excepting a certain anti-Applie contingent that will always hate and root against Apple even if they're giving away food to starving people in third world countries.
Which is probably balanced by the pro-Apple contingent who will always root for Apple even if they are bbq'ing and eating the starving people in third world countries.
In theory, in a mature, competitive industry, there should be very very small profit margins. Innovation and barriers to entry, however, can protect profit margins; as can marketing and mind share.
Apple made the first really successful multimedia smart phone, and has been reaping huge profits due to their innovation in this field (even if you think "innovation" here only means bringing everything together in a shiny package). Unfortunately for Apple, the competition is catching up (or has caught up and surpassed, depending on who you ask). This means it will be much more difficult for Apple to maintain their profit margins.
The patent lawsuits by Apple against Samsung are an attempt to maintain a barrier to entry since Samsung's products have caught up functionally with Apple's. How would it look for Apple if the iPhone5 is behind (or merely on par) to the Galaxy SII? They may be able to get away with their margins for one more iteration, but their mind share will start to falter as soon as their products are not unambiguously superior (which they have mostly been in the smart phone market up until now).
In fairness to Apple, from their perspective, they have been buying parts from Samsung who then goes ahead and makes a very similar phone on the side. It is hard to compete with your supplier, and raises trust issues since they know what you are ordering etc. Fortunately, Samsung has enough money to defend themselves from these lawsuits, and clearly the desire to launch a large scale counter offensive.
And no, I am not an Apple fanboi, my phone is actually an SII (which is a great phone, imho).
Unless I'm very mistaken, SSL doesn't work like that. SSL is designed to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks. The session key for the encryption has to be signed using Google's public key - which the attacker can't do.
The SSL session is signed, but according to this new attack, if an attacker can inject known plaintext and see the sniffed encrypted text of the same, then they can somehow manage to decrypt some portion (or all) further communication. So it is not breaking the establishment of the SSL connection (as a normal MITM attack would), it is directly decrypting the encrypted communication (the confidentiality component of SSL).
I think the idea is to inject the Javascript before the connection goes SSL. So maybe something like:
1. You go visit www.gmail.com
2. They intercept and return an http version of the page to you with the javascript injected
3. The Javascript opens up an https connection with gmail.com, establishing the IV over a persistent connection.
4. The Javascript redirects to the https page, so you don't notice the lack of https.
5. You log in to the https page as normal, using the browsers already established https connection which they can apparently decrypt.
If not for step 4, this attack would be little different than just intercepting and returning a non-https page and hoping that you didn't notice the difference. Depending on how long your browser keeps a persistent https connection open, I wonder if it is possible to have the javascript on an independent page, making the https requests to the target site to establish the connection before you even go to the target site.
The graph comes from NASA, if you look at the source cited on the Wikipedia page. You can also see it on NASA's site if you click the link from Wikipedia.
So there is nothing wrong with using that as a source in this context.
This isn't even true; global temperatures haven't risen since 1998.
Facts tend to disagree with your statement.
One can only hope that too much exposure doesn't result in people becoming sexually aroused by cruelty to animals. I really think that PETA should have thought this through a little bit more.
GPS tracking is nothing. At my company they just set you up to have an affair and then use the photographic evidence to blackmail you into doing whatever they want.
They don't need any evidence to fire you, since they know you would never sue them for wrongful dismissal (even if you happen to be a lawyer).
As alluded to in the article, they were looking into his timesheets and his assertion that he worked odd hours.
It looks like the state thought he was lying about his hours, and so used the GPS tracker to catch him in a lie concerning hours worked. It seems a touch excessive, but government jobs likely require a high standard of proof in order to fire an employee.
Unfortunately, that does not make it more efficient to run Javascript, through however many layers of indirection and abstraction it undergoes, than it does to run native code. Doing a remarkably inefficient task in parallel only parallels your inefficiency, it does not remove it.
I am not advocating for native code, but if you want good performance on today's hardware then Javascript is not really the number 1 candidate, regardless of whether it can be executed in parallel or not.
Firstly, Microsoft has invalidated the cert (at least to my knowledge).
Your knowledge is incorrect. At the request of the Dutch government, Microsoft deliberately did NOT patch its systems from that country... until several weeks later when the government's request was made public and they retracted their request.
But Microsoft HAS pulled the cert, whereas your comment was written as if they have not yet done so. And my knowledge of this is not incorrect unless you are still implying that Microsoft has yet to invalidate those certs.
Secondly, it is not at all clear how moving to ipv6 tells the corporations to eat a bag of dicks
Perhaps not to you, but to the rest of us who have read the standard... end to end encryption means no man in the middle attacks, no certificate authorities, etc. Every organization has access to its own key in DNS, and if someone tries to replace it, anyone who has connected to it previously would know.
It does not mean no man in the middle attacks. Even with IPSec you still have to trust, whether you are trusting a CA or the DNS, you are still trusting. If your ISP is your DNS provider, and they are also the best positioned to implement MITM attacks, then unless you have a shared secret, using a CA in a country like Iran may actually be more secure.
I'm not sure the parent post should really be moderated up, as it is now, since it seems to be reasonably misinformed.
Firstly, Microsoft has invalidated the cert (at least to my knowledge).
Secondly, it is not at all clear how moving to ipv6 tells the corporations to eat a bag of dicks while informing them that our data is not for sale anymore. The concepts (ipv6, dicks, and our data) all seem mutually exclusive.
"but I doubt they will let you turn off the Metro UI completely."
Incorrect.
Are you alleging that I do not doubt? Please let me assure you, that I do indeed have my doubts about the situation.
Furthermore, I stand by my doubts that you will not be able to turn off the Metro UI completely (or, at least, perhaps not easily). As far as I know, every boot of windows 8 will boot into the Metro UI first. Perhaps there will be hacks (or hopefully just settings) to boot into the desktop UI directly, but I am not aware of any of these having been revealed just yet. Please let me know if you have further information that elaborates on the situation.
There is a button to go to the desktop, but I doubt they will let you turn off the Metro UI completely. Microsoft is essentially using windows 8 to force their way into the mobile market. If every user is suddenly familiar with the windows phone UI, and all of their applications suddenly work seamlessly with their desktop and the windows phone OS, then maybe that windows phone starts to look that much better.
It is actually a rather brilliant move (not that I endorse it in any way) by Microsoft to leverage their desktop supremacy into the mobile space while seemingly avoiding anti-trust issues. I am sure that some of their competitors may try to call them out on this, but it seems like it would be an upward legal battle.
The best theory that I have read in regards to what prevents 3rd world nations from developing is that it is due to government corruption. The essential gist is that government corruption prevents a legal system from forming and foreign investment from arriving to create infrastructure.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
.gif){kind=link}