I'm very happy if they limit it so data and SMS.
Apple wouldn't have known about this little known old feature turned security hole if it wasn't for open source.
Apple wouldn't have had this defect if they hadn't used open source. For sure it might (and does) have others, but given it's taken 20 years for this defect to be found, the idea that there is any superior bug finding capability in the open source arena is laughable.
The myth "With may eyes all defects are shallow" was only ever believed by the naive. Shellshock and Heartbleed have proved it was nonsense. At this time only the religious still believe it.
1) We don't know when the bug was introduced, although it's clear that it was quite some time ago.
You may not, but "we" do. I posted last Thursday that this vulnerability dates back to 1994.
The difference is that with OSS, they all will eventually get found and fixed. The same can't be said of closed source software.
That's religion, not fact. Furthermore your claim in the previous paragraph that "It's been shown by people much smarter than me that it's mathmatically impossible to do so." means that OSS cannot possibly fix all the bugs.
You disappear in a cloud of your own illogicality.
Which is probably why this is a quick and dirty downloadable patch, rather than a proper OS update available to all with auto-update.
Those who have systems that open up BASH to the internets can get this partial fix, and get subsequent ones as BASH fixes progress. Those 99.999% for whom it's not relevant aren't bothered with pointless updates.
Heck if you're going to rewrite in a more modern language why only move from a 1970s language to a 1980s language?
C++ does nothing to eliminate the common causes of defects and vulnerabilities - buffer overflows, dangling and unexpectedly nil pointers etc. Nor does it have anything to offer for the modern world of multiprocessing. And it's memory management is primitive.
If you're going to move forward from the 1970s, do it properly.
While I'm a big fan of open source, that approach has real and obvious problems.
The problems show themselves just as much in software as anywhere else. e.g. People would much prefer to create new code than do code reviews or write tests, so defects in open source software linger around for a decade or two.
That's not a "dirty secret". Having a single component that launches all daemons is a laudable improvement over the adhoc, multiple methods that had grown up in Unix like OSs.
Linux has political problems between Linus and the systemd team, and systemd may be overreaching. None of which is relevant to OSXs entirely different component launchd.
And if anyone thinks there's any copying going on here, take note of the direction - OSX launchd dates back to 2005. Linux systemd to 2010.
You draw a distinction between "distracting" and "overheard in the first place" that I don't think is there.
And usually the volume IS elevated with mobile phone users. Most people are unaware of how good modern phones are at picking up the voice and cancelling out noise. And so they talk loudly on the phone.
Anyhow, I don't suppose we'll reach agreement. I suspect you are looking forward to being able to use a phone on a plane, and so lean towards arguments that result in that being allowed. I'm happier to just relax on a plane, so my bias it the other way.
If it's as limited as questions for common defects in an existing app, that's not so hard. But a system that can actually create an app by asking questions is much harder - unless the possible kids of apps are very limited in scope, as with expert systems and the 3GL fad of the 1980s.
Don't hold you breath. You can only ask those pertinent questions because you can imagine the app given a very incomplete outline. Artificial Imagination is even further away than Artificial Intelligence.
What flowcharts encourage is programming with gotos. They became outdated back in the days when structured programming came in. JSP became the thing. Then later various object diagrams being more or less standardised as UML.
The first job interview I had back in 1984 they asked me to draw a flowchart for a certain algorithm. I told them they were outdated and gave them a JSP diagram instead. And I got the job as a result. That's how out of data flowcharts are.
That question became irrelevant given that the premise that the iPhones are worse than the HTC One was wrong. Even if it were relevant, if you want to know go look - I certainly don't follow Android designs.
But you are still ignoring the fact that the phone you presented as a paradigm is more easily bent than the iPhone 6 Plus and the same as the iPhone 6. Evidence via Consumer Reports.You had a chance to prove you weren't just a hater troll, and you failed.
End of conversation. You've proven yourself not to be interested in the truth.
Yes. You can also order at the counter in France and elsewere. But the norm is table service.
I didn't make myself clear. This has been studied, and talking on mobile phone *IS* significantly more annoying than people holding a conversation. These studies have been a story on Slashdot previously.
why should something that doesn't bother one person be banned just because it happens to bother another?
Maximisation of total happiness. If there was just the minority that were annoyed, then OK. But it's a lot of people. Trains often offer carriages where phones are banned. That may be an option on larger planes with sections.
Would you have the decency to admit you were taken in by a myth, or are you going to go quiet now?
Clearly it's the latter.