surprise, there is no law making it illegal to give this type of information to a reporter.

If nothing else, he certainly would have had contractual terms forbidding it.

I think I understand his point, and I agree in part, but I also disagree. I think security awareness is good, but I think relying on it is bad.

First of all, I think there will always be situations where the security technology fails - social engineering is an obvious example - and ultimately the final barrier is the security smarts of the target. Anything which raises that barrier, even a little, is a good thing. The question, obviously, is whether the benefit is worth the cost of the training.

And secondly, I think in general that making people more aware is always good. People are way too trusting, and that covers the gamut from clicking dodgy attachments to falling for Ponzi schemes. I think it's good to teach people to question more, to think critically, and to be risk-aware. And by "teach people" I mean "starting in primary school".

sudo apt-get install eclipse - the SDK includes an emulator.

Easy, tiger. That's talking about Samba 4.0. NOT Samba4. Confusing, no? AFAICT: Samba 4.0 includes the Samba 3.x functionality AND the Samba4 work (ie: it's a bundled file/print server and AD controller).

From that page you linked to: "Samba 4.0 will be the next version of the Samba suite and incorporates all the technology found in both the Samba4 series and the stable 3.x series."

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

I don't buy that. The article says they tried it again to confirm it really was standard practice, and managed to get the same access.

So either they got the exact same service agent on the phone, or both the hackers and the journalists managed to isolate the two clueless individuals in the call centre who would defy the established practice, or it was standard insecure practice which Apple will now (we hope) address.

Occam's Razor suggests the last is the more likely scenario.

Yeah, they do. I tried it out, for curiosity's sake. And dear lord, the parser is horrendous. You'll spend 30 seconds figuring out an exercise, and an hour trying to get the damned parser to work. It's like playing an old adventure game. "put the value in the variable". "put the value ON the variable". "use the value with the variable." "oh ffs never mind"

If they could fix that, I'd give it a thumbs up. Until then, god no. It'd put any rational person off programming for life - if that were representative of the coding experience, we'd all be living in padded cells by the age of 22.

*exacerbated?

Your points are thoughtful and well made, and I agree with you.

But I think what the article meant was that using the same measurement, music from the earlier era is less varied than from contemporary work. In other words, for at least this method of analysis, music is getting measurably less varied over time.

Of course you're right that there will be common sounds in any slice through musical history: that's why we even have the term "genre" :) But I think the point is that even taking that into account, older slices show more variation.

So the vuvuzelas at the World Cup were just ahead of their time, eh? :)

Just so. You're referring to Android's market share, I take it?