Not only was it possible to do everything in SMIT (or smitty) on the command line, smit would tell you the exact command line and options that it was running for any given operation, making it very easy to script and learn.
Failed logins, yes. However What the original comment was getting at scrypt would in effect, reduce the number of simultaneous login requests a server can handle, so legitimate usage could bog the server down.
Either way, how are you going to rate-limit failed logins while at the same time not allowing a DDOS of a user login? If I am using a botnet to keep trying passwords for Sarah Palin, how are you going to know when the real Sarah Palin logs in from a new computer? Sarah Palin will never be able to log in again from a new computer, unless she uses a key from her old one.
I would assume that you'd simply do (increasing) timed lockout periods by user/ip combination.
At some point you have to accept that administrators will need to do some work, and if 200 IPs are trying to log into the same account 5 times every 15 minutes you should probably email the user and lock the account.
Nobody stops an attacker to use a fixed password and cycle the username. If your site has lots of users this could work pretty well. Your site could even "leak" (like forums) usernames making this approach more efficient.
Apple doesn't keep the base model small to save costs. They do it to increase revenue (and margins).
The cost to go from 16GB to 32GB is inconsequential. (They upped the step-up from 32GB to 64GB with no increase in price.) In fact, the cost to them from 16GB to 64GB is probably inconsequential. It's certainly nothing near the $100 in price.
The reason they keep it at 16GB is to make more people upgrade to 64GB. If the base model was 32GB, far fewer people would upgrade to 64GB, precisely because you would no longer have an unacceptably bad user experience.
In other words, it's about hating your poorer/cheaper users? Wouldn't it be a better strategy to do the right thing for the customers, which I guess in this case would mean having only one model, with a useful amount of storage?
In other words, it's about hating your poorer/cheaper users?
It's not about hate, it's that Apple is a for-profit company whose goal is to maximize their profit. They've decided that many of those poorer users will choose to sacrifice something else in their life and give the difference to Apple.
Wouldn't it be a better strategy to do the right thing for the customers
Are you suggesting that an approach that better met the needs of their less well-off users would have increased their profitability? No, almost definitely not. I don't like Apple, but their current strategy definitely works for them.
Measured by the metric of profit, Apple is inarguably one of the most successful companies in the history of the world. If so, can you point to any companies who gotten better results from the "put customers first" strategy than Apple has has with theirs?
Most likely what you mean is that the world as a whole would be a better place if Apple pursued some other strategy than profit-maximization. I'd personally agree with this, but it's also difficult to come up with solid examples.
The article also claims that it's a free market. While Hong Kong has a very free-market economy in most things, real estate and development is the one thing where it is less free than most places. It is the part of economy where the government is most involved. The government controls all land, and sells/leases it to developers at a restrictive pace, under its own requirements. There is in fact a lot of land area in Hong Kong, but the government only makes it available to build on in a very limited way. That is really one reason prices are so high, the supply restrictions. The government is fine with that as it keeps prices high when it sells rights to develop land eventually.
This is also one of the least transparent, probably most corrupt, and definitely most expensive and inefficient parts of Hong Kong's economy.
There is probably some role for the government to preserve open space and plan and so on, but to suggest that the free market is at work at the macro level in Hong Kong real estate is ignorance.
They actually do say "unlimited phone, and 7GB tethering". It's very explicit, and limited tethering is a specific part of the "unlimited phone" plans. And as the article says, if you want more tethering, you are able to add and pay for that separately. The issue is people bypassing the tethering limitations.
Oh, they're different. They cost more, take five or ten times as much plastic to make, take more fuel to transport, and take up more space in landfills.
Think about just how little material the thin bags use, and think about how many of them you'd have to stack to equal the thickness of the thick bag.
Well, that makes sense. But then, the cost of the bag should roughly reflect the cost of all these external harms from using them. What if it turns out that the cost is something like 10c a bag? That seems like a plausible number to me. It's certainly nowhere near $5 a bag, taxes and fees for street cleaning and parks aren't anywhere in that ballpark. In which case, we've already discovered that's not enough to eliminate the use of the bags (it does reduce it).
Maybe not. It just needs to be high enough to discourage most bag throwing. Maybe that number is $2 instead of $5. Maybe instead of just offering you a bag at the counter and tacking it on to your bill, they make you go to the bag aisle and bring back a bag that you have to consciously buy (it has a barcode and they scan it); so it's a cost in annoyance rather than money.
> taxes and fees for street cleaning and parks aren't anywhere in that ballpark
It's not just street cleaning and parks. You're discounting trash collection, recycling and landfill costs. The costs of the city being less attractive (I don't know if it can be measured, but there certainly is a cost). The cost to wildlife and the oceans. Do all these add up to $5 a bag? I don't know. Would a $<punitive_number>/bag fee eliminate most of these costs? Probably. Could someone more creative than myself come up with even better ideas? Definitely.
Does Austin allow give-aways of re-usable bags? I am not familiar, but I somewhat doubt it. Those bags typically sell for 99c in San Francisco. The 10c charge is for single-use bags (typically a paper sack, but plastic at some establishments).
If they're 99c, I would think that people are thinking of the value just fine. It's just that they're not thinking of using such a bag 130 times, and throw it away after, say, 25 uses.
Also it's not clear to me that the environmental resources required to wash a reusable bag on a household scale (sink, water, soap) is lower than that required to produce a disposable bag on an industrial scale.
