PERockwell

So you're telling me that in addition to any sales tax that's paid on the streaming subscription, they want another 9%? I guess they figure they get their cut from cable services, they should get them from streaming services too. Bet they'd find a way to tax OTA broadcasts if they could.

AppleInsider said:

The NCTA, a trade group representing broadband providers, said it looks forward to working with the FCC on implementing the new labels. In a statement, the NCTA said that "cable operators are committed to providing consumers with relevant information about broadband services."

Read on AppleInsider

Hogwash. Baloney. Lying through their teeth.

How about the FCC require on the nutrition label the cost of the plan without any promotional or bundling discounts, and the length of those discounts.

jkichline said:

Simply put, it's an inefficient x86 design with larger transistors. It requires more and bigger transistors to perform the same number of tasks which uses more electricity and consumes more power. The architecture is completely different.

Don't you also have to take into account that the Intel chips have a RISC-like internal core, and that the chip microcode converts the x86/x86_64 ISA into those RISC-like instructions? 

Epson did seem to get it right with their Ecotank printers. It is a pleasure not to have to deal with cartridges and the waste and inconvenience they cause.  I may not be typical but it’s been over 2 years and I’ve not had to purchase ink for my Epson Ecotank printer. And when I do, the ink bottles are way more cost effective.  I have not had the clogging problems with it that I’ve had with cartridge based Epson printers in the past. 

I have mixed emotions on the "security researcher"'s handling of this. Apple said they have the intent to patch this - but to the researcher it isn't soon enough. That smacks of ego-boosting self promotion and "blackmail" of a vendor when an arbitrary deadline isn't met without fully assessing how severe the vulnerability really is.

One other hand, vendors do need to quickly patch serious breaches. And "security by obscurity" is not security.
 
On the other hand, if Apple hasn't seen an active exploit where they are getting inundated by people with bricked phones because of this, that means that the hacker community hasn't probably figured this one out yet. And now this "researcher" just gave them the ability to do so. 

Any good security professional will tell you that the vulnerabilities (bugs) you have to address immediately are those that are easily exploitable, have no or impractical mitigations, and have the greatest impact when exploited - for example, the infiltration and extraction of data. In other words, the threat is high and the risk of that damage when it happens is severe. Yes it's inconvenient when your phone crashes, but that's a denial of service attach, not data exposure.

My guess is that Apple's opinion of the bug is that it doesn't push all those measurements to a level that screams "emergency".

         "Seems a tish bit long a window to fix this bug, but hey, what do I know?"

I don't know either. But we have no idea what changes have to be made to completely address this. The degree of exposure and likelihood of this happening probably doesn't mean Apple should drop everything and fix this one. Like they have with many others with active exploits.