The Tesla Roadster has an expected battery life of 7 years, and you can pre-order a new one for $12,000 (it'll be delivered in 7 years).
No doubt the prices for new batteries will have gone down by 7 years from now, and the Model S has a swappable battery (for those who don't want to wait for it to charge).
Yes, this is an expensive car. But it's half the price of their previous car, and their next one is supposedly going to be cheaper again.
In the end, you can't defend a computer from it's owner, no matter which OS you use.
iOS does a pretty good job of defending itself from the owner. Mac OS X 10.7 has the technology built in to have similar features, all they would need to add is a tick box somewhere "only allow trusted software to run".
Where "trusted software" is software that was digitally signed by Apple as part of purchasing it via App Store, where they've been adding some serious crypto based security recently. Dangerous privileges, such as *accessing the internet* or *decoding a jpg file* will raise serious red flags and result in the App Store team asking you hard questions about whether or not you actually need to do those things. If they decide you have a reasonable reason to do it, they will start asking how you architected it (eg: decoding a jpg is likely to have buffer overruns, so you better do it on a background daemon with restricted privileges).
And if you get past the app store review team, they can revoke your signed app.
None of this stuff has been thoroughly tested, but it's in the system and being tested every day. When they add that "only allow trusted software" feature, I'm going to turn it on for all the computers in my family except my own.
If you are going to install a radio in your house, that sprays data in every direction, then you have no right to privacy.
You want security? Encrypt your network. That will keep all your data private.
If you don't even want anyone to know whether or not there is a wifi network in your house, then too bad! That's like saying you don't want anyone to know you have a chainsaw, when you've got it running 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Anyone nearby is going to know you've got one, and they have every right to tell other people about it.
8 characters is a joke. Even a decade ago 8 characters was a joke.
8 mixed case alphanumeric characters is 281474976710656 passwords to brute force. Assuming there is no way to achieve an offline attack (which is likely in this case), that means you would have to hit apple's server that many times with an incorrect password before finding the correct one.
Lets say you have a really fast internet connection, and can attempt to log into apple's servers at a rate of, oh, a million times per second... that means it would take you almost TEN YEARS to guess the correct password.
There is no way you can hit apple's servers that hard for more than about 20 minutes, before their sysadmin's investigate WTF is going on, and suspend the iTunes account you're trying to attack.
They do have some policies to enforce strong passwords, and it looks like those policies have been getting stricter recently (because of this?).
But "easily guessable" could just mean a password I use for some other service which was hacked. Apple has no way of verifying that your password is unique.
"significant" is subjective, but 0.0005% of iTunes customers is insignificant by anyone's standards.
And apple has only said "we think this is what's going on". They have not said "we aren't going to do anything about it". They never tell anyone what they're going to do until after they've done it.
Combine something that is easy to remember with a random sequence that...
What I've quoted is about as far as your suggestion will sink in, for a typical iTunes customer.
Apple should make each of these users go through some fairly painful steps to get their money refunded, and at the end give them good advice how to avoid such things in future.
The only solution is user training, and you can't train them without finding some motivation first.
"remove from its Google.be and Google.com sites, and in particular, cached links visible on Google Web and the Google News service, all articles, photographs and graphics of daily newspapers published in French and German by Belgian publishers"
Notice "google.be" and "google.com" websites. No mention of "news.google.be". And also "visible on Google Web and the Google News service". Not just news, web search and news search.
Google did exactly what they were told to do. It's the judge who gave that order, who should have their ass kicked. This is going to hurt every belgian publisher until it's reversed.
I read the patent and came to the same conclusion. There's unlikely to be any prior art because even *apple* doesn't sell any products which do what is described in this patent.
It's not as simple as you're suggesting. The accelerometer has no way of telling the difference between gravitational pull and normal movement.
That can only be done reliably by taking input from the accelerometer, magnetometer (compass) and gyroscope. Run all that data through some complicated math functions, and you'll have a fairly reliable value of what direction is "down". Even with all that, it's still not perfect (especially the magnetometer, which is sitting right next to electronics that put out a stronger magnetic field than the earth).
Apple is only just starting to do all of that in iOS 5. The models running on iOS 4 and earlier models cannot reliably determine which way is down and it's idea of "down" is always inaccurate while the device is subjected to movement. Sometimes it's incorrect by as much as 90 degrees, causing the screen automatic screen orientation to switch to the wrong setting.
Getting back on topic though, this patent seems to describe a combination of accelerometer and user input via the touch screen to heuristically decide whether or not to rotate on-screen content. As far as i can tell, that's something Apple has never done before themselves. Seems like there's unlikely to be any prior art.
That is not correct in australia. You can be fined for using your indicators like that.
When approaching the roundabout treat it like any other intersection: left indicator for turning left, right indicator for turning right, no indicator for straight through.
When exiting the roundabout, use your indicator to signal the exit as early as possible without suggesting to other drivers that you're taking a different exit. This must even be done when going straight ahead.
At most intersections, bumper to bumper traffic only lasts a couple hours of each day. For most of the day, and all night, our major roads aren't running at full capacity.
Australian cities have started fitting peak hour traffic lights to major roundabouts. It works really well, you can go through the roundabout without slowing down much most of the time (or not slowing down at all on a motorbike) but in peak hour, you've got normal lights.
Some roundabouts in australia have traffic lights fitted which only turn on during peak hour.
Best of both worlds: you never stop under light traffic (most of the day) and the traffic lights keep it flowing as much as possible during peak traffic.
The cost of operations was basically the same regardless of how much water people actually used.
That's not quite right. The cost of operations is dependent on the *max capacity* of the water system. If you use 50GL of water and have capacity for 70GL, then increasing to 60GL or decreasing to 30GL won't effect your costs much. But if consumption goes up to 80GL then it's going to cost a huge amount of money to upgrade everything, followed by increased ongoing costs from that day forwards. For example, the city's current pipes might be too small to increase the water flow going through them, so you have to either burry a second set of pipes along side them, or find some alternate method of providing water while you replace the pipes with bigger one (one big pipe is much cheaper than two small pipes since most of the resistance comes from water rubbing against the inside of the pipe, causing turbulence).
Actually if you use Linux and Apple you WILL pay for patches, MSFT? Nope. At least that is what a friend at my local cableco has told me and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the same at other ISPs.
I use an australian ISP that has caps, and Linux updates don't count towards the cap but MSFT ones doe. They've got a quota-free mirror of every major open source distribution and package manager.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue it doesn't even depend on site compatibility anymore. They are all plenty good enough in that regard.
So that leaves the interface, and how they behave. For me, that puts Safari squarely at the top on Mac OS X, and Chrome on windows.
The Tesla Roadster has an expected battery life of 7 years, and you can pre-order a new one for $12,000 (it'll be delivered in 7 years).
No doubt the prices for new batteries will have gone down by 7 years from now, and the Model S has a swappable battery (for those who don't want to wait for it to charge).
Yes, this is an expensive car. But it's half the price of their previous car, and their next one is supposedly going to be cheaper again.
In the end, you can't defend a computer from it's owner, no matter which OS you use.
iOS does a pretty good job of defending itself from the owner. Mac OS X 10.7 has the technology built in to have similar features, all they would need to add is a tick box somewhere "only allow trusted software to run".
Where "trusted software" is software that was digitally signed by Apple as part of purchasing it via App Store, where they've been adding some serious crypto based security recently. Dangerous privileges, such as *accessing the internet* or *decoding a jpg file* will raise serious red flags and result in the App Store team asking you hard questions about whether or not you actually need to do those things. If they decide you have a reasonable reason to do it, they will start asking how you architected it (eg: decoding a jpg is likely to have buffer overruns, so you better do it on a background daemon with restricted privileges).
And if you get past the app store review team, they can revoke your signed app.
None of this stuff has been thoroughly tested, but it's in the system and being tested every day. When they add that "only allow trusted software" feature, I'm going to turn it on for all the computers in my family except my own.
If you are going to install a radio in your house, that sprays data in every direction, then you have no right to privacy.
You want security? Encrypt your network. That will keep all your data private.
If you don't even want anyone to know whether or not there is a wifi network in your house, then too bad! That's like saying you don't want anyone to know you have a chainsaw, when you've got it running 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Anyone nearby is going to know you've got one, and they have every right to tell other people about it.
Come on, wake up. Location is critical.
Lets say you search for "sony". Their main website is sony.co.jp... which is completely useless to anyone who doesn't speak japanese.
Fortunately, google knows this and gives me sony.com.au instead.
If you're looking for something in another location, tack that other location onto the end of your search query.
Come on. This game was specifically created to spread invalid facts.
You can't compare it to starcraft, which is designed to be a fun game to play.
8 characters is a joke. Even a decade ago 8 characters was a joke.
8 mixed case alphanumeric characters is 281474976710656 passwords to brute force. Assuming there is no way to achieve an offline attack (which is likely in this case), that means you would have to hit apple's server that many times with an incorrect password before finding the correct one.
Lets say you have a really fast internet connection, and can attempt to log into apple's servers at a rate of, oh, a million times per second... that means it would take you almost TEN YEARS to guess the correct password.
There is no way you can hit apple's servers that hard for more than about 20 minutes, before their sysadmin's investigate WTF is going on, and suspend the iTunes account you're trying to attack.
They do have some policies to enforce strong passwords, and it looks like those policies have been getting stricter recently (because of this?).
But "easily guessable" could just mean a password I use for some other service which was hacked. Apple has no way of verifying that your password is unique.
"significant" is subjective, but 0.0005% of iTunes customers is insignificant by anyone's standards.
And apple has only said "we think this is what's going on". They have not said "we aren't going to do anything about it". They never tell anyone what they're going to do until after they've done it.
Combine something that is easy to remember with a random sequence that...
What I've quoted is about as far as your suggestion will sink in, for a typical iTunes customer.
Apple should make each of these users go through some fairly painful steps to get their money refunded, and at the end give them good advice how to avoid such things in future.
The only solution is user training, and you can't train them without finding some motivation first.
There are several very popular games that are not on sale in australia, and it's possibly illegal to import them.
From the summary:
"remove from its Google.be and Google.com sites, and in particular, cached links visible on Google Web and the Google News service, all articles, photographs and graphics of daily newspapers published in French and German by Belgian publishers"
Notice "google.be" and "google.com" websites. No mention of "news.google.be". And also "visible on Google Web and the Google News service". Not just news, web search and news search.
Google did exactly what they were told to do. It's the judge who gave that order, who should have their ass kicked. This is going to hurt every belgian publisher until it's reversed.
They had a *court order* not to include links to those URL's. What do you expect?
It looks like Google even spent several months trying to fight it, before finally giving in.
I read the patent and came to the same conclusion. There's unlikely to be any prior art because even *apple* doesn't sell any products which do what is described in this patent.
It's not as simple as you're suggesting. The accelerometer has no way of telling the difference between gravitational pull and normal movement.
That can only be done reliably by taking input from the accelerometer, magnetometer (compass) and gyroscope. Run all that data through some complicated math functions, and you'll have a fairly reliable value of what direction is "down". Even with all that, it's still not perfect (especially the magnetometer, which is sitting right next to electronics that put out a stronger magnetic field than the earth).
Apple is only just starting to do all of that in iOS 5. The models running on iOS 4 and earlier models cannot reliably determine which way is down and it's idea of "down" is always inaccurate while the device is subjected to movement. Sometimes it's incorrect by as much as 90 degrees, causing the screen automatic screen orientation to switch to the wrong setting.
Getting back on topic though, this patent seems to describe a combination of accelerometer and user input via the touch screen to heuristically decide whether or not to rotate on-screen content. As far as i can tell, that's something Apple has never done before themselves. Seems like there's unlikely to be any prior art.
That is not correct in australia. You can be fined for using your indicators like that.
When approaching the roundabout treat it like any other intersection: left indicator for turning left, right indicator for turning right, no indicator for straight through.
When exiting the roundabout, use your indicator to signal the exit as early as possible without suggesting to other drivers that you're taking a different exit. This must even be done when going straight ahead.
All the companies who sell magnets designed for this, say they work. But you can't trust their opinion.
I've never been able to find an article written by an expert on the topic.
Anecdotal reports are NOT reliable, since these light sensors nearly always work without any magnet. So how do you know if the magnet is working?
At most intersections, bumper to bumper traffic only lasts a couple hours of each day. For most of the day, and all night, our major roads aren't running at full capacity.
Australian cities have started fitting peak hour traffic lights to major roundabouts. It works really well, you can go through the roundabout without slowing down much most of the time (or not slowing down at all on a motorbike) but in peak hour, you've got normal lights.
Some roundabouts in australia have traffic lights fitted which only turn on during peak hour.
Best of both worlds: you never stop under light traffic (most of the day) and the traffic lights keep it flowing as much as possible during peak traffic.
I'm not an Ubuntu user, but this seems like a good move to me.
It'll make the system more approachable for new users, and anyone who needs the fancy extra features shouldn't be using a GUI in the first place.
Serious linux geeks do package management from the command line.
Only good if someone hacks in the FS remotely, steals a backup tape, or finds a discarded drive from their SAN.
Right, and it's not as if anyone has ever managed to hack into a major companie's server.
This is the last straw for me. I'm not going to use DropBox ever again. Clearly whoever's in charge of their security is not doing a good job.
You spend 35 hours per week watching movies? That's not healthy.
The cost of operations was basically the same regardless of how much water people actually used.
That's not quite right. The cost of operations is dependent on the *max capacity* of the water system. If you use 50GL of water and have capacity for 70GL, then increasing to 60GL or decreasing to 30GL won't effect your costs much. But if consumption goes up to 80GL then it's going to cost a huge amount of money to upgrade everything, followed by increased ongoing costs from that day forwards. For example, the city's current pipes might be too small to increase the water flow going through them, so you have to either burry a second set of pipes along side them, or find some alternate method of providing water while you replace the pipes with bigger one (one big pipe is much cheaper than two small pipes since most of the resistance comes from water rubbing against the inside of the pipe, causing turbulence).
The updates are signed, not encrypted. The ISP's can cache all they want, and as long as they don't modify it everything will work great.
Actually if you use Linux and Apple you WILL pay for patches, MSFT? Nope. At least that is what a friend at my local cableco has told me and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the same at other ISPs.
I use an australian ISP that has caps, and Linux updates don't count towards the cap but MSFT ones doe. They've got a quota-free mirror of every major open source distribution and package manager.
So clearly, it varies from one ISP to another.