Maybe there is space in the political spectrum for a political party

Perhaps, but you have to break through the two party system first.

No, what you need to do is realize that when the Founding Fathers stated that there should be no less than 1 member per 30,000 people, there really should be no less than 1 per 30,000.

Sure the logistics are tough, but guess what? Plenty of problems get solved.

First - we don't need all 10,000 people to attend in person - it's just not possible. And since they're supposed to represent their local jurisdiction, they should do just that. Votes and everything can be done through telepresence. We certainly have the technology to manage 10,000 members easily enough. Hell, let's have them work from home - saves the need to pay for office space.

Second - we're not going to pay 10,000 members the outrageous salaries they currently get. No, we want them to be representative of their area - so we pay them based on the mean/median/mode of the earnings in their area. They work from home anyways, and their earnings reflect the region they're in. if it results in barely a living wage, well, extra incentive to bring up employment and earnings in their region, no?

Third, bribing 5001 people spread out geographically is a lot tougher. I mean, a billion dollar campaign contribution spread out over 5001 people is just under $200k each. Or $6.66 per person in their area. This means local funding is a lot easier to accomplish - if you have 10,000 people, and can get them to contribute an average of $50 each towards your cause, then that can easily override that $200K industry contribution.

And better yet, all you need is to get the courts to enforce it.

Using the existing rules to your advantage is the best way to enact change.

So you should be able to copy a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle (I.e., copy the bourbon, bottle, and label), tie a label to the bottle that reads "made by J. McDonald" and sell it?

Sure. Why not? Who would be harmed? Certainly not the buyer, who knows exactly what they're getting. Who else would have any standing?

The buyer's buyer.

The problem is not the buyer who is informed, it's the buyer who isn't. And face it, you think drug dealers are alone in cutting up superior product to make inferior clones to sell to unsuspecting people?

So a buyer buys a ton of counterfeits, then proceeds to sell them as "discounted originals", perhaps even cutting it with water or other things to turn 100 bottles of fake stuff into 200 bottles of diluted fake stuff to make more profit.

Where have we seen this before? Oh right, melamine in Chinese milk. And that wasn't even passing off yet.

Though, no new laws are needed - it still goes under the laws of passing off or trademark infringement (if you try to pass off something fake as someone else's) and fraud (selling something that it's not).

I think if the plaintiff truly believe that unbundle google serach would have the phone cost less. then I think everyone should sue Apple instead. It would have make an easier win.

Except Google pays Apple a few tens of millions of dollars each year to have iOS use Google by default.

Unbundling Google is like unbundling the crapware on a new PC - you're removing the subsidy that's making the stuff cheaper in the end, so you're actually likely going to pay more.

For better 'data' - look at the Apple forums.

Yeah, because armies of users come to post on Apple forums to let people know the update's working fine for them. :)

Exactly.

Plus, is it the buggiest ever, or are just just a lot of users?

Apple sells like 20M computers a year, Even if 15M of them go and run Windows till they die, that's still 5M OS X installs a year. If a bug affects just 0.1% of users, that's still 5000 users a year. And given Yosemite works on Macs that are say, 5 years old, that's 25M users, or 25,000 people. If 10% complain on Apple's forums, that's still 2,500 people making a lot of noise.

And that's how it is - a bug that affects 1 in 1000 users is still a lot of noise.

And Apple users generally are the most vocal of the lot. Windows users on the whole generally accept the problem as "it's a computer thing - wifi is not supposed to work all the time" or "I'll reboot when I need it to work". In the Apple world, if the user has to reboot to get their gizmo to work, it's considered a Major Bug.

Over time, as Linux has gotten more and funding, it has gotten worse and worse. I initially switched to Linux because it generally just worked, and it worked better than many of the alternatives. But now it's just getting fucking horrible. I mean, look at systemd. Normal users, and especially power users, don't want it. It just causes problem after problem for many people.

No, it hasn't gotten worse. It has gotten responsive to user demands.

Back in the 90s when life was simple, users were simple. Unless you used an Amiga or MacOS, if you played a sound, that was it - no one else could play a sound (MacOS and Amiga had software mixers so you could listen to music AND hear application generated sounds - you could use exclusive mode if you needed it, though).

Likewise, you logged in and you rarely had things starting up just for you.

And your networking options were... single. You either had Ethernet, or a modem, and only one IP per host. And rarely did you move - I mean, if you were on Ethernet, it was assumed you were on the same network permanently, or at least changes were rare.

Nowadays, user demands have gone way up. Audio has to be mixed by the OS because the user may listen to tunes, start yakking on VoIP, and having sound effects played while gaming, all simultaneously. The VoIP call goes over say, a Bluetooth headset or the communications path, while the music and sound effects play through the main speakers. Oh, and no application is to dare use the HDMI port to send audio as it's hooked to a monitor with no speakers. A modern PC can easily have 4 or 5 different ways to play audio.

Likewise, when you log in, you probably have a few per-user services you like to have - either from the environment you're using or other services. It would be a shame if logging in again restarted those services (e.g., you log in locally, then log in remotely over ssh) or if those multiple sessions couldn't communicate with each other (e.g., you make a change remotely, and it fails to propagate through the rest of the logins).

And networks... well, an Ethernet port or WiFi? A user may connect to many different networks in a single day, and have more than a few ways to send a packet around. Perhaps they're hooked to their same network multiple ways - either dual Ethernet, or Ethernet plus WiFi. And maybe the next time the connection is re-established, those ports need to be firewalled because it went from private network to public.

Back in the old days, well, audio was simple because your PC couldn't really do multiple things at once. Networks were generally safe so it didn't matter that you didn't bring up the firewall on the public Ethernet connection. And users didn't run too many things in the background because no one could imagine needing to log into the console AND over ssh simultaneously, or they could just remotely kill the session because there wasn't important stuff to save.

And it's perfectly fine on a server that sits in a rack and never moves until it's powered down and retired. But modern users need this complexity just to manage their normal use case. Sure you can force the user to tell you what kind of network is at the other end, or to re-establish the VPN, but users want computers to do stuff automatically - I mean, why should I tell the computer this coffeeshop WiFi is public over and over again - can't it remember?

Or to reconfigure my VoiIP app because I attach my Bluetooth headset to my computer so it now uses that - why can't it ask for a communications headset, and if one isn't available right now, use the default audio hardware. Then when one suddenly appears (Bluetooth!), automagically use that? Zero reconfiguration, event he app doesn't have to reopen the audio device because the audio core did it internally.

It should be telling that the most popular Linux "distribution" in the world is Android, which has its own init system (like systemd, it manages processes, events, and other things), its own audio core so it routes your ringtones to the nice loud ringer at the back, sees if you have a headset so it routes communications audio over that, or the speaker/microphone, and music to the loud ringer at the back or your bluetooth speakers you just connected. Network handling is similar - Ethernet, WiFi or WWAN and VPN, all from a simple interface and even handling stuff like logging into the network.

Heck, even some use cases aren't handled properly by desktop OSes. Perhaps you have a tablet, and a common use is to play music. But you also want to turn off the screen. OSes like iOS and Android know this is common and handle it. Desktop OSes like OS x, Windows and Linux assume otherwise and while you can simulate it using "turn off screen after" and "turn off PC after" settings, it's no the same since power management on PCs assume idle PCs should go to sleep after turning off the screen, not that users might want to do stuff with the screen off and to stay on until said activity is done.

In space, weight's analogue is called mass, and it does matter.

No, there is no weight in space. Weight is a force that pulls in the direction of local gravity. Yes, we use the wrong units for weight - weight is mass times acceleration (usually gravitational). So the real unit for weight is actually the newton.

Mass is conserved, but as you enter and leave acceleration, the weight changes as the acceleration changes.

Strap a laptop to your head on Earth and you still have to contend with the mass of the laptop (thanks, inertia!).

You hope. That's the idea, but components with thermal throttling still die the death of heat. The thermal throttling is controlled by software, and each card (or laptop) vendor has the opportunity to dick around with the maps.

No, software controlled thermals are never working alone. The software one allows a more gentle performance rampdown and fan control, but there's always a hardware override because software to control temps can go missing or simply not be present at certain stages.

In this case, if it overheats so badly the hardware kicks in, they basically kick the fan into high speed and halt the GPU (usually by blocking the core clock). Usually that's enough to cool it down to a safe zone where it re-enables the clock, so what was once a nice super smooth gameplay turns into a horrendous slideshow.

Or, sometimes if it gets really critical, it disables the clock until reset, which basically halts your PC as the busses lock up.

LoopPay works by basically cloning the credit card.

Is that even permitted under PCI DSS? I know other projects, like Coin, get hung up on this, for good reason.

Has nothing to do with PCI-DSS, really. Your old style credit card has a magnetic strip on it that can be trivially cloned with only a few dollars worth of hardware. All LoopPay does is emulate that strip. In fact, the encoding is well known that you don't have to clone the strip - if you have the data that's on the strip, you can make up your own version.

In fact, it'll be important come October because chip cards have a bit on the strip that indicate it's a chip card - so if you swipe it on a chip-capable (and chip-enabled) reader, the bit tells the reader to reject the swipe and display "Please insert card" because swiping is no longer allowed. If LoopPay isn't emulating that bit, the user can be In for a nasty surprise when they find out they were the least secure part and are therefore liable - if you have a chip card and not only didn't use it, but forced the swipe instead

The shift is supposed to be pretty much in effect beginning of 2016 but there really is little movement in either the part of the banks or the merchants. The banks don't want to spend money to quickly replace the cards with something nobody yet takes and merchants don't want to spend money to take cards that haven't been issued yet.

Actually, the shift is in October, when a bill comes into force that liability shifts to the least secure thing in the chain. If the bank supports it, and the customer has a chip card, but the merchant got a swipe reader, then the merchant is responsible for the fraud.

If the bank gives the cardholder a non-chip card, well, liability goes to the bank. (If you have non-chip cards, most banks will probably issue you new cards out of cycle, so if you still use your swipe card instead of your new chip card, you're going to be liable).

Ironically, Apple Pay might have kickstarted the process because upgrading to support NFC means you get a chip reader too. (Apple Pay is just an implementation of EMV, so Apple Pay support comes "for free" with a new reader)

Merchants will want to delay delay and delay, but they run the real risk of the readers being out of stock and being stuck with the liability while they wait for new readers because they didn't upgrade when there was plenty of time.

I have a lot of audio patch cords that clearly come from the same factory as the Monster cables, just with a "DaytonAudio" label instead, that sold for $3-5. It's not like they bad cables or anything. I can't match your price though.

I've bought a bunch of Monster cables for around that price, only because that was all they had on sale. Basically a store that bought up a bunch of overstock and sold it at huge discounts in original sealed Monster packaging.

They are nice cables since they don't snag nor have insulation that binds up so you are pulling one out through a rats nest, they slide easily.

Of course, I won't pay $100 for them, but at $5-10 each, why not.

My typical experience as a traveller - I walk up to checkout with an item, present my card, it's swiped, I scrawl a signature on a (usually broken) digital capture device but the cashier never bothers to authenticate the card, or look at the name on it, or ask for id, or match the signature to the card. In a restaurant, the card might even be taken away to be swiped and it doesn't occur to either the restaurant or customers why this might be a bad thing.

You don't understand what the signature is for.

Signing the slip does nothing - the cashier is neither an expert in handwriting nor is expected to be one.

The purpose of signing the card is to enable a contract - the card signature signals that you agree to your cardholder terms and conditions (aka cardholder agreement). Cashiers are required to check the panel to make sure a valid signature is present (to be reasonably sure that such a transaction is valid).

The little slip you sign again isn't for verification. If you look closely, it has a line that states "By signing this slip, cardholder agrees to pay the amount shown". This means that you agree that the amount billed is correct, so if a dispute happens, the merchant can reasonably show that yes, you did agree to that amount (in case they transcribed the price wrong, say the slip was marked $13.10 instead of $11.30 - by signing the slip. you agree that $13.10 is the right amount). It's why if they ever bill you incorrectly, you can sign the slip and sign a refund slip, or tear the slip up and contest the charge (without a signed slip, there's no proof of the transaction - merchant loses).

This is more about contracts than actual security (which there is none).

That's because only a vanishingly small percentage of the population really cares about hacking on their devices. I know this is heresy here on Slashdot, but it's true. 99+% of the population simply don't give a shit whether or not they can build their own applications for the device.

Why?

Because 99+% of the population does not have the necessary time, skill, and interest to do so. It's not that people are dumb - it's that they just don't care about replacing the existing software that lets them do all the things they want to do with their devices.

More correctly, the computer is no longer an object of interaction but now a tool of modern life. In other words, people don't "use the computer" anymore. They "online shop/bank" or "research" and stuff like that. The computer has gone from something people "did stuff on" to something people "use to do stuff".

And it's something that has embedded itself into modern life so deeply, there is choice but to use a computer.

Back when we were playing video games and futzing with EMS and EMM and XMS and other settings for the fun of it, life was such that you didn't need a computer for most things. Or they had easily avoided alternatives.

Nowadays, modern life demands you use a computer - you can't get away from it.

That's both a good and bad thing. It's good in that computers really fundamentally changed the way people interact.

But the bad thing is that groups like the FSF have lost power because what was once an elite group of narrow users who used and understood the computer is now expanded into the public who pretty much are forced to use a computer. Instead of an environment where users were competent and can administer their own systems, we've incorporated the general public into the group.

And just like other technologies that had mass market acceptance, like the car, it turns that technology from a means unto itself into a tool that people use. The car, the telephone (remember phone phreaking?), computers. They're just tools used to help us accomplish a goal, and basically should do enough to protect us from ourselves (e.g., safety features in cars, anti malware tools, etc) so the majority can go about their day and doing stuff those tools accomplish (going from point A to point B, banking, etc).

It's a fundamental change that has happened in the past couple of decades. Sure, there will always be the hard core who love their tools and will tweak them to the envelope and beyond, but the majority just want their tools to be transparent and get out of the way, and to not bother them as much as possible.

If you could give the user a different tool that does things they want to do without as many hassles, they'll pick it. Hence the rise of smartphones, tablets, and internet streaming devices - why watch Netflix on a computer monitor when those things let you do it on the go, or on the nice big livingroom TV.

Please do not link to any site that autoplays a video. Chrome handles html5 natively. It is not easy to block it in chrome. That alone is going drive users away from Chrome to Firefox+NoScript. It is just a matter of time before advertisers and sleazy websites add autoplaying videos. It is back to X10 popup and blinking text of geocities.
Thanks for the warning, you will see the drastic reduction in hits for such links from Chrome. You will create a policy of not linking to any site that has auto play video. Also why do you include it directly in read? Can't you just put up a link and say click to play?

Just can't win, can you? I mean, back when it was some proprietary flash player everyone complained because Linux doesn't have Flash, other than Chromium.

Now we got to a nice standardized format (HTML5) and people still complain?

And in reality, the <video> tag has an "autoplay" attribute - if it's present the video autoplays. if not, it doesn't.

(And if you're handy, in the DOM there's a piece of javascript that writes the video tag and sets the autoplay option based on a setting).

If you want, write to Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft and Google to have them ignore the autoplay attribute if present so videos don't autoplay at all no matter what the webmaster's intent. It's the advantage of HTML video - the user is in charge and their browser is free to ignore or obey the webmaster's intention.

Just like most web browsers ignore "text-decoration: blink " (blink tag has been deprecated in a CSS world. Though most browsers actually don't obey the CSS either).

However, the answer is likely that it was an easy way to unlock phones sold in the N. American market. Every time Apple releases a new phone, a bunch are bought up on the west coast by people who jailbreak them, unlock them, and then sell them in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China. This likely accounts for both the large number of jailbroken devices and for the decline, as a larger and larger number of legit devices are sold directly into the Chinese market.

Don't confuse North America with the US.

iPhones sold by Apple in Canada without a contract come SIM unlocked by default. If I wanted to wait, I could've had an unlocked iPhone 6 (or 6+) on launch day.

And other places often sell unlocked iPhones.

Plus, on launch day, there are NO jailbreaks for new devices. So unlocking them is basically impossible via the jailbreak route.

And the incidence of jailbreaking in Asia is going down, as it turns out by jailbreaking, you're getting your phone infected with all sorts of spyware. There already are a bunch of iOS spyware that infects jailbroken devices only because they require circumventing the iOS security system in order to function. They can't infect a non-jailbroken phone.

So the only reason for jailbreaking in Asia is to engage in what they consider their basic right - to pirate. I mean, the latest installs of the jailbreaking tools for the past few iOS revisions install some Chinese pirated app store.

Of course, elsewhere on the Internet, the other way to do pirated app installs is to use a re-signer service that uses the enterprise certificate to sign cracked apps so they install on unjailbroken phone. It probably explains why the iOS section of most sites is gathering dust, while the Android section is healthy and growing with dozens of new pirated apps posted daily.

You forgot those little magnetic balls. They're banned now because many kids were swallowing them, and because of their magnetism, if you swallow two, your life really is in danger as they'll find each other and tear apart your intestines along the way.