Given that most sites seem to use wmv (!) over flash to begin with, I doubt that's a problem. Except that my workplace is all Mac/Linux.... or so I've heard.
No, it IS a short circuit*. If you bridge the two pieces of metal on either side of the band width a small metal object (a key, paper clip, etc) you get the same effect without blocking most of the antenna.
Of course, my testing is only a single data point, but I've asked other people to do the same and they've seen similar results.
* Ok, I don't think it's really a short. But by bridging an antenna with another piece of metal, you're altering it's length and as a result the frequencies that it will pick up.
Zapping your finger is probably the easiest way to get you to stop shorting out the antenna... and you'll probably learn pretty quickly to not to do it in the first place. Definitely a hack, but a solution nonetheless.
I obviously don't need to tell you to take what Apple says with a grain of salt, as you seem to be perfectly well practiced at doing so already. But every time Apple talks about the A4, they talk about how it's been optimized for highly-efficient, low-power-consumption computing.
"Apple engineers designed the A4 chip to be a remarkably powerful yet remarkably power-efficient mobile processor. With it, iPhone 4 can easily perform complex jobs such as multitasking, editing video, and placing FaceTime calls. All while maximizing battery life."
"The A4 chip inside iPad was custom-designed by Apple engineers to be extremely powerful yet extremely power efficient. The performance is unlike anything you’ve ever seen on a touch-based device. Which makes iPad fantastic for everything from productivity apps to games. At the same time, the A4 chip is so power efficient that it helps iPad get up to 10 hours of battery life on a single charge."
From the iPhone 4 and iPad pages at apple.com, respectively. Again, take it at face value, but they've definitely done some custom work and optimization. They're not claiming to have built a new CPU architecture or anything that drastic... this is more along the lines of performance-tuning trimming out unused functionality.
That $170 also includes iWork and iLife, which retail for $80 each. So in that scenario, OS X is really only $10, if you want to use absurd pricing logic. If you care to use reality, the $30 retail copy works just fine for a clean install, even if it's not officially licensed to be used that way. Windows OEM versions ($140) are also intended to be only sold with a full new system, but most retailers will sell you a copy as long as you spend at least a cent on computer-related hardware in the same purchase when you really should be buying the retail ($270) version.
I'm not bashing either OS or their pricing models - just trying to clarify the situation. For all practical purposes, Windows is only a few dollars out a retail PC's price, and OS X is really a marketing expense for Apple. And both are widely available for free on the shadier parts of the internet.
About the same form factor? Did you even look at what you linked? That Shuttle is about the size of a shoebox, not a couple of stacked CD cases. There's absolutely no comparison, other than that they're both much smaller than a full tower.
If you care about the expandability, or price/performance, then definitely go with the Shuttle. If you want a tiny, low-power-consumption, attractive system that can easily be used as a set-top box, then paying a premium for the Mini is probably a better choice. Not everyone shops only on price - value can be derived from places other than raw computing power.
Ever used those things? They suck. It's basically a single, low-power LED rigged up to a rechargeable battery. They're generally designed to illuminate a walkway at night (VERY little light output - just enough to see by), and all the ones I've used are barely able to do that.
A light bulb suggests that there's actually a meaningful amount of light. The little garden lights don't compare, even if the concept is similar.
As an aside, the garden lights can be had for about five bucks each (in a pack of six or eight) at most home improvement stores... well below the $10/pc@4doz mentioned in TFS.
I think by "users" they mean "active accounts". I have five different accounts between my personal account and several projects, and I'm certainly not alone.
It doesn't make it OK, but it certainly raises the chance of it happening, and one shouldn't be terribly surprised when it does.
That said, the appropriate response would be more along the lines of notifying the company that there's an issue, not publishing the contact info of an eighth of a million of their customers. After all, it's not the customer's fault that AT&T can't get their shit together. Though by all means, expose anyone with at AT&T email address if there's no response to your heads-up (and by extension, expose MY banking info if I make a similar screw-up and then ignore your warning).
Maybe I just have no sense of imagination, but if your intentions are to get the security flaw fixed, "Goatse Security" *cough* is going about it the wrong way. And lord knows they're on the lookout for gaping holes. If, on the other hand, you're trying to do as much damage as possible, there are much more interesting things to do with the data. While I actually do care quite a lot about the security of the data I'm responsible for, if I were an irresponsible developer, I'd respond a lot faster to "fix this or I'll post YOUR information everywhere" than to "fix this or I'll post your customer database everywhere" since it makes me specifically the target.
It probably does. I think once Chrome Frame is installed, it's basically attached to all instances of the Trident rendering engine, which would include those in IE Tab.
The purpose of firing a gun is to destroy something. The threat of doing that (or merely being able to do that) is often enough to prevent a situation from escalating. Not that I consider myself mentally unstable, but if I were to go on a shooting spree, I'd avoid doing it in a location where the people I'm targeting are armed to the teeth.
About $1.50/click with 2.4M monthly searches, according to Google's keyword tool. No idea what the translation of searches to clicks is, but for a company with that much money, you're really not going to be doing a whole lot of damage.
Most people don't recognize that the first one or two results are paid advertisements, despite them being wrapped in a fairly obvious yellow box. So while it doesn't affect the organic search results, buying google ads most certainly does affect the overall results.
Still, with a whitelist you'd have to know a valid sender. It's by no means foolproof, but it's a tremendous improvement over nothing at all. Well, until you get your email account hacked and spam harvesters know that you@gmail.com has the following three @myhpprinter.com (or whatever) email addresses in its address book.
That being said, if they just run everything through gmail's spam filter, it would probably be fine. That thing is absurdly accurate - at least in my experience.
You can control how far you drive or how many lights you have on. You can't control how much data an http request is going to send back to you. You can't stop an incompetent fool from resizing a 5MB jpeg with HTML attributes rather than cropping it down to size in [editor of choice]. And with the ubiquity of AJAX these days, even leaving a page open doing nothing can still cost you bandwidth - many widely-used sites continue to communicate with the servers so long as the window is open in order to keep content refreshed, or even set up some sort of web-based IM service (read: Facebook).
I certainly have no idea what my monthly bandwidth usage is for my home cable bill, and it's a tremendous pain in the ass to find out what I've used on my smartphone. And unlike gas where I know I've been driving more than usual this month, there's really nothing to indicate that my surfing habits included more media-heavy stuff than usual.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea, but it would need to be both priced reasonably and done in a way where I'm not going to get a surprise thousand-dollar bill. Given the nature of what you're buying, I think the current all-you-can-eat model just makes more sense.
PHP was designed from the ground up to be a templating language for building dynamic websites, and is one of very few languages that can make that claim. Plenty of frameworks have been built to make other languages web-friendly, and they're nearly required to do anything in a cost/time-effective manner. Of course, PHP frameworks (can) speed up development as well, but you can make do without one just fine as well.
Admittedly I may be biased as I develop in PHP all day and literally work five feet away from Rasmus Lerdorf, but I've had that opinion long before that was the case. But except for a single occasion*, I've never found that the language was simply incapable of doing what I needed to do, and what I do requires me to interact with at least half a dozen external services each in a different way (and only one is even using a standard format/protocol). Nearly 100% of the time, any difficulties arise in actually understanding the problem in a meaningful way rather than trying to figure out how to write the code to do the tricky operation, but I guess that's a hazard of having used PHP for the last eight years or so.
That said, the inconsistencies in the syntax drive me insane.
Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not claiming that it's right for every project, every job, or every developer. It's not. But the amount of time I spend thinking "damn, there has to be a better way to do this" is almost never related to the language itself, and I have to do a lot of weird things in my code (yay, banks).
* and what I had to do violates all good ideas and best practices anyways; unfortunately, the external server is completely out of my control so I can't do something better. The substitute shell script is nearly as much of a hack.
Don't tell me what I do and don't need out of my phone. YOU may not need a 5Mbit connection; and you're probably right to assume that most people also don't need a connection that fast. But maybe I'm deploying an emergency patch to my server that I have to upload from my tethered laptop; that extra bandwidth could make a real difference. Hell, maybe my business absolutely needs me on a video conference, and 1Mbit won't do the trick.
Obviously that's unlikely, but don't say "nobody" unless you understand the requirements of the entire world.
It definitely works in Safari, though it's possible that Facebook has blocked the problem links. That said, check your "my profile" page as it doesn't show up the homepage feed.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not technically. But international data rates to the space station are a bitch. /only half-joking
Given that you're losing out on "secure", you might want to think twice about that. I hear the viruses you can get are quite a pain to deal with.
I thought it was the solution to eyestrain and headaches...
Given that most sites seem to use wmv (!) over flash to begin with, I doubt that's a problem. Except that my workplace is all Mac/Linux. ... or so I've heard.
No, it IS a short circuit*. If you bridge the two pieces of metal on either side of the band width a small metal object (a key, paper clip, etc) you get the same effect without blocking most of the antenna.
Of course, my testing is only a single data point, but I've asked other people to do the same and they've seen similar results.
* Ok, I don't think it's really a short. But by bridging an antenna with another piece of metal, you're altering it's length and as a result the frequencies that it will pick up.
Zapping your finger is probably the easiest way to get you to stop shorting out the antenna... and you'll probably learn pretty quickly to not to do it in the first place. Definitely a hack, but a solution nonetheless.
Only if forced to do so. This woman was clearly just an idiot.
I obviously don't need to tell you to take what Apple says with a grain of salt, as you seem to be perfectly well practiced at doing so already. But every time Apple talks about the A4, they talk about how it's been optimized for highly-efficient, low-power-consumption computing.
"Apple engineers designed the A4 chip to be a remarkably powerful yet remarkably power-efficient mobile processor. With it, iPhone 4 can easily perform complex jobs such as multitasking, editing video, and placing FaceTime calls. All while maximizing battery life."
"The A4 chip inside iPad was custom-designed by Apple engineers to be extremely powerful yet extremely power efficient. The performance is unlike anything you’ve ever seen on a touch-based device. Which makes iPad fantastic for everything from productivity apps to games. At the same time, the A4 chip is so power efficient that it helps iPad get up to 10 hours of battery life on a single charge."
From the iPhone 4 and iPad pages at apple.com, respectively. Again, take it at face value, but they've definitely done some custom work and optimization. They're not claiming to have built a new CPU architecture or anything that drastic... this is more along the lines of performance-tuning trimming out unused functionality.
That $170 also includes iWork and iLife, which retail for $80 each. So in that scenario, OS X is really only $10, if you want to use absurd pricing logic. If you care to use reality, the $30 retail copy works just fine for a clean install, even if it's not officially licensed to be used that way. Windows OEM versions ($140) are also intended to be only sold with a full new system, but most retailers will sell you a copy as long as you spend at least a cent on computer-related hardware in the same purchase when you really should be buying the retail ($270) version.
I'm not bashing either OS or their pricing models - just trying to clarify the situation. For all practical purposes, Windows is only a few dollars out a retail PC's price, and OS X is really a marketing expense for Apple. And both are widely available for free on the shadier parts of the internet.
About the same form factor? Did you even look at what you linked? That Shuttle is about the size of a shoebox, not a couple of stacked CD cases. There's absolutely no comparison, other than that they're both much smaller than a full tower.
If you care about the expandability, or price/performance, then definitely go with the Shuttle. If you want a tiny, low-power-consumption, attractive system that can easily be used as a set-top box, then paying a premium for the Mini is probably a better choice. Not everyone shops only on price - value can be derived from places other than raw computing power.
Ever used those things? They suck. It's basically a single, low-power LED rigged up to a rechargeable battery. They're generally designed to illuminate a walkway at night (VERY little light output - just enough to see by), and all the ones I've used are barely able to do that.
A light bulb suggests that there's actually a meaningful amount of light. The little garden lights don't compare, even if the concept is similar.
As an aside, the garden lights can be had for about five bucks each (in a pack of six or eight) at most home improvement stores... well below the $10/pc@4doz mentioned in TFS.
I think by "users" they mean "active accounts". I have five different accounts between my personal account and several projects, and I'm certainly not alone.
Now would be a very good time to reevaluate your sig.
Seriously. If you're going to make a real-life attempt at a Bond plot, at least change the name of your giant solar sail.
It doesn't make it OK, but it certainly raises the chance of it happening, and one shouldn't be terribly surprised when it does.
That said, the appropriate response would be more along the lines of notifying the company that there's an issue, not publishing the contact info of an eighth of a million of their customers. After all, it's not the customer's fault that AT&T can't get their shit together. Though by all means, expose anyone with at AT&T email address if there's no response to your heads-up (and by extension, expose MY banking info if I make a similar screw-up and then ignore your warning).
Maybe I just have no sense of imagination, but if your intentions are to get the security flaw fixed, "Goatse Security" *cough* is going about it the wrong way. And lord knows they're on the lookout for gaping holes. If, on the other hand, you're trying to do as much damage as possible, there are much more interesting things to do with the data. While I actually do care quite a lot about the security of the data I'm responsible for, if I were an irresponsible developer, I'd respond a lot faster to "fix this or I'll post YOUR information everywhere" than to "fix this or I'll post your customer database everywhere" since it makes me specifically the target.
It probably does. I think once Chrome Frame is installed, it's basically attached to all instances of the Trident rendering engine, which would include those in IE Tab.
The purpose of firing a gun is to destroy something. The threat of doing that (or merely being able to do that) is often enough to prevent a situation from escalating. Not that I consider myself mentally unstable, but if I were to go on a shooting spree, I'd avoid doing it in a location where the people I'm targeting are armed to the teeth.
Still, at today's hard drive prices, that's only about $87.
About $1.50/click with 2.4M monthly searches, according to Google's keyword tool. No idea what the translation of searches to clicks is, but for a company with that much money, you're really not going to be doing a whole lot of damage.
I'm sure you'll please Google and Yahoo though.
Most people don't recognize that the first one or two results are paid advertisements, despite them being wrapped in a fairly obvious yellow box. So while it doesn't affect the organic search results, buying google ads most certainly does affect the overall results.
Still, with a whitelist you'd have to know a valid sender. It's by no means foolproof, but it's a tremendous improvement over nothing at all. Well, until you get your email account hacked and spam harvesters know that you@gmail.com has the following three @myhpprinter.com (or whatever) email addresses in its address book.
That being said, if they just run everything through gmail's spam filter, it would probably be fine. That thing is absurdly accurate - at least in my experience.
You can control how far you drive or how many lights you have on. You can't control how much data an http request is going to send back to you. You can't stop an incompetent fool from resizing a 5MB jpeg with HTML attributes rather than cropping it down to size in [editor of choice]. And with the ubiquity of AJAX these days, even leaving a page open doing nothing can still cost you bandwidth - many widely-used sites continue to communicate with the servers so long as the window is open in order to keep content refreshed, or even set up some sort of web-based IM service (read: Facebook).
I certainly have no idea what my monthly bandwidth usage is for my home cable bill, and it's a tremendous pain in the ass to find out what I've used on my smartphone. And unlike gas where I know I've been driving more than usual this month, there's really nothing to indicate that my surfing habits included more media-heavy stuff than usual.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea, but it would need to be both priced reasonably and done in a way where I'm not going to get a surprise thousand-dollar bill. Given the nature of what you're buying, I think the current all-you-can-eat model just makes more sense.
PHP was designed from the ground up to be a templating language for building dynamic websites, and is one of very few languages that can make that claim. Plenty of frameworks have been built to make other languages web-friendly, and they're nearly required to do anything in a cost/time-effective manner. Of course, PHP frameworks (can) speed up development as well, but you can make do without one just fine as well.
Admittedly I may be biased as I develop in PHP all day and literally work five feet away from Rasmus Lerdorf, but I've had that opinion long before that was the case. But except for a single occasion*, I've never found that the language was simply incapable of doing what I needed to do, and what I do requires me to interact with at least half a dozen external services each in a different way (and only one is even using a standard format/protocol). Nearly 100% of the time, any difficulties arise in actually understanding the problem in a meaningful way rather than trying to figure out how to write the code to do the tricky operation, but I guess that's a hazard of having used PHP for the last eight years or so.
That said, the inconsistencies in the syntax drive me insane.
Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not claiming that it's right for every project, every job, or every developer. It's not. But the amount of time I spend thinking "damn, there has to be a better way to do this" is almost never related to the language itself, and I have to do a lot of weird things in my code (yay, banks).
* and what I had to do violates all good ideas and best practices anyways; unfortunately, the external server is completely out of my control so I can't do something better. The substitute shell script is nearly as much of a hack.
Don't tell me what I do and don't need out of my phone. YOU may not need a 5Mbit connection; and you're probably right to assume that most people also don't need a connection that fast. But maybe I'm deploying an emergency patch to my server that I have to upload from my tethered laptop; that extra bandwidth could make a real difference. Hell, maybe my business absolutely needs me on a video conference, and 1Mbit won't do the trick.
Obviously that's unlikely, but don't say "nobody" unless you understand the requirements of the entire world.
It definitely works in Safari, though it's possible that Facebook has blocked the problem links. That said, check your "my profile" page as it doesn't show up the homepage feed.