Disagree 100%. I think handoff will be in quiet, planned circumstances. More like an airplane autopilot than a dumb cruise control that has a high chance of spinning out in hydroplane situations, or would happily ram you into the back of the car in front or run you of the road if you stopped paying attention long enough.
Common sense is that a handoff during dangerous situations is quite pointless. Say you are driving along a straight road, expecting nothing evil, either driving yourself or the car is driving. Totally unexpected, a moose jumps into the road. If you are driving yourself, reasonably concentrated, you will have a hard time handling this correctly. A self driving car may handle it better (depending on a situation there might be an accident because the accident was unavoidable).
However, what is absolutely guaranteed to lead to the worst possible result is the car handing over responsibility to the driver, who is reading a book, or watching a movie, or texting, or eating a sandwich, when this happens.
I _would_ expect a handover if the self driving car spots that there is just a lot of water where it expected a road, and it can't figure out how deep the water is, and it stops before the water, and lets the driver take over. Maybe an alarm bell in case the driver is sleeping. Now in case the driver is drunk or has no license, I would expect that there is a "can't drive" button that he presses, and the car would either try to turn around and get out of the situation, or would just stop.
Better question is how dumb does a troll have to be to actually be linked to their real-life identity without someone actually cracking their account security?
If you looked at what these guys posted, you know that they are absolutely in the bottom 5 percent of the IQ department. So I'm not surprised at all.
Except that MacOS X doesn't hide extensions when an attacker uses the double extension trick. So if you downloaded a file prettyimage.png.exe, even with "hide extensions turned on", MacOS X will display both extensions, while Windows (as far as I know) displays "prettyimage.png".
No slippery slope, is in Ammendment 14 the equal protection of the laws. If a baker cannot decide who to do business with, the bank can not decide who to do business with. Before this there were laws that applied to blacks that didn't apply to whites and you are claiming we need to go back to it because of "slippery slope".
A baker cannot refuse to do business with a person because of that person's protected status, like gender, race, etc etc.
A baker _can_ refuse to do business with a person that he dislikes, for example with a supporter of a football club that the baker dislikes, or with a person that has caused trouble in the store before.
Banks can refuse to do business for the same reasons. Now the bank manager will not refuse service to a person that he dislikes, not because it would be illegal (it isn't) but because his bank doesn't like losing business. But he will refuse service to a person or company that will cause the bank trouble.
Why would they? They'll simply rise a lawsuit demanding damages against them all. Since that's a civil suit, the accused need to prove their innocence, which will take years and absurd amounts of money - or they can settle out of court with Uber for a couple thousand dollars.
Since they know or should know that most of the people accessing that site haven't done anything wrong, that could get them into deep trouble. And Uber has deep pockets filled with a billion dollars of investor's money, and some lawyer will take them on and make a mint.
For example, an obvious way to act under values such as those implied by Christianity would be to murder or convert every non-Christian, with a little assistance from current lie-detection technologies to ensure honest.
Well, wouldn't that be in absolute contradiction to the Fifth commandment?
As far as I understand it, this didn't just allow hackers to create a man-in-the-middle attack. Your Lenovo computer with the hardware would actively perform a man-in-the-middle attack against the user to analyse any encrypted traffic to https websites. For example when you enter a credit card number on the website of a reputable company using https, the adware could read what you posted.
Cities don't license plumbers, painter, interior decorators, electricians, doctors, lawyers, nannies, or nurses. Even though these people need much more training.
Come to Germany. Your plumber is licensed, and has done at least 3 years training before he is allowed to appear at your home without a supervisor who has the necessary license. Same for the painter, interior decorator, or nurse. Electricians the same, but they can get into deep legal trouble for shoddy works. Doctors and lawyers are _really_ licensed.
Looks like 7334720 is just applying DRM "over the internet," using a portable computer. How can anyone be granted such wide patents?
There is the remote possibility that such a patent wasn't obvious many years back when it was granted. There are now new rules, where combining existing prior art is obvious and cannot be patented, unless the effect of the combination is something unexpected.
If you think that a patent should be valid for a shorter time than normal if the general progress in knowledge has made it obvious, then I would agree.
Remove software patents and there will be no motivation to invest millions/billions in innovative software that can be cloned by competitors in a year or two.
Most software isn't one bit innovative. Not in the sense that is patent worthy. Do you think anything in the operation of Facebook is worth a patent? I don't think so. Now start cloning and see where you get.
Apple makes more profit selling desktop and laptop computers than all their competitors together. Is any of that due to patents? No. There is copyright protection for their operating system and their other software, but there isn't anything special in their hardware that could be patented. So start cloning.
Start reforming what can be patented. No software patents, and throw out the crap that is obviously not invention but intellectual property land-grabbing.
Software patents are not the problem. They are just a symptom, and to many people reading Slashdot obvious software patents look obvious, while obvious patents about building refrigerators don't look obvious to us.
The problem is that the purpose of the patent system has been lost. The reason for granting patents is that instead of an inventor keeping an invention secret to exploit it to avoid others copying it, the inventor is given a time-limited monopoly on the patent, but has to publish it. That way, others can read the patent, improve on it, and society benefits.
Now if an invention is so clever that only one person could have invented it, that makes sense. But if I invent something and 100 other people are clever enough to invent the same thing if they feel the need to solve the same problem, then nobody benefits from me publishing the patent. If anyone needed to solve the problem, they would just do it. Instead they lose time and money by having to fight the patent system.
The problem isn't software patents. If I had a software problem that I couldn't solve and my colleagues couldn't solve and I found that someone had a patented solution, then I wouldn't see any reason why my company shouldn't pay for a license. The problem is that patents are granted for things that hundreds of programmers could easily figure out in a short time. There are patents for things that I would ask as interview questions and expect you to answer.
No, Google uses patents defensively. Apple uses them offensively, to attack other companies and get their products either banned or crippled.
Well, absolutely. Google is good and Apple is evil. Therefore any patents that Google uses are to fight evil and therefore good, while any patents that Apple uses are evil. That's the logic, isn't it?
Now explain to me the four billion dollar lawsuit that Google lost against Microsoft. Was that defensive?
I don't give a flying fuck whether Apple are making a product or not. They're attempting to use patents that should never have been granted to prevent other companies from making products, and that is patent trolling.
On the other hand, it was Samsung who was threatened by the EU with a 13 BILLION dollar fine if they didn't stop patent trolling.
And it was Google through their purchase of Motorola who demanded 4 BILLION dollars from Microsoft for two MP3 related patents (I think they ended up paying Microsoft, as patent trolls should do).
The first mistake made by email clients is they added support for a broken-by-design protocol called S/MIME which used asymmetric encryption through the entire message and was thus cripplingly slow.
Who says it uses asymmetric encryption through everything? It makes up a symmetric key, and encrypts only that key with the public keys of all recipients.
Anyway, if they assign my searches to my personal profile it's probably rather confusing: I'm a 72 year old man with possible Alzheimers's, Paget's disease,...
They are not confused. But your credit score is around minus a gazillion:-)
Apple fronted GT Technologies the money to build the facility in order to build displays for Apple products, and requred GT itself as collateral. Apple then chose not to buy GT-manfuactured Sapphire screens, and acquired GT when they could not pay back the money fronted. Tell me again how that's an honest business practice.
You forgot the part where GT didn't actually manage to produce the Sapphire Crystal displays that they had promised they could deliver. And you forgot the part where GT management lined their pockets with stock options, making sure that they made their money, no matter whether the company did well or not.
Its not protected by some EULA because the device is sold before the EULA can be read, which courts have already ruled invalidates the EULA.
Says who?
What is confusing you is that the sale isn't completed until you accept the EULA. It may be true that you can't read the EULA when you hand over the money, but in that case you can take the computer or software home, read the EULA, decide that you don't want to accept it, take the computer back to the store and get your money back.
That said, a computer which allows a third party to read for example a credit card number that I enter into my browser, is not "fit for purpose", and on these grounds you should be able to return it to the seller and get your money back if you live in the EU or some other places.
Your problem is that you don't have to convince yourself of that, but since you want Germans to pay for the mess the Greece are in, you have to convince the Germans. And knowing how they are pissed off with the Greek and have had just about enough of it, you'll have a hard time doing that.
Why did Apple hire 5 whopping engineers from a single company instead of from the open market?
They hired on the open market. You can hire engineers who either are unemployed, or who are willing to quit their current job. So it seems that either A123 laid off these five engineers, or the company is so awful that five engineers are willing to leave at the same time. From what I hear, both is equally likely. And from what I hear, I wouldn't put it beyond these guys to first fire an engineer, and then preventing him from getting another job.
What about transferring company trade secrets to a competitor, like Apple?
Transferring trade secrets is illegal. But the fear that someone might transfer trade secrets (commit a crime) shouldn't stop them from getting employed, because most people do _not_ become criminals. Apart from that, _if_ Apple wanted trade secrets they could just pay the guys, they wouldn't have to employ them. Apart from that, no company including Apple would knowingly accept such trade secrets, because that would make someone at Apple criminal, and nobody wants to go to jail.
What this is about is that we have here a company which had massive layoffs, but wants to fuck its employees, and wants to grab money from Apple.
So ApplePay needs new card readers? the retailers have to upgrade and replace working old readers to use it?
As an example, Apple Pay would work just fine with the terminal in my company's canteen somewhere in the UK. Apple Pay needs the card terminals that everyone will have to buy anyway to replace their old ones.
Why do you think Apple Pay is remotely secure. Apple is good at keeping its users hemmed in and docile, not security.
Quite a pathetic comment. My Mac has unbreakable full-disc encryption. So does my backup drive. Built into the operating system. You can't get into my iPhone. Apple can't get into my iPhone anymore with iOS 8. Actually, nobody can get in. You can't even reset it and use it if I don't want you to. iMessage has end-to-end encryption that is unbreakable.
"Keeping users docile" is of course the common idiotic stupid geek prejudice of people who think they are smart because they use something that is hard to use. You are not smart, you are stupid!
Slashdot Mirror
Disagree 100%. I think handoff will be in quiet, planned circumstances. More like an airplane autopilot than a dumb cruise control that has a high chance of spinning out in hydroplane situations, or would happily ram you into the back of the car in front or run you of the road if you stopped paying attention long enough.
Common sense is that a handoff during dangerous situations is quite pointless. Say you are driving along a straight road, expecting nothing evil, either driving yourself or the car is driving. Totally unexpected, a moose jumps into the road. If you are driving yourself, reasonably concentrated, you will have a hard time handling this correctly. A self driving car may handle it better (depending on a situation there might be an accident because the accident was unavoidable).
However, what is absolutely guaranteed to lead to the worst possible result is the car handing over responsibility to the driver, who is reading a book, or watching a movie, or texting, or eating a sandwich, when this happens.
I _would_ expect a handover if the self driving car spots that there is just a lot of water where it expected a road, and it can't figure out how deep the water is, and it stops before the water, and lets the driver take over. Maybe an alarm bell in case the driver is sleeping. Now in case the driver is drunk or has no license, I would expect that there is a "can't drive" button that he presses, and the car would either try to turn around and get out of the situation, or would just stop.
Better question is how dumb does a troll have to be to actually be linked to their real-life identity without someone actually cracking their account security?
If you looked at what these guys posted, you know that they are absolutely in the bottom 5 percent of the IQ department. So I'm not surprised at all.
Except that MacOS X doesn't hide extensions when an attacker uses the double extension trick. So if you downloaded a file prettyimage.png.exe, even with "hide extensions turned on", MacOS X will display both extensions, while Windows (as far as I know) displays "prettyimage.png".
No slippery slope, is in Ammendment 14 the equal protection of the laws. If a baker cannot decide who to do business with, the bank can not decide who to do business with. Before this there were laws that applied to blacks that didn't apply to whites and you are claiming we need to go back to it because of "slippery slope".
A baker cannot refuse to do business with a person because of that person's protected status, like gender, race, etc etc.
A baker _can_ refuse to do business with a person that he dislikes, for example with a supporter of a football club that the baker dislikes, or with a person that has caused trouble in the store before.
Banks can refuse to do business for the same reasons. Now the bank manager will not refuse service to a person that he dislikes, not because it would be illegal (it isn't) but because his bank doesn't like losing business. But he will refuse service to a person or company that will cause the bank trouble.
Why would they? They'll simply rise a lawsuit demanding damages against them all. Since that's a civil suit, the accused need to prove their innocence, which will take years and absurd amounts of money - or they can settle out of court with Uber for a couple thousand dollars.
Since they know or should know that most of the people accessing that site haven't done anything wrong, that could get them into deep trouble. And Uber has deep pockets filled with a billion dollars of investor's money, and some lawyer will take them on and make a mint.
For example, an obvious way to act under values such as those implied by Christianity would be to murder or convert every non-Christian, with a little assistance from current lie-detection technologies to ensure honest.
Well, wouldn't that be in absolute contradiction to the Fifth commandment?
As far as I understand it, this didn't just allow hackers to create a man-in-the-middle attack. Your Lenovo computer with the hardware would actively perform a man-in-the-middle attack against the user to analyse any encrypted traffic to https websites. For example when you enter a credit card number on the website of a reputable company using https, the adware could read what you posted.
This is plainly unforgivable.
ARM just renamed their chips X3000, X5000, and X7000 :-)
Cities don't license plumbers, painter, interior decorators, electricians, doctors, lawyers, nannies, or nurses. Even though these people need much more training.
Come to Germany. Your plumber is licensed, and has done at least 3 years training before he is allowed to appear at your home without a supervisor who has the necessary license. Same for the painter, interior decorator, or nurse. Electricians the same, but they can get into deep legal trouble for shoddy works. Doctors and lawyers are _really_ licensed.
Looks like 7334720 is just applying DRM "over the internet," using a portable computer. How can anyone be granted such wide patents?
There is the remote possibility that such a patent wasn't obvious many years back when it was granted. There are now new rules, where combining existing prior art is obvious and cannot be patented, unless the effect of the combination is something unexpected.
If you think that a patent should be valid for a shorter time than normal if the general progress in knowledge has made it obvious, then I would agree.
Remove software patents and there will be no motivation to invest millions/billions in innovative software that can be cloned by competitors in a year or two.
Most software isn't one bit innovative. Not in the sense that is patent worthy. Do you think anything in the operation of Facebook is worth a patent? I don't think so. Now start cloning and see where you get.
Apple makes more profit selling desktop and laptop computers than all their competitors together. Is any of that due to patents? No. There is copyright protection for their operating system and their other software, but there isn't anything special in their hardware that could be patented. So start cloning.
Your argument just doesn't work.
Start reforming what can be patented. No software patents, and throw out the crap that is obviously not invention but intellectual property land-grabbing.
Software patents are not the problem. They are just a symptom, and to many people reading Slashdot obvious software patents look obvious, while obvious patents about building refrigerators don't look obvious to us.
The problem is that the purpose of the patent system has been lost. The reason for granting patents is that instead of an inventor keeping an invention secret to exploit it to avoid others copying it, the inventor is given a time-limited monopoly on the patent, but has to publish it. That way, others can read the patent, improve on it, and society benefits.
Now if an invention is so clever that only one person could have invented it, that makes sense. But if I invent something and 100 other people are clever enough to invent the same thing if they feel the need to solve the same problem, then nobody benefits from me publishing the patent. If anyone needed to solve the problem, they would just do it. Instead they lose time and money by having to fight the patent system.
The problem isn't software patents. If I had a software problem that I couldn't solve and my colleagues couldn't solve and I found that someone had a patented solution, then I wouldn't see any reason why my company shouldn't pay for a license. The problem is that patents are granted for things that hundreds of programmers could easily figure out in a short time. There are patents for things that I would ask as interview questions and expect you to answer.
No, Google uses patents defensively. Apple uses them offensively, to attack other companies and get their products either banned or crippled.
Well, absolutely. Google is good and Apple is evil. Therefore any patents that Google uses are to fight evil and therefore good, while any patents that Apple uses are evil. That's the logic, isn't it?
Now explain to me the four billion dollar lawsuit that Google lost against Microsoft. Was that defensive?
I don't give a flying fuck whether Apple are making a product or not. They're attempting to use patents that should never have been granted to prevent other companies from making products, and that is patent trolling.
On the other hand, it was Samsung who was threatened by the EU with a 13 BILLION dollar fine if they didn't stop patent trolling.
And it was Google through their purchase of Motorola who demanded 4 BILLION dollars from Microsoft for two MP3 related patents (I think they ended up paying Microsoft, as patent trolls should do).
The first mistake made by email clients is they added support for a broken-by-design protocol called S/MIME which used asymmetric encryption through the entire message and was thus cripplingly slow.
Who says it uses asymmetric encryption through everything? It makes up a symmetric key, and encrypts only that key with the public keys of all recipients.
Not to mention they are supposed to be connected but if you don't have reception or there is an interruption to cell service you can't pay.
I don't think Apple Pay needs any WiFi or 3G service to work. Obviously the terminal might, but if that has no connection, then nothing will work.
Anyway, if they assign my searches to my personal profile it's probably rather confusing: I'm a 72 year old man with possible Alzheimers's, Paget's disease, ...
They are not confused. But your credit score is around minus a gazillion :-)
Apple fronted GT Technologies the money to build the facility in order to build displays for Apple products, and requred GT itself as collateral. Apple then chose not to buy GT-manfuactured Sapphire screens, and acquired GT when they could not pay back the money fronted. Tell me again how that's an honest business practice.
You forgot the part where GT didn't actually manage to produce the Sapphire Crystal displays that they had promised they could deliver. And you forgot the part where GT management lined their pockets with stock options, making sure that they made their money, no matter whether the company did well or not.
Its not protected by some EULA because the device is sold before the EULA can be read, which courts have already ruled invalidates the EULA.
Says who?
What is confusing you is that the sale isn't completed until you accept the EULA. It may be true that you can't read the EULA when you hand over the money, but in that case you can take the computer or software home, read the EULA, decide that you don't want to accept it, take the computer back to the store and get your money back.
That said, a computer which allows a third party to read for example a credit card number that I enter into my browser, is not "fit for purpose", and on these grounds you should be able to return it to the seller and get your money back if you live in the EU or some other places.
Absolutely, it's all Germany's fault.
Your problem is that you don't have to convince yourself of that, but since you want Germans to pay for the mess the Greece are in, you have to convince the Germans. And knowing how they are pissed off with the Greek and have had just about enough of it, you'll have a hard time doing that.
Why did Apple hire 5 whopping engineers from a single company instead of from the open market?
They hired on the open market. You can hire engineers who either are unemployed, or who are willing to quit their current job. So it seems that either A123 laid off these five engineers, or the company is so awful that five engineers are willing to leave at the same time. From what I hear, both is equally likely. And from what I hear, I wouldn't put it beyond these guys to first fire an engineer, and then preventing him from getting another job.
What about transferring company trade secrets to a competitor, like Apple?
Transferring trade secrets is illegal. But the fear that someone might transfer trade secrets (commit a crime) shouldn't stop them from getting employed, because most people do _not_ become criminals. Apart from that, _if_ Apple wanted trade secrets they could just pay the guys, they wouldn't have to employ them. Apart from that, no company including Apple would knowingly accept such trade secrets, because that would make someone at Apple criminal, and nobody wants to go to jail.
What this is about is that we have here a company which had massive layoffs, but wants to fuck its employees, and wants to grab money from Apple.
So ApplePay needs new card readers? the retailers have to upgrade and replace working old readers to use it?
As an example, Apple Pay would work just fine with the terminal in my company's canteen somewhere in the UK. Apple Pay needs the card terminals that everyone will have to buy anyway to replace their old ones.
Wait, does it not encrypt the magstripe data before transmission?
The card reader wouldn't be able to read it if it was encrypted.
Why do you think Apple Pay is remotely secure. Apple is good at keeping its users hemmed in and docile, not security.
Quite a pathetic comment. My Mac has unbreakable full-disc encryption. So does my backup drive. Built into the operating system. You can't get into my iPhone. Apple can't get into my iPhone anymore with iOS 8. Actually, nobody can get in. You can't even reset it and use it if I don't want you to. iMessage has end-to-end encryption that is unbreakable.
"Keeping users docile" is of course the common idiotic stupid geek prejudice of people who think they are smart because they use something that is hard to use. You are not smart, you are stupid!