Re: Poor excuse for a politician
995 posts • joined 5 Jan 2011
The claim is a great ad for Elmsoft. They are implying all the “layers” are stripped because anyone who takes possession of a phone and has the passcode can make a new encrypted backup and can restore that on another device because they have the passcode. What confuses the message is the Elmsoft guy says “If it's just one single thing, then it's not adequate protection." When what he really means is “Actually it’s two things, a restorable an unlocked phone and our tools which are so good, if you have them you are guaranteed success accessing data on a phone that can be repeatedly restored or where a restore can be made to a specially physically Elmsoft compromised device, so from a user passcode/security perspective that’s no better than one thing.”
He’s probably right, but they do need the passcode (not just fingerprint unlock because you need the passcode to make the backup). The argument is over if this significantly weakens security. Passcodes are entered far less frequently in public spaces these days because of fingerprint id. If you don’t have the passcode getting it wrong a small number of times will throw up a second layer of protection (the full Apple account password). If you are somewhere border guards can insist on you handing over your phone passcode, because laws say they have to be able to access your phone, they can also presumably insist on your Apple password. If it is just that you have to unlock it in front of them and a passcode is easily seen, they can film you as you enter a full passcode also. So the argument against Elmsoft’s timely “adclosure” (that’s a special kind of disclosure these security companies specialise in) is that the single point of failure is the human under pressure at a border scenario, which it is arguable hasn’t practically changed.
Actually I would argue Elmsoft are right to a degree. With their tools (if they are as effective as they are implying which is the neat promotional trick about the way this “disclosure” is written). Then it does become easier to get all your other personal data. A spouse who *does* sometimes see you enter a passcode, or someone with access to security tapes from a building or place where you have entered the code in front of a camera - both have a greater opportunity to act against you with this change. For some that will be a problem. For me it means more careful OpSec (see I just did an Elmsoft and craftily burnished my IT Security credentials - what I meant was I will just be careful not to ever enter my passcode in front of others or in front of cameras).
I'm a cyclist and Cycling UK aren't speaking for me. I disagree. There is no reason driverless cars should be less safe for cyclists than cars controlled by a brain. Brains are often mean, don't respect the space cyclists need and make inconsistent judgements, or even, as I have witnessed on all too many occasions deliberately drive dangerously close, presumably with the intent of "shitting the cyclist up." Driverless cars, provided they have a suitable array of sensors, should detect cyclists and respect a cyclist's needs far more consistently than a human driver. I was knocked off about two years ago under all too common circumstances when a car simply pulled out in front of me from a side road. A driverless vehicle would be ever vigilant and such a simple, but potentially deadly, error should almost never be made.
What complete and utter nonsense. The transfer is due to capital redistribution rules “justified” by politicians implementing environmental policies. The very opposite of capitalism. It’s pure environmental socialism. As is so often the case the politicians distorting the market, thinking they can do such a clever job of “fixing society” are the culprits who have created the market imbalances that allow for the inequity.
It's Andrew Orlowski. As he has got to know Apple better, he's been coming over all Charles Arthur like.
Understandable, the register has always underestimated Apple's engineering prowess and has never really understood the difference between design and assembly and the role of contractural intellectual property prohibitions.
"Must be a barrel of laughs in your house."
No we are really nerdy and actually quite intelligent. So for example, we laugh at people who take a sample of one joke and use it to imply a generalised conclusion for all jokes. And then we dissect the apparent psychology of someone who would do that, because drawing a false conclusion involves a choice, is done for an effect, unless of course the person who has done it is a bit dim. So the logic shows they are either dim or a bit arse. It's all a bit Sheldon round my way ;)
The Touch Bar isn't useless, it's just that those like me who are already used to and have spent years learning keyboard shortcuts have no pressing need for it. Plus people like me have become users who have stopped looking for optimisations in the same way we once did in our youth. I would be willing to be those new to computing will be using it copiously rather than learning all the keyboard shortcuts.
Its always the same when something new is introduced. Just look at the furore around the "new" design Final Cut Pro when that was introduced. Yes there were many deficiencies, but just as much criticism was due to stick in the mud stalwarts hating anything new. Now it is considered pretty damned good.
The news is the turnaround this represents in The Register’s reporting from the days when they were literally running a “Peak Apple” campaign; they virtually “coined the phrase” and used it in every headline and every article about Apple they could at every opportunity. A reporting style based on wish, trolling and spite and having nothing whatever to do with fact.
The unreported news however was that, gradually, over-time, it was becoming obvious that more and more Register journalists were in fact buying Apple. Quite funny really.
First Direct phone me and start asking me my security questions to confirm who I am. My reply is always the same. "I know I can call you back, but my concern is you are showing yourself to be so incompetent as to have considered this an acceptable process in the first place. Do you think its a good idea to encourage your customers to respond with security information when a random stranger when a random stranger phones them up?"
It’s almost like the anonymous post Qualcomm refers to contains just the information and all the legal key phrases that would allow Qualcomm to claim intellectual property guarantees had been breached by an employee in order to justify a court request for an expensive and difficult audit that would be entirely to Qualcomm’s advantage in the current legal battle, but none of the level of information that would unnecessarily add to the legal liabilities of someone caught posting such a message deceptively. Compare with the average post on the same website, or the average post on a forum like e.g. reddit, they just don’t read like that post reads!
Perl has been described as a write only language.
@Oh Homer The article quite clearly describes a scenario where the exploit can be applied when the unsupecting user simply visits a web page. That’s a long comment to have written when your fundamental premise is, er, compromised.
Yes that’s true, but the 3D sensor availability is now an issue but that is because of the adopted display strategy and the need for the edge to edge display. The strategy dual iPhone 8/X strategy was undoubtedly decided upon due to display supply constraints and the sensor became an issue after experimentation with different forms of biometric identification solution. LG were not available as a second display supplier having evidenced lower yields and bad quality (“patchyness”).
The whole point of the iPhone X is that Apple have been in a bind. Selling so many individual handsets with a huge launch demand has left them hamstrung when launching new features. Not only do they need to ensure new engineering, they need to ensure that engineering for new feature x is at a scale none of their competitors need to match for any single handset model, from day one (even Samsung does not sell so many of any given single model). Their way to solve this is by increasing price to reduce demand to a serviceable level. It’s a high risk strategy they would probably have preferred not to have to take (launching the iPhones 8 and X at the same time goes against Steve Jobs expressed preference for the “one Coke” philosophy). But the problem of introducing new tech at such high volume has left them exposed. They are unable to implement new cutting edge features so effectively but their price proposition and margins are such that they are expected to be out in front.
In truth this may be a one release problem. The key part that has caused this bind is likely to be the introduction of a true edge to edge display. Samsung have ended up dominating the OLED supply market more than Apple expected, competitors have had yield/quality issues and the result is that the display component is no longer a competitive commodity supply choice. At least not for this release cycle.
So yes Apple are expecting reduced demand for iPhone X, while they want to maintain profit, that’s the whole point. They are trying to overcome the challenge of introducing an edge to edge display that can’t be introduced in the volume an iPhone launch typically requires and are using the price/demand curve to solve the problem.
“secret weapon nobody has seen and nobody has any information on”
Sonic attacks are hardly secret or hard to do. They just aren’t that common.
And the guy in the picture, is not under sonic attack. If i’m Not mistaken, i’d say he is suffering the effects of depressurisation and the sand definitely looks like it is Martian, so I deduce he’s lost his space helmet whilst on Mars (and possibly Arnold Swarzenegger is nearby).
You can’t look at version numbers alone and conclude anything. I deal with driver and Firmware updates all the time in my development work. And we frequently run older versions because they are better for what we need. The patched security holes may relate to hardware options that are not used, or may be a hole already determined to lead nowhere exploitable on the Mac sytem. This can only be determined by detailed analysis. You can be sure someone in Apple is doing precisely that. I know from bitter experience, automatically jumping on the latest firmware is not the best way to ensure quality or security and rational analysis of the facts on the ground usually leads to a far more conservative decision than many would appreciate. The idea this external Security Firm can tell how secure a system is from looking at percentages of machines with firmware version x is frankly pretty unprofessional. These outfits always seem to be turning out this kind of a report in the hope of gaining publicity.
“They were once men. Then Jobs the deceiver gave to them iPhones of great shine. Blinded by their greed, they took them without question, one by one falling into darkness. Now they are slaves to his will. They are the Fanbois, Phonewraiths, neither living nor dead. At all times they feel the presence of the iPhone, drawn to the power of Cupertino.”
Quick, organise a party to take them to the Land of Korea. Only the NiCAD fires of mount Samsung are strong enough to melt the phones of power. I vote you should be the phone bearer as only a short arsed Android Fanboi can resist the power of The Phone.
But the simple fact is iOS11, which will probably be on general release in a couple of weeks time, has incorporated a big blue indicator banner at the top of the screen naming and shaming apps utilising background tracking (they can no longer do so surreptitiously - the previous small location indicator arrow was too obscure and most user's wouldn't go to settings to check which app had triggered it).
If an app uses location tracking all the time, customer's will be asking why and will get annoyed that the big blue banner keeps displaying, and will probably also disallow location tracking when the app is not in use. Uber of course know this, so pretending to have come over all caring about customer privacy simply doesn't wash. Indeed that they have come out with this now, after they will have been running the software on the iOS11 beta for a couple of months, and will have realised how untrustworthy that banner reveals them to be, IMO simply shows what cynical wankers they are.
“People need to realise that we are all different and driven by different things.”
Why does this remind me of the Team America “There are Arseholes and Dicks” speech?
"What do you call a man with no arms/legs floating in the water?
BOB! [had to do that one]"
...and the man with no arms and no legs swimming in a swimming pool?
Aww come on. I suspect it was because of censorious attitudes like that that Oscar Wilde wrote “One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing.”
Any jokes about submarines and a muff dive gone wrong? Too soon?
I think the likely scenario was, “she lost her head because he lost his head because she wouldn’t give head.”
Of course who “he” is in this scenario has yet to be proved in a court of law.
They say the name comes from an anagram, but surely, surely it has to be a joke on the fact it is used for penetration testing. Surely.
"The evidence for biological differences (as opposed to differences caused by social conditioning) is sketchy, controversial and dubious."
Not at all, please provide sources. I can. This contains multiple highly accredited scientific sources, and discusses the Googler's paper :
Also please avoid left-wing sociologist/gender studies peer-reviewed "social science" sources as they are so often discredited bullshit - see this for a laugh:
"and made a conclusion that because men and women are different biologically, they are different in their aptitude for being a software engineer."
No he didn't and you won't be able to come up with a quote to show he did. This is really very important and I am interested in why you feel the need to say that despite the fact he didn't say any such thing. He said in effect women are less inclined to want to be software engineers. That is a very different thing from saying they don't have the aptitude.
Let me give an example. My mother was very clever. She could quite possibly have been a Nobel prize wining scientist if she had wanted to be. She didn't want to be. There is nothing at all insulting or demeaning about saying that. If someone told me my mother didn't have the aptitude to be a Nobel prize wining scientist, I would would think that is rather presumptive. They don't know her and don't know how very intelligent she is. But if they said she didn't have the desire to be one, I would agree with them.
"Well yes, as soon as he disparaged 20% of the workforce as biologically inferior he became a liability."
Where did he do that? He didn't. He noted biological differences, and biological differences in brain function simply, factually and provably exist. Is that in and of itself a claim that one sex is biologically inferior to the other? It seems to me you must have felt the need make up that criticism due to a pre-conceived bias without actually reading or thinking about what he said.
Given consumer broadband use is time-wasting binge watching of Netflix and Youtube, this is perhaps not such a bad thing for the UK's productivity.
“With that fame, Apple has started viewing the rest of the world as competition to crush or enslave.”
No it’s quite clear they don’t view the world this way. If they did they would make low cost iPhones for India. If they did they wouldn’t consistently aim at the top 10% of the market and only the top 10%, quite happily leaving the rest of the market on the table. Steve Jobs business insight was precisely that in the old PC versus Mac era, in his words, the relationship between Microsoft and Apple “is not a zero sum game where for one to succeed the other has to fail.” Whereas for years that is how Microsoft had viewed it.
“However, for now, Google and its friends have the upper hand on cyber-mercenaries who peddle government spyware.”
I don’t see how the author can say that. Obviously Google only know about the exploits they know about. Then there’s all the ones they don’t know. Quite a few of those will be with the NSA and GCHQ, probably, but others will be with commercial vendors. Some of those commercial vendors and / or their employees will also deal with the criminal underworld. Again probably.
It was probably around £790 - £850 until the rumours started about the iPhone pricing and Samsung gave their oh so predictable “me too” response. It’s like they are shit scared people will think they don’t provide the same quality proposition as Apple. Now why would they think that?
If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, I guess you match their demographic.
How are Apple rent seeking? They don't ask other companies to pay license fees. They don't join patent pools such that the patents they own are subject to FRAND terms (FRAND terms are available to other members of the pool). Qualcomm have put their patents into patent pools where they are deemed essential to a new standard that Qualcomm wanted to see adopted and therefore were prepared for their patents to be subject to FRAND terms. Apple simply don't want other companies to use their patented tech and aren't asking for royalties. Sure you can disagree with if they should have been granted the patents in the first place. But rent seeking no.
Who voted for Star Trek being better than Star Wars? Name a time and a place. I'll see you fuckers later.
"This seems to be the way to make sure that only the manufacturers can repair phones."
"The way" being reality. You have just anthropomorphised an inconvenient fact, presumably to make it sound like the manufacturer is an evil actor "doing this" to make us have to pay more.
Except of course they weren't using users as guinea pigs. The Register with its the usual proclivity to place cynicism above information has presented half the story (or barely that).
The interesting and differentiating thing about a filing system isn't, as most assume, the physical files on the disk, but rather the metadata. So changing filing system means constructing a new file system metadata database, consistency checking it, then flipping a bit to say "now use this metadata / file indexing system." You can run all those checks including using the new filing system with a distinct process, without actually flipping the bit for the OS running on your device as a whole. It needs to be done during a system upgrade or startup process at a point where file system use by the OS using the old filing system can be prevented. So actually doing that check in a large scale release before doing it for real flipping the bit for the whole OS is eminently sensible. Of course The Register go on about wide ranging issues as though there was some specially bad upgrade experience for iOS 10.x as a whole when there was little out of the ordinary (and I get the impression they are a bit put out by that). So they are pointing to the usual low level of complaints you get at any point an OS is updated (which of course come from all over the world) as though that is proof customers were treated as guinea pigs.
But put in a more reasonable context, Apple switched out a whole f**king filing system with hardly an issue or complaint (indeed almost all users were entirely unaware) the real story is have you ever known such a large scale change go so smoothly? Go back to the 90s and early noughties and it certainly wouldn't have done. So in this nest of sneary cynicism I say "Well done Apple."
Through the wonders of the internet you can watch the livestream of the Keynote event.
There is quite a bit wrong with that statement, where to begin:
1. You don't have to agree with the motives of these people to agree it is good they have the right to try to clarify law through a court of law and to want to uphold their right to clarify the law through the law.
2. Who is the arbiter of "social trolling" versus simply a different opinion? Having a society where there is social trolling, is certainly better than having a society where social trolling is disallowed. What kind of mechanisms would allow that and how could they look any different from despotism? The only answer I suggest is that you would devise a system of law that would end up looking very similar to the system that has given rise to this story.
3. They will lose their case, thereby the law will underline and protect legislation for gay marriage. That seems to me to be a good outcome and a good example of the law working well and in the interests of society and the intent of the legislation that has been passed.
4. There will have been demonstration everyone has recourse to the law but that these people have wasted their money simply through being idiots.
I find it funny when snarky The Register that is down on everything, tries its hand at some commercial exercise and expects everyone to repond to the sudden switch out of snark mode. It's like saying "now seriously Internet, Boaty McBoat Face, fun, but now we need you to be serious for a while for our commercial benefit"
Yes Apple are entirely right to have changed course when they did to insist on a hardware based security solution. This point has already been demonstrated multiple times with botnets occupying a significant proportion of home automation gear out there. Also they seem to be the only Silicon Valley behemoth taking personal data protection seriously. And lastly the value of their customers is far higher than many realize. Way out of proportion to the size of the market share they occupy. To ignore Apple is akin to chopping the high end out of your brand strategy and seeing it suffer accordingly.
Hmm, I'm highly suspicious about this. Bit code would not inflate the size of the binary to anything like that extent, if at all. Much more likely is that this development team has simply, directly or indirectly, used some SWIFT. It may be one of the frameworks nearly every development project will use. It may even be an Apple supplied framework. Apple are using SWIFT with ever more frameworks, and as Apple's own frameworks are precompiled and the SWIFT use can be entirely behind any frameworks used by this company's app, Apple could easily have done this in a way that meant the developer didn't have to change any compiler settings that would have alerted him to the fact SWIFT is now being used.
For now, while SWIFT is a young language, Apple want to ensure the language can be revised. A problem for many languages before SWIFT has been that the fundamental syntax and compiled code structure gets locked down before anyone has a chance to use the language, as it were, "in anger." To overcome this Apple are simply revising the language for a period of time and provide the migration tools to update existing swift code with any revisions. But this then poses a versioning problem. If structure of compiled code is revised, compiled code will be incompatbile with compiled frameworks if from different "versions" of the language. To overcome this, during a fixed initial period, when a developer uses SWIFT or a framework requiring SWIFT, a version of the entire SWIFT "runtime" compatible with the SWIFT version used in the App (it isn't actually strictly a runtime but the phrase will do here), is included with the App. This, understandably adds a large overhead. Once the SWIFT language reaches its final form, then apps will use common library code and there will be a significant reduction in App binary size.
I think not. The story contains references to Germans, and an ex RAF airfield and there have been no war jokes referencing the two.
Seems to me she is just regurgitating Joel on Software's seminal advice. Old code always looks like inelegant bad code, but it rarely is because it is also something the value of which developers who want to use the latest tools, language advances and code patterns tend to massively underestimate; Debugged code.
It's the Register. People here defend and project their right to moan like ramblers defend and project their right to roam.
Aw cummon, at least try a little to check your claims or else people might mistake you for a fanboy who just makes stuff up. Not just benchmarks, iPhone is massively ahead on real world performance too. Incidentally this also illustrates why comparing a tick list of tech specs without testing is increasingly useless. Higher ram, processor clock speed or number of cores bear little to no relation to superiority in performance these days.
Apple's implementation will succeed. It's not about the concept so much as the execution and the tight relationship between OS and Applications on a Mac and the fact Apple carry weight with developers, where Lenovo do not will mean this will have a far better and more useful level of integration. It's almost the perfect example of where Apple are better positioned than their competitors in computer hardware. This will be like comparing the Archos Jukebox and the iPod.
This article assumes Disney are interested so they can control and to some extent merge operations. That's a big assumption. Their interest could well be purely a way to hedge in relation to the future of TV. E.g. a pure risk mitigation play. Famously the Netflix's business model is somewhat incompatible with legacy content producer models. If Disney own Netflix they can bridge across to the future without the valuable Disney brand getting steamrollered by disruptive forces and can at a future date use that brand with the new business model. The point is, if they don't make the acquisition now, there will be in the future an inflection point where Netflix or Amazon or a.n. Other streaming service is the content king and they will no longer have the financial muscle to control their destiny.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017