Apple can't make value judgements on Chinese internet laws because that would lead to fewer sales. Corporations do not have morals. The only motivation of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value, and a CEO is required to act in this interest by law. A corporation can thus not make moral judgements that act against maximizing shareholder value, any CEO who allowed that is opening themselves up to a huge class action lawsuit.
Even companies that do things that might seem non-self-serving (say, Starbucks and their fair trade coffee and/or climate change pro-activeness), have to actually in fact be doing so out of self interest (example again, Starbucks CEO Howard Shutlz has gone on the record many times saying that Starbucks actions on the environment are not out of charity; in fact it is because the long-term view of the company is that climate change will damage coffee crops worldwide and this hurt their bottom line significantly).
This is the plain honest truth. If you don't like it, *then get the system changed*. Don't blame Apple or Tim Cook, they actually are not allowed to operate any other way.
If you don't have a well-fleshed out public profile, you are restricting heavily how many people will see your profile. The whole value in LinkedIn is in connecting with people NOT IN your immediate network.
It depends a lot on how their back-end is pipelined. What seems simple I can see being actually quite complicated, depending on how they have things implemented.
Explain what you mean by blocking and how it would be implemented, because it doesn't work the way you seem to think it does at services like say Twitter. When you "block" someone on twitter, it does not stop that person from viewing your public tweets. All it stops them from doing is following you and sending you DM messages. They can still see all your public tweets - because they are PUBLIC. Why on earth would one care if block something to one user that is posted to the public. All they'd need to do to see it is log out of their account!
LinkedIn is in the exact same boat. Your profile on the service is public - otherwise there is no point in using it. So it makes no sense to "block" someone from viewing your public profile. All they would need to do is log out to see it.
I feel like I need to explain something to people who may not use LinkedIn but use other social networks. LinkedIn has this feature that tells you when your profile has been viewed. If you have the "pro" version, it even tells you WHO has viewed your profile, unless that person has their settings set otherwise. The reason for this is because it is mostly a tool for job seekers and professionals; knowing someone has viewed your profile might be a good conversation starter at that company..
Secondly, large parts of people's profiles (namely, their work history) at LinkedIn are typically public to a large degree. This is because if you have your profile locked down to only friends, then a head hunter will never see you, so it limits the use of the service.
Now what this woman is complaining about is this. The person who harassed her would, every single day, check her LinkedIn profile. This would, in turn, send her an alert, saying that he viewed it.
What she wants LinkedIn to do, is not block him from viewing her profile - that makes no sense because her profile is public. What she wants them to do is stop having the alerts go through. IE - she doesn't seem to care that this guy can see her profile - she just doesn't want to know about it.
I can see both sides of this. From her point of view, this is just another way that this guy is causing her grief. From LinkedIn's point of view, it is a strange request and may be difficult to implement architecturally, because you want the information to remain public, and want the alerts to remain, but only not alert for this specific black-list of people.
Because if your software does not comply with FIPS or whatever other standard of the day is in effect, the government can not purchase it. When hundreds of millions (sometimes billions) of dollars in revenue are on the line, people will make a lot of concessions.
So when you work in America and you manage employees in the UK, you now can't know any personal details on them without paying tax? How do you manage their salary? Their vacation time? How do they request parental leave? Now what - this is all hands off, with some kind of delegate relationship? How do you run your business this way.
Do you know how common this kind of setup is in any multi-national corporation? Reporting chains are not restricted to single countries.
Android existed before the iPhone was announced. Also the iPhone hasn't been able to set a processing benchmark in a long time.. the 5S was a comparatively slow phone to top of the line Android devices before it even came out. So your facts are garbled quite a bit.
You're now trying to twist things around to fit into your concept of a creator.
Saying there is an intelligent designer who uses evolution makes no sense, because the whole point of evolution is that it is random. As such, it's actually very inefficient.
As I posted in another thread... this is like saying "why would you use math to figure out the amount of weight this can hold, when you can just guess randomly until you find a really big amount that it can hold". Both solutions work but one is intelligent and finds the OPTIMAL solution, and one is based on randomness over time fining A SOLUTION that works, but is rarely if ever optimal.
So, if you want to sit there and still believe in a creator who is so dumb that they use evolution, then fine... but I don't see why anyone would want to believe that.
You are missing the point and arguing my own point.
IE if Intelligent Design was real, then this "designer" would have given arachnids that had to fly wings, and what you think of as an arachnid would be different.
He wouldn't have made them make these strange parachutes because it is not as efficient. This is something evolution did to solve the problem of "I don't have wings how do I move around". If the designer was intelligent it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
That is like saying "why would you use math to figure out the area of that rectangle when you can just guess randomly until you find a fitting number". Both solutions work but one is intelligent.
To me stuff like this is what proves evolution. There is no one in their right mind who could sit there and convince me that such an obtuse solution to move from point A to point B is "by design", vs. random evolution.
If the tracking is done in such a way that it is impossible to know who is being tracked, then I have no problem with this. If on the other hand your "Ad-ID" can be linked to your IP at any point in time (and it is hard me to envision how this could not be the case), then to me it's just another form of cookie and I don't see how it is different at all.
Secure email hosting is not worth anyone buying because so many other competitors can do it. It's not rocket science to run an IMAP or Exchange server.
The one piece of IP BLackberry has that someone is going to buy and roll out as a going concern is their Mobile Device Management platform, Blackberry Fusion. Not a lot of people know this exists because it is not a piece of consumer-facing technology, but Blackberry has a very excellent cross-device MDM platform that can manage and provision Android, iPhone, Windows Phone, and Blackberry all from one piece of software. And to boot, on the phones it is all containerized, which what both consumers and companies want now. I think they are the only ones who have this as well.
There is a very easy way they can make money. Via their auto update stream.
CM now supports auto update. It is a killer feature, but one they could easily charge for. IE you want to update to the latest CM over the air? Pay $10. Else, download it yourself and flash it yourself.
Another way, they could change you to download their pre-built binary images. Maybe only the images for the Nexus are free, and ones for other phones are $5 a download.
People don't go to clubs to listen to music by themselves... they do it to get out and socialize, have a drink, and often meet other people. This is not going anywhere. No one sits at home at 9:00 on Saturday night and listens to Pandora to meet women.
What is quality to you is not necessarily quality to someone else.
The idea that an amateur poking out a song on their laptop is somehow inferior to one mixed by a "professional" is totally up to each individual. And in fact, if more people are choosing said amateurs, then it is likely that said "professionals" are not really worth their pay grade.
Laying the blame on convenience is just an excuse. It's also much more "convenient" for me to download someone's MS paint sketch, but I don't see professional oil artists complaining that the internet is destroying their livelihood.
Why does this say "vulnerable" when it should be "can benefit from".
The ideal world is where NO HUMAN has jobs, the machines do everything, resources are thus managed efficiently and goods are plentiful, and thus you are free to spend your time as you please instead of filling someone else's pocketbook.
Google will use its information on you to serve you ads for Toyota.
The Government will use its information on you to profile your behaviour to determine if your views are a threat to whatever political policy is in play at the time, and if so you will be deemed a "radical" and be placed on watch lists.
A lot of people are harping on about how lame this is without noticing the most important feature of this device.
This device can do anything a Vita can do, *INCLUDING PS4 REMOTE PLAY*. IE, with this device you can play your PS4 on your bedroom TV while the PS4 is in the basement. This is a huge feature because it basically makes you able to extend your PS4 to any room in the house for $100.
Furthermore, this works over the internet, just like the Vita. So you can bring this tiny little box on trips and hook it up to the hotel TV to play your PS4 games on the road.
It is a HUGE product. I think Sony is not marketing it properly because no one is understanding all the features.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, a C corporation can in the end do whatever they want. But again, not without opening themselves up to shareholder class action lawsuits.
Apple can't make value judgements on Chinese internet laws because that would lead to fewer sales. Corporations do not have morals. The only motivation of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value, and a CEO is required to act in this interest by law. A corporation can thus not make moral judgements that act against maximizing shareholder value, any CEO who allowed that is opening themselves up to a huge class action lawsuit.
Even companies that do things that might seem non-self-serving (say, Starbucks and their fair trade coffee and/or climate change pro-activeness), have to actually in fact be doing so out of self interest (example again, Starbucks CEO Howard Shutlz has gone on the record many times saying that Starbucks actions on the environment are not out of charity; in fact it is because the long-term view of the company is that climate change will damage coffee crops worldwide and this hurt their bottom line significantly).
This is the plain honest truth. If you don't like it, *then get the system changed*. Don't blame Apple or Tim Cook, they actually are not allowed to operate any other way.
If you don't have a well-fleshed out public profile, you are restricting heavily how many people will see your profile. The whole value in LinkedIn is in connecting with people NOT IN your immediate network.
It depends a lot on how their back-end is pipelined. What seems simple I can see being actually quite complicated, depending on how they have things implemented.
Explain what you mean by blocking and how it would be implemented, because it doesn't work the way you seem to think it does at services like say Twitter. When you "block" someone on twitter, it does not stop that person from viewing your public tweets. All it stops them from doing is following you and sending you DM messages. They can still see all your public tweets - because they are PUBLIC. Why on earth would one care if block something to one user that is posted to the public. All they'd need to do to see it is log out of their account!
LinkedIn is in the exact same boat. Your profile on the service is public - otherwise there is no point in using it. So it makes no sense to "block" someone from viewing your public profile. All they would need to do is log out to see it.
I feel like I need to explain something to people who may not use LinkedIn but use other social networks. LinkedIn has this feature that tells you when your profile has been viewed. If you have the "pro" version, it even tells you WHO has viewed your profile, unless that person has their settings set otherwise. The reason for this is because it is mostly a tool for job seekers and professionals; knowing someone has viewed your profile might be a good conversation starter at that company..
Secondly, large parts of people's profiles (namely, their work history) at LinkedIn are typically public to a large degree. This is because if you have your profile locked down to only friends, then a head hunter will never see you, so it limits the use of the service.
Now what this woman is complaining about is this. The person who harassed her would, every single day, check her LinkedIn profile. This would, in turn, send her an alert, saying that he viewed it.
What she wants LinkedIn to do, is not block him from viewing her profile - that makes no sense because her profile is public. What she wants them to do is stop having the alerts go through. IE - she doesn't seem to care that this guy can see her profile - she just doesn't want to know about it.
I can see both sides of this. From her point of view, this is just another way that this guy is causing her grief. From LinkedIn's point of view, it is a strange request and may be difficult to implement architecturally, because you want the information to remain public, and want the alerts to remain, but only not alert for this specific black-list of people.
I am not an iOS user, but i know in Android these effects are very easily toggleable by the user.
Because if your software does not comply with FIPS or whatever other standard of the day is in effect, the government can not purchase it. When hundreds of millions (sometimes billions) of dollars in revenue are on the line, people will make a lot of concessions.
So when you work in America and you manage employees in the UK, you now can't know any personal details on them without paying tax? How do you manage their salary? Their vacation time? How do they request parental leave? Now what - this is all hands off, with some kind of delegate relationship? How do you run your business this way.
Do you know how common this kind of setup is in any multi-national corporation? Reporting chains are not restricted to single countries.
This kind of thinking is very isolationist.
This is going to make the VMWare browser-based console not functional, which was the only way to manage your VMWare instances in linux.... super.
Android existed before the iPhone was announced. Also the iPhone hasn't been able to set a processing benchmark in a long time.. the 5S was a comparatively slow phone to top of the line Android devices before it even came out. So your facts are garbled quite a bit.
You're now trying to twist things around to fit into your concept of a creator.
Saying there is an intelligent designer who uses evolution makes no sense, because the whole point of evolution is that it is random. As such, it's actually very inefficient.
As I posted in another thread... this is like saying "why would you use math to figure out the amount of weight this can hold, when you can just guess randomly until you find a really big amount that it can hold". Both solutions work but one is intelligent and finds the OPTIMAL solution, and one is based on randomness over time fining A SOLUTION that works, but is rarely if ever optimal.
So, if you want to sit there and still believe in a creator who is so dumb that they use evolution, then fine... but I don't see why anyone would want to believe that.
You are missing the point and arguing my own point.
IE if Intelligent Design was real, then this "designer" would have given arachnids that had to fly wings, and what you think of as an arachnid would be different.
He wouldn't have made them make these strange parachutes because it is not as efficient. This is something evolution did to solve the problem of "I don't have wings how do I move around". If the designer was intelligent it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
Then he isn't very intelligent, is he?
That is like saying "why would you use math to figure out the area of that rectangle when you can just guess randomly until you find a fitting number". Both solutions work but one is intelligent.
It's obtuse because instead of giving this insect wings, it does this.
To me stuff like this is what proves evolution. There is no one in their right mind who could sit there and convince me that such an obtuse solution to move from point A to point B is "by design", vs. random evolution.
If the tracking is done in such a way that it is impossible to know who is being tracked, then I have no problem with this. If on the other hand your "Ad-ID" can be linked to your IP at any point in time (and it is hard me to envision how this could not be the case), then to me it's just another form of cookie and I don't see how it is different at all.
Secure email hosting is not worth anyone buying because so many other competitors can do it. It's not rocket science to run an IMAP or Exchange server.
The one piece of IP BLackberry has that someone is going to buy and roll out as a going concern is their Mobile Device Management platform, Blackberry Fusion. Not a lot of people know this exists because it is not a piece of consumer-facing technology, but Blackberry has a very excellent cross-device MDM platform that can manage and provision Android, iPhone, Windows Phone, and Blackberry all from one piece of software. And to boot, on the phones it is all containerized, which what both consumers and companies want now. I think they are the only ones who have this as well.
There is a very easy way they can make money. Via their auto update stream.
CM now supports auto update. It is a killer feature, but one they could easily charge for. IE you want to update to the latest CM over the air? Pay $10. Else, download it yourself and flash it yourself.
Another way, they could change you to download their pre-built binary images. Maybe only the images for the Nexus are free, and ones for other phones are $5 a download.
One major reason - it's made out of low grade plastic. It's thus not going to be picked up my metal detectors.
People don't go to clubs to listen to music by themselves... they do it to get out and socialize, have a drink, and often meet other people. This is not going anywhere. No one sits at home at 9:00 on Saturday night and listens to Pandora to meet women.
What is quality to you is not necessarily quality to someone else.
The idea that an amateur poking out a song on their laptop is somehow inferior to one mixed by a "professional" is totally up to each individual. And in fact, if more people are choosing said amateurs, then it is likely that said "professionals" are not really worth their pay grade.
Laying the blame on convenience is just an excuse. It's also much more "convenient" for me to download someone's MS paint sketch, but I don't see professional oil artists complaining that the internet is destroying their livelihood.
And finally - a few key quotes from the past (sourced from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/10/100-years-of-big-content-fearing-technologyin-its-own-words/ )
Why does this say "vulnerable" when it should be "can benefit from".
The ideal world is where NO HUMAN has jobs, the machines do everything, resources are thus managed efficiently and goods are plentiful, and thus you are free to spend your time as you please instead of filling someone else's pocketbook.
Google will use its information on you to serve you ads for Toyota.
The Government will use its information on you to profile your behaviour to determine if your views are a threat to whatever political policy is in play at the time, and if so you will be deemed a "radical" and be placed on watch lists.
A lot of people are harping on about how lame this is without noticing the most important feature of this device.
This device can do anything a Vita can do, *INCLUDING PS4 REMOTE PLAY*. IE, with this device you can play your PS4 on your bedroom TV while the PS4 is in the basement. This is a huge feature because it basically makes you able to extend your PS4 to any room in the house for $100.
Furthermore, this works over the internet, just like the Vita. So you can bring this tiny little box on trips and hook it up to the hotel TV to play your PS4 games on the road.
It is a HUGE product. I think Sony is not marketing it properly because no one is understanding all the features.