... until software stops being so expensive and TV shows stop being delayed and locked down by DRM. It's that simple. Let me buy a cheap subscription, let me convert it and stream it to any device I own... or bust.
That is a blatant lie. Take as evidence iOS jailbreakers who do it so they can download $0.99 apps for free. There are plenty of people who are never going to pay anything if they can get away with it. I don't care what you do, but don't tell us that nonsense about stuff being too expensive.
If you think for example that a computer game is too expensive and you pirate it, surely you should put the amount that you think is correct in an envelope and send it to the producer of the game? How many people are doing that? Everyone else is just lying.
the problem apple faces is theyre in the same market as CocaCola and Phillip Morris:
Reality check: Apple just gained a major number of new customers with the iPhone 6. At the same time, Samsung Mobile has been losing dramatically, having to give up most of its profits to keep prices down to prevent even higher loss of customers.
Tim Cook is not qualified to lead Apple. Not because he is gay (nothing wrong with that in my opinion) but because he is ruining the corporate image by putting his personal politics ahead of Apple's interests. If any other employee at Apple used the Apple name to endorse his own personal political views, that employee wold be fired. The same policy should apply to Cook.
And here I was thinking that what Cook does gets him the respect of all good citizens. You see, Cook isn't using the Apple name to endorse his own political views. He is endorsing Apple's political views.
So I have a question. If I wanted to buy a smartphone that wasn't made by teenagers handling dangerous chemicals on 16 hour shifts for pennies an hour, what brand phone would I buy, and how much could I expect to pay for it?
You are ridiculous. In every country in the world you have plenty of teenagers working. Nobody in China is doing 16 hour shifts. Nobody in China works for pennies an hour. Very few people in China handle dangerous chemicals, just the same as in other countries. If you want to be taken seriously, try to describe the situation of workers in China as it is.
Why would someone expect their employer to keep them around after they file a lawsuit against them?
Well, actually, I would expect that to happen if the lawsuit was justified. Let's say there is building work at my company and my car gets damaged, and I think it's the fault of my company. Sorting that out should have no effect on my career. It's different if you file a lawsuit and it turns out it is all based on lies.
Just what can you reasonably expect? Most programmers have been emotionally hurt repeatedly by women
WTF? Almost every programmer that I know is in a stable and good relationship with a woman. Except for one female programmer, who is in a stable and good relationship with a man.
So, was there a non-disclosure agreement? You don't have a statutory right to not have your ideas stolen.
An NDA wouldn't help if the idea was nothing special. You have a trade secret if you have a secret that gives you a competitive advantage because you know the secret and others don't. But if others have the same idea and therefore the same knowledge about the idea, then you don't have a trade secret.
Yes, but if they had an NDA they should be suing for breaking the NDA, not theft of trade secrets.
If I divulge something that I received under an NDA, then you can sue me in a civil court for a breach of the NDA. For example if you hired me to organize your kid's birthday party and want it kept secret. That would be a secret, but not a trade secret.
If what I divulge is a trade secret, then you can make criminal charges for breach of a trade secret. Because that's what it is.
How can you claim something is a trade secret if you show it to others? If you want to keep your design proprietary, patent it.
That's what an NDA is for. If I have a trade secret, you sign an NDA and I tell you the trade secret because of the NDA, then (1) it stays a trade secret, and (2) if you breach the NDA I can get you for breach of contract _and_ with criminal charges for violation of a trade secret.
My bloody bank required 8-12 characters, and required uppercase, lowercase, digits and special characters.
Obviously the lovely scheme that is suggested here isn't going to work with that. On the other hand, when you are using an iPad, a 30 character all lowercase password is quicker and easier to type and more likely to get right than 8 uppercase/lowercase/digits/special characters. Now imagine if they allow space characters in the password and turn the spelling checker on as well.
Not that checking it after every add instruction is really that practical. It would be better to have trapping and non-trapping versions of integer arithmetic, and to have languages with semantics which expose that choice to the programmer.
Swift does exactly that. Every instruction is checked for overflow. Not sure how clever the compiler is in proving that certain instructions cannot overflow.
What about a stroke while still breathing, locking accidentally the door to "locked from inside", triggering accidentally the descent mechanism, accidentally not answering the door?
That is of course a possibility. But how often has it happened that someone had a stroke while still breathing, triggering the descent mechanism by accident and _not_ locking the door from the inside? It seems that it is hard to lock the door by accident, so not locking it is 100 times more likely than locking it. Do we have any reported case of that? Where the pilot went into the cockpit just in time to save the airplane? I don't think so.
If you can't see the obvious tragic death of a child (with their future robbed from them) having a heavier weight than an 80 y/o great grandmother who's had a wonderful life then I can't help you.
It may have more effect on relatives. The effect on the person dying is the same. And there have been times not so far away when a huge percentage of children didn't ever make it to adulthood.
The chances of that are about the same as those people who committed suicide by shooting themselves in the head - twice.
I read that it is possible to put two bullets in the gun - one the normal way, and one just pushed into the gun. So it is not possible to shoot yourself in the head twice, but it is possible to have two bullets in your head.
They are valued at 700billion in the stock market. "What do I consider a bloated balloon??"
Apple made $18bn profit in the last quarter. $72bn per year. That's 10 percent of the stock price. With the money they have in the bank, they can earn the current shareprice in profits in about 8 years.
They have done that in the past, at times massively. Right now Samsung mobile revenues are down, and if they spent the same money on advertising they spent in the past, the would actually lose money. Profits are down as it is.
The semiconductor part that has actually grown in revenue and profit doesn't really need that much marketing.
I knew a guy with a Masters in CS who loudly proclaimed optimizing was a pointless exercise.
In many cases, it is true. Not being able to optimise however is quite bad. On the other hand, in my experience when I was given code that ran too slow, it almost never was because it wasn't optimised, but because it did something stupid (like some code that downloaded n files and took O (n^3) time; worked fine with n = 10 but when I tried with n = 200 it just broke down). Changing that to O (n) isn't what I would call "optimising".
That is pretty much what the article suggests. Concatenating string involves creating objects, blah blah blah...
I doubt you'd see the same "9000 times slower!" kind of results with standard C strings.
Of course you do. Assuming you allocated a big enough buffer at the start, strcat takes time proportionally to the length of the first string, because it has to search for the zero byte at the end of that string. If you want it fast, use C++ std::string, or Objective-C NSMutableString.
You don't even have to read the code. Reading what languages they used reveals the entire flaw. They used languages with expensive string operations when done in-memory which is the only reason why writing to a buffered cache and writing to disk is faster.
No, string operations in Java are not expensive. They are expensive if you do them stupidly.
Indeed. Their results make no sense. They are doing something weird. For instance, their paper says that concatenating a million one byte strings into a single million byte string takes 274 seconds. That should take much less than one second. Their code is listed at the end of the paper, and they seem to be assuming that "flush" means the code is actually written to disk. It does not. It just means the bytes were passed to the operating system.
What are the bets that they didn't actually append a byte to a string, but created a new string consisting of an old string with one byte added?
In Objective-C, this would be using NSString instead of NSMutableString. In Java, which they were using, probably using a String instead of a StringBuilder or something similar. A file containing a string is basically a mutable string.
So the headline should be: Doing things on disk can be faster than doing incredibly stupid things in memory.
This is not what big data is, this is just selling customers' information. And Google, despite being listed in the summary, never does it BTW.
That lame argument that Google doesn't sell out customer's data comes up again and again. And it is nonsense, every time. They don't sell the data, but they sell the use of the data. They place adverts based on the data, using their deep knowledge about you (the product).
This is like arguing that an email spammer who doesn't sell his address list to other spammers, but sends spam emails as a service, is a good guy because he doesn't sell your address. Or arguing that a car thief doesn't do any harm as long as he drives around in my car himself, or rents it out, or uses it as a taxi, as long as he doesn't sell it.
Can't pretty much any high enough level certificate authority issue any damned certificate it wants?
Yes, they can. But that only works if Microsoft puts a root certificate for that certificate on all Windows PCs, and Apple puts it on all Macs and iOS devices, and Google puts it as a root certificiate on all Android devices and so on. If you get caught, the next Windows/Apple/Google security update removes the root certificate, and that certificate authority is dead.
Slashdot Mirror
... until software stops being so expensive and TV shows stop being delayed and locked down by DRM. It's that simple. Let me buy a cheap subscription, let me convert it and stream it to any device I own... or bust.
That is a blatant lie. Take as evidence iOS jailbreakers who do it so they can download $0.99 apps for free. There are plenty of people who are never going to pay anything if they can get away with it. I don't care what you do, but don't tell us that nonsense about stuff being too expensive.
If you think for example that a computer game is too expensive and you pirate it, surely you should put the amount that you think is correct in an envelope and send it to the producer of the game? How many people are doing that? Everyone else is just lying.
the problem apple faces is theyre in the same market as CocaCola and Phillip Morris:
Reality check: Apple just gained a major number of new customers with the iPhone 6. At the same time, Samsung Mobile has been losing dramatically, having to give up most of its profits to keep prices down to prevent even higher loss of customers.
Tim Cook is not qualified to lead Apple. Not because he is gay (nothing wrong with that in my opinion) but because he is ruining the corporate image by putting his personal politics ahead of Apple's interests. If any other employee at Apple used the Apple name to endorse his own personal political views, that employee wold be fired. The same policy should apply to Cook.
And here I was thinking that what Cook does gets him the respect of all good citizens. You see, Cook isn't using the Apple name to endorse his own political views. He is endorsing Apple's political views.
So I have a question. If I wanted to buy a smartphone that wasn't made by teenagers handling dangerous chemicals on 16 hour shifts for pennies an hour, what brand phone would I buy, and how much could I expect to pay for it?
You are ridiculous. In every country in the world you have plenty of teenagers working. Nobody in China is doing 16 hour shifts. Nobody in China works for pennies an hour. Very few people in China handle dangerous chemicals, just the same as in other countries. If you want to be taken seriously, try to describe the situation of workers in China as it is.
Why would someone expect their employer to keep them around after they file a lawsuit against them?
Well, actually, I would expect that to happen if the lawsuit was justified. Let's say there is building work at my company and my car gets damaged, and I think it's the fault of my company. Sorting that out should have no effect on my career. It's different if you file a lawsuit and it turns out it is all based on lies.
for every single case where Amazon tries to enforce this against a warehouse worker. This is absolutely f***ing disgusting.
Just what can you reasonably expect? Most programmers have been emotionally hurt repeatedly by women
WTF? Almost every programmer that I know is in a stable and good relationship with a woman. Except for one female programmer, who is in a stable and good relationship with a man.
So, was there a non-disclosure agreement? You don't have a statutory right to not have your ideas stolen.
An NDA wouldn't help if the idea was nothing special. You have a trade secret if you have a secret that gives you a competitive advantage because you know the secret and others don't. But if others have the same idea and therefore the same knowledge about the idea, then you don't have a trade secret.
Yes, but if they had an NDA they should be suing for breaking the NDA, not theft of trade secrets.
If I divulge something that I received under an NDA, then you can sue me in a civil court for a breach of the NDA. For example if you hired me to organize your kid's birthday party and want it kept secret. That would be a secret, but not a trade secret.
If what I divulge is a trade secret, then you can make criminal charges for breach of a trade secret. Because that's what it is.
How can you claim something is a trade secret if you show it to others? If you want to keep your design proprietary, patent it.
That's what an NDA is for. If I have a trade secret, you sign an NDA and I tell you the trade secret because of the NDA, then (1) it stays a trade secret, and (2) if you breach the NDA I can get you for breach of contract _and_ with criminal charges for violation of a trade secret.
My bloody bank required 8-12 characters, and required uppercase, lowercase, digits and special characters.
Obviously the lovely scheme that is suggested here isn't going to work with that. On the other hand, when you are using an iPad, a 30 character all lowercase password is quicker and easier to type and more likely to get right than 8 uppercase/lowercase/digits/special characters. Now imagine if they allow space characters in the password and turn the spelling checker on as well.
Not that checking it after every add instruction is really that practical. It would be better to have trapping and non-trapping versions of integer arithmetic, and to have languages with semantics which expose that choice to the programmer.
Swift does exactly that. Every instruction is checked for overflow. Not sure how clever the compiler is in proving that certain instructions cannot overflow.
Self preservation should always triumph. Why? That is what people do anyway.
That is obviously wrong. Minimising total damage should always triumph. If you intentionally drive into a pedestrian, you should and will go to jail.
What about a stroke while still breathing, locking accidentally the door to "locked from inside", triggering accidentally the descent mechanism, accidentally not answering the door?
That is of course a possibility. But how often has it happened that someone had a stroke while still breathing, triggering the descent mechanism by accident and _not_ locking the door from the inside? It seems that it is hard to lock the door by accident, so not locking it is 100 times more likely than locking it. Do we have any reported case of that? Where the pilot went into the cockpit just in time to save the airplane? I don't think so.
If you can't see the obvious tragic death of a child (with their future robbed from them) having a heavier weight than an 80 y/o great grandmother who's had a wonderful life then I can't help you.
It may have more effect on relatives. The effect on the person dying is the same. And there have been times not so far away when a huge percentage of children didn't ever make it to adulthood.
The chances of that are about the same as those people who committed suicide by shooting themselves in the head - twice.
I read that it is possible to put two bullets in the gun - one the normal way, and one just pushed into the gun. So it is not possible to shoot yourself in the head twice, but it is possible to have two bullets in your head.
Now tell me what machine beats a 15" Retina MacBook Pro.
They are valued at 700billion in the stock market. "What do I consider a bloated balloon??"
Apple made $18bn profit in the last quarter. $72bn per year. That's 10 percent of the stock price. With the money they have in the bank, they can earn the current shareprice in profits in about 8 years.
Samsung spends far more on marketing than Apple.
They have done that in the past, at times massively. Right now Samsung mobile revenues are down, and if they spent the same money on advertising they spent in the past, the would actually lose money. Profits are down as it is.
The semiconductor part that has actually grown in revenue and profit doesn't really need that much marketing.
I knew a guy with a Masters in CS who loudly proclaimed optimizing was a pointless exercise.
In many cases, it is true. Not being able to optimise however is quite bad. On the other hand, in my experience when I was given code that ran too slow, it almost never was because it wasn't optimised, but because it did something stupid (like some code that downloaded n files and took O (n^3) time; worked fine with n = 10 but when I tried with n = 200 it just broke down). Changing that to O (n) isn't what I would call "optimising".
That is pretty much what the article suggests. Concatenating string involves creating objects, blah blah blah...
I doubt you'd see the same "9000 times slower!" kind of results with standard C strings.
Of course you do. Assuming you allocated a big enough buffer at the start, strcat takes time proportionally to the length of the first string, because it has to search for the zero byte at the end of that string. If you want it fast, use C++ std::string, or Objective-C NSMutableString.
You don't even have to read the code. Reading what languages they used reveals the entire flaw. They used languages with expensive string operations when done in-memory which is the only reason why writing to a buffered cache and writing to disk is faster.
No, string operations in Java are not expensive. They are expensive if you do them stupidly.
Indeed. Their results make no sense. They are doing something weird. For instance, their paper says that concatenating a million one byte strings into a single million byte string takes 274 seconds. That should take much less than one second. Their code is listed at the end of the paper, and they seem to be assuming that "flush" means the code is actually written to disk. It does not. It just means the bytes were passed to the operating system.
What are the bets that they didn't actually append a byte to a string, but created a new string consisting of an old string with one byte added?
In Objective-C, this would be using NSString instead of NSMutableString. In Java, which they were using, probably using a String instead of a StringBuilder or something similar. A file containing a string is basically a mutable string.
So the headline should be: Doing things on disk can be faster than doing incredibly stupid things in memory.
This is not what big data is, this is just selling customers' information. And Google, despite being listed in the summary, never does it BTW.
That lame argument that Google doesn't sell out customer's data comes up again and again. And it is nonsense, every time. They don't sell the data, but they sell the use of the data. They place adverts based on the data, using their deep knowledge about you (the product).
This is like arguing that an email spammer who doesn't sell his address list to other spammers, but sends spam emails as a service, is a good guy because he doesn't sell your address. Or arguing that a car thief doesn't do any harm as long as he drives around in my car himself, or rents it out, or uses it as a taxi, as long as he doesn't sell it.
Can't pretty much any high enough level certificate authority issue any damned certificate it wants?
Yes, they can. But that only works if Microsoft puts a root certificate for that certificate on all Windows PCs, and Apple puts it on all Macs and iOS devices, and Google puts it as a root certificiate on all Android devices and so on. If you get caught, the next Windows/Apple/Google security update removes the root certificate, and that certificate authority is dead.