It's not plastic that's the issue; it's metal-effect plastic. The mutton-dressed-as-lamb factor of pleather, wood veneer, chromed plastic, and the like is tacky in itself, but a bit of an affront in a gizmo that costs a good part of a month's wages. In a market where all your similarly-specced competitors are using actual metal, being the guy who sends out fake metal sends a message to your customers along the lines of "you'll pay the same, but you'll get less".
Why would they need a database of your preferences? I mean, it's something they could gather by data-mining what you put in there if they wanted to, but the same's true of Slashdot, and in neither case is it's something that their system actually uses to get its job done. (Their worked example uses a mixture of the contents of the query, your local address book, a couple of cookery sites, and a routing service.)
I'm not sure why they used such a poor example when their technology seems leaps and bounds ahead of what Google and Apple actually do. "On the way to my brother's house, I need to pick up some cheap wine that pairs well with lasagna" creates a list of wine outlets and lasanga-appropriate wines, sorted by price, along the route to your brother's house.
Although I wonder if it would pick up the context as well in a less explicit sentence like "I'm going to my brother's for lasagna and I need to get wine". Or even the request, "I need to get wine" after getting directions from a calendar entry marked "lasagna at bob's".
I assume that the logic is "twitter's revenue is based on advertising, and therefore based on the number of legitimate users it has, and therefore this is of material importance". However I have little doubt that Twitter already tells its advertisers how many unique human beings it believes it has, versus bots, second accounts, etc.
More to the point, if the advantage of switching to in-order is having less silicon (and therefore a smaller power draw), isn't that completely undone by having a whole second CPU in there that makes it twice as large as its predecessor?
Err, loss leaders are the ones who sell a variety of different goods at low prices for long periods. Dumpers sell a specific good at low prices for a short period of time because dumping is inherently unsustainable; if you don't run your rivals into the ground and switch to high cost selling before you run out of capital, your business fails.
There's nothing stopping organisations forming cooperative agreements so long as they are not inherently anticompetitive. Remember: they got sued not because they banded together, but because they banded together to set prices.
I think the idea is that it would fall back to unencrypted messaging transparently (perhaps with a warning) when you're sending it to a mailserver that doesn't talk PGP.
Email is transmitted unencrypted; anyone relaying the message can read it. With PGP way your email is protected in from everybody while it's in transit, although at the endpoints it's only protected from conventional criminals and not Uncle Sam or John Bull.
Actually, they ended up producing a version that's more like their original reference design, which predates the Sony article and the Sony-based design study.
Considerations When Using Oracle Data Redaction with Ad Hoc Database Queries
You may encounter situations where it is necessary to redact sensitive data for ad hoc queries that are performed by database users. For example, in the course of supporting a production application, a user may need to run ad hoc database queries to troubleshoot and fix an urgent problem with the application. This is different from the application-based scenarios described in "Using Oracle Data Redaction with Database Applications", which typically generate a bounded set of SQL queries, use defined database accounts, and have fixed privileges.
Even though Oracle Data Redaction is not intended to protect against attacks by database users who run ad hoc queries directly against the database, it can hide sensitive data for these ad hoc query scenarios when you couple it with other preventive and detective controls. Because users may have rights to change data, alter the database schema, and circumvent the SQL query interface entirely, it is possible for them to bypass Data Redaction policies in certain circumstances. You can address this problem by restricting database privileges and by coupling Data Redaction with other Oracle Database security tools, as follows:
Oracle Database Vault can prevent database administrators from performing harmful operations.
Oracle Audit Vault and Database Firewall can:
Monitor and block malicious database activities. Prevent rows from appearing in query results of non-authorized users. Alert you about suspicious activity that was audited by the database. Remember that the Oracle Database security tools are designed to be used together to improve overall security. By deploying one or more of these tools as a complement to Oracle Data Redaction, you can securely redact sensitive data even from users who are running ad hoc queries.
Also, note that Oracle Data Redaction hides sensitive information based on database columns. It works best in scenarios where the sensitivity of the data is determined mainly by the column in which it is stored. When an Oracle database displays query results, Data Redaction redacts the rows of data queried from a given column if an enabled Data Redaction policy is defined for the column and the policy expression evaluates to TRUE; otherwise the column's actual data is displayed.
1) A Sony designer talked about the idea of devices that were free of buttons and ornamentation and had nice rounded corners. They didn't show any devices; they just talked about design ideas. 2) Someone in Apple read that article 3) Apple had one of their favoured freelance designers mock up what a device like that could be like, and put a Sony logo on it as a joke 4) Apple went on to produce a device superficially similar to the design their freelancer had created, which drew upon ideas described by somebody in an interview
Actually, Samsung has cited the loss of major component customers as one of the reasons for their poor financial performance in the last quarter; that's generally taken to be referring to Apple's decision to shift its CPU orders elsewhere. They need Apple's business more than Apple needs them.
I assume they mean that it appears focussed at six feet away, but it subtends as much of your viewing angle as it currently does on the dashboard. So if it's five inches across and three feet away from your face, it looks like it's actually ten inches across and six feet away.
I can see your argument, although I still think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that circumventing the key grants you access to the work. The code's still inaccessible.
Normally that's done to let them turn defective merchandise into a functional product. Those disabled features probably didn't all pass QA testing, whether because they just plain didn't work or were out of tolerance. Later in an item's production, there might just not be enough of a market for the expensive model and they'll start shipping perfectly good inventory as the lower-spec model too, just because the increased cost loss per unit is smaller than retooling the assembly line. This goes on to this day in things like GPUs and CPUs, and there doesn't seem to be much of an objection from manufacturers when people circumvent it given that you're using the product "at risk".
So, I think economically, you're unlikely to see it become a problem.
Even in the instances where some DLC resources were on the disk (e.g. the infamous "From Ashes" day-one DLC) most of the actual game logic usually has to be downloaded. The whole point of that sort of DLC is that you can ship part of the game in an incomplete and untested state and work up until the launch day on debugging and refinement. (In From Ashes' case, it was a huge chunk of the game narrative that had been reworked in aid of a different ending.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not plastic that's the issue; it's metal-effect plastic. The mutton-dressed-as-lamb factor of pleather, wood veneer, chromed plastic, and the like is tacky in itself, but a bit of an affront in a gizmo that costs a good part of a month's wages. In a market where all your similarly-specced competitors are using actual metal, being the guy who sends out fake metal sends a message to your customers along the lines of "you'll pay the same, but you'll get less".
I think you'll find that the hipsters are using old Nokias.
iPhone in front, Pleather in the back. This is the mullet of cellphones.
Why would they need a database of your preferences? I mean, it's something they could gather by data-mining what you put in there if they wanted to, but the same's true of Slashdot, and in neither case is it's something that their system actually uses to get its job done. (Their worked example uses a mixture of the contents of the query, your local address book, a couple of cookery sites, and a routing service.)
I'm not sure why they used such a poor example when their technology seems leaps and bounds ahead of what Google and Apple actually do. "On the way to my brother's house, I need to pick up some cheap wine that pairs well with lasagna" creates a list of wine outlets and lasanga-appropriate wines, sorted by price, along the route to your brother's house.
Although I wonder if it would pick up the context as well in a less explicit sentence like "I'm going to my brother's for lasagna and I need to get wine". Or even the request, "I need to get wine" after getting directions from a calendar entry marked "lasagna at bob's".
Ha, of course.
I assume that the logic is "twitter's revenue is based on advertising, and therefore based on the number of legitimate users it has, and therefore this is of material importance". However I have little doubt that Twitter already tells its advertisers how many unique human beings it believes it has, versus bots, second accounts, etc.
More to the point, if the advantage of switching to in-order is having less silicon (and therefore a smaller power draw), isn't that completely undone by having a whole second CPU in there that makes it twice as large as its predecessor?
Err, loss leaders are the ones who sell a variety of different goods at low prices for long periods. Dumpers sell a specific good at low prices for a short period of time because dumping is inherently unsustainable; if you don't run your rivals into the ground and switch to high cost selling before you run out of capital, your business fails.
There's nothing stopping organisations forming cooperative agreements so long as they are not inherently anticompetitive. Remember: they got sued not because they banded together, but because they banded together to set prices.
I think the idea is that it would fall back to unencrypted messaging transparently (perhaps with a warning) when you're sending it to a mailserver that doesn't talk PGP.
Email is transmitted unencrypted; anyone relaying the message can read it. With PGP way your email is protected in from everybody while it's in transit, although at the endpoints it's only protected from conventional criminals and not Uncle Sam or John Bull.
Actually, they ended up producing a version that's more like their original reference design, which predates the Sony article and the Sony-based design study.
Exactly.
Considerations When Using Oracle Data Redaction with Ad Hoc Database Queries
You may encounter situations where it is necessary to redact sensitive data for ad hoc queries that are performed by database users. For example, in the course of supporting a production application, a user may need to run ad hoc database queries to troubleshoot and fix an urgent problem with the application. This is different from the application-based scenarios described in "Using Oracle Data Redaction with Database Applications", which typically generate a bounded set of SQL queries, use defined database accounts, and have fixed privileges.
Even though Oracle Data Redaction is not intended to protect against attacks by database users who run ad hoc queries directly against the database, it can hide sensitive data for these ad hoc query scenarios when you couple it with other preventive and detective controls. Because users may have rights to change data, alter the database schema, and circumvent the SQL query interface entirely, it is possible for them to bypass Data Redaction policies in certain circumstances. You can address this problem by restricting database privileges and by coupling Data Redaction with other Oracle Database security tools, as follows:
Oracle Database Vault can prevent database administrators from performing harmful operations.
Oracle Audit Vault and Database Firewall can:
Monitor and block malicious database activities.
Prevent rows from appearing in query results of non-authorized users.
Alert you about suspicious activity that was audited by the database.
Remember that the Oracle Database security tools are designed to be used together to improve overall security. By deploying one or more of these tools as a complement to Oracle Data Redaction, you can securely redact sensitive data even from users who are running ad hoc queries.
Also, note that Oracle Data Redaction hides sensitive information based on database columns. It works best in scenarios where the sensitivity of the data is determined mainly by the column in which it is stored. When an Oracle database displays query results, Data Redaction redacts the rows of data queried from a given column if an enabled Data Redaction policy is defined for the column and the policy expression evaluates to TRUE; otherwise the column's actual data is displayed.
http://docs.oracle.com/databas...
With regards to this "Sony's blueprints" nonsense I assume you're referring to the following:
http://www.dailytech.com/Samsu...
Which is to say:
1) A Sony designer talked about the idea of devices that were free of buttons and ornamentation and had nice rounded corners. They didn't show any devices; they just talked about design ideas.
2) Someone in Apple read that article
3) Apple had one of their favoured freelance designers mock up what a device like that could be like, and put a Sony logo on it as a joke
4) Apple went on to produce a device superficially similar to the design their freelancer had created, which drew upon ideas described by somebody in an interview
Unfortunately Samsung is losing market share to Chinese cheaphone manufacturers faster than they're taking it from Apple.
Actually, Samsung has cited the loss of major component customers as one of the reasons for their poor financial performance in the last quarter; that's generally taken to be referring to Apple's decision to shift its CPU orders elsewhere. They need Apple's business more than Apple needs them.
I assume they mean that it appears focussed at six feet away, but it subtends as much of your viewing angle as it currently does on the dashboard. So if it's five inches across and three feet away from your face, it looks like it's actually ten inches across and six feet away.
Is this any different from a dash mount for a smartphone?
Isn't 6 feet a little close for an HUD? If you're focussing your attention at the end of your car's nose I'm not sure that's ideal.
Well put.
I can see your argument, although I still think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that circumventing the key grants you access to the work. The code's still inaccessible.
Normally that's done to let them turn defective merchandise into a functional product. Those disabled features probably didn't all pass QA testing, whether because they just plain didn't work or were out of tolerance. Later in an item's production, there might just not be enough of a market for the expensive model and they'll start shipping perfectly good inventory as the lower-spec model too, just because the increased cost loss per unit is smaller than retooling the assembly line. This goes on to this day in things like GPUs and CPUs, and there doesn't seem to be much of an objection from manufacturers when people circumvent it given that you're using the product "at risk".
So, I think economically, you're unlikely to see it become a problem.
Even in the instances where some DLC resources were on the disk (e.g. the infamous "From Ashes" day-one DLC) most of the actual game logic usually has to be downloaded. The whole point of that sort of DLC is that you can ship part of the game in an incomplete and untested state and work up until the launch day on debugging and refinement. (In From Ashes' case, it was a huge chunk of the game narrative that had been reworked in aid of a different ending.)
Is blocking functionality controlling access to a work, though? Can an oscilloscope's behaviour even qualify as a work under copyright law?