Unlikely to happen. The firmware updates for all currently-sold iPods are encrypted and authenticated, and I don't think anyone's managed to crack the encryption yet.
On all modern iPods, you need a secret cryptographic key to be able to add or remove tracks that's specific to your iPod's serial number. Some very hard-working hackers have managed to reverse-engineer the algorithm in iTunes to generate keys from serial numbers, but after the first time they did this Apple changed the algorithm and threw all their code-obfuscation and anti-debugging techniques that they'd developed for the iTunes DRM into protecting it. They managed to deobfuscate it and get the new key generation algorithm, though Apple used legal threats to take down all info on how they did it so the next time Apple change their algorithm you'd better hope the original people are still around and willing.
(Oh, and for iPhone and iPod Touch they go to a fair bit of effort to change the encryption and authentication keys with every major iOS update, if not more often.)
You are on modern iPods. They've been using roughly the same level of security to prevent other software from syncing with recent iPods as they have to prevent cracking of their DRM, in fact.
The rich cheating the system is also part of the problem. For example, companies have been systematically raiding workers' pension funds to fund big retirement packages for CEOs and dividends for shareholders, to the point that many people may not actually be able to afford to retire. If you've got a 401(k) instead, a whole bunch of people in the finance industry have been coming up with better and better ways to skim money out of it and make themselves wealthy off your retirement savings. Then there's the problem of them avoiding taxes on their income...
Two words: mega-yachts. I'm sure the rich will be able to find something to do with all the world's raw materials; if nothing else they'll need some to build prisons to hold the poor when they revolt.
The iPhone user has to wait 'til they get home, plug in and then wait an extra 15 minutes for the download.
Bit more than that for most people. And then, if Apple's activation servers are overloaded or something goes wrong, it apparently deletes the download and you have to start over again.
A few anti-global warming scientists have actually used this approach to come up with models that "disprove" global warming. The trouble is that their models have so many parameters to calibrate that they can fit anything, and they ended up with values for some of them that we know aren't consistent with physical reality.
The models predicting global warming apparently tend to be a lot better, with most of the parameters constrained by known physical properties.
What? It seems like what he's doing is actually quite simple and bears no resemblance to what you claim. He took an imaginary system whose behavior perfectly corresponded to a particular model with a particular set of parameters, and then demonstrated that if you knew the model but not the parameters you'd get bad results despite using exactly the correct model.
Last I heard, Austrian economics had all the problems related to the use of parameter-fitting that more mainstream economics did, except that their models were known to be inaccurate and couldn't even predict the past very well and they just ignored this issue.
Unlike with normal search results there's intentionally no way to find out what URL a Google ad goes to without clicking on it, which means that if the ad is relevant people probably will click it.
If you'd clicked on a paid link, apparently you'd have seen a referrer which told you which search terms the user got there from. That's what this is about.
99% of the money that musicians make doesn't actually go to musicians at all - that's kind of the point of the protests, that the wealthy are benefiting from other people's labour - and I think a lot of the wealthier musicians are making most of their money from other people's music that they had no had in creating whatsoever.
They might do. Of course, the media environment in which society thinks about those questions will be controlled by a few wealthy individuals with an incentive to maintain the status quo, as will all the means of mass communication like the Internet. Have you watched Fox News recently?
The rare earth metals are only required to achieve higher efficiency. You can still make wind turbines without it, you would just need more of them.
Which means more copper, aluminium, steel and other materials... which again you have to pay the very rich for for. Last time I looked the richest man in the world had got to that position by controlling truly awe-inspiring proportions of world steel production, for example.
For one-off private trades, maybe not - those usually tend to happen over a short enough period that the person selling just sets a price in Bitcoins and hopes the value of them won't change too much. Pretty much all the longer-term sellers of goods end up setting their prices in US dollars though. A few have tried to just set fixed prices in Bitcoins but they ended up giving up because the variation in the value of Bitcoins made their prices first ridiculously high and then lower than the cost of materials, and this was for quite high-margin businesses too.
What happens if the price of someone's work is less than the cost of keeping them alive and healthy so they can do that work? That's kinda a problem for traditional economic ideas from what I can tell.
Could you really get a job without a car? Do you have a husband or wife that works too, and if so do they need a car of their own to get there? If you've got kids, could they get to their place of education without one?
The other side of this is that the minimum wage helps prevent a really nasty potential spiral to the bottom. Currently labour is over-supplied, which means that qualified people can't get jobs because there aren't enough to go around; if the artificial lower cap on wages was dropped many minimum-wage employees would see their wages drop below it due to the existence of all those capable unemployed willing to work for less. The trouble is that the minimum wage is at about the minimum level required to stay housed and fed well enough to actually perform those jobs; if people's pay dropped they'd have to seek out additional jobs in order to survive. A decrease in the price of labour can actually lead to an increase in the supply of labour as a result, causing a further downward spiral in wages. While there may also be an increase in the amount of jobs available, there's no reason to expect it to be large enough to balance out this increase in supply.
The wealthy aren't wealthy simply because they own money. They're wealthy because they own the factories that produce stuff and the sources of raw materials they use and the banks and financial institutions that fund those factories and mines. This doesn't somehow magically go away just because of automation.
Wind power requires rare earth metals that can only efficiently be mined in a handful of places on Earth and require expensive specialized machinery to extract. Solar panels still require small quantities of exotic materials, and they have to be manufactured in incredibly expensive-to-build facilities that are basically controlled by the very rich. Control of land matters because that's where the raw materials come from, but control of other forms of capital is important too.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlikely to happen. The firmware updates for all currently-sold iPods are encrypted and authenticated, and I don't think anyone's managed to crack the encryption yet.
You are NOT required to use iTunes either.
On all modern iPods, you need a secret cryptographic key to be able to add or remove tracks that's specific to your iPod's serial number. Some very hard-working hackers have managed to reverse-engineer the algorithm in iTunes to generate keys from serial numbers, but after the first time they did this Apple changed the algorithm and threw all their code-obfuscation and anti-debugging techniques that they'd developed for the iTunes DRM into protecting it. They managed to deobfuscate it and get the new key generation algorithm, though Apple used legal threats to take down all info on how they did it so the next time Apple change their algorithm you'd better hope the original people are still around and willing.
(Oh, and for iPhone and iPod Touch they go to a fair bit of effort to change the encryption and authentication keys with every major iOS update, if not more often.)
You are on modern iPods. They've been using roughly the same level of security to prevent other software from syncing with recent iPods as they have to prevent cracking of their DRM, in fact.
It's a measure of the rate of energy production, though.
The rich cheating the system is also part of the problem. For example, companies have been systematically raiding workers' pension funds to fund big retirement packages for CEOs and dividends for shareholders, to the point that many people may not actually be able to afford to retire. If you've got a 401(k) instead, a whole bunch of people in the finance industry have been coming up with better and better ways to skim money out of it and make themselves wealthy off your retirement savings. Then there's the problem of them avoiding taxes on their income...
Two words: mega-yachts. I'm sure the rich will be able to find something to do with all the world's raw materials; if nothing else they'll need some to build prisons to hold the poor when they revolt.
The iPhone user has to wait 'til they get home, plug in and then wait an extra 15 minutes for the download.
Bit more than that for most people. And then, if Apple's activation servers are overloaded or something goes wrong, it apparently deletes the download and you have to start over again.
A few anti-global warming scientists have actually used this approach to come up with models that "disprove" global warming. The trouble is that their models have so many parameters to calibrate that they can fit anything, and they ended up with values for some of them that we know aren't consistent with physical reality.
The models predicting global warming apparently tend to be a lot better, with most of the parameters constrained by known physical properties.
What? It seems like what he's doing is actually quite simple and bears no resemblance to what you claim. He took an imaginary system whose behavior perfectly corresponded to a particular model with a particular set of parameters, and then demonstrated that if you knew the model but not the parameters you'd get bad results despite using exactly the correct model.
Derren Brown's a magician; a lot of his tricks almost certainly involve sleight of hand and some are based on outright trickery.
Last I heard, Austrian economics had all the problems related to the use of parameter-fitting that more mainstream economics did, except that their models were known to be inaccurate and couldn't even predict the past very well and they just ignored this issue.
Oh dear. That explains why I've been failing to get their over-active autocorrect not to "correct" my queries as of late.
Unlike with normal search results there's intentionally no way to find out what URL a Google ad goes to without clicking on it, which means that if the ad is relevant people probably will click it.
If you'd clicked on a paid link, apparently you'd have seen a referrer which told you which search terms the user got there from. That's what this is about.
I'm not sure anyone's managed to figure out an actually-safe way of reprocessing spent fuel yet.
"junk or used or secondhand property, including but not limited to"
It looks like it really is that broad.
99% of the money that musicians make doesn't actually go to musicians at all - that's kind of the point of the protests, that the wealthy are benefiting from other people's labour - and I think a lot of the wealthier musicians are making most of their money from other people's music that they had no had in creating whatsoever.
They might do. Of course, the media environment in which society thinks about those questions will be controlled by a few wealthy individuals with an incentive to maintain the status quo, as will all the means of mass communication like the Internet. Have you watched Fox News recently?
The rare earth metals are only required to achieve higher efficiency. You can still make wind turbines without it, you would just need more of them.
Which means more copper, aluminium, steel and other materials... which again you have to pay the very rich for for. Last time I looked the richest man in the world had got to that position by controlling truly awe-inspiring proportions of world steel production, for example.
For one-off private trades, maybe not - those usually tend to happen over a short enough period that the person selling just sets a price in Bitcoins and hopes the value of them won't change too much. Pretty much all the longer-term sellers of goods end up setting their prices in US dollars though. A few have tried to just set fixed prices in Bitcoins but they ended up giving up because the variation in the value of Bitcoins made their prices first ridiculously high and then lower than the cost of materials, and this was for quite high-margin businesses too.
What happens if the price of someone's work is less than the cost of keeping them alive and healthy so they can do that work? That's kinda a problem for traditional economic ideas from what I can tell.
Could you really get a job without a car? Do you have a husband or wife that works too, and if so do they need a car of their own to get there? If you've got kids, could they get to their place of education without one?
The other side of this is that the minimum wage helps prevent a really nasty potential spiral to the bottom. Currently labour is over-supplied, which means that qualified people can't get jobs because there aren't enough to go around; if the artificial lower cap on wages was dropped many minimum-wage employees would see their wages drop below it due to the existence of all those capable unemployed willing to work for less. The trouble is that the minimum wage is at about the minimum level required to stay housed and fed well enough to actually perform those jobs; if people's pay dropped they'd have to seek out additional jobs in order to survive. A decrease in the price of labour can actually lead to an increase in the supply of labour as a result, causing a further downward spiral in wages. While there may also be an increase in the amount of jobs available, there's no reason to expect it to be large enough to balance out this increase in supply.
The wealthy aren't wealthy simply because they own money. They're wealthy because they own the factories that produce stuff and the sources of raw materials they use and the banks and financial institutions that fund those factories and mines. This doesn't somehow magically go away just because of automation.
Wind power requires rare earth metals that can only efficiently be mined in a handful of places on Earth and require expensive specialized machinery to extract. Solar panels still require small quantities of exotic materials, and they have to be manufactured in incredibly expensive-to-build facilities that are basically controlled by the very rich. Control of land matters because that's where the raw materials come from, but control of other forms of capital is important too.