If the US lauds itself as the freest (did I spell that right?) country of the world, as its founding fathers imagined, then it should be all right to say " Obama 'will have a 50 cal in the head soon'".
True, but that's not all he wrote. He also wrote, "Shoot the nig in the head." which is a direct call to violence. In my opinion that clearly crosses the line of legality. Just as we arrest organized criminals for doing no more than telling another to go shoot someone, this man deserves some jail time. People seem to think that freedom of speech or religion or the right to bear arms are unlimited rights, but that is never the case. The law is all about deciding what happens when rights between individuals conflict. The right to free expression does not trump all other rights, like the right to life and liberty. If I can rig up a bomb to be activated by voice control, that in no way legalizes murder committed that way because my free speech act of saying, "detonate" is constitutionally protected. People seem to have the most juvenile and superficial understanding of rights, especially in this thread so far. Our educational system is certainly failing.
This is an interesting strategy on the part of Facebook. Their fear is that Google+ will grow large enough to reach critical mass and then they will have to compete based upon merit instead of their already established position. This move adds fuel to the fire of Facebook being inferior to Google+, but at the same time reduces the visibility of Google+ to the market of people on Facebook. Facebook seems to be betting on the strategy of making it hard to migrate away and keeping as many users as possible ignorant of the existence of Google+. It is probably good business, although Google ill probably be smart enough to buy the needed marketing on television and through their own ad distribution channels.
But that doesn't really matter because Facebook is already reviled for its privacy policies and poor customer service. One more instance is a drop in the bucket. And if Google+ does gain critical mass, Facebook will have to do a "turning over a new leaf" campaign anyway. So in my assessment, this is scuzzy and underhanded and probably a smart thing to do.
How long before they receive some legal love from Apple^h^h^h^h^h Steve?
You mean for developing a zeroconf implementation, with help from Apple engineers and referencing the open source implementation from Apple and the RFC Apple largely wrote? Or do you mean for integrating it with CUPS which is another open source project Apple currently funds and develops?
Apple wants the open source technologies they build their OS's on as widely adopted as possible because it makes their devices more useful, which sells more of them, which makes them more money. That's why Apple open sources things like bonjour in the first place.
The problem with your logic is that it doesn't make sense to have the power companies regulate their own emissions, which is actually what you're arguing for (albeit in a roundabout way, by having them sued anytime they break some undefined limit).
Except I'm not arguing for undefined limits and regulation. I'm arguing for the right of people to sue those who harm them and have the courts decide whether or not that harm can be proved to the satisfaction of the jury. Power companies can absolutely afford to hire people to research how much risk they are posing to the community and decide for themselves what is needed to prevent causing harm to others. And if they underestimate that risk, well I guess a jury of 12 should be deciding if they were being willfully harmful and if those harmed deserve recompense.
Think about it this way - if you argue that you can sue the power company for failing to not cause climate change, then you are implicitly stating that the power companies are responsible for regulating climate-change-causing things.
Wow! What convoluted language. "Failure to not cause climate change" must be similar to "failure to not train a dog as an attack animal and then leave it unattended in public". Don't you feel a little silly using such rhetorical nonsense?
In any case, I'm not implicitly stating that they are responsible for regulating climate change causing things. They're just responsible for their own actions, the same as everyone else! If McDonalds serves coffee at temperatures that are undrinkable and cause serious burns, someone suing them isn't holding them responsible for regulating all things that might burn, just for burning things they are giving to others and using; their own actions.
It makes far more sense, legally, to sue the EPA for failing to perform its essential function, just as you can sue the FDA for failing to regulate food quality, or sue the FAA for failing to regulate air transport.
And yet people can and do sue airlines for ignoring safety and food and drug companies for willfully poisoning us for profit and people have the right to sue them over it. I'm not seeing the difference here.
Unfortunately, if its legal to smoke in the jail cell you would lose.
You're not very familiar with US law are you? Let me be real clear here. Legal != you'll win a lawsuit. It's not illegal to serve scalding hot coffee, but McDonalds lost. It's not illegal to own a trampoline or pool and have it in your backyard unattended, but a great many people have lost lawsuits over doing just that. It's not illegal to own animals, but if one of your animals escapes and hurts someone, you better believe you're going to lose a lawsuit. Maybe you need to look into the phrase "civil law".
Releasing CO2 isn't illegal as long as it falls within current regulations. Suing the power companies is like me suing smokers (who are smoking in legal places).
Sure, that's a fine analogy. Say you're in one of the few counties that still allows smoking in jail cells. Say you have severe asthma and the guy in the next cell is smoking. You tell him about the condition and ask him to stop and he tells you to fuck off and that it's legal and he doesn't care if it harms you. Yeah, you should absofuckinglutely have the right to sue him. That's what lawsuits are for, resolving conflicts where a crime is not being committed, but where the rights of two people or corporations are in conflict. You'll note I made the analogy a bit more specific, since we are all pretty well trapped in the prison cell called Earth. In the same vein, if you grow up with your parents smoking, knowing the health problems, yeah you should be able to sue your parents for forcing you to be subject to second hand smoke and if you can demonstrate it is because of the smoking, you should win and they should pay your medical and compensate you for the pain and suffering and reduced lifespan. Just because it is legal does not mean you're free from responsibility for your actions when they hurt others.
The complainants were smacked down unanimously simply because suing the power companies is the wrong target.
Wait what? Suing the people polluting and causing the problem is the wrong target and they should be suing the government agency that has not had the power to do anything yet? How does that make any sense? Regardless of if it is illegal to use asbestos in buildings, citizens should still have the right to sue companies that sell it to builders and willfully ignore the scientific evidence of its harmful effects. Likewise citizen should still be able to sue power companies for poisoning them and causing damage to crops and businesses by contributing to global warming... if they can demonstrate scientifically that is what is happening.
When you are calling science a method, you are thinking of "scientific method". But science is not a method, like carpentry is not a set of carpentry tools.
I think you're trying to make a semantic argument. Carpentry is the application of carpentry tools and by definition any tool used in carpentry is a carpentry tool. The scientific method is a formal method whose application is called "scientific discovery," "scientific research," or simply "science". So what are these "scientific phenomena" which you refrain from defining? They can be anything because the scientific method can be applied to any question. Your argument seems to be an attempt to dismiss science by claiming some problems cannot have this logical methodology applied to them, thus you can just believe whatever irrational thing you want and not be fighting against "science".
That means that those phenomena are limited to the scope of time and space of existence of humankind.
What an absurd restriction. What does that have to do with the scientific method. One can hypothesize that one specific long extinct creature is descended from another. One can create tests that would falsify that hypothesis. One can perform those tests and either support or disprove the hypothesis. That's science. It can be performed by humans or AIs's or extraterrestrials.
Maybe you need to go back and do a little more study on both logic and science in the academic sense before venturing into application.
The term conservative is so misused as to be meaningless. Conservative literally means being cautious about change. By that definition, neither Republicans nor Libertarians are financially conservative since both are advocating extremist economic policies with tax rates vastly less progressive than historical norms.
Surely, logic and reason are important tools of science, but they are not science.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Science is a formalized method build upon informal logic. It is inductive evidence in the form of tests not falsified used to deductively determine an answer. That's pretty much a textbook definition of an informal logical application. Ergo, science is logic.
Science is studying scientific phenomena...
Scientific phenomena? Science is a method and it can be applied to determine the truth (with varying levels of success) for any problem. I once explained science to some kids in terms of how to find out if a girl liked a student. Is that a scientific phenomena?
"When we started out it was $1337 which if you write it down spells out 'lite' which is hacker speak for elite. Since then we've increased the top prize to 3133.70 which spells 'elite,'" explained Rukowski.
Seriously? 1337 spells "lite"? Are the authors of this article really that clueless and have that little competent review of their material? 1337 spells "leet" which sounds like "elite" if you don't really pronounce the first letter. Isn't this explained in "Hackers" or some other pop culture movie?
Do they pay the coders this much too? or are the code submissions all donated?
Coders are paid by Mozilla if they are employees. Coders are paid by other companies or organizations to code for Firefox, as necessary to meet that employer's needs. I could certainly see Mozilla offering a bounty for coding a specific feature, but this is usually called a contract and is exclusive to one or one group of reputable, vetted coders. The only reason they are offering money for exploits is because they don't know what, exactly, needs to be done and because the community hasn't jumped on the issue and put time/money into it (or because others are offering money for them to not contribute work and sell the exploits on the black market). I'm sure, however, if you start paying coders to not donate code to Mozilla, they will respond by countering (or suing your ass).
The big difference is: in Android you can explicitly launch a background service (usually for playing back music, downloading something, etc..), which is usually done in combination with notifications. Sure, there are some buggy apps that might start a service and never quit, or leave the GPS on, and that happens less frequently in iOS.
The problem is, lots of Android apps launch background services that use resources, often in very inefficient ways. This results in very poor battery performance for a large number of users. Even the Android developers acknowledge it as their biggest problem right now. And when you say it happens less frequently on iOS, I think you mean it basically does not happen because Apple makes everyone use their well optimized services for things like notifications and location and they vet the apps before they get to the user.
Look I'm a huge fan of Android and I think they've done a lot of things right, but in this area, Apple managed to pull off much better results. Hopefully Google will eventually be able to catch up or batteries will improve enough so it doesn't matter.
But its very unusual, and has a lot of added benefit...
So unusual the head of Motorola's mobile division said it is the cause of 70% of all phone returns?
and you can easily watch which application caused that (you get a "see which apps consumed more battery" dialog when your battery is drained)
And here is another big problem. Expecting users to manage their collections of apps by manually monitoring battery usage is a non-starter for non-geek users. Expecting them to figure it out after they've already purchased the offending app is likewise less than ideal.
Performance issues and battery drain related to leaving "unclosed apps" [on the iPhone] is not unusual.
The scope of the issue on iOS and Android is hardly comparable. I'm not even sure you would be able to see a visible difference in battery use between killing apps on the iPhone and leaving them running. I've not seen a single actual test of this, just here-say ala the article you cite and someone having more battery at the same time the next day. But you know what, now I'm curious. I've never run my iPhone out of battery in a day and I rarely get below 60% despite leaving a dozens of apps running in the background all the time. I'm actually going to test this theory and see how much of a difference it makes, if any.
No text processor is good with 100 pages full of pictures. Either split it up to one file per chapter, or learn Latex.
Framemaker and inDesign are both layout programs a Word user can learn in an afternoon. They handle hundreds of pages of pictures just fine. There s no technical limitation preventing a word processor from doing this, just the fact that we're stuck dealing with legacy crap. I have a Pages document I'm working on that is at about 150 pages right now, averaging three large images per page and has a dozen or so charts. Pages is just as much a "text processor" as Word is, but my document saves and opens just fine and is responsive. I can scroll up and down without lag and I don't have to test it after saving to see if the file is corrupted (as I do with Word because of relatively common file corruption on save of large files).
Word is a piece of crap and has been for a very long time. Lack of real competition and lack of a need to respond to customers has made it that way. OpenOffice.org has been similarly unresponsive because of their corporate sponsor. We'll see if LibreOffice changes the game and drives real improvement, like what we've seen in the browser market of late.
Xcerion never used the mark in commerce though, and iCloud Comm did for years, which helps their case.
Huh? Xcerion ran icloud.com web services for several years now. Heck, they still run it just under a different name. It was and is a commercial service they advertised and sold. How is that not commerce?
You realize that Apple actually *did* to the due diligence here and paid $4.5M for the trademark from the actual owner, right?
I think you are somewhat mistaken. As I recall Apple bought the icloud.com domain from Xcerion for $4.5 million. No one had filed a trademark. Apple did register for a trademark. You are correct, however, in saying that it seems more than a little fishy to file against Apple for buying a domain that had been in active use for a cloud computing service for years. I mean if this company really was offering cloud computing services and considered iCloud to be their trademark, why did they never file suit against Xcerion? Did they seriously never look at the domain? This seems a lot more like some VOIP reseller deciding they might be able to get some cash in a settlement by claiming a trademark, even though they picked the name years after Xcerion started a service with that exact name.
Yes, these abuses are bad, but what would the alternative be? Massive poverty and unemployment.
WTF? How about employment with requirements for human rights for workers. It's not like other companies aren't working hard on the problem.
The problem isn't Nintendo, but is rooted in the Chinese government and the Chinese culture.
The problem is Nintendo and the Chinese government and the Chinese culture.
Without large companies like Foxconn, the alternative most likely wouldn't be a higher standard of living...
Or you know, working at a different Foxconn plant that works for a company like Apple that requires Foxconn maintain standards, audits for compliance, openly publishes audits, and cancels contracts when Foxconn or other companies violate the requirements. You make it seem like the only alternative to slavery is poverty, but that's just bullshit you tell yourself to not feel bad while enjoying your possessions made with the suffering of others.
I'm ready to stand corrected but I'd be very surprised if any electronics manufacturer today wasn't having assembly done in China where human rights abuses are probably taking place on the factory floors.
Sure, lots of companies are having assembly done in China, a huge number with this same company. Apple, notably, has requirements for all plants that work on Apple products. Every year they perform audits of the facilities, they openly publish the audits including all abuses found, they require companies to reform their practices and regularly stop doing business with companies that are willfully or repeatedly out of compliance.
The answer to the problem is not equivocate and excuse abuses and lack of transparency, but the demand as a consumer, that companies you do business with follow suit and make sure human rights abuses are not happening. As a consumer you have the power to influence Nintendo and other companies.
...Sony appears infinitely more evil than Nintendo.
Just because Sony appears more evil doesn't mean people don't have reason to attack Nintendo. Not as bad as Sony, is damning with faint praise.
I can't think of anything Nintendo has ever done to justify this.
Nintendo consoles are made by Foxconn in China and Nintendo does not release any public information about how or if they assure that human rights abuses are not taking place. Do they use underage workers, workers forced to work unacceptably long hours, and workers forced to work in dangerous conditions? Maybe, probably, but we sure don't know and Nintendo isn't performing and publishing audits of third world manufacturing facilities and telling us when they stop doing business because of abuses (as a very few companies have). Nintendo devices use minerals mined by slave labor in Africa. Nintendo arguably has serious problems with toxic chemicals from their discarded devices and manufacturing processes polluting the environment.
All of the above are reasons why someone might be upset with Nintendo and think they need to pressure them to make changes. I'm not saying those are the reasons, but then, maybe you should not assume Nintendo has done no wrong unless you research a bit.
At the minute, BSD style licences are more trendy from a business perspective and big organisations like Apple, Google [youtube.com] and so forth see it as the best collaborative way forward.
I think you're being overly simplistic. It's like stating white cases on electronics are more trendy than black and big organizations see them as they way forward. Rather, different licenses are more suited to different purposes. BSD style licenses are well suited to core technologies and reference implementations of new standards, where wide adoption is more important than getting continued code from all parties. Think zeroconf. It was a new technology and even though several major companies wrote implementations all by themselves with no community input, they licensed them BSD so that companies writing closed source could incorporate them. This is because it made the standard stronger and their own implementations more useful (more systems support it).
Then there are projects like end user applications (like LibreOffice). It doesn't help the community or the company writing it to have closed source forks competing with the open version. For these type of apps, a stronger copyleft license is more beneficial. That way if someone wants to make a modification for their organization or purpose, that code comes back to the app for everyone and doesn't result in developer drain away to closed forks.
You stated that Apple left virus scanning to third parties and scanned for trojans. This is true on OS X, not on Mac classic, thus narrowing the conversation. While it is true Apple does not scan for viruses, your comment that they leave it to third parties is misleading in that it implies they have an actual choice. It implies there are real viruses that could infect a Mac and Apple has chosen not to include those signatures.
It is like stating, "the governor has not allowed any executions of murderers in her state since taking office" in a situation where there haven't been any murder convictions in her state since taking office. True and misleading.
You then implied I stated Mac OS X was invulnerable:
Who claimed OS X will always be invulnerable? Just you, just now, in a strawman argument.
Your reading comprehension is failing. That is not at all what I implied. Rather I said you attacked that idea, even though no one else had stated it. This is a rhetorical device called a strawman argument with which you should be familiar. It is a logical fallacy.
Do you see why I think you've over reacted a bit?
Pointing out incorrect statements and logical failures in your post isn't an overreaction. It's a civil discussion under the assumption that the conversation is working towards the goal of defining the truth and furthering understanding, rather than trying to score points. I took issue with your implication that Apple has made a decision to not include virus signatures, which I think is incorrect. I strongly suspect if there is a real virus threat Apple will add it to the list. I don't know this to be true, but I think it is important to point out that there is no evidence that Apple has chosen to do otherwise so that people are not misled. A clear and correct statement would be that Apple has not included any virus definitions in their blacklist, although there do not seem to be any known, relevant viruses to include as yet.
And how do you know exactly what changed in the malware, and what Apple was detecting? I'll tell you this - one of the things that changed was the filename. So it's possible that Apple was just looking for particular filenames.
True it would be possible, or you could look at the actual list at:/System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources/XProtect.plist and see that there are a variety of pattern matches for each malware variant.
Isn't that what Network AV is for? Apple supplied AV is targeting home users.
Say your colleague gives you.zip archive full of files that he's worked with on a Windows machine and wants you to review some of the data for whatever reason (imagine they are some kind of self-extracting Powerpoint.exe files along with the source.ppt files).
Umm, okay, how does the Mac open the self extracting.exe files? Once the.ppt files are processed through the Mac version of Powerpoint or OO or Numbers, they don't have macro issues, so there is no problem.
So you think Apple should be scanning thousands of virus sigs ever time a file is opened, thus slowing down operations on the off chance that user will open, not change, and then pass on a file that has an executable virus in it?
Most machines in workplaces will share SMB drives between Mac and Windows machines - this is a good example of why you need an AV program for every computer no matter the OS.
Not a very good argument. If you have a shared SMB drive, your file server should be scanning it and your ID server should be monitoring the network for activation. If you don't have a SMB server (like 90%+ of Mac users) why waste the time and processing power looking for Windows viruses at the OS level. For those rare use cases you can install third party AV.
No where did I claim that anyone said it was invulnerable. I said that "I" was not foolish enough to believe it will remain Virus free.
Agreed, but attacking an idea no one else has proffered is what a strawman argument is. You attacked the idea that Macs are invulnerable, thus implying that someone else had made such a claim and thus bolstering your own credibility. This is pure rhetoric, and a logical fallacy to boot.
...you seem to think I'm claiming that Mac's are a virus sponge...
You're doing it again. Where did I say or even imply that? You really need to stop assuming what other people think, when they've written no such thing.
I also stated that there have been viruses for 'Mac', not for 'OS X', although the link I posted was OS X specific (albeit a proof of concept).
While your statement is true, it is also misleading. You were specifically talking about the "Mac scanner" which is a feature only of OS X, and speaking about its lack of viruses definitions. Since there would be little to no point in including Mac classic virus definitions in the OS X scanner, you can't really claim that the existence of Mac classic viruses is particularly relevant. Speaking of which, you still haven't answered the most basic question I've posed twice now. For the third time, what virus definition do you think Apple should include instead of, "left virus scanning up to 3rd parties"?
No, that was just an example (of which 4 variants of Inqtana were found).
Yes, it was an example, but it was an example that did not match the criteria of an "in the wild" virus for OS X. Nor do Mac Classic viruses. Seriously, what virus definition would be of any use for Apple to include? Everyone always hand waves and says there are a few, but they always turn out to be proof of concept experiments with no payload and not in the wild, or simple trojans. There is certainly some small amount of malware out there, just not really viruses, which makes it odd that someone would complain that Apple doesn't include any signatures for viruses.
...it does not mean that OS X will always be invulnerable. It is typically one of the first to fall in White Hat conventions, which of course leads to quick patches to close any vulnerabilities.
Who claimed OS X will always be invulnerable? Just you, just now, in a strawman argument. As for OS X in hacking competitions, there don't seem to be too many of them, and while OS X has not stood up at PWN2OWN particularly well, surely even with a little knowledge of security you recognize that direct attacks by security professionals and attacks that make their way into automated malware are very, very different things.
Slashdot Mirror
If the US lauds itself as the freest (did I spell that right?) country of the world, as its founding fathers imagined, then it should be all right to say " Obama 'will have a 50 cal in the head soon'".
True, but that's not all he wrote. He also wrote, "Shoot the nig in the head." which is a direct call to violence. In my opinion that clearly crosses the line of legality. Just as we arrest organized criminals for doing no more than telling another to go shoot someone, this man deserves some jail time. People seem to think that freedom of speech or religion or the right to bear arms are unlimited rights, but that is never the case. The law is all about deciding what happens when rights between individuals conflict. The right to free expression does not trump all other rights, like the right to life and liberty. If I can rig up a bomb to be activated by voice control, that in no way legalizes murder committed that way because my free speech act of saying, "detonate" is constitutionally protected. People seem to have the most juvenile and superficial understanding of rights, especially in this thread so far. Our educational system is certainly failing.
This is an interesting strategy on the part of Facebook. Their fear is that Google+ will grow large enough to reach critical mass and then they will have to compete based upon merit instead of their already established position. This move adds fuel to the fire of Facebook being inferior to Google+, but at the same time reduces the visibility of Google+ to the market of people on Facebook. Facebook seems to be betting on the strategy of making it hard to migrate away and keeping as many users as possible ignorant of the existence of Google+. It is probably good business, although Google ill probably be smart enough to buy the needed marketing on television and through their own ad distribution channels.
But that doesn't really matter because Facebook is already reviled for its privacy policies and poor customer service. One more instance is a drop in the bucket. And if Google+ does gain critical mass, Facebook will have to do a "turning over a new leaf" campaign anyway. So in my assessment, this is scuzzy and underhanded and probably a smart thing to do.
How long before they receive some legal love from Apple^h^h^h^h^h Steve?
You mean for developing a zeroconf implementation, with help from Apple engineers and referencing the open source implementation from Apple and the RFC Apple largely wrote? Or do you mean for integrating it with CUPS which is another open source project Apple currently funds and develops?
Apple wants the open source technologies they build their OS's on as widely adopted as possible because it makes their devices more useful, which sells more of them, which makes them more money. That's why Apple open sources things like bonjour in the first place.
The problem with your logic is that it doesn't make sense to have the power companies regulate their own emissions, which is actually what you're arguing for (albeit in a roundabout way, by having them sued anytime they break some undefined limit).
Except I'm not arguing for undefined limits and regulation. I'm arguing for the right of people to sue those who harm them and have the courts decide whether or not that harm can be proved to the satisfaction of the jury. Power companies can absolutely afford to hire people to research how much risk they are posing to the community and decide for themselves what is needed to prevent causing harm to others. And if they underestimate that risk, well I guess a jury of 12 should be deciding if they were being willfully harmful and if those harmed deserve recompense.
Think about it this way - if you argue that you can sue the power company for failing to not cause climate change, then you are implicitly stating that the power companies are responsible for regulating climate-change-causing things.
Wow! What convoluted language. "Failure to not cause climate change" must be similar to "failure to not train a dog as an attack animal and then leave it unattended in public". Don't you feel a little silly using such rhetorical nonsense?
In any case, I'm not implicitly stating that they are responsible for regulating climate change causing things. They're just responsible for their own actions, the same as everyone else! If McDonalds serves coffee at temperatures that are undrinkable and cause serious burns, someone suing them isn't holding them responsible for regulating all things that might burn, just for burning things they are giving to others and using; their own actions.
It makes far more sense, legally, to sue the EPA for failing to perform its essential function, just as you can sue the FDA for failing to regulate food quality, or sue the FAA for failing to regulate air transport.
And yet people can and do sue airlines for ignoring safety and food and drug companies for willfully poisoning us for profit and people have the right to sue them over it. I'm not seeing the difference here.
Unfortunately, if its legal to smoke in the jail cell you would lose.
You're not very familiar with US law are you? Let me be real clear here. Legal != you'll win a lawsuit. It's not illegal to serve scalding hot coffee, but McDonalds lost. It's not illegal to own a trampoline or pool and have it in your backyard unattended, but a great many people have lost lawsuits over doing just that. It's not illegal to own animals, but if one of your animals escapes and hurts someone, you better believe you're going to lose a lawsuit. Maybe you need to look into the phrase "civil law".
Releasing CO2 isn't illegal as long as it falls within current regulations. Suing the power companies is like me suing smokers (who are smoking in legal places).
Sure, that's a fine analogy. Say you're in one of the few counties that still allows smoking in jail cells. Say you have severe asthma and the guy in the next cell is smoking. You tell him about the condition and ask him to stop and he tells you to fuck off and that it's legal and he doesn't care if it harms you. Yeah, you should absofuckinglutely have the right to sue him. That's what lawsuits are for, resolving conflicts where a crime is not being committed, but where the rights of two people or corporations are in conflict. You'll note I made the analogy a bit more specific, since we are all pretty well trapped in the prison cell called Earth. In the same vein, if you grow up with your parents smoking, knowing the health problems, yeah you should be able to sue your parents for forcing you to be subject to second hand smoke and if you can demonstrate it is because of the smoking, you should win and they should pay your medical and compensate you for the pain and suffering and reduced lifespan. Just because it is legal does not mean you're free from responsibility for your actions when they hurt others.
The complainants were smacked down unanimously simply because suing the power companies is the wrong target.
Wait what? Suing the people polluting and causing the problem is the wrong target and they should be suing the government agency that has not had the power to do anything yet? How does that make any sense? Regardless of if it is illegal to use asbestos in buildings, citizens should still have the right to sue companies that sell it to builders and willfully ignore the scientific evidence of its harmful effects. Likewise citizen should still be able to sue power companies for poisoning them and causing damage to crops and businesses by contributing to global warming... if they can demonstrate scientifically that is what is happening.
When you are calling science a method, you are thinking of "scientific method". But science is not a method, like carpentry is not a set of carpentry tools.
I think you're trying to make a semantic argument. Carpentry is the application of carpentry tools and by definition any tool used in carpentry is a carpentry tool. The scientific method is a formal method whose application is called "scientific discovery," "scientific research," or simply "science". So what are these "scientific phenomena" which you refrain from defining? They can be anything because the scientific method can be applied to any question. Your argument seems to be an attempt to dismiss science by claiming some problems cannot have this logical methodology applied to them, thus you can just believe whatever irrational thing you want and not be fighting against "science".
That means that those phenomena are limited to the scope of time and space of existence of humankind.
What an absurd restriction. What does that have to do with the scientific method. One can hypothesize that one specific long extinct creature is descended from another. One can create tests that would falsify that hypothesis. One can perform those tests and either support or disprove the hypothesis. That's science. It can be performed by humans or AIs's or extraterrestrials.
Maybe you need to go back and do a little more study on both logic and science in the academic sense before venturing into application.
Conservative != libertarian.
The term conservative is so misused as to be meaningless. Conservative literally means being cautious about change. By that definition, neither Republicans nor Libertarians are financially conservative since both are advocating extremist economic policies with tax rates vastly less progressive than historical norms.
Surely, logic and reason are important tools of science, but they are not science.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Science is a formalized method build upon informal logic. It is inductive evidence in the form of tests not falsified used to deductively determine an answer. That's pretty much a textbook definition of an informal logical application. Ergo, science is logic.
Science is studying scientific phenomena...
Scientific phenomena? Science is a method and it can be applied to determine the truth (with varying levels of success) for any problem. I once explained science to some kids in terms of how to find out if a girl liked a student. Is that a scientific phenomena?
From the article:
"When we started out it was $1337 which if you write it down spells out 'lite' which is hacker speak for elite. Since then we've increased the top prize to 3133.70 which spells 'elite,'" explained Rukowski.
Seriously? 1337 spells "lite"? Are the authors of this article really that clueless and have that little competent review of their material? 1337 spells "leet" which sounds like "elite" if you don't really pronounce the first letter. Isn't this explained in "Hackers" or some other pop culture movie?
Do they pay the coders this much too? or are the code submissions all donated?
Coders are paid by Mozilla if they are employees. Coders are paid by other companies or organizations to code for Firefox, as necessary to meet that employer's needs. I could certainly see Mozilla offering a bounty for coding a specific feature, but this is usually called a contract and is exclusive to one or one group of reputable, vetted coders. The only reason they are offering money for exploits is because they don't know what, exactly, needs to be done and because the community hasn't jumped on the issue and put time/money into it (or because others are offering money for them to not contribute work and sell the exploits on the black market). I'm sure, however, if you start paying coders to not donate code to Mozilla, they will respond by countering (or suing your ass).
The big difference is: in Android you can explicitly launch a background service (usually for playing back music, downloading something, etc..), which is usually done in combination with notifications. Sure, there are some buggy apps that might start a service and never quit, or leave the GPS on, and that happens less frequently in iOS.
The problem is, lots of Android apps launch background services that use resources, often in very inefficient ways. This results in very poor battery performance for a large number of users. Even the Android developers acknowledge it as their biggest problem right now. And when you say it happens less frequently on iOS, I think you mean it basically does not happen because Apple makes everyone use their well optimized services for things like notifications and location and they vet the apps before they get to the user.
Look I'm a huge fan of Android and I think they've done a lot of things right, but in this area, Apple managed to pull off much better results. Hopefully Google will eventually be able to catch up or batteries will improve enough so it doesn't matter.
But its very unusual, and has a lot of added benefit...
So unusual the head of Motorola's mobile division said it is the cause of 70% of all phone returns?
and you can easily watch which application caused that (you get a "see which apps consumed more battery" dialog when your battery is drained)
And here is another big problem. Expecting users to manage their collections of apps by manually monitoring battery usage is a non-starter for non-geek users. Expecting them to figure it out after they've already purchased the offending app is likewise less than ideal.
Performance issues and battery drain related to leaving "unclosed apps" [on the iPhone] is not unusual.
The scope of the issue on iOS and Android is hardly comparable. I'm not even sure you would be able to see a visible difference in battery use between killing apps on the iPhone and leaving them running. I've not seen a single actual test of this, just here-say ala the article you cite and someone having more battery at the same time the next day. But you know what, now I'm curious. I've never run my iPhone out of battery in a day and I rarely get below 60% despite leaving a dozens of apps running in the background all the time. I'm actually going to test this theory and see how much of a difference it makes, if any.
No text processor is good with 100 pages full of pictures. Either split it up to one file per chapter, or learn Latex.
Framemaker and inDesign are both layout programs a Word user can learn in an afternoon. They handle hundreds of pages of pictures just fine. There s no technical limitation preventing a word processor from doing this, just the fact that we're stuck dealing with legacy crap. I have a Pages document I'm working on that is at about 150 pages right now, averaging three large images per page and has a dozen or so charts. Pages is just as much a "text processor" as Word is, but my document saves and opens just fine and is responsive. I can scroll up and down without lag and I don't have to test it after saving to see if the file is corrupted (as I do with Word because of relatively common file corruption on save of large files).
Word is a piece of crap and has been for a very long time. Lack of real competition and lack of a need to respond to customers has made it that way. OpenOffice.org has been similarly unresponsive because of their corporate sponsor. We'll see if LibreOffice changes the game and drives real improvement, like what we've seen in the browser market of late.
Xcerion never used the mark in commerce though, and iCloud Comm did for years, which helps their case.
Huh? Xcerion ran icloud.com web services for several years now. Heck, they still run it just under a different name. It was and is a commercial service they advertised and sold. How is that not commerce?
You realize that Apple actually *did* to the due diligence here and paid $4.5M for the trademark from the actual owner, right?
I think you are somewhat mistaken. As I recall Apple bought the icloud.com domain from Xcerion for $4.5 million. No one had filed a trademark. Apple did register for a trademark. You are correct, however, in saying that it seems more than a little fishy to file against Apple for buying a domain that had been in active use for a cloud computing service for years. I mean if this company really was offering cloud computing services and considered iCloud to be their trademark, why did they never file suit against Xcerion? Did they seriously never look at the domain? This seems a lot more like some VOIP reseller deciding they might be able to get some cash in a settlement by claiming a trademark, even though they picked the name years after Xcerion started a service with that exact name.
Yes, these abuses are bad, but what would the alternative be? Massive poverty and unemployment.
WTF? How about employment with requirements for human rights for workers. It's not like other companies aren't working hard on the problem.
The problem isn't Nintendo, but is rooted in the Chinese government and the Chinese culture.
The problem is Nintendo and the Chinese government and the Chinese culture.
Without large companies like Foxconn, the alternative most likely wouldn't be a higher standard of living...
Or you know, working at a different Foxconn plant that works for a company like Apple that requires Foxconn maintain standards, audits for compliance, openly publishes audits, and cancels contracts when Foxconn or other companies violate the requirements. You make it seem like the only alternative to slavery is poverty, but that's just bullshit you tell yourself to not feel bad while enjoying your possessions made with the suffering of others.
I'm ready to stand corrected but I'd be very surprised if any electronics manufacturer today wasn't having assembly done in China where human rights abuses are probably taking place on the factory floors.
Sure, lots of companies are having assembly done in China, a huge number with this same company. Apple, notably, has requirements for all plants that work on Apple products. Every year they perform audits of the facilities, they openly publish the audits including all abuses found, they require companies to reform their practices and regularly stop doing business with companies that are willfully or repeatedly out of compliance.
The answer to the problem is not equivocate and excuse abuses and lack of transparency, but the demand as a consumer, that companies you do business with follow suit and make sure human rights abuses are not happening. As a consumer you have the power to influence Nintendo and other companies.
...Sony appears infinitely more evil than Nintendo.
Just because Sony appears more evil doesn't mean people don't have reason to attack Nintendo. Not as bad as Sony, is damning with faint praise.
I can't think of anything Nintendo has ever done to justify this.
Nintendo consoles are made by Foxconn in China and Nintendo does not release any public information about how or if they assure that human rights abuses are not taking place. Do they use underage workers, workers forced to work unacceptably long hours, and workers forced to work in dangerous conditions? Maybe, probably, but we sure don't know and Nintendo isn't performing and publishing audits of third world manufacturing facilities and telling us when they stop doing business because of abuses (as a very few companies have). Nintendo devices use minerals mined by slave labor in Africa. Nintendo arguably has serious problems with toxic chemicals from their discarded devices and manufacturing processes polluting the environment.
All of the above are reasons why someone might be upset with Nintendo and think they need to pressure them to make changes. I'm not saying those are the reasons, but then, maybe you should not assume Nintendo has done no wrong unless you research a bit.
At the minute, BSD style licences are more trendy from a business perspective and big organisations like Apple, Google [youtube.com] and so forth see it as the best collaborative way forward.
I think you're being overly simplistic. It's like stating white cases on electronics are more trendy than black and big organizations see them as they way forward. Rather, different licenses are more suited to different purposes. BSD style licenses are well suited to core technologies and reference implementations of new standards, where wide adoption is more important than getting continued code from all parties. Think zeroconf. It was a new technology and even though several major companies wrote implementations all by themselves with no community input, they licensed them BSD so that companies writing closed source could incorporate them. This is because it made the standard stronger and their own implementations more useful (more systems support it).
Then there are projects like end user applications (like LibreOffice). It doesn't help the community or the company writing it to have closed source forks competing with the open version. For these type of apps, a stronger copyleft license is more beneficial. That way if someone wants to make a modification for their organization or purpose, that code comes back to the app for everyone and doesn't result in developer drain away to closed forks.
You stated that Apple left virus scanning to third parties and scanned for trojans. This is true on OS X, not on Mac classic, thus narrowing the conversation. While it is true Apple does not scan for viruses, your comment that they leave it to third parties is misleading in that it implies they have an actual choice. It implies there are real viruses that could infect a Mac and Apple has chosen not to include those signatures.
It is like stating, "the governor has not allowed any executions of murderers in her state since taking office" in a situation where there haven't been any murder convictions in her state since taking office. True and misleading.
You then implied I stated Mac OS X was invulnerable:
Who claimed OS X will always be invulnerable? Just you, just now, in a strawman argument.
Your reading comprehension is failing. That is not at all what I implied. Rather I said you attacked that idea, even though no one else had stated it. This is a rhetorical device called a strawman argument with which you should be familiar. It is a logical fallacy.
Do you see why I think you've over reacted a bit?
Pointing out incorrect statements and logical failures in your post isn't an overreaction. It's a civil discussion under the assumption that the conversation is working towards the goal of defining the truth and furthering understanding, rather than trying to score points. I took issue with your implication that Apple has made a decision to not include virus signatures, which I think is incorrect. I strongly suspect if there is a real virus threat Apple will add it to the list. I don't know this to be true, but I think it is important to point out that there is no evidence that Apple has chosen to do otherwise so that people are not misled. A clear and correct statement would be that Apple has not included any virus definitions in their blacklist, although there do not seem to be any known, relevant viruses to include as yet.
And how do you know exactly what changed in the malware, and what Apple was detecting? I'll tell you this - one of the things that changed was the filename. So it's possible that Apple was just looking for particular filenames.
True it would be possible, or you could look at the actual list at: /System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources/XProtect.plist and see that there are a variety of pattern matches for each malware variant.
Windows malware.
Isn't that what Network AV is for? Apple supplied AV is targeting home users.
Say your colleague gives you .zip archive full of files that he's worked with on a Windows machine and wants you to review some of the data for whatever reason (imagine they are some kind of self-extracting Powerpoint .exe files along with the source .ppt files).
Umm, okay, how does the Mac open the self extracting .exe files? Once the .ppt files are processed through the Mac version of Powerpoint or OO or Numbers, they don't have macro issues, so there is no problem.
So you think Apple should be scanning thousands of virus sigs ever time a file is opened, thus slowing down operations on the off chance that user will open, not change, and then pass on a file that has an executable virus in it?
Most machines in workplaces will share SMB drives between Mac and Windows machines - this is a good example of why you need an AV program for every computer no matter the OS.
Not a very good argument. If you have a shared SMB drive, your file server should be scanning it and your ID server should be monitoring the network for activation. If you don't have a SMB server (like 90%+ of Mac users) why waste the time and processing power looking for Windows viruses at the OS level. For those rare use cases you can install third party AV.
No where did I claim that anyone said it was invulnerable. I said that "I" was not foolish enough to believe it will remain Virus free.
Agreed, but attacking an idea no one else has proffered is what a strawman argument is. You attacked the idea that Macs are invulnerable, thus implying that someone else had made such a claim and thus bolstering your own credibility. This is pure rhetoric, and a logical fallacy to boot.
...you seem to think I'm claiming that Mac's are a virus sponge...
You're doing it again. Where did I say or even imply that? You really need to stop assuming what other people think, when they've written no such thing.
I also stated that there have been viruses for 'Mac', not for 'OS X', although the link I posted was OS X specific (albeit a proof of concept).
While your statement is true, it is also misleading. You were specifically talking about the "Mac scanner" which is a feature only of OS X, and speaking about its lack of viruses definitions. Since there would be little to no point in including Mac classic virus definitions in the OS X scanner, you can't really claim that the existence of Mac classic viruses is particularly relevant. Speaking of which, you still haven't answered the most basic question I've posed twice now. For the third time, what virus definition do you think Apple should include instead of, "left virus scanning up to 3rd parties"?
No, that was just an example (of which 4 variants of Inqtana were found).
Yes, it was an example, but it was an example that did not match the criteria of an "in the wild" virus for OS X. Nor do Mac Classic viruses. Seriously, what virus definition would be of any use for Apple to include? Everyone always hand waves and says there are a few, but they always turn out to be proof of concept experiments with no payload and not in the wild, or simple trojans. There is certainly some small amount of malware out there, just not really viruses, which makes it odd that someone would complain that Apple doesn't include any signatures for viruses.
...it does not mean that OS X will always be invulnerable. It is typically one of the first to fall in White Hat conventions, which of course leads to quick patches to close any vulnerabilities.
Who claimed OS X will always be invulnerable? Just you, just now, in a strawman argument. As for OS X in hacking competitions, there don't seem to be too many of them, and while OS X has not stood up at PWN2OWN particularly well, surely even with a little knowledge of security you recognize that direct attacks by security professionals and attacks that make their way into automated malware are very, very different things.