Had they built such a device, though, then near-real-time breaking of DES would have been possible at the time it was in mainstream use. Certainly, there were claims circulating that such devices existed, but a claim like that without proof is hard to accept. All I can say is that it's demonstrably not impossible, merely unlikely.
Speculation like this needs to take historical context into account. At that time, very little important information worth the effort were stored on a computer. And far less of it was connected to the internet where the NSA or CIA could access the data stream in real time. Such a machine may have been created, but I would hardly think there'd be a use for it.
However, it should be sufficiently complex. A salt that adds a few numbers to the beginning and/or end of the password string does little to no good. A salt generated by a hash of a random value is, however, very effective.
I acknowledge your point that knowing how to use a word processor to write papers, or spreadsheets to do calculations are essential skills to producing work at a collegiate level.
However, the problem does not lie in the fact that students don't know this and have to be taught this. The problem lies in the fact that these are students at all. Not having the basic prerequisites for doing work in college means not qualifying for college. That's the very definition of a prerequisite. That such people are being admitted as students is an administrative, and particularly admissions problem that's a direct result of the erroneous view of the meaning and purpose of education, i.e. a piece of paper with which to get a job.
Don't get me wrong. I don't imply that people shouldn't learn these skills. However, this should have been covered in high school. And if that did not happen (and I can go on about what this means about our education system when high school students are graduating without even being able to type up a decent paper), then they should not be going to college per se to learn these skills, but some intermediate or supplemental education program that actually teaches these things.
At the very, very least, colleges should not be offering these as part of the general academic curriculum, much less a part of the core. They can, and in all fairness, should, offer such instructions as supplemental training courses. I grant that there will be people who've never used a computer in their lives, and passed every class by writing their assignments out by hand. But these are topics that then should be covered by freshman orientation and other such zero-credit, on-your-own-time, optional but nevertheless important sessions.
I'm still of mind that part of being ready for college means that it would suffice to only be taught how to use a computer (start and close a program, print a paper, etc.), and be told what to use to do their work at the start of a class. Needing more specific instructions means that the person isn't ready for college-level learning yet, or for that matter, simply does not qualify, and should not be going somewhere for higher learning.
Is this an elitist mentality? Only in the sense that there are intelligent people out there and not-as-intelligent people out there, and the people who are not-as-intelligent are not the same as the people who are intelligent. It is not to say that they are not as capable, but merely not the same, and thus cannot and should not be treated the same way. The difference is a matter of going to college right out of high school, going to vocational school, spending extra years in (a real) high school, working a few years before going to college, or even not going to college at all (the fact that every entry-level job requires a college degree is a travesty, again perpetuated by this idea that equates college with job-readiness, which only serves to dilute and muddy the meaning and purpose of higher education).
College should prepare them for future employment.
Wrong. That's the job of a vocational school. Granted, submitter's getting an associates, so it's closer to a career-oriented degree than not. Irrespective, two or four years should merely be differenciated by the depth of knowledge in a particular field, not the breadth of knowledge overall.
College is about education. Education does not have a pure application, in the same sense that abstract mathematics and partical physics don't have pure applications. In fact, it should not. Education begins with the fundamentals. Fundamentals don't change no matter what the application. They're the default information, the fallback, safe knowledge, when there's no additional information known. Then, it's learning about the exceptions to the fundamentals, where the fundamentals don't apply, or don't necessarily apply. Finally, it's learning about the unresolved exceptions, and approaches of resolving them. The area of unresolved exceptions is the limits of knowledge, and where the old knowledge ends and new knowledge will be created. Examples should be used only to illustrate the concepts taught. Examples should never be the knowledge being taught.
Teaching MS Office is not intro to computers. Teaching the difference between a spreadsheet and a database, a text editor and a word processor, is. Teaching what a program is, what it means to install a program versus what it means to run a program (without or after installing) is.
Teaching the concept of a shortcut or link is. How to use MS Office is more appropriate for one of their career-based, continuing education-type classes. It's like teaching how to use a Canon 5D Mk III with a 14mm F2.8 prime, instead of what is the field of view or what the F-stop means. Or for a car analogy, it's teaching how to change the motor oil of a 1996 Honda Accord instead of what motor oil actually does and why it needs to be changed at all. Those kinds of classes don't belong in a degree program.
That having been said, any respectable institution has ways to test out of prerequisites. Otherwise, it's just a scam to make you pay more tuition. This wouldn't happen to be the University of Phoenix or some other for-profit, would it?
Haven't you seen any of the election coverage? "Liberals" don't hold the power. Independents do. Just look at the money spent on battleground states like Ohio and Iowa and Colorado. Now look at the money spent on firmly "red" or "blue" states like California, Texas, Alabama, New York.
Who are independents? Well, if you're in IT support of any kind, just imagine your most average user. Imagine the most middle-of-the-road, undistinguished, normal person. Those are your independents.
Don't get me wrong. They're not stupid by any measure. No, most of them are fairly good at what they do. They're just not really that good at anything else. Politics, understanding social issues, these are among the things they're not so good at. So to make a decision, they rely on campaign speeches and television ads and above all else, their gut feelings.
The gut feeling is often useful in small environments of few variables. It is not so helpful when it comes to large things like national economies and social welfare and things pertaining to more than three individuals with three differing interests. But it's really all they have, since they're very average and the matters at hand are very, very complex.
And they're not motivated by the wealth congregating in a smaller number of individuals. They don't care about the social ramifications of legalized abortions. Now, they'd certainly be interested if they weren't able to put dinner on their table every night, but they'd only be interested to the extent of getting dinner back on their table. They're not so interested in understanding the entire process where dinner ultimately ends up on their table, from deficit spending to farm subsidies to transportation to taxation to local education. They scratch their heads at such things. Now, bring in constitutional law, and they just turn away.
A functioning democracy (not a republic, because we went away from that a long time ago) requires an educated, well-informed voting populace. We don't have a functioning democracy because the majority of the voters are neither, largely because they have been socially engineered since the advent of the television to have no interest in either.
OWS was a failure of epic proportions. Or perhaps, in making these people look as ridiculous as they possibly could, and in allowing them a forum in which to vent, it could be considered an epic victory. Only, the people didn't win, the corporations did.
Really, it comes down to consumption and waste. Yeah, the economy runs on people buying things. Big companies will take a big hit. But that's not really the economy. Big companies are doing plenty well (look at the stock market), but the economy is stil lin the dumps.
So it's not really necessary at all to keep buying things. Conservation comes in many forms. Boiling filtrated water is probably better than drinking soda. Eating a variety of fruits and vegetables is better than juice and vitamin supplements combined. Using glass bottles for milk, instead of throwing away plastic or cardboard containers. Turning old clothes into rags, instead of buying paper towels and throwing away old clothes. Buying groceries instead of buying pre-made food, or worse, eating fast food. Buying in bulk helps too, but usage must still be moderated, especially when the thing costs so little per unit.
You can't save on everything. Toilet paper, and bread for example. But where you can, it should be done. Consume less, and there will be fewer things transported. There will be fewer factories. More of what gets produced will be used and not go to waste. That is the kind of behavior that will reduce emissions. It is also the same kind of behavior that will drive Walmart out of business (which is a good thing--large businesses have a tendency to drive small business out, and reduce employment opportunities, even if more people make fewer overall with small businesses).
It is the kind of change that needs to happen to cut emissions. Replacing an existing car with a Prius is no more than a feel-good thing for people who can't do the math but want to feel helpful. It's a completely useless gesture, if not even more harmful. The cost to manufacture, ship, and ultimately dispose of the Prius probably dwarfs any gas savings from using the existing car for a few more years and performing the proper upkeep.
While I don't disagree with your general premise, this is one point that I can't really let slide. Don't forget that the past 150 years can be categorized by massive, massive change in human society. Living standards, population, you name it, civilization is vastly different today than it was 1870, far more dramatic of a difference than, say, 1250 AD from 1100 AD or 350 BC from 500 BC.
The change has already happened. We're at the very tail end of it. The golden age is waning. And it is, if this continues, bad.
It's like hitting the lottery jackpot. It's great for a little while when you can party every day and night without having to work, but the money is almost spent and now it's time to pay back those social dues. There's a reason jackpot winners have a tendency to end up in a worse financial situation than before winning. And that's where civilization will be if we're not careful.
You're made of 78% water. You need to drink at least 8 cups of water a day to replenish you daily loss. But you'll drown in an inch of it.
That which appears to be benficial is not always. There's a ready the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Stability is more important than having more fresh water. In many places, it is more important than freedom and human rights. Because with instability, you can't even begin to talk about social luxuries while you're trying to survive.
It's so big. Yet so really, really small when you compare it to the real world. More size comparisons:
Based on the Burj Khalifa being 829 meters, each image (cell) is about 100 meters.
The full image is 81 cells wide, 32 cells high. The highest point where the whales are at is 13 cells high (including the initial ground level), while the lowest point is around 19 cells deep (not including the initial ground level).
Mt. Everest is slightly higher than the image is wide (88.5 cells).
The deepest mine in the world is about twice the depth of the caves from ground level (39 cells).
In fact, the deepest hole ever drilled is about six times as deep (122 cells).
If the jumbo jets' cruise altitude were drawn to scale, they would be close to ten times the height of the whale from ground level (124 cells).
If this was a map of Manhattan starting at the tip of Battery Park, it would end near the southern parts of Central Park, specifically the whereabouts of the skating rink (according to Google Maps anyway).
Also, apparently, some forum-goers have found the images at the four 11x11 corners to be blank (present but blank, whereas the rest of the empty space is not an actual image). The theory is that this one, 1110, will be either the last or the penultimate comic (with 1111 being the last comic, or just blank). The last comic theory comes from the obvious reference to Calvin and Hobbes, and a reference to the very first comic at the eastern-most cell. There are more blank images at 1n4e, 1n5e, 2n1w, 2n3w, 8n1w, but its meaning has not been cracked yet.
the website will never perform as well as a native app so hopefully Google will have one for us soon.
The only problem I see with this statement is Apple's apps store TOS.
Google Maps would appear to be duplicating the functionality already present in an existing iOS app. That seems to be grounds for rejection right there.
When this story first appeared here, everybody was screaming left and right that the information was unsubstantiated, that there was no (reliable) source, and that Google couldn't have done something like this. That gave me a good laugh. They completely ignored the "no comment" part from Acer (not Asus) and Google, which should say to anyone who's listening with half an ear that the events were most likely true, but the mouthpieces needed to wait for the PR department to decide on how to spin it before responding. The only other possibility was that Google, being such a big company, was waiting for confirmation. But Acer, being a small company, should have had a categorical denial immediately if it actually had been untrue. But of course it couldn't have been true and Alibaba was just making things up, because Google couldn't do something so...evil.
Now that it has emerged that Google actually did do this, people are now claiming that Google isn't being anti-competitive, that they're not doing what Microsoft did in the 90's with Windows, that they're not evil, just because. There are no reasons presented here. There's just a whole lot of because, followed by some hand-waving with how this is different from when Microsoft did it twenty years ago. Sure, it's probably legal because they don't have a monopoly, but people are saying that when Google does it, it is not at all being evil.
So what if Aliyun is a fork of Android? Isn't Android open source? Is it wrong to fork? Does that infringe on some copyrights, because last I heard, Android's codebase was largely FOSS, which means anybody could repackage it under a different name, without any modifications. So what if Aliyun is advertising that they can run Android apps? Is is illegal to do so in that jurisdiction? I may be illegal in the U.S. and in Europe (and even that's arguable), but they're not selling this phone here.
And the response by Google is outright evil. It is wrong, even if it's legal. If Google had any legal standing, they would've sued. Instead, they threaten an OEM with pulling their privileges. They had no legal recourse, so they bully instead. They throw their weight around. Because Acer is not Samsung or HTC, who can take a chunk of the Android userbase with them if they go exclusively Aliyun. It's Acer, who's hanging onto the phone market by a thread. It's Acer, whose phones don't even have a U.S. presence.
Tell me how this is not evil. Tell me this is what companies are supposed to do when the product they advertise as "open" is forked. I guess it's now also perfectly reasonable for Oracle to threaten HP or any other OEM who packages LibreOffice with their Linux offerings. Because that's exactly what this is. And if Oracle, Apple, or Microsoft did something like this, there'd be people up in arms right about now, not throwing around lame excuses trying to justify what happened (there'd be some of those too, but either identified shills or trolls, and not nearly as many).
I thought this was a place where people were halfway intelligent. I thought people here could see things for what they were, and not what they wanted it to be. But all that's left seem to be fanbois, shills, and sheep./rant
Admittedly, I was expecting a rundown of what device supports what version of iOS as well as the particular features of that version, but that was just me.
Not much you can do about someone doing something stupid anywhere in the terminal. Airline security is more about preventing people from doing it 25000 feet in the air, where the chances of survival are practically nil. Targeted questioning by professional lie detectors is very effective in preventing this. X-ray machines, metal detectors, and body scanners/pat downs are not nearly as effective even as a deterrent.
What the current TSA procedures absolutely don't prevent is hijackers taking the the plane and flying it somewhere or into some stuff, which is the actual scenario people fear. On the other hand, locked cabin doors have a very good track record of preventing the latter. Only, that isn't nearly as reassuring as having official-looking people stand around making other people (preferably darker-skinned people at that) miserable.
People need to understand that there is no 100%. They need to realize that if they want to feel safe, they should just stay at home under their blankets and not come out. If they step on a plane, they are risking unnatural death. If they walk out their front door, they risk death. If they get into a car, they risk death. They need to understand that the chances of being blown up in mid air are about as large as the chance of death while walking outside, and magnitudes lower than the chance of death riding in a vehicle.
That particular one came down to code standards and review. There's a reason why most coding standards explicitly disallow assignment inside a conditional structure. It's a security hole waiting to happen, just like null-terminated buffers or processing unsanitized input.
NASA's guidelines, for example, are fairly stringent. An attack would have to be very sophisticated, where the attacker would have to know the system fairly well, and insert seemingly-innocuous code in multiple places. It's harder to attack NASA because a lot of their systems are hidden behind obscurity and contractor diversification. That, and there's nothing to be gained by hacking them. Their standards exist more to prevent careless bugs from creeping in (which is really just a less-glamorous term for "security hole"). But for software like the Linux kernel where the system is completely transparent and then some, doing proper code reviews and strictly enforcing standards is absolutely necessary.
It's also a good reason to not trust binary blobs. But then again, nobody'd be dumb enough to mix their secure system with their gaming system, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Had they built such a device, though, then near-real-time breaking of DES would have been possible at the time it was in mainstream use. Certainly, there were claims circulating that such devices existed, but a claim like that without proof is hard to accept. All I can say is that it's demonstrably not impossible, merely unlikely.
Speculation like this needs to take historical context into account. At that time, very little important information worth the effort were stored on a computer. And far less of it was connected to the internet where the NSA or CIA could access the data stream in real time. Such a machine may have been created, but I would hardly think there'd be a use for it.
It doesn't need to be private
However, it should be sufficiently complex. A salt that adds a few numbers to the beginning and/or end of the password string does little to no good. A salt generated by a hash of a random value is, however, very effective.
I acknowledge your point that knowing how to use a word processor to write papers, or spreadsheets to do calculations are essential skills to producing work at a collegiate level.
However, the problem does not lie in the fact that students don't know this and have to be taught this. The problem lies in the fact that these are students at all. Not having the basic prerequisites for doing work in college means not qualifying for college. That's the very definition of a prerequisite. That such people are being admitted as students is an administrative, and particularly admissions problem that's a direct result of the erroneous view of the meaning and purpose of education, i.e. a piece of paper with which to get a job.
Don't get me wrong. I don't imply that people shouldn't learn these skills. However, this should have been covered in high school. And if that did not happen (and I can go on about what this means about our education system when high school students are graduating without even being able to type up a decent paper), then they should not be going to college per se to learn these skills, but some intermediate or supplemental education program that actually teaches these things.
At the very, very least, colleges should not be offering these as part of the general academic curriculum, much less a part of the core. They can, and in all fairness, should, offer such instructions as supplemental training courses. I grant that there will be people who've never used a computer in their lives, and passed every class by writing their assignments out by hand. But these are topics that then should be covered by freshman orientation and other such zero-credit, on-your-own-time, optional but nevertheless important sessions.
I'm still of mind that part of being ready for college means that it would suffice to only be taught how to use a computer (start and close a program, print a paper, etc.), and be told what to use to do their work at the start of a class. Needing more specific instructions means that the person isn't ready for college-level learning yet, or for that matter, simply does not qualify, and should not be going somewhere for higher learning.
Is this an elitist mentality? Only in the sense that there are intelligent people out there and not-as-intelligent people out there, and the people who are not-as-intelligent are not the same as the people who are intelligent. It is not to say that they are not as capable, but merely not the same, and thus cannot and should not be treated the same way. The difference is a matter of going to college right out of high school, going to vocational school, spending extra years in (a real) high school, working a few years before going to college, or even not going to college at all (the fact that every entry-level job requires a college degree is a travesty, again perpetuated by this idea that equates college with job-readiness, which only serves to dilute and muddy the meaning and purpose of higher education).
College should prepare them for future employment.
Wrong. That's the job of a vocational school. Granted, submitter's getting an associates, so it's closer to a career-oriented degree than not. Irrespective, two or four years should merely be differenciated by the depth of knowledge in a particular field, not the breadth of knowledge overall.
College is about education. Education does not have a pure application, in the same sense that abstract mathematics and partical physics don't have pure applications. In fact, it should not. Education begins with the fundamentals. Fundamentals don't change no matter what the application. They're the default information, the fallback, safe knowledge, when there's no additional information known. Then, it's learning about the exceptions to the fundamentals, where the fundamentals don't apply, or don't necessarily apply. Finally, it's learning about the unresolved exceptions, and approaches of resolving them. The area of unresolved exceptions is the limits of knowledge, and where the old knowledge ends and new knowledge will be created. Examples should be used only to illustrate the concepts taught. Examples should never be the knowledge being taught.
Teaching MS Office is not intro to computers. Teaching the difference between a spreadsheet and a database, a text editor and a word processor, is. Teaching what a program is, what it means to install a program versus what it means to run a program (without or after installing) is.
Teaching the concept of a shortcut or link is. How to use MS Office is more appropriate for one of their career-based, continuing education-type classes. It's like teaching how to use a Canon 5D Mk III with a 14mm F2.8 prime, instead of what is the field of view or what the F-stop means. Or for a car analogy, it's teaching how to change the motor oil of a 1996 Honda Accord instead of what motor oil actually does and why it needs to be changed at all. Those kinds of classes don't belong in a degree program.
That having been said, any respectable institution has ways to test out of prerequisites. Otherwise, it's just a scam to make you pay more tuition. This wouldn't happen to be the University of Phoenix or some other for-profit, would it?
Haven't you seen any of the election coverage? "Liberals" don't hold the power. Independents do. Just look at the money spent on battleground states like Ohio and Iowa and Colorado. Now look at the money spent on firmly "red" or "blue" states like California, Texas, Alabama, New York.
Who are independents? Well, if you're in IT support of any kind, just imagine your most average user. Imagine the most middle-of-the-road, undistinguished, normal person. Those are your independents.
Don't get me wrong. They're not stupid by any measure. No, most of them are fairly good at what they do. They're just not really that good at anything else. Politics, understanding social issues, these are among the things they're not so good at. So to make a decision, they rely on campaign speeches and television ads and above all else, their gut feelings.
The gut feeling is often useful in small environments of few variables. It is not so helpful when it comes to large things like national economies and social welfare and things pertaining to more than three individuals with three differing interests. But it's really all they have, since they're very average and the matters at hand are very, very complex.
And they're not motivated by the wealth congregating in a smaller number of individuals. They don't care about the social ramifications of legalized abortions. Now, they'd certainly be interested if they weren't able to put dinner on their table every night, but they'd only be interested to the extent of getting dinner back on their table. They're not so interested in understanding the entire process where dinner ultimately ends up on their table, from deficit spending to farm subsidies to transportation to taxation to local education. They scratch their heads at such things. Now, bring in constitutional law, and they just turn away.
A functioning democracy (not a republic, because we went away from that a long time ago) requires an educated, well-informed voting populace. We don't have a functioning democracy because the majority of the voters are neither, largely because they have been socially engineered since the advent of the television to have no interest in either.
OWS was a failure of epic proportions. Or perhaps, in making these people look as ridiculous as they possibly could, and in allowing them a forum in which to vent, it could be considered an epic victory. Only, the people didn't win, the corporations did.
Well, he did ask for the best Antivirus, which automatically implies a Windows user.
But uh, check out the name: "Paperclipman". Now, where else have I seen a paper clip trying to act human...
I like to think of myself as a reasonably competent CPU user
What the hell does that even mean? Do you mean computer?
You question was already answered by the statement.
Either that, or he likes to cook right over the die.
Looks good. Shows up as ***** on my screen.
It'd be better to call "global warming" "more energetic global climate".
How about Climate Destabilization?
Really, it comes down to consumption and waste. Yeah, the economy runs on people buying things. Big companies will take a big hit. But that's not really the economy. Big companies are doing plenty well (look at the stock market), but the economy is stil lin the dumps.
So it's not really necessary at all to keep buying things. Conservation comes in many forms. Boiling filtrated water is probably better than drinking soda. Eating a variety of fruits and vegetables is better than juice and vitamin supplements combined. Using glass bottles for milk, instead of throwing away plastic or cardboard containers. Turning old clothes into rags, instead of buying paper towels and throwing away old clothes. Buying groceries instead of buying pre-made food, or worse, eating fast food. Buying in bulk helps too, but usage must still be moderated, especially when the thing costs so little per unit.
You can't save on everything. Toilet paper, and bread for example. But where you can, it should be done. Consume less, and there will be fewer things transported. There will be fewer factories. More of what gets produced will be used and not go to waste. That is the kind of behavior that will reduce emissions. It is also the same kind of behavior that will drive Walmart out of business (which is a good thing--large businesses have a tendency to drive small business out, and reduce employment opportunities, even if more people make fewer overall with small businesses).
It is the kind of change that needs to happen to cut emissions. Replacing an existing car with a Prius is no more than a feel-good thing for people who can't do the math but want to feel helpful. It's a completely useless gesture, if not even more harmful. The cost to manufacture, ship, and ultimately dispose of the Prius probably dwarfs any gas savings from using the existing car for a few more years and performing the proper upkeep.
Change isn't always bad, you know.
While I don't disagree with your general premise, this is one point that I can't really let slide. Don't forget that the past 150 years can be categorized by massive, massive change in human society. Living standards, population, you name it, civilization is vastly different today than it was 1870, far more dramatic of a difference than, say, 1250 AD from 1100 AD or 350 BC from 500 BC.
The change has already happened. We're at the very tail end of it. The golden age is waning. And it is, if this continues, bad.
It's like hitting the lottery jackpot. It's great for a little while when you can party every day and night without having to work, but the money is almost spent and now it's time to pay back those social dues. There's a reason jackpot winners have a tendency to end up in a worse financial situation than before winning. And that's where civilization will be if we're not careful.
You're made of 78% water. You need to drink at least 8 cups of water a day to replenish you daily loss. But you'll drown in an inch of it.
That which appears to be benficial is not always. There's a ready the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Stability is more important than having more fresh water. In many places, it is more important than freedom and human rights. Because with instability, you can't even begin to talk about social luxuries while you're trying to survive.
Wait for it to melt and no water will spill.
Easy. Just bump the table.
That's what some people are waiting for to solve the global warming problem anyway.
It's so big. Yet so really, really small when you compare it to the real world. More size comparisons:
Based on the Burj Khalifa being 829 meters, each image (cell) is about 100 meters.
The full image is 81 cells wide, 32 cells high. The highest point where the whales are at is 13 cells high (including the initial ground level), while the lowest point is around 19 cells deep (not including the initial ground level).
Mt. Everest is slightly higher than the image is wide (88.5 cells).
The deepest mine in the world is about twice the depth of the caves from ground level (39 cells).
In fact, the deepest hole ever drilled is about six times as deep (122 cells).
If the jumbo jets' cruise altitude were drawn to scale, they would be close to ten times the height of the whale from ground level (124 cells).
If this was a map of Manhattan starting at the tip of Battery Park, it would end near the southern parts of Central Park, specifically the whereabouts of the skating rink (according to Google Maps anyway).
Also, apparently, some forum-goers have found the images at the four 11x11 corners to be blank (present but blank, whereas the rest of the empty space is not an actual image). The theory is that this one, 1110, will be either the last or the penultimate comic (with 1111 being the last comic, or just blank). The last comic theory comes from the obvious reference to Calvin and Hobbes, and a reference to the very first comic at the eastern-most cell. There are more blank images at 1n4e, 1n5e, 2n1w, 2n3w, 8n1w, but its meaning has not been cracked yet.
the website will never perform as well as a native app so hopefully Google will have one for us soon.
The only problem I see with this statement is Apple's apps store TOS.
Google Maps would appear to be duplicating the functionality already present in an existing iOS app. That seems to be grounds for rejection right there.
(Warning: rant below)
When this story first appeared here, everybody was screaming left and right that the information was unsubstantiated, that there was no (reliable) source, and that Google couldn't have done something like this. That gave me a good laugh. They completely ignored the "no comment" part from Acer (not Asus) and Google, which should say to anyone who's listening with half an ear that the events were most likely true, but the mouthpieces needed to wait for the PR department to decide on how to spin it before responding. The only other possibility was that Google, being such a big company, was waiting for confirmation. But Acer, being a small company, should have had a categorical denial immediately if it actually had been untrue. But of course it couldn't have been true and Alibaba was just making things up, because Google couldn't do something so...evil.
Now that it has emerged that Google actually did do this, people are now claiming that Google isn't being anti-competitive, that they're not doing what Microsoft did in the 90's with Windows, that they're not evil, just because. There are no reasons presented here. There's just a whole lot of because, followed by some hand-waving with how this is different from when Microsoft did it twenty years ago. Sure, it's probably legal because they don't have a monopoly, but people are saying that when Google does it, it is not at all being evil.
So what if Aliyun is a fork of Android? Isn't Android open source? Is it wrong to fork? Does that infringe on some copyrights, because last I heard, Android's codebase was largely FOSS, which means anybody could repackage it under a different name, without any modifications. So what if Aliyun is advertising that they can run Android apps? Is is illegal to do so in that jurisdiction? I may be illegal in the U.S. and in Europe (and even that's arguable), but they're not selling this phone here.
And the response by Google is outright evil. It is wrong, even if it's legal. If Google had any legal standing, they would've sued. Instead, they threaten an OEM with pulling their privileges. They had no legal recourse, so they bully instead. They throw their weight around. Because Acer is not Samsung or HTC, who can take a chunk of the Android userbase with them if they go exclusively Aliyun. It's Acer, who's hanging onto the phone market by a thread. It's Acer, whose phones don't even have a U.S. presence.
Tell me how this is not evil. Tell me this is what companies are supposed to do when the product they advertise as "open" is forked. I guess it's now also perfectly reasonable for Oracle to threaten HP or any other OEM who packages LibreOffice with their Linux offerings. Because that's exactly what this is. And if Oracle, Apple, or Microsoft did something like this, there'd be people up in arms right about now, not throwing around lame excuses trying to justify what happened (there'd be some of those too, but either identified shills or trolls, and not nearly as many).
I thought this was a place where people were halfway intelligent. I thought people here could see things for what they were, and not what they wanted it to be. But all that's left seem to be fanbois, shills, and sheep. /rant
Uh, what? The iPod Touch definitely uses iOS.
Admittedly, I was expecting a rundown of what device supports what version of iOS as well as the particular features of that version, but that was just me.
It's a mistranslation. The actual term is more closely translated to "domestic partner."
The tell-tale sign is that they had been properly married, the man would have been fined $10,000 per song instead of a measly $150.
Not much you can do about someone doing something stupid anywhere in the terminal. Airline security is more about preventing people from doing it 25000 feet in the air, where the chances of survival are practically nil. Targeted questioning by professional lie detectors is very effective in preventing this. X-ray machines, metal detectors, and body scanners/pat downs are not nearly as effective even as a deterrent.
What the current TSA procedures absolutely don't prevent is hijackers taking the the plane and flying it somewhere or into some stuff, which is the actual scenario people fear. On the other hand, locked cabin doors have a very good track record of preventing the latter. Only, that isn't nearly as reassuring as having official-looking people stand around making other people (preferably darker-skinned people at that) miserable.
People need to understand that there is no 100%. They need to realize that if they want to feel safe, they should just stay at home under their blankets and not come out. If they step on a plane, they are risking unnatural death. If they walk out their front door, they risk death. If they get into a car, they risk death. They need to understand that the chances of being blown up in mid air are about as large as the chance of death while walking outside, and magnitudes lower than the chance of death riding in a vehicle.
And if you want a knife to use with that fancy new cutting board, you'll need to buy a MacBook Air.
they will call the sheriff's deputy (who happens to be a serious hottie) and she will threaten arrest for disorderly conduct.
So what, you're encouraging us to go to North Dakota and photograph the missile launch facilities from US Route 2?
Besides, we all know that's just for show, and the real missiles are underneath Manhattan.
That particular one came down to code standards and review. There's a reason why most coding standards explicitly disallow assignment inside a conditional structure. It's a security hole waiting to happen, just like null-terminated buffers or processing unsanitized input.
NASA's guidelines, for example, are fairly stringent. An attack would have to be very sophisticated, where the attacker would have to know the system fairly well, and insert seemingly-innocuous code in multiple places. It's harder to attack NASA because a lot of their systems are hidden behind obscurity and contractor diversification. That, and there's nothing to be gained by hacking them. Their standards exist more to prevent careless bugs from creeping in (which is really just a less-glamorous term for "security hole"). But for software like the Linux kernel where the system is completely transparent and then some, doing proper code reviews and strictly enforcing standards is absolutely necessary.
It's also a good reason to not trust binary blobs. But then again, nobody'd be dumb enough to mix their secure system with their gaming system, right?
Fine. That explains California. Now what about the rest of the country?
You don't have to worry about ninjas unless you're a pirate.
Well? Are you?
Individuals answer the question differently. What happens if you say no, I wonder?