10 cents a minute is pretty good. but those data rates are insanely expensive. If you used an iPhone the way a typical geek does, the data plan will cost a fortune.
the difference is the term "grocery" has been in use for many many years.
Apple and Mac developers are the only niche in industry who uses the term "application" to refer to software, Everyone else calls it software, or programs.
Apple was the first company in the world to start really pushing the term "App" and they registered a trademark for it on day one, always planning for it to be their own term that no-one else can use. Just like "Coke" is a term no-one else is allowed to use. Now someone else is trying to use the term they registered, and they are required to sue, or they'll loose their trademark.
So apple has three choices:
* sue amazon
* stop using the term "app" and start using some other name
* give up on the idea that they have their own branding for their store
A trademark must be enforced, or it is no-longer valid. If even one other person is using your trademark for any length of time, your trademark is automatically invalid.
A patent does not need to be enforced. You can have a patent and decide whether or not you want to sue someone, it's up to you. It's quite common for patent holders to wait until their patent has been infringed on for a decade or two, and there are many companies around who's entire business depends on the patent, and *then* they go in and sue for patent infringement.
That simply is not true. Microsoft regularly releases updates to MSRT (malicious software removal tool) which is built into windows, and uninstalls software like Mac Defender.
Running an international intelligence agency is very expensive. You can get better intelligence for the same amount of money, if you share all your stuff with your allies, and they share their stuff with you.
So people downloaded some software claiming to be legitimate, but it actually did something bad (such as `rm -rf/`) and it's Apple's fault?
Apple is the only major in the industry with workable a solution to that security hole: require all binary code to be digitally signed by Apple before it can be executed. But I don't think anyone wants their Mac to be as restrictive as the iPhone is.
Mini Cooper: race for an hour or so, then you fill up again and race for another hour or so, then fill up again and drive home.
Tesla: race for an hour or so, then you leave your car in the racetrack's garage to charge overnight. Take a taxi home, and then take a taxi back to the racetrack in the morning so you can pick up your car.
A lot of the reporting seems to focus on claim it would only go 55 miles. As far as track cars go, that's pretty good.
Except a Ford GT will fill the tank up in 2 minutes. The Tesla takes many hours to fill up. That was the real reason they pointed out the lack of range.
This rumor isn't credible. 8MP is a bad idea unless you make the lens and sensor bigger. The trouble is, as you increase the megapixels you reduce the amount of light the sensor can collect. Creating significantly poorer photos in low light conditions and slightly poorer photos in normal conditions.
If you have a huge lens and sensor, like some phones and like a point-and-shoot camera then 8MP (or more) is a great idea. But apple isn't likely to do either of those.
They already made the lens and sensor about as good as they could in the iPhone 4. I think we're a long time away from seeing an 8MP iPhone camera.
If you stick to a reasonable speed, and keep enough distance in front of you to stop in any stiuation, and always remember to look carefully at intersections... Then it's pretty hard to injure yourself.
Robot cars will do all of that, all the time.
OK, maybe a terrible failure like swerving off the road into a tree, because a bird flew in front of you... but plenty of human drivers have died doing exactly that.
The whole point of the article is, "robot cars are better than the best human driver who has ever lived". This is not the case now, but it can be achieved. That doesn't mean they'll never crash, especially if you put 2 billion of them on the road, but they won't crash very often, certainly not major crashes.
If it's not too expensive, I'd love to have a robot driving my car. But it has to be optional, I've got to be able to take over and drive how I want.
I *love* driving, when I'm not tired or drunk or on the phone.
To me, this is just like cruise control. I set it to the speed limit when I'm just cruising down an empty road. But I don't touch it when I'm enjoying my drive.
A breath test is clearly not a "human tissue donation". You're just breathing normally, with the exception of a computer reading what comes out this time.
Of course, breath tests can false positive... In which case you can either accept the breath test and take the DUI or go do a blood test. I'm not familiar with Jehovah's Witness beliefs, but I don't see anything in the paragraph you quoted about blood tests. A blood test is not a tissue donation or blood transfusion, your blood isn't going into anyone else's body, it's just going to the rubish bin after being analysed.
You mean in most states of america, you can just refuse to be breath tested!? And they'll just let you drive off!?!! What's the point of trying to prevent DUI if you allow drunks to refuse the test?
Here in QLD Australia, if you refuse to have your breath tested, then you get exactly the same ticket as if you were over the maximum possible drink driving penalty. The wording is basically:
"If your BAC [blood alcohol content] is higher than 0.05% but lower than 0.15% [then you get the minimum penalty]. If your BAC is higher than 0.15% or you fail to provide a specimen of breath or blood [say good bye to your drivers license]"
"Once the malware is installed on a user's phone, it has the potential to receive commands from a remote server that allow the owner of that server to control the phone."
From wikipedia:
"A Trojan horse, or Trojan, is malware that appears to perform a desirable function for the user prior to run or install but instead facilitates unauthorized access to the user's computer system."
Android could protect itself from nearly all stupid users if it's developers wanted that. Simply require all binary code to be cryptographically signed by someone reputable (like google, or verisign, or whoever), and give those who sign the apps the ability to revoke their signatures.
It has been working great for websites ever since SSL came out, and has worked pretty well so far with iOS, why not do the same thing everywhere?
If apps had to be signed, then it would be impossible to re-package a popular and reputable app with malware attached to it. And if signatures can be revoked, anything that does slip through can be dealt with quickly.
Because what we have works pretty damn well, and we can trust it. Only once a week someone runs into a problem that'd be solved easier with a newer SCM, and it'd only save him/her 30 minutes.
So we can quantisize it at ~30 minutes per week of lost productivity
Switching to a new SCM will require many many hours of research by whoever is tasked with organising the switch, and it will require a couple of hours at least for everyone else, in learning the new gotcha's (lets not forget, some of the guys who are using SCM where I work are graphic designers or even just the person answering the phone. Some of them barely know CSS, and their command line knowledge extends about as far as running the shell scripts we've created for them).
And every piece of software I've ever encontered has bugs. Bugs are mostly a non-issue when you're familiar with the software, you've seen it all before and have memorised the workaround (or at least someone else in the office has memorised it). With new software, these bugs have a habit of appearing when something else is going wrong, turning a small problem into a big problem requiring hours of googling.
These switches have to happen from time to time, but they've got to be avoided where possible. And at least in the office I work for, swiching from svn to hg or git does not make sense. Not because svn is better, just because the switch itself is not worth the end result. We'll switch one day, but not until there are significant benefits, and probably not until there's something better than hg/git around.
I've spent a lot of time driving a car with one of these cameras, and they're excellent, and relatively inexpensive. But they shouldn't be mandatory! Cars are already too complicated.
What about people who aren't driving using a phone? Are you seriously going to tell me, that when I'm sitting in the back of a taxi, i can't send a text to my mate? I can't receive texts either? I can't look at where I am right now on a map using 3G?
That's my first though too. If Telstra can just say "oh! We won't do it anymore!" and start complying with GPL, then why can't thommas-rasset say "oh! I will buy all my music in future!" and have his court case dropped?
Is all hypothetical but the money would probably go to the free software foundation (who is the most likely candidate to take Telstra to court) and the copyright holders of the code in question (who the FSF represent), though I'd rather see it go to charity or something.
The single defining point of GPL is to prevent exactly this kind of use. If you don't want to stop corporations from ripping off your open source code, you'd pick a different open source license.
Slashdot Mirror
Um... did you read the title? This story is announcing unlocked iPhone sales direct from Apple in the US.
10 cents a minute is pretty good. but those data rates are insanely expensive. If you used an iPhone the way a typical geek does, the data plan will cost a fortune.
Getting quarterly results up is not a good reason...
What? Of course it's a good reason. If quarterly results are down that's an early sign the company is going under unless something is changed.
As far as I'm concerned, anything is better than going under. If that happens *everybody* at the company looses their job.
It's better to lay off 99.9% of your staff, than risk going under. At least then some of your staff will still have a job.
You're not a slave, you can always look elsewhere for a job. If I was ever tempted to join a union, I would hand in my resignation instead.
the difference is the term "grocery" has been in use for many many years.
Apple and Mac developers are the only niche in industry who uses the term "application" to refer to software, Everyone else calls it software, or programs.
Apple was the first company in the world to start really pushing the term "App" and they registered a trademark for it on day one, always planning for it to be their own term that no-one else can use. Just like "Coke" is a term no-one else is allowed to use. Now someone else is trying to use the term they registered, and they are required to sue, or they'll loose their trademark.
So apple has three choices:
* sue amazon
* stop using the term "app" and start using some other name
* give up on the idea that they have their own branding for their store
You are getting patents and trademarks mixed up.
A trademark must be enforced, or it is no-longer valid. If even one other person is using your trademark for any length of time, your trademark is automatically invalid.
A patent does not need to be enforced. You can have a patent and decide whether or not you want to sue someone, it's up to you. It's quite common for patent holders to wait until their patent has been infringed on for a decade or two, and there are many companies around who's entire business depends on the patent, and *then* they go in and sue for patent infringement.
That simply is not true. Microsoft regularly releases updates to MSRT (malicious software removal tool) which is built into windows, and uninstalls software like Mac Defender.
Running an international intelligence agency is very expensive. You can get better intelligence for the same amount of money, if you share all your stuff with your allies, and they share their stuff with you.
So people downloaded some software claiming to be legitimate, but it actually did something bad (such as `rm -rf /`) and it's Apple's fault?
Apple is the only major in the industry with workable a solution to that security hole: require all binary code to be digitally signed by Apple before it can be executed. But I don't think anyone wants their Mac to be as restrictive as the iPhone is.
If none of the cars around you communicate, then it's exactly the same as not having the system. So nothing is lost.
If some or all the cars around you communicate then you get some extra safety.
It's a win/win situation.
I'm a big fan of the idea that software can only be installed by the app store, or by compiling the source code yourself.
If you have type things like "make" into a black and white text window, then you should also know enough to be cautious what you're doing.
It works like that on iOS right now, why not do the same for Mac OS?
Now lets put that in perspective.
Mini Cooper: race for an hour or so, then you fill up again and race for another hour or so, then fill up again and drive home.
Tesla: race for an hour or so, then you leave your car in the racetrack's garage to charge overnight. Take a taxi home, and then take a taxi back to the racetrack in the morning so you can pick up your car.
Ouch.
A lot of the reporting seems to focus on claim it would only go 55 miles. As far as track cars go, that's pretty good.
Except a Ford GT will fill the tank up in 2 minutes. The Tesla takes many hours to fill up. That was the real reason they pointed out the lack of range.
This rumor isn't credible. 8MP is a bad idea unless you make the lens and sensor bigger. The trouble is, as you increase the megapixels you reduce the amount of light the sensor can collect. Creating significantly poorer photos in low light conditions and slightly poorer photos in normal conditions.
If you have a huge lens and sensor, like some phones and like a point-and-shoot camera then 8MP (or more) is a great idea. But apple isn't likely to do either of those.
They already made the lens and sensor about as good as they could in the iPhone 4. I think we're a long time away from seeing an 8MP iPhone camera.
If you stick to a reasonable speed, and keep enough distance in front of you to stop in any stiuation, and always remember to look carefully at intersections... Then it's pretty hard to injure yourself.
Robot cars will do all of that, all the time.
OK, maybe a terrible failure like swerving off the road into a tree, because a bird flew in front of you... but plenty of human drivers have died doing exactly that.
The whole point of the article is, "robot cars are better than the best human driver who has ever lived". This is not the case now, but it can be achieved. That doesn't mean they'll never crash, especially if you put 2 billion of them on the road, but they won't crash very often, certainly not major crashes.
If it's not too expensive, I'd love to have a robot driving my car. But it has to be optional, I've got to be able to take over and drive how I want.
I *love* driving, when I'm not tired or drunk or on the phone.
To me, this is just like cruise control. I set it to the speed limit when I'm just cruising down an empty road. But I don't touch it when I'm enjoying my drive.
I think the point is that what separates the true Unix gurus from the wannabees are that the gurus have no problems with their regular expressions.
Surely such higher beings are just a myth? I've been writing regex patterns almost daily for 10 years, and still can't get my head around most of it.
A breath test is clearly not a "human tissue donation". You're just breathing normally, with the exception of a computer reading what comes out this time.
Of course, breath tests can false positive... In which case you can either accept the breath test and take the DUI or go do a blood test. I'm not familiar with Jehovah's Witness beliefs, but I don't see anything in the paragraph you quoted about blood tests. A blood test is not a tissue donation or blood transfusion, your blood isn't going into anyone else's body, it's just going to the rubish bin after being analysed.
You mean in most states of america, you can just refuse to be breath tested!? And they'll just let you drive off!?!! What's the point of trying to prevent DUI if you allow drunks to refuse the test?
Here in QLD Australia, if you refuse to have your breath tested, then you get exactly the same ticket as if you were over the maximum possible drink driving penalty. The wording is basically:
"If your BAC [blood alcohol content] is higher than 0.05% but lower than 0.15% [then you get the minimum penalty]. If your BAC is higher than 0.15% or you fail to provide a specimen of breath or blood [say good bye to your drivers license]"
This *is* malware. From TFA:
"Once the malware is installed on a user's phone, it has the potential to receive commands from a remote server that allow the owner of that server to control the phone."
From wikipedia:
"A Trojan horse, or Trojan, is malware that appears to perform a desirable function for the user prior to run or install but instead facilitates unauthorized access to the user's computer system."
This a textbook example of real malware.
Android could protect itself from nearly all stupid users if it's developers wanted that. Simply require all binary code to be cryptographically signed by someone reputable (like google, or verisign, or whoever), and give those who sign the apps the ability to revoke their signatures.
It has been working great for websites ever since SSL came out, and has worked pretty well so far with iOS, why not do the same thing everywhere?
If apps had to be signed, then it would be impossible to re-package a popular and reputable app with malware attached to it. And if signatures can be revoked, anything that does slip through can be dealt with quickly.
Because what we have works pretty damn well, and we can trust it. Only once a week someone runs into a problem that'd be solved easier with a newer SCM, and it'd only save him/her 30 minutes.
So we can quantisize it at ~30 minutes per week of lost productivity
Switching to a new SCM will require many many hours of research by whoever is tasked with organising the switch, and it will require a couple of hours at least for everyone else, in learning the new gotcha's (lets not forget, some of the guys who are using SCM where I work are graphic designers or even just the person answering the phone. Some of them barely know CSS, and their command line knowledge extends about as far as running the shell scripts we've created for them).
And every piece of software I've ever encontered has bugs. Bugs are mostly a non-issue when you're familiar with the software, you've seen it all before and have memorised the workaround (or at least someone else in the office has memorised it). With new software, these bugs have a habit of appearing when something else is going wrong, turning a small problem into a big problem requiring hours of googling.
These switches have to happen from time to time, but they've got to be avoided where possible. And at least in the office I work for, swiching from svn to hg or git does not make sense. Not because svn is better, just because the switch itself is not worth the end result. We'll switch one day, but not until there are significant benefits, and probably not until there's something better than hg/git around.
I've spent a lot of time driving a car with one of these cameras, and they're excellent, and relatively inexpensive. But they shouldn't be mandatory! Cars are already too complicated.
What about people who aren't driving using a phone? Are you seriously going to tell me, that when I'm sitting in the back of a taxi, i can't send a text to my mate? I can't receive texts either? I can't look at where I am right now on a map using 3G?
It's completely crazy.
That's my first though too. If Telstra can just say "oh! We won't do it anymore!" and start complying with GPL, then why can't thommas-rasset say "oh! I will buy all my music in future!" and have his court case dropped?
Is all hypothetical but the money would probably go to the free software foundation (who is the most likely candidate to take Telstra to court) and the copyright holders of the code in question (who the FSF represent), though I'd rather see it go to charity or something.
The single defining point of GPL is to prevent exactly this kind of use. If you don't want to stop corporations from ripping off your open source code, you'd pick a different open source license.