This whole thing is about profit. The really isn't anything complicated about it. The mental gymnastics some people go through to justify it really amaze me sometimes though.
Really? The mental gymnastics people go through to make Apple the bad guy on this one are amazing. Facts:
- up to the point where Adobe started really making a stink about it the implementations of flash on smart phones were poor
- flash is a major source of infections on desktop systems due to vulnerabilities endemic in the implementation
- a lot of flash video isn't h264 and would be expensive to decode on an iphone, significantly reducing battery life
- Apple has been pushing HTML5 as a way to create web applications that will not only work on desktop systems, but mobile devices such as the iphone -- web applications over which Apple has no control
- Adobe has pushed Apple around in the past, limiting what they can do with their own APIs due to the importance of Adobe applications on the Apple desktop
The mental contortions people go through to insist on believing that Apple wants control over web applications on the iphone are ludicrous. Apple has good reasons to keep flash off the iphone. Yes, one of the reasons is control (particularly as pertains to app store apps), but it isn't a revenue stream control as much as a freedom to change their APIs and hardware at their pace. Another reason is that Apple knows full well who will be blamed if web browsing causes the battery to drain noticeably faster (after all, they take advantage of this on the other end of the stick).
First, you are making a vague statement that implies more than it says. How many are "many people"? To answer your rhetorical question with which you start off with: because generally speaking Apple isn't doing what others allege. "Many people" are smart enough to not be taken in by publicity seekers.
Apparently you believe everything bad anyone says about Apple. The majority (if not the vast majority) of these "app store approval sucks" are mediocre apps trying to get some free publicity. I'm not commenting on this particular one as I've not looked at it. I wish I could remember the app name, but there was one that put in an interpreter, got caught, made a stink about it, removed the interpreter and it passed.
And then there are all the fabrications posted about Apple (such as them not "giving back" to open source). It conditions people to take new statements with a grain of salt.
Now, if you complained that no one seems to know or remember Apple's misdeeds (10.6 and text display anyone?) I'd be in agreement. The answer to that is that it rarely affects that many people and, especially in the case I referred to above, they incorrectly blame software vendors for the problem. And such problems are hard to get the general population worked up over because they are kind of abstract or technical. Because Apple feels a need to keep their plans for the future under tight wraps they often jerk developers around (the transition from OS9 to Intel OS X has not been exactly smooth from a developer perspective).
It seems to me that using a web browser to download the bar.dll along with foofile.foo where the user is then going to double click on foofile.foo to open it removes the need for smb/webdav
what are you trying to say? That most windows users pirate their software? (And game companies still manage to make a living?)
Or are you trying to imply that linux users are unethical? That they won't buy software? Put up some meaningful statistics or shutup. There may not be a lot of commercial software for linux and I certainly approve of Free/Open software. But I also buy commercial software if I have a use for it. Hasn't been much (and one was abandoned by the developer years ago), but I *do* buy linux software. And the other linux users I know also buy software (and other "soft" computer products, such as music, background images, etc.).
There is a prevalent belief among some people that "linux users expect everything to be free" and "linux users won't buy commercial software" which in my experience is bunk. That better describes windows users who will pirate everything from the operating system to the office suite to specialty software (CAD, 3D, AV work, etc.).
While there is no doubt that the linux market is smaller and so may not warrant an effort on the part of any particular company to support it, the belief that they won't pay is unsupported and so one would hope that it wouldn't be a make/break factor.
I do have a kid and I see this with other parents. My son has always been encouraged to explore (and wear himself out). He's only 2, but has greater physical capability than some other kids who are older than him -- because those kids' parents are afraid their children will get hurt. When I take a walk with him he goes across the street on his on two feet (although I do have to prevent him from just stepping out, he hasn't quite learned the whole "look both ways" thing yet). A neighbor of ours has two kids, one of which is about 5 -- and is not allowed to cross the street, regardless of adult supervision.
Has he been injured? Yeah, it has happened a couple of times. Seriously injured? No. I try to be present without hovering *too* closely. I (and my wife) moderate his activity (such as running out into the street), but allow and in fact encourage him to be active. It can be a bit nerve-wracking at times (watching climb over empty and half-empty garbage bins that shift and tilt when he was about 1.5 years old) but it is also impressive what he *can* do when allowed. He's been walking on the edge of a concrete embankment since he was able to walk. At first he held a hand and went slowly. Now he trots along without issue. If he'd fallen it would've hurt and he'd've cried, but it wouldn't have been a serious or lasting injury (only about three feet).
My point is, I agree that many parents are over protective. I hurt deeply inside any time he *is* hurt, especially if I feel I should've been able to prevent it. But he hasn't broken any bones and has developed confidence in his abilities because he has proven them. He likes to play video games, but he also likes to play outside.
At the same time, I don't criticize the other parents. I know there are some who take exception to how I raise my son (OMG, he's outside walking without shoes! The world will end!) and as I don't appreciate their attempts at interference I try not to tell others how to raise theirs.
As a related aside: (house) cats are hunters and have a predator urge to hunt prey. They need both stimulation and release to satisfy this drive. This can be worked out through play, such as with a string, but if a cat is cooped up in a house without prey and isn't attended to -- well, it will work things out itself. It *needs* to dig at and claw and attack and bite. Some owners "treat" this behavior by declawing (otherwise known as mutilating -- cutting off their digits at a knuckle is barbaric) the cat. Or you can play with it -- particularly keeping an eye out for when it gets wild eyed and ears back, tensed and ready to pounce at anything.
I don't think the issue is that watching TV or playing video games overstimulates children, rather it is that children need to have good, strenuous physical activity to work out the natural need for it. Although ADHD is very real, I do think it is over diagnosed for a variety of reasons and, for a normal child, putting them on ritalin is the equivalent to declawing the cat. It addresses the behavior, not the underlying cause.
Quid pro quo implies agreement on the terms and some sort of semblance of balance/parity/equity. Whenever you are talking about large organizations (such as governments) it is important to remember that they are made up of numerous individuals. While some members of the government likely feel the deal is worth it, others very much do not.
Try a thought experiment. Say we were concerned about illegal immigrants crossing our long Northern border with Canada and another country, France perhaps, has some technology that will allow us to rapidly identify and permanently detain them. We wish to install this wonderful technology. The thing is, France won't *sell* us the technology, but they will provide it to us if it is completely run by them and they get to run their own security force to protect the installations. Of course, by security force, they mean they want to have airborne units. And just maybe they have top level meetings with the powers that be in our government (closed door, of course) to show them how they have proof that the threat from Canada is even worse than we thought, and how effective their illegal immigrant detention system is.
Even if the top officials in the US think it is a fair trade to have French army units operating in our country just so we can keep the pesky Cannucks at bay I hope you can see how others would not view this as a fair, equitable or even desirable agreement. And there are likely to be many of those holding government positions -- not in a place to change the state of things, but nonetheless unhappy about it.
Although you are technically correct about the progression of classification you are wrong about the importance of secret, that is the domain of TS. Secret consists of what you saw on the news last night, or read in last week's paper.
Secret is handed out to anyone who isn't a convicted felon, or wanted on similar charges. A TS/SCI is superficially more rigorous, but doesn't mean a whole lot more. Mostly that you didn't lie on your paperwork. I knew an (ex) drug dealer who got a TS/SCI clearance. Plenty of people who tried to conceal minor drug usage who didn't.
But that is immaterial to the classification of the material, which is to say that it is *always* classified to the highest extent possible. This hurts dissemination of information to those who need it, goes against the very reason why ultra secret was abandoned, is also blamed (in part) for the failures leading up to 9/11. But it is the way things work. If you mistakenly *under* classify material you are liable for that. If you over classify material, although technically against regulation, there is no negative consequence (to the classifier). It should be obvious why the scheme is broken.
In short, if it was classified secret it wasn't important, the individuals who developed/classified it were unable to classify it to a higher level.
There was a lot of fear talk, but as far as I could tell the gist was that people were getting SMS messages with "scary" wording in them. Whatever.
It did remind me of the SMS bug that Apple fixed a while back (for the record, they are far from alone in having an SMS bug) -- maybe someone has discovered a new bug in SMS? Possibly.
SMS is an afterthought as far as the telcos are concerned, and their only interest is in getting people to pay for it. Consequently there is not even the concept of security in it. SMS simply uses "dead space" in the "ping" messages sent by a tower to a phone. That's it.
I know of at least one US military base that is officially there "at the behest of the local government". The local government has different ideas, depending on which official you ask.
The truthful answer is a bit more complicated, going along the lines of: they don't want us to have a military base in their country, but they *do* want something else and we used that as leverage to force the military base on them.
Saying that base is there "at the behest of the local government" is plain inaccurate. Saying that the local government permitted it under duress would be closer.
Printed books? They don't have space characters, they just have ink on the page. How much space between characters depends on a lot of things like justification, kerning and so on. But if you are reading a typical printed material produced from some electronic document, odds are very good that the original electronic document had one space following the period ending a sentence.
If you are talking about typesetting with lead type -- one space would have been typical (although a typesetter has multiple sizes to use for "spacing" things).
Obviously I don't know what usage numbers are overall, but I can say that on our network when considering only putatively student systems that ~12% are detected as running linux and ~11% as OS X. I was really surprised by linux outstripping OS X until I realized a number of those devices are going to be wireless routers running linux. For the record, ~30% are detected as running Windows (XP, Vista, Win7) and ~40% are undetermined. Results courtesy of nessus.
I so wish that you were actually right. Unfortunately, what is child pornography depends on the jurisdiction, the cops and the judge. I don't feel like googling it at the moment, but likely candidates for examples are Oklahoma and Kentucky.
Let's be considerate of our readers rather than swear allegiance to a rule learnt in our youth.
Which is where all of the "it must be two spaces" adherents come from, it was a rule learned in their youth. People often have a hard time giving up things they learned early.
You are almost correct. The reason that two spaces *used* to be added after a sentence instead of a single space was that typewriters were monospaced. If you use a monospaced font and only use a single space after a period to indicate a sentence it *is* visually ambiguous due to the large amount of extraneous white space between the edges of adjacent characters. So much white space, in fact, that you can often insert a character between two others (I've done this in manuscripts rather than retype a page).
If you are producing a document using a monospaced font then you *should* use two spaces to help the readability of the text. On the other hand if, like most people, you are producing a document with a proportional font then only use one.
In summary: the "rule" about using two spaces after the period ending a sentence was for typewriters and arose because typewriters had a (wide) monospacing.
When I was younger and more juvenile than I am now (hard to believe as that may be) I pranked a computer in a PX. The reason? It was one of those complete systems (Packard Bell? I don't remember) and it advertised a display resolution that was fairly good. Only problem was the monitor it was paired with couldn't handle it (and had a dot pitch of about.7 or.8, fuzziest monitor I can remember seeing). So it was configured to run in a lower resolution, while advertised at the higher.
It was the advertising that really got me so I set the resolution to what the specs said it should be and left. It was corrected of course, so the next day I set it back. I ended up creating a floppy to use for the reset. Kept it up until the system was no longer there. Juvenile? Yeah, that's me.
Don't even bother trying to have a discussion. The Apple haters are out in force, and they want blood. Never mind that a non-Apple analysis found significantly greater signal drop in the worst case and that it provided better reception at equal signal strength, focus on the "greater signal drop" and bash, bash, bash.
(I bash Apple when they are wrong, not just because its fun to join the group think.)
Consider the tower of babel. Most people ("christian" or otherwise) have a rather fanciful interpretation of it.
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
That is supposedly NIV, depending on translation the wording will vary somewhat. Now, many people stop at the obvious point about this answering "why do people speak different languages" but I say it is more import to consider the sixth line. Humanity has the capacity to equal God ("nothing... will be impossible for them"). God confused language because he was afraid of humanity being his equal.
ah, but if the headphone jack breaks for an iPhone that *is* under warranty Apple is likely to deny the claim citing "user damage" and thus not covered. YMMV
Anecdotal: my iPhone has similar breakage (though not the headphone) and they refused to do anything about it. My wife carries her's in her back pocket, and the stress of being sat on eventually resulted in the front glass fracturing quite spectacularly. The same guy on the same visit replaced her iPhone without asking any questions (I dealt with him on both phones).
So while I agree with your premise I don't know that the distinction is at all significant. In any case, I don't expect that the "jail breaking violates warranty" would hold up if challenged. Just, who is going to spend all the money to challenge it over a phone that costs $1000
You aren't familiar with the various authentication mechanisms provided by windows apparently, which can often be used to make unthrottled brute force attacks. Now, if this is an institution then there may/should be an IDS or IPS deployed that can detect or respond to such an attack, but that opens up other cans of worms.
It seems like everyone does digital forensics these days (I'm certified GCFA and do occasional work as part of my job). Key loggers (physical or software) or other malware account for almost all cracked accounts that I know how they got cracked, but I can also tell you that distributed brute force attacks *are* happening. Bring on your IDS or IPS. Either it is ineffectual in stopping the brute force, or you lock the user out of his account. The latter gives a whole new reason to use brute force attacks as a DOS.
Strong passwords for any network-capable authentication is a must if the resource it can access is worth protecting.
I find all of this talk about glossy screens not being usable in sunlight amusing. I had an original macbook pro -- yep, the one with a matte screen. It was alright, though unsurprisingly the expensive monitors on my desktop looked better. I have since replaced the macbook pro -- it might have been at a time when you could choose matte, I don't remember, but I wasn't worried because my wife's macbook, as well as my dad's and my mom's all different versions and all with glossy screens look and work great.
I have a glossy screen on my macbook pro and am not troubled in the slightest by it. I use it indoors and outdoors. I never pay any attention to how I sit or where I'm facing. I write code, work on page layouts, some editing in photoshop, work in a console (often ssh'd elsewhere), play games (hello to steam on mac) and in general use a variety of apps in a variety of environments. I don't get what people are complaining about. The *only* adjustment I've made is I've taken to turning down brightness to help conserve battery life (finally, a laptop with the hours of run time that I got on my first no-hard drive, cga-only, 8088-based laptop, but now with a reasonable hard drive, excellent graphics and a powerful processor: that's progress). In a bright environment I sometimes turn it up from all-but black to around mid-level brightness. Reflections have never been an issue.
incredible! you know the cost of the part! if so, why don't you just buy the part and replace it yourself? I've worked on macbooks (and other laptops) before and it isn't that hard, you just need some patience, a good work area and a reasonable toolset.
I'm guessing that you don't like doing business with Apple and didn't bother to check anything before hand. Like the fact that they require appointments. This may come as a hard concept, but if you take your car in to a dealer for a repair you better get an appointment first or hope that business is very dead for them. And also realize that you will be paying the dealer more than parts + reasonable labor charge.
But it is more fun to whine on slashdot about how you weren't made to feel like a god who just descended from the heavens so they have sucky customer service.
the primary feature? really. Oh, that's right. It turns out the Retina display really *is* so good that at normal viewing distance you can't distinguish pixels. So now something else *has* to be the primary, highly touted feature that isn't real.
moderators: modding this troll doesn't make it not true. I know, it is popular to mod down anything that goes against group think, but you might consider making an exception once in a while.
ah yes, you brought them out (though you aren't modded troll at the moment). Seems people can't grasp the basic conceptual difference: open versus closed market place, only able to yammer that "apple doesn't see the source". Ah well.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole thing is about profit. The really isn't anything complicated about it. The mental gymnastics some people go through to justify it really amaze me sometimes though.
Really? The mental gymnastics people go through to make Apple the bad guy on this one are amazing. Facts:
- up to the point where Adobe started really making a stink about it the implementations of flash on smart phones were poor
- flash is a major source of infections on desktop systems due to vulnerabilities endemic in the implementation
- a lot of flash video isn't h264 and would be expensive to decode on an iphone, significantly reducing battery life
- Apple has been pushing HTML5 as a way to create web applications that will not only work on desktop systems, but mobile devices such as the iphone -- web applications over which Apple has no control
- Adobe has pushed Apple around in the past, limiting what they can do with their own APIs due to the importance of Adobe applications on the Apple desktop
The mental contortions people go through to insist on believing that Apple wants control over web applications on the iphone are ludicrous. Apple has good reasons to keep flash off the iphone. Yes, one of the reasons is control (particularly as pertains to app store apps), but it isn't a revenue stream control as much as a freedom to change their APIs and hardware at their pace. Another reason is that Apple knows full well who will be blamed if web browsing causes the battery to drain noticeably faster (after all, they take advantage of this on the other end of the stick).
First, you are making a vague statement that implies more than it says. How many are "many people"? To answer your rhetorical question with which you start off with: because generally speaking Apple isn't doing what others allege. "Many people" are smart enough to not be taken in by publicity seekers.
Apparently you believe everything bad anyone says about Apple. The majority (if not the vast majority) of these "app store approval sucks" are mediocre apps trying to get some free publicity. I'm not commenting on this particular one as I've not looked at it. I wish I could remember the app name, but there was one that put in an interpreter, got caught, made a stink about it, removed the interpreter and it passed.
And then there are all the fabrications posted about Apple (such as them not "giving back" to open source). It conditions people to take new statements with a grain of salt.
Now, if you complained that no one seems to know or remember Apple's misdeeds (10.6 and text display anyone?) I'd be in agreement. The answer to that is that it rarely affects that many people and, especially in the case I referred to above, they incorrectly blame software vendors for the problem. And such problems are hard to get the general population worked up over because they are kind of abstract or technical. Because Apple feels a need to keep their plans for the future under tight wraps they often jerk developers around (the transition from OS9 to Intel OS X has not been exactly smooth from a developer perspective).
It seems to me that using a web browser to download the bar.dll along with foofile.foo where the user is then going to double click on foofile.foo to open it removes the need for smb/webdav
what are you trying to say? That most windows users pirate their software? (And game companies still manage to make a living?)
Or are you trying to imply that linux users are unethical? That they won't buy software? Put up some meaningful statistics or shutup. There may not be a lot of commercial software for linux and I certainly approve of Free/Open software. But I also buy commercial software if I have a use for it. Hasn't been much (and one was abandoned by the developer years ago), but I *do* buy linux software. And the other linux users I know also buy software (and other "soft" computer products, such as music, background images, etc.).
There is a prevalent belief among some people that "linux users expect everything to be free" and "linux users won't buy commercial software" which in my experience is bunk. That better describes windows users who will pirate everything from the operating system to the office suite to specialty software (CAD, 3D, AV work, etc.).
While there is no doubt that the linux market is smaller and so may not warrant an effort on the part of any particular company to support it, the belief that they won't pay is unsupported and so one would hope that it wouldn't be a make/break factor.
I do have a kid and I see this with other parents. My son has always been encouraged to explore (and wear himself out). He's only 2, but has greater physical capability than some other kids who are older than him -- because those kids' parents are afraid their children will get hurt. When I take a walk with him he goes across the street on his on two feet (although I do have to prevent him from just stepping out, he hasn't quite learned the whole "look both ways" thing yet). A neighbor of ours has two kids, one of which is about 5 -- and is not allowed to cross the street, regardless of adult supervision.
Has he been injured? Yeah, it has happened a couple of times. Seriously injured? No. I try to be present without hovering *too* closely. I (and my wife) moderate his activity (such as running out into the street), but allow and in fact encourage him to be active. It can be a bit nerve-wracking at times (watching climb over empty and half-empty garbage bins that shift and tilt when he was about 1.5 years old) but it is also impressive what he *can* do when allowed. He's been walking on the edge of a concrete embankment since he was able to walk. At first he held a hand and went slowly. Now he trots along without issue. If he'd fallen it would've hurt and he'd've cried, but it wouldn't have been a serious or lasting injury (only about three feet).
My point is, I agree that many parents are over protective. I hurt deeply inside any time he *is* hurt, especially if I feel I should've been able to prevent it. But he hasn't broken any bones and has developed confidence in his abilities because he has proven them. He likes to play video games, but he also likes to play outside.
At the same time, I don't criticize the other parents. I know there are some who take exception to how I raise my son (OMG, he's outside walking without shoes! The world will end!) and as I don't appreciate their attempts at interference I try not to tell others how to raise theirs.
As a related aside: (house) cats are hunters and have a predator urge to hunt prey. They need both stimulation and release to satisfy this drive. This can be worked out through play, such as with a string, but if a cat is cooped up in a house without prey and isn't attended to -- well, it will work things out itself. It *needs* to dig at and claw and attack and bite. Some owners "treat" this behavior by declawing (otherwise known as mutilating -- cutting off their digits at a knuckle is barbaric) the cat. Or you can play with it -- particularly keeping an eye out for when it gets wild eyed and ears back, tensed and ready to pounce at anything.
I don't think the issue is that watching TV or playing video games overstimulates children, rather it is that children need to have good, strenuous physical activity to work out the natural need for it. Although ADHD is very real, I do think it is over diagnosed for a variety of reasons and, for a normal child, putting them on ritalin is the equivalent to declawing the cat. It addresses the behavior, not the underlying cause.
thoromyr
Quid pro quo implies agreement on the terms and some sort of semblance of balance/parity/equity. Whenever you are talking about large organizations (such as governments) it is important to remember that they are made up of numerous individuals. While some members of the government likely feel the deal is worth it, others very much do not.
Try a thought experiment. Say we were concerned about illegal immigrants crossing our long Northern border with Canada and another country, France perhaps, has some technology that will allow us to rapidly identify and permanently detain them. We wish to install this wonderful technology. The thing is, France won't *sell* us the technology, but they will provide it to us if it is completely run by them and they get to run their own security force to protect the installations. Of course, by security force, they mean they want to have airborne units. And just maybe they have top level meetings with the powers that be in our government (closed door, of course) to show them how they have proof that the threat from Canada is even worse than we thought, and how effective their illegal immigrant detention system is.
Even if the top officials in the US think it is a fair trade to have French army units operating in our country just so we can keep the pesky Cannucks at bay I hope you can see how others would not view this as a fair, equitable or even desirable agreement. And there are likely to be many of those holding government positions -- not in a place to change the state of things, but nonetheless unhappy about it.
thoromyr
Although you are technically correct about the progression of classification you are wrong about the importance of secret, that is the domain of TS. Secret consists of what you saw on the news last night, or read in last week's paper.
Secret is handed out to anyone who isn't a convicted felon, or wanted on similar charges. A TS/SCI is superficially more rigorous, but doesn't mean a whole lot more. Mostly that you didn't lie on your paperwork. I knew an (ex) drug dealer who got a TS/SCI clearance. Plenty of people who tried to conceal minor drug usage who didn't.
But that is immaterial to the classification of the material, which is to say that it is *always* classified to the highest extent possible. This hurts dissemination of information to those who need it, goes against the very reason why ultra secret was abandoned, is also blamed (in part) for the failures leading up to 9/11. But it is the way things work. If you mistakenly *under* classify material you are liable for that. If you over classify material, although technically against regulation, there is no negative consequence (to the classifier). It should be obvious why the scheme is broken.
In short, if it was classified secret it wasn't important, the individuals who developed/classified it were unable to classify it to a higher level.
There was a lot of fear talk, but as far as I could tell the gist was that people were getting SMS messages with "scary" wording in them. Whatever.
It did remind me of the SMS bug that Apple fixed a while back (for the record, they are far from alone in having an SMS bug) -- maybe someone has discovered a new bug in SMS? Possibly.
SMS is an afterthought as far as the telcos are concerned, and their only interest is in getting people to pay for it. Consequently there is not even the concept of security in it. SMS simply uses "dead space" in the "ping" messages sent by a tower to a phone. That's it.
I know of at least one US military base that is officially there "at the behest of the local government". The local government has different ideas, depending on which official you ask.
The truthful answer is a bit more complicated, going along the lines of: they don't want us to have a military base in their country, but they *do* want something else and we used that as leverage to force the military base on them.
Saying that base is there "at the behest of the local government" is plain inaccurate. Saying that the local government permitted it under duress would be closer.
Printed books? They don't have space characters, they just have ink on the page. How much space between characters depends on a lot of things like justification, kerning and so on. But if you are reading a typical printed material produced from some electronic document, odds are very good that the original electronic document had one space following the period ending a sentence.
If you are talking about typesetting with lead type -- one space would have been typical (although a typesetter has multiple sizes to use for "spacing" things).
Obviously I don't know what usage numbers are overall, but I can say that on our network when considering only putatively student systems that ~12% are detected as running linux and ~11% as OS X. I was really surprised by linux outstripping OS X until I realized a number of those devices are going to be wireless routers running linux. For the record, ~30% are detected as running Windows (XP, Vista, Win7) and ~40% are undetermined. Results courtesy of nessus.
You can't get Amiga OS as open source. The code was copyrighted and never put into the public domain.
Oh, you are trying to conflate AROS with the actual Amiga operating system. Nice try, but that isn't really quite what AROS is. aros.sourceforge.net/
Child pornography must be pornographic.
I so wish that you were actually right. Unfortunately, what is child pornography depends on the jurisdiction, the cops and the judge. I don't feel like googling it at the moment, but likely candidates for examples are Oklahoma and Kentucky.
Let's be considerate of our readers rather than swear allegiance to a rule learnt in our youth.
Which is where all of the "it must be two spaces" adherents come from, it was a rule learned in their youth. People often have a hard time giving up things they learned early.
You are almost correct. The reason that two spaces *used* to be added after a sentence instead of a single space was that typewriters were monospaced. If you use a monospaced font and only use a single space after a period to indicate a sentence it *is* visually ambiguous due to the large amount of extraneous white space between the edges of adjacent characters. So much white space, in fact, that you can often insert a character between two others (I've done this in manuscripts rather than retype a page).
If you are producing a document using a monospaced font then you *should* use two spaces to help the readability of the text. On the other hand if, like most people, you are producing a document with a proportional font then only use one.
In summary: the "rule" about using two spaces after the period ending a sentence was for typewriters and arose because typewriters had a (wide) monospacing.
When I was younger and more juvenile than I am now (hard to believe as that may be) I pranked a computer in a PX. The reason? It was one of those complete systems (Packard Bell? I don't remember) and it advertised a display resolution that was fairly good. Only problem was the monitor it was paired with couldn't handle it (and had a dot pitch of about .7 or .8, fuzziest monitor I can remember seeing). So it was configured to run in a lower resolution, while advertised at the higher.
It was the advertising that really got me so I set the resolution to what the specs said it should be and left. It was corrected of course, so the next day I set it back. I ended up creating a floppy to use for the reset. Kept it up until the system was no longer there. Juvenile? Yeah, that's me.
Don't even bother trying to have a discussion. The Apple haters are out in force, and they want blood. Never mind that a non-Apple analysis found significantly greater signal drop in the worst case and that it provided better reception at equal signal strength, focus on the "greater signal drop" and bash, bash, bash.
(I bash Apple when they are wrong, not just because its fun to join the group think.)
Consider the tower of babel. Most people ("christian" or otherwise) have a rather fanciful interpretation of it.
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
That is supposedly NIV, depending on translation the wording will vary somewhat. Now, many people stop at the obvious point about this answering "why do people speak different languages" but I say it is more import to consider the sixth line. Humanity has the capacity to equal God ("nothing ... will be impossible for them"). God confused language because he was afraid of humanity being his equal.
I propose a third option:
3. we can become gods
ah, but if the headphone jack breaks for an iPhone that *is* under warranty Apple is likely to deny the claim citing "user damage" and thus not covered. YMMV
Anecdotal: my iPhone has similar breakage (though not the headphone) and they refused to do anything about it. My wife carries her's in her back pocket, and the stress of being sat on eventually resulted in the front glass fracturing quite spectacularly. The same guy on the same visit replaced her iPhone without asking any questions (I dealt with him on both phones).
So while I agree with your premise I don't know that the distinction is at all significant. In any case, I don't expect that the "jail breaking violates warranty" would hold up if challenged. Just, who is going to spend all the money to challenge it over a phone that costs $1000
You aren't familiar with the various authentication mechanisms provided by windows apparently, which can often be used to make unthrottled brute force attacks. Now, if this is an institution then there may/should be an IDS or IPS deployed that can detect or respond to such an attack, but that opens up other cans of worms.
It seems like everyone does digital forensics these days (I'm certified GCFA and do occasional work as part of my job). Key loggers (physical or software) or other malware account for almost all cracked accounts that I know how they got cracked, but I can also tell you that distributed brute force attacks *are* happening. Bring on your IDS or IPS. Either it is ineffectual in stopping the brute force, or you lock the user out of his account. The latter gives a whole new reason to use brute force attacks as a DOS.
Strong passwords for any network-capable authentication is a must if the resource it can access is worth protecting.
thoromyr
I find all of this talk about glossy screens not being usable in sunlight amusing. I had an original macbook pro -- yep, the one with a matte screen. It was alright, though unsurprisingly the expensive monitors on my desktop looked better. I have since replaced the macbook pro -- it might have been at a time when you could choose matte, I don't remember, but I wasn't worried because my wife's macbook, as well as my dad's and my mom's all different versions and all with glossy screens look and work great.
I have a glossy screen on my macbook pro and am not troubled in the slightest by it. I use it indoors and outdoors. I never pay any attention to how I sit or where I'm facing. I write code, work on page layouts, some editing in photoshop, work in a console (often ssh'd elsewhere), play games (hello to steam on mac) and in general use a variety of apps in a variety of environments. I don't get what people are complaining about. The *only* adjustment I've made is I've taken to turning down brightness to help conserve battery life (finally, a laptop with the hours of run time that I got on my first no-hard drive, cga-only, 8088-based laptop, but now with a reasonable hard drive, excellent graphics and a powerful processor: that's progress). In a bright environment I sometimes turn it up from all-but black to around mid-level brightness. Reflections have never been an issue.
thoromyr
incredible! you know the cost of the part! if so, why don't you just buy the part and replace it yourself? I've worked on macbooks (and other laptops) before and it isn't that hard, you just need some patience, a good work area and a reasonable toolset.
I'm guessing that you don't like doing business with Apple and didn't bother to check anything before hand. Like the fact that they require appointments. This may come as a hard concept, but if you take your car in to a dealer for a repair you better get an appointment first or hope that business is very dead for them. And also realize that you will be paying the dealer more than parts + reasonable labor charge.
But it is more fun to whine on slashdot about how you weren't made to feel like a god who just descended from the heavens so they have sucky customer service.
the primary feature? really. Oh, that's right. It turns out the Retina display really *is* so good that at normal viewing distance you can't distinguish pixels. So now something else *has* to be the primary, highly touted feature that isn't real.
Your anti-Apple bias is showing again.
moderators: modding this troll doesn't make it not true. I know, it is popular to mod down anything that goes against group think, but you might consider making an exception once in a while.
ah yes, you brought them out (though you aren't modded troll at the moment). Seems people can't grasp the basic conceptual difference: open versus closed market place, only able to yammer that "apple doesn't see the source". Ah well.