You're missing the point. The point is not that Objective C is somehow "closer" to Java or not (in reality it's "closer" to Smalltalk), the point is that valid C code is valid Objective C code. That's what "Objective C is a superset of C" means.
I am perhaps inured to desktop macs, as they are all around me at work;)
I guess the iPhone is "practically" restricted to objc...objc is a superset of C, so C is implicitly allowed, and C++ is too (Objective-C++ is a language variant of objc).
I think you must be confused. That would be pretty hard to do, since Objective C is a superset of C! In any case, you're explicitly wrong:
The clause, section 3.3.3, now reads:
"Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited)."
Not on the iPhone (and I assume neither for any of Apple's current non-laptop devices). But for the laptop, yeah, there are plenty of languages.
Where are you getting this information? I think you might be confused because OSX is not a "laptop" operating system, it covers Mac mini, laptops, and desktops (Mac Pro, imac, etc).
The clause, section 3.3.3, now reads:
"Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited)."
You seem to have the facts pretty much as I understand them as well. Which is to say that Foxconn is by no means "primarily an apple factory" as you originally claimed. As you cite in your later post, one location alone has maybe 400k employees. You think 400k employees are involved in the production of Apple products?
As an example, one slashdot poster said that in Finland the media is talkin about suicides at Nokia's factories (not "Apple's factories").
From Wikipedia: for Apple Foxconn produces Mac minis, ipods, ipads, iphones. A lot of product? Yes, for sure. They also producted motherboards for Intel, PS2 and PS3, the Wii, Xbox360, Amazon Kindles, parts for Dell, parts for HP, etc etc etc. 400k employees can produce a LOT of product.
The point I'm trying to make is that if you *stop* at 95% or 99.9% then at that point you have accepted a degree of failure - and whilst I accept 100% may be unachievable in many scenarios, continually striving to try to get to 100% should also always be the case.
I don't agree with this statement. That's like claiming that because a hosting provider offers 5 nines, that they've given up...obviously not the case.
However, if you joined that bank and then suffered fraud, the fact that you're in that 2% is meaningless to you and also doesn't imply that had you joined the other bank, you would automatically be in their 5% of fraud victims.
Of course this is true, and obvious? I'm not sure what the point of your example is. Of course nobody wants to be a fraud victim, but using your hypothetical, a 95% rate versus a 98% rate informs you as to which bank is the safer choice. It may not end up being that way for YOU specifically, but on the whole assuming the percentages are true, it holds.
, to me, seem to be an acceptable way of saying "Here's how it is but we cannot be bothered to spend the time or money investigating it any further".
When you look at the statistic we are talking about here--suicide rates per 100,000, of course you're talking about a generalized statistics. I would wager that in the US and Europe at least, that there ARE more detailed statistics that attempt to quantify the reasons people commit suicide. You're of course right that there are different reasons why people commit suicide. This doesn't change the fact that if e.g. China and the US and Europe all have similar suicide rates (which I'm not sure they do, just as a hypothetical) then maybe none of them are too bad? That is to say, if economies and societies and cultures and average ages and genders as radically different can still end up with a roughly similar suicide rate, then I think that tells us something important. This does NOT minimize the human tragedy, and it's not a way of "giving up"!
I've never liked this argument. A similar argument is made (and again, there are valid points!) that the poor whites in the south had it even worse than the blacks. At least blacks could count on regular meals, poor white farmers could count on nothing.
But black couldn't learn to read. They couldn't move to another farm. They couldn't own land. Their families could be split up on a whim. If they ran away they would be beaten and perhaps killed. And they were property.* (these are of course generalization and there were some exceptions)
Yeah, perhaps there were some positives of black slaves vs poor white southerners or poor northern factory workers, but I doubt any northern factories workers would volunteer to be a field n*gger, and while southern slaves looked down on poor whites, the poor whites sure as heck looked down on the slaves.
(FWIW, part of my family were poor Irish immigrants in the 1780s in the Appalachian foothills)
There have been 13 suicides at the working place, and, to my knowledge, suicides at the working place are very rare in our western countries.
It would be interesting if the Foxconn home+work suicide rate is much different--do you know if it is?
The fact that the suicide rate is highly correlated to cultural factors is obvious and well-known. It's partly linked to religion (some religious frown on suicide) and other more general cultural factors. Japan for instance has an _extremely_ high suicide rate. Beyond cultural, socio-economic realities also play a role.
Maybe Foxconn families get more/different compensation in the family member committed suicide at work--I don't know.
Seriously, what is this pitiful statistics you are trying to use ?
What exactly are you objecting to? Statistics are merely a way to describe a situation.
I don't get your post. 100% of just about anything is impossible. There's "no concept of 100%" because most people have realized that it's impossible! believing in easy solutions and that 100% solutions are a somewhat childish worldview.
It's like Mike Tyson said..."Everybody's got a plan, until you get hit." You can have the best contingency plans in the world, but invariably, SOMETHING is going to go wrong. Something unexpected and/or out of your control is going to pop up at some point.
Likewise here, people are going to commit suicide. Whether it's due to economic reasons (Foxconn suicide families get reimbursed), religious (dying a martyr = paradise!), mental health, tumor, euthanasia, boredom, or any other number of reasons, suicide is there. When people say something like "The rate of suicide is X in Y" that in no means diminishes the individual tragedies (if there are tragedies) or attempts to do so. It establishes a baseline for comparison around the world. If suicide levels are relatively similar across North America and Europe and worse in Russia and in-between in China (I have no idea what the stats really are) that tells us something useful. You're looking at this in a totally emotional way, but that's not at all the point!
I'm under the impression that the workers there already make relatively more than most similar jobs, and a 20% raise doesn't seem like it will make much of a life-changing difference for anyone (especially if they don't have time to spend it:P)
And the 20% doesn't make a difference for their family? *I* would be thrilled with a 20% wage increase. At the lower end of the wage scale, each dollar (or renminbi) is even more important, as instead of going to luxuries it can go to basic necessities (and things like education for children)
And just how far can money go to compensate you for hellish working conditions?
So why not give them some more breaks / shorter hours each day?
Let's see, the workers ALREADY chose to work in what you describe as hellish working conditions. Does that tell you anything?
You know who is a big Apple fan and regularly talks about Apple products?
Rush Limbaugh. He is of course squarely in the middle of the leftish artist hipster type;-)
I guess I would say, stereotypes are stereotypes. It's definitely true that Apple markets itself that way, but I don't think there's much reality of that being the main user demographic segment.
I would also say more so the reason that Apple gets covered instead of Dell is that Apple is a corporation that people have an image of, a face they know. Who knows what Dell is? It's not that that have a different face from Apple, they don't HAVE a face. Other than their "Dude, you're getting a Dell!" (or whatever) commercials, does anybody average know anythin about them? The media slobbers over everything apple.
Can you imagine being so poor and destitute, with so little prospects for the future that taking your own life for profit seems like the best way to help your family in the long run? All the while some American is working 20 hours a week managing the manufacturing of the product from his pool overlooking some valley in California; his biggest worries is whether or not he can afford his wife buying her third convertible this week, and if he is going to be able to make it down to the yacht club this Sunday
Yes, because that's what life is like for your average silicon valley worker...
Plantation slaves in the deep south had it better than many asians working in factories today.
Sure Foxconn sells to anybody who pays, but the facility in question seems to be primarily an apple factory that allows apple to skirt around running it's own high tech sweatshop
Really? Any data to back that up?
FWIW, I opened up a dell today and because of all these recent news articles just happened to notice the SATA cable has a nice big sticker on it saying "Foxconn"
Yes, the US is a location of a great amount of fraud.
Yes, but that wasn't the question. Further data?
I use the phrase "can sue" that holds meaning. Anyone can sue for any reason. You can sue your neighbor for not being home when you burned your house down. There doesn't need to be cause or standing to file paperwork. It will likely not make it past the first viewing by a judge, but anyone can sue for any reason. So "can" sue means to me that you'd get to a judgment with at least, say, a 25% chance of winning. With that definition, you can't sue.
As I said, google it. If you don't find instances of succesful law suits in these situations, you're seeing different search results than I am!
So? They send a form letter back with "on XXX date Joe Schiester stated that you were in default." And done. That's it. You have no recourse after that with the credit report agency if they contact Joe and he says it's true. At best, you can have an explanation attached to that item, but you can't get it off through the agency if the bad data was put on by someone who continues to claim it's correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding. At that point, you can sue the person that put it on, but not the agency itself.
That's not true. If you send them proof that their source data is wrong, they HAVE to respond. Again, check out the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Why wait, do it now. Go charge up a bunch of crap on a friend's credit card. Have him report it stolen a couple hours later. Sell the crap on ebay. If you aren't doing that now, then you are a liar when you say you'd game the system. And the implication that it can be gamed is irrelevant to the assertion it would stop the practice.
I'm a liar? Ok, you got me! Sheesh, I never understand how people can get so worked up in personal fashion on online conversations. People game the system right now, if you don't think such a change wouldn't bring out even more "gaming" while having a minimal change on banks, think again. Guess who pays the ultimate price? The consumer.
There is no such thing as identity theft. There is fraud. Blaming fraud on a real person vs a fictitious person is irrelevant to the act, and shouldn't change how it's treated. Identity theft was created by financial institutions to screw their customers out of some of the institution's fraud losses.
So now you want to argue semantics? Fraud / identity theft / whatever you want to call it, doesn't change the nature of the beast at all.
If you care to respond right now, let me ask you this--what specifically are banks doing wrong right now to encourage identity theft, and what specifically should they be doing differently?
Absolutely that would be the proper outcome. My point is merely that ranting isn't enough, when you just randomly toss out ideas like this you have to consider the full consequences. It's Bastiat's seen and unseen.
Some people like to think criminals are dumb. It's true that there are a lot of dumb criminals (and a lot of dumb people in general), but when it comes to financial fraud and millions of dollars, there are some smart people out there as well, and they're playing for keeps.
Kind of funny how on slashdot when it comes to computers any encryption system is beatable, any security system has holes, and it's just a matter of time (hours) before any new game / program gets cracked. Yet change the industry and the slashdotters are singing a wildly different tune about security.
I think your heart is in the right place, but I'm not sure your ideas make sense?
I opened a bank in a foreign country. They take and hash your password as you give it to them. The password is never known by anyone there, can't be retrieved and will never be seen. It's up to me to make sure I don't use it on an infected system. If it gets out, I'm pretty much on the hook for whatever is in my account when someone wipes it out. That password is worth thousands of dollars. You make sure it's secure, and you treat it as such.
God, I hope most banks don't rely on such weak security? The bank where I have my business account gave me a security token that I've got to use in addition to a username/password to login. Before I do anything major like account transfers or wires, I've got to use the security token again. Interactive Brokers trading offers security tokens as well though I haven't used theirs--I have a lookup page from them that serves the same function though.
Admittedly my personal banks do not use a security token, otp, etc. Most of them DO require usage of a pin code or csv code off a credit card/bank card before you can make account changes.
If freaking Blizzard can release a battle.net mobile authenticator for iphone/blackberry/etc, banks certainly should be able to. It's annoying.
The fraud levels in the US are some of the highest in the world, and it's because the banks don't care.
Are they really?
Let someone sue when there's an inaccuracy on their credit report (with the burden being on the person who put it there to prove it's accurate) and you'll see that crap stopped pretty quick.
Uh, really? You CAN sue, and it happens (google). First of all, you have a clear set of rights as laid out under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (it's been amended and updated, but is NOT new). If you're not familiar with your legally protected rights and options, take a look at it, I think you might not be quite as disgruntled. Your rights include the credit report companies being REQUIRED to give you a written explanation (or fixing the error) when you notify them of a mistake. And so on. If they ignore you, they get in trouble.
There are plenty of types of identity theft that are not the customers fault, nor should the bank be able to catch.
Make the banks pay an "oops" fee of $100 to their customers when the banks take out money because of a fraudulent transaction the customer couldn't have prevented.
That would be awesome. I'd set up an arrangement where my friends would steal my identity. They'd give whatever they got back to me, and we'd split the $100. Nobody would possibly take advantage of that system!
Hold the banks responsible for the damage they are causing through "identity theft" (which is nothing more than lax security blamed on their customers when the banks have the ability to stop nearly all identity theft). When that's done, then fraud will drop and identity theft will be gone except for the few cases where couples pretend to be the other to wipe out an account as part of a breakup
It's your statement here that makes me think maybe you're missing what exactly identity theft is? It doesn't HAVE to be because of "lax security" at a bank. That's certainly a problem, yes, but not by any means the sole cause! Instead of thinking about it as "identity theft" think of it as impersonating somebody else. My wife's family was hit by identity theft when a piano teacher's trash was gone through by a criminal. Inside the trash was a ripped up and voided check. Who's liable in this situation? Between going through trash, malware, malware, professional hacking rings, weak security from VENDORS, public records, giving too much data to vendors/organizations/etc, there is a LOT of information out there. Not even getting into social engineering...
Identity theft is going to be a problem as long as the
Because I build and maintain web sites, and the servers I deploy on are case-sensitive. And because I like to actually test my software so that it works everywhere, not just on a subset of installations.
That's fairly weird. Rather than running your main boot partition on a virtually unsupported mode (I thought that it had been deprecated, but can't find any evidence of this) it would seem far easier to build your sites on case-sensitive disk images... also btw, I too develop webapps which are deployed to FreeBSD server and have never once had a problem with case insensitivity/case sensitivity. What are you doing that makes this problematic?
What subset of OSX users has opted to pick case-sensitive? I can't imagine it's hardly any at all? Single digits?:-P
You're right about the technical / original intent of the phrase, but it's clearly entered the colloquial more literally (you have a steep [ie, difficult] path ahead of you to learn).
Think of it this way...if you have a revolutionary new product that's very easy to learn to use, would you advertise it as having a "steep learning curve" and expect people to think that's a good thing?
This phrase, like many others (think "begging the question") due to the literal meanings of the words has a different meaning from the original. Good luck trying to change it...
Ok, I'm kind of changing my assessment from "that was a thoughtful reply" (see previous post!) to "you're actually rather rabid." Since you're basically just ranting in your last post and completely talking past me, I'm keeping my reply somewhat short. I'd be happy to reply again if you do...
No charges have been filed. Neither LEO has been arrested. They've been clearly identified from the videotape and the testimony of a sheriff's deputy. Robbery. Assault. Using the badge to facilitate the robbery. DUI. All of it documented on tape and by eyewitness LEO testimony. The deputy saw it, and did not arrest his fellow LEOs, apparently deciding the extent of his duty was to merely try to persuade his fellow LEOs not to commit felonies.
Read the article you linked!... Frederick is facing a misdemeanor assault and battery charge.......both the Wayne County Airport Authority and the TSA have launched internal investigations into the officers' actions. For now, we are told Zima has been placed on administrative leave and... Frederick is suspended and has entered rehab."
These two people were *off-duty* and did some horrifically stupid stuff. Bad? Yes. They've been suspended from their jobs and are facing charges. What more do you want? In your conception of how such cases should be handled, what would be different?
Tell me again how it's just a few bad apples.
Here's why you're rabid--the plural of anecdote is not data. If you can answer this question--what percentage of cops commit crimes / abuses of duty that warrants their badges taken away?--then I think we could have a base to talk, but I'm 100% sure you don't have a clue, and will just keep finding random incidents such as the off-duty cop you cited above.
Oh, right, these are just ordinary people asked to do extraordinary things, so we have to expect this kind of behavior. That's odd, because I grew up in a world where randomly drafted 18-year-old kids were expected to maintain discipline even after they'd been shot and bullets were still flying.
If you're confused by what I wrote, reread my post, but your question is completely answered there. I'm not going to have a discussion with you if you won't read or comment on what I said. Secondly, the military -- all militaries! -- have occasional outbursts of the exact same kind of problems, so I don't understand your point?
But somehow, even with all of those advantages, we're still supposed to think, "Well, they're just human, we should expect bad behavior from time to time."
Please quote where I said that.
Few bad apples, few bad apples, I keep hearing this phrase, "Just a few bad apples," and that's strange because the whole saying is that "A few bad apples spoils the bunch."
I didn't say anything about apples, and I didn't see any other commenter on this article say anything about bad apples--are you thinking of something else perhaps?
By my googling there are perhaps 900,000 police in the united states. If even one half of a percent of them do something dumb in a year, that's THOUSANDS of cases for people like you to scream about the abuse of power, how all cops are bad, etc. We (unfortunately) don't live in a perfect world, people are not perfect, law enforcement officers often work in high stress environments and in high stress situations. You are NEVER going to be able to eliminate all abuses, accidents, etc. It's impossible. See my example of the Diallou case (or even the Watts case) for examples of how slight escalations can easily pile up. Your example about the drunk off-duty cop has absolutely zero relevance to this and is a complete strawman.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point. The point is not that Objective C is somehow "closer" to Java or not (in reality it's "closer" to Smalltalk), the point is that valid C code is valid Objective C code. That's what "Objective C is a superset of C" means.
I am perhaps inured to desktop macs, as they are all around me at work ;)
I guess the iPhone is "practically" restricted to objc...objc is a superset of C, so C is implicitly allowed, and C++ is too (Objective-C++ is a language variant of objc).
Unfortunately Apple seems to be killing carbon and I think Java/Cocoa is officially deprecated now.
Somewhat interesting to look at (e.g.) the Wolfenstein 3D iphone code...to see just how little Objective-C there can be!
I think you must be confused. That would be pretty hard to do, since Objective C is a superset of C! In any case, you're explicitly wrong:
The clause, section 3.3.3, now reads:
"Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited)."
(http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/08/apples_iphone_4_sdk_license_bans_flash_java_mono_apps.html)
Not on the iPhone (and I assume neither for any of Apple's current non-laptop devices). But for the laptop, yeah, there are plenty of languages.
Where are you getting this information? I think you might be confused because OSX is not a "laptop" operating system, it covers Mac mini, laptops, and desktops (Mac Pro, imac, etc).
The clause, section 3.3.3, now reads:
"Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited)."
(http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/08/apples_iphone_4_sdk_license_bans_flash_java_mono_apps.html)
You seem to have the facts pretty much as I understand them as well. Which is to say that Foxconn is by no means "primarily an apple factory" as you originally claimed. As you cite in your later post, one location alone has maybe 400k employees. You think 400k employees are involved in the production of Apple products?
As an example, one slashdot poster said that in Finland the media is talkin about suicides at Nokia's factories (not "Apple's factories").
From Wikipedia: for Apple Foxconn produces Mac minis, ipods, ipads, iphones. A lot of product? Yes, for sure. They also producted motherboards for Intel, PS2 and PS3, the Wii, Xbox360, Amazon Kindles, parts for Dell, parts for HP, etc etc etc. 400k employees can produce a LOT of product.
That was my issue with your original statement.
The point I'm trying to make is that if you *stop* at 95% or 99.9% then at that point you have accepted a degree of failure - and whilst I accept 100% may be unachievable in many scenarios, continually striving to try to get to 100% should also always be the case.
I don't agree with this statement. That's like claiming that because a hosting provider offers 5 nines, that they've given up...obviously not the case.
However, if you joined that bank and then suffered fraud, the fact that you're in that 2% is meaningless to you and also doesn't imply that had you joined the other bank, you would automatically be in their 5% of fraud victims.
Of course this is true, and obvious? I'm not sure what the point of your example is. Of course nobody wants to be a fraud victim, but using your hypothetical, a 95% rate versus a 98% rate informs you as to which bank is the safer choice. It may not end up being that way for YOU specifically, but on the whole assuming the percentages are true, it holds.
, to me, seem to be an acceptable way of saying "Here's how it is but we cannot be bothered to spend the time or money investigating it any further".
When you look at the statistic we are talking about here--suicide rates per 100,000, of course you're talking about a generalized statistics. I would wager that in the US and Europe at least, that there ARE more detailed statistics that attempt to quantify the reasons people commit suicide. You're of course right that there are different reasons why people commit suicide. This doesn't change the fact that if e.g. China and the US and Europe all have similar suicide rates (which I'm not sure they do, just as a hypothetical) then maybe none of them are too bad? That is to say, if economies and societies and cultures and average ages and genders as radically different can still end up with a roughly similar suicide rate, then I think that tells us something important. This does NOT minimize the human tragedy, and it's not a way of "giving up"!
I've never liked this argument. A similar argument is made (and again, there are valid points!) that the poor whites in the south had it even worse than the blacks. At least blacks could count on regular meals, poor white farmers could count on nothing.
But black couldn't learn to read. They couldn't move to another farm. They couldn't own land. Their families could be split up on a whim. If they ran away they would be beaten and perhaps killed. And they were property.* (these are of course generalization and there were some exceptions)
Yeah, perhaps there were some positives of black slaves vs poor white southerners or poor northern factory workers, but I doubt any northern factories workers would volunteer to be a field n*gger, and while southern slaves looked down on poor whites, the poor whites sure as heck looked down on the slaves.
(FWIW, part of my family were poor Irish immigrants in the 1780s in the Appalachian foothills)
There have been 13 suicides at the working place, and, to my knowledge, suicides at the working place are very rare in our western countries.
It would be interesting if the Foxconn home+work suicide rate is much different--do you know if it is?
The fact that the suicide rate is highly correlated to cultural factors is obvious and well-known. It's partly linked to religion (some religious frown on suicide) and other more general cultural factors. Japan for instance has an _extremely_ high suicide rate. Beyond cultural, socio-economic realities also play a role.
Maybe Foxconn families get more/different compensation in the family member committed suicide at work--I don't know.
Seriously, what is this pitiful statistics you are trying to use ?
What exactly are you objecting to? Statistics are merely a way to describe a situation.
I don't get your post. 100% of just about anything is impossible. There's "no concept of 100%" because most people have realized that it's impossible! believing in easy solutions and that 100% solutions are a somewhat childish worldview.
It's like Mike Tyson said..."Everybody's got a plan, until you get hit." You can have the best contingency plans in the world, but invariably, SOMETHING is going to go wrong. Something unexpected and/or out of your control is going to pop up at some point.
Likewise here, people are going to commit suicide. Whether it's due to economic reasons (Foxconn suicide families get reimbursed), religious (dying a martyr = paradise!), mental health, tumor, euthanasia, boredom, or any other number of reasons, suicide is there. When people say something like "The rate of suicide is X in Y" that in no means diminishes the individual tragedies (if there are tragedies) or attempts to do so. It establishes a baseline for comparison around the world. If suicide levels are relatively similar across North America and Europe and worse in Russia and in-between in China (I have no idea what the stats really are) that tells us something useful. You're looking at this in a totally emotional way, but that's not at all the point!
I'm under the impression that the workers there already make relatively more than most similar jobs, and a 20% raise doesn't seem like it will make much of a life-changing difference for anyone (especially if they don't have time to spend it :P)
And the 20% doesn't make a difference for their family? *I* would be thrilled with a 20% wage increase. At the lower end of the wage scale, each dollar (or renminbi) is even more important, as instead of going to luxuries it can go to basic necessities (and things like education for children)
And just how far can money go to compensate you for hellish working conditions?
So why not give them some more breaks / shorter hours each day?
Let's see, the workers ALREADY chose to work in what you describe as hellish working conditions. Does that tell you anything?
You know who is a big Apple fan and regularly talks about Apple products?
Rush Limbaugh. He is of course squarely in the middle of the leftish artist hipster type ;-)
I guess I would say, stereotypes are stereotypes. It's definitely true that Apple markets itself that way, but I don't think there's much reality of that being the main user demographic segment.
I would also say more so the reason that Apple gets covered instead of Dell is that Apple is a corporation that people have an image of, a face they know. Who knows what Dell is? It's not that that have a different face from Apple, they don't HAVE a face. Other than their "Dude, you're getting a Dell!" (or whatever) commercials, does anybody average know anythin about them? The media slobbers over everything apple.
Can you imagine being so poor and destitute, with so little prospects for the future that taking your own life for profit seems like the best way to help your family in the long run? All the while some American is working 20 hours a week managing the manufacturing of the product from his pool overlooking some valley in California; his biggest worries is whether or not he can afford his wife buying her third convertible this week, and if he is going to be able to make it down to the yacht club this Sunday
Yes, because that's what life is like for your average silicon valley worker...
Plantation slaves in the deep south had it better than many asians working in factories today.
How so?
Sure Foxconn sells to anybody who pays, but the facility in question seems to be primarily an apple factory that allows apple to skirt around running it's own high tech sweatshop
Really? Any data to back that up?
FWIW, I opened up a dell today and because of all these recent news articles just happened to notice the SATA cable has a nice big sticker on it saying "Foxconn"
Verizon seems to have 3G coverage here (I will not use them),
Why not / who do you use now that's better?
Yes, the US is a location of a great amount of fraud.
Yes, but that wasn't the question. Further data?
I use the phrase "can sue" that holds meaning. Anyone can sue for any reason. You can sue your neighbor for not being home when you burned your house down. There doesn't need to be cause or standing to file paperwork. It will likely not make it past the first viewing by a judge, but anyone can sue for any reason. So "can" sue means to me that you'd get to a judgment with at least, say, a 25% chance of winning. With that definition, you can't sue.
As I said, google it. If you don't find instances of succesful law suits in these situations, you're seeing different search results than I am!
So? They send a form letter back with "on XXX date Joe Schiester stated that you were in default." And done. That's it. You have no recourse after that with the credit report agency if they contact Joe and he says it's true. At best, you can have an explanation attached to that item, but you can't get it off through the agency if the bad data was put on by someone who continues to claim it's correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding. At that point, you can sue the person that put it on, but not the agency itself.
That's not true. If you send them proof that their source data is wrong, they HAVE to respond. Again, check out the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Why wait, do it now. Go charge up a bunch of crap on a friend's credit card. Have him report it stolen a couple hours later. Sell the crap on ebay. If you aren't doing that now, then you are a liar when you say you'd game the system. And the implication that it can be gamed is irrelevant to the assertion it would stop the practice.
I'm a liar? Ok, you got me! Sheesh, I never understand how people can get so worked up in personal fashion on online conversations. People game the system right now, if you don't think such a change wouldn't bring out even more "gaming" while having a minimal change on banks, think again. Guess who pays the ultimate price? The consumer.
There is no such thing as identity theft. There is fraud. Blaming fraud on a real person vs a fictitious person is irrelevant to the act, and shouldn't change how it's treated. Identity theft was created by financial institutions to screw their customers out of some of the institution's fraud losses.
So now you want to argue semantics? Fraud / identity theft / whatever you want to call it, doesn't change the nature of the beast at all.
If you care to respond right now, let me ask you this--what specifically are banks doing wrong right now to encourage identity theft, and what specifically should they be doing differently?
Absolutely that would be the proper outcome. My point is merely that ranting isn't enough, when you just randomly toss out ideas like this you have to consider the full consequences. It's Bastiat's seen and unseen.
Some people like to think criminals are dumb. It's true that there are a lot of dumb criminals (and a lot of dumb people in general), but when it comes to financial fraud and millions of dollars, there are some smart people out there as well, and they're playing for keeps.
Kind of funny how on slashdot when it comes to computers any encryption system is beatable, any security system has holes, and it's just a matter of time (hours) before any new game / program gets cracked. Yet change the industry and the slashdotters are singing a wildly different tune about security.
I think your heart is in the right place, but I'm not sure your ideas make sense?
I opened a bank in a foreign country. They take and hash your password as you give it to them. The password is never known by anyone there, can't be retrieved and will never be seen. It's up to me to make sure I don't use it on an infected system. If it gets out, I'm pretty much on the hook for whatever is in my account when someone wipes it out. That password is worth thousands of dollars. You make sure it's secure, and you treat it as such.
God, I hope most banks don't rely on such weak security? The bank where I have my business account gave me a security token that I've got to use in addition to a username/password to login. Before I do anything major like account transfers or wires, I've got to use the security token again. Interactive Brokers trading offers security tokens as well though I haven't used theirs--I have a lookup page from them that serves the same function though.
Admittedly my personal banks do not use a security token, otp, etc. Most of them DO require usage of a pin code or csv code off a credit card/bank card before you can make account changes.
If freaking Blizzard can release a battle.net mobile authenticator for iphone/blackberry/etc, banks certainly should be able to. It's annoying.
The fraud levels in the US are some of the highest in the world, and it's because the banks don't care.
Are they really?
Let someone sue when there's an inaccuracy on their credit report (with the burden being on the person who put it there to prove it's accurate) and you'll see that crap stopped pretty quick.
Uh, really? You CAN sue, and it happens (google). First of all, you have a clear set of rights as laid out under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (it's been amended and updated, but is NOT new). If you're not familiar with your legally protected rights and options, take a look at it, I think you might not be quite as disgruntled. Your rights include the credit report companies being REQUIRED to give you a written explanation (or fixing the error) when you notify them of a mistake. And so on. If they ignore you, they get in trouble.
There are plenty of types of identity theft that are not the customers fault, nor should the bank be able to catch.
Make the banks pay an "oops" fee of $100 to their customers when the banks take out money because of a fraudulent transaction the customer couldn't have prevented.
That would be awesome. I'd set up an arrangement where my friends would steal my identity. They'd give whatever they got back to me, and we'd split the $100. Nobody would possibly take advantage of that system!
Hold the banks responsible for the damage they are causing through "identity theft" (which is nothing more than lax security blamed on their customers when the banks have the ability to stop nearly all identity theft). When that's done, then fraud will drop and identity theft will be gone except for the few cases where couples pretend to be the other to wipe out an account as part of a breakup
It's your statement here that makes me think maybe you're missing what exactly identity theft is? It doesn't HAVE to be because of "lax security" at a bank. That's certainly a problem, yes, but not by any means the sole cause! Instead of thinking about it as "identity theft" think of it as impersonating somebody else. My wife's family was hit by identity theft when a piano teacher's trash was gone through by a criminal. Inside the trash was a ripped up and voided check. Who's liable in this situation? Between going through trash, malware, malware, professional hacking rings, weak security from VENDORS, public records, giving too much data to vendors/organizations/etc, there is a LOT of information out there. Not even getting into social engineering...
Identity theft is going to be a problem as long as the
Because I build and maintain web sites, and the servers I deploy on are case-sensitive. And because I like to actually test my software so that it works everywhere, not just on a subset of installations.
That's fairly weird. Rather than running your main boot partition on a virtually unsupported mode (I thought that it had been deprecated, but can't find any evidence of this) it would seem far easier to build your sites on case-sensitive disk images... also btw, I too develop webapps which are deployed to FreeBSD server and have never once had a problem with case insensitivity/case sensitivity. What are you doing that makes this problematic?
What subset of OSX users has opted to pick case-sensitive? I can't imagine it's hardly any at all? Single digits? :-P
The Portal game itself crashes on launch if you try to run it on anything other than the most recent GPUs.
Runs fine on my on my Geforce 8600gt. Not exactly state of the art by any means (3+ year old card).
Have no idea why you would choose to complain after choosing to use case-senstive hfs... Why do you need that ,btw?
You keep repeating yourself, but what exactly is the terrifying glimpse of the future?
Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve
I interpreted that to mostly agree with the OP.
You're right about the technical / original intent of the phrase, but it's clearly entered the colloquial more literally (you have a steep [ie, difficult] path ahead of you to learn).
Think of it this way...if you have a revolutionary new product that's very easy to learn to use, would you advertise it as having a "steep learning curve" and expect people to think that's a good thing?
This phrase, like many others (think "begging the question") due to the literal meanings of the words has a different meaning from the original. Good luck trying to change it...
Ok, I'm kind of changing my assessment from "that was a thoughtful reply" (see previous post!) to "you're actually rather rabid." Since you're basically just ranting in your last post and completely talking past me, I'm keeping my reply somewhat short. I'd be happy to reply again if you do...
No charges have been filed. Neither LEO has been arrested. They've been clearly identified from the videotape and the testimony of a sheriff's deputy. Robbery. Assault. Using the badge to facilitate the robbery. DUI. All of it documented on tape and by eyewitness LEO testimony. The deputy saw it, and did not arrest his fellow LEOs, apparently deciding the extent of his duty was to merely try to persuade his fellow LEOs not to commit felonies.
Read the article you linked! ... Frederick is facing a misdemeanor assault and battery charge. ... ...both the Wayne County Airport Authority and the TSA have launched internal investigations into the officers' actions. For now, we are told Zima has been placed on administrative leave and ... Frederick is suspended and has entered rehab."
These two people were *off-duty* and did some horrifically stupid stuff. Bad? Yes. They've been suspended from their jobs and are facing charges. What more do you want? In your conception of how such cases should be handled, what would be different?
Tell me again how it's just a few bad apples.
Here's why you're rabid--the plural of anecdote is not data. If you can answer this question--what percentage of cops commit crimes / abuses of duty that warrants their badges taken away?--then I think we could have a base to talk, but I'm 100% sure you don't have a clue, and will just keep finding random incidents such as the off-duty cop you cited above.
Oh, right, these are just ordinary people asked to do extraordinary things, so we have to expect this kind of behavior. That's odd, because I grew up in a world where randomly drafted 18-year-old kids were expected to maintain discipline even after they'd been shot and bullets were still flying.
If you're confused by what I wrote, reread my post, but your question is completely answered there. I'm not going to have a discussion with you if you won't read or comment on what I said. Secondly, the military -- all militaries! -- have occasional outbursts of the exact same kind of problems, so I don't understand your point?
But somehow, even with all of those advantages, we're still supposed to think, "Well, they're just human, we should expect bad behavior from time to time."
Please quote where I said that.
Few bad apples, few bad apples, I keep hearing this phrase, "Just a few bad apples," and that's strange because the whole saying is that "A few bad apples spoils the bunch."
I didn't say anything about apples, and I didn't see any other commenter on this article say anything about bad apples--are you thinking of something else perhaps?
By my googling there are perhaps 900,000 police in the united states. If even one half of a percent of them do something dumb in a year, that's THOUSANDS of cases for people like you to scream about the abuse of power, how all cops are bad, etc. We (unfortunately) don't live in a perfect world, people are not perfect, law enforcement officers often work in high stress environments and in high stress situations. You are NEVER going to be able to eliminate all abuses, accidents, etc. It's impossible. See my example of the Diallou case (or even the Watts case) for examples of how slight escalations can easily pile up. Your example about the drunk off-duty cop has absolutely zero relevance to this and is a complete strawman.