i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same
Sure, do whatever you want, but please don't advise others. What you're doing is dangerous and illegal.
Sure enough. When I was getting my bachelors degree I almost killed someone on a bicycle twice. Both times they were on the sidewalk, going against the flow of traffic. In one instance I looked left (and checked the sidewalk too) and it was clear. Looked right, it was clear, looked back left and started to go just as a bicyclist came flying around the corner at ~20MPH. I slammed on the brakes and he didn't even swerve because he did not expect me either. I missed him by about 6 inches.
The second time I was stopped at a red light, waiting to make a left turn. The light turned green, I looked left, saw it was clear, looked right and started to go. Not only did this bicyclist come flying up the wrong side of the street on the sidewalk, but he also ran a red light, and I could not see him until the last second because of a large van stopped next to me at the light. If you're going to be going the wrong way down the road, you had better be moving at pedestrian speeds or someone will eventually kill you and the law will likely indicate that the bicyclist is at least 50% at fault.
I had been operating legally and prudently, and the driver in a split second cut me off and stopped - blocking the road. There was nothing I could do. I was a victim. And the ER doctor was lecturing me, implying it was my fault for not being "careful" enough.
I used to bike daily when I lived in California. Now I live in a much more "rural" type city and its too far to bike anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. I ride my motorcycle everywhere now. I assume that every bastard on the road is trying to run me over, all at once. I've had quite a few incidents where I thought for sure I was going to crash and only a well planned out swerve or a quick application of the brakes saved me. I also, while on a bicycle, had a school bus driver pass me on the left and then proceed to make a right turn that almost caused his back end to run me over while I was in the bike lane. Again a quick application of the brakes followed by a hard swerve saved me. I understand that none of those incidents were my fault, and I was very pissed off when they occurred. However, if I had not been hyper-vigilant at those times, I would have likely been killed. In a court of law, I would have never placed any blame on myself in those situations. In the real world, I would have absolutely blamed myself had I been hurt in any of those incidents. I should have expected it. Thankfully I have not yet encountered a situation I could not get out of.
Right... because words have actual meanings, and we have entirely different words that mean "handling" or "loading" or "storing" or "testing" or "fumbling" or "cleaning," etc. Lack of precision in the language surrounding the nature and use of firearms is a non-trivial problem (see so-called journalists who interchangeably - and cluelessly - use "machine gun" and "assault rifle" and "semi-automatic" and the like).
You typically wouldn't be handling a gun in public pretty much ever.
Thank you for being a pedantic asshole and making my very point for me. If you're handling a gun in public people are going to think you are brandishing it, no matter what you are doing. That's my point. I did not mean to say that you would actually have to wave it in a menacing manner. The gun itself will menace people. Just because the literal definition says "shake or wave" does not mean that you have to literally shake or wave the weapon for people to consider it brandishing. In fact, allow me refer you to California Penal Code 417 which considers any of the following to be "brandishing": drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon
But around strangers? Say, at the range? Loading, cleaning, etc., happens all the time around other people. As a range officer, I can assure you it happens all the time.
The app is theoretically to report instances of unsafe gun handling. If you're a range officer, and you allow unsafe handling in your range, you might want to look for a new job. I also highly doubt that this app is designed to report gun ranges, as they are usually clearly marked on the outside of the facility.
Or if you drop it while loading it, or are stupid while cleaning it, etc. I didn't stipulate perfection in handling and experience, only pointed out that there are all sorts of situations where an AD can occur without anyone brandishing a weapon at somebody.
Fine. You're obviously taking brandish very literally. Some people would consider you holding a gun at all to be threatening and menacing. But you typically would not load, or clean the weapon in public. This is clearly to address public displays of a firearm, which again, most people would consider to be brandishing. If I am stupid while cleaning my weapon, no one is likely to even see it to report it on this app.
A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon, which is most certainly illegal except under certain circumstances
Ahh, so what you're saying is that only criminals with no respect for laws will accidentally discharge bullets.
--Jeremy
No, what I am saying is that, if you're brandishing a weapon in public you are either in imminent danger, at a range or other authorized location, or you are breaking the law. If you are in imminent danger, then the person using the app is likely in imminent danger. If you are breaking the law, the person will be much better served by calling the police with his phone, than by putting an update into this gun tracking website.
A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon
This is, as they say, so wrong it's not even wrong.
How do you accidentally discharge a weapon that is properly holstered? Or in a safe? Or a gun carrying box? I implore you to show me. Because it just cannot happen. You might discharge it while it is in your hand, or if you drop it when it is not properly secured, but I don't see it going off in any other event. No. The gun will only go off it ifs in your hand (AKA you're brandishing it), or you drop it while brandishing it.
open carry is not consider hazardous in fact in my state there are law the specify that open carry is legal.
I'm not implying that open carry is hazardous, but it is often illegal, and the only way that this app could really be used anyway. If they aren't open carrying, then how could you possibly know they have fire arms? UNless you follow people home from gun-ranges, sporting goods store trips, etc?
You mean I get to release my pent-up anger by destroying physical systems *and* get paid a boatload of money to do it? Where do I sign up?
I used to work for the CA Attorney General's office and I got to destroy equipment all the time. They'd give me a big sledge hammer, I'd take it down to the loading dock, and beat my frustrations out on it. Perfectly good systems that, due to information security requirements, were not allowed to be recycled for anything. I objected and said we should only destroy the drives, but that was CA policy at the time.
Well hold on here. I wasn't talking about someone using a firearm to threaten or to attack. I am talking about people that are just being stupid with firearms (open carrying, what have you).
A bullet doesn't care if it was discharged intentionally or accidentally. If a firearm is being handled in an unsafe manner, someone can be maimed or killed.
And note that open carrying is perfectly legal in many states, so calling the police wouldn't accomplish anything there regardless.
Ok lets start here. First of all, even if open carrying is legal, that does not mean that the police will not come and investigate and also express the concerns of the neighbors to the gun owner. Secondly. A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon, which is most certainly illegal except under certain circumstances (when lawful for self-defense, at a properly zoned and designated firing range, etc). If it is in a case, a safe, a holster, or anything like that, the firing mechanism should be covered. So if someone is following the law (and therefore, in the eyes of their jurisdiction, a safe gun owner), then there is no need to worry about a discharge of any kind. Now if the gun owner tries to defend himself with that weapon, then you may have a problem. But if they are being unsafe, then they are more than likely violating the law and the police are the correct entities to handle the situation.
The point I am trying to make is that this app has nothing to do with stopping criminal behavior, but the only meaningful purpose of it is to harass gun owners.
So empowering people to avoid showing up on this list isn't a "meaningful purpose?"
The app does not empower anyone to avoid violence of any kind. Life is dangerous. The streets are dangerous. A few months ago there was a group of teenage boys in my city (about 5) that were going around beating random strangers with pipes. They didn't even rob the strangers. Just left them bleeding and unconscious in the street. No app can protect you from something like that, can it? So how can it protect you from an accidental discharge of a firearm by some jackass just passing through your neighborhood? Or some piece of crap teenager who decides you would be fun to beat with a pipe? It's just a silly premise to suggest that this app can do anything to provide any sort of meaningful safety to anyone.
Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.
And yet the "you can just call the police" argument somehow becomes unacceptable when used to justify banning firearms outright.
Well hold on here. I wasn't talking about someone using a firearm to threaten or to attack. I am talking about people that are just being stupid with firearms (open carrying, what have you). If someone is shooting at you, neither the app nor the police are going to do you any good. You'll either have fled or been hurt long before either do you any good. And lets not forget that the police have no legal obligation to protect you or your property. The point I am trying to make is that this app has nothing to do with stopping criminal behavior, but the only meaningful purpose of it is to harass gun owners. I do not agree with that. I do not believe that I have any right to harass gun owners, gays, straights, or even politicians. And If anyone deserves to be harassed, its a politician.
Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.
And I'm sure the police and those laws were a great comfort to all of those victims of gun violence and rampage shootings, and 100% effectively prevented any deaths.
Oh I didn't realize this app was to help me avoid public shootings. Here I was thinking the point of this app was to demonize, harass, and annoy people who own guns. Right. Ok I will be sure to pull this app out next time I am worried about a school shooting.
Not as dangerous as lecturers at public universities. I think I will write an app that allows you to geotag your local professors, track their license plates, and give you hints and tips on how to heckle them and ruin their lives for doing things that you may or may not agree with.
Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.
I am not an avid gamer, but I do occasionally play games. I will never drop $60 on a new game, and I won't go to Gamestop to spend $50 on a used one. What I will do, however is occasionally troll garage sales, and Amazon for interesting looking games. I bought the Force Unleashed I and II for $8 total a few weeks ago. If Microsoft's new system were in place, I never could have done that.
While I am in no way affiliated with the site, I am a big fan of Slick Deals. There is another site called Fat Wallet, which I do not use (don't like the layout when I've tried it), that also specializes in deals. I spend, on average, $10 for a 360 game. I have so little time for gaming that a game is only worth about that much to me.
The NYTimes talks about the fees that come along with the use of a preloaded debit card, but in some states (e.g. California), there is a legal requirement that the employee be able to get their pay without any fees, etc. , and at a location convenient to them. No paycheck drawn on a bank in some other state with only 3 branches in that state, etc.
Mind you, that doesn't mean that employers actually follow the rules, or that the employees, who typically are spending all their time just staying alive, will pursue this with the Dept of Labor Standards Enforcement, but at least it is the law.
A smart poor person would contact the Department of Industrial Relations in California. You aren't considered to have been paid (even if you have access to the money) if most of those rules aren't followed. That makes you legally entitled to up to one day's pay for every calendar day in which your employer fails to comply with the law. Speaking from experience (employer failed to give me final paycheck on last day when given more than 72 hours notice, they held my pay for over 6 weeks), that can be a nice little payday.
But then, hardly anybody takes checks anymore, and those that do often process them electronically on the spot, eliminating much of the "benefit" of checks for poor people (namely, "floating" checks a few days before you get paid when you don't have the balance to cover it.)
I remember when they started this....I thought it was a great thing to see checks clear instantly. Then i realized, banks still kept their "hold" on the money. So it was the worst of both words, the check writer has no float time, AND the person cashing it still has to wait that whole float time. Basically, the banks stole the float time for themselves.
Maybe my bank likes me better than your bank likes you, but I get 100% of the money instantly if I go in and deposit with the teller. If i use the ATM, I get 10% of the money immediately (limit $300), or $100 immediately, whichever is greater.
in the back of my head, I'm trying to determine whether I should use English or Chinese to express an idea and it usually expresses itself as Chinglish.
That would be my experience from watching friends of mine. They would be going on in English for forever and then throw out the occasional Chinese word. Or if they were having a completely private conversation, sometimes they would discuss things in Chinese with the occasional English word. I'm not a native Spanish speaker, but when I do converse with my friends we often choose wording based on the language we feel provides the most expression for the point that we are trying to get across.
You realize that successful blockbusters aren't the norm right? But, I guess that doesn't matter since you're trying to rationalize your pirated DVD collection. I bet you're sitting at home right now complaining about how much the free version you torrented "sucks".
I think that movies aren't making the money they used to because they don't tell a good story any more. They just try to come up with ludicrous ways to add as much special effects to a movie as possible. I'd rather watch a foreign film with a good story any day of the week over 99% of what Hollywood puts out these days. If I want to watch a special effects laden movie, I'll pay $1 to rent it, or watch it through a streaming service. But they are cutting their deals with Netflix, Amazon Instant, etc. You put out a good movie with a good story and I'll probably see it in the theater. I'll probably buy the DVD. And I'll probably think fondly of it for the rest of my life. You put out garbage, and you'll be lucky if I watch it from Redbox.
I don't think gatekeeper means what you think it means. It's not a walled garden. It's not uac. It's a sensible anti malware tool. What, do you root for the bad guys now?
You're right Gatekeeper is not what I was talking about. But you knew what I was talking about and you are just trolling. I am referring to the setting that, enabled by default in 10.8 and beyond, does not let you install anything but from the Apple App Store. And the tool called GateKeeper on MacOS has a Windows equivalent that warns you when you are installing something that seems to be dangerous. But it is not any better than any antivirus software out there. There was that Mac OS vulnerability within the last year where a virus would get installed by visiting a website. Apple added the signature to Gatekeeper to try and clean up infections. The author changed the signature and Gatekeeper no longer blocked it. Of course, Apple fixed the original vulnerability and you had to actively run something to get the virus at that point, but it still ran despite Gatekeeper.
The only way to eliminate this risk would be to force the user into a walled garden. That may be feasible on smartphones and tablets, but it's not acceptable on workstations.
apple has successfully closed holes for this sort of stuff through gatekeeper and mac app store. gatekeeper has three settings, and at its most restricitve setting you can only run programs that have been registered wtih apple. medium setting throws a stern warning, and low setting is off.
the mac app store takes it one step further by porting the security of ios app store to mac.
You've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid man. I use Macs almost exclusively right now but even I know that I have to be careful what I execute on my Mac. Sure I could turn on Gatekeeper and only run software that has been blessed by his Holiness, but then I would not be able to run all sorts of software I need for work. But you know what, you can crank up the UAC permissions on Windows Vista+ and get the same results. Plus OP specifically indicated that a walled garden like the Gatekeeper crap you just spouted as being unacceptable to him and to many others.
providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said.
Really? The NSA is now handing out classified intelligence to corporations like party favors??? No, I don't think so.
Except that I am sure that they do. I'm sure that they provide corporate espionage services in the interests of the NSA or those politicians who receive the right donations from the benefiting corporations. There have been allegations for years that the NSA has had a hand in building US business interests through electronic intercepts. Hard to find a lot of info with the internet blowing up right now but here is a paywalled article from 2000 dealing with the issue of Industrial Espionage and the NSA.
People are going to compose documents, spreadsheets, etc. on a tablet??
No, not really.
Maybe I need more coffee, can someone explain why anyone would want this?
People want to be able to *edit* them on a tablet (last minute crap, corrections, etc). I'm hoping it's only minor edits. Of course, with the lack of proper font, alignment, bullet point and color support it may do more damage to an existing document than help it;-)
Tablets are generally a consumption device. Some users can use them to create content, especially when used with a keyboard, but they are by far the exceptions.
I think my tablet + keyboard is great for generating content while traveling. The tablet goes on the tray table, the keyboard on my lap and all of the sudden I have room. I'm kind of a tall person, so its very hard for me to use a laptop on an airplane. I've reviewed, created, and edited documents while traveling. I've also used it to even write out some code. It just depends on what I need to do and how long I'll be traveling for.
I care about upgradeability because of the huge premium hardware vendors charge for RAM, HDD and other upgrades.
Good job that the Apple slideshow clearly shows an openable case (it has an 'unlock' slider on the back) with the RAM and SSD in sockets, then.
I didn't watch the video. But I will say that I know the laptops are not upgradeable. The memory is soldered to the board since the last revision. So the Macbooks are not upgradeable.
I just read ten posts above about lack of upgradability.
Who cares!?
It's not a big deal. The days of upgrading your pc every few years are over. Two years after buying this machine, Apple will release a newer version. The newer version will be so much better (faster bus, etc), that the older one will be left in the dust and on ebay for $499.
Things have been headed this way for a long while now. Why upgrade when it's only a little more to get a new machine with the best and latest/greatest hardware inside? This argument didn't hold as much weight in the past when the computer ecosystem moved slower. These days though, we move faster.
I like upgrading because it's an interest of mine to spend/waste my time getting things as fast and cool as possible, but honestly, this is more for fun than anything. If my professional life depended on a few more GB/s, I would drop down the money and upgrade at every chance I have.
Max out the ram and other options when you buy it, and make the most of it until there's a new model.
I care about upgradeability because of the huge premium hardware vendors charge for RAM, HDD and other upgrades.
Do you actually use a Mac? The red (X) one closes the window (also Command-W). Hiding (Command-H) is something different altogether and applies to the app as a whole. The yellow (-) button minimizes the window to the dock (Command-M). Neither of these two buttons are "arbitrary." They're both totally consistent.
The green "Zoom" button (+) (no hotkey though of course you could assign one in System Preferences if you want) does as I described before - sizes the window to "optimal size."* This is the only one that may not seem entirely "consistent," in that it results in different window sizes for different apps; but that only follows logically from the fact that not every window needs to be the same size (ie. full screen or whatever). What is is the "optimal" size depends on the app's developers and the content being displayed. There is no reason a Finder window should take up full width on a 27" monitor (it would be 80% whitespace and unnecessarily block other windows) so the zoom button causes the window to size itself to fit it's contents and no more. Xcode, on the other hand, is designed to make use of all that width, so the zoom button will size the window to fill all the available space. There's nothing inconsistent about this - the underlying principle is the same in both instances, and the behavior is reliably repeatable in each app.
For your purposes, I'd bind "Zoom" to some convenient hotkey and then you can easily fix Xcode's window size/position with a single keystroke when switching monitors (or try a window manager like Slate that can do this automatically when your monitor config changes; I don't think the one I mentioned before has that feature).
* Older versions of iTunes being an exception; this button used to transform the iTunes window into the mini player. Thankfully they seem to have fixed that recently. Another 20 years of incremental improvements and maybe iTunes won't be an abomination anymore...
Yes I've used a Mac. I typed that post from a Mac. Sorry if I said the red button, I meant the yellow one. But you see that the app sizing its own window on that button is what makes it feel inconsistent. It may make sense to you, but its different than what Mac OS, Windows and x-windows based OSes were doing at the time that it was introduced (unless my memory is serving me incorrectly).
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, any random project with pockets as deep as Amazon's. There was no ruling, Apple withdrew the complaint.
I thought you had to defend a trademark in order for it to remain valid?
i will be riding and walking against traffic out of self-preservation, and will continue to advise others to do the same
Sure, do whatever you want, but please don't advise others. What you're doing is dangerous and illegal.
Sure enough. When I was getting my bachelors degree I almost killed someone on a bicycle twice. Both times they were on the sidewalk, going against the flow of traffic. In one instance I looked left (and checked the sidewalk too) and it was clear. Looked right, it was clear, looked back left and started to go just as a bicyclist came flying around the corner at ~20MPH. I slammed on the brakes and he didn't even swerve because he did not expect me either. I missed him by about 6 inches.
The second time I was stopped at a red light, waiting to make a left turn. The light turned green, I looked left, saw it was clear, looked right and started to go. Not only did this bicyclist come flying up the wrong side of the street on the sidewalk, but he also ran a red light, and I could not see him until the last second because of a large van stopped next to me at the light. If you're going to be going the wrong way down the road, you had better be moving at pedestrian speeds or someone will eventually kill you and the law will likely indicate that the bicyclist is at least 50% at fault.
I had been operating legally and prudently, and the driver in a split second cut me off and stopped - blocking the road. There was nothing I could do. I was a victim. And the ER doctor was lecturing me, implying it was my fault for not being "careful" enough.
I used to bike daily when I lived in California. Now I live in a much more "rural" type city and its too far to bike anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. I ride my motorcycle everywhere now. I assume that every bastard on the road is trying to run me over, all at once. I've had quite a few incidents where I thought for sure I was going to crash and only a well planned out swerve or a quick application of the brakes saved me. I also, while on a bicycle, had a school bus driver pass me on the left and then proceed to make a right turn that almost caused his back end to run me over while I was in the bike lane. Again a quick application of the brakes followed by a hard swerve saved me. I understand that none of those incidents were my fault, and I was very pissed off when they occurred. However, if I had not been hyper-vigilant at those times, I would have likely been killed. In a court of law, I would have never placed any blame on myself in those situations. In the real world, I would have absolutely blamed myself had I been hurt in any of those incidents. I should have expected it. Thankfully I have not yet encountered a situation I could not get out of.
Right... because words have actual meanings, and we have entirely different words that mean "handling" or "loading" or "storing" or "testing" or "fumbling" or "cleaning," etc. Lack of precision in the language surrounding the nature and use of firearms is a non-trivial problem (see so-called journalists who interchangeably - and cluelessly - use "machine gun" and "assault rifle" and "semi-automatic" and the like). You typically wouldn't be handling a gun in public pretty much ever.
Thank you for being a pedantic asshole and making my very point for me. If you're handling a gun in public people are going to think you are brandishing it, no matter what you are doing. That's my point. I did not mean to say that you would actually have to wave it in a menacing manner. The gun itself will menace people. Just because the literal definition says "shake or wave" does not mean that you have to literally shake or wave the weapon for people to consider it brandishing. In fact, allow me refer you to California Penal Code 417 which considers any of the following to be "brandishing": drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon
But around strangers? Say, at the range? Loading, cleaning, etc., happens all the time around other people. As a range officer, I can assure you it happens all the time.
The app is theoretically to report instances of unsafe gun handling. If you're a range officer, and you allow unsafe handling in your range, you might want to look for a new job. I also highly doubt that this app is designed to report gun ranges, as they are usually clearly marked on the outside of the facility.
Or if you drop it while loading it, or are stupid while cleaning it, etc. I didn't stipulate perfection in handling and experience, only pointed out that there are all sorts of situations where an AD can occur without anyone brandishing a weapon at somebody.
Fine. You're obviously taking brandish very literally. Some people would consider you holding a gun at all to be threatening and menacing. But you typically would not load, or clean the weapon in public. This is clearly to address public displays of a firearm, which again, most people would consider to be brandishing. If I am stupid while cleaning my weapon, no one is likely to even see it to report it on this app.
A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon, which is most certainly illegal except under certain circumstances
Ahh, so what you're saying is that only criminals with no respect for laws will accidentally discharge bullets.
--Jeremy
No, what I am saying is that, if you're brandishing a weapon in public you are either in imminent danger, at a range or other authorized location, or you are breaking the law. If you are in imminent danger, then the person using the app is likely in imminent danger. If you are breaking the law, the person will be much better served by calling the police with his phone, than by putting an update into this gun tracking website.
A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon
This is, as they say, so wrong it's not even wrong.
How do you accidentally discharge a weapon that is properly holstered? Or in a safe? Or a gun carrying box? I implore you to show me. Because it just cannot happen. You might discharge it while it is in your hand, or if you drop it when it is not properly secured, but I don't see it going off in any other event. No. The gun will only go off it ifs in your hand (AKA you're brandishing it), or you drop it while brandishing it.
open carry is not consider hazardous in fact in my state there are law the specify that open carry is legal.
I'm not implying that open carry is hazardous, but it is often illegal, and the only way that this app could really be used anyway. If they aren't open carrying, then how could you possibly know they have fire arms? UNless you follow people home from gun-ranges, sporting goods store trips, etc?
You mean I get to release my pent-up anger by destroying physical systems *and* get paid a boatload of money to do it? Where do I sign up?
I used to work for the CA Attorney General's office and I got to destroy equipment all the time. They'd give me a big sledge hammer, I'd take it down to the loading dock, and beat my frustrations out on it. Perfectly good systems that, due to information security requirements, were not allowed to be recycled for anything. I objected and said we should only destroy the drives, but that was CA policy at the time.
Well hold on here. I wasn't talking about someone using a firearm to threaten or to attack. I am talking about people that are just being stupid with firearms (open carrying, what have you).
A bullet doesn't care if it was discharged intentionally or accidentally. If a firearm is being handled in an unsafe manner, someone can be maimed or killed.
And note that open carrying is perfectly legal in many states, so calling the police wouldn't accomplish anything there regardless.
Ok lets start here. First of all, even if open carrying is legal, that does not mean that the police will not come and investigate and also express the concerns of the neighbors to the gun owner. Secondly. A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon, which is most certainly illegal except under certain circumstances (when lawful for self-defense, at a properly zoned and designated firing range, etc). If it is in a case, a safe, a holster, or anything like that, the firing mechanism should be covered. So if someone is following the law (and therefore, in the eyes of their jurisdiction, a safe gun owner), then there is no need to worry about a discharge of any kind. Now if the gun owner tries to defend himself with that weapon, then you may have a problem. But if they are being unsafe, then they are more than likely violating the law and the police are the correct entities to handle the situation.
The point I am trying to make is that this app has nothing to do with stopping criminal behavior, but the only meaningful purpose of it is to harass gun owners.
So empowering people to avoid showing up on this list isn't a "meaningful purpose?"
The app does not empower anyone to avoid violence of any kind. Life is dangerous. The streets are dangerous. A few months ago there was a group of teenage boys in my city (about 5) that were going around beating random strangers with pipes. They didn't even rob the strangers. Just left them bleeding and unconscious in the street. No app can protect you from something like that, can it? So how can it protect you from an accidental discharge of a firearm by some jackass just passing through your neighborhood? Or some piece of crap teenager who decides you would be fun to beat with a pipe? It's just a silly premise to suggest that this app can do anything to provide any sort of meaningful safety to anyone.
Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.
And yet the "you can just call the police" argument somehow becomes unacceptable when used to justify banning firearms outright.
Well hold on here. I wasn't talking about someone using a firearm to threaten or to attack. I am talking about people that are just being stupid with firearms (open carrying, what have you). If someone is shooting at you, neither the app nor the police are going to do you any good. You'll either have fled or been hurt long before either do you any good. And lets not forget that the police have no legal obligation to protect you or your property. The point I am trying to make is that this app has nothing to do with stopping criminal behavior, but the only meaningful purpose of it is to harass gun owners. I do not agree with that. I do not believe that I have any right to harass gun owners, gays, straights, or even politicians. And If anyone deserves to be harassed, its a politician.
And I'm sure the police and those laws were a great comfort to all of those victims of gun violence and rampage shootings, and 100% effectively prevented any deaths.
Oh I didn't realize this app was to help me avoid public shootings. Here I was thinking the point of this app was to demonize, harass, and annoy people who own guns. Right. Ok I will be sure to pull this app out next time I am worried about a school shooting.
aren't they?
Not as dangerous as lecturers at public universities. I think I will write an app that allows you to geotag your local professors, track their license plates, and give you hints and tips on how to heckle them and ruin their lives for doing things that you may or may not agree with.
Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.
I am not an avid gamer, but I do occasionally play games. I will never drop $60 on a new game, and I won't go to Gamestop to spend $50 on a used one. What I will do, however is occasionally troll garage sales, and Amazon for interesting looking games. I bought the Force Unleashed I and II for $8 total a few weeks ago. If Microsoft's new system were in place, I never could have done that.
While I am in no way affiliated with the site, I am a big fan of Slick Deals. There is another site called Fat Wallet, which I do not use (don't like the layout when I've tried it), that also specializes in deals. I spend, on average, $10 for a 360 game. I have so little time for gaming that a game is only worth about that much to me.
The NYTimes talks about the fees that come along with the use of a preloaded debit card, but in some states (e.g. California), there is a legal requirement that the employee be able to get their pay without any fees, etc. , and at a location convenient to them. No paycheck drawn on a bank in some other state with only 3 branches in that state, etc.
Mind you, that doesn't mean that employers actually follow the rules, or that the employees, who typically are spending all their time just staying alive, will pursue this with the Dept of Labor Standards Enforcement, but at least it is the law.
A smart poor person would contact the Department of Industrial Relations in California. You aren't considered to have been paid (even if you have access to the money) if most of those rules aren't followed. That makes you legally entitled to up to one day's pay for every calendar day in which your employer fails to comply with the law. Speaking from experience (employer failed to give me final paycheck on last day when given more than 72 hours notice, they held my pay for over 6 weeks), that can be a nice little payday.
I remember when they started this....I thought it was a great thing to see checks clear instantly. Then i realized, banks still kept their "hold" on the money. So it was the worst of both words, the check writer has no float time, AND the person cashing it still has to wait that whole float time. Basically, the banks stole the float time for themselves.
Maybe my bank likes me better than your bank likes you, but I get 100% of the money instantly if I go in and deposit with the teller. If i use the ATM, I get 10% of the money immediately (limit $300), or $100 immediately, whichever is greater.
in the back of my head, I'm trying to determine whether I should use English or Chinese to express an idea and it usually expresses itself as Chinglish.
That would be my experience from watching friends of mine. They would be going on in English for forever and then throw out the occasional Chinese word. Or if they were having a completely private conversation, sometimes they would discuss things in Chinese with the occasional English word. I'm not a native Spanish speaker, but when I do converse with my friends we often choose wording based on the language we feel provides the most expression for the point that we are trying to get across.
You realize that successful blockbusters aren't the norm right? But, I guess that doesn't matter since you're trying to rationalize your pirated DVD collection. I bet you're sitting at home right now complaining about how much the free version you torrented "sucks".
I think that movies aren't making the money they used to because they don't tell a good story any more. They just try to come up with ludicrous ways to add as much special effects to a movie as possible. I'd rather watch a foreign film with a good story any day of the week over 99% of what Hollywood puts out these days. If I want to watch a special effects laden movie, I'll pay $1 to rent it, or watch it through a streaming service. But they are cutting their deals with Netflix, Amazon Instant, etc. You put out a good movie with a good story and I'll probably see it in the theater. I'll probably buy the DVD. And I'll probably think fondly of it for the rest of my life. You put out garbage, and you'll be lucky if I watch it from Redbox.
I don't think gatekeeper means what you think it means. It's not a walled garden. It's not uac. It's a sensible anti malware tool. What, do you root for the bad guys now?
You're right Gatekeeper is not what I was talking about. But you knew what I was talking about and you are just trolling. I am referring to the setting that, enabled by default in 10.8 and beyond, does not let you install anything but from the Apple App Store. And the tool called GateKeeper on MacOS has a Windows equivalent that warns you when you are installing something that seems to be dangerous. But it is not any better than any antivirus software out there. There was that Mac OS vulnerability within the last year where a virus would get installed by visiting a website. Apple added the signature to Gatekeeper to try and clean up infections. The author changed the signature and Gatekeeper no longer blocked it. Of course, Apple fixed the original vulnerability and you had to actively run something to get the virus at that point, but it still ran despite Gatekeeper.
The only way to eliminate this risk would be to force the user into a walled garden. That may be feasible on smartphones and tablets, but it's not acceptable on workstations.
apple has successfully closed holes for this sort of stuff through gatekeeper and mac app store. gatekeeper has three settings, and at its most restricitve setting you can only run programs that have been registered wtih apple. medium setting throws a stern warning, and low setting is off. the mac app store takes it one step further by porting the security of ios app store to mac.
You've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid man. I use Macs almost exclusively right now but even I know that I have to be careful what I execute on my Mac. Sure I could turn on Gatekeeper and only run software that has been blessed by his Holiness, but then I would not be able to run all sorts of software I need for work. But you know what, you can crank up the UAC permissions on Windows Vista+ and get the same results. Plus OP specifically indicated that a walled garden like the Gatekeeper crap you just spouted as being unacceptable to him and to many others.
providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said.
Really? The NSA is now handing out classified intelligence to corporations like party favors??? No, I don't think so.
Except that I am sure that they do. I'm sure that they provide corporate espionage services in the interests of the NSA or those politicians who receive the right donations from the benefiting corporations. There have been allegations for years that the NSA has had a hand in building US business interests through electronic intercepts. Hard to find a lot of info with the internet blowing up right now but here is a paywalled article from 2000 dealing with the issue of Industrial Espionage and the NSA.
People are going to compose documents, spreadsheets, etc. on a tablet??
No, not really.
Maybe I need more coffee, can someone explain why anyone would want this?
People want to be able to *edit* them on a tablet (last minute crap, corrections, etc). I'm hoping it's only minor edits. Of course, with the lack of proper font, alignment, bullet point and color support it may do more damage to an existing document than help it ;-)
Tablets are generally a consumption device. Some users can use them to create content, especially when used with a keyboard, but they are by far the exceptions.
I think my tablet + keyboard is great for generating content while traveling. The tablet goes on the tray table, the keyboard on my lap and all of the sudden I have room. I'm kind of a tall person, so its very hard for me to use a laptop on an airplane. I've reviewed, created, and edited documents while traveling. I've also used it to even write out some code. It just depends on what I need to do and how long I'll be traveling for.
I care about upgradeability because of the huge premium hardware vendors charge for RAM, HDD and other upgrades.
Good job that the Apple slideshow clearly shows an openable case (it has an 'unlock' slider on the back) with the RAM and SSD in sockets, then.
I didn't watch the video. But I will say that I know the laptops are not upgradeable. The memory is soldered to the board since the last revision. So the Macbooks are not upgradeable.
Folks,
I just read ten posts above about lack of upgradability.
Who cares!?
It's not a big deal. The days of upgrading your pc every few years are over. Two years after buying this machine, Apple will release a newer version. The newer version will be so much better (faster bus, etc), that the older one will be left in the dust and on ebay for $499.
Things have been headed this way for a long while now. Why upgrade when it's only a little more to get a new machine with the best and latest/greatest hardware inside? This argument didn't hold as much weight in the past when the computer ecosystem moved slower. These days though, we move faster.
I like upgrading because it's an interest of mine to spend/waste my time getting things as fast and cool as possible, but honestly, this is more for fun than anything. If my professional life depended on a few more GB/s, I would drop down the money and upgrade at every chance I have.
Max out the ram and other options when you buy it, and make the most of it until there's a new model.
I care about upgradeability because of the huge premium hardware vendors charge for RAM, HDD and other upgrades.
Do you actually use a Mac? The red (X) one closes the window (also Command-W). Hiding (Command-H) is something different altogether and applies to the app as a whole. The yellow (-) button minimizes the window to the dock (Command-M). Neither of these two buttons are "arbitrary." They're both totally consistent. The green "Zoom" button (+) (no hotkey though of course you could assign one in System Preferences if you want) does as I described before - sizes the window to "optimal size."* This is the only one that may not seem entirely "consistent," in that it results in different window sizes for different apps; but that only follows logically from the fact that not every window needs to be the same size (ie. full screen or whatever). What is is the "optimal" size depends on the app's developers and the content being displayed. There is no reason a Finder window should take up full width on a 27" monitor (it would be 80% whitespace and unnecessarily block other windows) so the zoom button causes the window to size itself to fit it's contents and no more. Xcode, on the other hand, is designed to make use of all that width, so the zoom button will size the window to fill all the available space. There's nothing inconsistent about this - the underlying principle is the same in both instances, and the behavior is reliably repeatable in each app. For your purposes, I'd bind "Zoom" to some convenient hotkey and then you can easily fix Xcode's window size/position with a single keystroke when switching monitors (or try a window manager like Slate that can do this automatically when your monitor config changes; I don't think the one I mentioned before has that feature). * Older versions of iTunes being an exception; this button used to transform the iTunes window into the mini player. Thankfully they seem to have fixed that recently. Another 20 years of incremental improvements and maybe iTunes won't be an abomination anymore...
Yes I've used a Mac. I typed that post from a Mac. Sorry if I said the red button, I meant the yellow one. But you see that the app sizing its own window on that button is what makes it feel inconsistent. It may make sense to you, but its different than what Mac OS, Windows and x-windows based OSes were doing at the time that it was introduced (unless my memory is serving me incorrectly).