I always wonder myself why everybody assumes that they somehow use a supercomputer to crack encrypted streams. The NSA probably has access to private keys by Verisign, Thawte, etc... and can just perform MITM attacks. After all, most companies use a US-based Certificate Authority.
Android users who are able to run Chrome Beta (that is, who are running ICS) are literally the 1%, according to Google's platform pie charts:
I prefer that they exploit the full power of their latest and greatest, but it's sad that only a mere 1% can access the latest and greatest
I have tried Siri on a jailbroken iPhone 4 and it works just as well, I did not notice any difference.
I doubt this is a major reason for not enabling this on the iPhone 4, especially when taking into account how little difference "just" the improved camera and a dual core processor is to most users.
I would think the improved hardware sensor played a major role, but again, Siri worked just as well for me on an iPhone 4.
Also, I'm surprised that they advertise as "removing most or all of the background noise", while Siri did a fairly good job of knowing who was talking to her, it gets confused too often, which means that it won't work very well if other people in the room are talking.
When did I say that they somehow were falsely advertising or tricking customers into thinking those were actually ePub files? I didn't.
They did, however, decide to base their file format *very heavily* on ePub3, and change it in a way that will make it incompatible, without submitting their changes to the International Digital Publishing Forum (who maintain the ePub file format on which the ibooks file format is heavily based).
Yes, actually, I would expect from a big company such as Apple who is a member of the International Digital Publishing Forum. Especially when they are selling this as a way of reshaping education and school textbooks.
Repeat with me: I'm not saying that they *must* contribute to standards, only that I think it is greedy of them not to do so, considering the circumstances and their competitive advantage.
It is worth noting that you can't export to standard EPUB3 file format, only to PDF. PDF is obviously non-interactive, while the EPUB3 standard would allow for most if not all of the interactive elements that can be created with iBooks Author.
Many argue that they are in their right to put that EULA, and that others have done it before (Microsoft's Word, for example). And they are absolutely right.
That does not mean, however, that this isn't a very greedy move - many even describe it as 'evil' - and just like it happened with Microsoft in the past, I can totally understand why.
Having a right to do something is not incompatible with being greedy or even evil.
A peek into
(This really smells like embrace-extend-extinguish to me.)
Perhaps what bugs me the most is that in spite of all this, no-one (AFAIK) has taken the time to provide an alternative tool which allows to create interactive ePub documents just as easily. It seems to me that Apple was first to do this "properly" (as it usually happens), and in this case there is no technical reason why it could not have been created 1 or 2 years ago by other industry leaders - I have used iBooks Author and it isn't much more than a glorified presentation editor.
That is a VERY interesting thought! Wish I had modpoints.
..but regular internet users.
The summary sounds like it was a specialized group of hackers - it wasn't it was anyone who followed a link like the following:
What if arab countries start seeking extradition of US citizens for women who don't cover their faces in public, or because they didn't do certain things (like traveling) with their husband's written permission?
What about european countries seeking extradition of US citizens for carrying guns in public?
I'm sure there are _many_ things which are done every day by US citizens but are illegal in other countries, perhaps some of which do have extradition treaties!
PD: I realize most US citizens think this is ridiculous, too. I'm not confronting them, just making the same statement with switched roles.
Most apps run well on every android version thanks to the design of API cross-compatibility (I have experienced this myself, being an early android developer).
However, I don't think you can avoid the fact that the OS itself is fragmented when your OS takes 6 months to a full year to be available on the majority of android handsets.
In addition, has Mr. Schmid had a look at this chart, put up by google themselves?
It reads OS fragmentation all over it! And this is PRECISELY what pisses many (geek) users off, that they can't get the latest and greatest or that new phones come to market being outdated!
Oh, I see what you mean! thanks for the nitpick
That's very informative, thank you.
However, AFAIK Fukushima already *has* rendered a considerable zone inhabitable (just like Chernobyl). A quick google search reveals this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/world/asia/22japan.html?_r=1 , which among other things states:
"While it is unclear if the government would specify how long these living restrictions would remain in place, news reports indicated it could be decades. That has been the case for areas around the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine after its 1986 accident." - is that also FUD? Considering the consequences of disasters not nearly as bad as Chernobyl, which also had terrible consequences (i.e. death), I would say the risk of rendering areas inhabitable for decades or centuries is still very real. Maybe the reactors were a bit outdated, but how many other outdated reactors - such as the ones from Japan certainly were, as they have rendered a big area inhabitable for decades - are in operation throughout the world?
I was trying to put what I thought was an interesting, provocative yet reasoned argument which questions the effectiveness of the nuclear energy "path". Looks like someone got irritated and can't discuss "like adults do".
Back to my point, if you will, leaving zones of the planet inhabitable for centuries is a very high prize many aren't willing to pay. Who says deaths/twh is the correct metric? Oh, maybe that is one of the reasons this news: they would like to find a better energy source!
BTW, color me suspicious about that article, which says: "a death at one of the japanese nuclear plants following the 8.9 earthquake". *A* DEATH? If you didn't know, radioactivity doesn't instantly kill you. How many were killed or damaged the *instant* the explosion occurred at Chernobyl? Exactly. That article was written March 13, 2011.
Also, how about taking into account thousands of homeless, costs of recovery, environmental costs of radioactive leaks, environmental costs of radioactive wastes, etc etc etc and you end up with one Fing big disaster, which is what Fukushima is any way you want to look at it.
Of course, one could argue that this was due to the earthquake, which was followed by a tsunami, which was followed by the Fukushima incident. But it is about the risk. A very high risk, judging by the unfortunate results of Fukushima. Shit DOES happen, as everybody can see.
Now, I'm not saying they should magically stop being dependent on 40% (or 80% or whatever it is for every country) of a country's energy source, like many politicians claim, because it is unreasonable. But one must take into account the costs, the consequences, and ask: is it worth it? Should we move away or further invest in nuclear energy?
I think it is a question worth asking, discussing and worth thinking about. So I won't shut up, mind you.
They are dependent on nuclear energy obviously, and 40 years is probably quite a feat. But after those 40 years, when there is radioactive waste that will last for thousands, and after leaving certain zones inhabitable for centuries... was it worth it?
Actually, thanks to Wikileaks we now know that the head of PROMUSICAE (the RIAA-equivalent in Spain), Guisasola, secretly pushed for having Spain included in the infamous 301 List. http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=10MADRID179
After Spain was finally included in that list, he claimed that being included in that list was "a national dishonor", and used this argument in order to push for Ley Sinde, the aforementioned SOPA-like law.
Only a few days ago, this law was finally passed. Most Internet users are against this law because it does not change which sites become illegal - it merely changes the *referee*. As a result, judges have been replaced by a commission whose members are privately selected by private lobbying parties (aka spain's RIAA). This might sound like something outrageous, but sadly this is exactly what has happened.
If this was not bad enough, keep in mind that this occurs right after *years* of judges ruling *in favor* of those websites that they want to take down (no hosting sites, just linking sites)
Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.