A single act (although a good one) doesn't encompass health care reform. Trying to compare the two is more than stretching it. This bill isn't a single bill passed about some facet of health care. This is reforming the entire system. The Ryan white act was actually passed in 1990. It was just reauthorized so it didn't expire. You should really do more homework before you post as much.
You last link is about a single republican wanting to create a free market health system in 2000, which went no where. Massachusetts took up the call again, but not until, wait for it...2006, which is when they lost both houses.
Try a little harder.
Increasing payments to HMO's isn't exactly reform either, it's just fueling the existing system.
Again, you're looking to assign blame where none exists. The responsible person is the app developer, not Apple. This same tack was tried with internet providers. If they were opened to legal action due to the malicious intent of others then there would be no internet providers. None would be crazy enough to enter into that legal nightmare. Any digital distribution for online software would be at risk, and would also disappear in short order I would imagine.
It's obvious you dislike the Apple model and it's closed system, but trying to imply responsibility on Apple for another's malice won't fly, just as it doesn't fly trying to hold internet providers responsible for what their users do. If this app is found to be breaking the rules, I have zero doubt it would be removed from the store and probably deleted from any iPhone that uses it. That is all Apple needs to do to secure it's user base. No further action would be required, other than refunding said purchase price, which I'm sure Apple would be suing the creators for recovery costs.
No play for play software producer would open the source on their currently selling software. At a minimum, should the charges prove true, I would think Apple will yank the app (potentially all apps from that vendor I would think). This is a pay app, not a free one.
I would also think that legal action, both by individuals, and by Apple is pretty much a given should it prove to be true.
They are not saying they are denied medical treatment. They are being denied insurance. You know,the thing that keeps you from getting that $120,000 dollar bill. The one that ruins your finances? Yeah, that one...
Lies? The republican party did NOTHING for 6 years when they had total control of both houses. They only started running on 'health' issues when they lost control of both houses and finally started listening to the people. Of course they had no choice at that point. They now had incentive. Even running on platforms of 'health care reform', they have done nothing for health care except to fight it tooth and nail. They didn't even have a plan until a week ago. Is the health care topic suddenly a surprise to them? They were shamed into producing it after repeated questions as to what THEIR plan was. They had nothing.
I don't need FUD. The facts speak for themselves. We have the last 8 years to look at for reference. The very moment the Dems took control of both houses, they started drafting legislations. Republicans had control for 6 years and never made a move.
I agree wholeheartedly. Any reasonable security measure that doesn't put undue burden on a developer should absolutely be implemented.
I suspect they may have to find a way to enforce use of such profiles at some point if they want to keep things tidy. I'm actually surprised they don't do so already.
I have to wonder if these in-game upgrades go through the same strenuous review process that the initial app does?
They never guarantee that they will remove all malware, although they reserve the right to ban any application that is deemed dangerous. Unless they were to visual verify every line of every code of every applications (there are what, over 100,000 apps?) then there is no way they can possibly prevent all malware.
I for one would prefer that they make the attempt, rather than taking the MS approach of relying on heuristics to identify them.
Yes, and if they call the ambulance, without medical insurance, they can be shackled with massive medical bills.
If you believe a bill can reside in a single page, you've never read a bill before. They are never that simple in practice. What does it matter as to how big the bill is in physical pages? This is not some simple bill effecting a single facet of health care.
You comparing a single state solution that doesn't address the larger cost issues. They are neither the same, nor could they be compared. The health bill is comprehensive across many areas, including controlling costs.
No, they are fundamentally different when it comes to social issues. Republicans have relied on the free market to provide, which isn't profitable when you factor the poor into the equation, hence the lack of interest. Dems have always pushed for more health care, and the republicans have always rejected it.
You do know this isn't the final bill right? There will most likely be two versions of the bill, one from the house, and one from the senate, that must be merged into a final bill? They managed to do so with only a single vote by a republican. It's not perfect. No bill is, but it IS an improvement over what we currently have, where people are outright denied any coverage at all. Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage because of medical conditions will be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. The industry would also lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation which is a huge win for the consumer. The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade..
As to the poor, the bill includes subsidies to help pay for their insurance when they cannot afford it. They won't be paying $2500 dollars. You sound like a poster child for a republican socialist/panic party. I seriously doubt anyone in the Republican party is the least concerned about the poor since they are always first in line to cut any benefits that they now use. I hate to break it to you,but if the poor don't' make any attempt at insurance, then everyone else picks up all the tab anyway. It's a 'no change change' with the proviso that they at least are forced to pick up some of the cost if they are able. You are already paying for the poor, except now they will hopefully seek treatment before the costs become overwhelming due to waiting too long.
If the Republican representatives were so repulsed by a 'government run health care system', then they would give up their own premium health care, which is run by the government I might add. Talk about the ultimate hypocrites. They already benefit from such a plan, and it's an excellent one at that. They also had many years of majority in both houses, and did absolutely nothing. They obviously had and still do not have the will to do what's needed.
All of this, and it cuts the deficit by 100 billion over the next 10 years? The republican party has lost it's mind.
Looking at TFA, it mentions a piece of the Act in question:
The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
It would seem he might have something when it comes to the Auction Site that sony runs, as I could see this fitting into that definition, but the game itself, no way. A game is not a public accommodation, it is a possession.
Because you haven't 'bought' a copy of OS X. You bought a license, which I shouldn't need to explain the difference. You are basically given limited use of said software, not wholesale ownership.
They allow you to make a choice. Choose not to upgrade. That's your choice as your already running in an unsupported configuration to begin with. If that unintentional functionality goes away, it doesn't hurt Apple's customers one bit as there is no hardware offered by Apple that uses an Atom processor. Existing folks who've actually purchased OS X rather than downloading it via some torrent can opt to stay at the current version. They were never offered a promise that OS X would run on Atom. Quite the opposite as it specifically states what OS X is designed to run on.
I don't understand this whole sense of entitlement attitude when it comes to Apple and the hackintosh crowd. Everyone assumes they MUST produce software or hardware compatibility for configurations that Apple doesn't even offer. If Apple doesn't want to support Atom, then they are well within their rights. They own the software. They only license it to the end user.
If you don't like their software, their hardware, or their choices, simply don't support them by buying their products. It's really is just that easy. If you bought the software to run it on unsupported hardware, then you have no voice with Apple to begin with. That's like buying bicycle tires, knowing they are intended for a bicycle, and then complaining when they don't work on your motorcycle.
You're assuming they know that the person who purchased OS X is running it on a valid piece of Mac hardware. That is where it would get ugly. These OSX86's look like standard hardware when you profile them in System Profile. Apple could waste a lot of time and resources troubleshooting 3rd party hardware without even knowing they were troubleshooting a hackintosh. Especially if they don't inventory all of the hardware, or the hardware matches an actual Mac for the key components.
Add to that that Psystar can't produce any receipts proving that they actually own any copies of OS X, and you have a pretty tight case against them. I know when this all started they stated they 'lost' the receipts and couldn't find them. They have no proof that they've purchased anything legally.
Just in case anyone is actually curious, Apple was the top pick for the lowest memory usage, and it was crapware free. Not much of a surprise. I totally agree with the HP and Sony results. I own laptops from both and they are full to the rim with shovelware.
From TFA: The Verdict: The Crapware Con Posted on 29 Oct 2009 at 14:53 It looks like crapware is here to stay, so what’s the best way to deal with it? Over the course of this feature, we’ve uncovered two important facts: first, no big-brand laptop (aside from Apple) is free from crapware, but it’s possible to buy a machine that’s noticeably faster and less cluttered than many of its competitors.
We also found that several manufacturers were more guilty than others when it came to adding unwanted software – with Acer, Sony and HP being the worst offenders.
The Acer, for instance, offered an unnecessary Windows Media Center clone and 19 games with only 60 minutes of play, while the Sony VAIO VGN-NS30E/S took more than three minutes to boot. HP’s Pavilion dv6 was little better, with a poor boot time, sluggish performance and flawed applications. The Dell and Asus machines both included genuinely useful applications and also offered swift boot times and good performance elsewhere
Other machines, meanwhile, proved far more palatable, offering the holy grail of decent software that didn’t prove too taxing on hardware. The Dell and Asus machines both included genuinely useful applications and also offered swift boot times and good performance elsewhere. Further analysis reveals that, when it comes to performance, it’s the proprietary software that does the most damage. McAfee Security Center, for instance, is present on five of the machines we’ve tested – and their boot times and performance figures spread the gamut from the Dell’s speed to the Sony’s sluggish excess.
Likewise, Norton products sit on both the quick Asus and slow HP machines, and Roxio Creator is present on the relatively nippy Lenovo as well as the Sony VAIO.
The three slowest systems on test are those that cram in proprietary software. The Acer was stuffed with games, media applications and other tools, and the HP system contained children’s desktop software, games and HP’s own Total Care Advisor.
The Sony VAIO, this month’s slowest laptop, boasted a desktop dock, VAIO-branded utilities and the all-encompassing Me & My VAIO media suite.
What about Fire services? Police? Not all services are required by everyone at all times, but they should be available. Internet has become another utility and should be treated as such.
They simply need to take over the pipe like any utility, and then rent the pipe to broadband providers. That would ease the issues with getting things like fiber layed out, while opening up the market to competition. I think one of the biggest hurdles is getting permits and licensing to actually lay the pipes themselves. Too expensive, time consuming, and too political.
Internet has become just like any other utility. It should be treated that way.
Unless anyone has forgotten, it was the deregulation of cable that caused an explosion in pricing. It's also allowed these markets to become limited to one or possibly two providers if your lucky. Now these exclusive agreements is preventing anyone else from entering the market. If the government takes over the pipes and then just rents those to providers at a fair price, it would remove that hurdle and open up competition.
There is no competition now and painful pricing is the obvious result.
Was that supposed to be clever? Apple owns OS X. No one claimed they owned BSD. OS X was developed, marketed, and sold by Apple. It is not BSD, although it has it's roots in BSD. NeXT was based on FreeBSD and NetBSD. OS X was derived from NeXT.
Think you could do better? It's perfectly legal to take open source, package it, and sell it if the license allows. Take the path that Apple did. Of course you'd need developers, tons of money, and then more cash to market it. They own OS X. Any arguments to the contrary are just slight of hand.
Psystar didn't do that. They took a product owned by someone else and sold it as their own. Hell, they are doing the same thing to the OSX86 community and all their work. I find it curious that people will try to defend Psystar when they are turning their thumbs at the very same open source community.
Do you really hear yourself? Apple could care less if Joe User comes in, buys OS X, and makes a hackintosh. They do care when some business comes in, takes their intellectual property, packages it in competing hardware, and sells it as their own. I'm also sure they do have a problem with folks who go out and download it via Torrent. Psystar can't even prove that they bought OS X. They 'lost' their receipts. Funny thing that...
There is nothing 'dubious' about it. Apple owns OS X. They can license it to whoever they choose. You may not like it, but that doesn't make what Psystar is doing right. If someone else tries to make profit off of Apples product without license from Apple, then Apple is absolutely within their rights to prevent it.
Think you can do it better, than purchase something Like NeXT and design your own with your own time and money and then Open Source your result.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple doesn't claim to stop Malware. Please point out where they claim this.
Are you implying that they knowingly 'allowed' a known app that collects personal information into the App store?
A single act (although a good one) doesn't encompass health care reform. Trying to compare the two is more than stretching it. This bill isn't a single bill passed about some facet of health care. This is reforming the entire system. The Ryan white act was actually passed in 1990. It was just reauthorized so it didn't expire. You should really do more homework before you post as much.
You last link is about a single republican wanting to create a free market health system in 2000, which went no where. Massachusetts took up the call again, but not until, wait for it...2006, which is when they lost both houses.
Try a little harder.
Increasing payments to HMO's isn't exactly reform either, it's just fueling the existing system.
Again, you're looking to assign blame where none exists. The responsible person is the app developer, not Apple. This same tack was tried with internet providers. If they were opened to legal action due to the malicious intent of others then there would be no internet providers. None would be crazy enough to enter into that legal nightmare. Any digital distribution for online software would be at risk, and would also disappear in short order I would imagine.
It's obvious you dislike the Apple model and it's closed system, but trying to imply responsibility on Apple for another's malice won't fly, just as it doesn't fly trying to hold internet providers responsible for what their users do. If this app is found to be breaking the rules, I have zero doubt it would be removed from the store and probably deleted from any iPhone that uses it. That is all Apple needs to do to secure it's user base. No further action would be required, other than refunding said purchase price, which I'm sure Apple would be suing the creators for recovery costs.
No play for play software producer would open the source on their currently selling software. At a minimum, should the charges prove true, I would think Apple will yank the app (potentially all apps from that vendor I would think). This is a pay app, not a free one.
I would also think that legal action, both by individuals, and by Apple is pretty much a given should it prove to be true.
They are not saying they are denied medical treatment. They are being denied insurance. You know,the thing that keeps you from getting that $120,000 dollar bill. The one that ruins your finances? Yeah, that one...
Lies? The republican party did NOTHING for 6 years when they had total control of both houses. They only started running on 'health' issues when they lost control of both houses and finally started listening to the people. Of course they had no choice at that point. They now had incentive. Even running on platforms of 'health care reform', they have done nothing for health care except to fight it tooth and nail. They didn't even have a plan until a week ago. Is the health care topic suddenly a surprise to them? They were shamed into producing it after repeated questions as to what THEIR plan was. They had nothing.
I don't need FUD. The facts speak for themselves. We have the last 8 years to look at for reference. The very moment the Dems took control of both houses, they started drafting legislations. Republicans had control for 6 years and never made a move.
I agree wholeheartedly. Any reasonable security measure that doesn't put undue burden on a developer should absolutely be implemented.
I suspect they may have to find a way to enforce use of such profiles at some point if they want to keep things tidy. I'm actually surprised they don't do so already.
I have to wonder if these in-game upgrades go through the same strenuous review process that the initial app does?
> IANAL, but a content provider that facilitates distribution of malware/spyware through its portal must be culpable to some extent?
No they aren't. You should know better if you're on this site. That's like saying the internet providers are responsible for all malware.
They check apps for content and for duplicated functionality. They don't do a line by line review of every piece of code, nor do they claim to do so.
They never guarantee that they will remove all malware, although they reserve the right to ban any application that is deemed dangerous. Unless they were to visual verify every line of every code of every applications (there are what, over 100,000 apps?) then there is no way they can possibly prevent all malware.
I for one would prefer that they make the attempt, rather than taking the MS approach of relying on heuristics to identify them.
Yes, and if they call the ambulance, without medical insurance, they can be shackled with massive medical bills.
If you believe a bill can reside in a single page, you've never read a bill before. They are never that simple in practice. What does it matter as to how big the bill is in physical pages? This is not some simple bill effecting a single facet of health care.
You comparing a single state solution that doesn't address the larger cost issues. They are neither the same, nor could they be compared. The health bill is comprehensive across many areas, including controlling costs.
No, they are fundamentally different when it comes to social issues. Republicans have relied on the free market to provide, which isn't profitable when you factor the poor into the equation, hence the lack of interest. Dems have always pushed for more health care, and the republicans have always rejected it.
You do know this isn't the final bill right? There will most likely be two versions of the bill, one from the house, and one from the senate, that must be merged into a final bill? They managed to do so with only a single vote by a republican. It's not perfect. No bill is, but it IS an improvement over what we currently have, where people are outright denied any coverage at all. Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage because of medical conditions will be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. The industry would also lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation which is a huge win for the consumer. The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade..
As to the poor, the bill includes subsidies to help pay for their insurance when they cannot afford it. They won't be paying $2500 dollars. You sound like a poster child for a republican socialist/panic party. I seriously doubt anyone in the Republican party is the least concerned about the poor since they are always first in line to cut any benefits that they now use. I hate to break it to you,but if the poor don't' make any attempt at insurance, then everyone else picks up all the tab anyway. It's a 'no change change' with the proviso that they at least are forced to pick up some of the cost if they are able. You are already paying for the poor, except now they will hopefully seek treatment before the costs become overwhelming due to waiting too long.
If the Republican representatives were so repulsed by a 'government run health care system', then they would give up their own premium health care, which is run by the government I might add. Talk about the ultimate hypocrites. They already benefit from such a plan, and it's an excellent one at that. They also had many years of majority in both houses, and did absolutely nothing. They obviously had and still do not have the will to do what's needed.
All of this, and it cuts the deficit by 100 billion over the next 10 years? The republican party has lost it's mind.
Looking at TFA, it mentions a piece of the Act in question:
The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
It would seem he might have something when it comes to the Auction Site that sony runs, as I could see this fitting into that definition, but the game itself, no way. A game is not a public accommodation, it is a possession.
Because you haven't 'bought' a copy of OS X. You bought a license, which I shouldn't need to explain the difference. You are basically given limited use of said software, not wholesale ownership.
That might have worked, if he wasn't actually selling the hacked modems.
They allow you to make a choice. Choose not to upgrade. That's your choice as your already running in an unsupported configuration to begin with. If that unintentional functionality goes away, it doesn't hurt Apple's customers one bit as there is no hardware offered by Apple that uses an Atom processor. Existing folks who've actually purchased OS X rather than downloading it via some torrent can opt to stay at the current version. They were never offered a promise that OS X would run on Atom. Quite the opposite as it specifically states what OS X is designed to run on.
I don't understand this whole sense of entitlement attitude when it comes to Apple and the hackintosh crowd. Everyone assumes they MUST produce software or hardware compatibility for configurations that Apple doesn't even offer. If Apple doesn't want to support Atom, then they are well within their rights. They own the software. They only license it to the end user.
If you don't like their software, their hardware, or their choices, simply don't support them by buying their products. It's really is just that easy. If you bought the software to run it on unsupported hardware, then you have no voice with Apple to begin with. That's like buying bicycle tires, knowing they are intended for a bicycle, and then complaining when they don't work on your motorcycle.
To my knowledge, they haven't produced any evidence at all that they've purchased OS X, including any boxes.
You're assuming they know that the person who purchased OS X is running it on a valid piece of Mac hardware. That is where it would get ugly. These OSX86's look like standard hardware when you profile them in System Profile. Apple could waste a lot of time and resources troubleshooting 3rd party hardware without even knowing they were troubleshooting a hackintosh. Especially if they don't inventory all of the hardware, or the hardware matches an actual Mac for the key components.
Add to that that Psystar can't produce any receipts proving that they actually own any copies of OS X, and you have a pretty tight case against them. I know when this all started they stated they 'lost' the receipts and couldn't find them. They have no proof that they've purchased anything legally.
I'm sorry, but that needed a much deserved ROFLMAO, both for the parent, and the Whooosh ;)
Just in case anyone is actually curious, Apple was the top pick for the lowest memory usage, and it was crapware free. Not much of a surprise. I totally agree with the HP and Sony results. I own laptops from both and they are full to the rim with shovelware.
From TFA:
The Verdict: The Crapware Con
Posted on 29 Oct 2009 at 14:53
It looks like crapware is here to stay, so what’s the best way to deal with it?
Over the course of this feature, we’ve uncovered two important facts: first, no big-brand laptop (aside from Apple) is free from crapware, but it’s possible to buy a machine that’s noticeably faster and less cluttered than many of its competitors.
We also found that several manufacturers were more guilty than others when it came to adding unwanted software – with Acer, Sony and HP being the worst offenders.
The Acer, for instance, offered an unnecessary Windows Media Center clone and 19 games with only 60 minutes of play, while the Sony VAIO VGN-NS30E/S took more than three minutes to boot. HP’s Pavilion dv6 was little better, with a poor boot time, sluggish performance and flawed applications.
The Dell and Asus machines both included genuinely useful applications and also offered swift boot times and good performance elsewhere
Other machines, meanwhile, proved far more palatable, offering the holy grail of decent software that didn’t prove too taxing on hardware. The Dell and Asus machines both included genuinely useful applications and also offered swift boot times and good performance elsewhere.
Further analysis reveals that, when it comes to performance, it’s the proprietary software that does the most damage. McAfee Security Center, for instance, is present on five of the machines we’ve tested – and their boot times and performance figures spread the gamut from the Dell’s speed to the Sony’s sluggish excess.
Likewise, Norton products sit on both the quick Asus and slow HP machines, and Roxio Creator is present on the relatively nippy Lenovo as well as the Sony VAIO.
The three slowest systems on test are those that cram in proprietary software. The Acer was stuffed with games, media applications and other tools, and the HP system contained children’s desktop software, games and HP’s own Total Care Advisor.
The Sony VAIO, this month’s slowest laptop, boasted a desktop dock, VAIO-branded utilities and the all-encompassing Me & My VAIO media suite.
What about Fire services? Police? Not all services are required by everyone at all times, but they should be available. Internet has become another utility and should be treated as such.
They simply need to take over the pipe like any utility, and then rent the pipe to broadband providers. That would ease the issues with getting things like fiber layed out, while opening up the market to competition. I think one of the biggest hurdles is getting permits and licensing to actually lay the pipes themselves. Too expensive, time consuming, and too political.
Internet has become just like any other utility. It should be treated that way.
Unless anyone has forgotten, it was the deregulation of cable that caused an explosion in pricing. It's also allowed these markets to become limited to one or possibly two providers if your lucky. Now these exclusive agreements is preventing anyone else from entering the market. If the government takes over the pipes and then just rents those to providers at a fair price, it would remove that hurdle and open up competition.
There is no competition now and painful pricing is the obvious result.
Was that supposed to be clever? Apple owns OS X. No one claimed they owned BSD. OS X was developed, marketed, and sold by Apple. It is not BSD, although it has it's roots in BSD. NeXT was based on FreeBSD and NetBSD. OS X was derived from NeXT.
Think you could do better? It's perfectly legal to take open source, package it, and sell it if the license allows. Take the path that Apple did. Of course you'd need developers, tons of money, and then more cash to market it. They own OS X. Any arguments to the contrary are just slight of hand.
Psystar didn't do that. They took a product owned by someone else and sold it as their own. Hell, they are doing the same thing to the OSX86 community and all their work. I find it curious that people will try to defend Psystar when they are turning their thumbs at the very same open source community.
Can you name a single instance where Apple has prosecuted someone for making a hackintosh in their home?
Do you really hear yourself? Apple could care less if Joe User comes in, buys OS X , and makes a hackintosh. They do care when some business comes in, takes their intellectual property, packages it in competing hardware, and sells it as their own. I'm also sure they do have a problem with folks who go out and download it via Torrent. Psystar can't even prove that they bought OS X. They 'lost' their receipts. Funny thing that...
There is nothing 'dubious' about it. Apple owns OS X. They can license it to whoever they choose. You may not like it, but that doesn't make what Psystar is doing right. If someone else tries to make profit off of Apples product without license from Apple, then Apple is absolutely within their rights to prevent it.
Think you can do it better, than purchase something Like NeXT and design your own with your own time and money and then Open Source your result.