You do realize that all of those things are child abuse right?
"shiners, bloody noses, sore ribs, split lip, some bruises"
The above would all be social services business and the courts. Everyone's business? No.
Your teachers should have reported it. There is however, a difference between being beaten and being spanked, and no evidence of the former just because the girl is frightened and begging not to be spanked. There was also no history of any child abuse reported. Is it possible there was history? Certainly. Without proof you are assuming guilt. You would be considered a tainted jury member because you have personal bias.
I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up. Not radically different than this. You can bet I didn't do whatever caused the whipping again. Even then I didn't think it was abuse. I would bet it didn't look much different than this to an outsider. Spanking is also still legal in the U.S. as long as the force is reasonable. Hell it's still legal in a large number of schools as well (something like 21 states still allow corporal punishment). Claiming she was 'almost' an adult is like saying someone is 'almost' guilty. You either are or you aren't. If she was living in her fathers house, under his rules, and she is a minor, then it's appropriate that he is able to dole out punishments as long as they aren't excessive, or abusive.
TFA article states that there are no allegations of abuse on record:
Adams was granted joint custody of his 10-year-old daughter in his 2007 divorce. There are no allegations of alleged abuse by Adams against his younger daughter.
He wasn't being investigated because the statue of limitations on such cases is 5 years. They have no legal course of action at this point. Although they did say the video would have warranted an investigation and they would have pursued charges based on the video.
"I would expect that yeah, charges would have been pursued but for the inability to proceed due to the statute of limitations," Flanigan said Friday. "You know, whether that would have been a felony or a misdemeanor charge I can't say but I think there would've been some action pursued."
I always find it interesting how a video like that turns every American into a model parent when in short, it's none of their damn business. If the child was 'abused' in the truest sense (bruises, black eyes, broken bones, etc), then by all means it should be reported and the father should be investigated. If the video is however making this look worse than it is (and I know of no way to judge how 'hard' she is being whipped), then this is nothing more than judging the man as guilty with no proof of abuse. The fact that there are no allegations of abuse doesn't help her case either. Looks to me like a father who probably lost his temper and a young woman playing to the internet 'jury' for sympathy and revenge.
Granted, he's scaring the hell out of his daughter in the video (probably with good reason), but unless there was evidence of such abuse then I think people should mind their own damn business.
I agree. I don't necessarily think this is about defending or prosecuting innocence or guilt, but rather the examining the means used to get them there.
This smacks of wire tapping. Surely there are other legal avenues they could have pursued to get from A to Z?
Stingrays spoof a legitimate cellphone tower in order to trick nearby cellphones and other wireless communication devices into connecting to the tower, as they would to a real cellphone tower. When devices connect, stingrays can see and record their unique ID numbers and traffic data, as well as information that points to a device’s location. To prevent detection by suspects, the stingray sends the data to a real tower so that traffic continues to flow.
I really so no difference between this and a wire tap.
Wow, that comment took me by surprise, but I can't think of a more true statement. I suspect that's why they just don't understand Apple's success. The goto Geek was THE person to talk to about any PC purchase, and now they are the ones out of touch with the mainstream. That's not to say they don't know what's what in the tech world, but they simply don't seem to understand what drives today's computing generation. Even 10 years ago there was still an element of garage tech to PC's. They were mysterious to the general population, hard to learn to the laymen, and generally frightened the old folk.
Now the Geek factor isn't relevant, no one cares about Ghz, spindle speed, bus speed, etc. Unless somehow has a specific niche they need to fill, they typically can just buy what they want without the need to consult with their friendly PC geek. I have to wonder if the advent of these closed boxes (read: not upgradable) like laptop's, Mini's, smart phones, etc, have removed the need to know a geek to get your video card upgraded. No one does that anymore except for those that insist on using a desktop, and lets face it. Desktop's just aren't that mobile.
I also find the comments about 'seeing them everywhere' and arguments to the contrary a bit humorous. 100+ million sold. They are now impacting the netbook, Laptop, Low end Desktop PC, and gaming market and people are still calling them a fad. They have been selling like gang busters for 2 years straight, with no slowdown in sight and they are still a 'fad'. The disconnect here would be scary if it wasn't so funny.
Agreed. The 27" display in the higher end iMac is probably one of the best that I've owned. One of the first LED's that I can only increase the brightness about half way or it feels like it's burning my corneas;)
Not only that, but these are manufacturer's we are talking about, not 'parts' places. It never ceases to amaze me that the technical folks here on slashdot can be so 'dumb' about basic economics. When a vendor sells you a PC, it has more costs to consider than just selling your a card, or a cooling tower, or a PC case., or a power supply. They have entire infrastructures to support, service contracts to maintain, advertising, facilities for stocking, vendor contracts, end user support, etc. Any geek who's built his own PC knows you can build for cheaper than you can buy a whole unit most of the time, yet they always hold this up as some sort of ding to Apple while ignoring what they already know to be the same for HP, Sony, Alienware, etc.
Buying individual parts from some piece mail online vendor like TigerDirect will never compare to a manufacturer's prices. They are two entirely different supply models. The still persistent claims that Macs are 2X and 3X more expensive than other offerings are just as ludicrous. Spend any time on HP, or IBM, or Sony's site and price out models and they generally come out to about the same price. In general they have a relatively level playing field in the PC market, and their prices reflect that. Factor in the OS costs, which are always extra, and the generally poor quality (read: plastic) crap that some of these folks shovel out and they are simply not worth it. It was a different game was the Desktop was king. Now with toss-away laptops, the game has changed, and buying cheap just isn't cost effective if it breaks in 1-3 years. I went through 2 HP's, 2 Sony's, and a Compaq (pre-HP takeover) with none of them lasting more than 3 years. The first Apple laptop I bought 4 years ago is still in perfect working condition, although I did wear out the power cord @ year 3 ($59 bucks). The sony's both ended up with broken USB ports and one had a power connector failure on the board side. The HP hinges broke, and the Compaq just failed outright (motherboard failure). That's the primary reason I switched and took a chance on Apple 4 years ago and I haven't regretted it.
Regarding tablet/phone market, that is another animal entirely. We know that Apple leverages it's extensive buying power to sew up vendors for goods like touch screens, batteries, memory, processors, etc. Buy in bulk, get em cheap, and get long term contracts. These do give Apple a price advantage. In the end, Apple is able to offer very good quality hardware for prices others are finding hard to match. The tablet wars are a good example of this, where each has tried to match or beat the price of an iPad and failed since their product was considered comparable, but at a similar price, or even priced higher. Given those choices, people went with name recognition and word of mouth, and frankly Apple has good brand recognition among non-technical folk.
Incarceration is pointless if it's pleasant. They don't need XBox. Claiming that this will allow them to integrate into society any better is a fantasy unless you can support that with proof? You are equating lack of XBox to prisoner cruelty. Somehow I don't think that jives with reality. Just because they are in prison doesn't grant them rights to demand entertainment while they are there. They are given access to libraries, television, radio, fitness facilities, various board games, etc. They have managed without XBox. They can continue to do so. Denying them such isn't 'cruel'.
Regarding private prisons, although they exist, they are not the standard. Claiming they are keeping prisoners in for profit motive has nothing to do with the XBox topic. No idea why you went off on that tangent.
This does not mean they should be granted all the liberties given to free citizens. They can make do with TV, cards, checkers, chess, reading, or any other number of 'low tech' entertainments. Just because they are not rapists doesn't mean they need to be granted unnecessary, costly, and potentially dangerous internet access.
You are equating stripping 'XBox Rights' with some sort of 3rd world terror prison conditions of bread and water rations, and 4 cell walls and a bucket to piss in.
It would be a very leaky cage. Not every wall is iron.
They actually have complaints from prison areas because the prisons were trying to implement cell dampeners. I wouldn't be surprised if they did so with WifI to, but that leads me to another question. Why the hell would a prison get an XBox or PS3 to begin with? They aren't there to enjoy themselves.
Actually you can go so far as to lock down application installs via polices. We've implemented some basic ones to require pass codes, and auto-locks, but you can go further with the tools available.
I agree with your point regarding IT moving too slow. I think the recent advent of smart devices (computers in your pocket) has taken IT in general by surprise and many are still trying to cope with end user demands and coming out bruised and battered.
We're taking a separate tack and just embracing the consumer iOS devices (Android doesn't meet ISS requirements for closing security issues when relying on handset vendor updates).
Put a policy in place to require a minimum version to keep the IS Security folks happy, publish documentation to allow easy configuration for end users (ActiveSync is about as simple as it gets, especially with a word doc or something similar to guide them), and be prepared to manage end users calls in case of issues, or when you need to cut off a device for failing to maintain the minimum level required.
We implemented this over a year ago and it has been a great success with nearly a thousand of these devices connected and no major issues. About the only manual element is forcing end user upgrades which as upgrades go, are pretty painless. We notify them to upgrade, give them an end date to comply, send a final warning if they haven't, and cut them off if they continue to stay on an unsupported version.
As to the article's issues with contacts in the cloud, he should probably read the warnings when enabling sync (specifically the comments regarding 'merge' or 'keep' when referring to the local contacts or calendar. It's not rocket science. 'Keep' will keep a local copy, and merge will just merge everything in the cloud.
For those that have two calendars or sets of contacts and you want only one, turn off cloud sync, when prompted, delete your local contacts or calendar, then turn sync back on. It will then just start using only the cloud for contacts/calendars.
ActiveSync calendars/contacts are not synced, which is desirable for us from a security perspective.
There are only two password options for restrictions. A 15 minute timeout (after which you are required to enter a password), or an immediate setting. In-App purchases always require a password regardless of this setting.
You can optionally turn on the Restrictions (Settings -> General -> Restrictions) to enable more fine controls, for example to disable app purchases entirely, disable In-App purchases entirely, turn off browsing, Ping, etc, or to set an immediate password requirement for all purchases (In-App or otherwise).
The default is to require a password within a 15 minute window for regular purchases, and an immediate password for anything In-App. If your children do not have this password, they can't do in-app purchases.
Which is it, sales or shipped? I know we've seen this game time and time again. We also see iPhone sales take a nose dive before they release a new model.
Interesting from a tech perspective, but I'm more interested in longer term than a quarter where Apple released a new model.
3 of which are so common that free tools are abundant on pretty much any audiophile site on the web.
Are you now going to claim that MP3 and AAC are the precursors of doom to digital music? You'd be hard pressed to find any player that didn't support either these days.
No, the connectors that interface with the PC are standard USB or Firewire. This is FUD. Any MP3, AAC, AIFF, or WAV will work with an iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc. You are NOT required to use iTunes either. There are a multitude of alternatives (http://www.sourceforge.net). Even if you choose to use iTunes, it can be set to use MP3 if you don't like AAC.
I mean seriously, 2 seconds on Google would net you a decent list of alternatives without any effort at all:
Frankly I think some of the folks on here are so Anti-Apple they dont' even bother to verify what they post anymore. They just regurge the same bile that seems all too common in here these days.
Your examples are a bit off. For starters, Apple doesn't own the content they sell. They contract to sell it just as Netflix does. Their businesses are the same in that respect. Netflix is also the most popular streaming company out there but the number of folks who stream is probably still dwarfed by those who use phsical media.
Regarding the hardware, I think you were trying to indicate that Apple has a large hardware prescence (iPod/iPhone/iPad/Mac) that hooks directly into iTunes. That is also true for Netflix as pretty much any new TV comes with a Netflix 'app' when it's internet enabled. This is also true for a large number of media boxes, Disc players (blu-ray,dvd), etc, so in that respect, Netflix is also on common ground with Apple/iTunes. People will still buy these TV's and various players whether or not they had a Netflix app as well since there is a strong market for such media.
You are also indicating that piracy was actually more prevalent than people buying music. I would disagree with that. Althoug any technically skilled person may not bother in buying music, your average Joe/Jane will probably just buy it from a store, be that brick and mortar or online. Stating that the majority of music is stolen via copying is debatable.
I think the area where Netflix is a bit weaker than Apple is in regards to the streaming industry itself. Although they've been around a few years, they don't dominate the distribution of their media the way that Apple does with it's Music model. Althogh Netflix is a major streaming player, people still regularly rent physical disks from Redbox, local stores, online, Amazon, via purchase, etc. The difference being that music has become almost entrely digital these days. I know very few people who buy physical CD's anymore. It's just not worth the hassle.
Had Netflix had more time to mature and the market moved more towards digital distribution for video, then they would have had more leverage.
One more thing, although I hate replying to my own posts; it appears that Google Buzz is what prompted this.
The FTC case was prompted by the now-defunct Google Buzz social networking service. Google tried to tack Buzz onto Gmail users’ e-mail accounts, enabling them to provide status updates and to share photos and videos, but it created an uproar when it made users’ Gmail contacts public by default.
The commission charged that Google engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in 2010 when it launched Google Buzz by leading users of its Gmail system to believe that they could easily opt-out of the social network. The controls that would enable them to do that were ineffective, the FTC charged at the time.
Also the tools that Google created to enable users to limit the sharing of users’ personal information were confusing and difficult to find, the agency alleged.
In its complaint, the FTC said that Google had enrolled some Gmail users in Google Buzz even after the users had clicked on a tab to decline to use the service, and that the identities of people that Gmail account holders most frequently communicated with were made public by default. Worse, when users tried to get out of the service, they weren’t fully removed.
In short, Google badly handled the data they did have, they implemented infrastructure without protecting user data, misled users to believe that they could easily opt out, and failed to inform them as to what data would be shared.
Basically they fucked up, and badly. All this will do is have a review/audit of their privacy practices. The government has always had access to tools to request user data form Google and this doesn't change that at all. This is strictly relating to an audit of their privacy practices and policies. Given their fumbles recently, I think it's warranted.
Actually to go through your examples, many people dislike pictures of them taken if they are somewhere in which they don't want to be observed. Given the pervasiveness of Google as a search tool, email, docs, chat, and social network, that's a lot of data to entrust a company with who's sole purpose is to sell such data for profit. Given that, I don't think most care if their house is photographed (a few but I'd consider them a minority). Others were more concerned about the automated photos that caught people doing things that they may not particularly have wanted on the web and accessible to millions/billions of people. Regarding the salesmen, you actually go to a salesmen when you want to buy something, not when you want something taken from you and sold, or if you want to trade something of value for something else. Not a great example. The pictures of a house from a street are a non-issue to me and I would think to most except for a few prudes.
I think the storing of wireless information was more relevant. At some point someone had to look at such data, see that they were collecting info they shouldn't be, and stopped the practice, or better yet, set proper parameters on what to collect beforehand. It was irresponsible on Google's part. Something I would expect of a startup, not a company of Googles size and experience. It would extremely tempting to abuse such data to for a company based in data mining.
In Google's case it's far more likely that they have their hands on so much personal info, ranging from common web use, to location info, search info, interests, email, contacts, items you purchase, sites you visit or browse with any frequency, where you shop, sexual interests, dirty web habits, etc.
If Google is not doing anything wrong they they have absolutely nothing to fear, but blind faith that a corporation will always do the right thing is foolish, especially when you invest such faith in a for-profit company who's sole purpose is to sell your data.
You should probably tell that to the people who have been working on voice recognition for decades. There is an obvious want/need for it, and only now is the processing power available via either the net or locally to make it worthwhile. This has been the geek dream for years to be able to talk to their computer (star trek). Claiming it's a non-story smacks of a little envy. I have no doubt that the Android developers will eventually get something more workable and similar to Siri, but this is not it.
TFA does mention that the test was done on the article, probably due to the popularity of the phone, but it pretty much states flat out that any modern smartphone from the last 2 years would suffice if it has the required hardware.
“We first tried our experiments with an iPhone 3GS, and the results were difficult to read,” said Patrick Traynor, assistant professor in Georgia Tech’s School of Computer Science. “But then we tried an iPhone 4, which has an added gyroscope to clean up the accelerometer noise, and the results were much better. We believe that most smartphones made in the past two years are sophisticated enough to launch this attack.”
That was my thought. I use this in Safari and often tear a tab out when I need to view two web pages at once. I also often recombine when I'm done. I agree that adding an option to disable seems like a gimme. Some times developers can be a bit hard headed if they forget that the people who use it are the ones to make happy, not just themselves. This is a primary reason that Linux never gained any traction on the desktop. Too much of "why the hell would you want to do that". I've made this mistake before trying to ignore user input and it only causes poor product reception later.
To this day I think some of their requests were asinine but in the end, if someone wants a feature and it's an easy takeaway, then do it and avoid the drama.
Given the legal challenges to Android right now, I would imagine they don't want to put all of their eggs in one basket. I can't blame them. It could turn into a win if the OS is well accepted. The game isn't over till it's over. If anyone in recent history has taught us that, it's Apple.
Android popped up in a smartphone market ruled by iOS and is now a huge player. RIM could pull the same move, although the OS won't be available for free, it could gain them needed traction in a market that is quickly slipping away. RIM still has a sizable corporate advantage that isn't completely burned yet.
Should be interesting to see how things develop over the next few months.
Have you ever even looked at the evidence against Samsung? I'm guessing not since you posted Anonymous. They copied the design, the icons, the packaging, even the power adapter is identical. This isn't some 'vague look and feel', but pretty much straight clone. It is an obvious attempt to cash in on customer confusion.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that all of those things are child abuse right?
The above would all be social services business and the courts. Everyone's business? No.
Your teachers should have reported it. There is however, a difference between being beaten and being spanked, and no evidence of the former just because the girl is frightened and begging not to be spanked. There was also no history of any child abuse reported. Is it possible there was history? Certainly. Without proof you are assuming guilt. You would be considered a tainted jury member because you have personal bias.
I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up. Not radically different than this. You can bet I didn't do whatever caused the whipping again. Even then I didn't think it was abuse. I would bet it didn't look much different than this to an outsider. Spanking is also still legal in the U.S. as long as the force is reasonable. Hell it's still legal in a large number of schools as well (something like 21 states still allow corporal punishment). Claiming she was 'almost' an adult is like saying someone is 'almost' guilty. You either are or you aren't. If she was living in her fathers house, under his rules, and she is a minor, then it's appropriate that he is able to dole out punishments as long as they aren't excessive, or abusive.
TFA article states that there are no allegations of abuse on record:
He wasn't being investigated because the statue of limitations on such cases is 5 years. They have no legal course of action at this point. Although they did say the video would have warranted an investigation and they would have pursued charges based on the video.
I always find it interesting how a video like that turns every American into a model parent when in short, it's none of their damn business. If the child was 'abused' in the truest sense (bruises, black eyes, broken bones, etc), then by all means it should be reported and the father should be investigated. If the video is however making this look worse than it is (and I know of no way to judge how 'hard' she is being whipped), then this is nothing more than judging the man as guilty with no proof of abuse. The fact that there are no allegations of abuse doesn't help her case either. Looks to me like a father who probably lost his temper and a young woman playing to the internet 'jury' for sympathy and revenge.
Granted, he's scaring the hell out of his daughter in the video (probably with good reason), but unless there was evidence of such abuse then I think people should mind their own damn business.
I agree. I don't necessarily think this is about defending or prosecuting innocence or guilt, but rather the examining the means used to get them there.
This smacks of wire tapping. Surely there are other legal avenues they could have pursued to get from A to Z?
I really so no difference between this and a wire tap.
Wow, that comment took me by surprise, but I can't think of a more true statement. I suspect that's why they just don't understand Apple's success. The goto Geek was THE person to talk to about any PC purchase, and now they are the ones out of touch with the mainstream. That's not to say they don't know what's what in the tech world, but they simply don't seem to understand what drives today's computing generation. Even 10 years ago there was still an element of garage tech to PC's. They were mysterious to the general population, hard to learn to the laymen, and generally frightened the old folk.
Now the Geek factor isn't relevant, no one cares about Ghz, spindle speed, bus speed, etc. Unless somehow has a specific niche they need to fill, they typically can just buy what they want without the need to consult with their friendly PC geek. I have to wonder if the advent of these closed boxes (read: not upgradable) like laptop's, Mini's, smart phones, etc, have removed the need to know a geek to get your video card upgraded. No one does that anymore except for those that insist on using a desktop, and lets face it. Desktop's just aren't that mobile.
I also find the comments about 'seeing them everywhere' and arguments to the contrary a bit humorous. 100+ million sold. They are now impacting the netbook, Laptop, Low end Desktop PC, and gaming market and people are still calling them a fad. They have been selling like gang busters for 2 years straight, with no slowdown in sight and they are still a 'fad'. The disconnect here would be scary if it wasn't so funny.
Agreed. The 27" display in the higher end iMac is probably one of the best that I've owned. One of the first LED's that I can only increase the brightness about half way or it feels like it's burning my corneas ;)
Not only that, but these are manufacturer's we are talking about, not 'parts' places. It never ceases to amaze me that the technical folks here on slashdot can be so 'dumb' about basic economics. When a vendor sells you a PC, it has more costs to consider than just selling your a card, or a cooling tower, or a PC case., or a power supply. They have entire infrastructures to support, service contracts to maintain, advertising, facilities for stocking, vendor contracts, end user support, etc. Any geek who's built his own PC knows you can build for cheaper than you can buy a whole unit most of the time, yet they always hold this up as some sort of ding to Apple while ignoring what they already know to be the same for HP, Sony, Alienware, etc.
Buying individual parts from some piece mail online vendor like TigerDirect will never compare to a manufacturer's prices. They are two entirely different supply models. The still persistent claims that Macs are 2X and 3X more expensive than other offerings are just as ludicrous. Spend any time on HP, or IBM, or Sony's site and price out models and they generally come out to about the same price. In general they have a relatively level playing field in the PC market, and their prices reflect that. Factor in the OS costs, which are always extra, and the generally poor quality (read: plastic) crap that some of these folks shovel out and they are simply not worth it. It was a different game was the Desktop was king. Now with toss-away laptops, the game has changed, and buying cheap just isn't cost effective if it breaks in 1-3 years. I went through 2 HP's, 2 Sony's, and a Compaq (pre-HP takeover) with none of them lasting more than 3 years. The first Apple laptop I bought 4 years ago is still in perfect working condition, although I did wear out the power cord @ year 3 ($59 bucks). The sony's both ended up with broken USB ports and one had a power connector failure on the board side. The HP hinges broke, and the Compaq just failed outright (motherboard failure). That's the primary reason I switched and took a chance on Apple 4 years ago and I haven't regretted it.
Regarding tablet/phone market, that is another animal entirely. We know that Apple leverages it's extensive buying power to sew up vendors for goods like touch screens, batteries, memory, processors, etc. Buy in bulk, get em cheap, and get long term contracts. These do give Apple a price advantage. In the end, Apple is able to offer very good quality hardware for prices others are finding hard to match. The tablet wars are a good example of this, where each has tried to match or beat the price of an iPad and failed since their product was considered comparable, but at a similar price, or even priced higher. Given those choices, people went with name recognition and word of mouth, and frankly Apple has good brand recognition among non-technical folk.
Incarceration is pointless if it's pleasant. They don't need XBox. Claiming that this will allow them to integrate into society any better is a fantasy unless you can support that with proof? You are equating lack of XBox to prisoner cruelty. Somehow I don't think that jives with reality. Just because they are in prison doesn't grant them rights to demand entertainment while they are there. They are given access to libraries, television, radio, fitness facilities, various board games, etc. They have managed without XBox. They can continue to do so. Denying them such isn't 'cruel'.
Regarding private prisons, although they exist, they are not the standard. Claiming they are keeping prisoners in for profit motive has nothing to do with the XBox topic. No idea why you went off on that tangent.
This does not mean they should be granted all the liberties given to free citizens. They can make do with TV, cards, checkers, chess, reading, or any other number of 'low tech' entertainments. Just because they are not rapists doesn't mean they need to be granted unnecessary, costly, and potentially dangerous internet access.
You are equating stripping 'XBox Rights' with some sort of 3rd world terror prison conditions of bread and water rations, and 4 cell walls and a bucket to piss in.
Get a grip.
First Apocalyp.....
It would be a very leaky cage. Not every wall is iron.
They actually have complaints from prison areas because the prisons were trying to implement cell dampeners. I wouldn't be surprised if they did so with WifI to, but that leads me to another question. Why the hell would a prison get an XBox or PS3 to begin with? They aren't there to enjoy themselves.
Actually you can go so far as to lock down application installs via polices. We've implemented some basic ones to require pass codes, and auto-locks, but you can go further with the tools available.
I agree with your point regarding IT moving too slow. I think the recent advent of smart devices (computers in your pocket) has taken IT in general by surprise and many are still trying to cope with end user demands and coming out bruised and battered.
We're taking a separate tack and just embracing the consumer iOS devices (Android doesn't meet ISS requirements for closing security issues when relying on handset vendor updates).
Put a policy in place to require a minimum version to keep the IS Security folks happy, publish documentation to allow easy configuration for end users (ActiveSync is about as simple as it gets, especially with a word doc or something similar to guide them), and be prepared to manage end users calls in case of issues, or when you need to cut off a device for failing to maintain the minimum level required.
We implemented this over a year ago and it has been a great success with nearly a thousand of these devices connected and no major issues. About the only manual element is forcing end user upgrades which as upgrades go, are pretty painless. We notify them to upgrade, give them an end date to comply, send a final warning if they haven't, and cut them off if they continue to stay on an unsupported version.
As to the article's issues with contacts in the cloud, he should probably read the warnings when enabling sync (specifically the comments regarding 'merge' or 'keep' when referring to the local contacts or calendar. It's not rocket science. 'Keep' will keep a local copy, and merge will just merge everything in the cloud.
For those that have two calendars or sets of contacts and you want only one, turn off cloud sync, when prompted, delete your local contacts or calendar, then turn sync back on. It will then just start using only the cloud for contacts/calendars.
ActiveSync calendars/contacts are not synced, which is desirable for us from a security perspective.
There are only two password options for restrictions. A 15 minute timeout (after which you are required to enter a password), or an immediate setting. In-App purchases always require a password regardless of this setting.
You can optionally turn on the Restrictions (Settings -> General -> Restrictions) to enable more fine controls, for example to disable app purchases entirely, disable In-App purchases entirely, turn off browsing, Ping, etc, or to set an immediate password requirement for all purchases (In-App or otherwise).
The default is to require a password within a 15 minute window for regular purchases, and an immediate password for anything In-App. If your children do not have this password, they can't do in-app purchases.
Which is it, sales or shipped? I know we've seen this game time and time again. We also see iPhone sales take a nose dive before they release a new model.
Interesting from a tech perspective, but I'm more interested in longer term than a quarter where Apple released a new model.
3 of which are so common that free tools are abundant on pretty much any audiophile site on the web.
Are you now going to claim that MP3 and AAC are the precursors of doom to digital music? You'd be hard pressed to find any player that didn't support either these days.
No, the connectors that interface with the PC are standard USB or Firewire. This is FUD. Any MP3, AAC, AIFF, or WAV will work with an iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc. You are NOT required to use iTunes either. There are a multitude of alternatives (http://www.sourceforge.net). Even if you choose to use iTunes, it can be set to use MP3 if you don't like AAC.
I mean seriously, 2 seconds on Google would net you a decent list of alternatives without any effort at all:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/227348/apple_itunes_alternatives_make_managing_your_music_easy.html
Frankly I think some of the folks on here are so Anti-Apple they dont' even bother to verify what they post anymore. They just regurge the same bile that seems all too common in here these days.
Your examples are a bit off. For starters, Apple doesn't own the content they sell. They contract to sell it just as Netflix does. Their businesses are the same in that respect. Netflix is also the most popular streaming company out there but the number of folks who stream is probably still dwarfed by those who use phsical media.
Regarding the hardware, I think you were trying to indicate that Apple has a large hardware prescence (iPod/iPhone/iPad/Mac) that hooks directly into iTunes. That is also true for Netflix as pretty much any new TV comes with a Netflix 'app' when it's internet enabled. This is also true for a large number of media boxes, Disc players (blu-ray,dvd), etc, so in that respect, Netflix is also on common ground with Apple/iTunes. People will still buy these TV's and various players whether or not they had a Netflix app as well since there is a strong market for such media.
You are also indicating that piracy was actually more prevalent than people buying music. I would disagree with that. Althoug any technically skilled person may not bother in buying music, your average Joe/Jane will probably just buy it from a store, be that brick and mortar or online. Stating that the majority of music is stolen via copying is debatable.
I think the area where Netflix is a bit weaker than Apple is in regards to the streaming industry itself. Although they've been around a few years, they don't dominate the distribution of their media the way that Apple does with it's Music model. Althogh Netflix is a major streaming player, people still regularly rent physical disks from Redbox, local stores, online, Amazon, via purchase, etc. The difference being that music has become almost entrely digital these days. I know very few people who buy physical CD's anymore. It's just not worth the hassle.
Had Netflix had more time to mature and the market moved more towards digital distribution for video, then they would have had more leverage.
One more thing, although I hate replying to my own posts; it appears that Google Buzz is what prompted this.
In short, Google badly handled the data they did have, they implemented infrastructure without protecting user data, misled users to believe that they could easily opt out, and failed to inform them as to what data would be shared.
Basically they fucked up, and badly. All this will do is have a review/audit of their privacy practices. The government has always had access to tools to request user data form Google and this doesn't change that at all. This is strictly relating to an audit of their privacy practices and policies. Given their fumbles recently, I think it's warranted.
Actually to go through your examples, many people dislike pictures of them taken if they are somewhere in which they don't want to be observed. Given the pervasiveness of Google as a search tool, email, docs, chat, and social network, that's a lot of data to entrust a company with who's sole purpose is to sell such data for profit. Given that, I don't think most care if their house is photographed (a few but I'd consider them a minority). Others were more concerned about the automated photos that caught people doing things that they may not particularly have wanted on the web and accessible to millions/billions of people.
Regarding the salesmen, you actually go to a salesmen when you want to buy something, not when you want something taken from you and sold, or if you want to trade something of value for something else. Not a great example. The pictures of a house from a street are a non-issue to me and I would think to most except for a few prudes.
I think the storing of wireless information was more relevant. At some point someone had to look at such data, see that they were collecting info they shouldn't be, and stopped the practice, or better yet, set proper parameters on what to collect beforehand. It was irresponsible on Google's part. Something I would expect of a startup, not a company of Googles size and experience. It would extremely tempting to abuse such data to for a company based in data mining.
In Google's case it's far more likely that they have their hands on so much personal info, ranging from common web use, to location info, search info, interests, email, contacts, items you purchase, sites you visit or browse with any frequency, where you shop, sexual interests, dirty web habits, etc.
If Google is not doing anything wrong they they have absolutely nothing to fear, but blind faith that a corporation will always do the right thing is foolish, especially when you invest such faith in a for-profit company who's sole purpose is to sell your data.
Yes, just like the Windows folks have done in the mobile marke....oh...nevermind.
We'll just like they've done in the media player m...hmmm.
Well the Browser..crap.
Get off my lawn.
Absolutely. I'm doing it right now on the highwa#@#??AstXA
You should probably tell that to the people who have been working on voice recognition for decades. There is an obvious want/need for it, and only now is the processing power available via either the net or locally to make it worthwhile. This has been the geek dream for years to be able to talk to their computer (star trek). Claiming it's a non-story smacks of a little envy. I have no doubt that the Android developers will eventually get something more workable and similar to Siri, but this is not it.
The demo looks more like pre-alpha.
TFA does mention that the test was done on the article, probably due to the popularity of the phone, but it pretty much states flat out that any modern smartphone from the last 2 years would suffice if it has the required hardware.
That was my thought. I use this in Safari and often tear a tab out when I need to view two web pages at once. I also often recombine when I'm done. I agree that adding an option to disable seems like a gimme. Some times developers can be a bit hard headed if they forget that the people who use it are the ones to make happy, not just themselves. This is a primary reason that Linux never gained any traction on the desktop. Too much of "why the hell would you want to do that". I've made this mistake before trying to ignore user input and it only causes poor product reception later.
To this day I think some of their requests were asinine but in the end, if someone wants a feature and it's an easy takeaway, then do it and avoid the drama.
Given the legal challenges to Android right now, I would imagine they don't want to put all of their eggs in one basket. I can't blame them. It could turn into a win if the OS is well accepted. The game isn't over till it's over. If anyone in recent history has taught us that, it's Apple.
Android popped up in a smartphone market ruled by iOS and is now a huge player. RIM could pull the same move, although the OS won't be available for free, it could gain them needed traction in a market that is quickly slipping away. RIM still has a sizable corporate advantage that isn't completely burned yet.
Should be interesting to see how things develop over the next few months.
Have you ever even looked at the evidence against Samsung? I'm guessing not since you posted Anonymous. They copied the design, the icons, the packaging, even the power adapter is identical. This isn't some 'vague look and feel', but pretty much straight clone. It is an obvious attempt to cash in on customer confusion.
http://copyrightcommerceandculture.com/2011/05/12/did-samsung-copy-apples-iphone-ipad/
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/09/29/apple-samsung-copycat-2/
How can you look at the above links and call it 'vague'? Hell they even got caught using iPhone graphics on their own webpage.
http://feeds.appleinsider.com/click.phdo?i=d1a78f8d91e14e80da004b76d84dbe93
I mean seriously?