If you only need a 500GB drive then buy it and you will save $20 over the 1TB drive. Spending $20 more on something that you will not need is wasting your $20 regardless if you perceive it as a better value or not. Marketing departments love you.
On the other hand, a 1TB drive filled with 400 GB of data will run a lot faster than a 500GB drive filled with 400 GB of data.
Depends on how it works, if it sends a list of installed software to Apple to check it's bad, but if it downloads a list of plugin signatures to disable because they're outdated and insecure that's not any worse or different than the antivirus downloading virus signatures. I don't see the privacy implications of that, would you elaborate?
Apple has been using a blacklist that is updated daily to stop dangerous software from running. It is mostly used against trojans, but also to block Java running as a Safari plugin, which has some rather serious exploits (basically, an applet can replace the default Java security manager with its own, and from then on anything goes), _and_ it is known that these exploits are actually for sale.
So there are no privacy problems whatsoever, and while blocking Java applets might be annoying, the alternative would be highly dangerous. By the way, Oracle has released a new software version fixing about 50 security problems, which is not blocked.
No it's not, because Apple is talking crap about the regulation.
That may be true. On the other hand, what are the chances that Apple would get a million dollar fine in Italy over this (even if you are correct and these fans are absolutely legal)?
Technically, any capitalization other than 'file:///' will do it. File, fILE, or FILE all have the same effect. The problem is the code compares the string to 'file://' without converting to lower case first...oops.
Some code has figured out that the user entered a file url. A sanity check (badly programmed) figures out (wrongly) that it is _not_ a file URL. That wouldn't be a problem; I would have coded it so that something that looks like a file url but doesn't pass sanity checks is just not a file url. The problem is that this code throws an exception that isn't caught.
A note to C++ programmers: Convention in Objective-C is that exceptions are thrown to indicate programming errors. Exceptions are not handled by catching them, but by fixing the code that causes the exception to be thrown. So this sanity check shouldn't have thrown an exception.
Running red lights isn't actually a problem. The traffic light goes yellow and then it goes red. Depending on how drivers in your part of the world behave, people will pass the lights up to x seconds after the light goes yellow. That number x is different in different places, but it can be measured.
What's dangerous is not running a red light, what's dangerous is passing the light when cars from the other direction are already entering the crossing. So what matters is not the time between yellow and red, what matters is the time between yellow on my side and green on the other side.
Then why is it only the EU in which Apple feels compelled to (temporarily) withdraw the Mac Pro?
Quite possible that Apple thinks the fan is absolutely safe, even though it doesn't match the specs of the standard. Apple uses a large number of fans running at low speeds, because many large, slow fans produce less noise than a few fast running ones. They might not run fast enough to hurt or injure anyone.
You are claiming that you listen to a CD ONE THOUSAND times? A CD with 15 songs is about an hour. Times 1000 is 1000 hours. You'd have to listen to that CD once a day for 33 months. Well, maybe you only bought one CD ever in your life.
You are full of crap. If you used an Apple trackpad on a daily basis you will see how moronic your statement is. Hell, I have bought Mac laptops mainly because of the whole trackpad experience and gestures.
Well, some people can't figure out how to start System Preferences and set up the track pad properly. They complain "it's dumbed down so that Grandma can use it", but then it turns out it's not dumbed down enough for _them_.
Ha, the answer is to go to a party with your friends and start sharing those 2 TB hard drives.
No internet, no RIAA/MPAA snooping and they're none the wiser.
I have seen kids so fixated on downloading, they stared blankly at me when I suggested that they could actually feed the CDs they owned into iTunes on their computer, instead of downloading the music. Now the idea that you could borrow a friend's CDs, carry them to your home, and do the exact some thing with a friend's CDs, I would of course never suggested it, but if I did, they wouldn't have understood.
But current patents don't actually require you to publish your technical specifications, white papers, etc. You just have to publish the patent application. Samsung didn't copy from that patent application -- they copied from the actual device. In this case, society would have been better off if the patent had not been granted. It would have saved a wasteful litigation process.
Samsung is apparently looking for evidence that Apple has been selling any iPhones before the official release date. That's because Apple applied for some patents in Japan the day before the iPhone was officially released, and Samsung feels that selling a single iPhone would have been publication of the idea. That means that clearly Samsung believes copying an invention from the phone is exactly the same as copying from the patent text.
The effect that you claim is _exactly_ why patents have been introduced. There are many inventions that are automatically visible to the public when you try to benefit from them. If anyone could copy them without any way to sue, why would anyone bother spending money on the invention? Much cheaper to wait for someone else to invent it, and then copy it.
Here's a solution to this problem: If there is more than one John Doe, you change them _all_ to john.doe followed by a random but unique three digit number. john.doe itself is redirected and automatically gives a reply containing the list of correct john.doe email addresses plus some information that makes them identifiable.
So if I wanted to email John Doe in accounting, I'll get an email back telling me the CEO is john.doe386, there is john.doe196 in accounting, and the janitor john.doe412.
I bought a second hand 3GS and decided to pay for a SIM unlock rather than having to wait for ultrasn0w to update every time iOS increments. It's too bad future purchasers of used phones won't have that option open to them. And for what it's worth, AT&T doesn't seem willing to unlock an old phone for a non-customer, so I went through a third-party unlocker.
As you describe it, AT&T has no business connection with you anymore. Apple is the copyright holder of the firmware, but I suppose they don't care whether you unlock your phone or not (they are actually happier if people can buy used iPhones, because that makes people who own older iPhones sell their old ones and buy new ones instead of hanging on to the old phone).
So all that is needed is a public statement from Apple that _they_ allow you to modify _their_ firmware in an iPhone that you own in order to get phone service.
Imagine the fun if they did something similar with operating systems. You bought your laptop with Windows on it. $500,000 and a 5 year prison sentence for switching it to Linux next. After all, Microsoft expects the revenue from their new app store and you are depriving them off that by changing to an open platform!
And that's getting it completely backwards. The DMCA law makes it illegal to breach encryption, but then exemptions were made to allow people to do things that they should rightfully be allowed to do. Like owning an unlocked phone, or running the OS of your choice. In the case of unlocked phones, it was decided that there are so many ways now to get unlocked phones that no exemption of the DMCA is needed anymore. If it turns out to be hard to install Linux on computers without violating the DMCA, then I would expect a DMCA exemption for that purpose.
Let's also just say that while it is a DMCA violation for _you_ to unlock a phone, the manufacturer or the service provider will be entirely in their rights to allow it. The manufacturer of a computer would be in their rights to give a general permission to the proper owner of a computer to modify the DRM protected firmware (with obvious consequences if you mess it up), so someone hacking into your computer would still fall under DMCA among other things, while you yourself would have the right to modify the firmware.
So we have this situation where let's say I get an iPhone 5, the iPhone 5 (16GB) runs at about $650, I sign up on a contract and pay approx $200 for a 3 year term. If I break the contract I have to pay around $400 to cancel my contract. So if I unlock my phone and goto another carrier how does that deprive the carrier of their 'investment' ?
Well, it doesn't. So go to the carrier, tell them to unlock your phone. If they refuse you tell them they have to because you can't do it yourself legally. If they still refuse, take them to court.
Fact 1: There is the DMCA law, and it won't go away.
Fact 2: Unlocking your phone yourself requires a violation of the DMCA law.
Fact 3: It is entirely reasonable to want an unlocked phone. And it is entirely reasonable that anyone should be able to get an unlocked phone without breaking any criminal laws.
Three years ago, it was recognized that most people could only fulfil their wish to have an unlocked phone by unlocking it themselves, so an exemption was made that the DMCA violation of unlocking the phone yourself was not considered a crime. Now it is assumed that people can indeed get unlocked phones, so there is no need to unlock yourself, so there is no need for an exemption.
Now here is the conclusion: Since you are not allowed to unlock a phone yourself, surely your service provider _must_ unlock it when you ask for it and cannot refuse. So instead of asking for permission to violate the DMCA law, people should ask their service provider to unlock the phone and take them to court if they refuse.
HMV, Game, Debenhams, JJB, DW, JD... just a few stores i can think of now that have the all glass front, the table and stool layout, currys use it, comet used to use it, asda use it in their electronics departments... seems prior art doesnt count for anything anymore, neither does "your patent cant be completely fucking retarded".
Actually, none of them look one bit like the Apple stores. Comparing Debenhams and Apple Store is just ridiculous. Debenhams is a department store!!! No oblong tables in the lingerie section anywhere. HMV (god bless their stores that just closed) never had tables like the Apple Store, but shelves and shelves full of CDs, DVDs etc. Never seen _any_ chairs in any of these stores.
The same way a Surface tablet doesn't infringe: It's got the Microsoft logo on it. Ditto for any other generic item. AFAIK nobody enforces a generic design patent on clamshell-style laptops. You can tell who made it because of the trademarked logo on it.
Totally, totally wrong. With design patents (which is what the Surface could potentially infringe on), company logos, written product names et cetera are expressly excluded from the design patent. Putting another company logo on the device is the one thing that cannot protect you from infringement claims.
Months ago, when talking about underage workers was all the rage, people were decrying Apple for profiting from child labor. Now that Apple is taking a strong stance against it, they're causing the children to suffer. Right, that's not biased.
Just saying that Apple has taking this strong approach against child labour for at least six years, and this is not the first company losing an Apple contract (and the same situation, more than 2/3rds of all underage employees found at a single company). And that Apple has never _profited_ from child labour. It seems that most of the companies employing one or two underage workers didn't profit, because these workers were hired with forged proof of age, so they were paid the same money as legal workers were paid. And at the company whose contract was cancelled, surely they didn't go to Apple and say "you pay a little less for the parts if you let us use underage workers"? If there was profit made, it wasn't made by Apple.
Did they fire the company when they caught them with only 6 child laborers? THAT would have been doing something non-evil. They're not looking harder for illegal labor practices now because it is the right thing to do, they're doing it to cover their own asses because other people caught them using contractors who break every rule imaginable.
You could have read the article. It happens quite often that someone under the age of 16 tries to get a job by forging papers showing their age (whether it's the child, or the parents, or some agency being the driving force), and Apple educates companies how to spot this and avoid hiring anyone under 16. Mistakes happen. Apple conducted a few hundred audits and found about 30 underage employees at 10 companies, plus another 74 at _one_ company. _All_ the kids were sent back to school, with the companies paying plus paying them income as you may have read. For 10 companies where it can be assumed that the hiring was due to mistakes at the company, there is more training to improve things. At the one company Apple found there were no mistakes made, but the hiring was intentionally. So their contract was cancelled.
So, now that Apple has shown that enough criticism can and will lead to action to stop (or at least curtail) child labor,
Just saying that Apple started doing these reports in 2007, years before anyone criticised them. And a huge amount of so-called criticism was one American actor who blatantly lied about what was happening - he claimed that he personally saw hundreds of children, as young as twelve, working at Foxconn, which was just made up to further his career.
So forgive me for believing that criticism didn't do anything, but Apple's long standing efforts to improve working conditions did.
Slashdot Mirror
If you only need a 500GB drive then buy it and you will save $20 over the 1TB drive. Spending $20 more on something that you will not need is wasting your $20 regardless if you perceive it as a better value or not. Marketing departments love you.
On the other hand, a 1TB drive filled with 400 GB of data will run a lot faster than a 500GB drive filled with 400 GB of data.
Depends on how it works, if it sends a list of installed software to Apple to check it's bad, but if it downloads a list of plugin signatures to disable because they're outdated and insecure that's not any worse or different than the antivirus downloading virus signatures. I don't see the privacy implications of that, would you elaborate?
Apple has been using a blacklist that is updated daily to stop dangerous software from running. It is mostly used against trojans, but also to block Java running as a Safari plugin, which has some rather serious exploits (basically, an applet can replace the default Java security manager with its own, and from then on anything goes), _and_ it is known that these exploits are actually for sale.
So there are no privacy problems whatsoever, and while blocking Java applets might be annoying, the alternative would be highly dangerous. By the way, Oracle has released a new software version fixing about 50 security problems, which is not blocked.
No it's not, because Apple is talking crap about the regulation.
That may be true. On the other hand, what are the chances that Apple would get a million dollar fine in Italy over this (even if you are correct and these fans are absolutely legal)?
> rarely would a Mac user have to type File:///
More people probably did this within the last hour than in the total history of MacOS X before :-)
Not really joking. If many people had done this, then the problem would have been found a lot earlier.
Technically, any capitalization other than 'file:///' will do it. File, fILE, or FILE all have the same effect. The problem is the code compares the string to 'file://' without converting to lower case first...oops.
Some code has figured out that the user entered a file url. A sanity check (badly programmed) figures out (wrongly) that it is _not_ a file URL. That wouldn't be a problem; I would have coded it so that something that looks like a file url but doesn't pass sanity checks is just not a file url. The problem is that this code throws an exception that isn't caught.
A note to C++ programmers: Convention in Objective-C is that exceptions are thrown to indicate programming errors. Exceptions are not handled by catching them, but by fixing the code that causes the exception to be thrown. So this sanity check shouldn't have thrown an exception.
Running red lights isn't actually a problem. The traffic light goes yellow and then it goes red. Depending on how drivers in your part of the world behave, people will pass the lights up to x seconds after the light goes yellow. That number x is different in different places, but it can be measured.
What's dangerous is not running a red light, what's dangerous is passing the light when cars from the other direction are already entering the crossing. So what matters is not the time between yellow and red, what matters is the time between yellow on my side and green on the other side.
First two items in the instruction: Turn computer off. Wait ten minutes. Should be 100% safe if you follow the instructions.
Then why is it only the EU in which Apple feels compelled to (temporarily) withdraw the Mac Pro?
Quite possible that Apple thinks the fan is absolutely safe, even though it doesn't match the specs of the standard. Apple uses a large number of fans running at low speeds, because many large, slow fans produce less noise than a few fast running ones. They might not run fast enough to hurt or injure anyone.
You are claiming that you listen to a CD ONE THOUSAND times? A CD with 15 songs is about an hour. Times 1000 is 1000 hours. You'd have to listen to that CD once a day for 33 months. Well, maybe you only bought one CD ever in your life.
Nice Kingston flash drive for £7.50 let me install a bootable MacOS X without any problem.
You are full of crap. If you used an Apple trackpad on a daily basis you will see how moronic your statement is. Hell, I have bought Mac laptops mainly because of the whole trackpad experience and gestures.
Well, some people can't figure out how to start System Preferences and set up the track pad properly. They complain "it's dumbed down so that Grandma can use it", but then it turns out it's not dumbed down enough for _them_.
Ha, the answer is to go to a party with your friends and start sharing those 2 TB hard drives. No internet, no RIAA/MPAA snooping and they're none the wiser.
I have seen kids so fixated on downloading, they stared blankly at me when I suggested that they could actually feed the CDs they owned into iTunes on their computer, instead of downloading the music. Now the idea that you could borrow a friend's CDs, carry them to your home, and do the exact some thing with a friend's CDs, I would of course never suggested it, but if I did, they wouldn't have understood.
But current patents don't actually require you to publish your technical specifications, white papers, etc. You just have to publish the patent application. Samsung didn't copy from that patent application -- they copied from the actual device. In this case, society would have been better off if the patent had not been granted. It would have saved a wasteful litigation process.
Samsung is apparently looking for evidence that Apple has been selling any iPhones before the official release date. That's because Apple applied for some patents in Japan the day before the iPhone was officially released, and Samsung feels that selling a single iPhone would have been publication of the idea. That means that clearly Samsung believes copying an invention from the phone is exactly the same as copying from the patent text.
The effect that you claim is _exactly_ why patents have been introduced. There are many inventions that are automatically visible to the public when you try to benefit from them. If anyone could copy them without any way to sue, why would anyone bother spending money on the invention? Much cheaper to wait for someone else to invent it, and then copy it.
Here's a solution to this problem: If there is more than one John Doe, you change them _all_ to john.doe followed by a random but unique three digit number. john.doe itself is redirected and automatically gives a reply containing the list of correct john.doe email addresses plus some information that makes them identifiable.
So if I wanted to email John Doe in accounting, I'll get an email back telling me the CEO is john.doe386, there is john.doe196 in accounting, and the janitor john.doe412.
I bought a second hand 3GS and decided to pay for a SIM unlock rather than having to wait for ultrasn0w to update every time iOS increments. It's too bad future purchasers of used phones won't have that option open to them. And for what it's worth, AT&T doesn't seem willing to unlock an old phone for a non-customer, so I went through a third-party unlocker.
As you describe it, AT&T has no business connection with you anymore. Apple is the copyright holder of the firmware, but I suppose they don't care whether you unlock your phone or not (they are actually happier if people can buy used iPhones, because that makes people who own older iPhones sell their old ones and buy new ones instead of hanging on to the old phone).
So all that is needed is a public statement from Apple that _they_ allow you to modify _their_ firmware in an iPhone that you own in order to get phone service.
Imagine the fun if they did something similar with operating systems. You bought your laptop with Windows on it. $500,000 and a 5 year prison sentence for switching it to Linux next. After all, Microsoft expects the revenue from their new app store and you are depriving them off that by changing to an open platform!
And that's getting it completely backwards. The DMCA law makes it illegal to breach encryption, but then exemptions were made to allow people to do things that they should rightfully be allowed to do. Like owning an unlocked phone, or running the OS of your choice. In the case of unlocked phones, it was decided that there are so many ways now to get unlocked phones that no exemption of the DMCA is needed anymore. If it turns out to be hard to install Linux on computers without violating the DMCA, then I would expect a DMCA exemption for that purpose.
Let's also just say that while it is a DMCA violation for _you_ to unlock a phone, the manufacturer or the service provider will be entirely in their rights to allow it. The manufacturer of a computer would be in their rights to give a general permission to the proper owner of a computer to modify the DRM protected firmware (with obvious consequences if you mess it up), so someone hacking into your computer would still fall under DMCA among other things, while you yourself would have the right to modify the firmware.
So we have this situation where let's say I get an iPhone 5, the iPhone 5 (16GB) runs at about $650, I sign up on a contract and pay approx $200 for a 3 year term. If I break the contract I have to pay around $400 to cancel my contract. So if I unlock my phone and goto another carrier how does that deprive the carrier of their 'investment' ?
Well, it doesn't. So go to the carrier, tell them to unlock your phone. If they refuse you tell them they have to because you can't do it yourself legally. If they still refuse, take them to court.
Fact 1: There is the DMCA law, and it won't go away.
Fact 2: Unlocking your phone yourself requires a violation of the DMCA law.
Fact 3: It is entirely reasonable to want an unlocked phone. And it is entirely reasonable that anyone should be able to get an unlocked phone without breaking any criminal laws.
Three years ago, it was recognized that most people could only fulfil their wish to have an unlocked phone by unlocking it themselves, so an exemption was made that the DMCA violation of unlocking the phone yourself was not considered a crime. Now it is assumed that people can indeed get unlocked phones, so there is no need to unlock yourself, so there is no need for an exemption.
Now here is the conclusion: Since you are not allowed to unlock a phone yourself, surely your service provider _must_ unlock it when you ask for it and cannot refuse. So instead of asking for permission to violate the DMCA law, people should ask their service provider to unlock the phone and take them to court if they refuse.
HMV, Game, Debenhams, JJB, DW, JD... just a few stores i can think of now that have the all glass front, the table and stool layout, currys use it, comet used to use it, asda use it in their electronics departments... seems prior art doesnt count for anything anymore, neither does "your patent cant be completely fucking retarded".
Actually, none of them look one bit like the Apple stores. Comparing Debenhams and Apple Store is just ridiculous. Debenhams is a department store!!! No oblong tables in the lingerie section anywhere. HMV (god bless their stores that just closed) never had tables like the Apple Store, but shelves and shelves full of CDs, DVDs etc. Never seen _any_ chairs in any of these stores.
The same way a Surface tablet doesn't infringe: It's got the Microsoft logo on it. Ditto for any other generic item. AFAIK nobody enforces a generic design patent on clamshell-style laptops. You can tell who made it because of the trademarked logo on it.
Totally, totally wrong. With design patents (which is what the Surface could potentially infringe on), company logos, written product names et cetera are expressly excluded from the design patent. Putting another company logo on the device is the one thing that cannot protect you from infringement claims.
i find it mildly amusing that Apple product users are suing google over something related to tracking.
Why would you find that amusing? It's not amusing for users who have to go to court to avoid being tracked, it's not amusing for Google.
Months ago, when talking about underage workers was all the rage, people were decrying Apple for profiting from child labor. Now that Apple is taking a strong stance against it, they're causing the children to suffer. Right, that's not biased.
Just saying that Apple has taking this strong approach against child labour for at least six years, and this is not the first company losing an Apple contract (and the same situation, more than 2/3rds of all underage employees found at a single company). And that Apple has never _profited_ from child labour. It seems that most of the companies employing one or two underage workers didn't profit, because these workers were hired with forged proof of age, so they were paid the same money as legal workers were paid. And at the company whose contract was cancelled, surely they didn't go to Apple and say "you pay a little less for the parts if you let us use underage workers"? If there was profit made, it wasn't made by Apple.
Did they fire the company when they caught them with only 6 child laborers? THAT would have been doing something non-evil. They're not looking harder for illegal labor practices now because it is the right thing to do, they're doing it to cover their own asses because other people caught them using contractors who break every rule imaginable.
You could have read the article. It happens quite often that someone under the age of 16 tries to get a job by forging papers showing their age (whether it's the child, or the parents, or some agency being the driving force), and Apple educates companies how to spot this and avoid hiring anyone under 16. Mistakes happen. Apple conducted a few hundred audits and found about 30 underage employees at 10 companies, plus another 74 at _one_ company. _All_ the kids were sent back to school, with the companies paying plus paying them income as you may have read. For 10 companies where it can be assumed that the hiring was due to mistakes at the company, there is more training to improve things. At the one company Apple found there were no mistakes made, but the hiring was intentionally. So their contract was cancelled.
So, now that Apple has shown that enough criticism can and will lead to action to stop (or at least curtail) child labor,
Just saying that Apple started doing these reports in 2007, years before anyone criticised them. And a huge amount of so-called criticism was one American actor who blatantly lied about what was happening - he claimed that he personally saw hundreds of children, as young as twelve, working at Foxconn, which was just made up to further his career.
So forgive me for believing that criticism didn't do anything, but Apple's long standing efforts to improve working conditions did.
OK, why is the angle on this story not "Apple caught using child labor"? It was the last time this story happened.
Would be a bit unfair considering that the information comes from a report created by Apple. Not that that would stop anyone...