I guess why I'm confused is it seems they have control over what is sold in the cafeteria (or at least should) so I don't understand why there is a need to monitor what is bought. Can't they just look at the build-to for the cafe inventory?
It seems this would be like walmart asking people what they bought in the parking lot so they can figure out what they're selling. I mean I understand the need to track it but it seems you could do that on the other side of the buffet.
How can they possibly justify the need to monitor what children eat. When they are either eating what their parent gave them or what the school gives them. This is has no purpose other than to get kids used to being monitored. For crying out loud, if you're worried they're eating too much junk, stop giving it to them.
What about tracking the IP? I use Linux and my roommate uses Windows. I have had to search for drivers and technical information many many times for Linux. One weekend I reinstalled Windows for my roommate. On a fresh install under Windows I began to search for drivers. Google's results kept taking me to sites for Linux drivers.
Search 'search engines' on Bing. Google doesn't even make the first page. Although it's picture is used to define what a search engine is. lol Yeah that's an unbiased search. Search the same on Google and Bing is listed second.
I just searched for search engines on Bing. Google did not even make the first page. Although a picture of google is shown for what a search engine is. lol. Bing was second on Google when searching for search engines.
I don't think you would have had to 'discover' it. He's not hiding the camera in the toaster.
I would imagine if the screen is big enough or obvious enough on both ends it would be something like walking into the kitchen and if Dad is in the kitchen on the other side you'll see him and say 'hi'. Presumably he may notice you walk in out of the corner of his eye as he's making a sandwich.
Now granted if your just paranoid about the idea of cameras in general then you wouldn't like it, of course pointing out that cameras are everywhere is obvious. Unless Mom's cheating on top of the kitchen table there's not much nefarious that's going to happen in a kitchen.
Nothing specifically to back it up, but I think sometimes that people really just want recognition. Google giving them a reward for finding a fix can be that recognition or hacking Google and compromising thousands of machines can be that recognition. Either way they will find the exploit. Better that Google recognizes them than a criminal enterprise.
It seems that the only people who suggest Apple users think their devices are perfect are the anti-Apple crowd who preach it as "fact" without actually knowing much about actual Apple users.
Perhaps this has something to do with all of the troll and flamebait mods people get for questioning this 'research'. To be fair, the same happens to people who question open source. It's hard to deny the fawning that many apple users have for their products. I've never had an apple user say they liked the product because of it's technical side. It's design, design, design. Which is well done with Apple. It's a shame most apple users can't tell you they like the UI because they don't know what a UI is.
The fact that you are modded a troll is enough to convince me of your point. I agree with the other response that your math is not exactly right but you are certainly not a troll. Wow. Why can't Apple fans admit they're fans? I admit I'm a fan of Linux and I know why. Philosophy plus the ability to control the computer I put together from scratch. Unlike Apple fans I don't just fawn over it and say it's the best thing since sliced bread. It's not for everybody. I like Iphones and Macs to the extent that they ask me to crack them.
For what it's worth I found this 99.4% figure, however this number was based on manufacturer app stores only. It doesn't count carrier app stores, 3rd party app stores or random apps from random sites.
I recognize that Apple is the leader in this field. My own personal guess is that Apple's share is around 50%. I get this from surveys I've seen stating the average iPhone user downloads 8-9 apps while the average non iPhone user downloads 2-3. iPhones make up 25% of smartphones so most realistic number is probably between 50%-57%
Now this is is incredible to be sure but it's not the same as MS dominance of Windows when the DOJ started their investigation. I do conced it is not as low as my initial 25%
If Microsoft released an update to Windows that added a repository. Could they claim Linux has some kind of monopoly on repositories because 99.4% of users who download apps from repositories use Linux?
I make an extraordinary claim but you can't be bothered to google I mean research something that refutes it. I may be wrong but can you use the apple appstore on smartphones other than the Iphone? If only 25% of people with a smartphone can even use the Apple appstore how can it be a monopoly regardless of how many apps each user downloads.
You (and Apple) say there have been 3 billion downloads. Fair enough. Are those all apps? Does it include songs, movies etc? If it is all apps (which I personally find extraordinary) that means the average iphone user has downloaded over 60 apps to their phone. 3 billion / ~42 million iphones sold.
Did Microsoft have a monopoly because most software ran on their OS or because most people used their OS?
I may be wrong about some of my assumptions. My google searches may be biased. But you honestly haven't provided anything to support that Apple's lead position is anything like Windows/Office dominance when the DOJ began investigating Microsoft.
I'm saying the appstore is about 25% of the market based on usage. According to this anyway or I could say the Iphone is 25% of the smartphone market based on this
Either way I'm saying Microsoft passed the 25% mark for its share of the PC OS market a long long time ago. I couldn't find a site that gave me the raw numbers for downloads but every site a saw gave Apple around 25% for it's market share whether based on smartphone sales, OS used on smartphones, or app store marketplaces. So I'm open to a citation showing apple having more than a 25% market share based on something else if you have one to provide.
Actually, I'll bet Apple's market share in smartphone applications is already larger than Microsoft's market share in PC operating systems at the time they first came under scrutiny by the DOJ.
When was the last time Microsoft's market share was less than 25%?
I disagree and think the origin of the situation is important. If one law says you have to wear blue and another says you can never wear blue then they contradict. If the law says you have to wear pants to court and you are wearing shorts on your way to court that's not the law contradicting itself, that's you putting yourself in a situation where you have limited your choices to breaking the law(wear shorts to court or don't go).
A situation that forces you to decide between breaking two laws does not make the laws themselves contradictory. A law that makes teaching sex ed illegal and one that makes it illegal not to teach it is contradictory because the law only applies to the specific situation (teaching) in which the laws contradict themselves.
I don't think any of those examples of contradictions in the law.
You are 61 miles away from the courthouse, are due in court in 1 hour, and the speed limit is 60 miles per hour. You are either going to break the law by speeding, or break the law by missing your appointed court time.
You should have left for court earlier.
A person who has taken out a restraining order on you is standing in the only exit from a private building from which you have been asked to leave. Remaining inside is trespassing. Walking past that person is a violation of the restraining order.
You have a restraining order and you put yourself in a position to be asked to leave. Sounds like your problem not the laws.
You discover that a bag you recently picked up is full of cocaine. Continuing to hold onto it is a felony. Dropping it is anywhere from a weak misdemeanor (littering) to a felony (various unlikely scenarios).
Don't pick up bags that aren't yours and they won't have cocaine in them. Unless that's what you want.
I'm sure there are laws that contradict each other but these aren't it.
For someone who is going off on a rant based on a reasoned assumption, you sure aren't setting off on the right foot by starting the unjustified assumption that the poster uses Wikipedia;
How is jumping to incompetence a reasoned assumption but assuming someone has used wikipedia unjustified. It's at least reasonable.
You don't have to pay for or be a net consumer of something in order to criticise it - all you have to do is provide a reasonable explanation for the criticism.
So what was the useful criticism in assuming incompetence over lack of funding?
All this said, maybe the poster has donated time and/or money to Wikipedia - you do realise it's produced by thousands of (sometimes even well-meaning) volunteers, right?
If so then according to his assumption of incompetence is he partly to blame?
So they don't, except when they do.
That's rather pedantic. I think (most) everybody knows the difference between a non-profit fundraising banner and an ad.
I know America has such a macho culture that it's considered life-destroying to receive public criticism, but it's actually useful to be told that you're incompetent when you're incompetent
Very true. I work with people you should be told so more often. However, it is equally true that thinking human error is the result of incompetence and that getting rid of people who make mistakes will lead to a more perfect system. I good system deals with human error, it doesn't assume it won't exist.
I think it is fair to say that someone may have made a mistake and that Wikipedia may not be funded well enough to deal with human error.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess why I'm confused is it seems they have control over what is sold in the cafeteria (or at least should) so I don't understand why there is a need to monitor what is bought. Can't they just look at the build-to for the cafe inventory?
It seems this would be like walmart asking people what they bought in the parking lot so they can figure out what they're selling. I mean I understand the need to track it but it seems you could do that on the other side of the buffet.
Yet these same parents willingly sign up
Keyword is willingly
What if 20 years from now an insurance company could give you higher premiums because you didn't eat the right things when you were 7?
How can they possibly justify the need to monitor what children eat. When they are either eating what their parent gave them or what the school gives them. This is has no purpose other than to get kids used to being monitored. For crying out loud, if you're worried they're eating too much junk, stop giving it to them.
What about tracking the IP? I use Linux and my roommate uses Windows. I have had to search for drivers and technical information many many times for Linux. One weekend I reinstalled Windows for my roommate. On a fresh install under Windows I began to search for drivers. Google's results kept taking me to sites for Linux drivers.
Search 'search engines' on Bing. Google doesn't even make the first page. Although it's picture is used to define what a search engine is. lol Yeah that's an unbiased search. Search the same on Google and Bing is listed second.
I just searched for search engines on Bing. Google did not even make the first page. Although a picture of google is shown for what a search engine is. lol. Bing was second on Google when searching for search engines.
I don't think you would have had to 'discover' it. He's not hiding the camera in the toaster.
I would imagine if the screen is big enough or obvious enough on both ends it would be something like walking into the kitchen and if Dad is in the kitchen on the other side you'll see him and say 'hi'. Presumably he may notice you walk in out of the corner of his eye as he's making a sandwich.
Now granted if your just paranoid about the idea of cameras in general then you wouldn't like it, of course pointing out that cameras are everywhere is obvious. Unless Mom's cheating on top of the kitchen table there's not much nefarious that's going to happen in a kitchen.
Nothing specifically to back it up, but I think sometimes that people really just want recognition. Google giving them a reward for finding a fix can be that recognition or hacking Google and compromising thousands of machines can be that recognition. Either way they will find the exploit. Better that Google recognizes them than a criminal enterprise.
cell phone, cable
What?
It seems that the only people who suggest Apple users think their devices are perfect are the anti-Apple crowd who preach it as "fact" without actually knowing much about actual Apple users.
Perhaps this has something to do with all of the troll and flamebait mods people get for questioning this 'research'. To be fair, the same happens to people who question open source. It's hard to deny the fawning that many apple users have for their products. I've never had an apple user say they liked the product because of it's technical side. It's design, design, design. Which is well done with Apple. It's a shame most apple users can't tell you they like the UI because they don't know what a UI is.
The fact that you are modded a troll is enough to convince me of your point. I agree with the other response that your math is not exactly right but you are certainly not a troll. Wow. Why can't Apple fans admit they're fans? I admit I'm a fan of Linux and I know why. Philosophy plus the ability to control the computer I put together from scratch. Unlike Apple fans I don't just fawn over it and say it's the best thing since sliced bread. It's not for everybody. I like Iphones and Macs to the extent that they ask me to crack them.
Not just a bigger screen but a bigger screen experience. sigh
I'm not sure I follow your post. Are you saying you do or don't think their was/is an underlying problem that is causing cancer to develop?
It wasn't easy (litterally), but worth it.
I was thinking about what it would have meant if you had said it wasn't easy figuratively.
For what it's worth I found this 99.4% figure, however this number was based on manufacturer app stores only. It doesn't count carrier app stores, 3rd party app stores or random apps from random sites.
I recognize that Apple is the leader in this field. My own personal guess is that Apple's share is around 50%. I get this from surveys I've seen stating the average iPhone user downloads 8-9 apps while the average non iPhone user downloads 2-3. iPhones make up 25% of smartphones so most realistic number is probably between 50%-57%
Now this is is incredible to be sure but it's not the same as MS dominance of Windows when the DOJ started their investigation. I do conced it is not as low as my initial 25%
If Microsoft released an update to Windows that added a repository. Could they claim Linux has some kind of monopoly on repositories because 99.4% of users who download apps from repositories use Linux?
I make an extraordinary claim but you can't be bothered to google I mean research something that refutes it. I may be wrong but can you use the apple appstore on smartphones other than the Iphone? If only 25% of people with a smartphone can even use the Apple appstore how can it be a monopoly regardless of how many apps each user downloads.
You (and Apple) say there have been 3 billion downloads. Fair enough. Are those all apps? Does it include songs, movies etc? If it is all apps (which I personally find extraordinary) that means the average iphone user has downloaded over 60 apps to their phone. 3 billion / ~42 million iphones sold.
Did Microsoft have a monopoly because most software ran on their OS or because most people used their OS?
I may be wrong about some of my assumptions. My google searches may be biased. But you honestly haven't provided anything to support that Apple's lead position is anything like Windows/Office dominance when the DOJ began investigating Microsoft.
I'm saying the appstore is about 25% of the market based on usage. According to this anyway or I could say the Iphone is 25% of the smartphone market based on this
Either way I'm saying Microsoft passed the 25% mark for its share of the PC OS market a long long time ago. I couldn't find a site that gave me the raw numbers for downloads but every site a saw gave Apple around 25% for it's market share whether based on smartphone sales, OS used on smartphones, or app store marketplaces. So I'm open to a citation showing apple having more than a 25% market share based on something else if you have one to provide.
Actually, I'll bet Apple's market share in smartphone applications is already larger than Microsoft's market share in PC operating systems at the time they first came under scrutiny by the DOJ.
When was the last time Microsoft's market share was less than 25%?
If only I had mod points
I disagree and think the origin of the situation is important. If one law says you have to wear blue and another says you can never wear blue then they contradict. If the law says you have to wear pants to court and you are wearing shorts on your way to court that's not the law contradicting itself, that's you putting yourself in a situation where you have limited your choices to breaking the law(wear shorts to court or don't go).
A situation that forces you to decide between breaking two laws does not make the laws themselves contradictory. A law that makes teaching sex ed illegal and one that makes it illegal not to teach it is contradictory because the law only applies to the specific situation (teaching) in which the laws contradict themselves.
You left out IANAL
You are 61 miles away from the courthouse, are due in court in 1 hour, and the speed limit is 60 miles per hour. You are either going to break the law by speeding, or break the law by missing your appointed court time.
You should have left for court earlier.
A person who has taken out a restraining order on you is standing in the only exit from a private building from which you have been asked to leave. Remaining inside is trespassing. Walking past that person is a violation of the restraining order.
You have a restraining order and you put yourself in a position to be asked to leave. Sounds like your problem not the laws.
You discover that a bag you recently picked up is full of cocaine. Continuing to hold onto it is a felony. Dropping it is anywhere from a weak misdemeanor (littering) to a felony (various unlikely scenarios).
Don't pick up bags that aren't yours and they won't have cocaine in them. Unless that's what you want.
I'm sure there are laws that contradict each other but these aren't it.
I doubt SI prefixes have a sexual orientation or gender.
Sure they do;
Kilo is obviously male and I used to know a girl named Tera
For someone who is going off on a rant based on a reasoned assumption, you sure aren't setting off on the right foot by starting the unjustified assumption that the poster uses Wikipedia;
How is jumping to incompetence a reasoned assumption but assuming someone has used wikipedia unjustified. It's at least reasonable.
You don't have to pay for or be a net consumer of something in order to criticise it - all you have to do is provide a reasonable explanation for the criticism.
So what was the useful criticism in assuming incompetence over lack of funding?
All this said, maybe the poster has donated time and/or money to Wikipedia - you do realise it's produced by thousands of (sometimes even well-meaning) volunteers, right?
If so then according to his assumption of incompetence is he partly to blame?
So they don't, except when they do.
That's rather pedantic. I think (most) everybody knows the difference between a non-profit fundraising banner and an ad.
I know America has such a macho culture that it's considered life-destroying to receive public criticism, but it's actually useful to be told that you're incompetent when you're incompetent
Very true. I work with people you should be told so more often. However, it is equally true that thinking human error is the result of incompetence and that getting rid of people who make mistakes will lead to a more perfect system. I good system deals with human error, it doesn't assume it won't exist.
I think it is fair to say that someone may have made a mistake and that Wikipedia may not be funded well enough to deal with human error.