As a small business owner paying 25-50% tax, how are you supposed to compete against companies that end up paying 0.005%?
You are paying tax _on profits_. So the tax rate does not at all affect whether you or Apple are profitable. And as a small business owner, you are free to increase your salary, and then you don't pay any tax at all.
The design of ARC does nothing to reduce false sharing. Until 64-bit iOS, Apple was storing the refcount in a look-aside table (GNUstep put it in the object header about 20 years before Apple). This meant that you were acquiring a lock on a C++ map structure for each refcount manipulation, which made it incredibly expensive (roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than the GNUstep implementation).
No, they didn't. There was one byte for the refcount, with 1..127 meaning "real refcount" and 128..255 meaning "(refcount - 192) plus upper bits stored elsewhere". The look-aside table was only used first if the refcount exceeded 127, and then the refcount would be 192 stored in the object, and the rest elsewhere. The next change would happen only if you increased or decreased the ref count by 64 in total. Very, very rare in practice.
It seems that Apple is already doing this, as well. Apple recently raised the prices in the UK by 25%, because of the Brexit.
Looks like you are either stupid or a liar. The reason isn't Brexit. The reason is the awful exchange rate, which meant that for six months I as a developer had 20% less in my pocket if someone bought my app on the UK store, compared to someone buying it on the US store. This has changed now, so I will have quite exactly the same amount of money in my pocket, whether the customer is in the US or the UK.
This is a dickish move. What if the thief sold the computer and someone else is new the new owner who actually paid for the computer? Vigilantism is bad.
Someone else is _not_ the new owner. You can't become the owner of a laptop by buying it from a thief. If you knew it was stolen you are a criminal buying stolen goods. If you didn't know you are an idiot who will be parted from his money.
The guy is still the _owner_ of the laptop and can do what he can to recover the stolen laptop from whoever has it now.
I don't understand why they can't admit it was a design flaw that didn't account for the expansion of the battery pack by using far too tight tolerances. If they don't recognize the problem it will happen again.
My understanding is that the specs were just fine, but the batteries were too big.
Of course batteries last much longer than that. They just don't deliver as much energy. You can still use your three or four year phone, it just won't last all day like it did when it was new.
On top of that, what phones are there in the market where you can't get the battery replaced? For example, you can get any iPhone battery replaced for $79 (with a genuine Apple battery, not one that is called "genuine" on Amazon), so if you had say an iPhone 6 with a two year old battery and it stopped working, you would be stupid not to replace it.
That's only true if they fail simultaneously. Since they know one is bad, they can eliminate it before the next one fails. Now if one more fails, they are fine (the other two are still in agreement).
We don't know what happens in case of failure - does the clock give inaccurate time, or does it give no time at all. You could have a design where the clock either works or doesn't work, and you don't need to check them for disagreement at all.
As I read it, they put four clocks on every satellite because these clocks break sometimes, and having for maximises the chances of having at least one that is working.
How can Uber have standing in a court case about regulations for employees, when the swear blind that the drivers they are employing are not employees?
its basically charging arbirtarily different prices in different regions and pocketing the difference. I am sure a US app maker will still get paid in USD.
As an app developer, I can correct your incorrect assumptions.
Apps on the app store come in different "price tiers" from free, to $0.99, to $1.99 etc. Apple translates these prices for countries other than the USA. Mostly this is done by multiplying or dividing by the exchange rate, adding VAT where necessary, and rounding to a nice even amount (if they calculated the correct price should be £2.04 or £1.94, then the actual price will be £1.99, for example).
When the customer pays, Apple removes the VAT which they pay to the tax office of that country, takes their 30% or 15% cut, and then converts the money into the currency of the developer, and that's the amount paid.
Apple also tries to keep the prices constant for long times - they could have done the UK change six months ago, so for six months UK citizens actually got a rebate.
The users pay a fair price - each user pays an amount so that the same money ends up in the developer's pockets. So users are not "fucked". And developers get roughly the same amount of money wherever you buy an app. Right now, developers got 20% less if you bought in the UK instead of the USA, for example, and that has now been corrected.
Apple look simply to be pricing in the devaluation in Sterling that has occurred since the beginning of Brexit. I'm not sure anyone can find much to fault with that. The real question is how quickly Apple will move to reduce prices if/when the Pound recovers?
As a developer with paid apps in the store, I get an email every single time Apple changes its prices anywhere in the world. Most of the time, some prices go up, some prices go down.
You should be happy to know that caching remains off. All that was identified is that caching triggered a bug, it was the bug that was fixed and the test was then repeated in the exact same conditions as they always have done.
Caching didn't trigger the bug. Not caching didn't trigger the bug either. Using the "disable cache" setting triggered the bug, it didn't have actually anything to do with caching or not caching.
Consumer Reports was benchmarking a debug mode. That should not be a legitimate config to represent typical usage.
The long version: Safari caches downloads to safe battery life, as they should, and as any decent browser would. This is nice for users. It is not nice when you try to measure battery life by cycling through 20 pages because very quickly everything is loaded because the battery lasts forever.
So they decided to turn a very hard to find developer setting to disable caching downloads. The app now uses a lot more energy and battery life goes down. The same would happen if a user with download cache enabled doesn't visit 20 sites, but thousand sites.
Unfortunately, there was a bug that only happened when the download cache was enabled; that bug did _not_ happen for users visiting thousands of sites. And that bug killed battery life _but only for people who intentionally turned the cache off, which a normal user would not do_.
So two things happened: One, battery life went down because they turned off a feature that is intended to improve battery life. Two, battery life went down a lot because of a bug that only happened when the battery saving feature was turned off. So, entirely irrelevant to 99% of users.
Also, because they have the patent, no other company can make a phone with that feature even if they wanted too (well with out paying apple), thus locking the entire market out from having the safety feature in their phones.
We may find out how many people asked Apple about a license and licensing conditions.
So it's not easy, except if you have a laptop that you don't charge and discharge every day like..... every laptop?
Many laptops are actually used as desktop computers most of the time, plugged into their charger, occasionally taken into a meeting or used on the train. In that scenario the battery will last forever. If it's used as a pure desktop computer, it doesn't even matter whether the battery is absolutely shot.
Having encryption that can be broken makes it easier for police and FBI to catch criminals, and easier for foreign nations and companies to find out information that the government, police, army, or private companies, want to keep confidential. That should be obvious to everyone but is likely to be ignored by FBI and police because it is a problem, but they don't see it as their problem.
The NSA has argued for a very long time that good encryption is overall better for national security. If there had been a few known cases where criminals got away with crimes because they cracked information held by police or FBI then police and FBI might learn.
Sorry I don't go along with the "groupthink" here, but the fact is that Ubers owners are very rich because they know that their drivers are contractors, not employees.
Actually, Uber has money because it found investors who paid in billions of dollars. They are not actually money right now.
Users must be safe from criminals, spies etc. being able to read the contents of their phones. Users need not be safe from the police with a valid search warrant being able to read the contents of the phone. The problem is that you can't have both.
When you consider the safety of a phone, you must consider the worst case, that the phone falls into the hands of a sophisticated hacker. It must be safe in that situation.
Apple is in a similar situation as a very sophisticated hacker, as far as iPhones are concerned. So to be safe from sophisticated hackers who have the physical phone in their hands, an iPhone must also be safe if it is in the hands of Apple. If Apple could decrypt the contents of the phone, then there would be a great risk that hackers could also decrypt it. Therefore the phone must be designed in such a way that Apple can't decrypt it, even if they want to.
Why would you have registers if they were slower than cache?
You would lose your warranty and most likely damage the machine. Definitely take half of the resale value off. Instead you could just buy an adapter for 8 dollars or less.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a WiFi router within two meters of your monitor? I don't. Not at home, not at work.
As a small business owner paying 25-50% tax, how are you supposed to compete against companies that end up paying 0.005%?
You are paying tax _on profits_. So the tax rate does not at all affect whether you or Apple are profitable. And as a small business owner, you are free to increase your salary, and then you don't pay any tax at all.
As a general rule: The shorter the better. If it says "we log nothing. Never.", you're pretty safe,
You can be pretty sure about what they said. You can't be sure at all about what they are actually doing.
The design of ARC does nothing to reduce false sharing. Until 64-bit iOS, Apple was storing the refcount in a look-aside table (GNUstep put it in the object header about 20 years before Apple). This meant that you were acquiring a lock on a C++ map structure for each refcount manipulation, which made it incredibly expensive (roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than the GNUstep implementation).
No, they didn't. There was one byte for the refcount, with 1..127 meaning "real refcount" and 128..255 meaning "(refcount - 192) plus upper bits stored elsewhere". The look-aside table was only used first if the refcount exceeded 127, and then the refcount would be 192 stored in the object, and the rest elsewhere. The next change would happen only if you increased or decreased the ref count by 64 in total. Very, very rare in practice.
It seems that Apple is already doing this, as well. Apple recently raised the prices in the UK by 25%, because of the Brexit.
Looks like you are either stupid or a liar. The reason isn't Brexit. The reason is the awful exchange rate, which meant that for six months I as a developer had 20% less in my pocket if someone bought my app on the UK store, compared to someone buying it on the US store. This has changed now, so I will have quite exactly the same amount of money in my pocket, whether the customer is in the US or the UK.
This is a dickish move. What if the thief sold the computer and someone else is new the new owner who actually paid for the computer? Vigilantism is bad.
Someone else is _not_ the new owner. You can't become the owner of a laptop by buying it from a thief. If you knew it was stolen you are a criminal buying stolen goods. If you didn't know you are an idiot who will be parted from his money.
The guy is still the _owner_ of the laptop and can do what he can to recover the stolen laptop from whoever has it now.
I don't understand why they can't admit it was a design flaw that didn't account for the expansion of the battery pack by using far too tight tolerances. If they don't recognize the problem it will happen again.
My understanding is that the specs were just fine, but the batteries were too big.
Of course batteries last much longer than that. They just don't deliver as much energy. You can still use your three or four year phone, it just won't last all day like it did when it was new.
On top of that, what phones are there in the market where you can't get the battery replaced? For example, you can get any iPhone battery replaced for $79 (with a genuine Apple battery, not one that is called "genuine" on Amazon), so if you had say an iPhone 6 with a two year old battery and it stopped working, you would be stupid not to replace it.
That's only true if they fail simultaneously. Since they know one is bad, they can eliminate it before the next one fails. Now if one more fails, they are fine (the other two are still in agreement).
We don't know what happens in case of failure - does the clock give inaccurate time, or does it give no time at all. You could have a design where the clock either works or doesn't work, and you don't need to check them for disagreement at all.
As I read it, they put four clocks on every satellite because these clocks break sometimes, and having for maximises the chances of having at least one that is working.
AT&T is turning iPhones into iPods at the push of a button.
Now seriously, if you want an iPod, then a used iPhone from eBay is the cheapest way to go.
How can Uber have standing in a court case about regulations for employees, when the swear blind that the drivers they are employing are not employees?
its basically charging arbirtarily different prices in different regions and pocketing the difference. I am sure a US app maker will still get paid in USD.
As an app developer, I can correct your incorrect assumptions.
Apps on the app store come in different "price tiers" from free, to $0.99, to $1.99 etc. Apple translates these prices for countries other than the USA. Mostly this is done by multiplying or dividing by the exchange rate, adding VAT where necessary, and rounding to a nice even amount (if they calculated the correct price should be £2.04 or £1.94, then the actual price will be £1.99, for example).
When the customer pays, Apple removes the VAT which they pay to the tax office of that country, takes their 30% or 15% cut, and then converts the money into the currency of the developer, and that's the amount paid.
Apple also tries to keep the prices constant for long times - they could have done the UK change six months ago, so for six months UK citizens actually got a rebate.
The users pay a fair price - each user pays an amount so that the same money ends up in the developer's pockets. So users are not "fucked". And developers get roughly the same amount of money wherever you buy an app. Right now, developers got 20% less if you bought in the UK instead of the USA, for example, and that has now been corrected.
Apple look simply to be pricing in the devaluation in Sterling that has occurred since the beginning of Brexit. I'm not sure anyone can find much to fault with that. The real question is how quickly Apple will move to reduce prices if/when the Pound recovers?
As a developer with paid apps in the store, I get an email every single time Apple changes its prices anywhere in the world. Most of the time, some prices go up, some prices go down.
You should be happy to know that caching remains off. All that was identified is that caching triggered a bug, it was the bug that was fixed and the test was then repeated in the exact same conditions as they always have done.
Caching didn't trigger the bug. Not caching didn't trigger the bug either. Using the "disable cache" setting triggered the bug, it didn't have actually anything to do with caching or not caching.
Consumer Reports was benchmarking a debug mode. That should not be a legitimate config to represent typical usage.
The long version: Safari caches downloads to safe battery life, as they should, and as any decent browser would. This is nice for users. It is not nice when you try to measure battery life by cycling through 20 pages because very quickly everything is loaded because the battery lasts forever.
So they decided to turn a very hard to find developer setting to disable caching downloads. The app now uses a lot more energy and battery life goes down. The same would happen if a user with download cache enabled doesn't visit 20 sites, but thousand sites.
Unfortunately, there was a bug that only happened when the download cache was enabled; that bug did _not_ happen for users visiting thousands of sites. And that bug killed battery life _but only for people who intentionally turned the cache off, which a normal user would not do_.
So two things happened: One, battery life went down because they turned off a feature that is intended to improve battery life. Two, battery life went down a lot because of a bug that only happened when the battery saving feature was turned off. So, entirely irrelevant to 99% of users.
800 military bases in over 70 countries. Multiple wars in the last five decades. Largest economy in the world. Power doesn't get questioned.
And soon the only nation other than North Korea that is being ruled by an alien hair piece.
How was it NOT extortion before the law?
See for example this definition of extortion: http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
If you read the definition carefully, you will find that ransomware doesn't actually fall under this definition.
Also, because they have the patent, no other company can make a phone with that feature even if they wanted too (well with out paying apple), thus locking the entire market out from having the safety feature in their phones.
We may find out how many people asked Apple about a license and licensing conditions.
So it's not easy, except if you have a laptop that you don't charge and discharge every day like ..... every laptop?
Many laptops are actually used as desktop computers most of the time, plugged into their charger, occasionally taken into a meeting or used on the train. In that scenario the battery will last forever. If it's used as a pure desktop computer, it doesn't even matter whether the battery is absolutely shot.
Having encryption that can be broken makes it easier for police and FBI to catch criminals, and easier for foreign nations and companies to find out information that the government, police, army, or private companies, want to keep confidential. That should be obvious to everyone but is likely to be ignored by FBI and police because it is a problem, but they don't see it as their problem.
The NSA has argued for a very long time that good encryption is overall better for national security. If there had been a few known cases where criminals got away with crimes because they cracked information held by police or FBI then police and FBI might learn.
Sorry I don't go along with the "groupthink" here, but the fact is that Ubers owners are very rich because they know that their drivers are contractors, not employees.
Actually, Uber has money because it found investors who paid in billions of dollars. They are not actually money right now.
Users must be safe from criminals, spies etc. being able to read the contents of their phones. Users need not be safe from the police with a valid search warrant being able to read the contents of the phone. The problem is that you can't have both.
When you consider the safety of a phone, you must consider the worst case, that the phone falls into the hands of a sophisticated hacker. It must be safe in that situation.
Apple is in a similar situation as a very sophisticated hacker, as far as iPhones are concerned. So to be safe from sophisticated hackers who have the physical phone in their hands, an iPhone must also be safe if it is in the hands of Apple. If Apple could decrypt the contents of the phone, then there would be a great risk that hackers could also decrypt it. Therefore the phone must be designed in such a way that Apple can't decrypt it, even if they want to.
Why only those types of adverts? Why not just turn it off altogether?
Beauty products. It's quite likely that ladies with different skin colors want different beauty products.
Why would you have registers if they were slower than cache?
You would lose your warranty and most likely damage the machine. Definitely take half of the resale value off. Instead you could just buy an adapter for 8 dollars or less.
And if I buy a brand new iphone, the sync cable has USB-A. Cowards.
They are selling a lot more iPhones than new MacBook Pros.