I can't help but to think that this bug has more to do with dropped calls than the antenna- Screen doesn't go off, so your face hits "End" ... I can see how people would see that as a drop.

I wonder if it took Apple's Three New Antenna Guys to find out that they fail at logarithms.

"How obvious—how necessary—was that mathematical ratio of its sides, the quadratic sequence 1:4:9! And how naive to have imagined that the series ended at this point, in only three dimensions!"

1:4:9 . . . or perhaps (1:2:3). It's the ratio the Monoliths are built to, and it's perfect.

You burn the building down AFTER you get fired.

Just ask Milton or Dr. Steel

The Bill explanation that was eventually copied to Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia explanation that was eventually copied to the bill?

No old school Half Life or Counter-Strike. I hope they get brought over, I like my CS 1.6

Thanks, well stated. Very constructive and kind.

I still believe that host level security is lacking and should be addressed, because problems can arise from the outside world or within the firewalled subnet.

The assumptions that the outside world is 'big, bad, and evil' and 'my subnet is cookies and cream' is a very bad one and very detrimental to security IMHO. That's why I say security is primarily a host-level concern, because the *real* mindset should be 'everything off my machine is potentially big, bad and evil.'

I don't want to discount the niceties of centralized rules and reporting, or as you point out, potential performance impact. I'm just trying to point out that the security model we've settled into is a result of the hosts being insecure (mostly due to legacy OS's suddenly getting worldwide internet access). Adding a new piece of hardware doesn't fix the core problem, it just patches it- and it still leaves you open to attacks from within your subnet.

Accountability for security should be at the host level.

No, I'm saying the task of security is misplaced and IPv6 will enable it to be placed properly.

I also said that corporations can still use firewalls to enforce policy, quite often those policies are going to disallow services which could pose a security risk.

Firewalls still have a place in the world. They are still of good use, I'm just saying that there will be much more flexibility as the rules can be placed On The Host Itself as opposed to on an external device that has to be configured to do the firewalling, since it's already doing the routing.

Thanks for the input though.

Accountability will be where it needs to be.

Security is the Host's Problem, not a problem that should be seen as solvable by using an external device.

I hope firewalls (well, specifically, NAT routers, DMZs, port forwarding, etc- which all seem to get grouped in 'firewalls') in general will become much LESS of an issue in the future thanks to IPv6. In that world, everything's got a unique address so there's really no need for NAT, private subnets, or the routing issues associated with those.

IMHO, the task of firewalling has been (somewhat incorrectly) pushed on the device doing the routing, when it should be handled on the device itself. Hosts, actual end points, should be able to decided what they will do with the traffic that gets to them, not something in the middle. It's been placed on the router because in our current IPv4 / NAT world, it has to be put there, so the traffic can even *make it to* said end point host. That's not the case with the worldwide-unique addresses of IPv6.

As such, in the IPv6 world of the eventual future, firewalls will exist more due to policy than security (i.e. access to certain services will be disallowed if you're on a corporate network). The security firewalling will need to be done on the device itself, which makes good sense- don't want people ssh hammering your laptop? Well, don't run that service, or restrict it to only devices you trust.

Maybe this time the Pie will be a Lie.

I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS

Way to Apple-ize an opens source project. Yay.

It was started by the KDE team. Sure, Apple grabbed it and did a bunch of work with it, but that does not mean saying it's good is sucking Steve's member.

The browsers that have picked it up show that it's good. Those are of course Safari and Chrome, which is part of the reason why their numbers are awfully close in the comparisons. But it doesn't stop there, WebKit has also been picked up by Epiphany, iCab, OmniWeb, and Uzbl to name a few. WebKit is also likely the most popular rendering engines on mobiles, being on the iPhone, Blackberry and Symbian.

Yes, Google's JS engine is very different and nice. Yes, there are many differences between the browsers above. Even so, one must admit the renderer has a lot to do with the overall responsiveness and quality. And, well, WebKit is the best renderer. It's being adopted by other desktop browsers, being used on many different mobiles, and is consistently very good in the accuracy and speed tests.

Finally, I don't particularly care for Apple. I have one, it's nice, but I'm using my Ubuntu box with Chrome today. So... go do whatever successful trolls do and have a wonderful day.

It's not so much the browser as it is the renderer, and, well, Safari and Chrome are naturally close because they are both using WebKit.

And WebKit is the best and fastest renderer in the world.