jacobsladder

Criticizing Apple for deciding to remove another port, is really shallow and superficial way to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) against this large corporation.

Just so we are on this page, you will _still_ be able to connect 3.5mm headphones to your iPhone. You will just have to use an adapter.

There are benefits for removing this port:

1. It frees up internal space.

2. It makes outer design more robust, simpler and cheaper for production.

3. It makes the phone lighter.

4. It allows you to make iPhone thinner.

5. You have one less limitation to account for when designing new iPhone.

6. You waste less materials on cables and oversized jacks made out of metal. I really like how article says that there will be lots of cables wasted from this. Well, so what? Should we stop all innovation and keep all standards forever the same so there is no waste? Ideally we should move on to smallest possible ports and most efficient standards. We can get there with tiny steps, and that will include throwing away legacy things.

7. It's easier to make phone waterproof when you have less openings.

In addition to that, lightning jack is superior to microUSB and other jacks, because you can insert it either way. It also has magnetic functionality that the other jacks lack.

Finally, for me as a customer, this change does not bring any problems either. I may have to spend $20 more for adapter. But if the phone costs $500, this change is insignificant.

Companies in the audio industry might have bigger problems from this, but it's their problems, not mine.

I am seriously surprised that BBC would be posting useless crap like this. Could it be because there is a lot of money to be made from shorting Apple stock and then releasing anti-Apple propaganda?

Ok, you are right, it was naive for me to pull out this "black market" number from the ass, especially because I should know better, coming from Russia where there are many of these forums.

However, I still stand behind that this corporation should have paid $100,000. There are so many opportunities to exploit this vulnerability. LastPass is seen as something "advanced" users use, so it's highly probable that you could PM link to this page to some computer celebrity, and you would have access to his inbox in no-time, because most people don't use annoying second-factor authorization. This could result in a huge amount of new leaks, etc, etc. $1000 basically screams - "fuck you, we don't care about our security, and we are not going to encourage future white hat future bug reporting".

$1000 for the bug bounty? This is incredibly stupid! How can you make a living off that? You could make hundreds of thousands of US$ from exploiting this. You could sell it on the black market. I am surprised that most of the corporations, even respectable ones, are awarding peanuts for something that is so important to their business process. This makes my blood boil. I operate a small business website and I awarded $3k just because someone found a way to brute force passwords without getting rate limited. This is quite simply unacceptable.

I think the company should have paid $100,000.

Then why do you admire them? Would you also admire them if you were their investor? Dropbox management is obligated by law to act in the best interests of their shareholders, i.e. to make them as much profit as possible.

It's more likely that they have released it because of some profit-seeking interest. They are not charity.

Why does this guy hates cats so much?

I don't think so. I use Linux a lot as advanced user now, and I definitely appreciate what it has to offer, but if I was forced to use Linux before, it would have been a disaster.

There are just so many programming applications that allow one to explore programming in a quick drag'n'drop and fun way. Imagine using Delphi, you drop the button on screen and you see the generated code right away. You then start to tinker with it and let go of WYSIWYG editor completely.

Apps like that were instrumental in my education. I even had superexpensive pirated 3d Max type of software to try myself at 3d modeling and understand what it is about.

I also tried lots of expensive and well-made software (at the time) from Adobe and it was a great learning experience.

I think the fact is, for many such cases pirated software is a great pragmatic solution. I understand there are ethical issues when suggesting something like that publicly, but the individual can make the choice for himself.

I don't understand why couldn't the immigrant family just get a pirate Windows? Torrents are standard solutions to people who have no money to purchase software. They break the law, but the risk of prosecution is slim to none, so why not do it? They can start purchasing software as soon as they can afford it. No reason to stop them from being able to be a productive members of the society now.

I come from Russia where me and all the other kids of my age used solely a pirated software. Now I am building software for other people and only have licensed software on my computer. If I was not allowed to use Windows, as well as other supercool development apps from Adobe, etc, then that would be a simple waste of life.

It sounds like the guy imposed Linux on this family who didn't know what their real choices were (even though some may have been unethical).

Sorry it looks like a flooding, but to add to that, having program self-check itself is also unnecessarily ties the program to its usecase in the radiation environment, it creates unnecessary strong dependency to its execution environment, and that just goes against all the good principles of design. It's like having a software for clock in the microwave machine be aware that it is placed in the microwave machine.

To clarify, each piece of the puzzle must do what it is expected to do, otherwise it will be hacky. It's not expected for C++ program to detect its underlying hardware problems, there are no tools, nothing for that. So any solution would then look like and feel like a hack, temporary workaround. It's however expected for the computer as a whole to produce buggy results, it's normal and there are many existing design solutions that can take that into account and work around that. So that's why you take three computers and judge their output. Then each piece of the puzzle does it what it is intended to do, it does what it is expected to do and it doesn't do stuff outside of its responsibility.

Doing any modification to the source code to prevent this is not a good design. C/C++ is not designed for this use case, so it's going to create a mess if one will try to work around this. This might lead to similar problems that premature optimization does to the code. Instead the solution should be on hardware level, like in airplanes. Put three computers in radiation environment. Then put a forth computer that'd analyze the computing results from the three computers and do action only when there 3 out of 3 or 2 out of 3 computers agree on the result. Or average / median can be applied, depending on the task. Ideally the fourth computer needs to be put in non-radioactive environment. If not possible, that still simplifies the problem somewhat. Because only the final forth computer who collects the data and selects the trustworthiness can contain bugs, not the rest of the code.