There's lots of other governments that don't abuse their power significantly more than ours does. I'm going by empirical observation here, rather than unfounded theorizing.
You're mixing up the government and society. I have the right to have views people disagree with. (I also have lots of views that lots of people disagree with.) I have no right to ask those individual people to treat me as if I didn't have those views and talk about them (actually, I suppose I have the right, but people don't have any obligation to do what I want). I do have the right to vote or collect Social Security, no matter what sort of antisocial jerk I am. Now, if I start committing actual crimes, I'm going to lose some rights.
The characteristic of thought police is that they have legal authority. The closest example I can think of in the US is the no-fly list. (Yes, there's plenty of worse injustices. No, they aren't caused by thought police.) People who just complain loudly about what you say and call you names and threaten you because they disagree with you aren't thought police.
What's new is the current flavorS of the month. The US has had a dominant culture for most of its existence, and it's not only splitting, but the minority ones are much more visible. Speaking out against a visible subculture means that subculture is going to say bad things about you, regardless of what subculture that is. If I were to make a public stance that violent video games are bad (which I really don't have evidence for anyway), I'd be similarly roasted for insulting gamers. I've been flamed for saying things that you'd think a SJW would approve of, but not by SJWs.
Of course it is entirely possible that this was as represented - a genuine bug - but it seems like a somewhat unlikely one to have occurred by accident.
Why would you think that? Someone had an iPhone. The screen broke and they got a third-party one. At that point, Apple doesn't know what's in the phone, and hasn't tested for that hardware combination. Apple changes iOS, and tests against all the Apple configurations they have, and it works. It triggers some sort of incompatibility on a screen it was never tested on. It may have triggered incompatibility with a genuine iPhone, but in that case it would be fixed, so the released version would work on all iPhones it was designed for.
You're assuming that this was malicious, and I've seen no evidence that it is. The only evidence that's been brought up is that it's Apple, and therefore malicious. You're assuming that the fuss changed Apple's mind as opposed to alerted them to a problem, without a trace of evidence other than it's Apple.
You seem to be missing the point that this isn't something Apple could have known about beforehand, and that it could have happened with any phone manufacturer.
I have been reading Slashdot. Problems with Apple phones get lots of reaction here, Microsoft problems somewhat less. The only non-Apple non-Microsoft phone I've seen anywhere near this fuss about tended to spontaneously catch fire.
If you have an iPhone with genuine Apple parts, Apple is willing to say it will normally work properly. If there's other parts in it, nobody stands behind it. Simple.
If you have a third-party screen, then you have to trust the third party as well as Apple for security. You have to trust Apple anyway, because if they want to put a sufficiently obscure back door into your iPhone you'll never find it.
Right. If it's not an Apple-made screen, there's no reason to think Apple tested anything with it. Since Apple doesn't publish compatibility specs, nobody knows if any given non-Apple screen will work right. The repair shop can test to see if it works before handing it back, but any change in the iPhone could introduce a new incompatibility. So far, nothing's Apple's fault (except possibly not publishing specs).
That means that, when you have an iPhone in an unknown but currently working state, you don't change anything. You leave the iPhone as it is. If you were to, say, upgrade the OS, it might encounter an incompatibility that previously didn't matter.
Apple's not being real friendly to third-party repair shops or individuals, but beyond that it's hard to see what Apple should be required to do. Sell genuine Apple parts? How many people are going to go for a third-party part because it's cheaper anyway? Publish compatibility specs? That limits the improvements Apple can make in the future. Be careful not to break anything already working? Not really possible, as you never know what might trigger an incompatibility, and it rules out possible optimizations. Test against all third-party parts they can get their hands on currently and in the future? Not going to happen.
iPhones are encrypted containers. Everything's encrypted with AES-256. From the 5S on, they have the Secure Enclave which is at least difficult to beat. As long as the phone doesn't get the right fingerprint or access code, it's unreadable to normal people.
Exactly what is a given service or product? When doctors start doing things, unexpected things can happen. You can have a fixed cost for delivering a baby if there's no complications (my wife's experience), but I knew a woman who almost died from giving birth and was saved by several high-cost specialists. Different people have different chances of complications. I'm on a blood thinner, for example, and that can mean some procedures can be more difficult and potentially expensive. Should my prices for some procedures be listed separately?
The other thing about dental insurance, in my experience, is that it isn't. It's primarily a payment for routine care. The deductibles start when you actually have something wrong with your teeth, and if something does go wrong and you need something expensive you'll easily hit the limit of your insurance.
I've had a few teeth extracted. With one exception, they were extracted by dentists. One was entirely inside the jaw, below the gum, and was growing forward rather than up. That required an oral surgeon. Almost all my dental work was performed by my dentist of the time.
My dentist informs me what the price is going to be for a procedure, and sticks to the price. I know what I'm paying before I go in.
Complications do happen, unfortunately, and my last root canal did cost more than estimated. That's going to happen. Every other thing I've had my dentist do has been on a fixed cost basis.
The ambulance charge for my heart attack was something like $3K, which my insurance paid. I assure you that this was a bona fide emergency, exactly what ambulances are intended for.
I suspect that $3K was padded, but it does involve having a specialized and expensive vehicle on call, along with two highly trained people working a very stressful job, and having to re-sanitize and re-supply the ambulance afterward. (I know they needed to replace a nitroglycerin pill, and possibly blankets. My case was simple, although serious.)
Brits tend to use the word "government" a bit differently than we do, applying it primarily to the equivalent of the executive branch. In that sense, judges are not part of the government, and so what GP means is that no executive branch official has any say.
NHS workers tried to save the child, apparently. This doesn't say it actually worked. However, I believe GP meant that they work hard to try to save sick children in general.
"There's not a reputable doctor in the world that disagrees" doesn't say there are no disreputable ones. GP didn't say exactly why the court threw out the quack. You're the one assuming that this was because the guy disagreed.
You obviously don't know anything about this case, and obviously also nothing about what a contradiction is.
With one exception, developed countries have universal health care. The countries with universal health care often are much better off in public health than the one that doesn't have it, and they all pay far less. You've got a lot of empirical evidence that doesn't agree with you to deal with.
Trump's not a conservative in any meaningful sense. He wants to make radical changes to the country. He is a right-winger, but that's not the same thing.
I have a doctor friend who was complaining that she lost money on Medicare patients. Her fixed expenses were higher than what Medicare could pay, so she lost money even when donating her time. (I'm confident of her skill as a doctor, not as a businesswoman, for whatever that's worth.)
I'm going to be lazy and ask if anyone's done a statistical analysis to see whether the difference between those numbers is statistically significant. I suppose I could figure it out myself, but as I said I'm going to be lazy on this.
Exactly what would those warrants be? Warrants can be issued on the basis of unreliable information. It isn't a problem as long as the information is noted as from an unreliable or partisan source, which is something Nunes obviously wanted to deny (in the case of the Steele report) but couldn't.
The FBI, which is heavily Republican, went to FISA and asked for a warrant on a person suspected of collusion with the Russians. He was on Trump's team because Trump doesn't consider collusion with Russians a bad thing. Nunes convinced me that this was a legit investigation. He was obviously trying to say it wasn't, but had to dance around and say things that look like they condemned the investigation. Read the memo carefully.
Slashdot Mirror
Lunatic I can agree with, but there's nothing about this idea that's particularly leftist.
There's lots of other governments that don't abuse their power significantly more than ours does. I'm going by empirical observation here, rather than unfounded theorizing.
You're mixing up the government and society. I have the right to have views people disagree with. (I also have lots of views that lots of people disagree with.) I have no right to ask those individual people to treat me as if I didn't have those views and talk about them (actually, I suppose I have the right, but people don't have any obligation to do what I want). I do have the right to vote or collect Social Security, no matter what sort of antisocial jerk I am. Now, if I start committing actual crimes, I'm going to lose some rights.
The characteristic of thought police is that they have legal authority. The closest example I can think of in the US is the no-fly list. (Yes, there's plenty of worse injustices. No, they aren't caused by thought police.) People who just complain loudly about what you say and call you names and threaten you because they disagree with you aren't thought police.
What's new is the current flavorS of the month. The US has had a dominant culture for most of its existence, and it's not only splitting, but the minority ones are much more visible. Speaking out against a visible subculture means that subculture is going to say bad things about you, regardless of what subculture that is. If I were to make a public stance that violent video games are bad (which I really don't have evidence for anyway), I'd be similarly roasted for insulting gamers. I've been flamed for saying things that you'd think a SJW would approve of, but not by SJWs.
Why would you think that? Someone had an iPhone. The screen broke and they got a third-party one. At that point, Apple doesn't know what's in the phone, and hasn't tested for that hardware combination. Apple changes iOS, and tests against all the Apple configurations they have, and it works. It triggers some sort of incompatibility on a screen it was never tested on. It may have triggered incompatibility with a genuine iPhone, but in that case it would be fixed, so the released version would work on all iPhones it was designed for.
You're assuming that this was malicious, and I've seen no evidence that it is. The only evidence that's been brought up is that it's Apple, and therefore malicious. You're assuming that the fuss changed Apple's mind as opposed to alerted them to a problem, without a trace of evidence other than it's Apple.
You seem to be missing the point that this isn't something Apple could have known about beforehand, and that it could have happened with any phone manufacturer.
I have been reading Slashdot. Problems with Apple phones get lots of reaction here, Microsoft problems somewhat less. The only non-Apple non-Microsoft phone I've seen anywhere near this fuss about tended to spontaneously catch fire.
If you have an iPhone with genuine Apple parts, Apple is willing to say it will normally work properly. If there's other parts in it, nobody stands behind it. Simple.
If you have a third-party screen, then you have to trust the third party as well as Apple for security. You have to trust Apple anyway, because if they want to put a sufficiently obscure back door into your iPhone you'll never find it.
Right. If it's not an Apple-made screen, there's no reason to think Apple tested anything with it. Since Apple doesn't publish compatibility specs, nobody knows if any given non-Apple screen will work right. The repair shop can test to see if it works before handing it back, but any change in the iPhone could introduce a new incompatibility. So far, nothing's Apple's fault (except possibly not publishing specs).
That means that, when you have an iPhone in an unknown but currently working state, you don't change anything. You leave the iPhone as it is. If you were to, say, upgrade the OS, it might encounter an incompatibility that previously didn't matter.
Apple's not being real friendly to third-party repair shops or individuals, but beyond that it's hard to see what Apple should be required to do. Sell genuine Apple parts? How many people are going to go for a third-party part because it's cheaper anyway? Publish compatibility specs? That limits the improvements Apple can make in the future. Be careful not to break anything already working? Not really possible, as you never know what might trigger an incompatibility, and it rules out possible optimizations. Test against all third-party parts they can get their hands on currently and in the future? Not going to happen.
iPhones are encrypted containers. Everything's encrypted with AES-256. From the 5S on, they have the Secure Enclave which is at least difficult to beat. As long as the phone doesn't get the right fingerprint or access code, it's unreadable to normal people.
Exactly what is a given service or product? When doctors start doing things, unexpected things can happen. You can have a fixed cost for delivering a baby if there's no complications (my wife's experience), but I knew a woman who almost died from giving birth and was saved by several high-cost specialists. Different people have different chances of complications. I'm on a blood thinner, for example, and that can mean some procedures can be more difficult and potentially expensive. Should my prices for some procedures be listed separately?
For whatever reason, that's never happened to me.
The other thing about dental insurance, in my experience, is that it isn't. It's primarily a payment for routine care. The deductibles start when you actually have something wrong with your teeth, and if something does go wrong and you need something expensive you'll easily hit the limit of your insurance.
I've had a few teeth extracted. With one exception, they were extracted by dentists. One was entirely inside the jaw, below the gum, and was growing forward rather than up. That required an oral surgeon. Almost all my dental work was performed by my dentist of the time.
My dentist informs me what the price is going to be for a procedure, and sticks to the price. I know what I'm paying before I go in.
Complications do happen, unfortunately, and my last root canal did cost more than estimated. That's going to happen. Every other thing I've had my dentist do has been on a fixed cost basis.
The ambulance charge for my heart attack was something like $3K, which my insurance paid. I assure you that this was a bona fide emergency, exactly what ambulances are intended for.
I suspect that $3K was padded, but it does involve having a specialized and expensive vehicle on call, along with two highly trained people working a very stressful job, and having to re-sanitize and re-supply the ambulance afterward. (I know they needed to replace a nitroglycerin pill, and possibly blankets. My case was simple, although serious.)
Brits tend to use the word "government" a bit differently than we do, applying it primarily to the equivalent of the executive branch. In that sense, judges are not part of the government, and so what GP means is that no executive branch official has any say.
NHS workers tried to save the child, apparently. This doesn't say it actually worked. However, I believe GP meant that they work hard to try to save sick children in general.
"There's not a reputable doctor in the world that disagrees" doesn't say there are no disreputable ones. GP didn't say exactly why the court threw out the quack. You're the one assuming that this was because the guy disagreed.
You obviously don't know anything about this case, and obviously also nothing about what a contradiction is.
I've done that a bit. If I get something I recognize the symptoms of, I sometimes can pretty much schedule the test.
The same number as he'll get during the rest of this term. Trump will not be re-elected.
With one exception, developed countries have universal health care. The countries with universal health care often are much better off in public health than the one that doesn't have it, and they all pay far less. You've got a lot of empirical evidence that doesn't agree with you to deal with.
Trump's not a conservative in any meaningful sense. He wants to make radical changes to the country. He is a right-winger, but that's not the same thing.
I have a doctor friend who was complaining that she lost money on Medicare patients. Her fixed expenses were higher than what Medicare could pay, so she lost money even when donating her time. (I'm confident of her skill as a doctor, not as a businesswoman, for whatever that's worth.)
My car came with two keys. If one is lost or damaged, I can't program a third one in that way.
I'm going to be lazy and ask if anyone's done a statistical analysis to see whether the difference between those numbers is statistically significant. I suppose I could figure it out myself, but as I said I'm going to be lazy on this.
Exactly what would those warrants be? Warrants can be issued on the basis of unreliable information. It isn't a problem as long as the information is noted as from an unreliable or partisan source, which is something Nunes obviously wanted to deny (in the case of the Steele report) but couldn't.
The FBI, which is heavily Republican, went to FISA and asked for a warrant on a person suspected of collusion with the Russians. He was on Trump's team because Trump doesn't consider collusion with Russians a bad thing. Nunes convinced me that this was a legit investigation. He was obviously trying to say it wasn't, but had to dance around and say things that look like they condemned the investigation. Read the memo carefully.