Two questions

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

At least Sorkin has seen an Apple product. Cook admits he's never
seen the film that he criticized.

the reality is that a lot of people are cashing in on steve job's death
with movies and books that are anywhere from somewhat accurate to
mostly fiction which is why tim said what he said.

Confidante of yours, is he?

unlike you, i know quite a bit of the history of those involved.

Yeah, I know. You are tight buddies with Tim and he tells you what is
on his mind and why he says what he says.

the movie is about steve jobs, not tim cook.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

This exchange of attacks only has traction in this newsgroup because
Apple is involved.

nope. it's because it's singling out one company when others are worse.

If Carly Fiorina (who claims to be a great admirer
of Jobs and considers him one of her mentors) had knocked the movie,
and Sorkin would have fired back at HP's dismal record under Fiorina
no one here would care. Yet, a large number of readers of this group
are using an HP product.

not even close to the same thing, and you don't know whether anyone
here would care or not.

On 26/09/2015 23:24, Alan Browne wrote:
[]
I was referring to how the SSD may (or not) take care of short writes
from a program.

For example, if I open a file and write 100 bytes to it and close the
file then there is no certainty as to when the OS posts it. If it posts
it immediately, then the SSD firmware would open a block (say 4K) read
that, modify the 100 bytes and write the 4K in a different 4K block area
(leveling) resulting in wear far beyond the 100 bytes written.

(I'm leaving out all the file management stuff the OS is doing as well
for simplicity).

I don't know if the SSD and the OS communicate to a degree to manage
such scenarios. So if David's s/w is writing a lot of small files
before doing a higher level processing run, then the wear would be much
higher.

That is why, if one were to do such, one would be best to take the
smaller data sets and manage them (corral them) into agglomerations in
order to avoid writing small amounts of data to the SSD. This is not
trivial, but nor is it all that difficult to manage.

With the DVB-S (previous) version of the system, the satellite data
comes in 185-byte packets (IIRC), each of which needs to be stored. The
packets are not repeated, so if you miss one you loose data. This could
be for a 60 MB file, so lots and lots of writes. Hence the RAMdisk as a
buffer.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 2015-09-26 19:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:39:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-20 18:09, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:07:08 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-20 04:38, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:02:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:28:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I can't imagine Apple building 4K machines which will not handle
vidity. In that case they are limited to whoever can provide Crypto
Management hardware.

who said anything about building 4k machines?

They already do. See https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202856

just the other day you said you can't imagine they'll make a 4k machine
without vidity and now you point it out.

you're also confusing connecting a 4k display with playing protected
content. they are two different things.

No I'm not. I'm saying a 4K machine without Vidity capability will be
handicapped in the market.

also, a processor transition has nothing to do with any of that.

It's got to work in with Crypto Manager which is not just software but
hardware.

See the diagram on http://www.rambus.com/key-issuance-center/

Apple's DRM system has been doing a similar function for years so that a
users various devices can play paid-for content. That includes "owned"
content and "rented" content.

The only problem is such a system is open to side-channel attacks
[ see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-channel_attack ] and hence
is not really secure.

The Crptomanager is implimented in dedicated hardware and is the
current state of the art. In creating Vidity the entertainment
industry seems to have gone all-out to build the most resistant system
they could. Every transaction will need it's own unique key. That
appears to include copying from a server disk. All of this, of course,
transparent to the end user.

Apple's DRM requires unique keys for each instance of distribution.
Please find me evidence of a successful attack on Apple's DRM model.

If Apple do adopt Vividity and that requires hardware based crypto to do
so, then I don't think they'd have much trouble with it - Apple have
been doing that as well (esp. in devices with Secure Enclave).

I hadn't intended to continue with this but I have just been directed
to
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd....g&mid=15326500
which led me to
https://edwardsnowden.com/2015/03/10...-a4-processor/
or http://tinyurl.com/pr4jzue and

Evil maid dependent.

http://www.macworld.com/article/2895...e-devices.html
or http://tinyurl.com/ow84594

"attempts"
"possible methods"
"if successful"

All unsuccessful attempts by high funded government agencies desperate
to invade privacy. Not pirate movies.

This is why over the past year various agencies (esp. the FBI and NSA)
have been clamoring for split-key escrow or other back door access to
personal devices.


See also "Based on Apple documents I have seen, when Apple introduced
Apple Pay they largely execute that financial transaction using an
external NXP chip which has an embedded secure element. Given that NXP
has licensed Rambus’s DPA countermeasures, it would appear NXP secure
elements are protected from DPA hacking."

"external chip" - eg: Any chipset can be made to work with NXP (or any
other security module.

On 2015-09-26 20:45, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:11:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-26 11:00, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:41:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-26 00:00, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:45:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

"The Cupertino giant has for months been said to be in talks with
major US studios in a bid to secure content for a streaming Apple
service. Compensation reportedly remains a sticking point."

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

Noise. Cook doesn't like how someone has portrayed his deceased friend
and says so. Sorkin then pulls a classic deflection accusing Apple of
child labour in China as a retort.

(And yes, Apple knows some suppliers have underage workers and continues
to audit and force change despite this being a failure of the Chinese
government to enforce the law.)

Sorkin's just doing his job to attract attention to his movie.

I dunno about "deflection". Cook called the film "opportunistic", and
Sorkin rightly called Cook on claiming that a movie is opportunistic
when Apple's business plan is as opportunistic as it comes.

See above. What does Apple's manufacturing have to do with Cook's
complaint about Sorkin's portrayal of Jobs? So Sorkin attacks Cook and
Apple's manufacturing chain. That's deflection. (And poorly too).

Interesting that Cook merely complains, but Sorkin attacks. Not much
bias here, No Sir.

Oh, geez, now you laser analysis is going to the words I use. Christ I
am for the gallows. At least allow me a last prayer.

Sorkin's SOLE interest is promotion of his film.


What the two have to do with each other is that Cook unleashed an
attack on Sorkin's business so Sorkin returned an attack on Cook's
business.

As you like. Balance of madness.



Cook's "complaint" said Sorkin's movie was "opportunistic".

Exactly. Promotion. It's plain marketing.

Opportunistic means exploiting something absent moral principles. Cook
has every right to feel that Sorkin's project is an immoral
capitalization on his hero's life, but he does open himself up to a
counter-attack by saying so.

Sorkin should have defended his portrayal of Jobs.

This exchange of attacks only has traction in this newsgroup because
Apple is involved. If Carly Fiorina (who claims to be a great admirer
of Jobs and considers him one of her mentors) had knocked the movie,
and Sorkin would have fired back at HP's dismal record under Fiorina
no one here would care. Yet, a large number of readers of this group
are using an HP product.

I don't care about attacks on Apple or Jobs which are based on real
truths. Apple has plenty of blemishes. Sorkin's attack on Apple's
supplier's labour issues is deflection - esp. given Apple's record of
addressing supply chain moral/ethical issues (and many others) over the
years. The failure in China is that of the Chinese government.

Fiorina has earned the ire of everyone (being an hp CEO is a cursed
thing to be sure - the corporate culture there was damaged when hp did
its major restructuring about 15 years ago and has not recovered.)

On 2015-09-26 20:51, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:29:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

So no failure on Apple's part in choosing and using those suppliers?
In taking advantage of the lax enforcement?

What Apple is doing is what so many other companies are doing, but
since when is doing what other people are doing an excuse for doing
it?

since when is it acceptable to bash only one company, who has done the
most to make the situation better, while the other companies do little
to nothing at all?

Apple is not on the high ground here, just as Sorkin said.

nonsense.

sorkin is doing it solely for publicity because his movie hits theaters
in a couple of weeks.

Cook provided the opening. Sorkin didn't instigate this, Cook did.

The correct response would be to defend his treatment of Jobs, not
deflect to another issue.

If
Sorkin got publicity for the movie it was because Cook gave him the
opportunity to do so.

It can be claimed that Cook was being a mediawhore because Apple has
this new product release going on. You may have noticed.

Cook called Sorkin an opportunist. I don't see how that draws attention
to Apple's product releases. (And Cook may be many things, but media
whore is not on that list. Whereas the likes of Sorkin depend on
promotion to make back their investment in their movies. Apple on the
other hand don't need to do anything to attract the media - the media
are hooked on Apple and everyone else is very simply envious to worse).

I really have nothing against Sorkin - he makes good movies. Whether
they are accurate or not is another matter. (Charlie Wilson's War is
definitely high on my list as are "A Few Good Men" and "Moneyball" -
also enjoyed the series "The West Wing".)

But - like all in the "Hollywood game" you don't get publicity by being
quiet and the standard of truth is lower than that in a US presidential
party nomination season.

On 2015-09-26 21:00, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:29:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

Noise. Cook doesn't like how someone has portrayed his deceased friend
and says so. Sorkin then pulls a classic deflection accusing Apple of
child labour in China as a retort.

(And yes, Apple knows some suppliers have underage workers and continues
to audit and force change despite this being a failure of the Chinese
government to enforce the law.)

Sorkin's just doing his job to attract attention to his movie.

I dunno about "deflection". Cook called the film "opportunistic", and
Sorkin rightly called Cook on claiming that a movie is opportunistic
when Apple's business plan is as opportunistic as it comes.

how is that different from every other company?

Nothing. Does that make it acceptable?

what's unacceptable is bashing only one company when other companies do
the same thing, especially when the company being singled out is doing
stuff to improve the situation while others are not.

it's classic apple bashing.

hint: it isn't.

I already said that. I don't need your macro or your Pavlovian
response to know that.

only after i pointed it out.

sorkin is doing nothing more than stirring the pot to get some
publicity for his film.

Cook was the first to stir the pot. Sorkin replied.

cook was correct.

sorkin is an opportunist who is capitalizing on steve jobs' death, as
did the creators of the other steve jobs movies and books.

Go to a library some time. The shelves are filled with books
"capitalizing" on the death of someone. There's this one that is very
popular that capitalizes on the death of someone a couple of thousand
years ago.

sorkin replied because he wants to get some publicity for the movie
because it's coming out in a couple of weeks.

So Cook coming out with his comment had nothing to do with getting
publicity for the new product he has out?

I would say not. Simply defending the memory of his friend and mentor.

So Sorkin's retort should have stayed in context - instead he went on a
tangent. Whether that was to escape having to defend it or an
opportunity to kick up other dust or simply to generate buzz about his
movie - is up to the beholder.

At least Sorkin has seen an Apple product. Cook admits he's never
seen the film that he criticized.

the reality is that a lot of people are cashing in on steve job's death
with movies and books that are anywhere from somewhat accurate to
mostly fiction which is why tim said what he said.

Confidante of yours, is he?

unlike you, i know quite a bit of the history of those involved.

Yeah, I know. You are tight buddies with Tim and he tells you what is
on his mind and why he says what he says.

That style of retort reminds me of ...


a lot of it is fiction, which might make for a more entertaining movie
but it's nevertheless fiction.

So? What movie isn't?

Then Sorkin ducked the opportunity to defend or clarify and instead
turned it into an attack on something else.

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

On 2015-09-26 20:45, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:11:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-26 11:00, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:41:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-26 00:00, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:45:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

"The Cupertino giant has for months been said to be in talks with
major US studios in a bid to secure content for a streaming Apple
service. Compensation reportedly remains a sticking point."

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

Noise. Cook doesn't like how someone has portrayed his deceased friend
and says so. Sorkin then pulls a classic deflection accusing Apple of
child labour in China as a retort.

(And yes, Apple knows some suppliers have underage workers and continues
to audit and force change despite this being a failure of the Chinese
government to enforce the law.)

Sorkin's just doing his job to attract attention to his movie.

I dunno about "deflection". Cook called the film "opportunistic", and
Sorkin rightly called Cook on claiming that a movie is opportunistic
when Apple's business plan is as opportunistic as it comes.

See above. What does Apple's manufacturing have to do with Cook's
complaint about Sorkin's portrayal of Jobs? So Sorkin attacks Cook and
Apple's manufacturing chain. That's deflection. (And poorly too).

Interesting that Cook merely complains, but Sorkin attacks. Not much
bias here, No Sir.

Oh, geez, now you laser analysis is going to the words I use. Christ I
am for the gallows. At least allow me a last prayer.

Sorkin's SOLE interest is promotion of his film.


What the two have to do with each other is that Cook unleashed an
attack on Sorkin's business so Sorkin returned an attack on Cook's
business.

As you like. Balance of madness.



Cook's "complaint" said Sorkin's movie was "opportunistic".

Exactly. Promotion. It's plain marketing.

Opportunistic means exploiting something absent moral principles. Cook
has every right to feel that Sorkin's project is an immoral
capitalization on his hero's life, but he does open himself up to a
counter-attack by saying so.

Sorkin should have defended his portrayal of Jobs.

This exchange of attacks only has traction in this newsgroup because
Apple is involved. If Carly Fiorina (who claims to be a great admirer
of Jobs and considers him one of her mentors) had knocked the movie,
and Sorkin would have fired back at HP's dismal record under Fiorina
no one here would care. Yet, a large number of readers of this group
are using an HP product.

I don't care about attacks on Apple or Jobs which are based on real
truths. Apple has plenty of blemishes. Sorkin's attack on Apple's
supplier's labour issues is deflection - esp. given Apple's record of
addressing supply chain moral/ethical issues (and many others) over the
years. The failure in China is that of the Chinese government.

Fiorina has earned the ire of everyone (being an hp CEO is a cursed
thing to be sure - the corporate culture there was damaged when hp did
its major restructuring about 15 years ago and has not recovered.)

True. My 4p and 15c works and stays but there are no new entries from HP
on the horizon... Just bought the 4p some new toner. Everybody needs
toner. The last cassette lasted a decade and a half, if you catch my
drift. The next laser will probably be a Brother or an Oki...
--
teleportation kills

On 2015-09-27 05:15, David Taylor wrote:
On 26/09/2015 23:24, Alan Browne wrote:
[]
I was referring to how the SSD may (or not) take care of short writes
from a program.

For example, if I open a file and write 100 bytes to it and close the
file then there is no certainty as to when the OS posts it. If it posts
it immediately, then the SSD firmware would open a block (say 4K) read
that, modify the 100 bytes and write the 4K in a different 4K block area
(leveling) resulting in wear far beyond the 100 bytes written.

(I'm leaving out all the file management stuff the OS is doing as well
for simplicity).

I don't know if the SSD and the OS communicate to a degree to manage
such scenarios. So if David's s/w is writing a lot of small files
before doing a higher level processing run, then the wear would be much
higher.

That is why, if one were to do such, one would be best to take the
smaller data sets and manage them (corral them) into agglomerations in
order to avoid writing small amounts of data to the SSD. This is not
trivial, but nor is it all that difficult to manage.

With the DVB-S (previous) version of the system, the satellite data
comes in 185-byte packets (IIRC), each of which needs to be stored. The
packets are not repeated, so if you miss one you loose data. This could
be for a 60 MB file, so lots and lots of writes. Hence the RAMdisk as a
buffer.

That's a good approach. I assume a UPS in there and other power backups.

I process a lot of GPS data (or was doing so a year or so ago) and I
would have single strings of raw data in memory approaching 100 MB or so
before processing and consolidation. (they came from a lot of separate
recordings). The final processing (reduction) would output to disk.

On 2015-09-27 10:58, android wrote:

drift. The next laser will probably be a Brother or an Oki...

Bought a couple Brother's recently - one for home and one for the office
(different models/cassettes). Both are fine but the one at the office
doesn't do wireless very well so ended up hard wiring it to a router.
The one at home does wireless fine.