Carelessly installing ffmpeg-based DShow filters system-wide tends to have side effects like breaking games - you have to be very careful which formats you enable them for.
According to Apple's official page about Gatekeeper you have to be part of their $99/year Mac Developer Program in order to get a code signing certificate. I think they've been rather misleadingly describing it to the press as free to members of the MDP, and some of them have dropped the qualifier.
I think historically it was even worse than this for telephones actually - there was no legal requirement for the incumbent to allow local calls between them and the new upstart in the same city at all, so they didn't, and what use is a phone line that can't actually be used to phone anyone you know living in the same town or any local companies?
According to the official Apple site you have to be a member of the $99 a year Mac Developer Program in order to get a developer ID. From the way the Verge piece is worded, I suspect that Apple have been feeding journalists a line of BS about it being free to registered Mac developers, which is technically true - it's just that you have to pay an annual fee before they count you as a developer in the first place.
I don't think they are actually. According to Apple's webpage for Gatekeeper you have to be part of the $99/year Mac developer program. The only person claiming that they're free is Gruber, and I think he's either misunderstood what Apple has said or is being deliberately misleading. Notice how the Verge piece says there's "there’s no cost to developers beyond the standard Mac developer program fees" - the developer IDs are technically free to registered developers but since in order to register as one in the first place you have to pay the annual fee they're not actually free in practice.
All it does, even when set at the most restrictive setting (there are three options you can choose), is ask you to confirm you want to trust an app that you install if it didn't come from the App Store. It doesn't stop you running it (unless you say no of course), and it won't ask again after the first approval.
According to a comment by someone else, this option to override is only available to admins and by default non-admins can only run signed apps.
App Store and digitally signed developers (ask for anything that is not digitally signed, with the certificates (according to Apple) given to any developer that wants one) - This is the default setting when installing OS X 10.8
Anyone that wants one and is paying them $99 a year to become a developer, yes.
Right, so if they try to do something about the supposed security problem (witness, ranting and frothing about Pwn2Own) then they are criticised for "locking down" but if they do nothing...
Code signing does nothing to stop them getting owned in Pwn2Own, because the security vulnerabilities are in trusted code which is generally supplied by Apple themselves. In fact, take a look at iOS sometime. That's even more locked down and half the jailbreaks are from remotely-exploitable security holes.
Let me spell this out for you: Apple's desktop offering is now more locked down than than the other competing desktop platforms. Apple's phone and tablet offering is also more locked down than Android, which is the main competing phone and tablet platform. Comparing the level of lockdown on Apple's desktops to the level on Android smartphones is comparing apples and oranges.
My understanding of Chaum's result is that it is generic and that it applies to any digital cash system that allows offline transactions and token reuse, and that the result basically says that if you have security and privacy then the size of a token must grow with the number of transactions
Bitcoin isn't intended to support offline transactions, though. It doesn't require any kind of central authority but you need to be connected to the distributed network of Bitcoin nodes and miners in order to be able to process transactions safely.
I think at this point pretty much all the major GLBSE stocks have turned out to be scams, including ones advertised by the creator of GLBSE itself. It has a spectacularly scammy track record.
Bear in mind that Bitcoinica is more like a bucket shop than a stock broker, which means that they have a financial incentive to deliberately cause short term market volatility that wipes out investors. Also, I think they stop users from closing their positions and actually locking in their profits after big market moves, which makes it rather difficult to make money from them.
In this case the new people to Bitcoins lost money by spending more on electricity and video cards than they earned while the people that had been in for a while could have sold out at the high.
In order for the people who'd been in Bitcoin for a long time to make money by selling Bitcoins at the market high, there had to be other people new to Bitcoin that were willing to buy Bitcoins for that amount, presumably because they were convinced the price was going to keep going up and had seen the huge profits made by the early adopters. That's why it's often (incorrectly) called a pyramid scheme.
The main result of how the EU - and now apparently the US - are interpreting FRAND and standards seems to be that companies who've spent a fortune on actual R&D to make mobile networks and smartphones actually possible will find that they aren't actually allowed to sell phones using the technology they developed because someone else has got a huge thicket of patents on daft things like detecting phone numbers in messages and offering to call them. Worse still, they'll have to offer up the technology they developed to the company driving them out of business at a knock-down price.
There's a reason why mobile phone companies have insisted on comprehensive cross-licensing deals in the past. What the EU is doing is effectively favoring crap patents over ones based on actual, fundamental R&D that everyone benefits from. Do you think there'll be any companies willing to help develop the next-generation 4G and 5G standards after this, if they won't actually be able to make any money from it?
As far as I know, Apple is actually suing every major manufacturer of smartphones at this point, many of them for exactly the same thing as they're suing Samsung over.
Actually, US Customs is rumoured to have a history of conducting industrial espionage on behalf of big US defense contractors against their European competitors, and I'm pretty sure there are companies out there that give exactly the same advice about travelling light and using clean computers and phones with no confidential data on when travelling to the US.
Assuming girls are their father's property to control and to protect from the corrupting influence of sex tends to be a bit controversial these days, especially once they're 17 year olds and entirely capable of thinking for themselves. Can't imagine why that might be; why would anyone object to good old patriarchy anyway?
Hmmm. If they're banning drawings and text material, then based on previous sites that have done the same they're probably going to end up banning any discussion by Reddit users of their own sexual experiences which happened when they were under 18. Which is handy if if you want to pretend under-18 year olds aren't having all kinds of wild sex with each other I guess.
There's actually a fairly good feminist argument that basically, because our society is so fucked up, no woman can ever really consent to having sex with a man and not be coerced. There's an even more common one - and some countries have passed laws based on this - that no women can ever consent to having sex in exchange for money due to the inequality in power.
Slashdot Mirror
emulate part of the video card using the CPU? why not, that won't tax the CPU much
I wouldn't be surprised if Intel was still doing this, actually; they certainly continued with it far after everyone else gave up.
Carelessly installing ffmpeg-based DShow filters system-wide tends to have side effects like breaking games - you have to be very careful which formats you enable them for.
According to Apple's official page about Gatekeeper you have to be part of their $99/year Mac Developer Program in order to get a code signing certificate. I think they've been rather misleadingly describing it to the press as free to members of the MDP, and some of them have dropped the qualifier.
I think historically it was even worse than this for telephones actually - there was no legal requirement for the incumbent to allow local calls between them and the new upstart in the same city at all, so they didn't, and what use is a phone line that can't actually be used to phone anyone you know living in the same town or any local companies?
Apple have locked all their iDevices down in order to block firmware version downgrades, because they're scared of someone jailbreaking them that way.
According to the official Apple site you have to be a member of the $99 a year Mac Developer Program in order to get a developer ID. From the way the Verge piece is worded, I suspect that Apple have been feeding journalists a line of BS about it being free to registered Mac developers, which is technically true - it's just that you have to pay an annual fee before they count you as a developer in the first place.
I don't think they are actually. According to Apple's webpage for Gatekeeper you have to be part of the $99/year Mac developer program. The only person claiming that they're free is Gruber, and I think he's either misunderstood what Apple has said or is being deliberately misleading. Notice how the Verge piece says there's "there’s no cost to developers beyond the standard Mac developer program fees" - the developer IDs are technically free to registered developers but since in order to register as one in the first place you have to pay the annual fee they're not actually free in practice.
By being default-enabled, requiring admin privileges to change, and no doubt coming with scary warnings about how you'll get hacked if you disable it.
Think about the number of developers of Apple software. Now think about what proportion of them consistently follow good security practices.
All it does, even when set at the most restrictive setting (there are three options you can choose), is ask you to confirm you want to trust an app that you install if it didn't come from the App Store. It doesn't stop you running it (unless you say no of course), and it won't ask again after the first approval.
According to a comment by someone else, this option to override is only available to admins and by default non-admins can only run signed apps.
App Store and digitally signed developers (ask for anything that is not digitally signed, with the certificates (according to Apple) given to any developer that wants one) - This is the default setting when installing OS X 10.8
Anyone that wants one and is paying them $99 a year to become a developer, yes.
Right, so if they try to do something about the supposed security problem (witness, ranting and frothing about Pwn2Own) then they are criticised for "locking down" but if they do nothing...
Code signing does nothing to stop them getting owned in Pwn2Own, because the security vulnerabilities are in trusted code which is generally supplied by Apple themselves. In fact, take a look at iOS sometime. That's even more locked down and half the jailbreaks are from remotely-exploitable security holes.
Let me spell this out for you:
Apple's desktop offering is now more locked down than than the other competing desktop platforms.
Apple's phone and tablet offering is also more locked down than Android, which is the main competing phone and tablet platform.
Comparing the level of lockdown on Apple's desktops to the level on Android smartphones is comparing apples and oranges.
My understanding of Chaum's result is that it is generic and that it applies to any digital cash system that allows offline transactions and token reuse, and that the result basically says that if you have security and privacy then the size of a token must grow with the number of transactions
Bitcoin isn't intended to support offline transactions, though. It doesn't require any kind of central authority but you need to be connected to the distributed network of Bitcoin nodes and miners in order to be able to process transactions safely.
I think Zimbabwe switched to US dollars instead, which is much more stable.
I think at this point pretty much all the major GLBSE stocks have turned out to be scams, including ones advertised by the creator of GLBSE itself. It has a spectacularly scammy track record.
Bear in mind that Bitcoinica is more like a bucket shop than a stock broker, which means that they have a financial incentive to deliberately cause short term market volatility that wipes out investors. Also, I think they stop users from closing their positions and actually locking in their profits after big market moves, which makes it rather difficult to make money from them.
In this case the new people to Bitcoins lost money by spending more on electricity and video cards than they earned while the people that had been in for a while could have sold out at the high.
In order for the people who'd been in Bitcoin for a long time to make money by selling Bitcoins at the market high, there had to be other people new to Bitcoin that were willing to buy Bitcoins for that amount, presumably because they were convinced the price was going to keep going up and had seen the huge profits made by the early adopters. That's why it's often (incorrectly) called a pyramid scheme.
It should be, but in this day and age if you want a scalable UI you need Android and not iOS. Sorry.
The Samsung photo frame got a lot of attention because the design patents Apple are using to sue Samsung don't cover the back of the device. At all.
The main result of how the EU - and now apparently the US - are interpreting FRAND and standards seems to be that companies who've spent a fortune on actual R&D to make mobile networks and smartphones actually possible will find that they aren't actually allowed to sell phones using the technology they developed because someone else has got a huge thicket of patents on daft things like detecting phone numbers in messages and offering to call them. Worse still, they'll have to offer up the technology they developed to the company driving them out of business at a knock-down price.
There's a reason why mobile phone companies have insisted on comprehensive cross-licensing deals in the past. What the EU is doing is effectively favoring crap patents over ones based on actual, fundamental R&D that everyone benefits from. Do you think there'll be any companies willing to help develop the next-generation 4G and 5G standards after this, if they won't actually be able to make any money from it?
As far as I know, Apple is actually suing every major manufacturer of smartphones at this point, many of them for exactly the same thing as they're suing Samsung over.
Actually, US Customs is rumoured to have a history of conducting industrial espionage on behalf of big US defense contractors against their European competitors, and I'm pretty sure there are companies out there that give exactly the same advice about travelling light and using clean computers and phones with no confidential data on when travelling to the US.
Assuming girls are their father's property to control and to protect from the corrupting influence of sex tends to be a bit controversial these days, especially once they're 17 year olds and entirely capable of thinking for themselves. Can't imagine why that might be; why would anyone object to good old patriarchy anyway?
Hmmm. If they're banning drawings and text material, then based on previous sites that have done the same they're probably going to end up banning any discussion by Reddit users of their own sexual experiences which happened when they were under 18. Which is handy if if you want to pretend under-18 year olds aren't having all kinds of wild sex with each other I guess.
There's actually a fairly good feminist argument that basically, because our society is so fucked up, no woman can ever really consent to having sex with a man and not be coerced. There's an even more common one - and some countries have passed laws based on this - that no women can ever consent to having sex in exchange for money due to the inequality in power.