well I would say that a large chunk of devs are on pre-orders...

they're the people interested in the watch anyways. your normal iphone users don't really give a shit.

...read the paper.

it's like he said, you can detect that the network is being used or that there "probably was some user input".

which is pretty far away from keylogging, so far in fact that it's unlikely to be possible at all.

the whole paper up until that is written though as if you could snoop everything in the computer so not to blame you too much.

"e. Instead of the
traditional cryptanalytic application of the cache attack,
we instead showed how user behavior can be effectively
tracked using this method." you know why? BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T FUCKING EXECUTE A FUCKING SIDECHANNEL ATTACK!

when you're an addict you can't maintain a job or relationship. so someone has to feed and house you. that's the taxpayer. therefore, we are involved

the notion that it is all just about freedom is a very immature teenage notion

we're also involved because the side effects of addiction don't happen on desert islands, they happen in our communities. you understand there are side effects to addiction like destroyed lives. you do understand that right?

it's simply not a question of just personal freedom unless you're an ignorant simpleton who can't see the big picture. how do you eat? where do you sleep? how can you get a job or have a relationship when feeding an artificial need is more important to you than everything?

so you're angry, you want to fight because you don't see the problem. and you're stupid, because you don't understand it's not just about personal freedom. you're a complete loser

the tragedy of drugs is it can start in teenage years when:

1. people are in the most pain psychologically. friends, romance, etc.: it hurts in unique ways when you are young. turning to drugs is appealing to deal with this pain that would otherwise normally subside with age
2. people think they are immortal and invincible and their willpower is stronger than addiction. it never is
3. people are dumb. they can have a lot of book smarts but they don't have enough social awareness to understand where this all leads

so you wind up with ruined lives

addicts should always be treated the portuguese way" healthcare, not jail. it's just cheaper and a lot more humane

however the portuguese still go after dealers and the drug trade is still illegal. no country in the world is "all drug trade should be legal." no one thinks that works. because it proliferates more addicts

so it's a cost/benefit analysis: i am spending my money feeding and treating and housing addicts, or i am spending my money fighting dealers. i will probably do both, that's just the maintenance cost of civilization, but i'd like to jail as many dealers as i can first, to minimize costs and prevent the proliferation of more addicts

but of course, it costs society in terms of mafia proliferation when you make the drug trade illegal. yet don't forget: if you permissively allow hard drugs to flow freely, more people turn to them for their problems, and there are more addicts you have to feed and house

so it is a very tricky balance. a cost/ benefit analysis of going after the drug supply, or just passively dealing with the costs of addiction

and every drug is different. every drug needs their own policy. there is no such thing as one drug policy for all drugs. there has to be a unique policy for each drug. and each policy is some combination of going after dealers and treating addicts. for some drugs, you forget the dealers and just treat the addicts, with other drugs you have to treat so many addicts, it helps to crush the dealers

something like alcohol, it's better to deal with alcoholism and allow the drug to flow freely. that's the lowest cost on society

but something like heroin, it's very important to remove dealers ASAP, as heroin addiction is life crippling and easy to acquire. so the lowest cost is to go after the drug trade aggressively

something like marijuana, that should be completely legal and ignored. it's not addictive

when you're an addict you can't maintain a job or relationship. so someone has to feed and house you. that's the taxpayer. therefore, we are involved

the notion that it is all just about freedom is a very immature teenage notion. the simple truth is, we're not cruel, we don't just let addicts turn to crime and starve and die and ignore them. and we're also involved because the side effects of addiction don't happen on desert islands, they happen in our communities. it's simply not a question of just personal freedom unless you're an ignorant simpleton who can't see the big picture and see how the problem festers and grows

i am spending my money feeding and housing useless addicts, or i am spending my money fighting dealers. i will probably do both, that's just the maintenance cost of civilization, but i'd like to jail as many dealers as i can first

of course, it costs society in terms of mafia proliferation when you make the drug trade illegal. but if you permissively allow hard drugs to flow freely, more people turn to them for their problems, and there are more addicts you have to feed and house

so it's a cost/ benefit analysis of going after the drug supply, or just passively dealing with the costs of addiction. and the truth is every drug is different

something like alcohol, it's better to deal with alcoholism and allow the drug to flow freely. that's the lowest cost on society. but something like heroin, it's very important to remove dealers ASAP, as heroin addiction is life crippling and easy to acquire. so the lowest cost is to go after the drug trade aggressively

something like marijuana, that should be completely legal and ignored. it's not addictive

there is no such thing as one drug policy for all drugs. there has to be a unique policy for each drug. and each policy is some combination of going after dealers and treating addicts. for some drugs, you forget the dealers and just treat the addicts, with other drugs you have to treat so many addicts, it helps to crush the dealers

why not just ask him if he thinks security companies are a bad thing? are companies providing encryption for the police forces doing a bad thing? or should they just forget their data in cars that get stolen unencrypted?

how does he think he can eat the cake and then continue to have it? he can have part of the cake after eating but it's going to smell shitty, so why would anyone use the security companies giving him the cake first...

it wouldn't have worked if others didn't automate their trades.

I don't think it was wrong or illegal, it's just a system that's badly designed and had too many money for nothing traders with automatons that they did not look after.

he pressured the price down by placing orders above the lowest and then the lowest would place lower, and same again. if he intended to fill them or not is rather irrelevant when someone else's algo works like that!

twat,

even malicious should have less. of course unless it results in actual other crimes.

like, if you use unauthorized access to facilitate an explosion or whatever.. the fuck do you need 35 years sentence for the hack for? the perp is on it's way for murder, terrorism or whatever charges anyways.

the old one is like making knife possession equivalent to having performed a deadly stabbing.

2.0 probably refers to second generation google tv... or whatever. not to google tv with android 2.0

the complaint just describes business as usual.

it even describes layering as something that "was" sort of an industry standard practice.

I mean, if they describe it as such practice where are the other guys in prison for layering, huh? the other stuff seem like standard HFT bogus trickery as well so how is it that he is a criminal? is it strange to ask for a facility into hft that would cancel unprofitable trades? that's the whole fucking point of it anyways.

the greatest authoritarian government, run by the most fascist, megalomaniacal, sadistic person who has ever lived, would find no better tool of absolute control than mandatory hard drug use like meth, cocaine, or especially heroin

physical bars can be transcended via the mind. but bars in the mind?

i never understood people who, in the name of freedom, support the use of the most freedom destroying methods known to man. anything that causes easy addiction is freedom destroying. a chemical interrupt switch in the mind that must be fed is not freedom and prioritizes over all other pursuits: work, food, sex. that's existential slavery and destruction of the self

i know some people have painful lives. and we all feel temporary pain or tedium that is relieved with substances with much power addictive potentials, that's ok. so let's call hard highly addictive drug use what it is: slow motion suicide by people with serious psychological problems. and after enough addiction, it's hard to tell how much of the original pain is still the causative agent. which is the problem: a perhaps temporary problem is now a permanent life hobbling addiction. let's stop lying by saying hard highly addictive drug use is some great exercise in freedom. it's exactly the opposite

you are not in any masters program in any college or university. you're a bad liar as well as a moron

no one as stupid as you can get that far and still believe what you have written about a democracy and a republic

you really need to learn to stop talking about topics you obviously do not understand. unless you like people hating you and laughing at you

well said with an even temper

i don't have a position. i am educating you on actual history and economic fact

meanwhile, the idea that markets self-regulate is not an extreme position. it is a moronic position. to believe markets achieve fairness on their own requires one to deny well-established facts and to believe in low iq fantasies. you are on the same order as an antivaxxer or a creationist. really

the physical cost is the fusing of atomic nuclei in a ball of gas we did not invest anything in and will burn for another few billion years with no effort on our part

the financial cost of the energy source is actually zero