Unlike the US, Jordan can do this. They are in the region, sharing borders with Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. When Jordan strikes out they are seen as "Muslims fighting with other Muslims", which does not polarize the issue. If Jordan attacks it is seen as an ISIS loss.
The only thing where you are slightly inaccurate: It would be muslims against a group that is now universally hated and not considered worthy to be called muslims anymore.
No doubt because Apple's own employees were involved that Apple would be forced to eat some of that (and that it was Apple's own initiative to allow for instant financing).
Liability will be interesting. So a financing deal was started in the name of Mr. X, but Mr. X didn't actually do anything so isn't liable for anything. Because of that financing deal, Apple handed over a computer or a phone to a crook, and Barclays paid money to Apple. The crook sold the computer or phone to Mr. Y who may or may not have been aware what was going on, and may or may not be found.
First, there's the question whether these computers were stolen. In the UK, in a similar case, a judge decided that this was not theft, but a voidable contract (since the buyer entered a contract but had no intention to pay for the computer and forged documents to avoid paying, Apple could obviously void the contract and ask for the computer back). However, the contract had not been voided yet, so the buyer owned the computer legitimately. That's one judge in the UK; a judge in the USA might decide differently, and it is a borderline case, so the laws might be different.
Now can Barclays get their money back from Apple? Difficult. Depends on the contracts, depends on the small print in US laws. Depends on to what degree Apple is liable for crimes committed by employees. Also depends on how much Apple values their relationship with Barclays. How much money Barclays is making if things like this $700,000 fraud are included.
They can't see stoplight colors while the sun is setting anywhere near behind them.
For quite a while, on my way to work there was a traffic light in a curve, with the angle to the sun such that the driver of the car stopped at the traffic light could _not_ possible see the colours. Because it was in a curve, about the third car in the line could see the colours without problems. Fortunately, almost everyone knew the situation, so if you were in the third car you would honk your horn as soon as the light turned green, and in the first car you would wait for someone honking.
Yes, that might be a challenge for a self-driving car.
The article mentioned that self-driving cars seem to have problems at four-way stop signs in the USA (probably the same problem at a roundabout in the UK): Someone has to go first, but for each car the situation is identical. Well, some people have a problem with that. I'm always polite and go first as quickly as possible so then everyone else can go in turn and nobody has to wait.
Or, since everyone has everyone else by the balls because of the way our patent system works, we could reform it so that software patents are either extremely hard to get, or to where they have a painfully-short shelflife...
Typical reflex post. The article doesn't mention software patents with one word. There are plenty of standard essential patents in the mobile phone area that have nothing at all to do with software.
IMO, the only real concern from the user end is that Google and Apple are essentially MITM to at least some parts of the transaction.
For Apple Pay, Apple is not a "man in the middle". They are not in a position to get any information about what is actually happening. Any data processing is done in a chip inside the phone that the iPhone itself and Apple have no access to. And that's necessary to make sure that malware on a jailbroken iPhone cannot access your credit card information.
You may have missed the AC the GP is responding to. The AC stated that more people die from the flue vaccine than from the flu. That's what (I presume) the source is being asked for.
That's entirely possible and no reason to stop vaccinating. We could have an illness that kills 10,000 a year without vaccination. And with proper vaccination, we have 100 deaths per year from the illness, and 1,000 deaths a year from the vaccination. Deaths from vaccination outnumber deaths from the illness 10 to one, but still we should vaccinate.
I had an allergic reaction to penicillin. Once. I had gone to one doctor for an ear infection, to another for the awful rash that I got after the penicillin treatment.
I was told then that there are different kinds of penicillin, and you may be allergic against one and not the other (I have taken penicillin since with no side effects ever). I was also told that the allergy comes in different strengths (1 = harmless, 2 = annoying which mine was, and 3 = dangerous), and the real problem is that often the allergy hits someone whose body is weakened already (with my ear infection, 99% of the body was fine and strong, so I was never in danger even if the allergic reaction had been much stronger).
So if you are offered penicillin in a situation where your body is already badly weakened and a strong allergic reaction could put you into danger, you should better be careful.
Gluten allergies, for example. Only a very small fraction of all these people claiming they are allergic to gluten are really allergic to it. These days, if you don't have at least one allergy, you don't exist. So, I'm allergic to allergies.
Claiming that you have gluten allergy when you don't seems to be harmless. You just pay more for food that doesn't taste as good; hurts nobody but your wallet and your taste buds.
Since similar usernames can also mean similar full names, it could make identity theft that much easier for that other person bearing a similar name as your sister.
On the other hand, the bank should know who they sent that information to. If I was by mistake given the keys to my neighbours home, and the person who gave me the keys knew who they gave them to, I would be an idiot to break into my neighbours house using these keys.
Explain the logic why they should. You presented none.
First, their job is to make life safer for everyone and to prevent crime. They do that. Second, it's very little effort for them because the crooks and criminals won't come to the police station. Third, a single citizen becoming victim of a crime creates huge amounts of work for the police, so it is much more effective to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. Fourth, it makes people happy and improve their view of the police force which again makes life easier for the police.
And UBER is expected to do this for all the drivers that register with them? Do you understand their business model at all?
Their business model is to cut prices compared to taxis by cutting on conformance with laws that apply to taxis. Well, if their business model ends up costly, whose fault is that?
This is a fucking lottery ticket. An indian woman exploring the happy sue free mentality of the US, how quaint. I guess it would be also interesting to assert the make of the car to open another lawsuit in Japan.
After being raped. So it's not a fucking lottery ticket, but a rape lottery ticket.
Meanwhile, I don't think the woman is actually too interested in justice or anything but is interested in money from Uber as it's quite insane to hold the stance that there's any level of safety precautions that Uber could take to prevent a would be rapist to become any form of a taxi driver
There is nothing that Uber could do to prevent anyone from ever being raped by an Uber employee. However, there is first the question whether Uber should have done more than they did. If the company is negligent then there will be a higher chance of a rape happening. No matter whether they were negligent or not, they are responsible for what their employees do. (Details depend on the local laws; it depends on whether the law assumes that the employee acted as an employee or as a private person).
As long as people like you believe that Apple lost the smartphone market, there is nothing that can stop them:-)
Here's what Apple learnt from John Sculley's time at Pepsi: If your competitor counts the number of bottles sold, while you count the revenue and profit, you let your competitor win in the sales of small bottles. Let them think they are winning while you rake in the money.
In terms of the smartphone market which Apple lost in your opinion, Apple made about 7 to 8 times more profit in that market than Samsung in its whole mobile division. Yes, Apple sells fewer smartphones than landfill Android. But Apple makes money selling smartphones.
That might depend on how you define people. Nobody who takes themselves seriously is going to use an iPad as a phone in public.
Not planned, but given the choice of making an important phone call and looking like an idiot, or suffering some big disadvantage because that phone call cannot be made, most people would prefer looking like an idiot for five minutes.
Providing the password to potential evidence that is encrypted is self-incrimination.
That's what you say, but it is clearly established that you are wrong. The only exception is a situation where your ability to give them the password incriminates you. Let's say someone got his head smashed in with a portable hard drive. The hard drive is encrypted. The contents of the hard drive is of no interest whatsoever, but if you are the one who has the password, then it is quite likely that you were the one who used the drive to kill someone. That's when giving the password is self-incrimination.
Solution: include a confession in your password itself. And then hope it was properly stored...
That wouldn't work, because it would just be a password, not a valid confession. You could use the GPS coordinates where you buried your murder victim; that might work.
The usual exception is when the fact that you know the password is evidence in itself. Let's say there is a hard drive with absolutely vile child porn. It's encrypted and password protected, but the encryption is weak. and has been cracked. All the porn has been found, but there is not the slightest evidence who put it there. If the police asked you for the password, then they cannot use it to find any data on the drive that they haven't got yet, but they can use the fact that you knew the password to nail you. So in that case, giving the the password would be self-incrimination.
But only 12% worldwide. Android rules the rest of the planet.
Is that a reflex answer? "Half the US smartphone buyers" absolutely forces you to post world wide market share? Don't you think that is evidence that you belong to the cult of Android?
Let's just say that what my post was about was that it is utter rubbish to claim that Apple brainwashed 50% of US smartphone buyers, just as it is utter rubbish to claim that Apple brainwashed 12% of world wide smartphone buyers.
Your statement that "Android rules the rest of the planet" is nonsense. There are many places in the world where the average person cannot afford an iPhone. So they buy the cheapest phone that they can afford. The cheap Android phone is a sign of poverty. It doesn't "rule" anything.
Contrast that with Android phones. They only promise support for 18 months, even on Nexus devices (though they MAY support them longer than that). There are dozens of phones that have fallen by the wayside.
I was told that in California, Apple was required to support (be able to repair) their devices for 7 years. I'd think that would apply to Android companies as well?
The people screaming that kind of nonsense are those who see how successful Apple is, who _should_ see why Apple is so successful (because there is no secret about this), and even though everything that Apple does to get that success is totally out in the open, they just don't get it.
So because they just can't figure out why a rational person would buy an Apple product, they come with their ridiculous interpretations that there must be a "cult", or that people must be "sheep", or that an iPhone is "fashion" (without trying to figure out _why_ it is fashion), or that Apple has brainwashed for example half the US smartphone buyers (how would Apple have done that? )
74 million phone buyers, 21 million tablet buyers, and 5.5 million computer buyers didn't think Apple products are overpriced. By definition, if you pay the money for a product willingly (not under duress) then it isn't overpriced.
Slashdot Mirror
They are violating Facebook's TOS, which is illegal. The police generally need a warrant to commit acts that would otherwise be illegal.
I thought on Slashdot TOS, EULAs etc. are not the law and violating them isn't illegal.
Unlike the US, Jordan can do this. They are in the region, sharing borders with Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. When Jordan strikes out they are seen as "Muslims fighting with other Muslims", which does not polarize the issue. If Jordan attacks it is seen as an ISIS loss.
The only thing where you are slightly inaccurate: It would be muslims against a group that is now universally hated and not considered worthy to be called muslims anymore.
No doubt because Apple's own employees were involved that Apple would be forced to eat some of that (and that it was Apple's own initiative to allow for instant financing).
Liability will be interesting. So a financing deal was started in the name of Mr. X, but Mr. X didn't actually do anything so isn't liable for anything. Because of that financing deal, Apple handed over a computer or a phone to a crook, and Barclays paid money to Apple. The crook sold the computer or phone to Mr. Y who may or may not have been aware what was going on, and may or may not be found.
First, there's the question whether these computers were stolen. In the UK, in a similar case, a judge decided that this was not theft, but a voidable contract (since the buyer entered a contract but had no intention to pay for the computer and forged documents to avoid paying, Apple could obviously void the contract and ask for the computer back). However, the contract had not been voided yet, so the buyer owned the computer legitimately. That's one judge in the UK; a judge in the USA might decide differently, and it is a borderline case, so the laws might be different.
Now can Barclays get their money back from Apple? Difficult. Depends on the contracts, depends on the small print in US laws. Depends on to what degree Apple is liable for crimes committed by employees. Also depends on how much Apple values their relationship with Barclays. How much money Barclays is making if things like this $700,000 fraud are included.
You realize even taking taxes in to account, most people make a lot less than that and do just fine, right?
On the other hand, why would someone creating important software that everyone wants to use, be content with "making a lot less and doing just fine"?
The guy can just give up what he is doing right now and get a better paying job, with no stress trying to get money every year.
They can't see stoplight colors while the sun is setting anywhere near behind them.
For quite a while, on my way to work there was a traffic light in a curve, with the angle to the sun such that the driver of the car stopped at the traffic light could _not_ possible see the colours. Because it was in a curve, about the third car in the line could see the colours without problems. Fortunately, almost everyone knew the situation, so if you were in the third car you would honk your horn as soon as the light turned green, and in the first car you would wait for someone honking.
Yes, that might be a challenge for a self-driving car.
The article mentioned that self-driving cars seem to have problems at four-way stop signs in the USA (probably the same problem at a roundabout in the UK): Someone has to go first, but for each car the situation is identical. Well, some people have a problem with that. I'm always polite and go first as quickly as possible so then everyone else can go in turn and nobody has to wait.
Or, since everyone has everyone else by the balls because of the way our patent system works, we could reform it so that software patents are either extremely hard to get, or to where they have a painfully-short shelflife...
Typical reflex post. The article doesn't mention software patents with one word. There are plenty of standard essential patents in the mobile phone area that have nothing at all to do with software.
IMO, the only real concern from the user end is that Google and Apple are essentially MITM to at least some parts of the transaction.
For Apple Pay, Apple is not a "man in the middle". They are not in a position to get any information about what is actually happening. Any data processing is done in a chip inside the phone that the iPhone itself and Apple have no access to. And that's necessary to make sure that malware on a jailbroken iPhone cannot access your credit card information.
You may have missed the AC the GP is responding to. The AC stated that more people die from the flue vaccine than from the flu. That's what (I presume) the source is being asked for.
That's entirely possible and no reason to stop vaccinating. We could have an illness that kills 10,000 a year without vaccination. And with proper vaccination, we have 100 deaths per year from the illness, and 1,000 deaths a year from the vaccination. Deaths from vaccination outnumber deaths from the illness 10 to one, but still we should vaccinate.
I had an allergic reaction to penicillin. Once. I had gone to one doctor for an ear infection, to another for the awful rash that I got after the penicillin treatment.
I was told then that there are different kinds of penicillin, and you may be allergic against one and not the other (I have taken penicillin since with no side effects ever). I was also told that the allergy comes in different strengths (1 = harmless, 2 = annoying which mine was, and 3 = dangerous), and the real problem is that often the allergy hits someone whose body is weakened already (with my ear infection, 99% of the body was fine and strong, so I was never in danger even if the allergic reaction had been much stronger).
So if you are offered penicillin in a situation where your body is already badly weakened and a strong allergic reaction could put you into danger, you should better be careful.
Gluten allergies, for example. Only a very small fraction of all these people claiming they are allergic to gluten are really allergic to it. These days, if you don't have at least one allergy, you don't exist. So, I'm allergic to allergies.
Claiming that you have gluten allergy when you don't seems to be harmless. You just pay more for food that doesn't taste as good; hurts nobody but your wallet and your taste buds.
Since similar usernames can also mean similar full names, it could make identity theft that much easier for that other person bearing a similar name as your sister.
On the other hand, the bank should know who they sent that information to. If I was by mistake given the keys to my neighbours home, and the person who gave me the keys knew who they gave them to, I would be an idiot to break into my neighbours house using these keys.
Explain the logic why they should. You presented none.
First, their job is to make life safer for everyone and to prevent crime. They do that. Second, it's very little effort for them because the crooks and criminals won't come to the police station. Third, a single citizen becoming victim of a crime creates huge amounts of work for the police, so it is much more effective to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. Fourth, it makes people happy and improve their view of the police force which again makes life easier for the police.
IBM Simon: 1992.
iPhone: 2007
So if IBM had 15 years of head start, why aren't we all using IBM phones? Anything missing on that "IBM Simon" that the iPhone had?
Apple used Sony's designs and blueprints to make the iPhone.
Any evidence for that?
And UBER is expected to do this for all the drivers that register with them? Do you understand their business model at all?
Their business model is to cut prices compared to taxis by cutting on conformance with laws that apply to taxis. Well, if their business model ends up costly, whose fault is that?
This is a fucking lottery ticket. An indian woman exploring the happy sue free mentality of the US, how quaint. I guess it would be also interesting to assert the make of the car to open another lawsuit in Japan.
After being raped. So it's not a fucking lottery ticket, but a rape lottery ticket.
Meanwhile, I don't think the woman is actually too interested in justice or anything but is interested in money from Uber as it's quite insane to hold the stance that there's any level of safety precautions that Uber could take to prevent a would be rapist to become any form of a taxi driver
There is nothing that Uber could do to prevent anyone from ever being raped by an Uber employee. However, there is first the question whether Uber should have done more than they did. If the company is negligent then there will be a higher chance of a rape happening. No matter whether they were negligent or not, they are responsible for what their employees do. (Details depend on the local laws; it depends on whether the law assumes that the employee acted as an employee or as a private person).
As long as people like you believe that Apple lost the smartphone market, there is nothing that can stop them :-)
Here's what Apple learnt from John Sculley's time at Pepsi: If your competitor counts the number of bottles sold, while you count the revenue and profit, you let your competitor win in the sales of small bottles. Let them think they are winning while you rake in the money.
In terms of the smartphone market which Apple lost in your opinion, Apple made about 7 to 8 times more profit in that market than Samsung in its whole mobile division. Yes, Apple sells fewer smartphones than landfill Android. But Apple makes money selling smartphones.
That might depend on how you define people. Nobody who takes themselves seriously is going to use an iPad as a phone in public.
Not planned, but given the choice of making an important phone call and looking like an idiot, or suffering some big disadvantage because that phone call cannot be made, most people would prefer looking like an idiot for five minutes.
Providing the password to potential evidence that is encrypted is self-incrimination.
That's what you say, but it is clearly established that you are wrong. The only exception is a situation where your ability to give them the password incriminates you. Let's say someone got his head smashed in with a portable hard drive. The hard drive is encrypted. The contents of the hard drive is of no interest whatsoever, but if you are the one who has the password, then it is quite likely that you were the one who used the drive to kill someone. That's when giving the password is self-incrimination.
Solution: include a confession in your password itself. And then hope it was properly stored...
That wouldn't work, because it would just be a password, not a valid confession. You could use the GPS coordinates where you buried your murder victim; that might work.
The usual exception is when the fact that you know the password is evidence in itself. Let's say there is a hard drive with absolutely vile child porn. It's encrypted and password protected, but the encryption is weak. and has been cracked. All the porn has been found, but there is not the slightest evidence who put it there. If the police asked you for the password, then they cannot use it to find any data on the drive that they haven't got yet, but they can use the fact that you knew the password to nail you. So in that case, giving the the password would be self-incrimination.
But only 12% worldwide. Android rules the rest of the planet.
Is that a reflex answer? "Half the US smartphone buyers" absolutely forces you to post world wide market share? Don't you think that is evidence that you belong to the cult of Android?
Let's just say that what my post was about was that it is utter rubbish to claim that Apple brainwashed 50% of US smartphone buyers, just as it is utter rubbish to claim that Apple brainwashed 12% of world wide smartphone buyers.
Your statement that "Android rules the rest of the planet" is nonsense. There are many places in the world where the average person cannot afford an iPhone. So they buy the cheapest phone that they can afford. The cheap Android phone is a sign of poverty. It doesn't "rule" anything.
Contrast that with Android phones. They only promise support for 18 months, even on Nexus devices (though they MAY support them longer than that). There are dozens of phones that have fallen by the wayside.
I was told that in California, Apple was required to support (be able to repair) their devices for 7 years. I'd think that would apply to Android companies as well?
So now a "cult" is half of US smart phone buyers?
The people screaming that kind of nonsense are those who see how successful Apple is, who _should_ see why Apple is so successful (because there is no secret about this), and even though everything that Apple does to get that success is totally out in the open, they just don't get it.
So because they just can't figure out why a rational person would buy an Apple product, they come with their ridiculous interpretations that there must be a "cult", or that people must be "sheep", or that an iPhone is "fashion" (without trying to figure out _why_ it is fashion), or that Apple has brainwashed for example half the US smartphone buyers (how would Apple have done that? )
And some people don't think Apple is overpriced.
74 million phone buyers, 21 million tablet buyers, and 5.5 million computer buyers didn't think Apple products are overpriced. By definition, if you pay the money for a product willingly (not under duress) then it isn't overpriced.