Whether something "is in the public interest" is not a valid criterion for restricting free speech.
Of course it is. Everything is weighing up various consequences. There is the right of the public to be informed, the right of free speech, the right not to be slandered, and they have to be weighed up against each other. (Slashdot objection: But who decides? Answer: A judge who probably has a few more braincells than you).
And yet they are throwing money away on DRM schemes that will be broken.
The idea behind these schemes isn't that nobody in the world will ever, ever be able to make a copy. The idea is that _many_ people will buy the software even when someone is willing to give them an illegal copy, because they don't have easy access to a copy with the broken DRM.
Wait, so you suggested to someone who was straight to play a gay part? Tolerance does not mean forced acceptance. I am pro-gay rights, but I find gay porn disgusting. That does not make me a homophobe.
It's an actress. Nobody asked her to be gay. They asked her to act being a gay person. Wearing clothes.
Nobody claimed that Tim Cook was brave (except some who didn't think it through). He didn't come out to show that he is brave. He came out to demonstrate to lots of gay people who are not in his position that you can be gay and become CEO of one of the worlds biggest companies, in order to improve their outlook to life.
How can you be proud of something you're born as, or did he actually make a hard choice to be gay, and is thus proud of his choice?
Now let me think... If he had said "I'm proud to be American", or "I'm proud to be Californian", or "I'm proud of whatever you can think of except being gay", would you or would anyone else here complain about it?
The truth is that it just pains your little homophobic heart that someone dares saying they are proud to be gay.
Reportedly at the time when Steve Jobs had to figure out a name for the company he wanted to start, he was at an apple orchard. Lots of trees with apples. So he picked the name "Apple".
And the "apple" is not really about Adam and Eve either. They would have done much, much better without any apples involved. The apple in the bible stands for temptation, loss of innocence, and for being thrown out of paradise. (Remember how in the bible Adam and Eve didn't realise they were naked until each bit into that apple? )
Also, there are plenty of gay people with children. Some people take a bit longer to figure out they are gay, and there's plenty of time to become a father or mother before you figure it out. Surely a parent with a child shouldn't only be allowed, but even encouraged, to get married.
Do you consider paedophilia to not be a choice? How do you get +4 insightful for saying something so blatantly illogical?
A homophobic asshole is quite easily identified by noticing how they just _must_ make a connection between homosexuality and either child abuse or bestiality.
How is it Gays seem to think that their sexual preference is not abnormal but most other sexual preferences are? And don't start in with the consenting adults bullshit.
Is that the old homophobic claptrap again? Didn't quite expect it on Slashdot, but then again, I don't expect it anywhere.
The reason is that (a) the "consenting adults bullshit" isn't bullshit, but that's what makes the difference, and (b) that being homosexual is indeed a behaviour that happens quite naturally in a small minority of people.
You don't seem to know what "entrapment" means. "Entrapment" means convincing someone to commit a crime in order to arrest them, when that person otherwise wouldn't commit the crime. Once the crime has been done, the police is absolutely free to set up any traps to catch the criminal. Actually, it is their job to do what they can to catch the criminal.
The fine article misses one thing: What the customer wants. After at least three breaches, each with millions and millions of card details lost to hackers, nobody wants their data stored on a server that is handled by a retail company. They don't want to hand over all the information to the retail company. They don't want the stone age interface that the retail companies suggest.
And every customer is pissed of in a major way, because both Apple Pay and Google Wallet actually _worked_ until these idiots shut it off.
Apple has some pretty convincing material out describing how Apple Pay works, that can convince the geeks that it is actually safe. Google probably has the same thing, would be nice if someone could post a link. But these jokers? I wouldn't trust them in a million years.
If you really, really want an app, the developer can install it on about 100 devices for "testing" purposes. Or you can buy a developer license + source code of the app and are free to do whatever you want with your own device.
I've actually heard both ways on this that Apple is taking a fee and that they are not. I can't imagine Apple (or another company) dealing with the implementation, infrastructure and liability for no financial gain.
First, it's like the iTunes store, or the App store: Even if Apple didn't make a penny, they would still profit because they would sell more devices.
Second, Apple said they won't give any official information; the word is that they get 0.15% _from the banks_. Customers and merchants definitely don't pay for it.
Gruber is not _quite_ right. I'm sure other companies are getting it as well. However, Apple's interest is to make iPhones more useful for iPhone purchasers so be giving end users what they want, Apple sells more iPhones and makes more profit. CurrentC _knows_ that what Apple does is the right thing to make the system successful, but it's not what would benefit CurrentC's customers.
Apple and Google _both_ put their customers first. The difference is, _you_ are Apple's (potential) customer, but not Google's customer.
When your credit card is compromised, the bank takes the loss and gives you a new credit card. When your phone is compromised, does Apple take the loss and give you a new phone?
When your phone is compromised, your credit card data is still safe. Apple is itself not capable of extracting your credit card information once it is stored in an independent, secure chip inside the phone. Similar to fingerprint information, or your iPhones cryptography keys, which are not accessible to Apple.
Apple Pay is still only available in the US With Respect To being able to sign up for it.
Interestingly, it seems to be not "available in the US", but "available to owners of US credit cards". Someone even reported using it successfully in the Ukraine (with a US credit card).
While Google Wallet and Apply Pay may be free to the end-user, I highly doubt that it is free for the retailer.
Apple doesn't get a penny from the end user or from the retailer, so I suppose Google doesn't either. With Apple Pay the retailer pays the lowest rate available (percentages depend on how secure the payment method is; the more secure, the cheaper for the merchant). Apple gets some money from the bank; the bank saves money by having less fraud.
But Apple could still have used something better than 1.5GHz in the entry-level model. Even the 50$CAD Celeron in my gaming PC runs at 2.8GHz.
Modern Intel processors don't run at a fixed speed, the speed is from X GHz to Y GHz. Unlike most manufacturers, Apple advertises the lowest speed. The current entry level Mac Mini has a clock speed from 1.4 GHz to 2.7 GHz, Apple sells it as 1.4 GHz. And an i5 runs circles around a Celeron at comparable clock speed.
Copyright infrigment, they know how to deal with that.
At least $750, but up to $30,000 per infringed work (that is per photo). Higher (up to $150,000) if this is done wilfully.
Now since these photos were sent by a police officer to another police officer, and the second police officer didn't act to stop the illegal activity, it is actually not only the police officers responsible, but the police force itself.
I may have missed in in the article, but is there any provision that states the OS has to be removed or disbled? If not, what's to keep someone from buying a PC and saying "Gimmie mah lira!" while still using the pre-installed OS?
Probably some laws that say that if you get money by claiming that you removed Windows from your PC, while actually not removing it and using it, you committed at least fraud and copyright infringement.
Why buy a Mac at all if you're not going to use OS X?
At my company, which has a company wide Windows license, lots of Windows users (everybody who has enough power to do it) buy a MacBook Air or another MacBook and ask IT to install Windows on it. Now you can argue whether an Apple computer running Windows with MacOS X removed is still a Macintosh or not...
Though if they argue the software is free, it could open the door for legal hackintosh's.
It's like most GPL licensed software: It doesn't cost money, but it comes with a license. In this case the license says: Only to be installed on Apple branded computers.
The correct answer is that there a dozens of computer manufacturers selling you computers without MacOS X, and only one selling you a computer with MacOS X, so if you wanted a computer without MacOS X you could have just gone to one of the dozen manufacturers you sell you exactly what you want.
The software is free for owners of legally purchased Mac computers. It isn't free for everyone.
You mean Apple could sue anyone using a stolen Mac with MacOS X for copyright infringement? (I suspect they legally could, and probably any software maker could).
Slashdot Mirror
Whether something "is in the public interest" is not a valid criterion for restricting free speech.
Of course it is. Everything is weighing up various consequences. There is the right of the public to be informed, the right of free speech, the right not to be slandered, and they have to be weighed up against each other. (Slashdot objection: But who decides? Answer: A judge who probably has a few more braincells than you).
And yet they are throwing money away on DRM schemes that will be broken.
The idea behind these schemes isn't that nobody in the world will ever, ever be able to make a copy. The idea is that _many_ people will buy the software even when someone is willing to give them an illegal copy, because they don't have easy access to a copy with the broken DRM.
Wait, so you suggested to someone who was straight to play a gay part? Tolerance does not mean forced acceptance. I am pro-gay rights, but I find gay porn disgusting. That does not make me a homophobe.
It's an actress. Nobody asked her to be gay. They asked her to act being a gay person. Wearing clothes.
Nobody claimed that Tim Cook was brave (except some who didn't think it through). He didn't come out to show that he is brave. He came out to demonstrate to lots of gay people who are not in his position that you can be gay and become CEO of one of the worlds biggest companies, in order to improve their outlook to life.
How can you be proud of something you're born as, or did he actually make a hard choice to be gay, and is thus proud of his choice?
Now let me think... If he had said "I'm proud to be American", or "I'm proud to be Californian", or "I'm proud of whatever you can think of except being gay", would you or would anyone else here complain about it?
The truth is that it just pains your little homophobic heart that someone dares saying they are proud to be gay.
Not right either. That logo came later.
Reportedly at the time when Steve Jobs had to figure out a name for the company he wanted to start, he was at an apple orchard. Lots of trees with apples. So he picked the name "Apple".
And the "apple" is not really about Adam and Eve either. They would have done much, much better without any apples involved. The apple in the bible stands for temptation, loss of innocence, and for being thrown out of paradise. (Remember how in the bible Adam and Eve didn't realise they were naked until each bit into that apple? )
Also, there are plenty of gay people with children. Some people take a bit longer to figure out they are gay, and there's plenty of time to become a father or mother before you figure it out. Surely a parent with a child shouldn't only be allowed, but even encouraged, to get married.
Do you consider paedophilia to not be a choice? How do you get +4 insightful for saying something so blatantly illogical?
A homophobic asshole is quite easily identified by noticing how they just _must_ make a connection between homosexuality and either child abuse or bestiality.
How is it Gays seem to think that their sexual preference is not abnormal but most other sexual preferences are? And don't start in with the consenting adults bullshit.
Is that the old homophobic claptrap again? Didn't quite expect it on Slashdot, but then again, I don't expect it anywhere.
The reason is that (a) the "consenting adults bullshit" isn't bullshit, but that's what makes the difference, and (b) that being homosexual is indeed a behaviour that happens quite naturally in a small minority of people.
You don't seem to know what "entrapment" means. "Entrapment" means convincing someone to commit a crime in order to arrest them, when that person otherwise wouldn't commit the crime. Once the crime has been done, the police is absolutely free to set up any traps to catch the criminal. Actually, it is their job to do what they can to catch the criminal.
The fine article misses one thing: What the customer wants. After at least three breaches, each with millions and millions of card details lost to hackers, nobody wants their data stored on a server that is handled by a retail company. They don't want to hand over all the information to the retail company. They don't want the stone age interface that the retail companies suggest.
And every customer is pissed of in a major way, because both Apple Pay and Google Wallet actually _worked_ until these idiots shut it off.
Apple has some pretty convincing material out describing how Apple Pay works, that can convince the geeks that it is actually safe. Google probably has the same thing, would be nice if someone could post a link. But these jokers? I wouldn't trust them in a million years.
Here is a link to a site that _really_ knows everything about app store guidelines and rejection reasons:
https://developer.apple.com/ap...
If you really, really want an app, the developer can install it on about 100 devices for "testing" purposes. Or you can buy a developer license + source code of the app and are free to do whatever you want with your own device.
I've actually heard both ways on this that Apple is taking a fee and that they are not. I can't imagine Apple (or another company) dealing with the implementation, infrastructure and liability for no financial gain.
First, it's like the iTunes store, or the App store: Even if Apple didn't make a penny, they would still profit because they would sell more devices.
Second, Apple said they won't give any official information; the word is that they get 0.15% _from the banks_. Customers and merchants definitely don't pay for it.
Gruber is not _quite_ right. I'm sure other companies are getting it as well. However, Apple's interest is to make iPhones more useful for iPhone purchasers so be giving end users what they want, Apple sells more iPhones and makes more profit. CurrentC _knows_ that what Apple does is the right thing to make the system successful, but it's not what would benefit CurrentC's customers.
Apple and Google _both_ put their customers first. The difference is, _you_ are Apple's (potential) customer, but not Google's customer.
When your credit card is compromised, the bank takes the loss and gives you a new credit card. When your phone is compromised, does Apple take the loss and give you a new phone?
When your phone is compromised, your credit card data is still safe. Apple is itself not capable of extracting your credit card information once it is stored in an independent, secure chip inside the phone. Similar to fingerprint information, or your iPhones cryptography keys, which are not accessible to Apple.
Apple Pay is still only available in the US With Respect To being able to sign up for it.
Interestingly, it seems to be not "available in the US", but "available to owners of US credit cards". Someone even reported using it successfully in the Ukraine (with a US credit card).
While Google Wallet and Apply Pay may be free to the end-user, I highly doubt that it is free for the retailer.
Apple doesn't get a penny from the end user or from the retailer, so I suppose Google doesn't either. With Apple Pay the retailer pays the lowest rate available (percentages depend on how secure the payment method is; the more secure, the cheaper for the merchant). Apple gets some money from the bank; the bank saves money by having less fraud.
But Apple could still have used something better than 1.5GHz in the entry-level model. Even the 50$CAD Celeron in my gaming PC runs at 2.8GHz.
Modern Intel processors don't run at a fixed speed, the speed is from X GHz to Y GHz. Unlike most manufacturers, Apple advertises the lowest speed. The current entry level Mac Mini has a clock speed from 1.4 GHz to 2.7 GHz, Apple sells it as 1.4 GHz. And an i5 runs circles around a Celeron at comparable clock speed.
Copyright infrigment, they know how to deal with that.
At least $750, but up to $30,000 per infringed work (that is per photo). Higher (up to $150,000) if this is done wilfully.
Now since these photos were sent by a police officer to another police officer, and the second police officer didn't act to stop the illegal activity, it is actually not only the police officers responsible, but the police force itself.
I may have missed in in the article, but is there any provision that states the OS has to be removed or disbled? If not, what's to keep someone from buying a PC and saying "Gimmie mah lira!" while still using the pre-installed OS?
Probably some laws that say that if you get money by claiming that you removed Windows from your PC, while actually not removing it and using it, you committed at least fraud and copyright infringement.
Why buy a Mac at all if you're not going to use OS X?
At my company, which has a company wide Windows license, lots of Windows users (everybody who has enough power to do it) buy a MacBook Air or another MacBook and ask IT to install Windows on it. Now you can argue whether an Apple computer running Windows with MacOS X removed is still a Macintosh or not...
Though if they argue the software is free, it could open the door for legal hackintosh's.
It's like most GPL licensed software: It doesn't cost money, but it comes with a license. In this case the license says: Only to be installed on Apple branded computers.
Can I get a refund for my Mac OS too?
The correct answer is that there a dozens of computer manufacturers selling you computers without MacOS X, and only one selling you a computer with MacOS X, so if you wanted a computer without MacOS X you could have just gone to one of the dozen manufacturers you sell you exactly what you want.
The software is free for owners of legally purchased Mac computers. It isn't free for everyone.
You mean Apple could sue anyone using a stolen Mac with MacOS X for copyright infringement? (I suspect they legally could, and probably any software maker could).