OK, consider your CentOS system. From the point of view of the rest of your family, you're running a walled garden. They can install packages from places you decide on and nowhere else. If they want to go beyond that, they need to ask you, and you can approve another repository or "side-load" an application. The difference between you and Apple, in this case, is that you probably actually listen to your wife and kids. (Can they install software on their own accounts? If so, they can breach their own security all by themselves.) For the majority of your family, there is no control, customization, or competition that they couldn't get on an iDevice.
You seem to be behind on your knowledge of iOS development. There are plenty of different development systems, including Mono and Visual Studio 2015, so you're not limited to XCode. There's plenty of languages you can use, not just Objective-C and Swift. I understand that you can now load what you've compiled onto an iPhone, so if you can use a compiler you can side-load from source without paying the $100 annual fee. If you've got a web site, you can make web apps for iOS, which is what the first non-Apple iPhone programs were.
There is competition in the iOS ecosystem, both on the App Store (which gas mileage program do you want?) and between iOS and Android. There's a fair amount of liberty. Apple has restrictions on the App Store, but anybody can sell what they want if they don't violate them. The restrictions are of the "you can't do this" form, as opposed to "you can only do that". It's a lot more open than game consoles, for example.
Seems to me I've heard of sideloaded Android malware. From what I've seen, Apple is better than Google at policing its store, and the Apple approach to permissions is clearly better.
A landslide or fire or earthquake that killed a similar number of people would cause the same distress. The 35W collapse in Minneapolis several years ago did that. I'm not trying to minimize your emotions, but concern for loved ones isn't unique to mass shootings.
And, consider what would happen in the absence of general concern. People would be dead. Many more people would frantically try to learn if their loved ones were among the dead, and they would be frightened and anxious. Most of them would find that their loved ones were OK, and they've had a terrible day or so. Some of them would find that a loved one was killed, but lots of people find that a loved one died suddenly. Almost certainly more people in the US died in auto accidents than from the shooting that day. These deaths are all tragedies, but I don't see that a shooting death is more tragic than a traffic death.
These things by themselves don't add up to being a significant problem. We have a small number of people suddenly killed, and a lot of people trying to find out what happened to people who might be involved. Mass shootings are less deadly than daily traffic deaths, which kill more people, and happen every day.
Very few people in the US die from mass shootings. If it weren't for the morale effect, they wouldn't be a significant problem. The media are what makes them an apparently very serious problem.
The real kicker is that the use of GMO crops does not increase farmers' yields.
And, among the really dubious claims, we have a definite loser. Farmers are very conscious of their budgets and what they're paying for. If GMO seeds don't increase their yield, why do we have farmers buying it? Why are some so interested in getting the benefits without paying Monsanto?
A Venus colony on the surface would die horribly. It's at least possible to establish one high in the atmosphere. A Mars colony would be on the surface. Therefore, it's a heck of a lot easier to mine for materials on Mars than on Venus.
Not currently, but it's still a fairly small target, whereas iOS isn't. Mac OSX does have some advantages over Windows in resisting malware, but nothing that can't be overcome fairly easily.
From my point of view, you've got a false dilemma. You seem to be implying that computer systems as a whole must be open or closed. I see that some are open and some are closed.
We do need open systems with standards. We've got them. They aren't going to go away. Anyone who wants a high-quality development environment can get one by buying a cheap Windows/Mac OSX/Linux/whatever computer and adding free/open source software. I think we agree that it's vital that this be the case, and I don't see it as a concern.
There's no reason why a good development system shouldn't be user-friendly, but that's not what I'm talking about. My mother used a Mac, and the reason it wasn't going to be a good development system is that she wouldn't have any idea what to do with it. My mother-in-law uses an old Windows computer, although I'm trying to push her to tablets (we gave her a decent Samsung for Mother's Day). However, if they did anything significant with those systems on the Net, they'd be infected, because they have/had no clue about computer security.
We've gone through all sorts of things. We can try to bullet-proof the operating systems, but that won't prevent malware from getting onto a computer by being downloaded and run by the user, and years and years of experience tell us that that's what's going to happen. The only way we can block that vector is to prevent the user from running arbitrary programs, and the only way to do that is some sort of walled garden. At least, that's the best I can figure out. I'm fairly sure there isn't a better way, and I'd be fascinated to find out I'm wrong. I've been reading of the virtues of whitelisting applications for years now.
Back at that time, it was obvious that Apple didn't intend for people to service their Macs, largely because they wouldn't need to. Occasional cars were hard to service for the shade-tree mechanic, as a comparison. (They're much less serviceable now, of course.) I didn't find it difficult to upgrade the RAM.
I'm not understanding the problem that well, and so I'd like to take advantage of your expertise.
The tool was very simple. It was a very long Allen wrench with a better handle than they usually have (because only one end was supposed to be functional). Why did it take so long to be available?
If my memory serves, the big issue was that the screws were difficult to reach, which is why an ordinary Allen wrench of the proper size (if they came that size) wouldn't work. The screwdriver or wrench needed to have a very long shaft, which I don't remember being in other screwdrivers I've had and have. How could Apple have changed that without moving the screws? And how would have using a different head have improved things, given the need for the very long shaft?
Also, how would it have reduced Apple's costs to do something different? Macs were made in quantity, and the costs of any simple but nonstandard tools amortize to almost nothing.
Work on your reading comprehension. GP said that Clinton had certain legitimate legal authority that she may have used. Things can be illegal because they aren't against the law, not because of who does them.
The regular population has been repeatedly told she is a crook, by people who lie like there was no tomorrow. Benghazi? There's still people who think she did something seriously wrong, despite the complete failure of the congressional witch-hunt.
One result is that I don't believe anything the Republicans say about her without good evidence. So far, I haven't seen good evidence of serious impropriety concerning her emails. I've read a lot of accusations, and don't believe them. Personally, I don't care if the little boy who cried wolf does get eaten anymore.
What do you mean I can't? I supported Sanders in the nomination process, and I'll vote for Clinton in November. Clinton would make the better President, but by pushing Sanders I helped (in an exceedingly small way) push the party in the direction I wanted.
You aren't going to change the major parties by voting third party. You can by working within the system.
I have no objection to redefining "marriage" to be something that has no legal implications. However, we currently have a very large number of laws and agreements that treat people who are married differently from people who are not, and until we get that straightened out, if ever, we need to have marriage rights for same-sex couples. There have been same-sex marriages, in some form, in different periods of history.
I haven't heard a man referred to as a "wife" or a woman referred to as a "husband". You don't seem real up on how same-sex couples function. The ones I know don't have gender roles arbitrarily assigned to one or the other.
Transsexuals are not homosexuals (although there is overlap). A homosexual is a man who is primarily sexually attracted to men, or a woman who is primarily sexually attracted to women. A transsexual is a person whose gender identity doesn't match his or her physical sex, sexual orientation unspecified. Any "gay agenda" has nothing to do with transsexuals. The transsexual agenda is to be left alone to live their lives. There are also people who are neither male nor female, by any criteria other than legal or any situation where it's reduced to a binary choice. I don't know if they have any connection to transsexuals, but they can't really be homosexual or heterosexual. (I was unhappy with the gender balance rules in my local political party organization, and was quite happy to elect people of non-binary sex to go to higher levels.)
I'm not aware of problems involved with transsexuals using the wrong bathroom before the legislation. I am worried about male-to-female transsexuals who would be legally be required to use the men's rooms, risking a savage beating just because they had to pee. I've read of people being hassled because they don't look feminine enough and have to use the facilities. As far as I can tell, the law has not solved problems, but has created problems.
Christianity is in every case a peaceful religion.
There have been a tremendous number of violent assholes who considered themselves Christians, and often gave Christianity as the reason for their actions. They weren't emulating Jesus, and often entirely disregard what he said and did, but they called themselves Christians, and belonged to churches that called themselves Christian.
You sound like you're trying to be more like Jesus, and I very much approve of that. You don't represent all of Christianity, though.
From what I've read, there really aren't all that many places where the Bible mentions homosexuality. The Leviticus reference is in the middle of a long list of strict rules, many of which call for execution. (It also specifically mentions men lying with men; apparently whoever wrote Leviticus didn't want to give up hot girl-on-girl action.) The way I figure it, if someone quotes Leviticus at me about anything, I'll ask to see their clothing labels, and call them hypocrites if there's any mixed fabrics. (I know why that rule was in there, but Leviticus just bans mixed fabrics without explanation.)
Is Warner a Muslim? It's REAL easy to trash-talk someone else's religion. I'm not impressed with concentrating on writings, because they're not what the practice of the religion is usually based on. For example, there are plenty of Biblical literalists in the US, and some of them are pretty bad people, but there's lots of people who aren't literalists.
Did you know that a Christian can lie to you at any time for any reason? Or a Buddhist or an atheist? People who want to lie are going to find some sort of justification.
Did you know that, at one time, the most advanced and enlightened civilization around was Muslim? It sure isn't any more, but if Islam was that horrible there never would have been such a civilization.
If the average user side-loads, the average iPhone/iPad is going to be swarming with malware. People who know how to install Xcode and use it on a basic level have a much higher chance of side-loading the right things.
No, what it means is that a female scam artist can found a multibillion-dollar company, just like a male scam artist can. It isn't true equality when it takes a competent hard-working woman to do as well as a male scam artist. It's a step towards equality.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, consider your CentOS system. From the point of view of the rest of your family, you're running a walled garden. They can install packages from places you decide on and nowhere else. If they want to go beyond that, they need to ask you, and you can approve another repository or "side-load" an application. The difference between you and Apple, in this case, is that you probably actually listen to your wife and kids. (Can they install software on their own accounts? If so, they can breach their own security all by themselves.) For the majority of your family, there is no control, customization, or competition that they couldn't get on an iDevice.
You seem to be behind on your knowledge of iOS development. There are plenty of different development systems, including Mono and Visual Studio 2015, so you're not limited to XCode. There's plenty of languages you can use, not just Objective-C and Swift. I understand that you can now load what you've compiled onto an iPhone, so if you can use a compiler you can side-load from source without paying the $100 annual fee. If you've got a web site, you can make web apps for iOS, which is what the first non-Apple iPhone programs were.
There is competition in the iOS ecosystem, both on the App Store (which gas mileage program do you want?) and between iOS and Android. There's a fair amount of liberty. Apple has restrictions on the App Store, but anybody can sell what they want if they don't violate them. The restrictions are of the "you can't do this" form, as opposed to "you can only do that". It's a lot more open than game consoles, for example.
Seems to me I've heard of sideloaded Android malware. From what I've seen, Apple is better than Google at policing its store, and the Apple approach to permissions is clearly better.
A landslide or fire or earthquake that killed a similar number of people would cause the same distress. The 35W collapse in Minneapolis several years ago did that. I'm not trying to minimize your emotions, but concern for loved ones isn't unique to mass shootings.
And, consider what would happen in the absence of general concern. People would be dead. Many more people would frantically try to learn if their loved ones were among the dead, and they would be frightened and anxious. Most of them would find that their loved ones were OK, and they've had a terrible day or so. Some of them would find that a loved one was killed, but lots of people find that a loved one died suddenly. Almost certainly more people in the US died in auto accidents than from the shooting that day. These deaths are all tragedies, but I don't see that a shooting death is more tragic than a traffic death.
These things by themselves don't add up to being a significant problem. We have a small number of people suddenly killed, and a lot of people trying to find out what happened to people who might be involved. Mass shootings are less deadly than daily traffic deaths, which kill more people, and happen every day.
Very few people in the US die from mass shootings. If it weren't for the morale effect, they wouldn't be a significant problem. The media are what makes them an apparently very serious problem.
And, among the really dubious claims, we have a definite loser. Farmers are very conscious of their budgets and what they're paying for. If GMO seeds don't increase their yield, why do we have farmers buying it? Why are some so interested in getting the benefits without paying Monsanto?
Heck, misplace a pair of pants and you can be sued for more money than would exist in the known Universe.
You omitted:
4) Includes descriptions of sex or nudity.
If the story didn't have people thinking about seeing naked Chinese women, it wouldn't have any legs at all.
A Venus colony on the surface would die horribly. It's at least possible to establish one high in the atmosphere. A Mars colony would be on the surface. Therefore, it's a heck of a lot easier to mine for materials on Mars than on Venus.
Not currently, but it's still a fairly small target, whereas iOS isn't. Mac OSX does have some advantages over Windows in resisting malware, but nothing that can't be overcome fairly easily.
The best we're going to do in some of these cases is understand why the other thinks their way. I think we've done that. Thanks!
From my point of view, you've got a false dilemma. You seem to be implying that computer systems as a whole must be open or closed. I see that some are open and some are closed.
We do need open systems with standards. We've got them. They aren't going to go away. Anyone who wants a high-quality development environment can get one by buying a cheap Windows/Mac OSX/Linux/whatever computer and adding free/open source software. I think we agree that it's vital that this be the case, and I don't see it as a concern.
There's no reason why a good development system shouldn't be user-friendly, but that's not what I'm talking about. My mother used a Mac, and the reason it wasn't going to be a good development system is that she wouldn't have any idea what to do with it. My mother-in-law uses an old Windows computer, although I'm trying to push her to tablets (we gave her a decent Samsung for Mother's Day). However, if they did anything significant with those systems on the Net, they'd be infected, because they have/had no clue about computer security.
We've gone through all sorts of things. We can try to bullet-proof the operating systems, but that won't prevent malware from getting onto a computer by being downloaded and run by the user, and years and years of experience tell us that that's what's going to happen. The only way we can block that vector is to prevent the user from running arbitrary programs, and the only way to do that is some sort of walled garden. At least, that's the best I can figure out. I'm fairly sure there isn't a better way, and I'd be fascinated to find out I'm wrong. I've been reading of the virtues of whitelisting applications for years now.
Back at that time, it was obvious that Apple didn't intend for people to service their Macs, largely because they wouldn't need to. Occasional cars were hard to service for the shade-tree mechanic, as a comparison. (They're much less serviceable now, of course.) I didn't find it difficult to upgrade the RAM.
I'm not understanding the problem that well, and so I'd like to take advantage of your expertise.
The tool was very simple. It was a very long Allen wrench with a better handle than they usually have (because only one end was supposed to be functional). Why did it take so long to be available?
If my memory serves, the big issue was that the screws were difficult to reach, which is why an ordinary Allen wrench of the proper size (if they came that size) wouldn't work. The screwdriver or wrench needed to have a very long shaft, which I don't remember being in other screwdrivers I've had and have. How could Apple have changed that without moving the screws? And how would have using a different head have improved things, given the need for the very long shaft?
Also, how would it have reduced Apple's costs to do something different? Macs were made in quantity, and the costs of any simple but nonstandard tools amortize to almost nothing.
Work on your reading comprehension. GP said that Clinton had certain legitimate legal authority that she may have used. Things can be illegal because they aren't against the law, not because of who does them.
The regular population has been repeatedly told she is a crook, by people who lie like there was no tomorrow. Benghazi? There's still people who think she did something seriously wrong, despite the complete failure of the congressional witch-hunt.
One result is that I don't believe anything the Republicans say about her without good evidence. So far, I haven't seen good evidence of serious impropriety concerning her emails. I've read a lot of accusations, and don't believe them. Personally, I don't care if the little boy who cried wolf does get eaten anymore.
What do you mean I can't? I supported Sanders in the nomination process, and I'll vote for Clinton in November. Clinton would make the better President, but by pushing Sanders I helped (in an exceedingly small way) push the party in the direction I wanted.
You aren't going to change the major parties by voting third party. You can by working within the system.
The laws about private email accounts were passed after Clinton left office.
I have no objection to redefining "marriage" to be something that has no legal implications. However, we currently have a very large number of laws and agreements that treat people who are married differently from people who are not, and until we get that straightened out, if ever, we need to have marriage rights for same-sex couples. There have been same-sex marriages, in some form, in different periods of history.
I haven't heard a man referred to as a "wife" or a woman referred to as a "husband". You don't seem real up on how same-sex couples function. The ones I know don't have gender roles arbitrarily assigned to one or the other.
Transsexuals are not homosexuals (although there is overlap). A homosexual is a man who is primarily sexually attracted to men, or a woman who is primarily sexually attracted to women. A transsexual is a person whose gender identity doesn't match his or her physical sex, sexual orientation unspecified. Any "gay agenda" has nothing to do with transsexuals. The transsexual agenda is to be left alone to live their lives. There are also people who are neither male nor female, by any criteria other than legal or any situation where it's reduced to a binary choice. I don't know if they have any connection to transsexuals, but they can't really be homosexual or heterosexual. (I was unhappy with the gender balance rules in my local political party organization, and was quite happy to elect people of non-binary sex to go to higher levels.)
I'm not aware of problems involved with transsexuals using the wrong bathroom before the legislation. I am worried about male-to-female transsexuals who would be legally be required to use the men's rooms, risking a savage beating just because they had to pee. I've read of people being hassled because they don't look feminine enough and have to use the facilities. As far as I can tell, the law has not solved problems, but has created problems.
There have been a tremendous number of violent assholes who considered themselves Christians, and often gave Christianity as the reason for their actions. They weren't emulating Jesus, and often entirely disregard what he said and did, but they called themselves Christians, and belonged to churches that called themselves Christian.
You sound like you're trying to be more like Jesus, and I very much approve of that. You don't represent all of Christianity, though.
From what I've read, there really aren't all that many places where the Bible mentions homosexuality. The Leviticus reference is in the middle of a long list of strict rules, many of which call for execution. (It also specifically mentions men lying with men; apparently whoever wrote Leviticus didn't want to give up hot girl-on-girl action.) The way I figure it, if someone quotes Leviticus at me about anything, I'll ask to see their clothing labels, and call them hypocrites if there's any mixed fabrics. (I know why that rule was in there, but Leviticus just bans mixed fabrics without explanation.)
Is Warner a Muslim? It's REAL easy to trash-talk someone else's religion. I'm not impressed with concentrating on writings, because they're not what the practice of the religion is usually based on. For example, there are plenty of Biblical literalists in the US, and some of them are pretty bad people, but there's lots of people who aren't literalists.
Did you know that a Christian can lie to you at any time for any reason? Or a Buddhist or an atheist? People who want to lie are going to find some sort of justification.
Did you know that, at one time, the most advanced and enlightened civilization around was Muslim? It sure isn't any more, but if Islam was that horrible there never would have been such a civilization.
If the average user side-loads, the average iPhone/iPad is going to be swarming with malware. People who know how to install Xcode and use it on a basic level have a much higher chance of side-loading the right things.
No, what it means is that a female scam artist can found a multibillion-dollar company, just like a male scam artist can. It isn't true equality when it takes a competent hard-working woman to do as well as a male scam artist. It's a step towards equality.
Particularly since they added "Explosives". Sounds like a great party to me.
You can get homeopathic medicine a lot cheaper without losing any effectiveness in the bottled water section.
I've been endorsed for skills I didn't think I possessed.