DISQUS

Quantitative weighting schemes need ... the assumption that persistence exists. With negative persistence recently, the better plan is to weight factors opposite what has performed well...

Or, "assume that the Efficient Market Hypothesis, in its weakest possible form, is dead wrong. Then, assume that your previous assumption is the opposite of what will happen. Until it reverses, dies, or just gets too confused to tell what you believe based on some cockamamie claims that Tuesdays are different from Wednesdays and Thursdays."

This is the greatest nonsense I have seen in some time. Congratulations to the commenters before me who confess to being bewildered at this, let alone why anybody would risk their investments on something so totally unsupported by any logic structure (e.g., economics) known to mankind.

When I travel from the Minneapolis airport (which has maybe a majority of its flights by just-acquired-by-Delta Northwest Air), I see perhaps one person in thirty use the E-boarding pass. All of 'em iPhones.

Works pretty well for the security folks. Even last time when I'd inadvertently scrolled the code grid to the top of my screen, it only took a sec to fix and the big letters on the interpreting machine seem a LOT easier to decode than the 10-point, randomly-formatted info on paper boarding passes. (Plus the machine seems to verify that the pass is relevant to entering at the particular date/time, so it could be that all that's necessary is to verify that it matches my ID.)

I'll happily defer to somebody who better understands Javascript -- so those of you more expert, dig in! But until then, may I offer... ?

1. The simple javascript asks for MORE MEMORY than ANY phone would have. My work PC (IE6?) locked up trying to execute this. I doubt ANY PC could actually "correctly" handle a page including this script. Some could _appear_ to freeze while correctly processing the script, due to the huge amount of data sloshed around. Reports of "crashes" might merely indicate that the browser was working its tail off, and not showing any progress.

2. Pushing the limits such as above is in the highest tradition of finding exploitable browser problems. However, it does NOT appear that the "exploit" is doing anything other than pushing the browser past its limits. Whatever state the iPhone (or my IE6!) is left in, quite possibly it's to trash the browser session, which would have the OS (X) recycle the used memory, leaving NO RISK of trying to execute code in the created garbage. Yes, it MIGHT, but I think not, and it's certainly not shown.

3. So this is not so much a Denial of Service -- by which, most people mean, asking a SERVER to do so much useless work that it can't do its intended work. Rather, it's more like a suicide loop -- if it actually locks up the browser, running some impossible requests, you might have to just turn off the phone. (You might have to just receive a call, which could suspend the browser, just as effectively. YAY for no multitasking! ;^> )

4. Let's call it a Hopeless Task -- legal, but beyond the capabilities of the nifty gizmo that some of us (not me, alas!) carry around. If this happens to you from visiting a web site, and you go back more than once, you're a Slow Learner. That self-realization might be a Good Thing; a couple of minutes appears to be the extent of the damage that this little gem can inflict.

5. My RAZR locks up ALL ON ITS OWN these days: I don't need no script kiddy's stuff.

6. Until somebody shows that a failure to deliver memory to Safari leaves the browser in an unstable state (not a "dead" state), this thing has not crossed the threshold of being even a POTENTIAL EXPLOIT. It indicates that no computer has infinite resources. Perhaps some users would be happier with a slower computer that checks whether each step of a webpage is possible before it carries them out. Personally, I'll risk having a faster browser which might require me to power-cycle my phone if I'm so unfortunate as to visit some page that wants to cause me a nuisance.

7. So, iPhoneWorld, what's the big deal? It's a practical joke on the level of setting a bag full of doggie poo on fire, then ringing somebody's doorbell. And it's being written up as Yeah Those iPhones are buggy and virus-prone. Is this what you want to sell? Need a few more thousand eyeballs who are likely to think your ads are more believable than your editorial?

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Pretty unlikely that (a) any person who is subject to US law would attempt to profit (even, $200) from abetting individuals in defrauding T-Mobile (who provide Starbucks WiFi) from their right to set fees for their service, or that (b) Apple, who won’t sign many carrier deals if it helps its customers circumvent the terms of the deals, would not exert strenuous efforts to block the bypass (which would also limit AT&T’s ability to sell ITS WiFi services).

Unlike the unlocking software, where Apple updates cannot actively attempt to break the unlocks (cuz unlocks are legal and it's YOUR phone), they could properly engage in software changes that would intentionally disable or report the existence of such hacks. Probably just be happy with trashing it.

Perhaps the Tooth Fairy will give you “free” WiFi.

Pretty unlikely that (a) any person who is subject to US law would attempt to profit (even, $200) from abetting individuals in defrauding T-Mobile (who provide Starbucks WiFi) from their right to set fees for their service, or that (b) Apple, who won't sign many carrier deals if it helps its customers circumvent the terms of the deals, would not exert strenuous efforts to block the bypass (which would also limit AT&T's ability to sell ITS WiFi services).

Perhaps the Tooth Fairy will give you "free" WiFi.