You're nuts if you even consider Lenovo after the crapstorm they were caught doing on their systems. I spent the last 10 years of my sysadmin career supporting Dell corporate systems and now that I'm retired, thats is ALL I will buy/recommend.. Lenovo/HP/Asus all suck donkey balls.
If you're buying the consumer/home user models of laptops for your business you get what you pay for.
What could possibly motivate a hospital staff to open themselves up to negligence lawsuits just so that they could... what? Torture a patient for jollies? Or something?
Before you draw conclusions that fit your tinfoil hat world view, please just spend even the tiniest moment trying to reason out why any group of people would behave in a way that defies logic, before concluding that this is what they must have done.
A single person can do batshit crazy stuff, yes. But a group of professionals working in a hospital? Nope. Not going to happen. There may be some bending of rules, some I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you'll-scratch-mine situations, but a group of doctors intentionally trying to injure a child? That doesn't happen. Period.
Because some doctors act like they are the hand of god. All it takes is the right circumstances and criteria (ignoring their advice) and they can make a case that you're a negligent parent. The fact that this happened proves it.
We see and hear about corrupt politicians all the time including the ones in the election coming up but it's impossible to think that other professions are always angels?
The record industry clearly sees Youtube as a value advertising mechanism or they wouldn't be uploading every video they make to Youtube. As for the rest, they're essentially adding a new revenue stream by monetizing home video.
You realize radio stations and tv need to license or receive approval to play music? It's not like they can just grab any album and play it over the radio.
From what I've read, there's no money to be squeezed from YT right now. The service started in the red and has generally stayed there. Complaining will only generate so much hot air.
If these media companies want to see YT fail and go away that is going to be akin to cutting a leg off to spite their marathon time. Of course, these are the sorts of short-sighted people that they'd do that on the wish that everything would go back to the way it was before the internet got all the kids so uppity and wanting culture to become responsive to their needs and views and not those of the shareholders and market makers.
The problem is if I upload a Taylor Swift video to youtube and it doesn't get taken down until it hits 2 million views, there's click and ad revenue that should've gone to Taylor but instead it goes to no one. That's why the RIAA is so mad.
Youtube doesn't have the manpower to police this stuff correctly so it's a lose lose situation for everyone. What will happen is soon every new video will need approval to verify it doesn't break a copyright.
They will anyway, the music industry cant never make "enough" profit
Absolutely right. No matter how much money they make, it will never be enough. They will always claim they are making less than they should be making due to (a) Piracy (b) YouTube (c) Streaming services (d) Some other reason. It's always someone else's fault that they aren't making as much money as they think they should.
Technically they are correct though. If you pirate an album the artist doesn't get paid. If you watch a video off a stream that isn't official or VEVO then the ad revenue doesn't go back to the artist. So again they aren't getting paid.
If you don't want to pay for the music then why are you listening to it? There's no rational that justifies this today.
Sony has barely enough money to keep itself afloat, let alone buy the most successful PC distributer.
So what? Throughout history there have been many companies who made acquisitions they couldn't afford -- trying to buy their way to success. It's also one of the leading causes of bankruptcies.
Of course but Sony doesn't have the capital to even do that. They just sold off their PC gaming division last year. I don't see them jumping back into it.
Anyone in Australia hacking anything in the US should result in criminal charges (not that it'd ever go to trial unless the perpetrator actually found his or her way to US soil). Period. It doesn't matter if the person doing the hacking is a private citizen or the prime minister.
That said, the "hacking" they're talking about seems to have been giving the guy a link a hyperlink. Calling giving someone a hyperlink and them clicking it a "hack" is a stretch, imo, if that hyperlink doesn't do anything other than connect to a web site. If it downloaded malware or something similar, then ok, but it doesn't sound like that's what happened.
Why should it be illegal if they are law enforcement? We don't go after the thousands of hacks that occur on a daily basis yet you want to single out police by doing it for a good cause?
Even if there was only a small chance of it being true, it would still be a better chance than there is now of the enemies of freedom having their tools leaked, so I will take a small chance over none.
You're assuming they don't leak them anyways after receiving their ransom payment.
Unlike the USA, Canada has a fairly recent Constitution which explicitly includes the Right of Privacy.
Which includes not having your info slurped up by police without a specific warrant on you as a person.
There are no exceptions.
It has been ruled so by the Canadian Supreme Court.
(caveat: I only wrote Canadian Army regs based on it, so IANAL just someone who had to implement it's provisions)
I don't give 2 shits about privacy and civil rights if the stingray device allows the police to find a kidnap victim. You have no rights once you violate another's humans rights.
This isn't "dihydrogen monoxide", it's the class of compounds that includes C8, which was used in Teflon manufacture until recently. It never degrades and will last millions of years. It causes birth defects (reduced birth size, physical developmental delays, or miscarriage), cancer, and liver disease.
Now "chemtrails" *are* bullshit.
So does drinking Pepsi and eating Papa Johns and breathing air.
A 5 gallon bucket filled when the water is dirty and left to settle will yield an 1/8 of an inch of brown sludge. To wash whites I have to use peroxide because bleach sets rust stains in whites
Water softener maybe? That also filters the water.
Will Intel release a new CPU that has more then a few percentage points better performance then the ones from 4 years ago? It not worth a few thousand to replace a perfectly working laptop for a barely noticeable performance increase.
Performance is very noticeable between the I5's prior to Haswell and Skylake. Even those two are very different.
And I still insist that non removable batteries are dangerous.
Based on what? Who exactly has been injured/killed in a manner that removable batteries would have solved? Failing that what is the theoretical but obviously extremely rare failure mode that having removable batteries would fix?
I don't have an argument that removable batteries are a good idea but I just don't see it as a safety issue.
Maybe all those battery recalls from Lenovo and other manufacturers over the last 5 years? If those were built in imagine the service calls necessary to replace the batteries.
Their only useful purpose in OS X, realistically, has been for controlling volume and screen brightness anyway. Maybe this will cause companies to come up with more interesting uses for them. I'm not holding my breath.
The bigger concern is that they're making it thinner yet again. That probably means:
No Magsafe 2
Less battery life under heavy CPU load
Still the same paltry 1 TB capacity as previous generations
Both of those are deal-breakers for me. We've already gotten to the point where my battery lasts for an average of only 2.5 hours on essentially brand new hardware because the battery capacity hasn't kept up with the CPU's non-idle power consumption, and several mission-critical apps that I run almost every day are horrible battery hogs (in no particular order, Chrome, Finale 2012, Lightroom 6, Photoshop CS6).
Want to know what would make me happy?
Longer battery life when doing more than just playing around with a web browser.
Reliable GPUs that don't overheat and unsolder themselves.
The original MagSafe connector. The new MagSafe 2 falls off a little too easily when you bump it vertically.
Storage capacities up to 8 TB at a reasonable price (translation: THICKER, with room for two HD bays).
Third-party MagSafe/MagSafe 2 licensing for clip-on battery sleeves with MagSafe pass-through or
A removable cover on the bottom with contact plates to allow an external battery to be charged by the laptop's charge circuitry in alternation with the main battery.
I couldn't care less about function keys. I couldn't care less about making the laptop thinner. I want the laptop to be more capable. And I think I speak for basically 100% of Mac laptop users when I say that. Absolutely nobody outside of Apple cares about making laptops thinner at this point. We passed the point where that matters at the point where it dropped below the thickness of a small paperback book—basically with the most recent pre-Retina MacBook Pro. Every bit of thinness after that is widely seen as engineers doing something solely because they can, rather than because it improves the product. And for the most part, the excessive thinness has made the product functionally WORSE with each generation.
If Apple is really serious about retaining actual pro users, they need to stop actively making the pro machines less functional and start moving in the exact opposite direction. What I'm seeing described here sounds like a MacBook, not a MacBook Pro. As far as I'm concerned, the last truly pro Macbook was discontinued about two years ago. Just saying.
Well the last two generations of Intel processors generate less heat and draw less power so that alone will extend the battery life with no additional changes.
Who cares about thinner lighter for a _PRO_ notebook PRO means expandable. They should make it thicker and heavier, if it means I can install updated drives and memory a few years from now.
Soon they'll be shaving off all the lightning ports and the hard drive. It will be required to network boot from a wireless AP in order to access your OS. THINNER!
I can understand the sharp edge comment, but not the heat/noise. My MacBook Pro runs cool as a cucumber and damned near silent. It's like church mouse compared to the leaf blower that is my HP work machine. I'm not doubting you. I just wonder if there is a difference between years/models.
I had someone say the same thing about Toshiba versus Lenovo laptops. When I put them both side by side and run a stress test to trigger the fan the Toshiba was much quieter yet they claimed it was louder. So the only thing I could determine is the type of fan differed enough that it triggered more noise for this employee. There were ultrabooks as well so very quiet.
In the end I'm sure he just wanted a Lenovo.
I'm not in the habit of responding to obvious trolls, but this case makes very clear the flaw in the logic of people who actually believe that open source is insecure.
The bug is in the specification, which is necessarily open in order to create inter-operable systems. And what is code, if not a machine readable specification?
The idea that closed source is more secure, taken to its logical end, is an argument for closed systems that don't inter-operate with other systems. Their operation would have to be entirely secret and proprietary.
It really goes both ways. Open and Closed source code are equally secure. Many times open source code is though to be so secure that people don't discover the bugs for many years later. The advantage of open source is that the bug generally gets fixed faster than closed source due to the visibility of the issue.
As much of a non-apple-fanboi as I am, I'm actually starting to like the AppleTV approach. Apps for CBS, NBC, HBO, Showtime, etc... and browse for the shows you want to watch. Sure, the navigation can get pretty cumbersome... but if the content distributors are okay with Apple's take, why wouldn't they be okay with another third party doing something similar?
Sure, it's not that $50/mo glorified Roku sitting under the screen... But I'd think it could work similarly. An ESPN 'app' that lists assorted channels (ESPN 8, The Ocho!), various Disney cartoon channels, CBS and whatever. With the extent of PPV offerings today, I'm sure Comcast would be more than willing to bill the viewers for wandering into paid TV territory.
Apple pays an assload in licensing fees for this content. A startup wouldn't be able to afford this even if they tried.
Would it be nice to return the Money?
They entered in to a contract with a minor would was not the owner of the card. They can press charges it they choose, But they took on the risk by dealing remotely.
You can not enter in to contract with a minor. It is legally invalid. That is the law.
They are refunding since there only argument is they did not know they were minors.
The Law did not care the contracts are still void.
Apple dealt with the same issues. They refunded and changed policy too.
A big change when it affected the business model of in app purchases.
Is it even Facebook who received the money? These are app purchases. Facebook provides the platform but the apps are 3rd parties making the profit. For example, candy crush is owned by King who is now owned by Activision Blizz.
Slashdot Mirror
But, in this case, they've needlessly (and probably maliciously) gone out of their way to make the minority unwelcome.
Or the developers in charge of this new driver forgot about Linux.
You're nuts if you even consider Lenovo after the crapstorm they were caught doing on their systems. I spent the last 10 years of my sysadmin career supporting Dell corporate systems and now that I'm retired, thats is ALL I will buy/recommend.. Lenovo/HP/Asus all suck donkey balls.
If you're buying the consumer/home user models of laptops for your business you get what you pay for.
So the parents had another kid knowing that kid would be plagued with their genetic disease ? That is all kinds of cruel, sorry.
Do you not have children after 1 comes out with Autism? Because that would be stupid as well.
You guys are all a bunch of wakos. Seriously.
What could possibly motivate a hospital staff to open themselves up to negligence lawsuits just so that they could ... what? Torture a patient for jollies? Or something?
Before you draw conclusions that fit your tinfoil hat world view, please just spend even the tiniest moment trying to reason out why any group of people would behave in a way that defies logic, before concluding that this is what they must have done.
A single person can do batshit crazy stuff, yes. But a group of professionals working in a hospital? Nope. Not going to happen. There may be some bending of rules, some I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you'll-scratch-mine situations, but a group of doctors intentionally trying to injure a child? That doesn't happen. Period.
Because some doctors act like they are the hand of god. All it takes is the right circumstances and criteria (ignoring their advice) and they can make a case that you're a negligent parent. The fact that this happened proves it. We see and hear about corrupt politicians all the time including the ones in the election coming up but it's impossible to think that other professions are always angels?
The record industry clearly sees Youtube as a value advertising mechanism or they wouldn't be uploading every video they make to Youtube. As for the rest, they're essentially adding a new revenue stream by monetizing home video.
You realize radio stations and tv need to license or receive approval to play music? It's not like they can just grab any album and play it over the radio.
From what I've read, there's no money to be squeezed from YT right now. The service started in the red and has generally stayed there. Complaining will only generate so much hot air.
If these media companies want to see YT fail and go away that is going to be akin to cutting a leg off to spite their marathon time. Of course, these are the sorts of short-sighted people that they'd do that on the wish that everything would go back to the way it was before the internet got all the kids so uppity and wanting culture to become responsive to their needs and views and not those of the shareholders and market makers.
The problem is if I upload a Taylor Swift video to youtube and it doesn't get taken down until it hits 2 million views, there's click and ad revenue that should've gone to Taylor but instead it goes to no one. That's why the RIAA is so mad. Youtube doesn't have the manpower to police this stuff correctly so it's a lose lose situation for everyone. What will happen is soon every new video will need approval to verify it doesn't break a copyright.
now they can't blame piracy for poor sales.
They will anyway, the music industry cant never make "enough" profit
Absolutely right. No matter how much money they make, it will never be enough. They will always claim they are making less than they should be making due to (a) Piracy (b) YouTube (c) Streaming services (d) Some other reason. It's always someone else's fault that they aren't making as much money as they think they should.
Technically they are correct though. If you pirate an album the artist doesn't get paid. If you watch a video off a stream that isn't official or VEVO then the ad revenue doesn't go back to the artist. So again they aren't getting paid. If you don't want to pay for the music then why are you listening to it? There's no rational that justifies this today.
Sony has barely enough money to keep itself afloat, let alone buy the most successful PC distributer.
So what? Throughout history there have been many companies who made acquisitions they couldn't afford -- trying to buy their way to success. It's also one of the leading causes of bankruptcies.
Of course but Sony doesn't have the capital to even do that. They just sold off their PC gaming division last year. I don't see them jumping back into it.
They probably used Baquacil!
Simple. He is an activist that promotes Democracy. He believes in things like freedom, liberty and in the rights of the individual.
What could be a bigger crime in the west today than promoting Democracy?
It's not a crime in the US. But it may be in other countries.
Anyone in Australia hacking anything in the US should result in criminal charges (not that it'd ever go to trial unless the perpetrator actually found his or her way to US soil). Period. It doesn't matter if the person doing the hacking is a private citizen or the prime minister.
That said, the "hacking" they're talking about seems to have been giving the guy a link a hyperlink. Calling giving someone a hyperlink and them clicking it a "hack" is a stretch, imo, if that hyperlink doesn't do anything other than connect to a web site. If it downloaded malware or something similar, then ok, but it doesn't sound like that's what happened.
Why should it be illegal if they are law enforcement? We don't go after the thousands of hacks that occur on a daily basis yet you want to single out police by doing it for a good cause?
Even if there was only a small chance of it being true, it would still be a better chance than there is now of the enemies of freedom having their tools leaked, so I will take a small chance over none.
You're assuming they don't leak them anyways after receiving their ransom payment.
Unlike the USA, Canada has a fairly recent Constitution which explicitly includes the Right of Privacy.
Which includes not having your info slurped up by police without a specific warrant on you as a person.
There are no exceptions.
It has been ruled so by the Canadian Supreme Court.
(caveat: I only wrote Canadian Army regs based on it, so IANAL just someone who had to implement it's provisions)
I don't give 2 shits about privacy and civil rights if the stingray device allows the police to find a kidnap victim. You have no rights once you violate another's humans rights.
You're completely wrong. Please educate yourself. -PCP
Please don't cite Wikipedia as a legit source.
This isn't "dihydrogen monoxide", it's the class of compounds that includes C8, which was used in Teflon manufacture until recently. It never degrades and will last millions of years. It causes birth defects (reduced birth size, physical developmental delays, or miscarriage), cancer, and liver disease. Now "chemtrails" *are* bullshit.
So does drinking Pepsi and eating Papa Johns and breathing air.
A 5 gallon bucket filled when the water is dirty and left to settle will yield an 1/8 of an inch of brown sludge. To wash whites I have to use peroxide because bleach sets rust stains in whites
Water softener maybe? That also filters the water.
Will Intel release a new CPU that has more then a few percentage points better performance then the ones from 4 years ago? It not worth a few thousand to replace a perfectly working laptop for a barely noticeable performance increase.
Performance is very noticeable between the I5's prior to Haswell and Skylake. Even those two are very different.
And I still insist that non removable batteries are dangerous.
Based on what? Who exactly has been injured/killed in a manner that removable batteries would have solved? Failing that what is the theoretical but obviously extremely rare failure mode that having removable batteries would fix?
I don't have an argument that removable batteries are a good idea but I just don't see it as a safety issue.
Maybe all those battery recalls from Lenovo and other manufacturers over the last 5 years? If those were built in imagine the service calls necessary to replace the batteries.
Their only useful purpose in OS X, realistically, has been for controlling volume and screen brightness anyway. Maybe this will cause companies to come up with more interesting uses for them. I'm not holding my breath.
The bigger concern is that they're making it thinner yet again. That probably means:
Both of those are deal-breakers for me. We've already gotten to the point where my battery lasts for an average of only 2.5 hours on essentially brand new hardware because the battery capacity hasn't kept up with the CPU's non-idle power consumption, and several mission-critical apps that I run almost every day are horrible battery hogs (in no particular order, Chrome, Finale 2012, Lightroom 6, Photoshop CS6).
Want to know what would make me happy?
I couldn't care less about function keys. I couldn't care less about making the laptop thinner. I want the laptop to be more capable. And I think I speak for basically 100% of Mac laptop users when I say that. Absolutely nobody outside of Apple cares about making laptops thinner at this point. We passed the point where that matters at the point where it dropped below the thickness of a small paperback book—basically with the most recent pre-Retina MacBook Pro. Every bit of thinness after that is widely seen as engineers doing something solely because they can, rather than because it improves the product. And for the most part, the excessive thinness has made the product functionally WORSE with each generation.
If Apple is really serious about retaining actual pro users, they need to stop actively making the pro machines less functional and start moving in the exact opposite direction. What I'm seeing described here sounds like a MacBook, not a MacBook Pro. As far as I'm concerned, the last truly pro Macbook was discontinued about two years ago. Just saying.
Well the last two generations of Intel processors generate less heat and draw less power so that alone will extend the battery life with no additional changes.
Who cares about thinner lighter for a _PRO_ notebook PRO means expandable. They should make it thicker and heavier, if it means I can install updated drives and memory a few years from now.
Soon they'll be shaving off all the lightning ports and the hard drive. It will be required to network boot from a wireless AP in order to access your OS. THINNER!
I can understand the sharp edge comment, but not the heat/noise. My MacBook Pro runs cool as a cucumber and damned near silent. It's like church mouse compared to the leaf blower that is my HP work machine. I'm not doubting you. I just wonder if there is a difference between years/models.
I had someone say the same thing about Toshiba versus Lenovo laptops. When I put them both side by side and run a stress test to trigger the fan the Toshiba was much quieter yet they claimed it was louder. So the only thing I could determine is the type of fan differed enough that it triggered more noise for this employee. There were ultrabooks as well so very quiet. In the end I'm sure he just wanted a Lenovo.
I'm not in the habit of responding to obvious trolls, but this case makes very clear the flaw in the logic of people who actually believe that open source is insecure.
The bug is in the specification, which is necessarily open in order to create inter-operable systems. And what is code, if not a machine readable specification?
The idea that closed source is more secure, taken to its logical end, is an argument for closed systems that don't inter-operate with other systems. Their operation would have to be entirely secret and proprietary.
It really goes both ways. Open and Closed source code are equally secure. Many times open source code is though to be so secure that people don't discover the bugs for many years later. The advantage of open source is that the bug generally gets fixed faster than closed source due to the visibility of the issue.
It is never too late to join the glorious PC master race.
Apple lives matter.
As much of a non-apple-fanboi as I am, I'm actually starting to like the AppleTV approach. Apps for CBS, NBC, HBO, Showtime, etc... and browse for the shows you want to watch. Sure, the navigation can get pretty cumbersome... but if the content distributors are okay with Apple's take, why wouldn't they be okay with another third party doing something similar? Sure, it's not that $50/mo glorified Roku sitting under the screen... But I'd think it could work similarly. An ESPN 'app' that lists assorted channels (ESPN 8, The Ocho!), various Disney cartoon channels, CBS and whatever. With the extent of PPV offerings today, I'm sure Comcast would be more than willing to bill the viewers for wandering into paid TV territory.
Apple pays an assload in licensing fees for this content. A startup wouldn't be able to afford this even if they tried.
Would it be nice to return the Money? They entered in to a contract with a minor would was not the owner of the card. They can press charges it they choose, But they took on the risk by dealing remotely. You can not enter in to contract with a minor. It is legally invalid. That is the law. They are refunding since there only argument is they did not know they were minors. The Law did not care the contracts are still void.
Apple dealt with the same issues. They refunded and changed policy too. A big change when it affected the business model of in app purchases.
Is it even Facebook who received the money? These are app purchases. Facebook provides the platform but the apps are 3rd parties making the profit. For example, candy crush is owned by King who is now owned by Activision Blizz.