That's a bit arse-over-tit, isn't it? Apple is certainly not going to take Google's or FB's word that their in-house apps are only being used in-house after this fiasco -- that's the trust that's been destroyed.
No, the short sighted act that had consequences was Google's and FB's decisions to abuse Enterprise Dev certificates. Apple's response is a strategic act to protect the long term value of Enterprise Dev certs and disincentivise corporations who want to lie their way into the program and into their consumers' devices.
You're not too clear on how this whole quote thing works, are you? People with more than two brain cells to rub together understand that writers use quote marks to surround text that other people have actually written. Not text that constitutes a weird straw man that they would like someone else to have written.
This is a fairly basic part of how English works that kids normally master by age 8. Why would you write in such a way that you appear less capable than a typical 8 year old? If you're going to try to excoriate me with your rapier wit, can't you do so in a way that doesn't involve childish misrepresentations that undermine the excoriation?
Building alliances and co-investing is how you do it. America didn't persuade the other countries to sign up to 5 Eyes by threatening sanctions, for example. You're still stuck in a mindset of all stick and no carrot, and complaining that the stick is broken and you lack the will to wield it. Well, fix the stick, grow the balls to use it, and use the carrot too -- the carrot of using the carrot might persuade more folks to support you when you use the stick, both domestically and overseas.
Time was, Americans, including conservatives, understood and valued soft power and diplomacy -- which is entirely the art of getting countries to shift their position without the need for force. When did you become such a wimp as to think that just because someone says "I don't want to stop doing X", America should just give up and go home? Hearing a nation say that as an opening gambit was precisely the point at which America used to use its influence to drive change.
Your Manichean view of the toolkit and choices available to America is impoverished and weaselly. Put your big boy pants back on and go and persuade other countries the way you used to.
"All men and women die; no amount of free healthcare will change that, it will only make the misery in the mean-time worse." What is the implication of the qualifier "free" in that sentence? Do you think that *paid* healthcare can change the fact we all die?
Because if not, you seem to be arguing that all healthcare is futile. Which is a pretty fucking stupid argument. The purpose of healthcare is not to prevent death, but to add years to life, and life to years. Technically, compression of morbidity and a rise in QALYs for a population.
Healthcare also turns out to be not *quite* so simple as "each man is an island". Infectious disease, mental health, prevention, the requirement for risk pooling for everyone who's not a multi-millionaire...
Grow up. Engage with the issues properly. Stop living life as simple rhetoric and engage with the world as it actually is.
Yup. We've had about 4 decades of exactly that, with the rich taking more and more from the poor. Redistribution in the other direction can't come quickly enough.
They're more secure, especially compared to physical card payments in the US, which are just antediluvian. Apple Pay is significantly more secure and it's also more private, much to the chagrin of They're more flexible, for example you can pay over the web using the same mechanism, and you can use them on London public transport (and no card clash either), and you can pay friends remotely (US only) They're potentially more convenient, for example using Apple Pay on a Watch is exceptionally fast, and you don't never have to type in a PIN on a keypad cf the £30 limit in the UK for contactless credit cards.
Lots of other things. And maybe none is interesting to you. But it's certainly attractive to lots of other folks.
Instead, what happens is you have the same number of cars, much more closely spaced, driving slowly and taking longer to get to their destination.
You won't have the same number of cars. You'll have more and more cars.
You mis-read me. I said if you increase congestion in London, you won't reduce the number of cars; the number of cars will remain broadly the same. As indeed has been the case for the last decade.
London has a low rate of car journeys as a percentage of total journeys, and that would absolutely skyrocket if you gave the cars more room. The low rate of car journeys is there despite the rather sorry state of the London Underground these days. Making cycling viable would reduce the car journeys even more, assuming that you use the freed-up space for bike lanes and not for letting more cars in.
You complain that I insulted you because I said you were talking with authority about London despite not knowing much about the city, but you keep on making egregious errors of fact. Here are three in just that paragraph: 1. You can't "give cars more room" in London in any meaningful way because the built environment is too dense. You can't widen a material number of roads, for example. No-one is going to agree to buildings being knocked down in significant numbers. Instead, congestion levels are managed through road fees and traffic flow (eg traffic lights, traffic islands, pedestrian crossings, etc). 2. London Underground is not in a sorry state. The only reason I can imagine you think that is you've read some articles online and that's given you a false sense of how it's functioning. But a few news stories don't give anywhere near a reasonable picture, and on all metrics that matter to passengers, LU has improved in recent years (finances are another issue). See https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/p... for example. Also, passenger numbers have been trending up for at least a decade. That wouldn't happen if the tube was in a sorry state. People would switch to buses (which carry twice as many passengers as the tube). They wouldn't get in cars in significant numbers though. 3. Cycling is already viable in London. Boris bikes, cycle lanes, and now cycle superhighways have been introduced, with more to come. These typically involve taking some or all of a lane and dedicating it to bikes only. On those roads, the traffic in the remaining lanes increases and slows down, and pollution worsens. The bike lanes are still a good idea, but they're not going to shift people out of vehicles, because private cars are the only traffic where drivers could be encouraged to use a bike as an alternative mode, and private cars are only a small fraction of the vehicles on London's roads. A van, minicab, black cab, bus or lorry is not substitutable with a bike from the perspective of the driver. In fact, minicabs in particular have significantly increased in number (thanks Uber and AddLee) despite congestion.
Congestion only slows buses down when you let it. If it does, you make more bus lanes and dedicate some roads to public transport, further increasing congestion for cars.
Bus lanes don't prevent congestion from slowing buses down. I mean, honestly I take the bus down the Finchley Road with my kids every morning, and it goes down a bus lane and it goes really frigging slowly due to congestion. Because London has narrow roads and it takes just one lorry in the middle lane to make it impossible for a bus to pass by in the bus lane. Never mind vehicles turning onto and off the road. The pollution is awful because of the vast numbers of vehicles on the road -- the entire road is bumper to bumper for miles with slowly moving cars, so the exhaust fumes really build up. There is zero prospect of dedicating Finchley Road to public transport because it's a major arterial route for commerce.
No no no. You are not thinking about this at all correctly. You are assuming that congestion forces a material number of cars off the road. Instead, what happens is you have the same number of cars, much more closely spaced, driving slowly and taking longer to get to their destination. Each car emits substantially more pollution. Take a look at the LAQN map during the weekday peak when traffic is at its slowest and you will see what I mean.
London is heavily congested, and most people don't drive, and the streets are full of idling vehicles and the air is absolutely foul as a result. The strategy of congesting the roads, as opposed to preventing cars from using them at all, has worsened pollution. That's precisely why the Mayor is introducing the ULEZ -- because air quality is so poor, and the congestion charge has been unable to reduce traffic and pollution levels (car ownership has been essentially static at about 55% for a decade, while pollution has worsened in that period). In addition, congestion slows buses down (even accounting for bus lanes), and as buses slow down, so usage levels fall, and getting people out of cars and on to buses delivers a significant net reduction in pollution levels.
Do you actually live in London or have you just been talking with authority about a place you don't know?
What? What? This makes zero sense. As congestion increases, so more and more cars are driving slowly or at a standstill, idling. Pollution increases in gridlock, it doesn't decrease. The loss of a lane doesn't change that materially, and in any event, that strategy only makes sense where there is a marginal lane to remove, which doesn't describe the vast majority of London (where most major roads already have dedicated bus lanes).
Deliberately increasing congestion won't lower pollution. Banning cars works. Taxing them works, to a degree. Both policies are implemented in some parts of Europe.
How this got marked insightful is beyond me. Explain again how increasing congestion reduces pollution levels? Did I blink and suddenly EV market penetration is approaching 100%?
London's a big, busy city. Every mode of transport is uncomfortable from time to time -- driving is a pain, cycling and walking gets you a faceful of fumes, etc. But it's London, and the upsides far outweigh these inconveniences for me and millions of others.
1) The public highway is publicly owned, with regulation of who is allowed to drive on it, and how they must drive. Licence plates and drivers' licences are required to drive on the public highway precisely because there is not the same expectation of privacy as there is on private land.
2) Privacy isn't binary. There are degrees of loss of privacy. "Being tracked every second... you're outside your own home" is clearly dramatically more intrusive than "having your licence plate recorded when you drive past any of the X speed cameras in your neighbourhood". And if X is 10000, that's clearly more intrusive than if X is 1.
It's not just about that, though. The vast majority of crashes aren't caused by people driving idiotically; they're caused by a momentary lapse of attention or a misjudgement or a tire slipping etc. And they are a lot more serious at 40 than 30, because KE equals half m v squared.
Setting speed limits in the US tends to be done by politicians, not by engineers.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? How would politicians do this? Do you imagine that speed limits on individual roads are set by legislatures? How would this possibly even work?
Obviously it's not a coincidence. It's also not a conspiracy.
It's road engineers looking at crash data and determining that people are consistently getting injured and killed on a section of road and a lower speed limit and better enforcement are needed.
Just a wild thought here, but perhaps speed limits are set based on the likelihood of crashes that cause serious injury or death as determined by road engineers, rather than your wildly inaccurate perspective about what is the "right" speed for a particular road.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a bit arse-over-tit, isn't it? Apple is certainly not going to take Google's or FB's word that their in-house apps are only being used in-house after this fiasco -- that's the trust that's been destroyed.
No, the short sighted act that had consequences was Google's and FB's decisions to abuse Enterprise Dev certificates. Apple's response is a strategic act to protect the long term value of Enterprise Dev certs and disincentivise corporations who want to lie their way into the program and into their consumers' devices.
You're not too clear on how this whole quote thing works, are you? People with more than two brain cells to rub together understand that writers use quote marks to surround text that other people have actually written. Not text that constitutes a weird straw man that they would like someone else to have written.
This is a fairly basic part of how English works that kids normally master by age 8. Why would you write in such a way that you appear less capable than a typical 8 year old? If you're going to try to excoriate me with your rapier wit, can't you do so in a way that doesn't involve childish misrepresentations that undermine the excoriation?
Building alliances and co-investing is how you do it. America didn't persuade the other countries to sign up to 5 Eyes by threatening sanctions, for example. You're still stuck in a mindset of all stick and no carrot, and complaining that the stick is broken and you lack the will to wield it. Well, fix the stick, grow the balls to use it, and use the carrot too -- the carrot of using the carrot might persuade more folks to support you when you use the stick, both domestically and overseas.
Thanks! Not sure luck will be needed, though, seeing as you guys are so set on making yourselves dumber and dumber.
It's a dial, not a switch. The more each country does, the better.
Time was, Americans, including conservatives, understood and valued soft power and diplomacy -- which is entirely the art of getting countries to shift their position without the need for force. When did you become such a wimp as to think that just because someone says "I don't want to stop doing X", America should just give up and go home? Hearing a nation say that as an opening gambit was precisely the point at which America used to use its influence to drive change.
Your Manichean view of the toolkit and choices available to America is impoverished and weaselly. Put your big boy pants back on and go and persuade other countries the way you used to.
"All men and women die; no amount of free healthcare will change that, it will only make the misery in the mean-time worse."
What is the implication of the qualifier "free" in that sentence? Do you think that *paid* healthcare can change the fact we all die?
Because if not, you seem to be arguing that all healthcare is futile. Which is a pretty fucking stupid argument. The purpose of healthcare is not to prevent death, but to add years to life, and life to years. Technically, compression of morbidity and a rise in QALYs for a population.
Healthcare also turns out to be not *quite* so simple as "each man is an island". Infectious disease, mental health, prevention, the requirement for risk pooling for everyone who's not a multi-millionaire...
Grow up. Engage with the issues properly. Stop living life as simple rhetoric and engage with the world as it actually is.
Yup. We've had about 4 decades of exactly that, with the rich taking more and more from the poor. Redistribution in the other direction can't come quickly enough.
They're more secure, especially compared to physical card payments in the US, which are just antediluvian. Apple Pay is significantly more secure and it's also more private, much to the chagrin of
They're more flexible, for example you can pay over the web using the same mechanism, and you can use them on London public transport (and no card clash either), and you can pay friends remotely (US only)
They're potentially more convenient, for example using Apple Pay on a Watch is exceptionally fast, and you don't never have to type in a PIN on a keypad cf the £30 limit in the UK for contactless credit cards.
Lots of other things. And maybe none is interesting to you. But it's certainly attractive to lots of other folks.
Articles like this remind me of just how weird the US is compared to the rest of the West. And not in a good way. See also: government shutdown.
Instead, what happens is you have the same number of cars, much more closely spaced, driving slowly and taking longer to get to their destination.
You won't have the same number of cars. You'll have more and more cars.
You mis-read me. I said if you increase congestion in London, you won't reduce the number of cars; the number of cars will remain broadly the same. As indeed has been the case for the last decade.
London has a low rate of car journeys as a percentage of total journeys, and that would absolutely skyrocket if you gave the cars more room. The low rate of car journeys is there despite the rather sorry state of the London Underground these days. Making cycling viable would reduce the car journeys even more, assuming that you use the freed-up space for bike lanes and not for letting more cars in.
You complain that I insulted you because I said you were talking with authority about London despite not knowing much about the city, but you keep on making egregious errors of fact. Here are three in just that paragraph:
1. You can't "give cars more room" in London in any meaningful way because the built environment is too dense. You can't widen a material number of roads, for example. No-one is going to agree to buildings being knocked down in significant numbers. Instead, congestion levels are managed through road fees and traffic flow (eg traffic lights, traffic islands, pedestrian crossings, etc).
2. London Underground is not in a sorry state. The only reason I can imagine you think that is you've read some articles online and that's given you a false sense of how it's functioning. But a few news stories don't give anywhere near a reasonable picture, and on all metrics that matter to passengers, LU has improved in recent years (finances are another issue). See https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/p... for example. Also, passenger numbers have been trending up for at least a decade. That wouldn't happen if the tube was in a sorry state. People would switch to buses (which carry twice as many passengers as the tube). They wouldn't get in cars in significant numbers though.
3. Cycling is already viable in London. Boris bikes, cycle lanes, and now cycle superhighways have been introduced, with more to come. These typically involve taking some or all of a lane and dedicating it to bikes only. On those roads, the traffic in the remaining lanes increases and slows down, and pollution worsens. The bike lanes are still a good idea, but they're not going to shift people out of vehicles, because private cars are the only traffic where drivers could be encouraged to use a bike as an alternative mode, and private cars are only a small fraction of the vehicles on London's roads. A van, minicab, black cab, bus or lorry is not substitutable with a bike from the perspective of the driver. In fact, minicabs in particular have significantly increased in number (thanks Uber and AddLee) despite congestion.
Congestion only slows buses down when you let it. If it does, you make more bus lanes and dedicate some roads to public transport, further increasing congestion for cars.
Bus lanes don't prevent congestion from slowing buses down. I mean, honestly I take the bus down the Finchley Road with my kids every morning, and it goes down a bus lane and it goes really frigging slowly due to congestion. Because London has narrow roads and it takes just one lorry in the middle lane to make it impossible for a bus to pass by in the bus lane. Never mind vehicles turning onto and off the road. The pollution is awful because of the vast numbers of vehicles on the road -- the entire road is bumper to bumper for miles with slowly moving cars, so the exhaust fumes really build up. There is zero prospect of dedicating Finchley Road to public transport because it's a major arterial route for commerce.
No no no. You are not thinking about this at all correctly. You are assuming that congestion forces a material number of cars off the road. Instead, what happens is you have the same number of cars, much more closely spaced, driving slowly and taking longer to get to their destination. Each car emits substantially more pollution. Take a look at the LAQN map during the weekday peak when traffic is at its slowest and you will see what I mean.
London is heavily congested, and most people don't drive, and the streets are full of idling vehicles and the air is absolutely foul as a result. The strategy of congesting the roads, as opposed to preventing cars from using them at all, has worsened pollution. That's precisely why the Mayor is introducing the ULEZ -- because air quality is so poor, and the congestion charge has been unable to reduce traffic and pollution levels (car ownership has been essentially static at about 55% for a decade, while pollution has worsened in that period). In addition, congestion slows buses down (even accounting for bus lanes), and as buses slow down, so usage levels fall, and getting people out of cars and on to buses delivers a significant net reduction in pollution levels.
Do you actually live in London or have you just been talking with authority about a place you don't know?
What? What? This makes zero sense. As congestion increases, so more and more cars are driving slowly or at a standstill, idling. Pollution increases in gridlock, it doesn't decrease. The loss of a lane doesn't change that materially, and in any event, that strategy only makes sense where there is a marginal lane to remove, which doesn't describe the vast majority of London (where most major roads already have dedicated bus lanes).
Deliberately increasing congestion won't lower pollution. Banning cars works. Taxing them works, to a degree. Both policies are implemented in some parts of Europe.
How this got marked insightful is beyond me. Explain again how increasing congestion reduces pollution levels? Did I blink and suddenly EV market penetration is approaching 100%?
Russian? Pillock? Or did you go for the double?
London's a big, busy city. Every mode of transport is uncomfortable from time to time -- driving is a pain, cycling and walking gets you a faceful of fumes, etc. But it's London, and the upsides far outweigh these inconveniences for me and millions of others.
1) The public highway is publicly owned, with regulation of who is allowed to drive on it, and how they must drive. Licence plates and drivers' licences are required to drive on the public highway precisely because there is not the same expectation of privacy as there is on private land.
2) Privacy isn't binary. There are degrees of loss of privacy. "Being tracked every second ... you're outside your own home" is clearly dramatically more intrusive than "having your licence plate recorded when you drive past any of the X speed cameras in your neighbourhood". And if X is 10000, that's clearly more intrusive than if X is 1.
What's your source for that? Boundless life experience, your fetid prejudices, or have you got some links to evidence that shows this?
Yup. And everyone thinks they're better at driving than they are
It's not just about that, though. The vast majority of crashes aren't caused by people driving idiotically; they're caused by a momentary lapse of attention or a misjudgement or a tire slipping etc. And they are a lot more serious at 40 than 30, because KE equals half m v squared.
Setting speed limits in the US tends to be done by politicians, not by engineers.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? How would politicians do this? Do you imagine that speed limits on individual roads are set by legislatures? How would this possibly even work?
Driving on the public highway is really not a private act.
Obviously it's not a coincidence. It's also not a conspiracy.
It's road engineers looking at crash data and determining that people are consistently getting injured and killed on a section of road and a lower speed limit and better enforcement are needed.
Just a wild thought here, but perhaps speed limits are set based on the likelihood of crashes that cause serious injury or death as determined by road engineers, rather than your wildly inaccurate perspective about what is the "right" speed for a particular road.