As for her continued anonymity, they could certainly retrieve that information, and use voiceprints to confirm that it was indeed her making the phone call. Did they? I dunno, you'd need the transcripts of the trial.
Whether she said the truth or not would only be relevant if (a) the police tried to convict the driver for running her off the road or (b) the police tried to convict her for making a false accusation of a crime. It is _not_ relevant to whether the police should have stopped the car or not. What would be relevant to _this_ case is whether her accusation was believable or not.
wanna try again? you seem to think apple is a computer company
Let me think. Article headline: "You Can Now Run Beta Versions of OS X-For Free". OS X (or more properly MacOS X) is Apple's computer operating system. The whole article is about computers. So clearly your initial post must have been about how well Apple is doing or not doing in the computer market. Unless you are an imbecile with the attention span of a gnat who cannot read a simple headline.
We are discussing computers here. We are not discussing what percentage of Apple's profits and revenue come from computer. We are discussing how big the computer selling part of Apple is in the computer market. Somewhere else we could be discussing how big Apple is in the ever shrinking market for portable music players (hint: Amazon doesn't sell any new music players with more than 32 GB capacity that are not made by Apple). We could discuss what percentage of set top boxes are made by Apple in yet another place. But here we are discussing computers.
I am one of those who would be willing to purchase an OS X license to install on a non-Apple PC. Yet they don't even give the option to do so. I have heard the explanation that they don't want to be on the hook for support on the matter, and I'm fine with that - just let us buy a license with no support and be done with it.
I've heard that explanation as well, and it is pure speculation and most likely wrong. The reason why Apple doesn't sell licenses for MacOS X is that MacOS X is basically used as advertisements for the sale of Apple hardware, and that's where the profit is. They don't even care about getting money from upgrades anymore (10.9 was a free upgrade). If you think about buying a Mac today, you know that you will get at least two or three OS updates for free, which costs Apple nothing but increases the value of the Mac compared to a PC.
Something that already exists on the PC. You can trivially boot up any operating system you want on any PC and the basic things like the display and the input devices will just work.
iPhone users can trivially boot up any operating system they want; it's called iOS. Android phone users can trivially boot up any operating system they want; it's called Android. How many people want to boot up two operating systems?
Published on theregister.com. Estimated profits 45% Apple, 13% Dell, 7% Lenovo, the rest - very little. Consider this: In the USA, Apple sells about 90% of all laptops over $1,000. Not "45% of Apple's profit". "45% of all profits made from selling laptop and desktop hardware". By the way, the market share of iPhones in the phone market has been growing every year, but that would be too boring to report. It's just that feature phones are more and more replaced by cheap smart phones. You think Apple cares if millions in China buy the cheapest smartphone they can find?
Where is Apple's future? It seems to be slowly eating itself
Since we are talking about MacOS X here - the last estimate was that Apple makes 45% of all profits in the desktop + laptop hardware market, so I'd say they are slowly eating everyone else:-)
If someone who doesn't like me makes an "anonymous" call to 911 to report that I'm running meth lab in my garage, does that also give the cops the right to ransack my house looking for a meth lab?
A meth lab is quite big, so I don't think there is any justification for ransacking your house to find it. Just open every door and have a look into every room. And a call saying you're running a meth lab in your garage should clearly give them a warrant for the garage only.
I love how Apple has shown time and time again what the majority of customers want... except of course that the iPhone market share is a fraction what Android's is.
Apple doesn't want market share. If customer A buys a $600 iPhone, and customers B, C, D, E, F and G buy a $100 Android phone, Android has a six times higher market share. But both have the same revenue, and you may make a guess who makes a ton more profit.
It's surprising that Apple didn't do this a long time ago. Checkout scanners have had sapphire-coated glass for a decade or more. I pointed this out a few years ago, and the Apple fanboys immediately replied that Gorilla Glass was good enough and sapphire was unnecessary.
Here's another example how Apple is often accused of two exactly diametrical faults. You accuse them of using cheap Gorilla Glass which isn't good enough according to you and say they should have switched to Sapphire glass ages ago, while the whole thread started with others saying how stupid it is of Apple to use Sapphire glass, when Gorilla glass is much better.
It seems like most of the IPhones I see have broken screens, but other phones only rarely. It's just a shitty design. Excuse me, I now have to go underground before the Apple fanboys catch up with me.
So here is the meme that iPhones often have broken screens. There is the other meme that people throw away their iPhones for the slightest reason and buy a new one. Clearly, both memes are contradicting each other. If people keep iPhones with broken screens, then clearly these iPhones haven't been thrown away.
What actually seems to happen is that iPhone screens sometimes break, just like other screens, but you'll always find someone who is happy taking an iPhone with a broken screen. Which indicates to me that the rest of the phone must be bloody good.
But the bug probably is heartbleed. They're just not disclosing that they were affected.
What do you mean by "they were affected"? Only _servers_ were affected by the "heartbleed" bug. Apple was lucky enough that its major services (App Store, iTunes, iCloud) didn't use OpenSSL.
And this is exactly the reason people are pissed off about him saying that. The idea that because someone has a manual labor job must because they are stupid and useless is terrible assumption to make.
Here in the UK, there was a newspaper about some physicist complete with a PhD who decided that he wanted to make more money, and retrained as a plumber... Actually doubling his income in the process.
I can imagine all the side and twisting forces wreaking havoc with your wrists and arms.
The instructions tell you not to hold on to the axe handle when it hits the target. Not only because it's bad for the wrist, but the harder you hold on to it, the more you prevent the rotating of the axe head which we are told makes it work so well.
The difference is that those EULAs are license agreements for software (including the pre-installed software that comes on your new hardware) and there is precedent for it being legal to put those clauses in software EULAs.
You are confusing two things. "It is legal to put those clauses into EULAs" means "you can't go to jail for putting these clauses into EULAs". That doesn't mean that such a clause has any legal merit whatsoever. What _is_ legal and enforcable in EULAs are terms that allow you or disallow you making copies of software. Because that's what EULAs are about; they give you rights to copy software and can of course limit what rights they give you. A clause that prevents customers from going to court - good luck trying to enforce that.
So roughly speaking, if a judge tells you to do something, and you think it is nonsense, and you just say "no, I won't do that", then you are in contempt. Even if you were right and what he told you was nonsense. If you tell the judge "what you are asking for is nonsense for these reasons... so no, I won't do that", then chances are you are not in contempt.
CarPlay is likely to assume integration with an iphone. fewer consumers have iphones than have non-iphones.
The number of consumers having each kind of phone doesn't matter. The number of consumers demonstrably willing to spend several hundred dollars matters.
Seriously, if you have one guy who paid $600 for an iPhone, and 10 guys who spent $100 for the cheapest Android phone they could find, who is more likely to spend $500-$700 on music in their car?
But C++ gives you the tools to automatically catch various kinds of errors and memory leaks. If you use class destructors correctly, you can ensure that an object is automatically closed properly when it goes out of scope. There are a lot of standard classes such as smart pointers that are specifically designed with this kind of programming in mind. It's not 100% foolproof but it is a lot more reliable than having to remember to do it all manually in C (or C masquerading as C++).
None of these would have stopped the Heartbleed bug.
The only issue is: Are existing vaccines safe and could they be made safer?
The questions are: Is vaccinating a lower risk than not vaccinating? And: By spending the same amount of money, do we get more risk reduction by trying to make vaccines safer, or are there places where the money would be better spent?
The problem is: what constitutes "safe"? You're never going to have something that's completely safe, so it all comes down to probabilities.
If four million parents in the USA alone take their kids to be vaccinated, I'd be quite sure that some of them will die on their way in traffic accidents. So, just down to probabilities. Of course if you don't vaccinate them they could fall off a step ladder at home (which is a surprisingly high cause of death), so not vaccinating isn't safe either.
The fact that they are re-issuing certificates clearly indicates that they were open to Heartbleed.
That seems to be the US thing, where trying to fix a problem is taken as admission of guilt. (I heard this weird story that US hospitals have a problem if one of their X-ray machines breaks and the replacement is a better model, because anyone examined using the older machines can claim they didn't get the best possible treatment).
So Akamai claims that they protected certificates in memory. So that would be independent of the heart bleed bug, if we assume that heartbleed only managed to report "unprotected" data. And someone found that the protection isn't as good as they thought it was. Still doesn't answer the question if the Akamai code was vulnerable to Heartbleed in the first place. (So that's similar to the claims that OpenSSL didn't use malloc and therefore data had less protection, which doesn't make the Heartbleed bug less bad, but could have protected some data).
Saddam's removal however, did have justifiable reasons, besides simply political incentive; he did commit crimes against humanity, and his treatment of his country was quite oppressive. In terms of crimes against humanity, the nations of the world had every right to remove him from power.
I don't feel one bit sorry that he is gone. However, what you say is not the reasons that were given for the US attack on Iraq, and the reasons that were given were rubbish.
The amount mentioned is not what the IRS pays. It is what the article assumes, based on number of PCs running XP and an estimatd average price of $200 per PC. But contracts are negotiated individually. The British government pays less than $10 million for all their computers, which includes about 650,000 PCs running XP in the health service, more than 10 times as many as in the US IRS.
Slashdot Mirror
As for her continued anonymity, they could certainly retrieve that information, and use voiceprints to confirm that it was indeed her making the phone call. Did they? I dunno, you'd need the transcripts of the trial.
Whether she said the truth or not would only be relevant if (a) the police tried to convict the driver for running her off the road or (b) the police tried to convict her for making a false accusation of a crime. It is _not_ relevant to whether the police should have stopped the car or not. What would be relevant to _this_ case is whether her accusation was believable or not.
wanna try again? you seem to think apple is a computer company
Let me think. Article headline: "You Can Now Run Beta Versions of OS X-For Free". OS X (or more properly MacOS X) is Apple's computer operating system. The whole article is about computers. So clearly your initial post must have been about how well Apple is doing or not doing in the computer market. Unless you are an imbecile with the attention span of a gnat who cannot read a simple headline.
We are discussing computers here. We are not discussing what percentage of Apple's profits and revenue come from computer. We are discussing how big the computer selling part of Apple is in the computer market. Somewhere else we could be discussing how big Apple is in the ever shrinking market for portable music players (hint: Amazon doesn't sell any new music players with more than 32 GB capacity that are not made by Apple). We could discuss what percentage of set top boxes are made by Apple in yet another place. But here we are discussing computers.
I am one of those who would be willing to purchase an OS X license to install on a non-Apple PC. Yet they don't even give the option to do so. I have heard the explanation that they don't want to be on the hook for support on the matter, and I'm fine with that - just let us buy a license with no support and be done with it.
I've heard that explanation as well, and it is pure speculation and most likely wrong. The reason why Apple doesn't sell licenses for MacOS X is that MacOS X is basically used as advertisements for the sale of Apple hardware, and that's where the profit is. They don't even care about getting money from upgrades anymore (10.9 was a free upgrade). If you think about buying a Mac today, you know that you will get at least two or three OS updates for free, which costs Apple nothing but increases the value of the Mac compared to a PC.
Something that already exists on the PC. You can trivially boot up any operating system you want on any PC and the basic things like the display and the input devices will just work.
iPhone users can trivially boot up any operating system they want; it's called iOS. Android phone users can trivially boot up any operating system they want; it's called Android. How many people want to boot up two operating systems?
apart from that your figure of 45% is nonsense
Published on theregister.com. Estimated profits 45% Apple, 13% Dell, 7% Lenovo, the rest - very little. Consider this: In the USA, Apple sells about 90% of all laptops over $1,000. Not "45% of Apple's profit". "45% of all profits made from selling laptop and desktop hardware". By the way, the market share of iPhones in the phone market has been growing every year, but that would be too boring to report. It's just that feature phones are more and more replaced by cheap smart phones. You think Apple cares if millions in China buy the cheapest smartphone they can find?
Where is Apple's future? It seems to be slowly eating itself
Since we are talking about MacOS X here - the last estimate was that Apple makes 45% of all profits in the desktop + laptop hardware market, so I'd say they are slowly eating everyone else :-)
If someone who doesn't like me makes an "anonymous" call to 911 to report that I'm running meth lab in my garage, does that also give the cops the right to ransack my house looking for a meth lab?
A meth lab is quite big, so I don't think there is any justification for ransacking your house to find it. Just open every door and have a look into every room. And a call saying you're running a meth lab in your garage should clearly give them a warrant for the garage only.
I love how Apple has shown time and time again what the majority of customers want... except of course that the iPhone market share is a fraction what Android's is.
Apple doesn't want market share. If customer A buys a $600 iPhone, and customers B, C, D, E, F and G buy a $100 Android phone, Android has a six times higher market share. But both have the same revenue, and you may make a guess who makes a ton more profit.
It's surprising that Apple didn't do this a long time ago. Checkout scanners have had sapphire-coated glass for a decade or more. I pointed this out a few years ago, and the Apple fanboys immediately replied that Gorilla Glass was good enough and sapphire was unnecessary.
Here's another example how Apple is often accused of two exactly diametrical faults. You accuse them of using cheap Gorilla Glass which isn't good enough according to you and say they should have switched to Sapphire glass ages ago, while the whole thread started with others saying how stupid it is of Apple to use Sapphire glass, when Gorilla glass is much better.
Guys, can you make up your minds, please?
It seems like most of the IPhones I see have broken screens, but other phones only rarely. It's just a shitty design. Excuse me, I now have to go underground before the Apple fanboys catch up with me.
So here is the meme that iPhones often have broken screens. There is the other meme that people throw away their iPhones for the slightest reason and buy a new one. Clearly, both memes are contradicting each other. If people keep iPhones with broken screens, then clearly these iPhones haven't been thrown away.
What actually seems to happen is that iPhone screens sometimes break, just like other screens, but you'll always find someone who is happy taking an iPhone with a broken screen. Which indicates to me that the rest of the phone must be bloody good.
I guess my point is, 50 years ago you couldn't. The logistics alone would be too much, let alone setting up the manufacturing...
Of course you could. Just a matter of pouring money into it.
But the bug probably is heartbleed. They're just not disclosing that they were affected.
What do you mean by "they were affected"? Only _servers_ were affected by the "heartbleed" bug. Apple was lucky enough that its major services (App Store, iTunes, iCloud) didn't use OpenSSL.
Some of her patches were reverted by a co-worker? How traumatic for her.
Tell you what, if I reverted changes that my co-workers did, I would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do.
And this is exactly the reason people are pissed off about him saying that. The idea that because someone has a manual labor job must because they are stupid and useless is terrible assumption to make.
Here in the UK, there was a newspaper about some physicist complete with a PhD who decided that he wanted to make more money, and retrained as a plumber... Actually doubling his income in the process.
I can imagine all the side and twisting forces wreaking havoc with your wrists and arms.
The instructions tell you not to hold on to the axe handle when it hits the target. Not only because it's bad for the wrist, but the harder you hold on to it, the more you prevent the rotating of the axe head which we are told makes it work so well.
The difference is that those EULAs are license agreements for software (including the pre-installed software that comes on your new hardware) and there is precedent for it being legal to put those clauses in software EULAs.
You are confusing two things. "It is legal to put those clauses into EULAs" means "you can't go to jail for putting these clauses into EULAs". That doesn't mean that such a clause has any legal merit whatsoever. What _is_ legal and enforcable in EULAs are terms that allow you or disallow you making copies of software. Because that's what EULAs are about; they give you rights to copy software and can of course limit what rights they give you. A clause that prevents customers from going to court - good luck trying to enforce that.
So roughly speaking, if a judge tells you to do something, and you think it is nonsense, and you just say "no, I won't do that", then you are in contempt. Even if you were right and what he told you was nonsense. If you tell the judge "what you are asking for is nonsense for these reasons ... so no, I won't do that", then chances are you are not in contempt.
CarPlay is likely to assume integration with an iphone. fewer consumers have iphones than have non-iphones.
The number of consumers having each kind of phone doesn't matter. The number of consumers demonstrably willing to spend several hundred dollars matters.
Seriously, if you have one guy who paid $600 for an iPhone, and 10 guys who spent $100 for the cheapest Android phone they could find, who is more likely to spend $500-$700 on music in their car?
But C++ gives you the tools to automatically catch various kinds of errors and memory leaks. If you use class destructors correctly, you can ensure that an object is automatically closed properly when it goes out of scope. There are a lot of standard classes such as smart pointers that are specifically designed with this kind of programming in mind. It's not 100% foolproof but it is a lot more reliable than having to remember to do it all manually in C (or C masquerading as C++).
None of these would have stopped the Heartbleed bug.
The only issue is: Are existing vaccines safe and could they be made safer?
The questions are: Is vaccinating a lower risk than not vaccinating? And: By spending the same amount of money, do we get more risk reduction by trying to make vaccines safer, or are there places where the money would be better spent?
The problem is: what constitutes "safe"? You're never going to have something that's completely safe, so it all comes down to probabilities.
If four million parents in the USA alone take their kids to be vaccinated, I'd be quite sure that some of them will die on their way in traffic accidents. So, just down to probabilities. Of course if you don't vaccinate them they could fall off a step ladder at home (which is a surprisingly high cause of death), so not vaccinating isn't safe either.
The fact that they are re-issuing certificates clearly indicates that they were open to Heartbleed.
That seems to be the US thing, where trying to fix a problem is taken as admission of guilt. (I heard this weird story that US hospitals have a problem if one of their X-ray machines breaks and the replacement is a better model, because anyone examined using the older machines can claim they didn't get the best possible treatment).
So Akamai claims that they protected certificates in memory. So that would be independent of the heart bleed bug, if we assume that heartbleed only managed to report "unprotected" data. And someone found that the protection isn't as good as they thought it was. Still doesn't answer the question if the Akamai code was vulnerable to Heartbleed in the first place. (So that's similar to the claims that OpenSSL didn't use malloc and therefore data had less protection, which doesn't make the Heartbleed bug less bad, but could have protected some data).
Saddam's removal however, did have justifiable reasons, besides simply political incentive; he did commit crimes against humanity, and his treatment of his country was quite oppressive. In terms of crimes against humanity, the nations of the world had every right to remove him from power.
I don't feel one bit sorry that he is gone. However, what you say is not the reasons that were given for the US attack on Iraq, and the reasons that were given were rubbish.
The amount mentioned is not what the IRS pays. It is what the article assumes, based on number of PCs running XP and an estimatd average price of $200 per PC. But contracts are negotiated individually. The British government pays less than $10 million for all their computers, which includes about 650,000 PCs running XP in the health service, more than 10 times as many as in the US IRS.