No, the reasons behind the lack of Mac viruses has little to do with its market share, which I would remind you has gone up 4 fold in the last few years. Mac OS X, and Linux are both fundamentally far more secure than Windows. Sure, there have been 2 or 3 here or there. In fact, I'd guess it was around 25 serious trojans (not viruses, as in self-propagating; that I think is still a no-no yet) for Mac. Windows has over 150,000 that affect the various versions from MS-DOS through to Windows 7. Given Mac marketshare is at least 5%, nearer 10% now, why are the number of viruses at around the.01% mark that of Windows? Marketshare alone will not suddenly bring with it a massive increase in Mac malware, no matter how much McAfee et al would like it
Not only do you completely ignore the Apache argument so well made by MaskedSlacker, you also forget that the "tiny ass segment" now makes up about 15-20% all in, incluing in it many of the worlds most valued hacker targets, like prominent websites, company intranets, bank servers etc. If it was as easy to hack Mac OS X as it was windows, for instance, we'd see an awful lot of very upset hispters. Some considerable weeping would be heard at your local Starbucks as their iLife galleries get pwned.
But we don't. And the reason we don't is because, although there have been some limited proof-of-concept trojans out there, and wider malware as well, almost all exploited holes that are patched very quickly, and almost all also depend on social engineering (which takes time and effort as well as the extra time needed to write the code in the first place) to get someone to execute the code, since unlike Windows, most decent OS's will not just execute arbitrary code that can damage the system, and few vulnerabilities exist to do so outwith the user's permission, so you need to harvest root passwords, ask for authentication etc.
Hacking an individual box of course is possible, and if you have the skillset, time and money, is almost as easy for a Mac or linux box as a windows one, depending of course if it's a stock Mac or Linux box, or if it's someone who knows what they're doing. But that's not a virus. That's hacking. That takes a lot of time and skill, not just a 12 year old with a $300 laptop and a script. I'm not a Master Guru programmer by any means, I dabble in code when I'm not doing my job (graphics design), but I know my way around Obj-C/Cocoa fairly well and can handle my terminal just fine, so please, stop debasing your (meagre) arguments with pointless ad-hominem attacks.
As for the comments on sex, it was a useful metaphor and in case it had escaped your notice, in the context of my comment, "hanging around" was a euphemism for sex. I'm sure you realise that and are just attempting another ad-hominem. It failed. I am quite aware of the spreading mechanisms for the Chlamydia trachomatis bacteria as well, and I'd note that it doesn't always require penetrative vaginal intercourse to spread, it can also be spread via oral sex, anal sex as well as childbirth.
True, and no I wasn't. But generally speaking, because of the near-zero level of Mac & linux viruses, the inability to have self-executing (OK, so you can but it's very tricky and seldom works) code, and the complete pwnability of Windows machines, nobody really bothers writing malware for Linux and mac boxes, unless it's targeted at a specific victim, in which case it's not really a virus per sae, as much as a hacked getting their way in, and even then, most of the time they'd use one of the much easier-to-access and well documented root exploitations or SSH liabilities etc. When we're discussing viruses from torrent sites (I believe someone higher up the thread mentioned dodgy MP3's), we're really talking about self-executing code, or fooling a user into executing a file they think is just an MP3. Since OS X warns you it's an executable, and doesn't let it touch the System without an admin password, it's really not gonna happen very easily. I'll admit if you can convince the user to execute code, then you could damage that user's space, and if they were dumb enough you might be able to get an admin password out of them; it's not inconceivable. But spreading such an executable would be tough; it'd require social engineering to get people to execute code, you couldn't just spam it out to everyone on their address list, or in their IM friends list and expect anyone to execute it without some hook.
And that, as you so adroitly said, is where you encounter your "error: pebkac".
Yeah, but if you'd actually looked, the anti-viral software for Linux and OS X doesn't actually contain definitions for many (if any) linux or OS X viruses. It contains definitions for the hunderds of thousands of windows viruses. Sometimes, an e-mail can get forwarded on from a Mac user that the person sending it (a windows user) infected with a virus. Mac and linux anti-vrial software is more about preventing infection of other peoples shitty OS's than actual box security.
And of course, since dumb fucks out there now think that all computers have and are susceptible to viruses, McAffee et al prey on their stupidity to make a few bucks out of Mac and Linux users that ought to know better. They're useless product, unless you consider their presence on machines in a wider mixed-OS corporate ecosystem, where they make a useful contribution to slowing down and stopping re-infection rates
Or he uses an Operating System that isn't defective. Viruses and trojans only really occur on defective OS's, like Windows. They very rarely, if ever, affect Mac OS X or Linux distros, and when they do, they are patched within days usually, and never really enter the ecosystem.
Stop thinking that malware is a normal part of using a computer. It's like saying chlamydia is a normal part of having sex. It's only if you hang around with the wrong type of girl (or OS)...
Not really. The AppStore makes a fair amount of money, but for Apple, it's just above break-even once they've taken bandwidth, marketing etc. What the AppStore is add value to the product; it sells hardware, much like iTunes does for iPods.
So yeah, it would affect the bottom line somewhat, but that'd probably be bolstered by the fact a lot of good apps would be in the AppStore without any of the trivial crap-apps (iFart etc.).
In addition they'd also be able to talk abut excepting Flash, which some people think is good.
Apple don't think Flash is good. They think it's superflous and gash. Probably because, for the most part, it's superflous and gash. The very notion of having a plugin to do your video, or display a fecking menu is wrong It's the reason HTML5 is coming. Flash is wrong and should, and pretty soon, will die. The only people who want it not to die are Adobe.
When I mentioned fair use, I meant in the context of downloading clips; I know downloading the entire song isn't, unless, as you say, you're downloading something you've already bought in a different medium. The idea that you can be guilty of distribution, if you never actually distributed the work (in it's totality) is a valid argument I think. Hence you shouldn't seed past 0.99:)
Obviously, I only use BitTorrent for legitimate reasons, like Ubuntu distros. etc.
I would note that if someone says "I did this then that then this", and if pressed if they committed distribution said "I don't know what that is, and that's for the court to decide", then they've not admitted distribution; Sometimes, slimy prosecutors will try and get defendants to admit their guilt by asking them questions they lack the legal competency to understand. To me, the word "distribute" means to spread something around, make it accessible to others". To a lawyer it has a set statutory meaning, confessing to which means you have committed a crime (or a civil infringement; means something different in US law to Scots law I imagine). For a lawyer to get some Joe on the stand and make him say "distribution" when they're not fully aware of that difference is disingenuous.
I've always held that there could even be a "fair use" clause here, since my (limited) understanding of American law is that it allows the usage of small clips of a work as being "fair". Since anyone seeding only seeds small parts to individuals, unless they're a heavy seeder, then really, they've not distributed actual songs, but here constituent parts thereof; clips if you would. True, those clips, if put together by someone else could constitute an actual infringing work but on their own are not. Much like if you went around 100 different record shops, recording the free samples (or downloading them on iTunes, Amazon), it *may* be possible to reconstruct them into a song. But that doesn't mean the distributors are guilty of infringement. That's all on you, for driving around, seeking out those missing parts.
Only difference with a torrent is that the program does the hard work for you; it seeks out missing parts. You may personally be guilty of infringing once you've found all the parts, but the individuals that contributed to you, unless it was one individual, didn't. So "fair" damages would be the cost of that track (so, 99 cents?). And presumably since you've caused the action to come up, you'd have to pay costs, or at least your own legal costs. But actual damages would have to be limited to your own possession.
Companies would hate that but from where i stand, that would be a fair and impassionate application of the law.
Dunno if things work in New York as they do in Scotland, but if you ever get bored of pure law, you'd be a damned good (senator? congressman?) politician. Here, you'd be great as an MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament), actually writing and voting on the law rather than just arguing for its correct and speedy application.
I don't mean that in the "you're really good at arguing" way, or the "you'd be great at getting in amongst them" way, but in the "you seem to have a genuine care and respect for the principles of justice" kinda way. The kinda guy that looks up and sees Justitia on the roof of the court, and it means something to them. In other words, the sort of person I want writing the laws, someone I know won't be corrupted by power or lured by powerful companies.
That said, I'd imagine you're happy where you are and have no wish to delve into the murky underworld of politics. We are all lessened by that.
I can respect everything you say, and agree with most of it. But e-book should and *does* cost less than deadtree. Why? Because after you've done all that hard work (and I admit it is a lot of hard work to take even a *good* manuscript and turn it into a passable book), your costs are almost zero. You don't have to print the book, you don't need to bind. You don't need to distribute the book, and take back anything on sale-or-return. You just have to send a 9 cent CD to Amazon and whomever else is selling your e-book. That's the lot.
Ergo, books and e-books should be *almost* the same price as each other, with dead-tree being that little bit more since it costs money to print, buy the paper, distribute the product etc. and it is a bit more luxurious to read a hard-copy book than on a screen Also, the deadtree is worth more actual value, since it's readable whenever, wherever, and it doesn't have any DRM stopping you from loaning it to a friend etc. So why is it nine times out of ten, dead tree costs less? Seems to me the publishers are getting greedy here. If the deadtree costs $10, the DRM'd eBook should cost $5. Not $15.
Maybe you missed the whole not-getting-laid bit Unless of course you're insinuating a whole lot of slashdotters have kids that look suspiciously similar to the postman.
Actually, having lived in the UK my entire life, I'd say London is one of the places most definitely NOT to visit. I'm far from a yokel, but London is a complete shitheap of a city. There are a few interesting places to go to that are IN london, but not enough to justify staying there, and certainly not for 2 whole weeks. You can visit the geeky places inside a day or two... Try Scotland. Glasgow's at least as nice a place as London (stay in the centre, same with London), but Scotland also has something southern-England doesn't: scenery.
We have mountains, ski-slopes, picturesque Glens, brilliant forest trails (the West Highland Way is considered one of the finest hikes in Europe), beautiful islands and the weather is only a little bit shitter than London. We also have better food and where else in the world can you find bagpipers on the streets, shops devoted to nothing but whisky and drunk Glaswegians (a comedic spectacular unrivalled on the planet)?
Not quite true
If you pose a threat to their person they are allowed to defend themselves, and if you pose a threat to the place they're guarding they will attack you.
The uniforms are ceremonial. The assault-rifles aren't.
Maybe in your demesne, but not everywhere. Many places have a "common-sense" policy that states you're fine as long as you can show to the Judge that your intentions were based on good sense and that the "average man" would agree and do likewise
Oh, and side-note pedantry: you'd be *liable*. Libel is something completely different...
Oh, you can deliver an injunction anywhere.
Hell, if they were on the Moon, as long as they can receive it, you can deliver it.
The correct question here is "if they're not in the UK, is there anything stopping them from just completely ignoring it?" and the answer would be "no".
Of course, you next recourse then would be to either attempt to get the criminal courts involved, so you can have them extradited (doubtful in this case;the courts are rightly leery of getting involved in civil actions like this), or you go to the country they're in (e.g. the US) and get a judgement against them there, which depending on the locale can be easy or hard. In the EU, the court would be likely to take the UK's court decision into consideration, likewise the US, Canada and other commonwealth nations.
China or Nigeria etc., not so much.
Fair enough, but I'd certainly argue that his case wasn't handled well, and isn't indicative, at least certainly not of the service level you'd receive in Scotland (England & Wales are slightly different matters)....
What *should* of happened is his initial examination in A&E should have flagged up his breathing, looked into the possible situation, gotten him down to X-Ray, had the on-call consultant take a look, possibly refer to the day-shift consultant if it's not their speciality and it's not "vital", if it's truly urgent then they'd consult with the nearest specialist on call (maybe nearest big city), get it sorted 6 hours.
Yeah, they would.
I mean, sure, they'll go for the medical device if it's better, but if a simple iPhone would work nicely, they'll get you an iPhone. Mainly 'cause in Scotland at least, that sort of decision is made by the local manager in the place you actually go to see the doctor/physio etc.
The great thing about the NHS is that it divorces cost from medicine. Since it's all "free" to the patient and the doctor anyway, the doctor will go for the best medical option, regardless of if it costs less or more; admittedly there is some shilling still of GP's by big Pharma trying to get them to prescribe brand X drug, but it's mostly gone, and we see a lot more brand-x-generic now, and all gratuities from Big Pharma to the GP have to be declared.
In the States, even if you get coverage, your insurance co. still get shafted by doctors that will order unnecessary tests etc. just to bump up the bill, because it's not his company the money's coming from. Here, it's all the same "company", so if you need a test, you get it. If not, you don't.
On the bad side, whilst they'll never turn you down for treatment, depending on where you live, and what it is, you may be waiting a while for that hip-replacement/eye-operation etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently people didn't watch "Event Horizon".
And they call themselves nerds!
Fuck layman's terms, do you speak English??!
At $86,000 I'd say you can already check off the "stupidly wealthy"...
Where's my god damned flying car?!!
/ Also Duke Nukem Forever. Still waiting here...
Oh, in my one year of UI and graphics design (as a professional that is; not counting Uni etc.), I've heard that sorta things fairly often.
Usually from clients though, and they're always swiftly corrected. Sometimes physically.
No, the reasons behind the lack of Mac viruses has little to do with its market share, which I would remind you has gone up 4 fold in the last few years. .01% mark that of Windows?
Mac OS X, and Linux are both fundamentally far more secure than Windows.
Sure, there have been 2 or 3 here or there. In fact, I'd guess it was around 25 serious trojans (not viruses, as in self-propagating; that I think is still a no-no yet) for Mac.
Windows has over 150,000 that affect the various versions from MS-DOS through to Windows 7.
Given Mac marketshare is at least 5%, nearer 10% now, why are the number of viruses at around the
Marketshare alone will not suddenly bring with it a massive increase in Mac malware, no matter how much McAfee et al would like it
Not only do you completely ignore the Apache argument so well made by MaskedSlacker, you also forget that the "tiny ass segment" now makes up about 15-20% all in, incluing in it many of the worlds most valued hacker targets, like prominent websites, company intranets, bank servers etc. If it was as easy to hack Mac OS X as it was windows, for instance, we'd see an awful lot of very upset hispters. Some considerable weeping would be heard at your local Starbucks as their iLife galleries get pwned.
But we don't. And the reason we don't is because, although there have been some limited proof-of-concept trojans out there, and wider malware as well, almost all exploited holes that are patched very quickly, and almost all also depend on social engineering (which takes time and effort as well as the extra time needed to write the code in the first place) to get someone to execute the code, since unlike Windows, most decent OS's will not just execute arbitrary code that can damage the system, and few vulnerabilities exist to do so outwith the user's permission, so you need to harvest root passwords, ask for authentication etc.
Hacking an individual box of course is possible, and if you have the skillset, time and money, is almost as easy for a Mac or linux box as a windows one, depending of course if it's a stock Mac or Linux box, or if it's someone who knows what they're doing.
But that's not a virus. That's hacking. That takes a lot of time and skill, not just a 12 year old with a $300 laptop and a script.
I'm not a Master Guru programmer by any means, I dabble in code when I'm not doing my job (graphics design), but I know my way around Obj-C/Cocoa fairly well and can handle my terminal just fine, so please, stop debasing your (meagre) arguments with pointless ad-hominem attacks.
As for the comments on sex, it was a useful metaphor and in case it had escaped your notice, in the context of my comment, "hanging around" was a euphemism for sex. I'm sure you realise that and are just attempting another ad-hominem. It failed.
I am quite aware of the spreading mechanisms for the Chlamydia trachomatis bacteria as well, and I'd note that it doesn't always require penetrative vaginal intercourse to spread, it can also be spread via oral sex, anal sex as well as childbirth.
True, and no I wasn't.
But generally speaking, because of the near-zero level of Mac & linux viruses, the inability to have self-executing (OK, so you can but it's very tricky and seldom works) code, and the complete pwnability of Windows machines, nobody really bothers writing malware for Linux and mac boxes, unless it's targeted at a specific victim, in which case it's not really a virus per sae, as much as a hacked getting their way in, and even then, most of the time they'd use one of the much easier-to-access and well documented root exploitations or SSH liabilities etc.
When we're discussing viruses from torrent sites (I believe someone higher up the thread mentioned dodgy MP3's), we're really talking about self-executing code, or fooling a user into executing a file they think is just an MP3. Since OS X warns you it's an executable, and doesn't let it touch the System without an admin password, it's really not gonna happen very easily.
I'll admit if you can convince the user to execute code, then you could damage that user's space, and if they were dumb enough you might be able to get an admin password out of them; it's not inconceivable. But spreading such an executable would be tough; it'd require social engineering to get people to execute code, you couldn't just spam it out to everyone on their address list, or in their IM friends list and expect anyone to execute it without some hook.
And that, as you so adroitly said, is where you encounter your "error: pebkac".
Yeah, but if you'd actually looked, the anti-viral software for Linux and OS X doesn't actually contain definitions for many (if any) linux or OS X viruses.
It contains definitions for the hunderds of thousands of windows viruses. Sometimes, an e-mail can get forwarded on from a Mac user that the person sending it (a windows user) infected with a virus.
Mac and linux anti-vrial software is more about preventing infection of other peoples shitty OS's than actual box security.
And of course, since dumb fucks out there now think that all computers have and are susceptible to viruses, McAffee et al prey on their stupidity to make a few bucks out of Mac and Linux users that ought to know better. They're useless product, unless you consider their presence on machines in a wider mixed-OS corporate ecosystem, where they make a useful contribution to slowing down and stopping re-infection rates
Or he uses an Operating System that isn't defective.
Viruses and trojans only really occur on defective OS's, like Windows.
They very rarely, if ever, affect Mac OS X or Linux distros, and when they do, they are patched within days usually, and never really enter the ecosystem.
Stop thinking that malware is a normal part of using a computer. It's like saying chlamydia is a normal part of having sex. It's only if you hang around with the wrong type of girl (or OS)...
Not really. The AppStore makes a fair amount of money, but for Apple, it's just above break-even once they've taken bandwidth, marketing etc.
What the AppStore is add value to the product; it sells hardware, much like iTunes does for iPods.
So yeah, it would affect the bottom line somewhat, but that'd probably be bolstered by the fact a lot of good apps would be in the AppStore without any of the trivial crap-apps (iFart etc.).
In addition they'd also be able to talk abut excepting Flash, which some people think is good.
Apple don't think Flash is good. They think it's superflous and gash. Probably because, for the most part, it's superflous and gash. The very notion of having a plugin to do your video, or display a fecking menu is wrong
It's the reason HTML5 is coming. Flash is wrong and should, and pretty soon, will die.
The only people who want it not to die are Adobe.
When I mentioned fair use, I meant in the context of downloading clips; I know downloading the entire song isn't, unless, as you say, you're downloading something you've already bought in a different medium. :)
The idea that you can be guilty of distribution, if you never actually distributed the work (in it's totality) is a valid argument I think. Hence you shouldn't seed past 0.99
Obviously, I only use BitTorrent for legitimate reasons, like Ubuntu distros. etc.
I would note that if someone says "I did this then that then this", and if pressed if they committed distribution said "I don't know what that is, and that's for the court to decide", then they've not admitted distribution;
Sometimes, slimy prosecutors will try and get defendants to admit their guilt by asking them questions they lack the legal competency to understand. To me, the word "distribute" means to spread something around, make it accessible to others". To a lawyer it has a set statutory meaning, confessing to which means you have committed a crime (or a civil infringement; means something different in US law to Scots law I imagine). For a lawyer to get some Joe on the stand and make him say "distribution" when they're not fully aware of that difference is disingenuous.
I've always held that there could even be a "fair use" clause here, since my (limited) understanding of American law is that it allows the usage of small clips of a work as being "fair".
Since anyone seeding only seeds small parts to individuals, unless they're a heavy seeder, then really, they've not distributed actual songs, but here constituent parts thereof; clips if you would.
True, those clips, if put together by someone else could constitute an actual infringing work but on their own are not.
Much like if you went around 100 different record shops, recording the free samples (or downloading them on iTunes, Amazon), it *may* be possible to reconstruct them into a song. But that doesn't mean the distributors are guilty of infringement. That's all on you, for driving around, seeking out those missing parts.
Only difference with a torrent is that the program does the hard work for you; it seeks out missing parts. You may personally be guilty of infringing once you've found all the parts, but the individuals that contributed to you, unless it was one individual, didn't. So "fair" damages would be the cost of that track (so, 99 cents?). And presumably since you've caused the action to come up, you'd have to pay costs, or at least your own legal costs. But actual damages would have to be limited to your own possession.
Companies would hate that but from where i stand, that would be a fair and impassionate application of the law.
Aye, you're alright Ray.
Dunno if things work in New York as they do in Scotland, but if you ever get bored of pure law, you'd be a damned good (senator? congressman?) politician. Here, you'd be great as an MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament), actually writing and voting on the law rather than just arguing for its correct and speedy application.
I don't mean that in the "you're really good at arguing" way, or the "you'd be great at getting in amongst them" way, but in the "you seem to have a genuine care and respect for the principles of justice" kinda way. The kinda guy that looks up and sees Justitia on the roof of the court, and it means something to them. In other words, the sort of person I want writing the laws, someone I know won't be corrupted by power or lured by powerful companies.
That said, I'd imagine you're happy where you are and have no wish to delve into the murky underworld of politics. We are all lessened by that.
Well, in theory it wouldn't really be that hard to do; we can already synthesise very small diamonds.
Although, from my limited understanding of the field, you'd really want the glass instead, at the 100-300 molecule level.
I can respect everything you say, and agree with most of it.
But e-book should and *does* cost less than deadtree. Why? Because after you've done all that hard work (and I admit it is a lot of hard work to take even a *good* manuscript and turn it into a passable book), your costs are almost zero. You don't have to print the book, you don't need to bind. You don't need to distribute the book, and take back anything on sale-or-return. You just have to send a 9 cent CD to Amazon and whomever else is selling your e-book. That's the lot.
Ergo, books and e-books should be *almost* the same price as each other, with dead-tree being that little bit more since it costs money to print, buy the paper, distribute the product etc. and it is a bit more luxurious to read a hard-copy book than on a screen
Also, the deadtree is worth more actual value, since it's readable whenever, wherever, and it doesn't have any DRM stopping you from loaning it to a friend etc.
So why is it nine times out of ten, dead tree costs less?
Seems to me the publishers are getting greedy here. If the deadtree costs $10, the DRM'd eBook should cost $5. Not $15.
Just my uninformed 2 cents...
Maybe you missed the whole not-getting-laid bit
Unless of course you're insinuating a whole lot of slashdotters have kids that look suspiciously similar to the postman.
Actually, having lived in the UK my entire life, I'd say London is one of the places most definitely NOT to visit.
I'm far from a yokel, but London is a complete shitheap of a city. There are a few interesting places to go to that are IN london, but not enough to justify staying there, and certainly not for 2 whole weeks. You can visit the geeky places inside a day or two...
Try Scotland. Glasgow's at least as nice a place as London (stay in the centre, same with London), but Scotland also has something southern-England doesn't: scenery.
We have mountains, ski-slopes, picturesque Glens, brilliant forest trails (the West Highland Way is considered one of the finest hikes in Europe), beautiful islands and the weather is only a little bit shitter than London. We also have better food and where else in the world can you find bagpipers on the streets, shops devoted to nothing but whisky and drunk Glaswegians (a comedic spectacular unrivalled on the planet)?
Not quite true If you pose a threat to their person they are allowed to defend themselves, and if you pose a threat to the place they're guarding they will attack you. The uniforms are ceremonial. The assault-rifles aren't.
Maybe in your demesne, but not everywhere. Many places have a "common-sense" policy that states you're fine as long as you can show to the Judge that your intentions were based on good sense and that the "average man" would agree and do likewise Oh, and side-note pedantry: you'd be *liable*. Libel is something completely different...
Oh, you can deliver an injunction anywhere. Hell, if they were on the Moon, as long as they can receive it, you can deliver it. The correct question here is "if they're not in the UK, is there anything stopping them from just completely ignoring it?" and the answer would be "no". Of course, you next recourse then would be to either attempt to get the criminal courts involved, so you can have them extradited (doubtful in this case;the courts are rightly leery of getting involved in civil actions like this), or you go to the country they're in (e.g. the US) and get a judgement against them there, which depending on the locale can be easy or hard. In the EU, the court would be likely to take the UK's court decision into consideration, likewise the US, Canada and other commonwealth nations. China or Nigeria etc., not so much.
Fair enough, but I'd certainly argue that his case wasn't handled well, and isn't indicative, at least certainly not of the service level you'd receive in Scotland (England & Wales are slightly different matters).... What *should* of happened is his initial examination in A&E should have flagged up his breathing, looked into the possible situation, gotten him down to X-Ray, had the on-call consultant take a look, possibly refer to the day-shift consultant if it's not their speciality and it's not "vital", if it's truly urgent then they'd consult with the nearest specialist on call (maybe nearest big city), get it sorted 6 hours.
Yeah, they would. I mean, sure, they'll go for the medical device if it's better, but if a simple iPhone would work nicely, they'll get you an iPhone. Mainly 'cause in Scotland at least, that sort of decision is made by the local manager in the place you actually go to see the doctor/physio etc. The great thing about the NHS is that it divorces cost from medicine. Since it's all "free" to the patient and the doctor anyway, the doctor will go for the best medical option, regardless of if it costs less or more; admittedly there is some shilling still of GP's by big Pharma trying to get them to prescribe brand X drug, but it's mostly gone, and we see a lot more brand-x-generic now, and all gratuities from Big Pharma to the GP have to be declared. In the States, even if you get coverage, your insurance co. still get shafted by doctors that will order unnecessary tests etc. just to bump up the bill, because it's not his company the money's coming from. Here, it's all the same "company", so if you need a test, you get it. If not, you don't. On the bad side, whilst they'll never turn you down for treatment, depending on where you live, and what it is, you may be waiting a while for that hip-replacement/eye-operation etc.
If you want to get truly pedantic, it'd be Iovian, since Latin lacks the letter "j"... But let's not quibble about details...