Yeah, right. Like it takes that much effort to change a constant from 10 to 10000. And it's not like they'd have to put it through a full suite of validation tests afterwards - who cares if they can still make a phone call?
Having said that, I support Apple's position, but I think they're being disingenuous with that claim, unless they're counting the lawyer's time in that figure.
"You're dividing 112 days of methane leak by one year's-worth of automobile consumption. So now we're at 0.7%."
Non-sequitur. The leak was a one-time event, so why not compare the lifetime total for the leak to the lifetime total gasoline consumption, which would make it essentially 0%?
The figure was given to make the scale more comprehensible. Comparing to 112 days worth of auto consumption isn't that.
I showed my math, where the numbers came from and exactly how the results were derived. It's all there, so if anyone disagrees with any of it, they're free to work it out themselves.
Contrast that to the article, which simply claims a completely unsupported figure as fact. That's dishonest.
Right. And if you follow through the links, you'll find a statement that the leak was the equivalent of "burning 300 million gallons of gasoline." That's a nice round number, and I'd bet they rounded up.
Even so, that's 600 gallons for each of those 500,000 cars. New cars and light trucks get around 23 mpg, so let's say 20 mpg average when including older ones. That's 12,000 miles per car. US DOT says the average miles driven per year is 13476, so they're overstating the equivalence. 300,000,000 * 20 = 6,000,000,000 miles,/13476 = 445236 cars. So that was dishonestly rounded up.
Looking at it another way, the EIA says the US consumed, "In 2014, about 136.78 billion gallons..." So, that leak was equivalent to less than 0.22% of US gasoline consumption. That seems to be a more honest indication of the scale.
But it's secure! Someone told them that best practice was to implement 2 part security, something they know, and something they have. They have the car, and they know the VIN.
You quite obviously haven't even looked at the paper,which was conveniently linked in the summary. Buh-bye, I see no point in further discussion with someone so deliberately ignorant.
Wi-Fi is a registered trademark which indicates certified compliance and interoperability with an industry trade group's requirements. This ain't that.
"seems like avast missed the point when google, gmail, and youtube went 100% https"
What about people who use browsers which don't force an ssl connection to those URIs? Or, an IMAP email client, similarly. Users would still be subject to DNS hijacking.
And, you only mention Google services. There's way more to the Internet than that.
Starbucks has coffee? Every time I look at the menu, I only see "Iced Carmel Frappe Latte Macchioto Mocha" and other tutti-frutti stuff. And, they don't seem to understand the words small, medium, or large.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why would sensors and IoT devices use more power than a calculator of old?"
Because they need enough power to transmit a radio signal.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in real life!
(or maybe Godzilla, I'm not sure which)
OK, I'll choose 5. Thanks for signing your comment, Apple-Hating Moron.
Wouldn't want to blow the opportunity to prosecute a dead guy!
"Apple said seven people for up to four weeks"
Yeah, right. Like it takes that much effort to change a constant from 10 to 10000. And it's not like they'd have to put it through a full suite of validation tests afterwards - who cares if they can still make a phone call?
Having said that, I support Apple's position, but I think they're being disingenuous with that claim, unless they're counting the lawyer's time in that figure.
...but it said "top 1000," so that's not it.
I, too, was wondering about that. 3.67% of 1000 is 36.7. What 0.7 of a web site?
"You're dividing 112 days of methane leak by one year's-worth of automobile consumption. So now we're at 0.7%."
Non-sequitur. The leak was a one-time event, so why not compare the lifetime total for the leak to the lifetime total gasoline consumption, which would make it essentially 0%?
The figure was given to make the scale more comprehensible. Comparing to 112 days worth of auto consumption isn't that.
I showed my math, where the numbers came from and exactly how the results were derived. It's all there, so if anyone disagrees with any of it, they're free to work it out themselves.
Contrast that to the article, which simply claims a completely unsupported figure as fact. That's dishonest.
Right. And if you follow through the links, you'll find a statement that the leak was the equivalent of "burning 300 million gallons of gasoline." That's a nice round number, and I'd bet they rounded up.
/13476 = 445236 cars. So that was dishonestly rounded up.
Even so, that's 600 gallons for each of those 500,000 cars. New cars and light trucks get around 23 mpg, so let's say 20 mpg average when including older ones. That's 12,000 miles per car. US DOT says the average miles driven per year is 13476, so they're overstating the equivalence. 300,000,000 * 20 = 6,000,000,000 miles,
Looking at it another way, the EIA says the US consumed, "In 2014, about 136.78 billion gallons..." So, that leak was equivalent to less than 0.22% of US gasoline consumption. That seems to be a more honest indication of the scale.
huh??? Obama isn't a candidate, so that's a non-sequitur. By singling out the Rs, you politicized the statement, which invites polarizing argument.
"I still wonder how it is possible that the major parties can't come up with a single decent candidate. "
FTFY.
But it's secure! Someone told them that best practice was to implement 2 part security, something they know, and something they have. They have the car, and they know the VIN.
You quite obviously haven't even looked at the paper,which was conveniently linked in the summary. Buh-bye, I see no point in further discussion with someone so deliberately ignorant.
So your point is, what? Wi-Fi is still a trademark.
Someone pitching a technical academic paper who doesn't know the correct terminology for that technology is demonstrating ignorance, not knowledge.
I make photocopies on occasion. Aspirin, dry ice, thermos, escalator and flip phone are not trademarks in the US.
Wi-Fi is a registered trademark which indicates certified compliance and interoperability with an industry trade group's requirements. This ain't that.
...or sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
"That shouldn't be a problem anymore, so long as the users browser supports that..."
LOL. The fallacy is obvious.
"seems like avast missed the point when google, gmail, and youtube went 100% https"
What about people who use browsers which don't force an ssl connection to those URIs? Or, an IMAP email client, similarly. Users would still be subject to DNS hijacking.
And, you only mention Google services. There's way more to the Internet than that.
Starbucks has coffee? Every time I look at the menu, I only see "Iced Carmel Frappe Latte Macchioto Mocha" and other tutti-frutti stuff. And, they don't seem to understand the words small, medium, or large.
Beer makes you pee a lot.
My network goes to 11.
Irish Coffee, anyone?
"It is sad when the liberal socialists are for more freedoms, than so called don't tread on me conservatives."
It's just a matter of which freedoms. In general, the Rs want to control your moral freedoms, and the Ds want to control your economic ones.