With bitcoin and all other crypto currencies, the amount of money paid to "investors" equals the amount of money paid by other "investors", minus some inevitable losses, minus all the cost involved with trading. In other words, not even a zero sum game.
The safest thing is to watch them masturbate from a safe distance and keep your money in your pocket. And should you find a bank lending money for buying crypto currency, avoid that bank.
I'd like to see someone install ALL of them on the one phone. It'd either stop dead, or explode.
I think you can buy an iPhone with 512GB. If not then probably an iPad. You could probably find 25,000 apps below 20MB each and install them all. I wonder if iOS can handle that (would need a few thousand screens just to display them all).
If you are asking for â600 million, then the judge takes that number and calculates the fees for the court and for each side's lawyer. Let's say one percent each. So this costs you â6 million for the court, and for each set of lawyers.
The cost is paid by the loser. If you were awarded â12 million, that would be two percent of what you asked for, so you pay 98% of the total cost and end up with 6 million debt.
On the other hand, this also can force defendants to offer payment. If you sue me for $10,000 and I think I owe you $8,000 then I can offer $0 and will probably pay 80% of the cost for a $10,000 case. Or I could offer to pay $8,000 and will pay a much lower percentage of the cost of a $2,000 case; if I offer $8,000 and the judge says $8,000 then I won the case and pay no cost.
Interesting aspect. But moving to a newer SDK also means that the chance/risk of breaking backwards compatibility increases forcing people to upgrade hardware prematurely.
The software I write runs on anything from iPhone 4s to iPhone X, and from iPad 2 upwards. No original iPad, no iPhone 4. You can always go on eBay and buy a newer phone.
I still have friends and family with older iPads running iOS 6.
Seriously? If you try to support iOS 6 today, you are just massively hurting yourself. It's stupid. If you want to be nice, support iOS 9. That supports everything from iPhone 4s and iPad 2 upwards.
If you can't sell it, you can at least force developers to pretend that it's relevant.
Who says Apple can't sell the iPhone X? It seems you have been conditioned to count unit sales, because that gives Android phones the lead.
They have been selling millions. That's the units. Every unit sold is at least $999 in revenue. That's billions in revenue, and revenue counts to a company, not unit sales. Apple has to sell three iPhone 5SE to make the same revenue as with one iPhone X. Android phone makers have to sell five $200 phones or ten $100 phones for the same revenue.
If you point people to, and I quote the summary, "an authorized site" where is the copyright infringement?
You need to expect a certain degree of dishonesty. Authorized site to do what? Popcorn seems according to what I read to be software that is intended to be used for copyright infringement. You can be authorized by say the authors of popcorn to link to their site. At the same time you are not authorized by the copyright owners of gazillions of different works to help with copyright infringement of their works.
So I take it that means you can't steal electricity, cable television, someone else's internet bandwidth, or any number of other things with no physical or tangible component?
Many years ago, in Germany they had the very first case of someone stealing electricity. At a time ages ago when not everybody had electricity supplied to their home, someone connected their home to their neighbour's supply. Got caught, and it turned out it was not illegal to any of the laws in place at the time.
They created a new law.
There was also in the 1970's a first case of computer fraud. It turned out that with fraud, you needed to convince _a human_ of something that isn't true. The person _almost_ got away with it, except at the very end _a human_ signed a checque made out to him, based on false data supplied by a computer. If that checque had been printed by the computer without a human involved, he would have got away with it. They changed the laws.
I guess they'll have to think of an alternative to security by obscurity.
Hopefully there are no glaring security holes revealed in the code.
What you want is security in depth. Multiple layers of obstacles to get around. Obscurity is a perfectly fine first layer of defence.
And what do you mean "no glaring security holes"? I rather hope that ther are _no_ security holes, glaring or almost perfectly hidden. Perfectly hidden is fine, because it's perfectly hidden:-)
Plenty. Even if the phone originally belonged to a teenager who filled the flash up everyday with photos, that wouldn't even be 10% of the flash lifecycle.
Many refurbished phones will be phones that were purchased new and returned within 14 days. Can't be sold as new anymore if the phone was used, so they are sold as refurbished.
That being said,... 10% saving? Just 10? Good lord that's stingy.
The cheapest iPhone 7 is $649, the cheapest refurbished one is said to be $499, so the savings don't seem to be just 10%, but in this case more like 23%. And all the phones seem to be phones that are still on sale.
(And do not even try to tell this good ol' Southern boy that lynching means anything else other than "those people aren't real people like us, so we can kill them whenever we feel like it".)
Did anyone claim that these extortionists are black?
Crypto currencies are a zero sum game in the best case. There is many paid in by investors / speculators / morons and there is money paid out to current owners of the currencies. These amounts are the same. So on average an investor / speculator / moron isn't going to make money.
But it's not even a zero sum game, because there is cost involved for mining, for the work involved, cost of infrastructure and so on. And on top of that, there are criminals that from time to time get considerable amounts of currencies into their own pockets.
It's fundamentally broken to read protected memory without permission.
If your chip can read protected memory without permission at any time, for any reason, it's broken.
You don't understand Spectre. Reading protected memory through speculative execution by itself is no problem. Using the data in a way that leaves a trace (like using it to form an address and reading from that address) is the problem.
Spectre hits you when you try to execute untrusted code such as JavaScript in a VM.
The problem with Spectre is that it hits you if you run malware on your computer, whereas before you were in trouble if you ran malware in your user space.
For cloud servers, this is absolutely fatal, because a different user running code on the same computer could attack you.
If you have a Mac, PC, or Linux computer running VMs, and there is malware on those VMs, then with Spectre you're in trouble; before Spectre you were not.
But if you are an ordinary Mac or Windows users, Spectre doesn't make much difference: If you have malware on your computer, then the single user is in trouble. Spectre or no Spectre. Spectre doesn't make things worse.
The exception is malware in Javascript, which can always happen. Safari protects you from most things through sandboxing, but cannot protect you from Spectre. Their solution is that all access to timers is made artificially inaccurate when running JavaScript. I suppose other browsers do the same.
Spectre works by getting speculatively executed code access kernel mode memory. So they'd need to do protection checks before the speculative code did the access
Not at all. Speculative access to data outside your own process is no problem. But the data read is (kind of) poisoned - it must not be used for anything that leaves detectable side affects, like evicting a cache line and loading a different cache line.
Wyden has as a premise that a backdoor is legitimate if only the mechanism can be made secure.
I don't know where you see him saying this. He says a backdoor is not legitimate if the mechanism isn't secure. A common sense argument that any sane person would agree with if they could afford to be honest.
That's a very strong argument. It's an excellent strategy do give only one, unbeatable argument. You can avoid all other discussions that way. What he saying isn't "a backdoor is legitimate if it is made safe". What he says is "should you manage to create a backdoor that is safe, then I can come up with lots more arguments, but right now there is no need to do so".
I thought Swift syntax was an improvement over Objective-C until this, for instance; view!?.superview?.layer
view!? doesn't make sense. You copied something wrong. It is either view! or view?
What it means: view is an optional object. Swift doesn't repeat the "billion dollar mistake" of having nil pointers. So you have objects that can never be nil, and optionals that can be nil.
view! means: "I know that view is an optional, but I bet it contains an object. So give me the object, and crash if it is nil". view? means: "Give me the object if it is not nil, and don't continue with the expression if it is nil".
A view has a superview, which is optional. So if view! didn't crash or view? wasn't nil, we get the superview. And we stop if that is nil. And the superview has a layer. So the result is an optional layer, and the expression works just fine if the view or the superview or the layer was nil. Except if you started with view! then the app will crash (intentionally, and guaranteed) if view was nil.
In Java you would write "if view != nil && view.superview != nil && view.superview != nil..."
Slashdot Mirror
With bitcoin and all other crypto currencies, the amount of money paid to "investors" equals the amount of money paid by other "investors", minus some inevitable losses, minus all the cost involved with trading. In other words, not even a zero sum game.
The safest thing is to watch them masturbate from a safe distance and keep your money in your pocket. And should you find a bank lending money for buying crypto currency, avoid that bank.
I'd like to see someone install ALL of them on the one phone. It'd either stop dead, or explode.
I think you can buy an iPhone with 512GB. If not then probably an iPad. You could probably find 25,000 apps below 20MB each and install them all. I wonder if iOS can handle that (would need a few thousand screens just to display them all).
even if the TSA agent himself doesn't steal things from it.
And that's a BIG if.
What is this nonsense about Apple Music DRM? That's gone for at leat ten years, and was only there because the recording industry insisted.
If you are asking for â600 million, then the judge takes that number and calculates the fees for the court and for each side's lawyer. Let's say one percent each. So this costs you â6 million for the court, and for each set of lawyers.
The cost is paid by the loser. If you were awarded â12 million, that would be two percent of what you asked for, so you pay 98% of the total cost and end up with 6 million debt.
On the other hand, this also can force defendants to offer payment. If you sue me for $10,000 and I think I owe you $8,000 then I can offer $0 and will probably pay 80% of the cost for a $10,000 case. Or I could offer to pay $8,000 and will pay a much lower percentage of the cost of a $2,000 case; if I offer $8,000 and the judge says $8,000 then I won the case and pay no cost.
Interesting aspect. But moving to a newer SDK also means that the chance/risk of breaking backwards compatibility increases forcing people to upgrade hardware prematurely.
The software I write runs on anything from iPhone 4s to iPhone X, and from iPad 2 upwards. No original iPad, no iPhone 4. You can always go on eBay and buy a newer phone.
I still have friends and family with older iPads running iOS 6.
Seriously? If you try to support iOS 6 today, you are just massively hurting yourself. It's stupid. If you want to be nice, support iOS 9. That supports everything from iPhone 4s and iPad 2 upwards.
If you can't sell it, you can at least force developers to pretend that it's relevant.
Who says Apple can't sell the iPhone X? It seems you have been conditioned to count unit sales, because that gives Android phones the lead.
They have been selling millions. That's the units. Every unit sold is at least $999 in revenue. That's billions in revenue, and revenue counts to a company, not unit sales. Apple has to sell three iPhone 5SE to make the same revenue as with one iPhone X. Android phone makers have to sell five $200 phones or ten $100 phones for the same revenue.
If you point people to, and I quote the summary, "an authorized site" where is the copyright infringement?
You need to expect a certain degree of dishonesty. Authorized site to do what? Popcorn seems according to what I read to be software that is intended to be used for copyright infringement. You can be authorized by say the authors of popcorn to link to their site. At the same time you are not authorized by the copyright owners of gazillions of different works to help with copyright infringement of their works.
So I take it that means you can't steal electricity, cable television, someone else's internet bandwidth, or any number of other things with no physical or tangible component?
Many years ago, in Germany they had the very first case of someone stealing electricity. At a time ages ago when not everybody had electricity supplied to their home, someone connected their home to their neighbour's supply. Got caught, and it turned out it was not illegal to any of the laws in place at the time.
They created a new law.
There was also in the 1970's a first case of computer fraud. It turned out that with fraud, you needed to convince _a human_ of something that isn't true. The person _almost_ got away with it, except at the very end _a human_ signed a checque made out to him, based on false data supplied by a computer. If that checque had been printed by the computer without a human involved, he would have got away with it. They changed the laws.
I guess they'll have to think of an alternative to security by obscurity.
Hopefully there are no glaring security holes revealed in the code.
What you want is security in depth. Multiple layers of obstacles to get around. Obscurity is a perfectly fine first layer of defence.
:-)
And what do you mean "no glaring security holes"? I rather hope that ther are _no_ security holes, glaring or almost perfectly hidden. Perfectly hidden is fine, because it's perfectly hidden
Plenty. Even if the phone originally belonged to a teenager who filled the flash up everyday with photos, that wouldn't even be 10% of the flash lifecycle.
Many refurbished phones will be phones that were purchased new and returned within 14 days. Can't be sold as new anymore if the phone was used, so they are sold as refurbished.
That being said,... 10% saving? Just 10? Good lord that's stingy.
The cheapest iPhone 7 is $649, the cheapest refurbished one is said to be $499, so the savings don't seem to be just 10%, but in this case more like 23%. And all the phones seem to be phones that are still on sale.
to be fair the charges against him were a thinly veiled attempt to extradite him to the US. It has very little to do about breaking the law.
To be fair, the charges against him were a completely unveiled attempt to get a a rapist into court. It was all about breaking the law.
(And do not even try to tell this good ol' Southern boy that lynching means anything else other than "those people aren't real people like us, so we can kill them whenever we feel like it".)
Did anyone claim that these extortionists are black?
haunt me again bitcoin...my banker calls me weekly with good news.
Of course he or she does. We all believe you.
Crypto currencies are a zero sum game in the best case. There is many paid in by investors / speculators / morons and there is money paid out to current owners of the currencies. These amounts are the same. So on average an investor / speculator / moron isn't going to make money.
But it's not even a zero sum game, because there is cost involved for mining, for the work involved, cost of infrastructure and so on. And on top of that, there are criminals that from time to time get considerable amounts of currencies into their own pockets.
It's fundamentally broken to read protected memory without permission. If your chip can read protected memory without permission at any time, for any reason, it's broken.
You don't understand Spectre. Reading protected memory through speculative execution by itself is no problem. Using the data in a way that leaves a trace (like using it to form an address and reading from that address) is the problem.
Spectre hits you when you try to execute untrusted code such as JavaScript in a VM.
The problem with Spectre is that it hits you if you run malware on your computer, whereas before you were in trouble if you ran malware in your user space.
For cloud servers, this is absolutely fatal, because a different user running code on the same computer could attack you.
If you have a Mac, PC, or Linux computer running VMs, and there is malware on those VMs, then with Spectre you're in trouble; before Spectre you were not.
But if you are an ordinary Mac or Windows users, Spectre doesn't make much difference: If you have malware on your computer, then the single user is in trouble. Spectre or no Spectre. Spectre doesn't make things worse.
The exception is malware in Javascript, which can always happen. Safari protects you from most things through sandboxing, but cannot protect you from Spectre. Their solution is that all access to timers is made artificially inaccurate when running JavaScript. I suppose other browsers do the same.
Spectre works by getting speculatively executed code access kernel mode memory. So they'd need to do protection checks before the speculative code did the access
Not at all. Speculative access to data outside your own process is no problem. But the data read is (kind of) poisoned - it must not be used for anything that leaves detectable side affects, like evicting a cache line and loading a different cache line.
Wyden has as a premise that a backdoor is legitimate if only the mechanism can be made secure.
I don't know where you see him saying this. He says a backdoor is not legitimate if the mechanism isn't secure. A common sense argument that any sane person would agree with if they could afford to be honest.
That's a very strong argument. It's an excellent strategy do give only one, unbeatable argument. You can avoid all other discussions that way. What he saying isn't "a backdoor is legitimate if it is made safe". What he says is "should you manage to create a backdoor that is safe, then I can come up with lots more arguments, but right now there is no need to do so".
I thought Swift syntax was an improvement over Objective-C until this, for instance; view!?.superview?.layer
view!? doesn't make sense. You copied something wrong. It is either view! or view?
..."
What it means: view is an optional object. Swift doesn't repeat the "billion dollar mistake" of having nil pointers. So you have objects that can never be nil, and optionals that can be nil.
view! means: "I know that view is an optional, but I bet it contains an object. So give me the object, and crash if it is nil". view? means: "Give me the object if it is not nil, and don't continue with the expression if it is nil".
A view has a superview, which is optional. So if view! didn't crash or view? wasn't nil, we get the superview. And we stop if that is nil. And the superview has a layer. So the result is an optional layer, and the expression works just fine if the view or the superview or the layer was nil. Except if you started with view! then the app will crash (intentionally, and guaranteed) if view was nil.
In Java you would write "if view != nil && view.superview != nil && view.superview != nil
If you call Swift a "me too" language, then you are either clueless, have never seen it and never used it, or you are a troll.
Clueless twat who has never read one of her books. Probably never read a book.
Apple is almost certainly on the hook in this case. They will settle quickly and quietly, to limit bad press. It will be well over $50k.
Except that nobody knows whether and how this was Apple's fault. Just speculation.