First, if you want to accept the "more people get killed by accidents" argument, then the US should not have entered WW2 after Pearl Harbor. There were something like 40,000 people killed on the highways that year, and only 3,000 at Pearl Harbor.
I don't think the USA entered WW2 because of the number of people killed at that location and at that point in time. First, after that attack the USA didn't enter the war, they were already in a war. If they had done nothing, they would have lost the shortest war in history. Second, not fighting back would have meant that Japan's position would have become stronger and stronger. In 1945 the fight _would_ have been about Los Angeles if they had done nothing. (Maybe not, but a possibility).
Any idiot with a laptop or wifi-capable cellphone can easily connect to an unsecured WAP by clicking on it, or even automatically as many wireless adapters have been configured to do so.
True. But my laptop will not display or record any network traffic that isn't intended for it. Without any special software, I can make use of the network for my own purposes, but I cannot see what anyone else is doing on that unsecured network.
No, you're obsessing on the unimportant geeky details. Only a human can invite. Sometimes that's the intent of an open WiFi, sometimes not. You should determine the owner's intent before using it (which is usually obvious from circumstance).
And remember that even if you join an unsecured WiFi network, your computer will _not_ automatically process any information that is intended for others joining the same network. If someone sends an email, for example, there will be network traffic, and your computer is technically capable of receiving it, but it will ignore because it isn't the intended recipient.
So by that logic if two people do anything other than talk to each other face to face then they are not communicating?
That's again the geek talking, sounding like a bit of asperger, demanding that everything is either black or white. "Communication" is the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing or using another medium - important is, it is communication between people. No word about it having to be talk, and face-to-face.
And now the bummer: If my neighbours have an unsecured WiFi network, I can easily use my Mac to connect to their network and leech off their broadband connection. I can _not_ easily listen to or record what other people are doing on that network. Sure, I can probably find software that does it, but my neighbour's communication using their insecure network is _not_ readily available to me.
It's faster because it doesn't support as much optimization. Some analysis simply isn't implemented. That isn't to say it won't be faster when it's on even footing; just that right now huge swaths of algorithms are missing, so the output code doesn't perform as well but it does get produced in much less time.
On the other hand, the Clang static analyzer alone is worth burying gcc in a big, big hole and leaving it there forever.
This would only be an issue if the "consumer device" were shipped with GCC on it. The complied result ("binary") from GCC is not bound by GCC's license -- if that were true, the entire world is violating the GPL.
So what happens with OpenGL or OpenCL, where code is compiled at runtime? That's the real reason why Apple found gcc 4.3 and later unacceptable, and I have some suspicion that was actually a reason for the license change. There are plenty of other places where compilation happens at runtime, like JavaScript.
The essence of what the NSA did, was to replace cryptographic security with security through obscurity. People who haven't found the back door yet don't know its there. Classic 'security via obscurity' that is the opposite of crypto.
That seems to me like a mischaracterisation of the problem.
Right now, nobody outside the NSA knows whether creating a backdoor through cleverly chosen constants is possible or not. Possibly, nobody inside the NSA knows either. If someone can figure out a way how such a backdoor can be created (which nobody has done yet, and which might not be possible), then we still don't know whether this actually happened or not. The NSA could find such a method today, and they would say "damn, we missed a great opportunity because we didn't know this ten years ago". If a way to create a backdoor is found in twenty years time, then we might assume that the NSA wasn't clever enough to find it thirty years earlier.
No its slower. Phoronix benchmark GCC vs Clang all the time.
The question is: Do GCC and Clang benchmark Phoronix?
As a long time Clang user, I never heard of Phoronix. Maybe it's different with gcc users. Maybe gcc develops use this Phoronix benchmark to drive their software and optimisation development.
How in the hell are WiFi networks not "radio communications" which are "readily accessible"? What fucked up, distorted logic led to this?
Common sense logic as used by non-geeks who are not fixated on literal interpretations. For example, you believe that PCs and mobile devices talking to each other constitutes "communications", while the non-geek would say that "communications" requires two living entities talking to each other. You say yourself that you need a WiFi equipped PC and some software - that's not "readily available".
A 1024 bit RSA key can trivially be cracked in 2^512 operations. An algorithm that uses 2^341 operations (cube root) and involves no more than high school maths was found about 1975. Then we need to go into deep maths, but there are algorithms that are significantly faster, and there is no good reason to think that more progress couldn't be made. 128 vs 3072 is a bit much, but factoring 1024 bit numbers in 2^128 operations doesn't seem impossible.
Wow, you're an idiot. Obviously if you're paranoid that somehow not only has the NSA solved the halting problem and included code analysis on the chip that detects if you're checking randomness (and that this would take such a trivial amount of space on the silicon that intel could even manage it), you can always copy the data elsewhere and check it. Unless you believe they've done the same for every chip. Which is no more stupid, because it's that stupid to begin with.
You're stupid for assuming that you need to solve the halting problem. All you have to do is detect _some_ situations where you can safely replace the results with the ones you want. For example, detect that the code in the Linux kernel generating random seeds is running.
BTW Linus is right. According to what we know about randomness, even if RDRAND is hacked then mixing it with other entropy can't hurt - at worst, it merely is a no-op and achieves nothing.
That's actually not correct. RDRAND is an instruction in an Intel processor. You know what it is _supposed_ to do according to the documentation, but you don't know what it actually does.
It could install a trap that fires on the next XOR instruction, and if the destination is XOR'd with the result of RDRAND, replay the instruction sequence, but returning a different result for the RDRAND itself, so that the destination is changed to what the NSA wants.
Yep and also the Consulate is legally US territory anyway so they can put what the hell they like on the roof.
They can't. According to German law, any act happens in the country where it takes effect. Putting up an antenna that illegally monitors radio traffic on German territory takes effect on German territory and therefore is a crime that would be prosecuted in Germany. In other words, the people responsible better not leave their consulate without diplomatic immunity.
The point is that he's not being given access to the whole season, just the first 8 episodes with no provision for getting the rest of the season. And being charged basically the same price as if he bought the shows individually. Which tends to reduce the point of buying a season pass as there's usually an episode or two that you don't really want in a season.
I looked on the iTunes store, and they offer Season 5, eight episodes (plus some bonus material). To clarify: Apple can offer whatever they like, at any price, and customers can buy it or not - there's nothing wrong with it as long as what Apple actually sells is the same as what Apple offers. If someone thinks the program was too expensive, then they are entirely entitled to their opinion and shouldn't buy the program. But the offer is "Season 5, Eight episodes" and that's what the guy received. The price for these eight episodes seems totally in line with other programs that have 8 episodes.
_Afterwards_ the TV company then went and created more episodes and also called them "Season 5" if what is reported is correct. But that's outside the iTunes Store. So Apple would be well-advised to call the new episodes something different, like "Season 6" or "Season 5b". Apple sold him "Season 5", not "whatever the TV company decides to call Season 5".
Apple wants/gets THREE DOLLARS per person per episode of TV watched? Holymotherfuck, are TV watchers millionaires or something? How can you afford to pay three dollars to watch an hour of TV? I'm sort of a TV outsider, not a luddite but not a participant -- but my market price for watching TV (always without commercials, except for Football) is one tenth that amount. I would think three dollars for the whole eight episodes would be about right.
1. Apple charges whatever the TV company providing the show wants them to charge. 2. You don't pay $2.99 per episode to watch the show, but to download it, keep it forever, and watch it as many times as you want. Plus there is a backup so if your computer breaks you can download it again for free. And if you are on the road with only your iPhone with you, you can download it again (hope the bandwidth doesn't cost too much). 3. There are different prices for HD, SD, and again for renting (watch once) which is considerably cheaper.
And have you ever checked what people pay for TV channels?
t needs a screen, two buttons (or areas to tap) for "Yes" and "No" and low-bandwidth communication with the phone. The phone tells the watch what to display and what the buttons mean. The watch then needs only to reply with "Message understood, displaying screen", "Yes" and "No". That's it.
Smartest post here so far. It seems that many (including Samsung's designers) are fixated at taking a smart phone and shrinking it to the point where you can attach it to your wrist. At which point it's not usable as a smart phone, doesn't fit on your wrist, and doesn't serve any useful purpose.
I wouldn't be surprised if the managers at Apple are all so busy watching each other and playing court politics that innovation is dead. Jobs was very vocal and out there about what was good and bad for his company and what he liked and didnt like. I hear the new guy has nothing to say unless hes pissed. Good luck Apple..
Are you confusing Microsoft and Apple here?
It seems that Tim Cook is quite good at removing people who don't pull their weight for the company.
Just because they can crack a four digit password on an iPhone doesn't mean they can quickly crack a 24 character password. A four digit password can be easily brute forced. That's not true with a 24 character password (emphasis on "easily"). Of course, few people have 24 character passwords.
1. Read the article carefully. They can access iPhone data if they have gained control of the computer that is used to sync the iPhone. So basically they cannot actually access iPhone data, but possibly the backups that you made on your computer. The easiest way to avoid this is to have no such computer, and the second easiest way to avoid this is to keep that computer safe (for example by using MacOS X, with full-disk encryption permanently turned on).
2. To crack the encryption on the iPhone by entering/guessing the right key, you need the iPhone itself. But then you are limited to 10 guesses until the phone is locked. The only way around this is to take the phone, take it to Apple (together with a warrant), who can then install a modified version of the unlocking code, which can try out any number of keys without the 10 guesses limit. Each key takes about 1/10th of a second. It can't be made faster because only that iPhone can do the unlocking. A 9 digit random key would take a few years, but you can use digits and letters and make it virtually uncrackable.
Oh please give us a break. As if only Apple can figure anything out. I find it humorous how much they copied from Android into iOS the last few rounds.
There's the one thing that companies like Samsung can't find out without copying Apple (as demonstrated by that horror watch that Samsung released): What features to add and more importantly, what features to leave out.
Slashdot Mirror
First, if you want to accept the "more people get killed by accidents" argument, then the US should not have entered WW2 after Pearl Harbor. There were something like 40,000 people killed on the highways that year, and only 3,000 at Pearl Harbor.
I don't think the USA entered WW2 because of the number of people killed at that location and at that point in time. First, after that attack the USA didn't enter the war, they were already in a war. If they had done nothing, they would have lost the shortest war in history. Second, not fighting back would have meant that Japan's position would have become stronger and stronger. In 1945 the fight _would_ have been about Los Angeles if they had done nothing. (Maybe not, but a possibility).
Any idiot with a laptop or wifi-capable cellphone can easily connect to an unsecured WAP by clicking on it, or even automatically as many wireless adapters have been configured to do so.
True. But my laptop will not display or record any network traffic that isn't intended for it. Without any special software, I can make use of the network for my own purposes, but I cannot see what anyone else is doing on that unsecured network.
No, you're obsessing on the unimportant geeky details. Only a human can invite. Sometimes that's the intent of an open WiFi, sometimes not. You should determine the owner's intent before using it (which is usually obvious from circumstance).
And remember that even if you join an unsecured WiFi network, your computer will _not_ automatically process any information that is intended for others joining the same network. If someone sends an email, for example, there will be network traffic, and your computer is technically capable of receiving it, but it will ignore because it isn't the intended recipient.
So by that logic if two people do anything other than talk to each other face to face then they are not communicating?
That's again the geek talking, sounding like a bit of asperger, demanding that everything is either black or white. "Communication" is the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing or using another medium - important is, it is communication between people. No word about it having to be talk, and face-to-face.
And now the bummer: If my neighbours have an unsecured WiFi network, I can easily use my Mac to connect to their network and leech off their broadband connection. I can _not_ easily listen to or record what other people are doing on that network. Sure, I can probably find software that does it, but my neighbour's communication using their insecure network is _not_ readily available to me.
It's faster because it doesn't support as much optimization. Some analysis simply isn't implemented. That isn't to say it won't be faster when it's on even footing; just that right now huge swaths of algorithms are missing, so the output code doesn't perform as well but it does get produced in much less time.
On the other hand, the Clang static analyzer alone is worth burying gcc in a big, big hole and leaving it there forever.
This would only be an issue if the "consumer device" were shipped with GCC on it. The complied result ("binary") from GCC is not bound by GCC's license -- if that were true, the entire world is violating the GPL.
So what happens with OpenGL or OpenCL, where code is compiled at runtime? That's the real reason why Apple found gcc 4.3 and later unacceptable, and I have some suspicion that was actually a reason for the license change. There are plenty of other places where compilation happens at runtime, like JavaScript.
The essence of what the NSA did, was to replace cryptographic security with security through obscurity. People who haven't found the back door yet don't know its there. Classic 'security via obscurity' that is the opposite of crypto.
That seems to me like a mischaracterisation of the problem.
Right now, nobody outside the NSA knows whether creating a backdoor through cleverly chosen constants is possible or not. Possibly, nobody inside the NSA knows either. If someone can figure out a way how such a backdoor can be created (which nobody has done yet, and which might not be possible), then we still don't know whether this actually happened or not. The NSA could find such a method today, and they would say "damn, we missed a great opportunity because we didn't know this ten years ago". If a way to create a backdoor is found in twenty years time, then we might assume that the NSA wasn't clever enough to find it thirty years earlier.
No its slower. Phoronix benchmark GCC vs Clang all the time.
The question is: Do GCC and Clang benchmark Phoronix?
As a long time Clang user, I never heard of Phoronix. Maybe it's different with gcc users. Maybe gcc develops use this Phoronix benchmark to drive their software and optimisation development.
How in the hell are WiFi networks not "radio communications" which are "readily accessible"? What fucked up, distorted logic led to this?
Common sense logic as used by non-geeks who are not fixated on literal interpretations. For example, you believe that PCs and mobile devices talking to each other constitutes "communications", while the non-geek would say that "communications" requires two living entities talking to each other. You say yourself that you need a WiFi equipped PC and some software - that's not "readily available".
A 1024 bit RSA key can trivially be cracked in 2^512 operations. An algorithm that uses 2^341 operations (cube root) and involves no more than high school maths was found about 1975. Then we need to go into deep maths, but there are algorithms that are significantly faster, and there is no good reason to think that more progress couldn't be made. 128 vs 3072 is a bit much, but factoring 1024 bit numbers in 2^128 operations doesn't seem impossible.
I think they are finally admitting that OSX has been a failure. All the ad money and snarky campaigns didn't move them much over 10% market share.
That's the most stupid thing I've heard for a while.
Last estimates are that Apple takes 45% of all profits from computer sales. Far, far ahead of Dell, HP and everyone else is far behind.
And marketing money wise, Apple's spend is nothing compared to Samsung.
It's not cheap. You will pay much more with the "two year contract". Buying the locked-in computer with unlocked sim will still cost a lot.
Any phones where that isn't the case?
Wow, you're an idiot. Obviously if you're paranoid that somehow not only has the NSA solved the halting problem and included code analysis on the chip that detects if you're checking randomness (and that this would take such a trivial amount of space on the silicon that intel could even manage it), you can always copy the data elsewhere and check it. Unless you believe they've done the same for every chip. Which is no more stupid, because it's that stupid to begin with.
You're stupid for assuming that you need to solve the halting problem. All you have to do is detect _some_ situations where you can safely replace the results with the ones you want. For example, detect that the code in the Linux kernel generating random seeds is running.
BTW Linus is right. According to what we know about randomness, even if RDRAND is hacked then mixing it with other entropy can't hurt - at worst, it merely is a no-op and achieves nothing.
That's actually not correct. RDRAND is an instruction in an Intel processor. You know what it is _supposed_ to do according to the documentation, but you don't know what it actually does.
It could install a trap that fires on the next XOR instruction, and if the destination is XOR'd with the result of RDRAND, replay the instruction sequence, but returning a different result for the RDRAND itself, so that the destination is changed to what the NSA wants.
Yep and also the Consulate is legally US territory anyway so they can put what the hell they like on the roof.
They can't. According to German law, any act happens in the country where it takes effect. Putting up an antenna that illegally monitors radio traffic on German territory takes effect on German territory and therefore is a crime that would be prosecuted in Germany. In other words, the people responsible better not leave their consulate without diplomatic immunity.
The point is that he's not being given access to the whole season, just the first 8 episodes with no provision for getting the rest of the season. And being charged basically the same price as if he bought the shows individually. Which tends to reduce the point of buying a season pass as there's usually an episode or two that you don't really want in a season.
I looked on the iTunes store, and they offer Season 5, eight episodes (plus some bonus material). To clarify: Apple can offer whatever they like, at any price, and customers can buy it or not - there's nothing wrong with it as long as what Apple actually sells is the same as what Apple offers. If someone thinks the program was too expensive, then they are entirely entitled to their opinion and shouldn't buy the program. But the offer is "Season 5, Eight episodes" and that's what the guy received. The price for these eight episodes seems totally in line with other programs that have 8 episodes.
_Afterwards_ the TV company then went and created more episodes and also called them "Season 5" if what is reported is correct. But that's outside the iTunes Store. So Apple would be well-advised to call the new episodes something different, like "Season 6" or "Season 5b". Apple sold him "Season 5", not "whatever the TV company decides to call Season 5".
Apple wants/gets THREE DOLLARS per person per episode of TV watched? Holymotherfuck, are TV watchers millionaires or something? How can you afford to pay three dollars to watch an hour of TV? I'm sort of a TV outsider, not a luddite but not a participant -- but my market price for watching TV (always without commercials, except for Football) is one tenth that amount. I would think three dollars for the whole eight episodes would be about right.
1. Apple charges whatever the TV company providing the show wants them to charge. 2. You don't pay $2.99 per episode to watch the show, but to download it, keep it forever, and watch it as many times as you want. Plus there is a backup so if your computer breaks you can download it again for free. And if you are on the road with only your iPhone with you, you can download it again (hope the bandwidth doesn't cost too much). 3. There are different prices for HD, SD, and again for renting (watch once) which is considerably cheaper.
And have you ever checked what people pay for TV channels?
Unless Apple already has backdoors for NSA on OSX and iOS.
And why would Apple allow that?
Why in all hells would I want a watch that does video recording? Or Facebook? Or messaging?
Samsung doesn't know the answer to that. But I seriously doubt they even asked themselves the question.
t needs a screen, two buttons (or areas to tap) for "Yes" and "No" and low-bandwidth communication with the phone. The phone tells the watch what to display and what the buttons mean. The watch then needs only to reply with "Message understood, displaying screen", "Yes" and "No". That's it.
Smartest post here so far. It seems that many (including Samsung's designers) are fixated at taking a smart phone and shrinking it to the point where you can attach it to your wrist. At which point it's not usable as a smart phone, doesn't fit on your wrist, and doesn't serve any useful purpose.
I wouldn't be surprised if the managers at Apple are all so busy watching each other and playing court politics that innovation is dead. Jobs was very vocal and out there about what was good and bad for his company and what he liked and didnt like. I hear the new guy has nothing to say unless hes pissed. Good luck Apple..
Are you confusing Microsoft and Apple here?
It seems that Tim Cook is quite good at removing people who don't pull their weight for the company.
Just because they can crack a four digit password on an iPhone doesn't mean they can quickly crack a 24 character password. A four digit password can be easily brute forced. That's not true with a 24 character password (emphasis on "easily"). Of course, few people have 24 character passwords.
1. Read the article carefully. They can access iPhone data if they have gained control of the computer that is used to sync the iPhone. So basically they cannot actually access iPhone data, but possibly the backups that you made on your computer. The easiest way to avoid this is to have no such computer, and the second easiest way to avoid this is to keep that computer safe (for example by using MacOS X, with full-disk encryption permanently turned on).
2. To crack the encryption on the iPhone by entering/guessing the right key, you need the iPhone itself. But then you are limited to 10 guesses until the phone is locked. The only way around this is to take the phone, take it to Apple (together with a warrant), who can then install a modified version of the unlocking code, which can try out any number of keys without the 10 guesses limit. Each key takes about 1/10th of a second. It can't be made faster because only that iPhone can do the unlocking. A 9 digit random key would take a few years, but you can use digits and letters and make it virtually uncrackable.
Oh please give us a break. As if only Apple can figure anything out. I find it humorous how much they copied from Android into iOS the last few rounds.
There's the one thing that companies like Samsung can't find out without copying Apple (as demonstrated by that horror watch that Samsung released): What features to add and more importantly, what features to leave out.
Parent post was also modded down [by NSA sockpuppets].
Would the NSA need sockpuppets? Wouldn't they have some backdoor that allows directly rating every single post?
Sadly copyrighted, we've asked the performer to release them. No luck so far.
What's the problem with this? It's like getting a dozen CDs as a birthday present - do you complain that they are copyrighted?