I would argue something is better than nothing. And if this gets people to start using the tool then maybe they will start to hit the cases where the loss of utility matters, and then this can be the source of inspiration to actually tough out the technical inspiration. Probably a long shot in general but it worked that way for me.

I was curious how the fashion industry deals with this problem.

I mean when is a pair of slacks a knock-off, a copied design, and an original design. I would think the clothing fashion industry would have way more experience with this.

This came up via Google: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04i...

Somewhat old, but it reads just like these Apple v. whomever stories. Unfortunately it looks like they landed on the same solution as the tech industry; litigation. But now that I really think about it, what else can one do?

HP Makes the TouchSmart line which is an all-in-one computer and is not similar to an iMac so clearly they know how to do original design. So what they heck were they thinking when they released this product? Did they think no one would notice? It boggles the mind.

That's for a Core i7 Retina MacBook Pro and the 13-ish W power number includes the screen. The 6W number for Fluffy2 does not.

Still an impressive hack though.

I was thinking the same thing. They're rarely elected because they're rarely on the ballot.

They say the same about woman.

Brazil factory is MUCH smaller, for example the new iPad factory only has 1.4K employees, and Brazil gives them tax benefits. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&...

That's the lesson Europe and America learned with import duties years ago. You set duty levels to protect your local industry, it keeps out an international product that customers want and you have no local competitor to. So they open a "screwdriver plant" which just screws the "Made in X" label on.

The local government ends up subsidizing this process, under the claim of creating jobs, to far more than the income from the tarif.

Meanwhile your consumers are still paying more for the product, paying again for the tax breaks and you still haven't protected any local iPad competitor ;-)

edit: A famous example of this is a Ford plant in Chicago that removes seats and windows from Ford vans. There is a stiff US import tarrif on foreign trucks to protect the US truck building industry. Ford builds Transit vans (box van in US speak?) in europe but it would be too expensive to import those into the US so it imports mini-buses = box vans with seats. It then has a plant that removes the seats and windows converting them back into Transit vans to sell.

But the important thing is that high quality seat-removal jobs are kept in the US, a plant in Chicago is paid for by the tax-payers of Chicago and a great American truck building company like Ford is protected from cheap foreign competition by Ford.

This is not always the case. It really depends on how it's done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_substitution_industriali...

The famous example for this in Germany is Nokia of all 'people'.

Is that really the complete list of privledges? It says a child process can inherit the sandbox but not that a child process can be created. I mention it because I think the plug-in issue could be solved with child processes and sockets, or something similar.

Also, a typical program now can't access a generic thunderbolt device directly (it would be done via the file system which is a possible privilege). Thunderbolt devices are in PCI address space and this needs to be done via the kernel even now.

But it does raise a question: What about 3rd party device drivers?

All in all, I think most of these sandbox arguments underestimate developer creativity.