When you are getting the Patriot missiles free from the US [...]
Free missiles? Come on. Where do you get this stuff?
America buys Patriot missiles from Raytheon, the company that manufacturers them. America allows Raytheon to export Patriot missiles to some of its allies, but those allies have to buy the missiles from Raytheon, just the same as America itself does. Raytheon offers several generations of the missiles that range in price from about $1M to $6M apiece, depending on which variant the country wants to purchase.
America sometimes deploys its own supply of Patriot missiles to foreign countries (e.g. shooting down Scud missiles during the Gulf War), but saying, "let me station my military in your country" is hardly the same as "let me give you free missiles", so I don't see how anyone could have confused the two.
San José Semaphore is a multi-sensory kinetic artwork that illuminates the San José skyline with the transmission of a coded message. Cracking the coded message is posed as a challenge for the public.
It doesn't seem like it was a secret that there was a message, so I'm leaning towards agreeing with the OP that this simply wasn't something most people knew about. Plus, it's clear that it was far simpler than many of the puzzles you see solved as a matter of course in alternate reality games that are part of viral marketing campaigns for movies and AAA video game releases, so I'd imagine it'd have been solved in short order if it were more widely known.
What right does she have to reuse someone else's copyrighted materials?
The videos were distributed on YouTube under the CC BY 4.0 license. It allows for commercial reuse, so long as the derivative work provide attribution. That's what gave her the right. It's the same reason this Slashvertisement for LBRY is happening, since they're using the fact that the videos were distributed under that license to redistribute them elsewhere.
Thanks for admitting you use a FAKE NAME online for your FAKE LIFE.
...says the Anonymous Coward who hasn't provided any evidence to support a single claim he's made regarding his identity.
Besides which, if you think that using a pseudonym is proof of poor character, then apparently you count "Anubis IV" among an elite crowd of pseudonyms linked to people of poor character like Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Mark Twain, Buddha, Banksy, Muhammad Ali, Yogi Berra, Malcolm X, and many, many others, all of whom are more well known by their pseudonyms than their real names.
Pseudonyms, like many other tools, can be used for good or bad. I should hope that as someone else who is using a pseudonym, Anonymous Coward, you'd appreciate that fact. As it is, nothing I've said here depends on my identity (e.g. I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything in particular, nor would it matter if I was), so my points stand or fall on their own merit. Not so with you, however, since you've made multiple claims to authority (another form of logical fallacy, I'll point out) that depend on your identity (e.g. claiming you are the person who stopped 10 botnets, claiming Ars people stalk you because they know who you are, etc.), despite not providing a shred of evidence to back up your identity.
I already did when I said it was a pseudonym, which brings us back around to the topic of poor reading comprehension that I've been trying to discuss this entire time...
As for those being your initials, where's the proof you say you've provided? You're an Anonymous Coward who has provided links to other posts made by Anonymous Cowards. None of that proves anything. I could respond to you as an Anonymous Coward and sign my posts with APK's initials, but that doesn't make me APK.
Google chat uses XMPP essentially... so if you want a well supported platform, that's it right there.
Not really. Google Talk used XMPP, but it was obsolesced in 2013 with the launch of Google Hangouts, which doesn't use XMPP. I kept using Google Talk via the Pidgin IM client at work, but in the last few months I noticed that Pidgin stopped receiving invites to group chats my coworkers had sent (and which I could see in my chat logs in the Gmail web interface).
I eventually got Hangouts working with Pidgin via a plugin, but it has its own issues (e.g. always shows my status as offline, no matter how I tweak it), and based on Google's actions that are contrary to their words, it appears that Hangouts is now being obsolesced by Google Allo.
I figure I'll try to talk my boss into letting us use Slack or something else instead, since none of us have been happy with IMing via Google's products.
I suspect they'll be less naive as to the dangers of commercials, but also more affected by the commercials that they do see, which is what my own experience has been up to this point. I cut the cord years ago and have had ad-blockers installed for even longer, so I've been away from commercials for long enough to grow used to their absence. When I do see an ad, the following seems to be true: - I'm no longer ad-blind, so (for better or worse) I pay a lot more attention to them when I do see them - The ones I see are more likely to influence me (e.g. clicking clickbait ads when at a computer without ad-blocking, even though I know better) - I have a far lower tolerance for them than I used to, and my default response has shifted from apathy to annoyance - Because they carry such a strong negative connotation for me now, I find that I'm far less willing to trust services built on advertising - I'm far more willing to patronize establishments whose business model relies on people like me handing them money
So, I expect it's a little of A and a little of B: they'll be more susceptible, but they'll also be more aware.
They're still using 5400 RPM HDDs in their low-end-yet-too-expensive Macs.
I know you're being snarky, but it's worth pointing out that the Macs you're mentioning are outliers. To get a sense for the trend across their product line: - 2010 was the first year they launched a Mac with no HDD option at all (MacBook Air) - 2012 was the last year they launched a laptop with HDDs as an option (MacBook Pro) - 2015 was the last year they launched a desktop with HDDs as an option (iMac)
So, to say the least, it's pretty clear which direction the winds are blowing. Of the Macs that haven't been updated in so long that they still offer HDDs, the mini (last updated in 2014) looks likely to be discontinued, while the models of iMac that default to spinning disks (the non-Retina and low-end Retina models) are likely to go away in favor of Retina models using SSDs. If those updates happen it would mean Apple has no Macs anywhere in their lineup that use HDDs, unless they decide to keep around an iMac model with a Fusion Drive (which, from personal experience, are actually pretty great, but which anyone on/. should definitely build for themselves, rather than paying the Apple tax).
All of which is to say, contrary to your subject line, a surge in SSD pricing could be a problem for Apple, given that they've almost moved entirely over to SSDs at this point, which is more than I suspect most major manufacturers can say.
Maybe he was concentrating on doing the actual work for his degree rather than fannying around joining clubs to pad out his CV?
What does that even mean? If a general contractor was bidding on a project for you, I sincerely hope you'd laugh them out of the room if they said the reason they couldn't point to any prior experience was because they had been busy concentrating on buying tools.
As someone who gets roped into recruiting every few months, all a degree tells me by itself is that the applicant has the bare minimum tools in their toolbox. It doesn't tell me if they know how to use them well. It doesn't tell me if they know when to use them. It doesn't tell me whether they strive for better, whether they're easy to teach, whether they're a team player, whether they can communicate well, or whether they have an interest in picking up new skills as our field evolves. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
If a recent grad can't point to an internship, side project, or even a class project for which they went above and beyond, what they're telling me is that they've never encountered a problem they couldn't solve with a hammer. Unfortunately for them, the real world is full of problems that can't be solved with hammers. Even worse for them, their classmates have been busy practicing with those other tools and are applying for the same job.
APK and I have had lengthy, civil conversations several times in the past. I've used this pseudonym in every interaction we've had and he's had no problem with me using it. And because I use a pseudonym (as opposed to posting anonymously), I have a posting history that stretches back for years to back that up.
In contrast, you've been posting anonymously. In addition to not remembering the encounters I just mentioned, you've also failed to demonstrate evidence of your identity when it was called into question. From past experience, I've seen that he doesn't double-down on logical fallacies like ad hominem when the other person is willing to engage him in conversation, and he is usually pretty good at staying on topic. That leaves me with only two possibilities: 1) That you're an imposter. 2) That you've sunk to common trolling.
Though #2 is a possibility, I prefer to believe #1. As I said, you've failed to prove your identity, and I'd prefer to give the real guy the benefit of the doubt.
As for calling me a troll, as I said before, I didn't initiate contact with you and I've refrained from insulting you or your ideas when given the opportunity. None of my actions can be construed as trolling, whereas you started with ad hominem attacks, kept them up, and then repeatedly attempted to derail the conversation, all of which are classic techniques. On top of that, none of the "evidence" you've provided is in any way related to me or anything I've said, so no, you're not substantiating anything you've said against me with facts.
And on the topic of unsubstantiated claims, saying you stopped 10 botnets is easy. I could claim I stopped World War 3 yesterday by hacking an ICBM to fall harmlessly out of the sky, but that doesn't make it true, let alone relevant. After all, this isn't an e-peen measuring contest; we're talking about whether or not Ars said what the OP thought they said, and clearly I'm correct in that regard, given that what they said is completely contrary to what the OP claimed. Simple as that. If you disagree, I'd love to here why.
Repeating unfounded accusations about topics I don't care about neither makes them come true nor does it make me magically care about them, I'm afraid. You seem to be rather wound up about this though.
As for the rest, paint me with whatever false brush you want. Once again, until it relates back to the topic at-hand, I have no reason to concern myself with unsubstantiated rants that an unidentified person who claims to be APK makes online.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Allow me to reiterate:
As for the rest, paint me with whatever false brush you want. Once again, until it relates back to the topic at-hand, I have no reason to concern myself with unsubstantiated rants that an unidentified person who claims to be APK makes online.
Hot fixes such as this should be limited to enterprise apps only - i.e. apps that don't affect the world.
Was the hot fix permitted for all apps or just enterprise apps? If the former, then it should be definitely be removed.
Enterprise apps don't have to go through the review process because they aren't in the App Store in the first place. They're distributed privately, with the enterprise signing each app using a cert and each employee's device being configured to accept apps signed by that cert. Updates can be deployed directly to employee devices, as a result.
As for apps using this feature, I know that a variety of games download content updates outside of the App Store, though if I had to guess, I'd wager that when Plants vs. Zombies 2 and Final Fantasy Record Keeper say they're downloading new content, it's just a package of art assets and the like that the existing executable knows how to parse. If it is arbitrary code, however, I'd also wager that I'll suddenly see those games issuing a lot more frequent updates, given that FFRK pushes out content updates 1-2 times per week as it is.
So, you read the heading, but didn't even make it through his one-line post and my response? Had you done so, you'd have realized that he was making some very specific accusations against Ars, which was what I addressed in my response to him, and that his heading had nothing to do with the rest of what was said. Your failure to realize that suggests you're guilty of the exact same lack of reading comprehension that he was guilty of.
As for the rest, paint me with whatever false brush you want. Once again, until it relates back to the topic at-hand, I have no reason to concern myself with unsubstantiated rants that an unidentified person who claims to be APK makes online.
See subject: I point out verifiable data the President of the United States thinks CNN (arstechnica's parent) = trash
Okay, and? How does any of that relate to anything I said? I was talking about what Ars' review said, not whether or not Ars is a quality organization.
The fact is, I don't read Ars, nor have I ever read Ars on a regular basis. I used to go there once a year to read John Siracusa's annual OS X reviews, but he quit doing those a few years ago, so I don't even have that reason to go there any more. Frankly, I don't care what you, the President, or anyone else thinks about them, since I have no vested interest in them. Moreover, the notion that I'm stalking or harassing you is laughable, given that you're the one that initiated contact with me, rather than the other way around.
Again, if you want me to care one bit about anything you're saying, relate it back to the topic at hand. As it is, you're just ranting about a random topic I don't care about while firing off spurious accusations about me that clearly have no grounding in reality.
Dumping it into an incinerator is still a win compared to the thousands or millions of barrels of oil covering the bed of the Gulf of Mexico that we have today.
Besides which, the process you described is already pretty much what they already do, since they're having to remove condensation, fracking liquids, or a variety of other materials from the oil anyway. Given that they already have the process in place to do exactly that, I see no reason why they'd just burn it instead.
Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".
A simple search in/. for "chatbot parking" turned up this previous article, which indicated that it successfully challenged 160,000 out of 250,000 tickets. So, no, not "it's been used 160,000 times". This is a "it's won 160,000 times". And that was as of June of last year. This NPR piece from earlier this year indicates that its up to 200,000 successful cases now in just three cities, and that its overall success rate with parking tickets stands at around 60%.
.... only if it's cheaper than pumping more oil out of the ground
Not so. They're going to have to pay for the clean up either way, but doing it this way allows them to recover some of those costs. If that helps to push the net cost below what they pay today for cleaning up, that's a win for everyone involved. We get a cleaner environment faster, the ecosystem suffers less damage thanks to the complete removal of the oil (as opposed to the introduction of oil-neutralizing chemicals), the cost of oil doesn't take as much of a hit if the spill affects supply, and the total cost to society is less.
I simply pointed out that the OP's reading comprehension left something to be desired. Nothing you said contradicts, addresses, or in any way relates to that point. Instead, you engaged in juvenile name calling, espoused baseless conspiracy theories, and then launched into a tirade over an unrelated topic.
If you want to rant about random topics, by my guest, but don't expect me to care.
They bitch about the same old Zelda formula in the new game
So, you didn't even manage to make it to the end of the summary, I see? Directly from the summary:
And then there's the new Breath of the Wild (BotW), a Zelda game that throws off this established rhythm so quickly, and with such force, that it practically feels like a whole new genre. In doing so, Breath of the Wild offers a compelling take on a stagnating series, bringing a sense of wonder and excitement back to Zelda that hasn't been felt this strongly since the original NES game.
If you think that's complaining about the same old formula being played out again, you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension.
It's been 3 times they changed the freakin docking connector on their phone and other iShit.
Three times? Even including iPods, I only count two changes to the docking connector itself (and only one that was relevant to their phones and tablets):
1) They changed from Firewire 400 to the 30-pin connector in 2003 with the 3rd gen iPod.
2) They changed from the 30-pin connector to Lightning in 2012 with the iPhone 5.
That's it, so far as I know, but if you're aware of a third change, please let me know. The only other changes they've made have been to the cables (e.g. adding Lightning -> USB Type-C in addition to Lightning -> USB Type-A), but those have always been optional changes; you're still able to keep using your existing cables and accessories.
I get the angst over the 30-pin to Lightning change, since a lot of people had invested in accessories built around that connector, but if you're seriously complaining about not being able to use Firewire 400 accessories that you bought for your 1st or 2nd gen iPod (the only models that didn't support the 30-pin connector), I'd suggest you have unrealistic expectations and are holding Apple to a standard you're not applying to others. After all, can you name any smartphone manufacturer who's had the same, unchanged docking connector since 2003 across all of their devices?
Isn't his claim backed up by the chart you just linked? Your chart shows that by the end of last year, the Vive was expected to outsell the Rift in terms of cumulative sales over their lifetimes by 25%. If that's not outselling, what is?
It may get worse though, because the Rift has been available in various incarnations since 2012, whereas Vive only entered the market in April of last year. In clicking through to some of the other pages linked from your article, it sounds like the analysts may have included those other incarnations in the cumulative sales estimates for the Rift, rather than limiting it to the retail version that launched about the same time as the Vive. If so, it would mean that in just 8 months the Vive not only overtook the last 4 years of Rift sales, but that it managed to surpass them by 25%, suggesting that it may be outselling the Rift in terms of monthly sales by quite a bit more than 25%.
Also worth pointing out: just because Oculus has Facebook backing it financially, it doesn't mean they can afford to be unprofitable. Facebook is going to want to see a return on their investment. If Facebook decides it's getting too expensive, Facebook will shutter Oculus, even though they may be perfectly capable of funding it until the sun dies.
Disclaimer: I have no horse in this race, other than wanting to see the facts win. Aside from a handful of professional applications, I think all VR goggles are a fad and little more than a stepping stone to more immersive (yet-to-be-invented) experiences with actual staying power. I think they make for neat tech demos, but I have no interest in owning any of them, nor a beef with any particular one.
Slashdot Mirror
When you are getting the Patriot missiles free from the US [...]
Free missiles? Come on. Where do you get this stuff?
America buys Patriot missiles from Raytheon, the company that manufacturers them. America allows Raytheon to export Patriot missiles to some of its allies, but those allies have to buy the missiles from Raytheon, just the same as America itself does. Raytheon offers several generations of the missiles that range in price from about $1M to $6M apiece, depending on which variant the country wants to purchase.
America sometimes deploys its own supply of Patriot missiles to foreign countries (e.g. shooting down Scud missiles during the Gulf War), but saying, "let me station my military in your country" is hardly the same as "let me give you free missiles", so I don't see how anyone could have confused the two.
Not having a blatant indication there was a puzzle to be solved was part of the puzzle.
The artist's own video of the project from eight years ago seems to suggest otherwise, given that it says:
San José Semaphore is a multi-sensory kinetic artwork that illuminates the San José skyline with the transmission of a coded message. Cracking the coded message is posed as a challenge for the public.
It doesn't seem like it was a secret that there was a message, so I'm leaning towards agreeing with the OP that this simply wasn't something most people knew about. Plus, it's clear that it was far simpler than many of the puzzles you see solved as a matter of course in alternate reality games that are part of viral marketing campaigns for movies and AAA video game releases, so I'd imagine it'd have been solved in short order if it were more widely known.
What right does she have to reuse someone else's copyrighted materials?
The videos were distributed on YouTube under the CC BY 4.0 license. It allows for commercial reuse, so long as the derivative work provide attribution. That's what gave her the right. It's the same reason this Slashvertisement for LBRY is happening, since they're using the fact that the videos were distributed under that license to redistribute them elsewhere.
I agree with everything else you said, however.
Thanks for admitting you use a FAKE NAME online for your FAKE LIFE.
...says the Anonymous Coward who hasn't provided any evidence to support a single claim he's made regarding his identity.
Besides which, if you think that using a pseudonym is proof of poor character, then apparently you count "Anubis IV" among an elite crowd of pseudonyms linked to people of poor character like Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Mark Twain, Buddha, Banksy, Muhammad Ali, Yogi Berra, Malcolm X, and many, many others, all of whom are more well known by their pseudonyms than their real names.
Pseudonyms, like many other tools, can be used for good or bad. I should hope that as someone else who is using a pseudonym, Anonymous Coward, you'd appreciate that fact. As it is, nothing I've said here depends on my identity (e.g. I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything in particular, nor would it matter if I was), so my points stand or fall on their own merit. Not so with you, however, since you've made multiple claims to authority (another form of logical fallacy, I'll point out) that depend on your identity (e.g. claiming you are the person who stopped 10 botnets, claiming Ars people stalk you because they know who you are, etc.), despite not providing a shred of evidence to back up your identity.
Answer the question in my subject
I already did when I said it was a pseudonym, which brings us back around to the topic of poor reading comprehension that I've been trying to discuss this entire time...
As for those being your initials, where's the proof you say you've provided? You're an Anonymous Coward who has provided links to other posts made by Anonymous Cowards. None of that proves anything. I could respond to you as an Anonymous Coward and sign my posts with APK's initials, but that doesn't make me APK.
I am, literally, APK.
There's no proof of that, and if you think I'm playing word games or playing with semantics, you don't understand what either of those things are.
Google chat uses XMPP essentially... so if you want a well supported platform, that's it right there.
Not really. Google Talk used XMPP, but it was obsolesced in 2013 with the launch of Google Hangouts, which doesn't use XMPP. I kept using Google Talk via the Pidgin IM client at work, but in the last few months I noticed that Pidgin stopped receiving invites to group chats my coworkers had sent (and which I could see in my chat logs in the Gmail web interface).
I eventually got Hangouts working with Pidgin via a plugin, but it has its own issues (e.g. always shows my status as offline, no matter how I tweak it), and based on Google's actions that are contrary to their words, it appears that Hangouts is now being obsolesced by Google Allo.
I figure I'll try to talk my boss into letting us use Slack or something else instead, since none of us have been happy with IMing via Google's products.
I suspect they'll be less naive as to the dangers of commercials, but also more affected by the commercials that they do see, which is what my own experience has been up to this point. I cut the cord years ago and have had ad-blockers installed for even longer, so I've been away from commercials for long enough to grow used to their absence. When I do see an ad, the following seems to be true:
- I'm no longer ad-blind, so (for better or worse) I pay a lot more attention to them when I do see them
- The ones I see are more likely to influence me (e.g. clicking clickbait ads when at a computer without ad-blocking, even though I know better)
- I have a far lower tolerance for them than I used to, and my default response has shifted from apathy to annoyance
- Because they carry such a strong negative connotation for me now, I find that I'm far less willing to trust services built on advertising
- I'm far more willing to patronize establishments whose business model relies on people like me handing them money
So, I expect it's a little of A and a little of B: they'll be more susceptible, but they'll also be more aware.
They're still using 5400 RPM HDDs in their low-end-yet-too-expensive Macs.
I know you're being snarky, but it's worth pointing out that the Macs you're mentioning are outliers. To get a sense for the trend across their product line:
- 2010 was the first year they launched a Mac with no HDD option at all (MacBook Air)
- 2012 was the last year they launched a laptop with HDDs as an option (MacBook Pro)
- 2015 was the last year they launched a desktop with HDDs as an option (iMac)
So, to say the least, it's pretty clear which direction the winds are blowing. Of the Macs that haven't been updated in so long that they still offer HDDs, the mini (last updated in 2014) looks likely to be discontinued, while the models of iMac that default to spinning disks (the non-Retina and low-end Retina models) are likely to go away in favor of Retina models using SSDs. If those updates happen it would mean Apple has no Macs anywhere in their lineup that use HDDs, unless they decide to keep around an iMac model with a Fusion Drive (which, from personal experience, are actually pretty great, but which anyone on /. should definitely build for themselves, rather than paying the Apple tax).
All of which is to say, contrary to your subject line, a surge in SSD pricing could be a problem for Apple, given that they've almost moved entirely over to SSDs at this point, which is more than I suspect most major manufacturers can say.
Maybe he was concentrating on doing the actual work for his degree rather than fannying around joining clubs to pad out his CV?
What does that even mean? If a general contractor was bidding on a project for you, I sincerely hope you'd laugh them out of the room if they said the reason they couldn't point to any prior experience was because they had been busy concentrating on buying tools.
As someone who gets roped into recruiting every few months, all a degree tells me by itself is that the applicant has the bare minimum tools in their toolbox. It doesn't tell me if they know how to use them well. It doesn't tell me if they know when to use them. It doesn't tell me whether they strive for better, whether they're easy to teach, whether they're a team player, whether they can communicate well, or whether they have an interest in picking up new skills as our field evolves. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
If a recent grad can't point to an internship, side project, or even a class project for which they went above and beyond, what they're telling me is that they've never encountered a problem they couldn't solve with a hammer. Unfortunately for them, the real world is full of problems that can't be solved with hammers. Even worse for them, their classmates have been busy practicing with those other tools and are applying for the same job.
APK and I have had lengthy, civil conversations several times in the past. I've used this pseudonym in every interaction we've had and he's had no problem with me using it. And because I use a pseudonym (as opposed to posting anonymously), I have a posting history that stretches back for years to back that up.
In contrast, you've been posting anonymously. In addition to not remembering the encounters I just mentioned, you've also failed to demonstrate evidence of your identity when it was called into question. From past experience, I've seen that he doesn't double-down on logical fallacies like ad hominem when the other person is willing to engage him in conversation, and he is usually pretty good at staying on topic. That leaves me with only two possibilities:
1) That you're an imposter.
2) That you've sunk to common trolling.
Though #2 is a possibility, I prefer to believe #1. As I said, you've failed to prove your identity, and I'd prefer to give the real guy the benefit of the doubt.
As for calling me a troll, as I said before, I didn't initiate contact with you and I've refrained from insulting you or your ideas when given the opportunity. None of my actions can be construed as trolling, whereas you started with ad hominem attacks, kept them up, and then repeatedly attempted to derail the conversation, all of which are classic techniques. On top of that, none of the "evidence" you've provided is in any way related to me or anything I've said, so no, you're not substantiating anything you've said against me with facts.
And on the topic of unsubstantiated claims, saying you stopped 10 botnets is easy. I could claim I stopped World War 3 yesterday by hacking an ICBM to fall harmlessly out of the sky, but that doesn't make it true, let alone relevant. After all, this isn't an e-peen measuring contest; we're talking about whether or not Ars said what the OP thought they said, and clearly I'm correct in that regard, given that what they said is completely contrary to what the OP claimed. Simple as that. If you disagree, I'd love to here why.
Repeating unfounded accusations about topics I don't care about neither makes them come true nor does it make me magically care about them, I'm afraid. You seem to be rather wound up about this though.
As for the rest, paint me with whatever false brush you want. Once again, until it relates back to the topic at-hand, I have no reason to concern myself with unsubstantiated rants that an unidentified person who claims to be APK makes online.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Allow me to reiterate:
As for the rest, paint me with whatever false brush you want. Once again, until it relates back to the topic at-hand, I have no reason to concern myself with unsubstantiated rants that an unidentified person who claims to be APK makes online.
Hot fixes such as this should be limited to enterprise apps only - i.e. apps that don't affect the world.
Was the hot fix permitted for all apps or just enterprise apps? If the former, then it should be definitely be removed.
Enterprise apps don't have to go through the review process because they aren't in the App Store in the first place. They're distributed privately, with the enterprise signing each app using a cert and each employee's device being configured to accept apps signed by that cert. Updates can be deployed directly to employee devices, as a result.
As for apps using this feature, I know that a variety of games download content updates outside of the App Store, though if I had to guess, I'd wager that when Plants vs. Zombies 2 and Final Fantasy Record Keeper say they're downloading new content, it's just a package of art assets and the like that the existing executable knows how to parse. If it is arbitrary code, however, I'd also wager that I'll suddenly see those games issuing a lot more frequent updates, given that FFRK pushes out content updates 1-2 times per week as it is.
So, you read the heading, but didn't even make it through his one-line post and my response? Had you done so, you'd have realized that he was making some very specific accusations against Ars, which was what I addressed in my response to him, and that his heading had nothing to do with the rest of what was said. Your failure to realize that suggests you're guilty of the exact same lack of reading comprehension that he was guilty of.
As for the rest, paint me with whatever false brush you want. Once again, until it relates back to the topic at-hand, I have no reason to concern myself with unsubstantiated rants that an unidentified person who claims to be APK makes online.
See subject: I point out verifiable data the President of the United States thinks CNN (arstechnica's parent) = trash
Okay, and? How does any of that relate to anything I said? I was talking about what Ars' review said, not whether or not Ars is a quality organization.
The fact is, I don't read Ars, nor have I ever read Ars on a regular basis. I used to go there once a year to read John Siracusa's annual OS X reviews, but he quit doing those a few years ago, so I don't even have that reason to go there any more. Frankly, I don't care what you, the President, or anyone else thinks about them, since I have no vested interest in them. Moreover, the notion that I'm stalking or harassing you is laughable, given that you're the one that initiated contact with me, rather than the other way around.
Again, if you want me to care one bit about anything you're saying, relate it back to the topic at hand. As it is, you're just ranting about a random topic I don't care about while firing off spurious accusations about me that clearly have no grounding in reality.
Dumping it into an incinerator is still a win compared to the thousands or millions of barrels of oil covering the bed of the Gulf of Mexico that we have today.
Besides which, the process you described is already pretty much what they already do, since they're having to remove condensation, fracking liquids, or a variety of other materials from the oil anyway. Given that they already have the process in place to do exactly that, I see no reason why they'd just burn it instead.
Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".
A simple search in /. for "chatbot parking" turned up this previous article, which indicated that it successfully challenged 160,000 out of 250,000 tickets. So, no, not "it's been used 160,000 times". This is a "it's won 160,000 times". And that was as of June of last year. This NPR piece from earlier this year indicates that its up to 200,000 successful cases now in just three cities, and that its overall success rate with parking tickets stands at around 60%.
Not so. They're going to have to pay for the clean up either way, but doing it this way allows them to recover some of those costs. If that helps to push the net cost below what they pay today for cleaning up, that's a win for everyone involved. We get a cleaner environment faster, the ecosystem suffers less damage thanks to the complete removal of the oil (as opposed to the introduction of oil-neutralizing chemicals), the cost of oil doesn't take as much of a hit if the spill affects supply, and the total cost to society is less.
I simply pointed out that the OP's reading comprehension left something to be desired. Nothing you said contradicts, addresses, or in any way relates to that point. Instead, you engaged in juvenile name calling, espoused baseless conspiracy theories, and then launched into a tirade over an unrelated topic.
If you want to rant about random topics, by my guest, but don't expect me to care.
A fan of non sequiturs, I see?
You're saying his hypothetical headline for a fake chip is wrong? Really? What next, point out that Huckleberry Finn is a work of fiction?
They bitch about the same old Zelda formula in the new game
So, you didn't even manage to make it to the end of the summary, I see? Directly from the summary:
And then there's the new Breath of the Wild (BotW), a Zelda game that throws off this established rhythm so quickly, and with such force, that it practically feels like a whole new genre. In doing so, Breath of the Wild offers a compelling take on a stagnating series, bringing a sense of wonder and excitement back to Zelda that hasn't been felt this strongly since the original NES game.
If you think that's complaining about the same old formula being played out again, you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension.
It's been 3 times they changed the freakin docking connector on their phone and other iShit.
Three times? Even including iPods, I only count two changes to the docking connector itself (and only one that was relevant to their phones and tablets):
1) They changed from Firewire 400 to the 30-pin connector in 2003 with the 3rd gen iPod.
2) They changed from the 30-pin connector to Lightning in 2012 with the iPhone 5.
That's it, so far as I know, but if you're aware of a third change, please let me know. The only other changes they've made have been to the cables (e.g. adding Lightning -> USB Type-C in addition to Lightning -> USB Type-A), but those have always been optional changes; you're still able to keep using your existing cables and accessories.
I get the angst over the 30-pin to Lightning change, since a lot of people had invested in accessories built around that connector, but if you're seriously complaining about not being able to use Firewire 400 accessories that you bought for your 1st or 2nd gen iPod (the only models that didn't support the 30-pin connector), I'd suggest you have unrealistic expectations and are holding Apple to a standard you're not applying to others. After all, can you name any smartphone manufacturer who's had the same, unchanged docking connector since 2003 across all of their devices?
probably both from their Zenimax lawsuit and from Valve/Steam/Vive significantly outselling them.
Nope.
Isn't his claim backed up by the chart you just linked? Your chart shows that by the end of last year, the Vive was expected to outsell the Rift in terms of cumulative sales over their lifetimes by 25%. If that's not outselling, what is?
It may get worse though, because the Rift has been available in various incarnations since 2012, whereas Vive only entered the market in April of last year. In clicking through to some of the other pages linked from your article, it sounds like the analysts may have included those other incarnations in the cumulative sales estimates for the Rift, rather than limiting it to the retail version that launched about the same time as the Vive. If so, it would mean that in just 8 months the Vive not only overtook the last 4 years of Rift sales, but that it managed to surpass them by 25%, suggesting that it may be outselling the Rift in terms of monthly sales by quite a bit more than 25%.
Also worth pointing out: just because Oculus has Facebook backing it financially, it doesn't mean they can afford to be unprofitable. Facebook is going to want to see a return on their investment. If Facebook decides it's getting too expensive, Facebook will shutter Oculus, even though they may be perfectly capable of funding it until the sun dies.
Disclaimer: I have no horse in this race, other than wanting to see the facts win. Aside from a handful of professional applications, I think all VR goggles are a fad and little more than a stepping stone to more immersive (yet-to-be-invented) experiences with actual staying power. I think they make for neat tech demos, but I have no interest in owning any of them, nor a beef with any particular one.