That "theorem-proving" mentality is extremely handy if you are writing subtle code. It will at least make that code easier to debug.
I tend to write code with the attitude "if I had to prove it is correct, then I could (unless I didn't pay attention and there is a bug, then I need to fix the bug first)". It makes life a hell of a lot easier than having code where you don't have the slightest clue if it works outside the test cases.
You live on a different planet than the rest of us. [businessinsider.com] On the planet we live on, Apple's smartphone market share peaked in 2009 at 48% and has declined steadily ever since, to less than 17% today.
That's what happens when you look at numbers without turning your brain on.
You can divide the phone market into "smartphones" and "feature phones". You can also divide the phone market into "expensive phones" and "cheap phones". In 2009, "smartphones" and "expensive phones" was mostly the same market; Apple had 48% in either market. In 2018, feature phones are mostly gone. We now have lots and lots of cheap smartphones, and a few expensive ones. With all the cheap phones moving from the "feature phone" to "smartphone" market, of course Apple is losing share. But if you look at "expensive phones", Apple has a _huge_ part of that, probably 60%.
It's just single-digit market share, so might as well just ignore them for now...
Single digit market share of users who are willing to pay actual money for things. If A has a $100 Android phone, and B has a $1000 iPhone X, who is going to spend money on your software?
If I remember correctly, Apple has 90% market share of laptops over $1000, and a huge share of all phones over $500.
The reason why they are not using gcc is that gcc's license explicitly forbids Apple to do things they want to to. Mostly "just in time" compilation of shader software or OpenCL, or using it to compile JavaScript.
He's also offered to go to Sweden if they'll garantee he won't be extradited to the USA, they could have done that, there's no current extradition order on record.
No, they couldn't. They have an agreement, and that agreement will say something like "if the USA files an extradition request, then Sweden will carefully examine that request, and if it is justified then the person will be extradited".
What you are explaining are the normal rules of extradition. But there is more. Let's say a German commits a crime in the USA, then travels back to Germany. And he gets extradited. Then either when his court case ends with "not guilty", or when his jail sentence ends, the Americans have to send him back to Germany. They have no right to send him anywhere else. They are also not allowed to prosecute him for anything than what was claimed in the extradition request.
Now Sweden has requested extradition from the UK. If or when the UK extradites him, Sweden can only prosecute him for the crimes in the extradition request, and they have no right to extradite him anywhere else. Even if the USA had a 100% legally perfect and justified extradition request, Sweden could not extradite him. Had he stayed in Sweden, they could extradite him, but not if he is only in Sweden because he was extradited.
The statute of limitations would have been hit in August 2020. #1-3 are already expired.
Are you sure the clock for statute of limitation keeps running when you leave the country without permission, then flee from extradition by getting asylum in an embassy?
The reason for "statute of limitation" is mostly that if you were arrested and charged for rape that you are supposed to have committed ten years ago, you would have no idea where you were at the time, which person might be able to give you an alibi, and so on, so it is unfairly hard to defend yourself. These reasons don't exist if you knew about the accusation and fled.
The police will probably argue that they are not asking for self incrimination, they are after his dealer. But anything they find in the course of that investigation...
Totally misunderstanding the situation. They asked him to unlock the phone, not to provide the password. What's on the phone would be evidence, no self incrimination. Just like the police knocking on your door with a search warrant, opening the door and letting them in is not self incrimination.
It would be self incrimination if the police didn't know for sure whether it was the person's phone, and if ownership of the phone was incriminating, and in that case unlocking the phone would be self incrimination (even if the police didn't read any messages at all, because being able to unlock proves you own the phone).
You didn't read the article properly. It's 5% for unused stamps (for example stamps in the hands of stamp collectors, where copyright penalties are quite reasonable), plus a total of $5,000 for the huge majority of stamps that were used for postage.
There is no reason why GPL licensed code cannot run on on iPhone. Your "license" argument is nonsense, you can use your own license on the App Store (but must agree to the minimum terms of Apple's license, that's not something GPL should have a problem with).
The problem with GPL licensed software on iOS is that copyright holders of GPL licensed software told Apple they didn't want their software on the App Store. And if the copyright holder doesn't want their software on the App Store, then Apple removes it. Apple just doesn't get involved in arguments between copyright holders and licensors. If you use GPL licensed code, 100% observing the license, and therefore completely legal, but the copyright holder says "no", then Apple doesn't get involved in that argument and the app stays outside until copyright holder and licensor agrees.
(I hope everyone understands that GPL licensed code has a copyright holder, who has given you a license, but might not like what you are doing. That copyright holder would lose in court, but Apple doesn't run a court).
All those apps that article is talking about are gone (replaced with newer versions). It's not impossible to put a malicious app on the store, but it's harder, more rare, and likely to be removed quickly.
And the app review process makes sure that apps cannot even _ask_ for permissions if there isn't a good reason for the app to get them. So it's not your decision to give the app access to your address book or not use it, it's the developer's decision not to ask for access to your address book, or stay off the store.
I never unzip a file to any place other than an empty directory on my desktop. All the files go in one spot, no overwriting of anything. From there I do what I need.
Doesn't matter what it is. If it needs to be unzipped, it goes to an empty spot.
The whole idea of this vulnerability is that some tools don't restrict themselves to the folder that you specify, but put files elsewhere - no matter where you say you want your files to go.
Well played - for those that don't know... Apple has already eyed the ad businesses, and went in boots and all - pronouncing a pending revolution in ads - it didn't end well...
If the public has been convinced of your guilt, how is a jury, made up of members of the public, to presume you innocent during a criminal trial?
The jury must judge on the evidence. At the moment the trial starts, they have heard zero evidence against you, so according to the evidence they heard, you are innocent. As the trial proceeds and evidence is heard, both against you and for you, that will change.
What they are not allowed to do is to judge you based on anything that isn't presented as evidence in court.
Sell "Eventbrite" tickets to the "Admission Desk" event. To gain access to the actual event, after being admitted to the Admission Desk event, You have to sign a document at the Admission Desk that contains legal language effectively Nullifying Eventbrite's agreement,
That's stupid. If you find a proposed contract unacceptable, then you don't try to find workarounds (which is always dubious), you just refuse to accept the contract. Hurts them where it hurts them most.
I don't think the headphone jack actually matters much for people who buy the SE. If you're targeting an older, more conservative crowd, how many of them are listening to music via headphones anyway, or taking calls on a headset?
He never actually intended to kill. He's not a murderer: He's an idiot. Reckless. Impulsive. Egotistical. But not a murderer.
Where I come from, it's murder if you do something where a reasonable person would assume that someone might die as a result, and you still do it. In some states in the USA you have "felony murder", where if A and B commit an armed robbery (where obviously someone might get killed as a result), and a police officer shoots A, then B will be guilty for "felony murder".
It should be clear to everyone that when you sent a SWAT team to someone's home then someone might die. Whether this is due to police officers being reckless, or badly trained, or just a combination of good officers and bad luck, it's obvious that this might lead to someone dying. Any reasonable person knows that. So where I come from, if you do something that could reasonably kill someone, and you do it, it's murder.
If the autopilot is unsafe around barriers like that, it should refuse to operate around those barriers. If it can't be made to recognize those situations, it should not be used at all.
It can't just refuse to operate. It can tell the driver to take over, but if that doesn't happen, the autopilot must go on as well as it can. What's the alternative?
This statement is an admission of guilt. Driver took his hands off the wheel for 6 seconds and the car did nothing to avert the accident. Didn't stop, didn't go nuts with flashing lights and warning sirens, just drove straight into the barrier.
That's what most cars would do. The Tesla did better: It warned the driver to put his hands on the steering wheel. Mine wouldn't do that. No admission of guilt here whatsoever.
Can it be tested technically? I would think that someone on Android at this point would have created some low-level way to monitor microphone use (not just "microphone accessed" but actually seeing data come from it) and would have caught Facebook monitoring the microphone.
Since Tim Cook and Facebook are not best friends at the moment, I bet Apple has tried this out. I mean they are in control of the operating system and all the hardware; there is no way to hide it from them.
Why are "they" recording audio when "you" record video? Something is not right here....
That's pretty idiotic. The age of silent movies has been over for more than 90 years. Any application recording video will also record audio. That's what anybody without a persecution complex would expect.
Slashdot Mirror
That "theorem-proving" mentality is extremely handy if you are writing subtle code. It will at least make that code easier to debug.
I tend to write code with the attitude "if I had to prove it is correct, then I could (unless I didn't pay attention and there is a bug, then I need to fix the bug first)". It makes life a hell of a lot easier than having code where you don't have the slightest clue if it works outside the test cases.
You live on a different planet than the rest of us. [businessinsider.com] On the planet we live on, Apple's smartphone market share peaked in 2009 at 48% and has declined steadily ever since, to less than 17% today.
That's what happens when you look at numbers without turning your brain on.
You can divide the phone market into "smartphones" and "feature phones". You can also divide the phone market into "expensive phones" and "cheap phones". In 2009, "smartphones" and "expensive phones" was mostly the same market; Apple had 48% in either market. In 2018, feature phones are mostly gone. We now have lots and lots of cheap smartphones, and a few expensive ones. With all the cheap phones moving from the "feature phone" to "smartphone" market, of course Apple is losing share. But if you look at "expensive phones", Apple has a _huge_ part of that, probably 60%.
Why do you suppose that AAPL only only got a 2.5% bump when earnings went up almost 16%? Somebody smarter than you is a bit nervous.
Because AAPL went up earlier through the quarter with people _expecting_ their earnings to go up.
It seems people had expect Apple's earnings to go up by about 13%. Since they went up by 16%, that explains a 2.5% gain for AAPL.
It's just single-digit market share, so might as well just ignore them for now...
Single digit market share of users who are willing to pay actual money for things. If A has a $100 Android phone, and B has a $1000 iPhone X, who is going to spend money on your software?
If I remember correctly, Apple has 90% market share of laptops over $1000, and a huge share of all phones over $500.
It's why they don't use gcc anymore.
The reason why they are not using gcc is that gcc's license explicitly forbids Apple to do things they want to to. Mostly "just in time" compilation of shader software or OpenCL, or using it to compile JavaScript.
He's also offered to go to Sweden if they'll garantee he won't be extradited to the USA, they could have done that, there's no current extradition order on record.
No, they couldn't. They have an agreement, and that agreement will say something like "if the USA files an extradition request, then Sweden will carefully examine that request, and if it is justified then the person will be extradited".
What you are explaining are the normal rules of extradition. But there is more. Let's say a German commits a crime in the USA, then travels back to Germany. And he gets extradited. Then either when his court case ends with "not guilty", or when his jail sentence ends, the Americans have to send him back to Germany. They have no right to send him anywhere else. They are also not allowed to prosecute him for anything than what was claimed in the extradition request.
Now Sweden has requested extradition from the UK. If or when the UK extradites him, Sweden can only prosecute him for the crimes in the extradition request, and they have no right to extradite him anywhere else. Even if the USA had a 100% legally perfect and justified extradition request, Sweden could not extradite him. Had he stayed in Sweden, they could extradite him, but not if he is only in Sweden because he was extradited.
The statute of limitations would have been hit in August 2020. #1-3 are already expired.
Are you sure the clock for statute of limitation keeps running when you leave the country without permission, then flee from extradition by getting asylum in an embassy?
The reason for "statute of limitation" is mostly that if you were arrested and charged for rape that you are supposed to have committed ten years ago, you would have no idea where you were at the time, which person might be able to give you an alibi, and so on, so it is unfairly hard to defend yourself. These reasons don't exist if you knew about the accusation and fled.
The police will probably argue that they are not asking for self incrimination, they are after his dealer. But anything they find in the course of that investigation...
Totally misunderstanding the situation. They asked him to unlock the phone, not to provide the password. What's on the phone would be evidence, no self incrimination. Just like the police knocking on your door with a search warrant, opening the door and letting them in is not self incrimination.
It would be self incrimination if the police didn't know for sure whether it was the person's phone, and if ownership of the phone was incriminating, and in that case unlocking the phone would be self incrimination (even if the police didn't read any messages at all, because being able to unlock proves you own the phone).
You didn't read the article properly. It's 5% for unused stamps (for example stamps in the hands of stamp collectors, where copyright penalties are quite reasonable), plus a total of $5,000 for the huge majority of stamps that were used for postage.
Seems like a David vs. Goliath.
And we all know how _that_ ended.
There is no reason why GPL licensed code cannot run on on iPhone. Your "license" argument is nonsense, you can use your own license on the App Store (but must agree to the minimum terms of Apple's license, that's not something GPL should have a problem with).
The problem with GPL licensed software on iOS is that copyright holders of GPL licensed software told Apple they didn't want their software on the App Store. And if the copyright holder doesn't want their software on the App Store, then Apple removes it. Apple just doesn't get involved in arguments between copyright holders and licensors. If you use GPL licensed code, 100% observing the license, and therefore completely legal, but the copyright holder says "no", then Apple doesn't get involved in that argument and the app stays outside until copyright holder and licensor agrees.
(I hope everyone understands that GPL licensed code has a copyright holder, who has given you a license, but might not like what you are doing. That copyright holder would lose in court, but Apple doesn't run a court).
All those apps that article is talking about are gone (replaced with newer versions). It's not impossible to put a malicious app on the store, but it's harder, more rare, and likely to be removed quickly.
And the app review process makes sure that apps cannot even _ask_ for permissions if there isn't a good reason for the app to get them. So it's not your decision to give the app access to your address book or not use it, it's the developer's decision not to ask for access to your address book, or stay off the store.
I never unzip a file to any place other than an empty directory on my desktop. All the files go in one spot, no overwriting of anything. From there I do what I need.
Doesn't matter what it is. If it needs to be unzipped, it goes to an empty spot.
The whole idea of this vulnerability is that some tools don't restrict themselves to the folder that you specify, but put files elsewhere - no matter where you say you want your files to go.
Well played - for those that don't know... Apple has already eyed the ad businesses, and went in boots and all - pronouncing a pending revolution in ads - it didn't end well...
But it did end well. No ads anymore.
Indeed, and with 15% of the mobile market, Apple's lever just ain't that big.
That's a good joke. Who do you think is more likely to pay for your app: Someone who bought a cheap $100 phone, or somoene who bought a $999 phone?
If the public has been convinced of your guilt, how is a jury, made up of members of the public, to presume you innocent during a criminal trial?
The jury must judge on the evidence. At the moment the trial starts, they have heard zero evidence against you, so according to the evidence they heard, you are innocent. As the trial proceeds and evidence is heard, both against you and for you, that will change.
What they are not allowed to do is to judge you based on anything that isn't presented as evidence in court.
Sell "Eventbrite" tickets to the "Admission Desk" event. To gain access to the actual event, after being admitted to the Admission Desk event, You have to sign a document at the Admission Desk that contains legal language effectively Nullifying Eventbrite's agreement,
That's stupid. If you find a proposed contract unacceptable, then you don't try to find workarounds (which is always dubious), you just refuse to accept the contract. Hurts them where it hurts them most.
I don't think the headphone jack actually matters much for people who buy the SE. If you're targeting an older, more conservative crowd, how many of them are listening to music via headphones anyway, or taking calls on a headset?
Anyone who is commuting with public transport.
Then again in the UK you get 25 days minimum plus national holidays by law, and I'm up to 30 days with the option to buy an extra 5.
No, the minimum in the UK is 5.6 weeks = 28 days including bank holiday, but a good employer will give you 23-25 days PLUS eight days bank holiday.
He never actually intended to kill. He's not a murderer: He's an idiot. Reckless. Impulsive. Egotistical. But not a murderer.
Where I come from, it's murder if you do something where a reasonable person would assume that someone might die as a result, and you still do it. In some states in the USA you have "felony murder", where if A and B commit an armed robbery (where obviously someone might get killed as a result), and a police officer shoots A, then B will be guilty for "felony murder".
It should be clear to everyone that when you sent a SWAT team to someone's home then someone might die. Whether this is due to police officers being reckless, or badly trained, or just a combination of good officers and bad luck, it's obvious that this might lead to someone dying. Any reasonable person knows that. So where I come from, if you do something that could reasonably kill someone, and you do it, it's murder.
If the autopilot is unsafe around barriers like that, it should refuse to operate around those barriers. If it can't be made to recognize those situations, it should not be used at all.
It can't just refuse to operate. It can tell the driver to take over, but if that doesn't happen, the autopilot must go on as well as it can. What's the alternative?
This statement is an admission of guilt. Driver took his hands off the wheel for 6 seconds and the car did nothing to avert the accident. Didn't stop, didn't go nuts with flashing lights and warning sirens, just drove straight into the barrier.
That's what most cars would do. The Tesla did better: It warned the driver to put his hands on the steering wheel. Mine wouldn't do that. No admission of guilt here whatsoever.
Can it be tested technically? I would think that someone on Android at this point would have created some low-level way to monitor microphone use (not just "microphone accessed" but actually seeing data come from it) and would have caught Facebook monitoring the microphone.
Since Tim Cook and Facebook are not best friends at the moment, I bet Apple has tried this out. I mean they are in control of the operating system and all the hardware; there is no way to hide it from them.
Why are "they" recording audio when "you" record video? Something is not right here....
That's pretty idiotic. The age of silent movies has been over for more than 90 years. Any application recording video will also record audio. That's what anybody without a persecution complex would expect.