You haven't saved anything. You spent less. Now you spend more. To save money you have to decrease your cost, and it has nothing to do with other options
Nonsense. You save money by spending less than you would spend if that option weren't available. For example, if you desperately need a car and you see one that's $2000 cheaper than the other options, you've saved $2000. If you don't need a car, then buying it is not saving money.
I'm not sure if this is precisely the correct term, but this is basically opportunity cost. You have $X net money, as opposed to your alternative choices, where you would have less than $X.
As far as I'm concerned, high quality text reflow is the only essential feature in a mobile web browser. Unfortunately, that means Opera is currently my only choice. I remember a development version of Firefox had a shitty version of text reflow, but the feature was removed, presumably because if you're not gonna do it right, just don't do it.
Lessig has great ideas, and we need someone really serious to fix the corruption in our system. However, I can't imagine anybody taking his platform seriously. He wants to resign after a partial term! I think people won't want to elect someone that's only serious about doing part of the job. A specialist. Unfortunately, the US has been sick for a long time and needs a specialist.
There is no spec yet, but once a spec is decided, it's unlikely they would license the spec under such restrictive terms. That said, nobody can make an alternative implementation until a frozen spec is available. For the moment, you are indeed stuck with a GPL3 implementation.
I get it. There are other ways of describing the situation. However, none of those are synonyms for what he actually said. There's no phrase that means "obsequiously please and debase ourselves for". (And it's kind of funny, since in real life, even this phrase ("deep-throat") has very little of that connotation.) "Prostrate oneself before" is the only phrase I can think of, and who is going to say that?
He expressed himself more thoroughly than with the phrases you cited. He telegraphed disgust, superiority, and a bunch of other emotions in one phrase. There's an argument to be made that he shouldn't have, but you can't deny he was extremely expressive, in a way that just can't be done with a more polite word.
I agree that that has no place in formal conversation, but can you think of another phrase that means the same thing in this context? Corporate-speak often commits the sin of not saying what it means. Can you translate this to corporate speak without sounding like a rube? "If Red Hat wants to prostrate itself before Microsoft..."?
I assume you are happy with the price of your devices going up 5 to 10 times
You just made that up. For that to be true, the cost of software development would have to be 100% of the cost of the device, and the current development time would need to be 6 months to one year. Realistically, if software development makes up 10% of the cost of the device, is completed in six months, and the support period is extended from nothing to 5 years (at 40% effort, since there's not always a new operating system to support, and since code can be shared with newer devices), the cost would increase by 50%. And that's being generous.
But instead, you assert that supporting an existing device costs twice as much as creating a new one every year? Fucking come on.
True but it's always safer to run security-sensitive software on a non-Windows system.
This is empirically provable because Windows is closed source...
You've got your empirical and theoretical mixed up. In theory, you can prove an open source system has no bugs. Empirically, bugs continue to be found in both open and closed source software.
You should care because, you know, a proprietary, non-standard way of sending messages to friends was really something we missed.
Where they really succeeded was the UI/UX. It's a chap app with auto-generated accounts and no user-visible authentication (this means you don't need to log on). In general, its UI is exactly the same as SMS, which is very well suited to a phone.
Do you not think some belief systems are better than others? If not, do you not think some belief systems are more conducive to life, happiness, thriving than others?
I believed that trite "all beliefs are equal, valid, and true in their own way" hogwash when I was younger, but you're never going to see religiously motivated violence from Jainism, for example. So can you tell me by what metric a Muslim theocracy would be as good as a Buddhist theocracy? Even the most obvious metric falls down--you might say that Muslims would be happier in a Muslim theocracy. However, looking at both sides (this is a comparison, after all), Muslims would be far happier in a Buddhist society than Buddhists would be in a Muslim society.
P.s., here's a link to another study that I can't access due to paywall. It was cited in the appropriate place, so it's relevant: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Do we have any evidence that N. fowleri survives more than a moment at boiling temperatures? The only info I could find is a study that found N. fowleri spores survived 2.5 minutes at 65 C, but they only tested very cold and somewhat hot water. No boiling. I've been boiling water for just seconds to sanitize it. But while this study doesn't show it's immediately killed, it *does* imply that letting boiled water cool down naturally will provide enough time to kill N. fowleri spores. (Unless you drop its temperature with ice or a heat exchanger.)
Frankly I don't think someone that would do something so stupid are a big loss to the gene pool. I had never heard of a neti pot before, and now I wish I didn't.
You, sir or madam, are an ignoramus! You don't even get a pass for being unfamiliar with modern medicine, since this is very, very old medicine (that's still prescribed by mainstream doctors).
There's no way those statistics could possibly be representative. They do not include, for example, mugging victims that run away from a knife and are not stabbed. I think you are making a willfully obtuse argument. I would prefer to go against a baseball bat rather than a gun any day. (And my choice of weapon would be made by Nike, if you haven't figured that out.)
The point is that guns don't do half measures. Here's a real statistic, not some cherry-picked irrelevent percents: "Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used," (followed by three citations, which you can look up if you're interested). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some people in China wear masks. The educated ones wear N95 filters, the uneducated ones wear surgical masks. A forecast like this can help you plan how you're going to protect yourself. And you probably want to cancel that Saturday hike if the air is going to be hazardous.
How is this any different than a weather forecast?
There is a staggering number of network-type AI-like systems that are not neural networks. Consider genetic programming: a program is generated based on simple programming primitives like less_than(input, input), not(input), and(input, input) and it evolves itself, either through individual fitness feedback or by an evolutionary strategy.
So it's not correct to say that because it's not a neural network, it must be heuristic-based.
Guns have no magical powers fists lack that cause the (mental) trauma.
Sure they do. I think this is common sense, unless you live in the land of Rubber Bullets. The reason for this is probably the same reason as the reason using a gun in a crime carries stiffer penalties. Guns don't do half measures. They inflict grievous bodily harm, every time. (Barring misfired/misses/etc.) So if you carry a gun to your robbery, there are serious chances you'll kill the victim. The same isn't true of a mugging with fists. (I read about a hugely strong man mugging a stranger with a handshake--"Give me your wallet or I'm going to break your hand". That victim never feared for his life.)
Imagine you have an argument with an acquaintance and he pulls his arm back to hit you. Now imagine you have an argument with another acquaintance and he pulls a gun and points at at you. Do these two situations really feel the same to you???
Why was the crime "worse" because a computer was used? Did the victim suffer more? Was there more physical damage?
In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used?
Yes, that should be obvious. A gun causes more suffering. You will have nightmares about it. Every time you remember it, your heart will race and you will start to sweat. A strong man's fist is a deadly weapon. You're telling me a fighter waving his fist in your face will traumatize you equally compared to a gun under your nose? Come on.
I'm not sure either of those applies. I'm no lawyer, but I doubt a judge or jury would agree with your interpretation of "intentionally causes damage". First of all, wear and tear is not damage. When you finish an apartment lease, the landlord cannot keep your deposit to pay for wear and tear. When you rent a car, you are not charged damages for wear and tear. When you borrow something, it would be unheard of to hold you accountable for wear and tear. Furthermore, how do you prove it? Due to the way hard drives and OSs work, I doubt the amount of damage is statistically significant. If it's not statistically significant, it doesn't exist. Finally, if AT&T is sending headers that tell the browser not to cache the data, it should not be written to the hard drive anyway.
Finally, you ignored "intentionally". Do you know how high a bar it is to prove intention rather than incompetence? It's hard, even when it's true. And in this case it just isn't. AT&T doesn't want to fuck your computer, they want to fuck your wallet.
In the wire fraud definition you cited, I don't think AT&T is fulfilling the core of the definition: "defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises". Advertising, by and large, is not considered fraud (as much as we might feel that way about most ads we see).
It is, I don't know if you're familiar with that "rooting the device" actually means, but it's putting the su binary into/system/, that's it.
Once su is in the proper directory, other applications can use su somecommand, this is what "root access" is on Android, nothing more.
That's one definition. Opening a root shell (regardless of the state of/system and su) is another. I've seen this called "temproot".
I'm familiar with rooting, but not with exactly what system-level permissions entails. And whether system permissions imply root-ability or not, I agree with you that it's dangerous.
But here's another question, if you know more about this than me: Once/bin/su is installed, and the user launches a "SU" app, how does the SU app prevent other apps from accessing/bin/su? Does it simply inject itself into the OS functions that let a process execute a file?
I was referring to the firmware it had when I bought it. *My* M7 was unrootable from within the OS. Those HTC tools don't operate within the Android OS, so that's why they get a pass in my book. This tool isn't launched from the phone, but from a computer, and it can only connect when the phone is in a hardware debugging mode (no apps, no configurability, not even a touchscreen interface).
I think I see our disagreement. If you consider playing with chips to be part of local access, then indeed local access is full access. I meant "local user" (i.e., local account). TeamViewer in theory shouldn't be able to do things the local user cannot do. The local user cannot escalate privileges (without an exploit). Hence, TeamViewer was designed in a naughty way (with Google's permission) and has access that in theory it should not have. Otherwise it could not be a gateway for a local or remote user to escalate permissions.
I would also expect vulnerabilities from TeamViewer: unwanted remote access. And unwanted remote access can do a lot of bad things, but it should not be able to circumvent Android's security model: it should not be able to sniff keys, nor capture the screen. It should not do anything a local app can't do. The fact that it can do these things is what makes this exploit notable, and that tells us that TeamViewer is not running as a normal app (subject to Android's security model).
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't saved anything. You spent less. Now you spend more. To save money you have to decrease your cost, and it has nothing to do with other options
Nonsense. You save money by spending less than you would spend if that option weren't available. For example, if you desperately need a car and you see one that's $2000 cheaper than the other options, you've saved $2000. If you don't need a car, then buying it is not saving money.
I'm not sure if this is precisely the correct term, but this is basically opportunity cost. You have $X net money, as opposed to your alternative choices, where you would have less than $X.
As far as I'm concerned, high quality text reflow is the only essential feature in a mobile web browser. Unfortunately, that means Opera is currently my only choice. I remember a development version of Firefox had a shitty version of text reflow, but the feature was removed, presumably because if you're not gonna do it right, just don't do it.
How many times has GoDaddy been in the news for supporting anti-freedom or anti-net neutrality legislation?
Can anyone else remember other ways GoDaddy has abused its position as a registrar? I don't remember the specifics.
They are an evil company, and I'll gladly take my business to another registrar, whether it's cheaper or more expensive.
Lessig has great ideas, and we need someone really serious to fix the corruption in our system. However, I can't imagine anybody taking his platform seriously. He wants to resign after a partial term! I think people won't want to elect someone that's only serious about doing part of the job. A specialist. Unfortunately, the US has been sick for a long time and needs a specialist.
There is no spec yet, but once a spec is decided, it's unlikely they would license the spec under such restrictive terms. That said, nobody can make an alternative implementation until a frozen spec is available. For the moment, you are indeed stuck with a GPL3 implementation.
I get it. There are other ways of describing the situation. However, none of those are synonyms for what he actually said. There's no phrase that means "obsequiously please and debase ourselves for". (And it's kind of funny, since in real life, even this phrase ("deep-throat") has very little of that connotation.) "Prostrate oneself before" is the only phrase I can think of, and who is going to say that?
He expressed himself more thoroughly than with the phrases you cited. He telegraphed disgust, superiority, and a bunch of other emotions in one phrase. There's an argument to be made that he shouldn't have, but you can't deny he was extremely expressive, in a way that just can't be done with a more polite word.
I agree that that has no place in formal conversation, but can you think of another phrase that means the same thing in this context? Corporate-speak often commits the sin of not saying what it means. Can you translate this to corporate speak without sounding like a rube? "If Red Hat wants to prostrate itself before Microsoft..."?
I assume you are happy with the price of your devices going up 5 to 10 times
You just made that up. For that to be true, the cost of software development would have to be 100% of the cost of the device, and the current development time would need to be 6 months to one year. Realistically, if software development makes up 10% of the cost of the device, is completed in six months, and the support period is extended from nothing to 5 years (at 40% effort, since there's not always a new operating system to support, and since code can be shared with newer devices), the cost would increase by 50%. And that's being generous.
But instead, you assert that supporting an existing device costs twice as much as creating a new one every year? Fucking come on.
What happens if they don't fulfill this new mission? Where's the legal accountability? Or is this just a fancy version of a mission statement?
True but it's always safer to run security-sensitive software on a non-Windows system.
This is empirically provable because Windows is closed source...
You've got your empirical and theoretical mixed up. In theory, you can prove an open source system has no bugs. Empirically, bugs continue to be found in both open and closed source software.
*chat app
You should care because, you know, a proprietary, non-standard way of sending messages to friends was really something we missed.
Where they really succeeded was the UI/UX. It's a chap app with auto-generated accounts and no user-visible authentication (this means you don't need to log on). In general, its UI is exactly the same as SMS, which is very well suited to a phone.
Do you not think some belief systems are better than others? If not, do you not think some belief systems are more conducive to life, happiness, thriving than others?
I believed that trite "all beliefs are equal, valid, and true in their own way" hogwash when I was younger, but you're never going to see religiously motivated violence from Jainism, for example. So can you tell me by what metric a Muslim theocracy would be as good as a Buddhist theocracy? Even the most obvious metric falls down--you might say that Muslims would be happier in a Muslim theocracy. However, looking at both sides (this is a comparison, after all), Muslims would be far happier in a Buddhist society than Buddhists would be in a Muslim society.
Oops, here's the link to the study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
P.s., here's a link to another study that I can't access due to paywall. It was cited in the appropriate place, so it's relevant: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Boil water, and hold at temp for several minutes
Do we have any evidence that N. fowleri survives more than a moment at boiling temperatures? The only info I could find is a study that found N. fowleri spores survived 2.5 minutes at 65 C, but they only tested very cold and somewhat hot water. No boiling. I've been boiling water for just seconds to sanitize it. But while this study doesn't show it's immediately killed, it *does* imply that letting boiled water cool down naturally will provide enough time to kill N. fowleri spores. (Unless you drop its temperature with ice or a heat exchanger.)
Frankly I don't think someone that would do something so stupid are a big loss to the gene pool. I had never heard of a neti pot before, and now I wish I didn't.
You, sir or madam, are an ignoramus! You don't even get a pass for being unfamiliar with modern medicine, since this is very, very old medicine (that's still prescribed by mainstream doctors).
There's no way those statistics could possibly be representative. They do not include, for example, mugging victims that run away from a knife and are not stabbed. I think you are making a willfully obtuse argument. I would prefer to go against a baseball bat rather than a gun any day. (And my choice of weapon would be made by Nike, if you haven't figured that out.)
The point is that guns don't do half measures. Here's a real statistic, not some cherry-picked irrelevent percents:
"Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used," (followed by three citations, which you can look up if you're interested).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"to nuke" is a verb which is mostly associated with microwaving food (at least here in the states)
I think it's regional. I never heard that until I went to university. Consequently, it sounds stupid and uneducated to me. (In the States.)
Some people in China wear masks. The educated ones wear N95 filters, the uneducated ones wear surgical masks. A forecast like this can help you plan how you're going to protect yourself. And you probably want to cancel that Saturday hike if the air is going to be hazardous.
How is this any different than a weather forecast?
There is a staggering number of network-type AI-like systems that are not neural networks. Consider genetic programming: a program is generated based on simple programming primitives like less_than(input, input), not(input), and(input, input) and it evolves itself, either through individual fitness feedback or by an evolutionary strategy.
So it's not correct to say that because it's not a neural network, it must be heuristic-based.
Guns have no magical powers fists lack that cause the (mental) trauma.
Sure they do. I think this is common sense, unless you live in the land of Rubber Bullets. The reason for this is probably the same reason as the reason using a gun in a crime carries stiffer penalties. Guns don't do half measures. They inflict grievous bodily harm, every time. (Barring misfired/misses/etc.) So if you carry a gun to your robbery, there are serious chances you'll kill the victim. The same isn't true of a mugging with fists. (I read about a hugely strong man mugging a stranger with a handshake--"Give me your wallet or I'm going to break your hand". That victim never feared for his life.)
Imagine you have an argument with an acquaintance and he pulls his arm back to hit you. Now imagine you have an argument with another acquaintance and he pulls a gun and points at at you. Do these two situations really feel the same to you???
Why was the crime "worse" because a computer was used? Did the victim suffer more? Was there more physical damage?
In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used?
Yes, that should be obvious. A gun causes more suffering. You will have nightmares about it. Every time you remember it, your heart will race and you will start to sweat. A strong man's fist is a deadly weapon. You're telling me a fighter waving his fist in your face will traumatize you equally compared to a gun under your nose? Come on.
I'm not sure either of those applies. I'm no lawyer, but I doubt a judge or jury would agree with your interpretation of "intentionally causes damage". First of all, wear and tear is not damage. When you finish an apartment lease, the landlord cannot keep your deposit to pay for wear and tear. When you rent a car, you are not charged damages for wear and tear. When you borrow something, it would be unheard of to hold you accountable for wear and tear. Furthermore, how do you prove it? Due to the way hard drives and OSs work, I doubt the amount of damage is statistically significant. If it's not statistically significant, it doesn't exist. Finally, if AT&T is sending headers that tell the browser not to cache the data, it should not be written to the hard drive anyway.
Finally, you ignored "intentionally". Do you know how high a bar it is to prove intention rather than incompetence? It's hard, even when it's true. And in this case it just isn't. AT&T doesn't want to fuck your computer, they want to fuck your wallet.
In the wire fraud definition you cited, I don't think AT&T is fulfilling the core of the definition: "defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises". Advertising, by and large, is not considered fraud (as much as we might feel that way about most ads we see).
It is, I don't know if you're familiar with that "rooting the device" actually means, but it's putting the su binary into /system/, that's it.
Once su is in the proper directory, other applications can use su somecommand, this is what "root access" is on Android, nothing more.
That's one definition. Opening a root shell (regardless of the state of /system and su) is another. I've seen this called "temproot".
I'm familiar with rooting, but not with exactly what system-level permissions entails. And whether system permissions imply root-ability or not, I agree with you that it's dangerous.
But here's another question, if you know more about this than me: Once /bin/su is installed, and the user launches a "SU" app, how does the SU app prevent other apps from accessing /bin/su? Does it simply inject itself into the OS functions that let a process execute a file?
I was referring to the firmware it had when I bought it. *My* M7 was unrootable from within the OS. Those HTC tools don't operate within the Android OS, so that's why they get a pass in my book. This tool isn't launched from the phone, but from a computer, and it can only connect when the phone is in a hardware debugging mode (no apps, no configurability, not even a touchscreen interface).
I think I see our disagreement. If you consider playing with chips to be part of local access, then indeed local access is full access. I meant "local user" (i.e., local account). TeamViewer in theory shouldn't be able to do things the local user cannot do. The local user cannot escalate privileges (without an exploit). Hence, TeamViewer was designed in a naughty way (with Google's permission) and has access that in theory it should not have. Otherwise it could not be a gateway for a local or remote user to escalate permissions.
I would also expect vulnerabilities from TeamViewer: unwanted remote access. And unwanted remote access can do a lot of bad things, but it should not be able to circumvent Android's security model: it should not be able to sniff keys, nor capture the screen. It should not do anything a local app can't do. The fact that it can do these things is what makes this exploit notable, and that tells us that TeamViewer is not running as a normal app (subject to Android's security model).