It's an older code, sir...but, it checks out. Shall I hold them?

No...I will DEEEAAAALLL with them myself.

Or, are they responding the premise that this simply can't be secure?

I haven't fully digested it, but it sounds interesting at the very least for me to at least try to understand it. It does not appear to be a crackpot article as one might assume. And, it sounds like it's being posted for true peer review as most security papers should,

and give it a new name. That seems to be the pattern these days, isn't it. The techniques and concepts described in this "Manifesto" are really nothing more than the tenet of systems design since the dawn of the computer age. Yet, he touts it like its some sort of new idea. Same goes for programming languages, frameworks and paradigms - most are rehashes of what came before.

I have been a proponent of using message queues to build asynchronous and distributed system that make building such "responsive" system. We developed a location based system that leveraged ApacheMQ with JMS to facilitate the processing of millions of messages while keeping the response time predictable. That was seven (7) years ago.

Bandwidth and computing resources are finite. We can move processing off to the cloud or to other dedicated processors. But, ultimately, you will have a bottleneck of one or more of the two, bandwidth and computing resources (cores, processors, nodes, whatever). To make a response, large scale system, you need to understand the limitations and, more specifically, queuing theory so that you can build a system that meets the goals of the "manifesto".

If one is looking at programming "responsive" systems in terms of languages (which is not the intent, I think, of the manifesto), you can easily go back to the 1980's and 1990's. There were probably other such environments before then. However, around 1992/3, there was a language for the Macintosh called Prograph (and, Progragh CPX). It was a visual language that was based on "cases" with inputs and outputs. Outputs became available when all the inputs were satisfied - it was very asynchronous. Yes, you still had procedural elements. But, it was designed for parallel processing. Another, so called, "responsive" system is the spreadsheet where cells change based on the values in other cells in a very asynchronous fashion.

I won't state that some of today's "modern" languages don't solve specific problem of earlier languages or have something to offer. But, much of what that is claimed to be modern constructs have been around for years - maybe not as eloquently expressed, but were there nevertheless. This is where a CS degree comes in hand and why people pursue CS at colleges. Wish some people would get that through their heads. The other day, there was a story about how older IT professionals seem to have lost their fire while the "younger" generation is full of it and it's learning something new that makes them better than the old guard. No, older professionals simply say "ho-hum" to the "new" views as it's just a rehash of what they already know. When something revolutionary comes along, the wake up long enough to figure it out and whether it's something that's worth considering vs what HR thinks is the hopping buzzword of the day.

to quarantine them for weeks, like the early astronauts, before letting them come into town for supplies.

Yup, and we are worried about ebola when a bigger danger is lurking right in our very noses.

"Visa and Mastercard might have signed on, but that's not important. Retailer support is the critical factor. "

Having Visa and Mastercard sign on is a VERY BIG deal in obtaining retailer support. In order to use their services, you have to use approved terminals which they often provide or dictate the requirements of said terminals. If they providing or requiring Apple Pay capable terminals, the technology will penetrate the retail market quickly. Retailers will have little recourse if people demand mobile payments. With larger stores chains in the mix, the tech will be ubiquitous fairly quickly. I expect we will see vendors like Square adopt this tech pretty quickly so they can stay relevant. The Square device, for example, was free (or was it $10) for those that signed up with their service for those that wanted to accept cards.

Whether Google Wallet or PayPal can get in the mix, we'll see. Choice would be nice. However, I think we will see Apple Pay be the dominant tech in this industry. What is unclear is if the special chip Apple developed is a requirement or a nice-to-have and other vendors are free to implement in software or their own custom chip.

The entire argument is simply stupid. Just don't think that because you're a droid fan that it makes you immune to "enthralled fanatic syndrome". Look at how everyone want the next Nexus or Galaxy or S5 or Alpha or whatever. It goes both ways.

For me, the day that Apple devices don't get the job done for me, I will look at an Android device. But, my last experience was with an Incredible. It was anything but. That could be simply because HTC nor Verizon fixed issues that resulted in it rebooting or crashing at really inopportune times. But, it turned me away from the platform. As a developer, I prefer iOS (in the form of the iPad) as that's where the money is. When Android devices become mainstay in my client's enterprises, I will reexamine my development and business model at that time. So far, Android tablets don't meet their needs - primarily because they are too configurable and the innards accessible. Open is not always a good thing.

Just like the Gold iPhone and the new Gold Samsung S5(?)...when the other has it, it's stupid. But, damn, everybody wants it just the same don't they?

You aren't going to reason with a Fanboi or FANdroid - they both are set in their ways.

If people want to critize your Android phone for having a camera lens and are trolls, does it make sense to act the same way? Take the high road.

These are merely phones...nothing more. You pick what you like. If you want a camera that looks like the main weapon on a Dalek, that's your prerogative. Maybe, you can make it work and dispose of those who don't like your choice.

Yes, the "bulge" is clearly photoshopped out. I can only suspect the reason is that they want to show that the rest of the phone...the 95+% of the surface area is the stated thickness. During the keynote, the "bulge" was discussed. They could have shown the whole side view and position arrows or other marks to indicate the thickness. But, frankly, that would have been ugly, wouldn't it? Certainly, not Apple's way.

Now, iPhone / Apple fans aren't going to care that Apple marketers took this liberty with the images - they are going to buy it regardless.

Only those who want to find fault with Apple, for whatever reason, give a rat's ass that Apple might engage as something so underhanded as to photoshop out the "bulge" to clarify their marketing point.

What IS more interesting is how much attention Android fans are giving to something which they claim no interest in owning.

Now, I will digress.

Nobody (except true Fanbois) on the Apple side argues that Android phones might have had some features that found their way into Samsung and other Android phones first (i.e NFC, Google Wallet, etc). But, it took a company, like Apple, with the marketing clout and financial resources to get buy-in for actually using those features (such as NFC through Apple Pay). Apple only introduces features into their products for which they believe there to be a market or to remain relevant in a market. And, if a market doesn't yet exist, they know how to create it and they make it appear easy to use - as only Apple can.

The addition of NFC, for example, was probably done because they could now make it useful (vs "bumping" phones to transfer video..big whoop) by tackling mobile payments. Apple Pay addresses the process by never sharing credit card data, having unique, one-time, transaction number, and the ability to use a fingerprint to authenticate in a fraction of second. Well, those are the claims, anyway. They managed to get the major banks and store brands to jump on the bandwagon. And, in doing so, it appears Apple may have succeeded where Google and Samsung could not even with their more "technologically" advanced hardware and software solutions. Usability is the key to public acceptance - not technology. And, they seized upon the opportunity posed by "hackers" breaking in and stealing credit card data from major outlets to gain appeal for their solution.

Now, what remains to be seen is whether Apple allows others to play in the Apple Pay sandbox or not. If they don't, they might successfully corner the phone market for the average person with Apple Pay and an iPhone 6C provided the POS vendors elect not to integrate other mobile payment schemes into their terminals.

To remove the album, users need to:

• Go to http://itunes.com/soi-remove
• Click Remove Album to confirm you'd like to remove the album from your account
• Sign in with the Apple ID and password you use to buy from the iTunes Store

Apple warned that, once the album has been removed from a user's account, it will no longer be available for them to redownload as a previous purchase. If they later decide they want the album, they will need to get it again.

The album is free to everyone until 13 October 2014, and will be available for purchase after that date.

Incorrect. Your code has to compile using their APIs. There are multiple tools out there for writing iOS and OSX code (Embarcadero RADStudio, Titanium, FreePascal, MonoTouch, etc.) . All code must be signed before it can be accepted into the AppStore. And, the code undergoes basic checks to such things as unauthorized API calls, missing images, etc. The signing requirement still has to be done using XCode. The alternative tools are able to call it to facilitate the signing process.

Swift and Objective-C through XCode are the PREFERRED tools that Apple supports. Outside of this realm, you are pretty much on your own with support being supplied by the alternative tool vendors.

Probably NOT a hoax. Just a dip paraphrasing the real article, rushing to post it, and having no clue what they are talking about.

Here is the correct version of the article from a more reputable source.

http://www.nature.com/news/artificial-spleen-cleans-up-blood-1.15917

I found a book in an old Annapolis bookstore about magnetic healing. It was such quackery...gave it to my wife just before she graduated from PT school.

Book was something like 100 years old at the time. Now, I have to go find it (hopefully, she still has it). It can sit right along my books on post civil war bugle calls and another on Warship design (BB-26 South Carolina..circa 1910).

Thanks for sharing this. It is a much better summary than what was posted here on /.

Mod original poster to INTERESTING, please.