Does he ever discuss non-Apple products at all? If so, does he ever say anything positive about *any* of them?
Yes, and yes. If you read the journal regularly, you'll see many Mossberg articles on other subjects. It's just that the Apple articles get more attention, probably because they're more interesting.
You are describing the potential abuses by a government for such a system, jumping immediately to the conclusion that if it exists, the government will abuse it.
You ignore the fact that when a power is ceded to a government, it's extremely difficult to revoke. When we instituted the census, for example, we didn't anticipate it being used to round up people and put them in concentration camps, but that's precisely what the FBI did under Roosevelt.
Perhaps you trust the government with this power today, but I do not trust all future administrations with this power.
The truth of the matter, is that the US needs a national id card
The SSN was never intended to be an identification system. In fact, its proponents promised up and down that the SSN would never be used for anything but keeping records of individual retirement accounts.
You know, criminals used machine guns all the time in the 1920s and 1930s. And then they were outlawed. And you know what? You don't hear too much about criminals using them anymore.
You've left out a few details, like prohibition getting repealed, the mob becoming organized enough to put an end to outright warfare between rivals for particular rackets, the realization that machine guns aren't nearly as accurate as many other weapons, not to mention that they're extremely difficult to conceal, and that they're really not the best weapon for the purpose of attacking an individual in an urban setting.
Umm... Yeah.. The gangsters must have given them up because they're illegal. Sure, that's the ticket.
Will it limit the amount of damage a dirty corporation can do? Absolutely.
Any attempt to claim that a public company should not be doing everything in their power to ensure that their books are correct and that they are following GAAP (along with other compliance) is ludicrous.
What's ludicrous is tossing off a phrase like "everything in their power", without considering the costs of the measures in question.
Sarbanes-Oxley is a *very good thing* - it exists to prevent another Enron
No, it's killing a butterfly with a cannon. Because one company was run by a bunch of crooks, every other public company has to vastly increase their costs, which is money that isn't spent of improving their products, hiring more workers, or cutting prices to their customers.
Let me point out that it was the market that brought Enron down, not the government.
You have a vested interest in making apple look good. You failed to disclose this interest.
WTF? Am I supposed to include a synopsis of my stock porfolio anytime I comment on/.? Get real. My past employment by Apple, and my current shareholder position are no secret.
BTW - pretty sure that some of the things you have said on slash. violate various portions of the NDA that was in effect when you left.
LOL! Oh, do tell, counselor! Cite an example of something I've written that you think violates the NDA.
Remember, SJ can get everything he might want from SGI without taking on their obligations. There are already quite a few ex-SGI engineers at Apple, and Apple has access to the patents through their cross-license agreement with Microsoft.
When you suggest that anyone buy SGI, the question is what's in it for the buyer?
it's not like they're going to get an influx of problems to deal with because people sent their MacBook Pros to Krazy Klints Krazy Thermal Paste Removers, and had issues.
...so, as Apple wasn't planning to sell the manual, that strengthens the "fair use" defense (when judges weigh up whether someone's "fair use", they tend to include this as part of the criteria.)
Apple has an economic interest in assuring the quality of their service providers, which is why they only sell spare parts and provide service manuals to authorized providers who have passed certification exams.
Because you're as bad an investor as you are an engineer and legal expert.
Heh.. I'm up 42% across my entire portfolio in the last year, which places me considerably above the average for investors. I never said I was a legal expert, I just happen to be rather better informed on legal matters than the typical slashdotter (not too hard), and as for my engineering skills, I've done pretty damn well for the last 20 years or so, sunshine.
Apple wants this information removed for the sole reason that it embarrasses them.
What's your next guess?
Apple reserves the service manuals to authorized service providers. To be authorized, they have to demonstrate their competence. If Apple doesn't act against anyone publishing their confidential service manuals in whole or in part without authorization, then they lose control of the service of Macs, which results in slipshod work performed by unqualified technicians.
They also restrict the sale of service parts, and they're right to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
the guy sucked at it
and you know this how, exactly? Did he ever take a support incident from you?
-jcr
Does he ever discuss non-Apple products at all? If so, does he ever say anything positive about *any* of them?
Yes, and yes. If you read the journal regularly, you'll see many Mossberg articles on other subjects. It's just that the Apple articles get more attention, probably because they're more interesting.
-jcr
You are describing the potential abuses by a government for such a system, jumping immediately to the conclusion that if it exists, the government will abuse it.
You ignore the fact that when a power is ceded to a government, it's extremely difficult to revoke. When we instituted the census, for example, we didn't anticipate it being used to round up people and put them in concentration camps, but that's precisely what the FBI did under Roosevelt.
Perhaps you trust the government with this power today, but I do not trust all future administrations with this power.
The truth of the matter, is that the US needs a national id card
Like hell we do.
-jcr
To this day, we don't know if this person was using the number by mistake, or maliciously, or as an illegal immigrant... we just don't know
It's just as likely that the number was issued more than once. The SSA has been known to fuck that up on many occasions.
-jcr
Any competently designed identification system
The SSN was never intended to be an identification system. In fact, its proponents promised up and down that the SSN would never be used for anything but keeping records of individual retirement accounts.
-jcr
The man has long exhibited a keen grasp of the obvious.
-jcr
You know, criminals used machine guns all the time in the 1920s and 1930s. And then they were outlawed. And you know what? You don't hear too much about criminals using them anymore.
You've left out a few details, like prohibition getting repealed, the mob becoming organized enough to put an end to outright warfare between rivals for particular rackets, the realization that machine guns aren't nearly as accurate as many other weapons, not to mention that they're extremely difficult to conceal, and that they're really not the best weapon for the purpose of attacking an individual in an urban setting.
Umm... Yeah.. The gangsters must have given them up because they're illegal. Sure, that's the ticket.
Will it limit the amount of damage a dirty corporation can do? Absolutely.
Dream on.
-jcr
Any attempt to claim that a public company should not be doing everything in their power to ensure that their books are correct and that they are following GAAP (along with other compliance) is ludicrous.
What's ludicrous is tossing off a phrase like "everything in their power", without considering the costs of the measures in question.
-jcr
Sarbanes-Oxley is a *very good thing* - it exists to prevent another Enron
No, it's killing a butterfly with a cannon. Because one company was run by a bunch of crooks, every other public company has to vastly increase their costs, which is money that isn't spent of improving their products, hiring more workers, or cutting prices to their customers.
Let me point out that it was the market that brought Enron down, not the government.
-jcr
anti Microsoft bias.
That's not bias, that's experience.
-jcr
You have a vested interest in making apple look good.
/.? Get real. My past employment by Apple, and my current shareholder position are no secret.
You failed to disclose this interest.
WTF? Am I supposed to include a synopsis of my stock porfolio anytime I comment on
BTW - pretty sure that some of the things you have said on slash. violate various portions of the NDA that was in effect when you left.
LOL! Oh, do tell, counselor! Cite an example of something I've written that you think violates the NDA.
-jcr
Microsoft's problems with Vista are management problems. They're completely orthogonal to the style of their kernel.
-jcr
Scramjets are so rediculously energy inefficient that I don't see them in widespread use other than in the military.
Yeah, they're almost as bad as the first turbojets were. Gotta start somewhere, though.
-jcr
an elite few, whose only claim to power is their nation's military might.
Well, let's see... The only country that springs to mind whose "only claim to power" is their "military might" would be North Korea.
All of the G8 nations have vast, diversified economies, which are the basis of their power and influence.
-jcr
I could go on.... SGI has had, for many years, stuff that has yet to show up in OS X...
You're missing the point. Any of these things can be had without buying the company and assuming its obligations.
-jcr
just have Steve Jobs buy SGI.
Why?
Remember, SJ can get everything he might want from SGI without taking on their obligations. There are already quite a few ex-SGI engineers at Apple, and Apple has access to the patents through their cross-license agreement with Microsoft.
When you suggest that anyone buy SGI, the question is what's in it for the buyer?
-jcr
Labels don't promote themselves to the buying public.
That would be news to Motown, I'm sure..
-jcr
it's not like they're going to get an influx of problems to deal with because people sent their MacBook Pros to Krazy Klints Krazy Thermal Paste Removers, and had issues.
You have no idea.
-jcr
...so, as Apple wasn't planning to sell the manual, that strengthens the "fair use" defense (when judges weigh up whether someone's "fair use", they tend to include this as part of the criteria.)
Apple has an economic interest in assuring the quality of their service providers, which is why they only sell spare parts and provide service manuals to authorized providers who have passed certification exams.
-jcr
Please refrain from writing about something you know nothing about.
Not very big on taking your own advice, are you?
-jcr
Because you're as bad an investor as you are an engineer and legal expert.
Heh.. I'm up 42% across my entire portfolio in the last year, which places me considerably above the average for investors. I never said I was a legal expert, I just happen to be rather better informed on legal matters than the typical slashdotter (not too hard), and as for my engineering skills, I've done pretty damn well for the last 20 years or so, sunshine.
-jcr
No, they are published.
Nope. They are provided pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement that all authorized service providers must agree to before they're allowed access.
-jcr
They did not redistribute the whole manual. They used a snippet of the manual in an article. This is fair use under copyright law.
The manual in question is proprietary, confidential information belonging to Apple, for the use of their authorized service providers.
-jcr
absolutely clear wrongdoing by apple.
What's absolutely clear is that you need some remedial classes in basic ethics.
-jcr
Apple wants this information removed for the sole reason that it embarrasses them.
What's your next guess?
Apple reserves the service manuals to authorized service providers. To be authorized, they have to demonstrate their competence. If Apple doesn't act against anyone publishing their confidential service manuals in whole or in part without authorization, then they lose control of the service of Macs, which results in slipshod work performed by unqualified technicians.
They also restrict the sale of service parts, and they're right to do so.
-jcr