Yes, it's completely absurd to think that using violence against someone who's begging for it to stop as a way to intimidate them and control them could possible be abusive. More seriously, what world are you living in?
So you agree that Apple was the first to introduce "swipe to unlock". The fact that they went out of their way to make sure the hardware could support gestures should provide more evidence to support Apple's patent application.
Not really. Every time some new technology comes along there's going to be a whole bunch of firsts related to it, and if everyone can just dive in and surround it with a thicket of trivial patents then that just serves to make that new technology less useful and everyone's life a little bit worse. (For example IBM had a patent on drawing straight lines on computer screens - which at the time no-one else had done because there were no computer screens to draw them on!)
Which is a bit of an interesting decision, as it doesn't compromise anyone except the individuals foolish enough to generate insecure RSA keys and submit them, and there are numerous ways they could've screwed up their own security that the CA could never detect anyway. What's even more interesting is that they've allowed big-name CAs to remain as such despite them issuing fraudulently-obtained certificates corresponding to major websites. I think the size of this CA has a lot more to do with this than their actual bad policies.
The article, summary and title are pure pro-MS spin. All any of the PC manufacturers Ed Bott talked to have actually promised is that they'll still provide the option to run Linux on some of their computers, and I think only Dell has even promised that much. That's entirely consistent with restricting it to a few expensive high-end workstations.
So how do one circumvent this? Either by creating a malicious driver and somehow obtain a private key to sign it. One can steal it from an ISV or try to trick the issuer into believing you are a legitimate business. Either of these options rely on a certificate which can be revoked.
Of course, once your malicious code is running in the kernel it can quite easily block any updates to the certificate revocation lists...
It's worse than that. When a new black land owner turned out to be competent enough to actually grow crops effectively, Mugabe tended to seize the land again and hand it over to someone more in his favour just before they were ready to harvest. His closest cronies reaped all the benefit whilst someone else did the hard work, and then the land just got left unfarmed.
If memory serves me correctly, the last iOS jailbreak of that sort was a remote code execution vulnerability due to a bug in the in-kernel(!) font parsing code. Getting stuff like font parsing out of the kernel would be a much more sensible first step than sandboxing...
Like, say, if you want to write a backup application? How about a photo management application that allows bulk-importing of images from a camera or SD card? (The second one is something that iPad users would like, but which is impossible on iPad due to the restrictions on SD card access; it appears the Mac App Store is heading in the same direction.)
And a screenshot application isn't allowed to exist in the Mac App Store at all, because there's no way an application can request the ability to take screenshots. True, you can buy one outside the store (for now anyway), but Apple isn't protecting users by forcing them to get entire classes of applications from outside the App Store: since those apps aren't sandboxed at all, they can do pretty much anything, including stealing your online banking details and emptying your bank account. The only way this makes sense is if Apple are planning to strongly discourage users from installing from outside the App Store.
Except you can't create an app that asks for any of these things on installation, because they're not on the list of permissions that an application can ever be granted!
On the other hand, this is the latest in a long series of steps towards Mac OS X becoming both more iOS-like and more tightly locked down, and at each step people have insisted that the obvious next step is completely absurd and that you shouldn't extrapolate like that.
If you've got an OEM machine, you probably can't change most of the BIOS settings. A lot of OEM BIOSes even do things like disabling virtualization and removing the option to re-enable it.
Microsoft created the tools that generated the broken BIOS code in the first place, and they designed them in such a way that they always generated broken, non-standards-compliant code - in fact there are reasons to believe this may have been deliberate.
That doesn't mean they can't sell different models in the US which don't have a way to disable secure boot - and laptop manufacturers have to have region-specific models anyway due to stuff like keyboard layout and wireless regulations.
The local Muslims have wanted the Jews dead or out of the area since the Ottomans stopped enforcing that everybody get along.
Not exactly. The local Muslims and Christians wanted the new Jewish immigrants and everyone that sided with them out after it looked like they were actually going to take over the country. It turned out that the existing Jewish population were going to side with them. It also turned out that the Muslims and Christians were too late and had too little actual power.
It's surprising how much isn't actually automated. For example, apparently there's no automated way of assembling HDMI cables - it's cheaper to just get some Chinese labourer to solder them together.
I think you mean "in accordance with the wishes of AIPAC, which directs huge amounts of campaign funds to the opponent of any congressman or women who goes against their instructions, generally resulting in the disobedient politician losing their seat at the next election".
Not to mention that Red Hat have since taken to intentionally concealing the list of patches they've made to the kernel and added a bit to their contracts forbidding their customers from revealing what patches they'd applied. I think someone actually ended up writing a tool to deduce some of the patches they'd added just so that the maintainer of the official 2.6.32 stable kernel could keep it vaguely in sync with what Red Hat were calling 2.6.32; all the other major distros were quite happy to cooperate and push their patches for it upstream.
CentOS basically have no idea what's actually in the kernel they're shipping.
No, not all the exchanges have been hacked. MtGox (the big one) got hacked, but had adequate second-line defenses in place to contain the problem, and it didn't affect customers.
The attacker was incompetent. They had full database write access; if they'd known what they were doing they could've created a whole bunch of accounts with smaller amounts in and withdrawn Mt Gox's entire online reserve of bitcoins, leaving them with too few to fulfill their obligations, but instead they created one big account and ran up against the withdrawal limit.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, according to her he'd been verbally abusing her and making harassing phone calls and that was in large part why she released it.
And the mother ... "I'm going to smack her. You turn over on the bed and take it like a grown woman." Did hubby beat her too?
I think she's said that he did beat her too, yes.
More than that, there have been incidents of underage kids that have been tried as an adult for distributing child porn of themselves.
Yes, it's completely absurd to think that using violence against someone who's begging for it to stop as a way to intimidate them and control them could possible be abusive. More seriously, what world are you living in?
So you agree that Apple was the first to introduce "swipe to unlock". The fact that they went out of their way to make sure the hardware could support gestures should provide more evidence to support Apple's patent application.
Not really. Every time some new technology comes along there's going to be a whole bunch of firsts related to it, and if everyone can just dive in and surround it with a thicket of trivial patents then that just serves to make that new technology less useful and everyone's life a little bit worse. (For example IBM had a patent on drawing straight lines on computer screens - which at the time no-one else had done because there were no computer screens to draw them on!)
Which is a bit of an interesting decision, as it doesn't compromise anyone except the individuals foolish enough to generate insecure RSA keys and submit them, and there are numerous ways they could've screwed up their own security that the CA could never detect anyway. What's even more interesting is that they've allowed big-name CAs to remain as such despite them issuing fraudulently-obtained certificates corresponding to major websites. I think the size of this CA has a lot more to do with this than their actual bad policies.
The article, summary and title are pure pro-MS spin. All any of the PC manufacturers Ed Bott talked to have actually promised is that they'll still provide the option to run Linux on some of their computers, and I think only Dell has even promised that much. That's entirely consistent with restricting it to a few expensive high-end workstations.
So how do one circumvent this? Either by creating a malicious driver and somehow obtain a private key to sign it. One can steal it from an ISV or try to trick the issuer into believing you are a legitimate business. Either of these options rely on a certificate which can be revoked.
Of course, once your malicious code is running in the kernel it can quite easily block any updates to the certificate revocation lists...
It's worse than that. When a new black land owner turned out to be competent enough to actually grow crops effectively, Mugabe tended to seize the land again and hand it over to someone more in his favour just before they were ready to harvest. His closest cronies reaped all the benefit whilst someone else did the hard work, and then the land just got left unfarmed.
If memory serves me correctly, the last iOS jailbreak of that sort was a remote code execution vulnerability due to a bug in the in-kernel(!) font parsing code. Getting stuff like font parsing out of the kernel would be a much more sensible first step than sandboxing...
Like, say, if you want to write a backup application? How about a photo management application that allows bulk-importing of images from a camera or SD card? (The second one is something that iPad users would like, but which is impossible on iPad due to the restrictions on SD card access; it appears the Mac App Store is heading in the same direction.)
And a screenshot application isn't allowed to exist in the Mac App Store at all, because there's no way an application can request the ability to take screenshots. True, you can buy one outside the store (for now anyway), but Apple isn't protecting users by forcing them to get entire classes of applications from outside the App Store: since those apps aren't sandboxed at all, they can do pretty much anything, including stealing your online banking details and emptying your bank account. The only way this makes sense is if Apple are planning to strongly discourage users from installing from outside the App Store.
Except you can't create an app that asks for any of these things on installation, because they're not on the list of permissions that an application can ever be granted!
On the other hand, this is the latest in a long series of steps towards Mac OS X becoming both more iOS-like and more tightly locked down, and at each step people have insisted that the obvious next step is completely absurd and that you shouldn't extrapolate like that.
If you've got an OEM machine, you probably can't change most of the BIOS settings. A lot of OEM BIOSes even do things like disabling virtualization and removing the option to re-enable it.
Microsoft created the tools that generated the broken BIOS code in the first place, and they designed them in such a way that they always generated broken, non-standards-compliant code - in fact there are reasons to believe this may have been deliberate.
That doesn't mean they can't sell different models in the US which don't have a way to disable secure boot - and laptop manufacturers have to have region-specific models anyway due to stuff like keyboard layout and wireless regulations.
The assumption is, that all European countries that are signatory to the treaty provide adequate protections as enshrined in the ECHR.
Of course, a lot of them don't and the whole thing has been a fiasco from the start.
I think later versions of Gnome are basically Linux-only, with a lot of desktop functionality being tied to low-level parts of Linux.
The local Muslims have wanted the Jews dead or out of the area since the Ottomans stopped enforcing that everybody get along.
Not exactly. The local Muslims and Christians wanted the new Jewish immigrants and everyone that sided with them out after it looked like they were actually going to take over the country. It turned out that the existing Jewish population were going to side with them. It also turned out that the Muslims and Christians were too late and had too little actual power.
It's surprising how much isn't actually automated. For example, apparently there's no automated way of assembling HDMI cables - it's cheaper to just get some Chinese labourer to solder them together.
I think you mean "in accordance with the wishes of AIPAC, which directs huge amounts of campaign funds to the opponent of any congressman or women who goes against their instructions, generally resulting in the disobedient politician losing their seat at the next election".
Not to mention that Red Hat have since taken to intentionally concealing the list of patches they've made to the kernel and added a bit to their contracts forbidding their customers from revealing what patches they'd applied. I think someone actually ended up writing a tool to deduce some of the patches they'd added just so that the maintainer of the official 2.6.32 stable kernel could keep it vaguely in sync with what Red Hat were calling 2.6.32; all the other major distros were quite happy to cooperate and push their patches for it upstream.
CentOS basically have no idea what's actually in the kernel they're shipping.
I don't think you can actually, and you certainly won't get any updates - including security-critical ones.
No, not all the exchanges have been hacked. MtGox (the big one) got hacked, but had adequate second-line defenses in place to contain the problem, and it didn't affect customers.
The attacker was incompetent. They had full database write access; if they'd known what they were doing they could've created a whole bunch of accounts with smaller amounts in and withdrawn Mt Gox's entire online reserve of bitcoins, leaving them with too few to fulfill their obligations, but instead they created one big account and ran up against the withdrawal limit.