This isn't a new idea. Some buildings like this already and IIRC IBM also marked this as one of their next 5 in 5.
Perhaps you should see someone to deal with your anger management and threats of violence.
If you bothered to check up on it, Battery firmware does more then just give you the percentage back on the battery.
For example if the voltage falls outside the safe range, then the battery disables itself from getting a charge (to stop it exploding/going on fire).
It will also prevent the battery from being completely discharged (which kills the battery).
That firmware needs to be programmed in, and editable at a later point in case of bugs.
The only issue from the article is that the batteries have a factory default password. I suspect his tampering triggers a failsafe, rather then him actually knowing how to reprogram the battery.
UO was a great social experiment as well (until it started catering for people who wanted to pay to play basically a single player game without objectionable interaction).
When I played for example, I would hang out in a town called Delucia. It was fun and you tended to meet the same people.
After a while we got terrorised by a French PKer (person who kill for the sake of it). One person disrupted the gameplay of easily a 100 people an hour, by slaughtering, trapping (so monsters would kill them), tricking them into getting killed, robbing and generally being an ass.
So it got a point where the second he logged in runners would go out around the town for people to go back to town or find somewhere not to interact with him.
He would always come into town flagged to try and kill people who would start anything.
The community got so close knit, that one night he came onto the server flagged and spouting garbage. The whole town said they had enough and all stood around him (30 or more people) and told him to cut it out. He was so worried that he started emptying all his gear into the bank for fear he would get spanked by the whole town.
He didn't come around much after that.
It is the concept of "Free" that is getting people. Netflix should have read some of Dan Arielys stuff before doing the price change.
I think it is great to watch a Ponzi scheme in action without being directly connected.
Until it realizes that it could save more money by just killing all the humans.
Something similar to that movie where Will Smith takes a dump on Asimovs grave. (the name escapes me).
They are two different kinds of execs.
You have an exec of an Indie game which probably never expected to make so much money.
An EA exec on the other hand is employed to get the maximum money for the shareholders. More often then not experimental games don't make as much revenue as the mainstream ones. You mess up, you get fired. So it is safer for the exec to release another NFL/FPS/Sims game then it is to make something new.
It is misleading because it implies that Mac was rooted faster then the others.
It is like having a race between Bob and John except Bob runs on Saturday and John Sunday. Then have a headline "Bob to reach finish line first".
It says the Macs were the first to fall. This is because they were the first part of the competition. It appears to imply that all OS were being hacked at the same time.
So what I take it that the exploit is in WebKit (along with many others). They did mention it was quite hard to build the root kit for x64.
So does this mean it is a cross platform exploit?
Any word on when apple will patch it?
> who act as if owning an "unhackable" Apple
I have never met this person you speak of. I can tell you now for dumb users (ie. My mum) the Apple Mac has had 1 *son* support call in the last year. Prior to that I would be fixing something every 1-2 weeks on Windows (pre Win7 of course).
There is no such thing as unhackable.
I find people who own apple devices appear to be much more rational. 99% of the time they just use it as a device and don't give a toss about anything else.
The problem is that some get defensive because you get continual irrational attacks against you just because you bought something.
I wouldn't compare XCode with Visual Express. Just because both are free doesn't mean they are the same.
How about comparing XCode to MSDN?
> A feature I wish it didn't come with... 30% of subscription revenues from "publishers" like Netflix, Amazon Kindle etc.
** This is the fault of the publishers, not Apple. **
Here is what happens. When you sell an app on the iTunes store apple takes a cut of that sale for hosting/advertising. Every single app that you pay for on the app store has to do this.
The only time you do not have to pay anything is if you give your app away for free. The consumer gets an application for free to play with and the developer isn't penalised for releasing for free.
Now with the Publishing companies what they basically did was make their applications free in the iTunes store. So Apple didn't get any revenue from that.
Add to that when the consumer downloads it they find it isn't in fact free, but totally useless until you pay for a magazine (which is basically downloading high res scans of a magazine). I know this because I downloaded a few of them thinking this.
So they were circumventing the app stores rules while everyone else has to play by them.
If the publishers want to make a magazine for the iPad and don't want to pay the iTunes fees then they can just create a website and have the user connect to that through the browser.
> massive gamechanger, and a clear rip-off.
No it isn't. For starters when you put an App on the iTunes store apple automatically takes a cut of the sales (part of hosting and giving you a demographic to sell to). Only time you don't pay anything is if you give the app away for free. Which works great for the consumer.
The magazine companies have been getting around paying Apple by giving away a free app which when you launch it does nothing except expect you to pay for what is basically screenshots of a magazine.
I am not sure you have tried it, but I have. It is a total rip-off because it gets advertised as free when it isn't. It is also a rip for for Apple because they have to take the hit for the free apps while the magazine companies rake in the cash from those that do use it.
> 2. Research touchscreen patents.
Well you are kind of changing your argument here. As your initial claim was that Apple was screwing Nokia. But when I searched on that, I see it was Nokia that attacked Apple first with patents.
But my question to you is have you googled Touchscreens? I did. Apple awarded touch screen patent. Counter sued by a company that put a patent in for touch pads.
You can read them here:
Not alike. But it is you making the claim so how about some thing a bit more concrete then "google it".
> 3. Flash works fine on:
Some people have pointed out that isn't the case. Apple are not banning it. They are just not supporting it. There is a difference. There is nothing to stop you from creating an App that is a ported flash (previously there was, but Apple relaxed the rules of the appstore).
There is also nothing stopping you from say porting Flash to HTML5 and render that way (which Adobe plan to do).
> classic iSheeple argument
Again, if you have to resort to name calling you have already lost the debate.