Actually, it's sort of an entire software and distribution platform. Same difference though. We're talking about the IOS platform and Apple's continued insistence to dominate all aspects of it, not a fucking phone. And, for the record, Apple has been on a spirited campaign to make as much money as they possibly can. It's the people who think they're just getting electronic appliances that are delusional. You're not buying a consumer electronics device, you're buying into the entire Apple ecosystem. That's how they have it set up.
to make it a requirement is a step in the wrong direction
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but this is just another step in the exact same direction that Apple has been sprinting in for the last 3 years. Apple has been consistent in decisions like these.
But, let me guess. This still isn't a good enough reason for you to re-think your purchase of Apple products, is it? The next upgrade they release, you'll be in line to buy it, wont you?
Oh. Well, it was my mistake for not realizing that you have knowledge of how the Bing search ranking algorithm works. Here I thought you were just making assumptions.
It doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft trusting Google more than Bing. It's simply more points of data. Microsoft trusts Google to provide accurate points of data. That doesn't automatically mean they trust it more than Bing.
It only improves the results for as long as Google is better than Bing. Basically, Microsoft trusts Google more than it trusts its own product.
That's not true. It makes perfect sense for a search engine to look for things like this to help it decide what is relevant and what isn't. The only thing "unique" about this particular situation is that it's another search engine instead of some random site that they're mining. Google also looks at the links people click on in their results. It isn't exactly a stretch to assume that every search engine would also want to know which links people are clicking on other search engines. Regardless of which search engine they're looking at, it's useful to know that when a user searches for a certain term, they click certain links. It makes those links more relevant to that term. The only thing you can argue about is whether or not it's "proper" for a search engine to use that data from another search engine. I don't see the problem, it makes all of their results more relevant. That's not really a bad thing.
Can you guarantee that the Google toolbar doesn't collect similar information if you go to Yahoo or Bing and do a search there?
Right. So it's unreliable. It's supposed to detect the thing getting dunked in a liquid, but instead it detects ambient humidity. It's unreliable for what it's intended for.
No, you paid all that money to be part of the Tao of Steve.
No I didn't.
Your $10 wristwatch is nearly waterproof
No it's not (I don't have one).
So why does your $300 iPhone have moisture sensors
It doesn't. Because I don't have one.
I can't believe that any self-respecting engineer would actually work for this guy.
It's for the same reasons why he does what he does. Money, and an over-inflated ego. Shit, I bet even the people who work retail at the Mac store look down on other consumer electronics retailers. The guy honestly believes he's the pioneer leading the world into the next age of enlightenment, and he's been screwing people out of money since day 1 when it was him and Woz.
Now Apple says that if the moisture sensors are red but the customer disputes and says no liquid has come into contact with the device, the warranty may still apply.
While it's true we can't ignore geopolitics, these issues don't happen in a vacuum, I think you should also look up the history of the word "assassin".
The fedayeen were the ardent followers of Hasan-i Sabbah (d. 1124), a leader of Ismail Shia in Iran, Iraq, and in Syria. Known to the west as the Assassins. The Assassins are regarded as "the first group to make systematic use of murder as a political weapon." Established in Iran and Syria in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, they used assassination and terrorism with the aim of overthrowing Sunni Islam's order and establishing their own.
In the 1890s the Shiite leadership in Iran became very involved in violence, terrorism via Fedayeen-i Islam. The "self-sacrifice" or devoutees of Islam under Shi'ite theologian, they've targeted British and Russian officials for assassination.
The Ayatollah was very involved with the Fedayeen Islam who had a "network of holy killers engaged in repeated attempts at political assassinations." In 1944 he published: Kashf al-Asrar ("the Revealing of Secrets"), served as a guidance for the violent Fedayeen. Indeed, the militant group covered for the Ayatollah Khomeini until he became in power.
In 1928, Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, a rigidly conservative and highly secretive Egyptian-based organization dedicated to resurrecting a Muslim empire (Caliphate). According to al-Banna, "It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."
History records instances of the "call for jihad" being invoked by Islamic leaders to legitimate wars of conquest. According to the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI), this has led to the killing through Jihad of around 270 million non-Muslims in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia over the last 1400 years.
Most of those are from the wikipedia article on jihad.
only a tiny fraction of its adherents are violent.
That's true. But isn't it also true that the vast majority of the world's violent religious extremists are Muslim? Go ahead and compare these two subjects:
Count the Christian terrorist groups, and count the Islamic ones. Notice how Islamic terrorists are just as likely to attack each other, another sect, as they are anyone else.
Compare the ratio of Islamic groups with the rest. If only a tiny fraction of Muslims are violent, why are they, as a group, the largest group of violent extremists? Wouldn't it be appropriately in proportion if there were nearly an equal number of Christian terrorist groups? Why is the proportion so skewed?
I can't think of none, *wink wink*, maybe someone who does not like stuff licensed under gpl, *nudge nudge*
No less than three governments are currently trying to contain revolutions or mass protests. Why can't one of them be launching attacks against open-source tools to help people communicate?
The spammers have been ramping up efforts to spam websites, forums, etc
I see the exact same thing. Right now the new user validation queue for the W3Schools forum has about 360 users in it. It looks like it averages around 100-150 or so per day. A good 90% or so are spammers recorded on stopforumspam.com. A few of the rest are undetected spammers, and the remainder are legitimate users. The ratio of new spam accounts to legitimate users spiked several months ago and hasn't gone down, there was a time not long ago when legitimate users outnumbered spam accounts by a lot.
However, Fedora officials said they don't believe that the attacker was able to push any changes to the Fedora package system or make any actual changes to the infrastructure.
What do you mean you "don't believe"? You don't have logs?
Most people admire his money, not his work, or the individual himself.
Where's your source where you polled "most people"? I admire the man because of his contributions to the PC marketplace. I think one of the main reasons why PCs are common in homes today is because of what he was doing 20 to 30 years ago, and I admire him for that.
I'm using the literal definition of "PC", I don't use it to mean "Windows computer". I think the main reason why personal computers are so prevalent is because of Microsoft and Gates specifically.
Is he still stupid if he wrote the article with the assumption that the information he was given was correct? What if the engineer he talked to on the phone gave him incorrect information for whatever reason? How does he know it's not correct? Is that a sign of stupidity?
then we're asking too much for them to research it before writing about it?
I would be satisfied if we could just make a proper distinction between someone being of low intelligence (stupid) and someone simply being uninformed or misinformed (ignorant).
Slashdot Mirror
It's a fucking phone
Actually, it's sort of an entire software and distribution platform. Same difference though. We're talking about the IOS platform and Apple's continued insistence to dominate all aspects of it, not a fucking phone. And, for the record, Apple has been on a spirited campaign to make as much money as they possibly can. It's the people who think they're just getting electronic appliances that are delusional. You're not buying a consumer electronics device, you're buying into the entire Apple ecosystem. That's how they have it set up.
to make it a requirement is a step in the wrong direction
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but this is just another step in the exact same direction that Apple has been sprinting in for the last 3 years. Apple has been consistent in decisions like these.
But, let me guess. This still isn't a good enough reason for you to re-think your purchase of Apple products, is it? The next upgrade they release, you'll be in line to buy it, wont you?
Oh. Well, it was my mistake for not realizing that you have knowledge of how the Bing search ranking algorithm works. Here I thought you were just making assumptions.
It doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft trusting Google more than Bing. It's simply more points of data. Microsoft trusts Google to provide accurate points of data. That doesn't automatically mean they trust it more than Bing.
It only improves the results for as long as Google is better than Bing. Basically, Microsoft trusts Google more than it trusts its own product.
That's not true. It makes perfect sense for a search engine to look for things like this to help it decide what is relevant and what isn't. The only thing "unique" about this particular situation is that it's another search engine instead of some random site that they're mining. Google also looks at the links people click on in their results. It isn't exactly a stretch to assume that every search engine would also want to know which links people are clicking on other search engines. Regardless of which search engine they're looking at, it's useful to know that when a user searches for a certain term, they click certain links. It makes those links more relevant to that term. The only thing you can argue about is whether or not it's "proper" for a search engine to use that data from another search engine. I don't see the problem, it makes all of their results more relevant. That's not really a bad thing.
Can you guarantee that the Google toolbar doesn't collect similar information if you go to Yahoo or Bing and do a search there?
Right. So it's unreliable. It's supposed to detect the thing getting dunked in a liquid, but instead it detects ambient humidity. It's unreliable for what it's intended for.
Do you really think that you're any different?
Yeah.
Check out your iPhone.
I don't have one.
Check out your iPod.
I don't have one.
No, you paid all that money to be part of the Tao of Steve.
No I didn't.
Your $10 wristwatch is nearly waterproof
No it's not (I don't have one).
So why does your $300 iPhone have moisture sensors
It doesn't. Because I don't have one.
I can't believe that any self-respecting engineer would actually work for this guy.
It's for the same reasons why he does what he does. Money, and an over-inflated ego. Shit, I bet even the people who work retail at the Mac store look down on other consumer electronics retailers. The guy honestly believes he's the pioneer leading the world into the next age of enlightenment, and he's been screwing people out of money since day 1 when it was him and Woz.
Now Apple says that if the moisture sensors are red but the customer disputes and says no liquid has come into contact with the device, the warranty may still apply.
In other words, the sensors are unreliable.
While it's true we can't ignore geopolitics, these issues don't happen in a vacuum, I think you should also look up the history of the word "assassin".
The fedayeen were the ardent followers of Hasan-i Sabbah (d. 1124), a leader of Ismail Shia in Iran, Iraq, and in Syria. Known to the west as the Assassins. The Assassins are regarded as "the first group to make systematic use of murder as a political weapon." Established in Iran and Syria in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, they used assassination and terrorism with the aim of overthrowing Sunni Islam's order and establishing their own.
In the 1890s the Shiite leadership in Iran became very involved in violence, terrorism via Fedayeen-i Islam. The "self-sacrifice" or devoutees of Islam under Shi'ite theologian, they've targeted British and Russian officials for assassination.
The Ayatollah was very involved with the Fedayeen Islam who had a "network of holy killers engaged in repeated attempts at political assassinations." In 1944 he published: Kashf al-Asrar ("the Revealing of Secrets"), served as a guidance for the violent Fedayeen. Indeed, the militant group covered for the Ayatollah Khomeini until he became in power.
In 1928, Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, a rigidly conservative and highly secretive Egyptian-based organization dedicated to resurrecting a Muslim empire (Caliphate). According to al-Banna, "It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."
History records instances of the "call for jihad" being invoked by Islamic leaders to legitimate wars of conquest. According to the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI), this has led to the killing through Jihad of around 270 million non-Muslims in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia over the last 1400 years.
Most of those are from the wikipedia article on jihad.
only a tiny fraction of its adherents are violent.
That's true. But isn't it also true that the vast majority of the world's violent religious extremists are Muslim? Go ahead and compare these two subjects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
Count the Christian terrorist groups, and count the Islamic ones. Notice how Islamic terrorists are just as likely to attack each other, another sect, as they are anyone else.
More to the point, check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations
Compare the ratio of Islamic groups with the rest. If only a tiny fraction of Muslims are violent, why are they, as a group, the largest group of violent extremists? Wouldn't it be appropriately in proportion if there were nearly an equal number of Christian terrorist groups? Why is the proportion so skewed?
Maybe the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, or Yemen, for example, object to these:
http://sourceforge.net/search/?q=proxy
I can't think of none, *wink wink*, maybe someone who does not like stuff licensed under gpl, *nudge nudge*
No less than three governments are currently trying to contain revolutions or mass protests. Why can't one of them be launching attacks against open-source tools to help people communicate?
This has to be a moneyed interest.
Why can't it be a government interest carpet-bombing the location of a single piece of software it finds offensive or illegal?
I'm pretty sure you mean Tunisia.
Spammers are moving to other methods, increasing attacks on social networks, forums, etc.
The spammers have been ramping up efforts to spam websites, forums, etc
I see the exact same thing. Right now the new user validation queue for the W3Schools forum has about 360 users in it. It looks like it averages around 100-150 or so per day. A good 90% or so are spammers recorded on stopforumspam.com. A few of the rest are undetected spammers, and the remainder are legitimate users. The ratio of new spam accounts to legitimate users spiked several months ago and hasn't gone down, there was a time not long ago when legitimate users outnumbered spam accounts by a lot.
Well, I would update my local repository, and then check the change logs to see what's different. So yeah, I would trust that.
However, Fedora officials said they don't believe that the attacker was able to push any changes to the Fedora package system or make any actual changes to the infrastructure.
What do you mean you "don't believe"? You don't have logs?
This shouldn't be a newsworthy headline. This is what a newsworthy headline would look like:
"Chinese Stealth Fighter Uses Only Chinese Technology"
How exactly is any one TLD more or less capable of being used by pirates than any other?
would you argue with him for an hour on how the iPhone sucks, or would you embrace it as a new opportunity to learn something new?
Both! I'm an opinionated intellectually-curious person.
Most people admire his money, not his work, or the individual himself.
Where's your source where you polled "most people"? I admire the man because of his contributions to the PC marketplace. I think one of the main reasons why PCs are common in homes today is because of what he was doing 20 to 30 years ago, and I admire him for that.
I'm using the literal definition of "PC", I don't use it to mean "Windows computer". I think the main reason why personal computers are so prevalent is because of Microsoft and Gates specifically.
Is he still stupid if he wrote the article with the assumption that the information he was given was correct? What if the engineer he talked to on the phone gave him incorrect information for whatever reason? How does he know it's not correct? Is that a sign of stupidity?
then we're asking too much for them to research it before writing about it?
I would be satisfied if we could just make a proper distinction between someone being of low intelligence (stupid) and someone simply being uninformed or misinformed (ignorant).
There's the attack on Google and other non-Chinese companies from China in 2009 as well.
Not to mention Titan Rain, from 2003.