I don't see anything as hyped (and as mostly living up to the hype) as the iPhone. If Time magazine is any indicator, it did phenomenally well last year [time.com]. To top that, some cheap knock-offs would be needed, but I'm not even sure how far that would fare given that Apple has at least 300 patents on it [apple.com]. Could someone fill me in please? Disclaimer: I've never owned a product of Apple and don't intend to buy any of their products until they become more transparent. You had your chance when they sold the fruity-coloured iMacs with semi-transparent cases.
But seriously, you can download the iPhone SDK for free, complete documentation, everything. How much more transparent do you want?
Let's not forget that this would widen the gap between the representation that the rich and the poor get even more. If I sue Tylenol because they filled my children's tylenol bottle with crack and wood alcohol, they can just throw 30 lawyers on the case and laugh their asses off. If they lose, their only additional cost would be my lawyer (likely a small percentage of the cost of settlement or their own lawyers); everything else would be the same as before attorney fees were regularly awarded. However, if I lost due to some technicality, I would have to pay for 31 lawyers in what was a legitimate case to begin with. You should have a look at countries where they _have_ a system of "loser pays", and how they manage to get a proper balance.
As an example, in Germany the judge first decide the "argued value" of the case, which would basically the amount you ask for, minus the amount the company is willing to pay. The judge takes that number, and takes his table of allowable cost which says how much will be payable for your lawyer, their lawyers, and the court, which is a certain percentage of the "argued value". That is also how much your lawyer is allowed to charge (and accordingly, how much work he will do). If you sue Tylenol in your example for $10000, and the cost table says they can spend $1000 on lawyers, then you pay at most $1000. If they use an army of 30 lawyers, that's their problem. They won't be able to stretch out the case forever, because the judge is limited by the $1000 he can charge for court cost, and if they tried to do an SCO on him, they would be told to **** off. So your risk would be $1000 for your lawyers, $1000 for their lawyers, and $1000 for the court (most likely the exact amount for a $10000 case is not $1000 each, but some other number).
By giving me an IP address and forwarding data to it, your AP has authorized me to use your service. However, it seems that you don't think consent from your AP should imply consent from you, correct? If that's the case, I'll copy part of a different post I made... Should something like this go to court, then you can feel free to ask my AP to appear in court as a witness. If it confirms that it authorised you to use its service when asked by the judge, then I'll admit that you are right.
So, who it going to determine whether the access was on purpose, or the more likely alternative, accidental? That would be a judge. I could think of some reasonable criteria: For example, if you have bought a wireless router at your home, then it is quite reasonable to think that you intended to use your router, and if you happened to use your neighbours router then this was likely to be by accident.
On the other hand, if you are fifty miles away from home in your car with your laptop, and you connect to some wireless network without having anyone's permission, then we can assume that you intentionally accessed someone else's laptop without permission.
If someone has a wireless connection and is broadcasting it with no any password or any other access control, can you really say accessing is unauthorized? In that setup, it is your computer seeing the wireless signal and asking, "Can I connect?" and the wireless network replying "Sure!" If you want authorization to access my wireless network, asking my router for permission will do you no good. It is _me_ who you have to ask. If I say that I allow you to access my network, then you are authorized (better get it in writing). If I say no, or you didn't ask me, you are not authorized. My router is a stupid piece of hardware, totally unable to give or deny authorization.
if someone is dumb enough to not have their wireless protected, then they deserve to have their connection leeched. Why would that be so? In other areas of the law vulnerable people are especially protected. You will be punished more severely for robbing a 70 year old grandma who cannot hold on to her handbag, and rightfully so. So why shouldn't people without the knowledge to secure their wireless network deserve special protection?
I was searching for the humor in this, and then I got to the part about three years imprisonment . Remember that with laws like this, the maximum penalty is for extreme cases. I would expect that a judge wouldn't even go close to the $1000 maximum fine if I access your network to check my email. On the other hand, if I use your wireless network to send spam to thousands of people, 24 hours a day, for a whole year, until you and the police figure it out, that is a different situation.
Also if your car can't go 100. How's it going to have the power to stay with traffic on a hill. Have a look at diesel engines. They have all the power at low RPM. Depending on the design, a diesel engine that runs out of steam at 100 mph will overtake you easily on a steep hill.
It depends too heavily on available technology and what is considered adequately practical to provide a maximum figure for MPG. At highway speeds for most cars, air drag dominates losses. Air drag could be reduced by a factor of ten, but the resultant shape would not be practical and it probably wouldn't be safe. There is a very safe, but frightening method to reduce drag: Drive bumper on bumper. Best to do it in groups of three or four. You'd have to redesign the bumpers so this can be done without cosmetic or actual damage; some nice computer control would help so that for example brakes and acceleration are coordinated properly, but it would safe lots of fuel.
Case in point... my car is a 2007 Chevrolet Aveo... Not only does it meet every requirement that's actually listed in TFA, it beats them. It's classed as a LEV, and I know from experience that it pulls 40mpg at 100mph (Filled up in Vaudreiul, QC, topped off the tank an hour later in Ottawa, ON, it took 10L, total distance is just over 159km), making it far more efficient than most (non-hybrid, gasoline) cars on the market. I doubt, however, that this is in the league they're looking for. Ten liters for 159 km? I make that 30 miles per UK gallon, or 25 miles per US gallon.
I'm glad that is your opinion, but the statistics [tfhrc.gov] seem to disagree [fairtrafficlaws.com] with that statement [nap.edu] and show that severity and likelihood of accidents is directly proportional to speed [sciencedirect.com]. Speed may not be inherently dangerous, but speed differences are, and not meeting the expectations of others will be dangerous as well. Going 100 mph on a German motorway without speed limitation is not too dangerous, because people expect you to do it. The same speed in the UK could get you killed much easier because people don't expect it. And drivers are not used to it. And the people going 100mph in the UK are usually morons who only think they can drive.
This desire to go 75 up a hill is just another classic way to waste gas. Roll with the hills, don't fight them. I've also observed that most drivers waiting at a red light often take a full second or more to realize the light has changed. That is something where I would actually like some serious scientific experimentation. The way I learnt it, you usually spend fuel on rolling resistance (linear with speed), running the engine (quadratic with RPM, so you want to use a higher gear at lower RPM), and wind/air resistance (fourth power of speed, that's why going 50mph is much cheaper than 75mph). But when you go uphill, the additional energy you need to move the car uphill is stored and will be reused when you drive downhill, so 75mph uphill should not be any less efficient than 75mph on a straight. You spend a lot of fuel, of course, but you get it back when you go downhill.
And to further the point, there has really been no innovation that has led to better mileage since the late 70s. At that point you could buy VW rabbit that got 35 mpg, a chevy citation that got a bit more than 40mpg, and a few others, one by renault IIRC (le car?), that were pretty good. Now it is 30 years later and that is still what we have, except now some of them are hybrid and really not doing much better than the high mileage IC counterparts. Perhaps this will spark innovation from more companies than the just the all electric leaders (aptera and tesla). What has improved a lot is fuel efficiency - how much work is done using a given amount of fuel. But on the other hand, car size and weight has grown dramatically in the same time, so a lot more work needs to be done by the engine to move an average car over the same distance. Then there is the problem with the SUV arms race. You are safer if your car is heavier than everyone else's, so everyone keeps buying bigger and heavier cars (note that the weight itself doesn't help, crash two four ton cars against each other and they are not better off than two 500kg cars. Being heavier than the other guy helps).
No, it's more like one counter started at +1 the other started at -1. Not such a common bug. We only know that there is at least one bug. We can make guesses what exactly the bug is, but they are purely guesses. We can be relatively sure that in an election where it matters the results would be wrong (my understanding is that in this particular vote the total numbers for Republicans and Democrats are completely irrelevant), but we have no idea how far off.
It would be possible that the bug chooses a random bit position, and two random array positions, and flips the bit at this position within the numbers at these two positions when it calculates the totals. That would explain the result here; it would also explain that sometimes the result is off by two, and if it changes bits in the numbers for two candidates of the same party, then you often can't see that the result is wrong. Or maybe the totals are right, but the candidate numbers are wrong. Anyway, in a real election it might switch bit 20 and move 1 million and a few votes to the wrong side.
The solution seems simple to me. Apple et. al., should charge $20-40 per iPod for 2-3 year unlimited access to the DRM'ed iTunes catalog, then allow users to buy permanent rights to individual songs DRM free for $ 0.25-0.50 per song.
Music companies get the best of both world, i.e., the steady income from subscriptions plus the ability to benefit from a mega-hit via direct sales. My idea would be quite similar, except that you would get unlimited access to the iTunes catalog for that one iPod, no matter how long it lasts. That means there is no contract, nothing to renew, no overhead. No surprise that your music stops working after three years.
I will NEVER give any one company the power to switch off my entire music or movie collection with the push of a button, or because of a computer error, or because their company went bankrupt or got sold. My understanding is that you would be able to download music to an iPod which would be playable on that specific iPod, and nowhere else. So there would be no check with a server, no possibility to turn it off from the outside, intentionally or by mistake, and no way to share that music with anyone else. On the other hand, the music would be gone when the iPod is broken.
I would expect that iTunes would keep at least a list of all your music, and possibly the files (even if it cannot play them), so if say your iPod is stolen and the insurance company paid for a new one, you can easily fill it again with exactly the same music that you had before.
There are many other sources for getting mp3's....the easiest of which, is copying your own CD's. Apple is not even the biggest US seller of music that can be played on an iPod. The biggest is still Walmart.
f you can afford shit like mini's, you can afford a large enough living area to put a pc. seriously they aren't fucking mobility device. My home costs about £2000 per square meter, or about US$440 per square foot. If I lived in the middle of London, it would be two or three times that. That means a MacMini or iMac is really cheaper than an ugly Dell tower f***ing heap of black plastic.
Of course, vulnerabilities in the code to read.dmg files has been an issue before. Except that, instead of the more usual user-mode code execution, it resulted in (remotely-exploitable) kernel-mode code execution, even on an out-the-box install with no AV software installed. Could you provide a link to that information? I only remember one case where a malformed.dmg file managed to crash the system, and a careful examination of the code in question showed that the crash was unavoidable and could not be altered to arbitrary code execution, so this was at most a DoS attack, but never a security risk.
It's because you need a perfect storm of failures to make this work. First the user needs to double click the file, which might be displaying a.app extension if the user has extensions visible.(Meaning they'd realise it wasn't a.doc file.) Actually, if you try to use tricks like a file named mydocument.doc.app, MacOS X will _always_ display the full name with both extensions, either to avoid genuine confusion or to avoid the user being tricked. You can't make MacOS X display mydocument.doc only.
Why would GCC make an assumption about a register, shouldn't it (GCC) set the register to a known value if it needs it ? Apparently the ABI says: Yes, you can make an assumption about the setting of the direction flag.
There are also cases where a compiler can make assumptions about the setting of certain floating point states, and obviously the compiler can make an assumption that there is a valid stack pointer and where the return address of the stack pointer can be found. The compiler can also make assumptions that after a call to another function, certain registers will be unchanged.
In summary, it's a bug in the ABI documentation; apparently the direction flag must be considered undefined in this case. Fixing the documentation won't break any current code. That is wrong. There are by definition no bugs in the ABI documentation: The ABI is what the ABI documentation says. The ABI says the direction flag is always cleared on entry of any function. Since it is the OS that calls signal handlers, it is the duty of the OS to make sure that everything is set up according to the ABI when a signal handler is called. The OS doesn't do that, so it is a bug in the OS.
A bit off topic, that is one of the major problems with OOXML. Some people think that OOXML creates a standard that describes the file format of Microsoft Office documents. They are wrong. OOXML tries to create a standard where the standard is whatever the OOXML document says. According to the problems that people have found in the proposed standard, MS Office users can only hope that their documents are not compatible with OOXML, because if they are, then many things will stop working.
Yes, it is possible to create a secure voting system, but the problem is it would involve strong crypto and as such it would be understood by only a few people. That is wrong. It doesn't involve strong crypto at all. It does, however, involve a strong crytographer:-)
There have been several systems published that allow anonymous verification + proof of tampering without giving up anonymity of voting.
Their threat matters in the only way such a threat ever matters: the cost required to defend against it. I think Sequoia is completely within their rights to prevent anyone from examining their voting machines, since they are protected by trade secrets. On the other hand, any state buying voting machines should absolutely avoid buying voting machines or allowing the use of voting machines from a company that doesn't allow such examination.
This was the first site that came up in a Google search for OS X viruses. There's not many Mac viruses but they definitely do exist. From the linked article: "the user has to receive a file via iChat, and manually choose to open and run the file contained inside"
Slashdot Mirror
But seriously, you can download the iPhone SDK for free, complete documentation, everything. How much more transparent do you want?
As an example, in Germany the judge first decide the "argued value" of the case, which would basically the amount you ask for, minus the amount the company is willing to pay. The judge takes that number, and takes his table of allowable cost which says how much will be payable for your lawyer, their lawyers, and the court, which is a certain percentage of the "argued value". That is also how much your lawyer is allowed to charge (and accordingly, how much work he will do). If you sue Tylenol in your example for $10000, and the cost table says they can spend $1000 on lawyers, then you pay at most $1000. If they use an army of 30 lawyers, that's their problem. They won't be able to stretch out the case forever, because the judge is limited by the $1000 he can charge for court cost, and if they tried to do an SCO on him, they would be told to **** off.
So your risk would be $1000 for your lawyers, $1000 for their lawyers, and $1000 for the court (most likely the exact amount for a $10000 case is not $1000 each, but some other number).
On the other hand, if you are fifty miles away from home in your car with your laptop, and you connect to some wireless network without having anyone's permission, then we can assume that you intentionally accessed someone else's laptop without permission.
It would be possible that the bug chooses a random bit position, and two random array positions, and flips the bit at this position within the numbers at these two positions when it calculates the totals. That would explain the result here; it would also explain that sometimes the result is off by two, and if it changes bits in the numbers for two candidates of the same party, then you often can't see that the result is wrong. Or maybe the totals are right, but the candidate numbers are wrong. Anyway, in a real election it might switch bit 20 and move 1 million and a few votes to the wrong side.
Music companies get the best of both world, i.e., the steady income from subscriptions plus the ability to benefit from a mega-hit via direct sales. My idea would be quite similar, except that you would get unlimited access to the iTunes catalog for that one iPod, no matter how long it lasts. That means there is no contract, nothing to renew, no overhead. No surprise that your music stops working after three years.
I would expect that iTunes would keep at least a list of all your music, and possibly the files (even if it cannot play them), so if say your iPod is stolen and the insurance company paid for a new one, you can easily fill it again with exactly the same music that you had before.
There are also cases where a compiler can make assumptions about the setting of certain floating point states, and obviously the compiler can make an assumption that there is a valid stack pointer and where the return address of the stack pointer can be found. The compiler can also make assumptions that after a call to another function, certain registers will be unchanged.
A bit off topic, that is one of the major problems with OOXML. Some people think that OOXML creates a standard that describes the file format of Microsoft Office documents. They are wrong. OOXML tries to create a standard where the standard is whatever the OOXML document says. According to the problems that people have found in the proposed standard, MS Office users can only hope that their documents are not compatible with OOXML, because if they are, then many things will stop working.