As other posters have pointed out, there's an option in iOS to default to SMS if iMessage fails. Which seems about right. You have it switched on. But anyone who doesn't want to incur SMS charges can have it switched off.
That's fine if you know about it, but most people don't since there is no warning on the app or provided in the box with the phone. Most people's experience will be that their SMS messages stop working and are with lost in a black hole or delivered to some random device.
My heart bleeds that in your imagination, you as an Apple hater will be inconvenienced when you exchange your nonexistant iPhone for an Android phone. Real users aren't having a problem.
In the common case that the user still has an iPhone, but it's switched off, or otherwise off the network, you have caused an unnecessary SMS to be sent. Which may cost money.
And the receiver may well end up with duplicated messages.
I see. So the fact that Democrats like education and support it makes child education a Democrat concept? That's interesting.
Your analogy doesn't work as all parties are concerted with child education, yet it's only libertarians that are complaining about fiat currency.
I agree on the latter, but one out of three is not a very good score.
Despite your nay-saying, the libertarian and criminal love for bitcoin is unquestionable to anyone who reads.
Yes, there are. At least in the United States. I know you're not in the U.S. but here, it most certainly is subject to regulations.
Don't be silly. Being subject to money-laundering laws isn't what financial regulation means. If there's not an official regulator, then it's not regulated.
As a libertarian it's hardly surprising you are defending these things. But you are wrong.
The bottom line is defined by science, as is everything else. When you accept the scientific truth of AGW, it would be a short-termist approach not to consider it's future effects on the company.
Better than you it seems. That stupid controversy was about nothing more than cache files on the iPhone. Backing up to your PC with iTunes made a copy of the cache along with all the other files. Nothing was uploaded to Apple.
The iPhone scans everything around adds the GPS data and uploads it to Apples server.
The National Center for Public Policy Research are right-wing activist assholes, who's opinions have previously been rejected by the overwhelming majority of Apple shareholders. They are trying to use an Apple shareholder meeting, not for the benefit of the company or it's shareholders, but to expound their political beliefs.
Why should Tim Cook treat them with a respect they don't deserve?
How about expecting people not to assault others and take items valuable enough that it's got to be a felony?
This bad behaviour is not in question. We all know it's wrong, and legislation is there to deal with it. It's thus not an interesting thing to discuss.
The bad behaviour of people using a new technology is in question. The boundaries of decent behaviour have not yet been established, thus it is worthy of discussion.
The woman's behaviour caused people to assault her and temporarily take her property. We can take it as read that despite the provocation, people shouldn't have done that. But the interesting thing is what parts of her behaviour are objectionable and why.
Read the article and you'll see that's it's entirely written from the POV of the Glass wearer. And yet even so it's clear that she behaved as a complete dick, telling people who were already shielding their faces that she was going to film them. She epitomises what we mean when we say that Google Glass users are Glassholes.
The article and summary do mention that the recording device was not recording.
Read the article. It's written entirely from the point of view of the Google Glass wearer, but even from that biased point of view, it's possible to see she's unreasonable and brought this on herself. She's not simply a Google Glass user but an "evangelist", she says 95% of the reaction has been positive, which means that even by her own biased estimate she's annoyed 1 in 20. And it's clear that when people are annoyed or upset by it, her assumption is that they are wrong and need educating.
"She was showing one curious bar patron Google Glass when two women started shielding their faces and rolling their eyes, she said. One of the women made an obscene gesture, Slocum said.
Feeling threatened, she said she told them she was going to record with Google Glass."
If anyone encapsulates the idea that Google Glass wearers are assholes, this woman does. She chose to invade people's privacy by telling them she was going to record them, even after they'd already indicated by shielding their faces that they didn't want to be recorded.
This Glasshole certainly got what she assed for. She can thank her gender that she didn't get more.
For a start, with banks and financial services in official currencies, you actually know who you are dealing with. They are registered with the government, and have real bricks and mortar addresses.
Bitcoin wallets and exchanges have no such guarantees. In it's exceedingly short history, several such services have just disappeared with people's bitcoins. And no one knows who to persue.
And that's just the most basic of protections regulation gives people.
It's symptomatic of the naivety of libertarians that you even have to ask the question.
Part of the weirdness is that the rest of Canada is required to be officially bilingual but not in Quebec. Ie, bilingual road signs in BC but French only road signs in Quebec.
That's not accurate, and there's nothing weird about it at all. The federal government is bilingual. And much like USA states, the provinces get to decide much of their local laws. A minority of them are bilingual, Quebec is French as the official language. The rest are English as the official language.
And the stupid part is that this would apply to a Facebook page.
It's not stupid at all. It doesn't apply to Facebook in general. But a page in Facebook is not for individuals, it's for organisations, and you state the nature of the organisation when you set it up. Thus this page is simply a business promotional web-page, and should be treated no different from other such pages on the internet.
The objective of the legislation is "to make French the language of Government and the Law, as well as the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business"
One of the specific rights is: "The right of consumers to be informed and served in French."
Therefore, it would be completely wrong if a business promotional page on Facebook were not covered under the law.
If the owner does not speak French why have the requirement that a French translator must be hired merely to update a Facebook page?
In the unlikely event that a Quebec business owner did not speak French, they would have to have a French speaker to translate ALL aspects of their business.
There are residents of Quebec, including French speakers, who do not like what the government is doing in an attempt to legislate against a declining use of French.
And there are non-catholics in the Vatican. In a democracy, those in tiny minorities don't get their way over vast majorities.
Overall it's about free speech.
There are rights other than free speech. Quebec is a majority francophone place. It's people have a right to have official and business communications to them in the official language of the land. They are not to be disenfranchised by being communicated to in a foreign language.
(A) Bitcoin is no more "Libertarian" than cash is.
Not true. Libertarians wax lyrical about bitcoin, whilst often repeating complains about fiat currency and the fall of the gold standard.
Indeed the only supporters of bitcoin are libertarians, criminals, and those that are easily suckered into get-rich-quick investment schemes and pyramid scams.
So you will only accept quotes about climate change from sites that support the climate change theory.... talk about selection bias.
That's not the case. I'm happy to look at wikipedia for example. And certainly links to peer reviewed scientific articles. Even to quality newspapers, though they have to be read with some scepticism.
But there are many climate denial websites, often funded by the denial lobby, and links from them are worthless. They contain tissues of lies and myths that have been debunked countless times.
Is there some script or something that we could run that would scan for commenters that reference pyramid or ponzi in a bitcoin article and just automatically band them from future comments on bitcoin?
No. Slashdot infrastructure isn't here to respond to your personal belief that Bitcoin isn't a pyramid scheme.
Did I not say that Chinese has a better reason to be included?
You said:... than French. My point was... than English.
The topic of conversation was why french culture / society is always pushing for required french language inclusion. It was not about English, or the merits of it.
You responded to my post that explained the former by means of American (English language) cultural imperialism. So that is on topic.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not complicated or obscure. Regulated industries have legislated bodies to regulate them.
As other posters have pointed out, there's an option in iOS to default to SMS if iMessage fails. Which seems about right. You have it switched on. But anyone who doesn't want to incur SMS charges can have it switched off.
That's fine if you know about it, but most people don't since there is no warning on the app or provided in the box with the phone. Most people's experience will be that their SMS messages stop working and are with lost in a black hole or delivered to some random device.
My heart bleeds that in your imagination, you as an Apple hater will be inconvenienced when you exchange your nonexistant iPhone for an Android phone. Real users aren't having a problem.
there's no way to unregister a number from iMessage.
Other than the ways set out in TFS and TFA.
If you stop using WhatsApp or those other services you'll also lose messages.
In the common case that the user still has an iPhone, but it's switched off, or otherwise off the network, you have caused an unnecessary SMS to be sent. Which may cost money.
And the receiver may well end up with duplicated messages.
As I already pointed out elsewhere, you are simply wrong about that. Bitcoin is, in fact, regulated. Not by the Fed, but by other government agencies.
As you failed to point out elsewhere. Being subject to money laundering laws and other laws of the land does not make something regulated.
It's symptomatic of someone who likes to knee-jerk attack Libertarians to get things so utterly wrong.
Its symptomatic of you being a libertarian that you talk such nonsense.
I see. So the fact that Democrats like education and support it makes child education a Democrat concept? That's interesting.
Your analogy doesn't work as all parties are concerted with child education, yet it's only libertarians that are complaining about fiat currency.
I agree on the latter, but one out of three is not a very good score.
Despite your nay-saying, the libertarian and criminal love for bitcoin is unquestionable to anyone who reads.
Yes, there are. At least in the United States. I know you're not in the U.S. but here, it most certainly is subject to regulations.
Don't be silly. Being subject to money-laundering laws isn't what financial regulation means. If there's not an official regulator, then it's not regulated.
As a libertarian it's hardly surprising you are defending these things. But you are wrong.
Actually, ALL shareholders are motivated purely by profit. Think I'm wrong?
I know for a fact you are wrong. See: Ethical investors.
The bottom line is defined by science, as is everything else. When you accept the scientific truth of AGW, it would be a short-termist approach not to consider it's future effects on the company.
Al Gore, whom both the left and right recognize as a nutjob
He's certainly hated by the right wingers, especially by climate change deniers. But he's rightly respected by the left.
He's the best President America didn't have.
Remember this:
http://petewarden.github.io/iP...
Better than you it seems. That stupid controversy was about nothing more than cache files on the iPhone. Backing up to your PC with iTunes made a copy of the cache along with all the other files. Nothing was uploaded to Apple.
The iPhone scans everything around adds the GPS data and uploads it to Apples server.
Yes, but anonymously. You are not identified.
It's all explained here.
http://www.apple.com/uk/pr/lib...
Heaven forbid that companies should act morally.
The National Center for Public Policy Research are right-wing activist assholes, who's opinions have previously been rejected by the overwhelming majority of Apple shareholders. They are trying to use an Apple shareholder meeting, not for the benefit of the company or it's shareholders, but to expound their political beliefs.
Why should Tim Cook treat them with a respect they don't deserve?
How about expecting people not to assault others and take items valuable enough that it's got to be a felony?
This bad behaviour is not in question. We all know it's wrong, and legislation is there to deal with it. It's thus not an interesting thing to discuss.
The bad behaviour of people using a new technology is in question. The boundaries of decent behaviour have not yet been established, thus it is worthy of discussion.
The woman's behaviour caused people to assault her and temporarily take her property. We can take it as read that despite the provocation, people shouldn't have done that. But the interesting thing is what parts of her behaviour are objectionable and why.
Read the article and you'll see that's it's entirely written from the POV of the Glass wearer. And yet even so it's clear that she behaved as a complete dick, telling people who were already shielding their faces that she was going to film them. She epitomises what we mean when we say that Google Glass users are Glassholes.
The article and summary do mention that the recording device was not recording.
Read the article. It's written entirely from the point of view of the Google Glass wearer, but even from that biased point of view, it's possible to see she's unreasonable and brought this on herself. She's not simply a Google Glass user but an "evangelist", she says 95% of the reaction has been positive, which means that even by her own biased estimate she's annoyed 1 in 20. And it's clear that when people are annoyed or upset by it, her assumption is that they are wrong and need educating.
"She was showing one curious bar patron Google Glass when two women started shielding their faces and rolling their eyes, she said. One of the women made an obscene gesture, Slocum said.
Feeling threatened, she said she told them she was going to record with Google Glass."
If anyone encapsulates the idea that Google Glass wearers are assholes, this woman does. She chose to invade people's privacy by telling them she was going to record them, even after they'd already indicated by shielding their faces that they didn't want to be recorded.
This Glasshole certainly got what she assed for. She can thank her gender that she didn't get more.
Regulation.
For a start, with banks and financial services in official currencies, you actually know who you are dealing with. They are registered with the government, and have real bricks and mortar addresses.
Bitcoin wallets and exchanges have no such guarantees. In it's exceedingly short history, several such services have just disappeared with people's bitcoins. And no one knows who to persue.
And that's just the most basic of protections regulation gives people.
It's symptomatic of the naivety of libertarians that you even have to ask the question.
Part of the weirdness is that the rest of Canada is required to be officially bilingual but not in Quebec. Ie, bilingual road signs in BC but French only road signs in Quebec.
That's not accurate, and there's nothing weird about it at all. The federal government is bilingual. And much like USA states, the provinces get to decide much of their local laws. A minority of them are bilingual, Quebec is French as the official language. The rest are English as the official language.
And the stupid part is that this would apply to a Facebook page.
It's not stupid at all. It doesn't apply to Facebook in general. But a page in Facebook is not for individuals, it's for organisations, and you state the nature of the organisation when you set it up. Thus this page is simply a business promotional web-page, and should be treated no different from other such pages on the internet.
The objective of the legislation is "to make French the language of Government and the Law, as well as the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business"
One of the specific rights is: "The right of consumers to be informed and served in French."
Therefore, it would be completely wrong if a business promotional page on Facebook were not covered under the law.
If the owner does not speak French why have the requirement that a French translator must be hired merely to update a Facebook page?
In the unlikely event that a Quebec business owner did not speak French, they would have to have a French speaker to translate ALL aspects of their business.
There are residents of Quebec, including French speakers, who do not like what the government is doing in an attempt to legislate against a declining use of French.
And there are non-catholics in the Vatican. In a democracy, those in tiny minorities don't get their way over vast majorities.
Overall it's about free speech.
There are rights other than free speech. Quebec is a majority francophone place. It's people have a right to have official and business communications to them in the official language of the land. They are not to be disenfranchised by being communicated to in a foreign language.
(A) Bitcoin is no more "Libertarian" than cash is.
Not true. Libertarians wax lyrical about bitcoin, whilst often repeating complains about fiat currency and the fall of the gold standard.
Indeed the only supporters of bitcoin are libertarians, criminals, and those that are easily suckered into get-rich-quick investment schemes and pyramid scams.
(B) Bitcoin is not "unregulated".
Who are the regulators?
That's right, there aren't any.
Where did this whole BS idea come from?
A place called reality.
So you will only accept quotes about climate change from sites that support the climate change theory.... talk about selection bias.
That's not the case. I'm happy to look at wikipedia for example. And certainly links to peer reviewed scientific articles. Even to quality newspapers, though they have to be read with some scepticism.
But there are many climate denial websites, often funded by the denial lobby, and links from them are worthless. They contain tissues of lies and myths that have been debunked countless times.
Is there some script or something that we could run that would scan for commenters that reference pyramid or ponzi in a bitcoin article and just automatically band them from future comments on bitcoin?
No. Slashdot infrastructure isn't here to respond to your personal belief that Bitcoin isn't a pyramid scheme.
Real Bitcoin users don't keep their bitcoins in an exchange but on their device.
No True Scotsman lost money on Bitcoin.
Always a pleasure to say "I told you so" to people with objectionable belief systems.
Obviously some of the libertarian unregulated money dreamers have mod points today.
Did I not say that Chinese has a better reason to be included?
You said: ... than French. My point was ... than English.
The topic of conversation was why french culture / society is always pushing for required french language inclusion. It was not about English, or the merits of it.
You responded to my post that explained the former by means of American (English language) cultural imperialism. So that is on topic.