to configure it, so it takes a domain admin maybe 5-10 minutes to log in and disable it globally. No scripting or registry hacks required.
It also states that sponsored links shown in search results are dependent on the amount of advertising funds Google receives from its clients. Ecommerce portal Flipkart noted that it found search results to have a direct correlation with the amount of money it spent on advertising with Google.
So sponsoring a link with more money gets it shown more frequently? Are they complaining about this?
It sounds like what they should expect---maybe even get in writing---when they give Google money.
The service is probably configured to restart on failure. This is why you don't terminate services from Task Manager. Killing the process there means it will not exit cleanly, which causes the service controller to interpret it as failed---and respond accordingly.
Either use the UI management console (services.msc) or the command line (net stop SERVICENAME).
If you insist on killing services using the wrong tool, you should set those services to "Take No Action" on first/second/subsequent failures in the service management console. There may still be events logged for abnormal termination, but the service controller will no longer restart the service.