60k a year with no benefits is pretty bad. Add in the fact that it's a criminal enterprise, and it's insanely low. I'm no expert, but I would think that working for organized crime would pay better than entry-level wages to offset the whole "living in fear of a knock on the door" thing.
Google for "why drugdealers live with their mom". Someone managed to get all kinds of sociological information about a major group of drug dealers. Results: 1. Their average death rate was higher than the average death rate for criminals on death row in Texas (1 in four per year vs. 1 in five per year). 2. One guy made $100,000. Three guys made $20,000 per year. Most made less than $10,000. 3. The guy conducting the study managed to get one of the dealers a job as janitor at the university. The guy was ecstatic. Doubled income. Working where it is warm and nobody shooting guns at you.
That's the real problem here. Apple lost the desktop wars a long LONG time ago. Jobs might be willing to concede that completely and try to displace Windows desktops with some form of their more successful platform rather than trying to fight a losing pointless battle with MacOS.
I don't know what you are looking at, but Apple gave up the desktop market share war and started the desktop and laptop profit war, without telling anyone, especially without telling Microsoft and you. And they are winning by a mile. Net income for the company six times that of Dell. Even if only one third were Macs, that would make "Apple Computers Inc. " twice as profitable as Dell.
Simple logic: Lots of people would stop buying Macs if Apple killed MacOS X. Nobody would suddenly start buying Macs if Apple killed MacOS X. Some people would stop buying Macs if they thought that Apple would eventually kill MacOS X. For these three reasons, it is totally unreasonable to believe that MacOS X is going. Because this believe is totally unreasonable, the only people making that claim are either total idiots, or they are trolls. Or both.
(Those idiots who think Apple only cares about iPhones and iPads should realise that Apple is the worlds most profitable PC maker, making more profits from building desktop computers and laptops than anyone else, including HP, Dell, Acer, Toshiba and so on)
So looking at that, they are only selling Lion to Snow Leopard users. If you have Leopard, bad luck, buy both. Not sure I like that idea personally. Makes me sadface.
You pay $29 for the difference between Snow Leopard and Lion. Just as you should have paid $29 for the difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard. I think the assumption is that any cheapskates who didn't buy Snow Leopard won't be interested in Lion anyway.
The rules for the Mac App Store are quite easy and quite clear. When you purchase an app, you can install it in one of three ways, your choice:
1. Install on any number of Macs that are under your control, for private use only.
2. Install on _one_ Mac that is used by any number of users, for commercial use.
3. Install on any number of Macs that are used by a single user only, for commercial use.
So if you have 10 Macs shared by 20 users in your company, you buy 10 copies, one for each Mac. And if you have another ten users, each owning two Macs exclusively, that is another ten copies for each of those ten users.
It was reported that Apple signed contracts with the recording industry that included a payment of $150 million or so.
I'm curious how well the matching will work. With sources like ripped CDs, downloads from Amazon, what about old iTunes songs with DRM, ripped LPs will be _really_ interesting, and at last what will they do with all the illegal downloads around. Maybe the music industry figured that if someone downloads all the music they like, and then they pay $24.99 for the rest of their life to listen to it, and you multiply this by a _big_ number, then the result isn't bad at all.
... and we paid out 2.5 billion dollars so far to developers. Also just out: The Apple app store (the one where you can buy apps for Macs only) is the _largest_ seller of PC software! Beating Walmart, Best Buy and anyone else. And can you tell me any other store that lets developers keep 70% of the revenue.
It seems the attitude of this school is "we have the authority, and you are worthless little shits who have to obey. ". At my school, they had the attitude "we have the authority, and you are young citizens of this country who need to learn how to fight and succeed against authority, and we will do our best to teach you".
There is actually a very good market for this invention: Plenty of companies have places where they don't want any photos being taken (how many people post here "I can't buy a MacBook because of the built-in camera hahaha stupid Apple!!!"), so all you need is a little transmitter in the room, and everyone with the proper device can come in. It will take a while, but at some point certain places will only allow you to use a computer or phone if it has no camera, or if it is an Apple product.
I don't know if anyone notices, but Apple offers iDevices for promotions etc. on their store website. Quote "Contact your Apple representative and ask about special volume pricing: ".
If you buy devices through this program, probably at a lower price than I pay in a store, then obviously any rules that Apple sets will apply. If you buy devices at a store, then all the usual copyright and trademark law will apply.
Okay, maccodemonkey, here's the thing: if the malware detection which is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating is defeated within hours of it being release, we are no longer at "It just works." What part of "It doesn't work anymore" sounds like "It just works" to you?!?
Here's the thing that you are missing: The very first version of malware detection that detects MacDefender wasn't defeated within hours, it was defeated many days before it was released. It is obvious to anyone except you that these malcreants had a variant of their software ready, and since Apple has seen only one variant, their detection doesn't know yet how to detect variants. Very soon they'll know, and then things get a lot harder.
Odd that they don't simply spread their message by not buying these types of food.
You are absolutely right. And I support one hundred percent a total obligation for all foods to be precisely labelled with exactly what gen-manipulated foods are used in their production. But for some reason Monsanto and friends really don't like people being able to make that decision.
But actually what you are saying is that in a power struggle between food industry and ordinary people with no power, these ordinary people should only be allowed to use the weakest possible form of protest, while Monsanto can spend 100s of millions to buy politicians.
How about stating the battery life in actual hours of continuous use instead of estimated days based on estimated usage? Is that really so hard?
Would be unfair to any device that uses very little power while not in use vs. one that uses batteries while in use. I could have device A doing 24 hours continues and B doing only 20 hours, but device A running out after 3 days with 2 hours per day, while device B lasts 9 days with 2 hours per day. I'd most likely prefer B which would look worse according to your criterion.
In the beginning of MP3 players, everybody except Sony counted 1 song = 4 minutes at 128 Kbit for capacity of their players. Sony counted capacity with 48 KBit / sec compression..
Let me get this straight. If I make a product that is too similar to another already on the market then I gotta give it up? This seems like bullshit if you were to ask me.
If you make a product that looks exactly like the design patent that someone else owns, yes. Just as an example, take an iPhone and a Windows 7 phone. The Windows 7 phone doesn't look one bit like an iPhone. Now take one of these Samsung phones. They don't look one bit like a Windows 7 phone, but they look very, very similar to an iPhone.
Microsoft didn't copy Apple, they designed these phones themselves. Samsung copied. Apple has design patents that list about ten particular design choices, and Samsung copied all of them. Two or three design choices matching could have been coincidence, and most importantly the result would not look like an iPhone. All design choices matching means it looks the same, it is copied, and the copy is illegal.
You mean they are rectangular and black with a touchscreen? This is hardly revolutionary design. And Samsung's TVs look just like other TVs - again rectangular and black.
As the owner of two MacBooks, two iPods, two Samsung TVs and a Samsung Colour Laserprinter, I can tell you that a newish 40" Samsung TV has a very distinctive look (which is actually quite nice, and one of the reasons for me to buy it), and if someone copied that look then I think Samsung would be very upset, and rightfully so. Just as Apple is quite upset about someone copying the looks of the iPhone.
quite easy, to protect the end user apple will remove the admin account, every time an application will require admin access a pray wil be sent to steve jobs himself and he'll decide to allow or deny it
Stupid sarcasm aside, a simple solution would be to not show up a dialog where the user can enter the admin password, but require them to open System Preferences and manually "unlock" the system for a duration of say ten minutes, after which it locks up again. No problem for a knowledgable user; but someone who can't figure out how to open "System Preferences" will be protected.
Well, the wording of the default is wrong and provokes user errors. The default is "Do you want to exit without saving" / default NO, and apparently users tend to pick the positive answer "YES". The default should be "Do you want to save before exiting" / default YES. Then when users pick the positive answer "YES" they get the more desirable result.
(Some software that I wrote ages ago had two functions "Add new record" and "Edit existing records". Customer complained that every time they added a new record, some random record would disappear. I couldn't find a bug anywhere. So I displayed the number of records in the system in a very visible place (I think in the window title). The problem disappeared. ) Why the problem disappeared is left as an exercise to the reader.
I figured I would finally get my mom a computer that even *she* couldn't get infected, so guess what I got her for Mother's Day?
The solution is very simple: When the computer is first started, you choose a user name and password, and then _you don't tell your mother the password_.
Disadvantage: If there is any maintenance that needs doing that requires the admin password, you'll have to visit your mother. Advantage: If there is any maintenance that needs doing that requires the admin password, you'll can to visit your mother, which should at least be good for some nice home-cooked dinner. And if she runs into MacDefender, that app may get downloaded and start an installer, but then it is stuck with a user who doesn't know the admin password. No admin password, no install.
You may change "Software Update" and the iTunes updater and updaters for other software to not check for new versions automatically, because they will likely require a password which she doesn't have.
Sounds like they didnt do much shopping. Dell and HP have several knockoffs, and if you go to Newegg theres an entire section dedicated to "All-in-one" PCs (read, iMac knockoffs).
Maybe they looked, and they bought the ones that were aesthetically pleasing. Or they bought the ones with the 2560 x 1600 display and the ability to add two more such displays.
And what idiot thought it was in any way clever to prevent people from making more than one post every ten minutes?
Well, with the newest iMacs, there is in fact magic fairy dust sprinkled on the hard drives: They have a custom power connector and firmware that also handles temperature sensor reporting to the SMU. If you swap the drive for another(even one of the same model; but without the Apple blessing) the system goes into full thermal freakout mode.
Since that hard drive is not a user serviceable part and never has been, it doesn't make the slightest difference. And what you refer to as "full thermal freakout mode" is otherwise known as a damage preventing safety mode.
The irony is that they are all running Windows 7, not one is running OSX. Business owner bought them because they looked cool, but the business is a.Net software development house.
Also - GPL software is effectively barred from the App store.
GPL software is no problem at all, as long as none of the copyright holders threatens to sue Apple. Any software that has its own license is distributed under that license, and it is trivial on MacOS X to create an application that includes its own source code with every download.
Well, someone threatened to sue Apple for having VLC on the iPhone / iPad app store, so Apple removed it. So you can't really blame Apple if VLC is not on the Mac App Store.
Slashdot Mirror
60k a year with no benefits is pretty bad. Add in the fact that it's a criminal enterprise, and it's insanely low. I'm no expert, but I would think that working for organized crime would pay better than entry-level wages to offset the whole "living in fear of a knock on the door" thing.
Google for "why drugdealers live with their mom". Someone managed to get all kinds of sociological information about a major group of drug dealers. Results: 1. Their average death rate was higher than the average death rate for criminals on death row in Texas (1 in four per year vs. 1 in five per year). 2. One guy made $100,000. Three guys made $20,000 per year. Most made less than $10,000. 3. The guy conducting the study managed to get one of the dealers a job as janitor at the university. The guy was ecstatic. Doubled income. Working where it is warm and nobody shooting guns at you.
No kidding, when will this idiot disappear.
When Microsoft stops paying him.
That's the real problem here. Apple lost the desktop wars a long LONG time ago. Jobs might be willing to concede that completely and try to displace Windows desktops with some form of their more successful platform rather than trying to fight a losing pointless battle with MacOS.
I don't know what you are looking at, but Apple gave up the desktop market share war and started the desktop and laptop profit war, without telling anyone, especially without telling Microsoft and you. And they are winning by a mile. Net income for the company six times that of Dell. Even if only one third were Macs, that would make "Apple Computers Inc. " twice as profitable as Dell.
Simple logic: Lots of people would stop buying Macs if Apple killed MacOS X. Nobody would suddenly start buying Macs if Apple killed MacOS X. Some people would stop buying Macs if they thought that Apple would eventually kill MacOS X. For these three reasons, it is totally unreasonable to believe that MacOS X is going. Because this believe is totally unreasonable, the only people making that claim are either total idiots, or they are trolls. Or both.
(Those idiots who think Apple only cares about iPhones and iPads should realise that Apple is the worlds most profitable PC maker, making more profits from building desktop computers and laptops than anyone else, including HP, Dell, Acer, Toshiba and so on)
So looking at that, they are only selling Lion to Snow Leopard users. If you have Leopard, bad luck, buy both. Not sure I like that idea personally. Makes me sadface.
You pay $29 for the difference between Snow Leopard and Lion. Just as you should have paid $29 for the difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard. I think the assumption is that any cheapskates who didn't buy Snow Leopard won't be interested in Lion anyway.
The rules for the Mac App Store are quite easy and quite clear. When you purchase an app, you can install it in one of three ways, your choice:
1. Install on any number of Macs that are under your control, for private use only.
2. Install on _one_ Mac that is used by any number of users, for commercial use.
3. Install on any number of Macs that are used by a single user only, for commercial use.
So if you have 10 Macs shared by 20 users in your company, you buy 10 copies, one for each Mac. And if you have another ten users, each owning two Macs exclusively, that is another ten copies for each of those ten users.
It was reported that Apple signed contracts with the recording industry that included a payment of $150 million or so.
I'm curious how well the matching will work. With sources like ripped CDs, downloads from Amazon, what about old iTunes songs with DRM, ripped LPs will be _really_ interesting, and at last what will they do with all the illegal downloads around. Maybe the music industry figured that if someone downloads all the music they like, and then they pay $24.99 for the rest of their life to listen to it, and you multiply this by a _big_ number, then the result isn't bad at all.
1) We get to claim 30% of your revenue
... and we paid out 2.5 billion dollars so far to developers. Also just out: The Apple app store (the one where you can buy apps for Macs only) is the _largest_ seller of PC software! Beating Walmart, Best Buy and anyone else. And can you tell me any other store that lets developers keep 70% of the revenue.
2001: Record labels sue my.mp3.com in to oblivion.
2011: Record labels can't wait to suck on the iTunes Cloud teat.
In between: Some major payment of money from Apple to the record companies.
It seems the attitude of this school is "we have the authority, and you are worthless little shits who have to obey. ". At my school, they had the attitude "we have the authority, and you are young citizens of this country who need to learn how to fight and succeed against authority, and we will do our best to teach you".
There is actually a very good market for this invention: Plenty of companies have places where they don't want any photos being taken (how many people post here "I can't buy a MacBook because of the built-in camera hahaha stupid Apple!!!"), so all you need is a little transmitter in the room, and everyone with the proper device can come in. It will take a while, but at some point certain places will only allow you to use a computer or phone if it has no camera, or if it is an Apple product.
I don't know if anyone notices, but Apple offers iDevices for promotions etc. on their store website. Quote "Contact your Apple representative and ask about special volume pricing: ".
If you buy devices through this program, probably at a lower price than I pay in a store, then obviously any rules that Apple sets will apply. If you buy devices at a store, then all the usual copyright and trademark law will apply.
Okay, maccodemonkey, here's the thing: if the malware detection which is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating is defeated within hours of it being release, we are no longer at "It just works." What part of "It doesn't work anymore" sounds like "It just works" to you?!?
Here's the thing that you are missing: The very first version of malware detection that detects MacDefender wasn't defeated within hours, it was defeated many days before it was released. It is obvious to anyone except you that these malcreants had a variant of their software ready, and since Apple has seen only one variant, their detection doesn't know yet how to detect variants. Very soon they'll know, and then things get a lot harder.
Odd that they don't simply spread their message by not buying these types of food.
You are absolutely right. And I support one hundred percent a total obligation for all foods to be precisely labelled with exactly what gen-manipulated foods are used in their production. But for some reason Monsanto and friends really don't like people being able to make that decision.
But actually what you are saying is that in a power struggle between food industry and ordinary people with no power, these ordinary people should only be allowed to use the weakest possible form of protest, while Monsanto can spend 100s of millions to buy politicians.
How about stating the battery life in actual hours of continuous use instead of estimated days based on estimated usage? Is that really so hard?
Would be unfair to any device that uses very little power while not in use vs. one that uses batteries while in use. I could have device A doing 24 hours continues and B doing only 20 hours, but device A running out after 3 days with 2 hours per day, while device B lasts 9 days with 2 hours per day. I'd most likely prefer B which would look worse according to your criterion.
In the beginning of MP3 players, everybody except Sony counted 1 song = 4 minutes at 128 Kbit for capacity of their players. Sony counted capacity with 48 KBit / sec compression..
Let me get this straight. If I make a product that is too similar to another already on the market then I gotta give it up? This seems like bullshit if you were to ask me.
If you make a product that looks exactly like the design patent that someone else owns, yes. Just as an example, take an iPhone and a Windows 7 phone. The Windows 7 phone doesn't look one bit like an iPhone. Now take one of these Samsung phones. They don't look one bit like a Windows 7 phone, but they look very, very similar to an iPhone.
Microsoft didn't copy Apple, they designed these phones themselves. Samsung copied. Apple has design patents that list about ten particular design choices, and Samsung copied all of them. Two or three design choices matching could have been coincidence, and most importantly the result would not look like an iPhone. All design choices matching means it looks the same, it is copied, and the copy is illegal.
You mean they are rectangular and black with a touchscreen? This is hardly revolutionary design. And Samsung's TVs look just like other TVs - again rectangular and black.
As the owner of two MacBooks, two iPods, two Samsung TVs and a Samsung Colour Laserprinter, I can tell you that a newish 40" Samsung TV has a very distinctive look (which is actually quite nice, and one of the reasons for me to buy it), and if someone copied that look then I think Samsung would be very upset, and rightfully so. Just as Apple is quite upset about someone copying the looks of the iPhone.
quite easy, to protect the end user apple will remove the admin account, every time an application will require admin access a pray wil be sent to steve jobs himself and he'll decide to allow or deny it
Stupid sarcasm aside, a simple solution would be to not show up a dialog where the user can enter the admin password, but require them to open System Preferences and manually "unlock" the system for a duration of say ten minutes, after which it locks up again. No problem for a knowledgable user; but someone who can't figure out how to open "System Preferences" will be protected.
Well, the wording of the default is wrong and provokes user errors. The default is "Do you want to exit without saving" / default NO, and apparently users tend to pick the positive answer "YES". The default should be "Do you want to save before exiting" / default YES. Then when users pick the positive answer "YES" they get the more desirable result.
(Some software that I wrote ages ago had two functions "Add new record" and "Edit existing records". Customer complained that every time they added a new record, some random record would disappear. I couldn't find a bug anywhere. So I displayed the number of records in the system in a very visible place (I think in the window title). The problem disappeared. ) Why the problem disappeared is left as an exercise to the reader.
I figured I would finally get my mom a computer that even *she* couldn't get infected, so guess what I got her for Mother's Day?
The solution is very simple: When the computer is first started, you choose a user name and password, and then _you don't tell your mother the password_.
Disadvantage: If there is any maintenance that needs doing that requires the admin password, you'll have to visit your mother. Advantage: If there is any maintenance that needs doing that requires the admin password, you'll can to visit your mother, which should at least be good for some nice home-cooked dinner. And if she runs into MacDefender, that app may get downloaded and start an installer, but then it is stuck with a user who doesn't know the admin password. No admin password, no install.
You may change "Software Update" and the iTunes updater and updaters for other software to not check for new versions automatically, because they will likely require a password which she doesn't have.
Sounds like they didnt do much shopping. Dell and HP have several knockoffs, and if you go to Newegg theres an entire section dedicated to "All-in-one" PCs (read, iMac knockoffs).
Maybe they looked, and they bought the ones that were aesthetically pleasing. Or they bought the ones with the 2560 x 1600 display and the ability to add two more such displays.
And what idiot thought it was in any way clever to prevent people from making more than one post every ten minutes?
Well, with the newest iMacs, there is in fact magic fairy dust sprinkled on the hard drives: They have a custom power connector and firmware that also handles temperature sensor reporting to the SMU. If you swap the drive for another(even one of the same model; but without the Apple blessing) the system goes into full thermal freakout mode.
Since that hard drive is not a user serviceable part and never has been, it doesn't make the slightest difference. And what you refer to as "full thermal freakout mode" is otherwise known as a damage preventing safety mode.
The irony is that they are all running Windows 7, not one is running OSX. Business owner bought them because they looked cool, but the business is a .Net software development house.
Apple doesn't mind. Do the developers mind?
Also - GPL software is effectively barred from the App store.
GPL software is no problem at all, as long as none of the copyright holders threatens to sue Apple. Any software that has its own license is distributed under that license, and it is trivial on MacOS X to create an application that includes its own source code with every download.
Well, someone threatened to sue Apple for having VLC on the iPhone / iPad app store, so Apple removed it. So you can't really blame Apple if VLC is not on the Mac App Store.