I suspect this is an intermittent bug. Anecdotally my wife and I have been on 9.3 for at least a week or two and have had no problems. This might be one of those things that slipped by because it's really hard to reproduce.
That said, I have not been impressed with Apple's software quality in the last couple of years. I don't know if it's because it got a lot more complicated when it went 64-bit or if it's because when Steve was here he cracked the whip a lot harder, but I've definitely witnessed a lot more silliness in the software recently. iOS 9.x was supposed to be the bug-fix version, but I ain't seeing it.
The issue is caused by the Booking.com app. How has slashdot picked up on this issue and not the source of the bug? It's been known for over 24 hours. Booking.com's app registers every single URL their website offers (for deep linking) instead of just booking.com This causes a crash when trying to parse the list of deep links. Apple has already acknowledged the issue and said they have to release an OS Patch to fix broken devices. Booking.com has already removed the troubled app and published a new one but those who already have the issue are screwed until Apple patches.
When the post-mortem finally comes in, I'd be more than willing to bet that it was due to (1) lack of formalized baseline requirements to hang an initial design on, and the real program-killer, (2) constant requirements creep. Because contractors are unwilling to tell a Federal Customer "no" (because it usually results in decreases in funding in the next task order, or re-allocation of slots to another contractor. ..), there's a constant "just add this one little thing". Over and over again, until you have an unworkable mess and a design that looks nothing like the initial requirement.
Then they aren't handling their customer properly. I used to do contracting with the Department of Defense. I also helped with business development (including some pretty huge dollar value contracts) by writing technical approaches to these RFPs. When we got these contracts I was the lead engineer and often handled some of the project management aspects as they related to the engineering efforts. I went to every meeting with the customer, from cradle to grave. And you're right, I never did tell the customer 'No - I can't do that.' Because the customer doesn't want to think you cannot do something, even if the reason you're declining the task is merely to prevent feature creep and schedule slip. Instead, you have to convince the customer that while what they want is technically feasible, it is not in their best interests to pursue whatever feature they're asking for. Once you get the customer on the boat with you, make it feel like it was their decision not to implement the feature, they will love you. They will do everything they can to make sure you get every single follow on contract possible. Sometimes they'll even subtly alter their future requirements in order to make it easier for your company to win a contract from GSA or whatever agency is handling procurement.
Iman Wilkens makes a case for the Trojan War not occuring in the Mediteranean and tries to map it to England.
http://www.troy-in-england.com...
Perhaps this is another candidate location for the war.
I rather doubt it. If this really is the remains of a major battle it could have been fought for a number of reasons. Firstly, in view of the diverse origins of the fallen, it could have been part of some major trans-European migration like the one that brought down the Roman empire. Secondly it could have been a large scale raid like the armies that raided Britain and France during the peak of the Viking age. This hypothesis can also be supported by the DNA results pertaining to the ethnic diversity of the dead. These Viking raids were conducted by armies that consisted of everything from small war-bands led by independent chieftains to large-ish armies led by petty kings that had organized themselves into a properly big army that was led by whoever contributed the largest force or who had the most battle experience and prestige. Thirdly, and this is the most interesting option, this battle was perhaps actually a part of an organized attempt to go beyond the 'seizing cattle, looting farmsteads and abducting women' type of raiding warfare thought to be the norm in Europe at the time. In this case whoever organized the army perhaps lured 'mercenaries' into his service with promises of plunder, cattle, slaves and even land grants of conquered territory much like William the Bastard did in the run-up to is 1066 invasion of England to bolster his army. In this case this battle may represent a well thought out and planned attempt by somebody to conquer land and thereby control the north-south/east trade route through which flowed all the amber, furs, slaves, and whatever other northern goods were consumed by the great Mediterranean cultures at the time. In any case we will have to seriously re-assess the level of social organization and industrial ability of European bronze age cultures. This is a pretty interesting and potentially very significant discovery that puts another dent into the 'ex oriente lux' cliché (which, to be fair, has been steadily dismantled over the last few decades). This is not to say that Oriental influence on European culture was non-existent or insignificant but Northern Europeans of the bronze age were nor a bunch of disorganized, louse ridden, loincloth wearing barbarians who only washed when they were caught out in the rain or fell into a river and who needed to import oriental ideas before they could organize themselves into sophisticated cultures because they were to dull to devise such concepts by themselves.
I'm not even sure how you got modded insightful. Isn't it obvious that this was a battle over football, or soccer, or whatever you want to call it? What else would cause thousands of Europeans to band together and cause mayhem? The devastating effect of European football can be seen across the centuries and the ferocity of it culminated with the crusades, when Pope Urban II was tired of seeing the Roma FC lose in friendlies to Beitar Jerusalem and decided to take matters into his own hands.
It's pretty clear that Netflix's vision in the long run is to essentially become a television network on its own. I expect that while the actual number of titles will fall, the number of first run series will rise.
I think that became the case when Netflix realized that they are completely at the mercy of the content holders and that they would eventually be displaced by the content holders themselves some day.
Let's go with the assumption posited so frequently by the press that Donald Trump called women Bimbos and Pigs. He never said 'All women are bimbos and pigs'. He said 'Rosie O'Donnel is a pig' and 'Megyn Kelly is a bimbo'. By this same logic, it could be said that Bill Clinton thinks all women want a cigar up their coochie, which explains a lot really.
I'm pretty sure that not only does Trump think that he is better than everyone, is a misogynist, and a selfish ass, but I also believe that Bill Clinton thinks that all went want his cigar up their coochie.
So you're claiming that a company who specializes in helping government break into phones and do a forensic analysis on phones would rather take a meager bug bounty than potentially earn millions by aiding government spying and investigation? Yes that makes perfect sense. Do these NYT authors know that NASA is hiring rocket scientists?
Yes. The porn industry's decision to go VHS was a nail in the coffin of Beta.
Anyone who doesn't see robotics advancing because of pleasure-bots just isn't thinking about it yet.
Are you saying that some day I won't even be able to resort to prostitution without fear of my job being outsourced or automated away? Great. What a brave new world.
> I don't think they even read or pay attention to these challenges at all.
This is the crux of the problem here. They don't actually honor appeals process unless you are a big company with big bucks to sue them with.
Yup. I know someone who makes his own music for his videos - even plays the instruments for the video IN the video in some cases and still gets copyright violation letters.
I have watched a few launches from the Cape, including the last shuttle launch. In my experience, these types of launches are less exciting than a shuttle launch. However, I would say that the best thing is to show up early and bring something to do while you're waiting around. You probably won't have too much of a crowd to compete against, but I don't know. I've never watched a Texas launch. If you want to film it, bring a tripod. You'll want to watch the launch itself with your mark 1 eyeball. It's just way easier and more exciting. Get as close as safety and security rules allow. The best part is the first 30 or so seconds during its initial acceleration, so try and get an unobstructed view, if possible. Once it gets to about 10k feet it'll get less interesting as its harder to see.
The ipad doesn't offer a superior experience anymore. it offers a much higher price that people are now unwilling to pay for a device that will likely only be relevant for a year. If they want to stay in the market, they need to cut the price significantly and actually start competing.
I disagree with you completely. There are things that are better about Andriod OS versus iOS but the iPad apps out there are hands down better than 99% of the apps available for any Android tablet - and I have both. I was thinking about updating my iPad mini this year but I realized that there was absolutely no reason to. My current iPad performs just fine. The battery lasts as long as I need. There's just nothing new to throw in a tablet that I really want or need. I upgraded to the current iPad just to get the retina display. But I'll definitely get a new iOS device before I get a new Android device unless I just want something cheap I can tweak and not worry about ruining it.
But where is the list of names of the managers who were *directly responsible for the deaths of the Challenger crew*? These people are guilty of **murder**. Yet we never see their names anywhere, they're just referred to as anonymous "managers".
How many people die aboard Challenger, and how many people died after Hurricane Katrina, or were killed on Sept 11, 2001? All of which were negligence, and in all cases, those who were responsible for mass manslaughter are anonymous and unpunished.
Well hold on now. It's one thing to intentionally launch a Space Shuttle when you know there's a high chance of failure. It's another thing to mismanage a relief effort of people who refused to evacuate their homes in the face of a hurricane. It's also another thing to miss all the signs that point to a criminal and nefarious act that would result in the death of thousands. Someone proactively made the decision to risk lives in the first case. In the other two cases, people made the wrong choices and it lead to deaths. Accidents happen. People are fallible. We should learn from all of these incidents but we should not punish someone criminally for the second two issues unless you can show intentional negligence or malfeasance on the part of the people in charge.
News reports say there are more than 100 long-term prisoners of conscience in Cuba. Nobody knows for sure, as the Castro regime does not grant international organizations access to its prisons. But we know they are there and that hundreds are held for shorter periods, and beaten in prison regularly.
Just two months ago, the president told Yahoo News that he would only travel to Cuba "if, in fact, I with confidence can say that we're seeing some progress in the liberty and freedom and possibilities of ordinary Cubans.... If we're going backwards, then there's not much reason for me to be there."
I have news, Mr. President: No progress has taken place. Cuba is going backward.
If you are a fan of President Obama, could you please explain to me why you think Senator Cruz is wrong about this? Because at the moment I agree with Senator Cruz. President Obama's administration has dropped the embargo and helped out the government of Cuba, and I'm not aware of a single demand that Cuba has granted in return. Set free political prisoners? Allow Amnesty International to visit the prisons? Maybe beat the political prisoners a little bit less? No, no, and no.
Not only did President Obama not make any demands of Cuba, but now Cuba is making demands of President Obama. Pay reparations, return Guantanamo Bay.
I do hope that President Obama will at least use his "bully pulpit" to say something about human rights in Cuba. Words are what he is best at. I would have preferred a binding agreement, but he already didn't do that.
Maybe because the embargo probably really isn't doing any good and there's no reason to continue it? Nobody is going to try and host nuclear weapons there ever again, I don't think. And we're not going to win any friends by trying to destroy the economy of the country. I'm not saying that we should concede to any demands about Gitmo (though I do not agree with the prison camp there), but we could certainly be better neighbors to Cuba and many other Latin American countries.
Well, more like taking chunks of other countries' colonies...
Indeed. I believe we liberated Cuba in the Spanish American war and agreed to let the people of Cuba rule themselves outside of overt US influence if they would let us set up a naval station at Gitmo. It's been a while since I've studied the history though, so don't me on that.
Not anywhere I go. Hell I run into more vendors that don't accept the chip on the card than ones who do. Mag readers aren't going away any time soon I'm afraid. Plus since they didn't implement chip+pin the entire point of the chip is rendered useless.
That is not true at all. The PIN does one thing - it verifies the card holder's identity. The chip does another thing. It makes it almost impossible to clone the card for Online transactions. If you go to Europe, the terminals are allowed to do offline processing. In the US, all chip transactions must go online. This basically makes it impossible to clone the chip. All standalone chip scams that I know of require an offline terminal. Some researchers in the UK (at Cambridge if I recall correctly) have developed a way to effectively skim a card at one terminal and present it at the exact same time at another terminal but it can be detected by the merchant because there have to be leads run to the card that is being used fraudulently.
It is possible for the vendor to allow offline use of chip terminals by sending back an auth code to the chip. The chip can still reject that auth code if it does not contain signed data from the issuing bank. Whether or not the card chooses to do that is up to the issuing bank but the vendor would still be liable if they tricked the card into thinking an online authorization happened.
Mag stripe readers are scheduled to basically disappear from the US in 2017. By disappear I mean that the terminal will still have them but it will not let you use the mag stripe reader unless you first dip the card and the terminal determines that it is unable to process the transaction with a chip. Even if the vendor tried to trick the terminal into processing a transaction in this way, the processing bank may know, based on the BIN of the card, whether a chip transaction would have worked and your processor could deny your transaction immediately. While the card brands have not announced when they will stop allowing magnetic stripe transactions in the US, it is estimated that it will be in 2017 because that is when all attended and unattended terminals and ATMs are required to support chip. Futhermore, most processors in the US support chip and PIN at this time - you basically have to in order to pass EMVco certification. It is the issuing banks that are not enabling PIN at this time. I suspect that it is merely a convenience period to help transition "dumb Americans" into getting used to the idea of using a PIN for credit transactions. I expect that the US will transition to chip + pin around the time that the current batch of cards start expiring - somewhere around 2020. That is pure speculation on my part. However, you can guarantee that vendors will have no choice but to replace their terminals once the card brands disallow 'MSR technical fallback' in the US.
Considering that there is nothing especially new or interesting, yes. They always announce refreshes at WWDC and new phones in September. Sure in 2012 they had the retina iPad and there have been occasional out of band releases but this is a refresh of the iPhone 4S and some new watch bands. Wow. Color me excited. But it just happens to be scheduled to the day before their hearing against the DOJ and the day they plan to release a patch for an iMessage encryption bug? I think that's more significant.
Here's an example of the additional information banks were required to obtain and retain as part of BSA (https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=439815):
Monetary Instrument Sales Records : A bank must retain a record of each cash sale of bank checks, drafts, cashierâ(TM)s checks, money orders, and travelerâ(TM)s checks between $3,000 and $10,000 inclusive. These records must include evidence of verification of the identity of the purchaser and other information. (31 CFR 103.29)
And for a more direct example of precedent as it relates to Apple, the BSA actually required the banks to develop and deploy software to detect money laundering. One of the core arguments Apple makes is that companies can't be compelled to develop something to comply with a court order (and in turn a law).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Again, banks already had records of each sale of bank checks, drafts, cashier's checks, money orders, and travelers checks between $3,000 and $10,000. This was in the 60's. That was a hell of a lot of money and no bank would honor a cashier's check it had no record of issuing. Don't be ridiculous. And the federal government did NOT mandate that banks write software. They said "If you want to participate in the FDIC insurance program, you will meet these requirements." The federal government didn't care if they had house elves looking at bank records or if the bank used software to detect laundering. They just required that it be done to qualify for FDIC insurance. You're absolutely missing every point I've made.
I thought the whole point of this press conference was more to get everyone in Apple's corner prior to their hearing against the DOJ this week. I think they're just rolling out these products outside of the normal release schedule (prior to WWDC) just so that they have an excuse to hold a press conference and talk about how Apple is doing the right thing. At least I hope that's why they're having this event today. The products mean absolutely nothing to me.
You do realize that Mac OS just BARELY got fullscreen mode
No ida what you man with that. Probably that apps that don't ned "full screen mode" now have such a mode?, Like TextEdit.app?
+ multi-monitor support right a few years ago, right?
Macs have multi monitor support since 30 years... never saw a Mac which had not. Perhaps a Mac Plus had not?
Get out of your cave.
Sure if you wanted to drag around a bunch of individual windows and have them all jump on top of each other any time you command-tabbed to switch between apps, it 'worked'. But if you used the Cmd-F fullscreen mode then ALL of the monitors turned grey and became useless except for the one app you had full screen. And even with a 30" 2550x1440 display full screen mode is helpful at times. I often have multiple files open at once in my IDE and if you're dealing with a storyboard file or something like that, you might want all the space you can possibly get. I really like the way windows 7 handles full screening an app, especially if you want to actually divide the screen in two equal halves with two separate apps. Either way, the fact that an Alt-Tab in Windows did not bring all instances of an app to the foreground makes it far more useful than having a bunch of windows open on a single display for Mac OS. I fight with this every single time I want to have my terminal window open while I look at something else on the same screen.
If you are making money on your development skills, having dual 30 inch displays helps to boost your productivity a bit permanently while only requiring a small investment from you or your employer every several years. OSX supports these setups perfectly by letting you configure arrangement of the monitors and their exact physical layout on the desk, and has a menu bar and dock on every screen, plus multiple monitors can be connected through a single Thunderbolt cable. Windows and Linux don't. If you want power user / developer mindshare this is a must.
You do realize that Mac OS just BARELY got fullscreen mode + multi-monitor support right a few years ago, right? I actually got rid of my second 30 inch display at home because I never used it when I was working from home all the time. Now I only work from home on occasion so I don't really need it anymore anyway.
OS X is really a terrible operating system. It only compares favorably to Windows, and then not even that favorably if you are a developer.
Don't worry, it gets better with every release. And by better, I mean they increase their bug count. They often have the same OS regressions in both iOS and OS X every year when they release a new platform. It's like they don't even try to merge their fixes into their new OS before they release. And I've been using OS X as a dev machine since 10.4, too!
You're implying that banks already kept all the information and had all the necessary procedures like account verification that were necessary to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act before the law was passed. If you read the regulation (https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/safety/manual/section8-1.pdf) you'll find that's likely not the case, that many banks had to start tracking additional information and employ new procedures. So there is a precedent for the federal government to compel businesses to collect information and enact new procedures.
Other than the training requirements and the forms required to be filed with the IRS, I don't know of any new transactional record the bank would be required to keep under this law. Sure they had to start verifying SSN or TIN for account holders, yes. But you'll also note that this only covers banks that make use of FDIC or NCUSIF insurance programs. You could create a non-insured bank and it would not, at least under the original BSA rules, be required to keep any of these records or to verify the SSN or TIN of account holders. So the banks were already beholden to certain record keeping rules anyway in order to qualify for their insurance programs.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect this is an intermittent bug. Anecdotally my wife and I have been on 9.3 for at least a week or two and have had no problems. This might be one of those things that slipped by because it's really hard to reproduce.
That said, I have not been impressed with Apple's software quality in the last couple of years. I don't know if it's because it got a lot more complicated when it went 64-bit or if it's because when Steve was here he cracked the whip a lot harder, but I've definitely witnessed a lot more silliness in the software recently. iOS 9.x was supposed to be the bug-fix version, but I ain't seeing it.
The issue is caused by the Booking.com app. How has slashdot picked up on this issue and not the source of the bug? It's been known for over 24 hours. Booking.com's app registers every single URL their website offers (for deep linking) instead of just booking.com This causes a crash when trying to parse the list of deep links. Apple has already acknowledged the issue and said they have to release an OS Patch to fix broken devices. Booking.com has already removed the troubled app and published a new one but those who already have the issue are screwed until Apple patches.
. . . .and when the FBI started to develop its' own case manager, the "Virtual Case File", which was one of the more spectacular failures in Government IT Development.
When the post-mortem finally comes in, I'd be more than willing to bet that it was due to (1) lack of formalized baseline requirements to hang an initial design on, and the real program-killer, (2) constant requirements creep. Because contractors are unwilling to tell a Federal Customer "no" (because it usually results in decreases in funding in the next task order, or re-allocation of slots to another contractor. . .), there's a constant "just add this one little thing". Over and over again, until you have an unworkable mess and a design that looks nothing like the initial requirement.
The same kind of pressures destroyed the Navy A-12 "Avenger" attack jet in 1991: constant scope creep, until the aircraft was too heavy to fly off an aircraft carrier. The resulting legal fight lasted 13 years. . .
Then they aren't handling their customer properly. I used to do contracting with the Department of Defense. I also helped with business development (including some pretty huge dollar value contracts) by writing technical approaches to these RFPs. When we got these contracts I was the lead engineer and often handled some of the project management aspects as they related to the engineering efforts. I went to every meeting with the customer, from cradle to grave. And you're right, I never did tell the customer 'No - I can't do that.' Because the customer doesn't want to think you cannot do something, even if the reason you're declining the task is merely to prevent feature creep and schedule slip. Instead, you have to convince the customer that while what they want is technically feasible, it is not in their best interests to pursue whatever feature they're asking for. Once you get the customer on the boat with you, make it feel like it was their decision not to implement the feature, they will love you. They will do everything they can to make sure you get every single follow on contract possible. Sometimes they'll even subtly alter their future requirements in order to make it easier for your company to win a contract from GSA or whatever agency is handling procurement.
I'm not saying it was aliens; but... Aliens.
Man I wish my mod points hadn't expired. You're 100% correct and I can prove it.
Iman Wilkens makes a case for the Trojan War not occuring in the Mediteranean and tries to map it to England. http://www.troy-in-england.com... Perhaps this is another candidate location for the war.
I rather doubt it. If this really is the remains of a major battle it could have been fought for a number of reasons. Firstly, in view of the diverse origins of the fallen, it could have been part of some major trans-European migration like the one that brought down the Roman empire. Secondly it could have been a large scale raid like the armies that raided Britain and France during the peak of the Viking age. This hypothesis can also be supported by the DNA results pertaining to the ethnic diversity of the dead. These Viking raids were conducted by armies that consisted of everything from small war-bands led by independent chieftains to large-ish armies led by petty kings that had organized themselves into a properly big army that was led by whoever contributed the largest force or who had the most battle experience and prestige. Thirdly, and this is the most interesting option, this battle was perhaps actually a part of an organized attempt to go beyond the 'seizing cattle, looting farmsteads and abducting women' type of raiding warfare thought to be the norm in Europe at the time. In this case whoever organized the army perhaps lured 'mercenaries' into his service with promises of plunder, cattle, slaves and even land grants of conquered territory much like William the Bastard did in the run-up to is 1066 invasion of England to bolster his army. In this case this battle may represent a well thought out and planned attempt by somebody to conquer land and thereby control the north-south/east trade route through which flowed all the amber, furs, slaves, and whatever other northern goods were consumed by the great Mediterranean cultures at the time. In any case we will have to seriously re-assess the level of social organization and industrial ability of European bronze age cultures. This is a pretty interesting and potentially very significant discovery that puts another dent into the 'ex oriente lux' cliché (which, to be fair, has been steadily dismantled over the last few decades). This is not to say that Oriental influence on European culture was non-existent or insignificant but Northern Europeans of the bronze age were nor a bunch of disorganized, louse ridden, loincloth wearing barbarians who only washed when they were caught out in the rain or fell into a river and who needed to import oriental ideas before they could organize themselves into sophisticated cultures because they were to dull to devise such concepts by themselves.
I'm not even sure how you got modded insightful. Isn't it obvious that this was a battle over football, or soccer, or whatever you want to call it? What else would cause thousands of Europeans to band together and cause mayhem? The devastating effect of European football can be seen across the centuries and the ferocity of it culminated with the crusades, when Pope Urban II was tired of seeing the Roma FC lose in friendlies to Beitar Jerusalem and decided to take matters into his own hands.
It's pretty clear that Netflix's vision in the long run is to essentially become a television network on its own. I expect that while the actual number of titles will fall, the number of first run series will rise.
I think that became the case when Netflix realized that they are completely at the mercy of the content holders and that they would eventually be displaced by the content holders themselves some day.
Okay tell me what his platform is.
1. Go here: https://www.donaldjdrumpf.com/ 2. Click on "Positions" and pick something 3. Read
Fixed the URL for you
Let's go with the assumption posited so frequently by the press that Donald Trump called women Bimbos and Pigs. He never said 'All women are bimbos and pigs'. He said 'Rosie O'Donnel is a pig' and 'Megyn Kelly is a bimbo'. By this same logic, it could be said that Bill Clinton thinks all women want a cigar up their coochie, which explains a lot really.
I'm pretty sure that not only does Trump think that he is better than everyone, is a misogynist, and a selfish ass, but I also believe that Bill Clinton thinks that all went want his cigar up their coochie.
Isn't the city of London technically just a small area around the financial district of the greater London area?
So you're claiming that a company who specializes in helping government break into phones and do a forensic analysis on phones would rather take a meager bug bounty than potentially earn millions by aiding government spying and investigation? Yes that makes perfect sense. Do these NYT authors know that NASA is hiring rocket scientists?
Yes. The porn industry's decision to go VHS was a nail in the coffin of Beta.
Anyone who doesn't see robotics advancing because of pleasure-bots just isn't thinking about it yet.
Are you saying that some day I won't even be able to resort to prostitution without fear of my job being outsourced or automated away? Great. What a brave new world.
> I don't think they even read or pay attention to these challenges at all.
This is the crux of the problem here. They don't actually honor appeals process unless you are a big company with big bucks to sue them with.
Yup. I know someone who makes his own music for his videos - even plays the instruments for the video IN the video in some cases and still gets copyright violation letters.
I have watched a few launches from the Cape, including the last shuttle launch. In my experience, these types of launches are less exciting than a shuttle launch. However, I would say that the best thing is to show up early and bring something to do while you're waiting around. You probably won't have too much of a crowd to compete against, but I don't know. I've never watched a Texas launch. If you want to film it, bring a tripod. You'll want to watch the launch itself with your mark 1 eyeball. It's just way easier and more exciting. Get as close as safety and security rules allow. The best part is the first 30 or so seconds during its initial acceleration, so try and get an unobstructed view, if possible. Once it gets to about 10k feet it'll get less interesting as its harder to see.
The ipad doesn't offer a superior experience anymore. it offers a much higher price that people are now unwilling to pay for a device that will likely only be relevant for a year. If they want to stay in the market, they need to cut the price significantly and actually start competing.
I disagree with you completely. There are things that are better about Andriod OS versus iOS but the iPad apps out there are hands down better than 99% of the apps available for any Android tablet - and I have both. I was thinking about updating my iPad mini this year but I realized that there was absolutely no reason to. My current iPad performs just fine. The battery lasts as long as I need. There's just nothing new to throw in a tablet that I really want or need. I upgraded to the current iPad just to get the retina display. But I'll definitely get a new iOS device before I get a new Android device unless I just want something cheap I can tweak and not worry about ruining it.
How many people die aboard Challenger, and how many people died after Hurricane Katrina, or were killed on Sept 11, 2001? All of which were negligence, and in all cases, those who were responsible for mass manslaughter are anonymous and unpunished.
Well hold on now. It's one thing to intentionally launch a Space Shuttle when you know there's a high chance of failure. It's another thing to mismanage a relief effort of people who refused to evacuate their homes in the face of a hurricane. It's also another thing to miss all the signs that point to a criminal and nefarious act that would result in the death of thousands. Someone proactively made the decision to risk lives in the first case. In the other two cases, people made the wrong choices and it lead to deaths. Accidents happen. People are fallible. We should learn from all of these incidents but we should not punish someone criminally for the second two issues unless you can show intentional negligence or malfeasance on the part of the people in charge.
Here is what Senator Ted Cruz wrote about this:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/obama-cuba-visit-ted-cruz-213749
If you are a fan of President Obama, could you please explain to me why you think Senator Cruz is wrong about this? Because at the moment I agree with Senator Cruz. President Obama's administration has dropped the embargo and helped out the government of Cuba, and I'm not aware of a single demand that Cuba has granted in return. Set free political prisoners? Allow Amnesty International to visit the prisons? Maybe beat the political prisoners a little bit less? No, no, and no.
Not only did President Obama not make any demands of Cuba, but now Cuba is making demands of President Obama. Pay reparations, return Guantanamo Bay.
I do hope that President Obama will at least use his "bully pulpit" to say something about human rights in Cuba. Words are what he is best at. I would have preferred a binding agreement, but he already didn't do that.
Maybe because the embargo probably really isn't doing any good and there's no reason to continue it? Nobody is going to try and host nuclear weapons there ever again, I don't think. And we're not going to win any friends by trying to destroy the economy of the country. I'm not saying that we should concede to any demands about Gitmo (though I do not agree with the prison camp there), but we could certainly be better neighbors to Cuba and many other Latin American countries.
Well, more like taking chunks of other countries' colonies...
Indeed. I believe we liberated Cuba in the Spanish American war and agreed to let the people of Cuba rule themselves outside of overt US influence if they would let us set up a naval station at Gitmo. It's been a while since I've studied the history though, so don't me on that.
Not anywhere I go. Hell I run into more vendors that don't accept the chip on the card than ones who do. Mag readers aren't going away any time soon I'm afraid. Plus since they didn't implement chip+pin the entire point of the chip is rendered useless.
That is not true at all. The PIN does one thing - it verifies the card holder's identity. The chip does another thing. It makes it almost impossible to clone the card for Online transactions. If you go to Europe, the terminals are allowed to do offline processing. In the US, all chip transactions must go online. This basically makes it impossible to clone the chip. All standalone chip scams that I know of require an offline terminal. Some researchers in the UK (at Cambridge if I recall correctly) have developed a way to effectively skim a card at one terminal and present it at the exact same time at another terminal but it can be detected by the merchant because there have to be leads run to the card that is being used fraudulently.
It is possible for the vendor to allow offline use of chip terminals by sending back an auth code to the chip. The chip can still reject that auth code if it does not contain signed data from the issuing bank. Whether or not the card chooses to do that is up to the issuing bank but the vendor would still be liable if they tricked the card into thinking an online authorization happened.
Mag stripe readers are scheduled to basically disappear from the US in 2017. By disappear I mean that the terminal will still have them but it will not let you use the mag stripe reader unless you first dip the card and the terminal determines that it is unable to process the transaction with a chip. Even if the vendor tried to trick the terminal into processing a transaction in this way, the processing bank may know, based on the BIN of the card, whether a chip transaction would have worked and your processor could deny your transaction immediately. While the card brands have not announced when they will stop allowing magnetic stripe transactions in the US, it is estimated that it will be in 2017 because that is when all attended and unattended terminals and ATMs are required to support chip. Futhermore, most processors in the US support chip and PIN at this time - you basically have to in order to pass EMVco certification. It is the issuing banks that are not enabling PIN at this time. I suspect that it is merely a convenience period to help transition "dumb Americans" into getting used to the idea of using a PIN for credit transactions. I expect that the US will transition to chip + pin around the time that the current batch of cards start expiring - somewhere around 2020. That is pure speculation on my part. However, you can guarantee that vendors will have no choice but to replace their terminals once the card brands disallow 'MSR technical fallback' in the US.
I think they're just rolling out these products outside of the normal release schedule (prior to WWDC)
You mean unlike Apple's March 2015 event? Or their March 2011 and 2012 events?
Or their other products coming out all through the year?
Considering that there is nothing especially new or interesting, yes. They always announce refreshes at WWDC and new phones in September. Sure in 2012 they had the retina iPad and there have been occasional out of band releases but this is a refresh of the iPhone 4S and some new watch bands. Wow. Color me excited. But it just happens to be scheduled to the day before their hearing against the DOJ and the day they plan to release a patch for an iMessage encryption bug? I think that's more significant.
Here's an example of the additional information banks were required to obtain and retain as part of BSA (https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=439815): Monetary Instrument Sales Records : A bank must retain a record of each cash sale of bank checks, drafts, cashierâ(TM)s checks, money orders, and travelerâ(TM)s checks between $3,000 and $10,000 inclusive. These records must include evidence of verification of the identity of the purchaser and other information. (31 CFR 103.29) And for a more direct example of precedent as it relates to Apple, the BSA actually required the banks to develop and deploy software to detect money laundering. One of the core arguments Apple makes is that companies can't be compelled to develop something to comply with a court order (and in turn a law). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Again, banks already had records of each sale of bank checks, drafts, cashier's checks, money orders, and travelers checks between $3,000 and $10,000. This was in the 60's. That was a hell of a lot of money and no bank would honor a cashier's check it had no record of issuing. Don't be ridiculous. And the federal government did NOT mandate that banks write software. They said "If you want to participate in the FDIC insurance program, you will meet these requirements." The federal government didn't care if they had house elves looking at bank records or if the bank used software to detect laundering. They just required that it be done to qualify for FDIC insurance. You're absolutely missing every point I've made.
I thought the whole point of this press conference was more to get everyone in Apple's corner prior to their hearing against the DOJ this week. I think they're just rolling out these products outside of the normal release schedule (prior to WWDC) just so that they have an excuse to hold a press conference and talk about how Apple is doing the right thing. At least I hope that's why they're having this event today. The products mean absolutely nothing to me.
You do realize that Mac OS just BARELY got fullscreen mode No ida what you man with that. Probably that apps that don't ned "full screen mode" now have such a mode?, Like TextEdit.app? + multi-monitor support right a few years ago, right? Macs have multi monitor support since 30 years ... never saw a Mac which had not. Perhaps a Mac Plus had not?
Get out of your cave.
Sure if you wanted to drag around a bunch of individual windows and have them all jump on top of each other any time you command-tabbed to switch between apps, it 'worked'. But if you used the Cmd-F fullscreen mode then ALL of the monitors turned grey and became useless except for the one app you had full screen. And even with a 30" 2550x1440 display full screen mode is helpful at times. I often have multiple files open at once in my IDE and if you're dealing with a storyboard file or something like that, you might want all the space you can possibly get. I really like the way windows 7 handles full screening an app, especially if you want to actually divide the screen in two equal halves with two separate apps. Either way, the fact that an Alt-Tab in Windows did not bring all instances of an app to the foreground makes it far more useful than having a bunch of windows open on a single display for Mac OS. I fight with this every single time I want to have my terminal window open while I look at something else on the same screen.
If you are making money on your development skills, having dual 30 inch displays helps to boost your productivity a bit permanently while only requiring a small investment from you or your employer every several years. OSX supports these setups perfectly by letting you configure arrangement of the monitors and their exact physical layout on the desk, and has a menu bar and dock on every screen, plus multiple monitors can be connected through a single Thunderbolt cable. Windows and Linux don't. If you want power user / developer mindshare this is a must.
You do realize that Mac OS just BARELY got fullscreen mode + multi-monitor support right a few years ago, right? I actually got rid of my second 30 inch display at home because I never used it when I was working from home all the time. Now I only work from home on occasion so I don't really need it anymore anyway.
OS X is really a terrible operating system. It only compares favorably to Windows, and then not even that favorably if you are a developer.
Don't worry, it gets better with every release. And by better, I mean they increase their bug count. They often have the same OS regressions in both iOS and OS X every year when they release a new platform. It's like they don't even try to merge their fixes into their new OS before they release. And I've been using OS X as a dev machine since 10.4, too!
You're implying that banks already kept all the information and had all the necessary procedures like account verification that were necessary to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act before the law was passed. If you read the regulation (https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/safety/manual/section8-1.pdf) you'll find that's likely not the case, that many banks had to start tracking additional information and employ new procedures. So there is a precedent for the federal government to compel businesses to collect information and enact new procedures.
Other than the training requirements and the forms required to be filed with the IRS, I don't know of any new transactional record the bank would be required to keep under this law. Sure they had to start verifying SSN or TIN for account holders, yes. But you'll also note that this only covers banks that make use of FDIC or NCUSIF insurance programs. You could create a non-insured bank and it would not, at least under the original BSA rules, be required to keep any of these records or to verify the SSN or TIN of account holders. So the banks were already beholden to certain record keeping rules anyway in order to qualify for their insurance programs.
And how did that work out for the CEO of LifeLock? Well maybe they finally protected him the 14th time...