The suicide rate at Apple factories is lower than the suicide rate at US factories.
There are no reports of suicides at any Apple factories as far as I have ever heard. There were reports about suicides at Foxconn factories (and a thread of suicide by a large number of Foxconn employees who feared losing their jobs when Microsoft lowered Xbox production).
There are a few things that skew the statistics. One, most people wouldn't commit suicide at work, but at home. At Foxconn, many people live at the factory, so all suicides by employees happen at work. Two, we heard of people jumping from buildings. Which according to Wikipedia is a very rare way to kill yourself in the USA (2%), but over 50% of all suicides in Hongkong (couldn't find any other places), so hearing of people jumping from buildings gives a very wrong impression to Westerners.
Now we always hear people saying "they put up suicide nets, evil Apple, buahuahua". So what's the story behind that? The story is that this gave huge ammunition to all the people trying to dump on Apple or Foxconn, but it worked. Foxconn is down from 21 suicides in one year (which is about the same rate as the murder rate for retail employees in the USA), to just three in the last two years. On the other hand, San Francisco refuses to take action at the Golden Gate Bridge, where a massively larger number of suicides happen year after year.
Just saying: Tim Cook is the CEO. He is _not_ a substantial shareholder. It takes about 500 million dollar to own just 0.1% of AAPL, Tim Cook is nowhere near, and 0.1% doesn't make you a "substantial shareholder". He runs the company because he was hired to run the company.
oh you are correct, the stock holders voted no question. but the way he handeled it was wrong, you dont insult your bosses,regardless if they are majority or not. All he did was contribute to the idea that apple is full of smug
Did you ever watch "The Blues Brothers"? The scene where they demonstrate what's the proper way to treat neo nazis? Tim Cook has done the same thing here. A right-wing group calling themselves a "Think Tank", trying to push their disgusting right-wing agenda in a company's share holder meeting, and they get told off.
Yes, Apple is truly evil for using solar panels instead of polluting the environment by burning coal in Northern Carolina.
One more reason that I wont ever buy another apple product
Tim Cook telling these right-wing psychopaths to piss off is surely a reason to avoid buying Apple products.
What kind of bullshit is this? Extremist climate change deniers turning up in the Apple shareholder meeting, and trying to foist their idiotic "profit above anything" agenda on Apple, getting the response they deserve (actually, not _quite_ what they deserve, corporal punishment is what they deserve), and that makes you want to avoid Apple products?
No, it is meant to stop sophisticated attackers. It will be interesting to see what happens the first time the police decide they need to access one of these and request that Boeing help them. If designed correctly there should be nothing Boeing could do to help them, but considering all the fat defence contracts and government money that goes their way I doubt they would have neglected to put an NSA approved back-door in.
In the case of the iPhone, there is no back door, but there is a front door. The only way to get into an iPhone is to either crack a 256 bit key (per file), or to enter the passcode. Only software code-signed by Apple can unlock an iPhone. In normal use, that's the software that runs when the user types in his passcode. Apple and Apple only can replace this software. And then they can try to unlock the phone at the amazing rate of ten attempts per second (the passcode hash function is calibrated to use one tenth of a second). They can crack a four digit passcode. However, you can set a twelve digit, or twelve digit and letter or longer code. 10 digits should take about 3 years, 10 digits and letters is uncrackable.
Of course that requires that the police has the phone, and that they have a legal warrant.
Pure FUD. Go to the Apple website, do a bit of searching around, until you find the document describing the iPhone security features. At this point in time, there is no police force that can read email from a confiscated iPhone unless the user unlocks it.
You do realize your Macbook is not an iPhone and does not run anything approaching the same operating system?
The operating system is actually more than 85% identical:-) Still, I don't know how turning on a non-existing encryption option on iOS (it's not an option, you can't turn it off) would mess up his MacBook, and how messing up his MacBook would require him to re-install the OS on his iPhone.
Put an iPhone in a faraday cage and the data won't be deleted. No way for the signal from Steven in the sky to tell it to delete the data. Disassemble the device, hot air the flash chips off the phone to you own custom boards... boom, full access to all the data. (Actually, not entirely true for smarter users with encrypted data, but close enough for this discussion, since all 3 of those iPhone users who encrypt their data don't have anything that matters anyway.)
That's the point - you don't have full access to the data. You have no access to the data. You have access to an encrypted file system, where every single file is encrypted with a different random 256 bit key.
A person is not a douchebag for having a bluetooth headset, or Google Glass. That is like saying people with tattoos are criminals or somesuch. You are projecting. You are using some physical artifact to judge what a person's intent and character are.
Exactly. That's what we do. If you don't like, don't wear tattoos and don't be a glasshole. And I really wonder when Apple will change its spelling checker and not try to insert a space between "glass" and "hole".
The only difference seems to be that with this phone, if an attacker tries to get at the data you end up with a non-working phone and an attacker without data, while with an iPhone you end up with a working phone and an attacker without data. OK, this phone has also some more security claims, but of course they are not proven.
In reality, the big advantage of SSD is zero access time for reading gazillions of 4 KB blocks. And there the transfer speed doesn't really make much difference. Even just 100 MB/second is 25,000 random four KB blocks.
Also, he's almost certainly wrong about it not being a work made for hire since work that is commissioned for use "as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work" is one of the nine things congress explicitly calls out as a work made for hire under copyright law. So even if he wasn't already wrong about her having created a copyright in the first place, he'd still be wrong about it not being a work made for hire.
You didn't read the summary, right? There was no work for hire. There was a contract signed, but one of the signers was a convicted felon who used an alias to sign, which was against his probation rules. The signed contract was void. He also didn't pay the actress and hadn't any intention to pay, so if the contract had been valid, he would have still been in breach of his contract.
While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law. Actors working for hire have no copyright claims unless explicitly documented in their contract. Having this video taken down using copyright claims is a miscarriage of justice.
Actually, that seems to be the other way round. The actor _has_ the copyright on his performance, except when the contract says otherwise. Of course the contract says otherwise. Every contract between film companies and actors says otherwise. Just like my employment contract says that the copyright for code I write at work is assigned to my company. But if I write code for my company, but the contract is invalid because the company directory was banned from doing any business and lied about it, they didn't pay me and didn't intend to pay me, then the code is _mine_, no matter what the contract says.
It's close enough as to make no difference. Do you really think that EVERY actress/actor who finds the released movie different than the one she/he worked on can get the movie pulled when they have ZERO ownership of it? Absurd.
Not everyone. But possibly one who wasn't paid for acting, where there was never any intention for paying her, _and_ the film is something that she would never have agreed to act in.
So not EVERY but this one. And you say ZERO ownership: If she never received the payment that she should have received, then she has SOME ownership.
Not being a friend of Assange at all (who jumped bail and now is costing the Ecuadorian government lots of money), but what does that have to do with anything? And everybody can ask themselves what they would look like if someone tried hard to show them in the worst possible light.
Correct me if I misunderstood something here but these people are trying to commit visa fraud themselves. They are paying a company for the purpose of getting a visa just so they can get into the country to look for a job with other companies in the US and transfer their visa. They know that these are shell companies that will not actually employ them.
How would they have any idea that visa fraud would be involved? There is bureaucracy, which might be impossible to penetrate for someone who doesn't have knowledge how this bureaucracy works. You hire someone who knows best what forms to fill out, where to send them and so on. It's as much fraud as hiring a lawyer to defend yourself in court, or hiring a CV writer to create a much better CV than you could.
With all the setups of this type I have heard of there is no opt out.
At my place, the company has an unencrypted, password-free WiFi network running in parallel, mostly intended for visitors, but obviously free to use for employees. Of course you can't get at any company resources from that network (except those that can be accessed freely from anywhere). Being unencrypted, it's your responsibility to use https.
Yes, let's honor a "man" who was a billionaire who refused to acknowledge his daughter's existence for 17 years, while she and her mother lived paycheck to paycheck. While this was going on, he named a computer after her.
You could ask Jobs' first daughter what she thinks about it (he had four children, by the way, including two daughters). For all that is publicly known, she was quite OK with her father, so it is very unlikely that she would protest against a Steve Jobs stamp.
On the other hand, whatever you accuse him of in his private life is actually quite irrelevant. If you think he shouldn't get on a stamp for being a bad father, then surely there should be at least a few thousand men put on stamps for being extraordinarily good fathers? But they aren't. Qualities as a parent are entirely unimportant on that scale.
1: What happens if a glitch happens during the update process? No-start conditions suck, and having to get a tow to a dealer because of some glitch isn't popular. One European car brand, you have to "register" a new battery with the dealer, or the vehicle will not start, or if it does, it will function in a degraded mode.
That's simple. Have an EPROM with space for two sets of software. When the software starts, it looks for the first one that is marked "valid". In the upgrade process, the last steps are to mark the new software as "valid", check that it reads back as "valid" reliably, then mark the old software as "invalid".
For your other argument: Much cheaper than "other the air" updates are updates via a USB stick. Get the stick in the mail. Update only works if you have your car keys. Same security checks obviously as with an "Over the Air" update.
Well, assuming I'm an auto manufacturer, I'd respond, "that depends - which is cheaper, doing a recall and fixing the issue, or paying out settlements to X number of people who will be hurt if we don't issue a recall?"
Being an auto manufacturer, you might think it to yourself, you might act accordingly, but you would never, ever say this out loud. As soon as you admit having allowed people to get hurt because it is cheaper for you, you are in an incredible amount of trouble.
The people who are scoffing at Google Glass right now just can't afford it yet.
Bloody idiot. How much are they, $1,500? Outside your mother's basement, people can afford to pay $1,500 for some useful tech. Google Glass isn't useful. It's the nerd's mark. It's a big "kick me" sign that you put on your own face.
A new device that can instantly impair any glasshole recording you! You go up to them, point the hole at them, and press down! And that's all!
Of course, I'm talking about spray paint.
Wow... it sounds like it's the non Glass-wearing crowd who are the ones in need of a little lesson in public behaviour.
I think they get it quite right. You are not suggesting that Google should sell a GG + gun combination? Armed glassholes who give the unwashed masses a little lesson in public behaviour?
Slashdot Mirror
The suicide rate at Apple factories is lower than the suicide rate at US factories.
There are no reports of suicides at any Apple factories as far as I have ever heard. There were reports about suicides at Foxconn factories (and a thread of suicide by a large number of Foxconn employees who feared losing their jobs when Microsoft lowered Xbox production).
There are a few things that skew the statistics. One, most people wouldn't commit suicide at work, but at home. At Foxconn, many people live at the factory, so all suicides by employees happen at work. Two, we heard of people jumping from buildings. Which according to Wikipedia is a very rare way to kill yourself in the USA (2%), but over 50% of all suicides in Hongkong (couldn't find any other places), so hearing of people jumping from buildings gives a very wrong impression to Westerners.
Now we always hear people saying "they put up suicide nets, evil Apple, buahuahua". So what's the story behind that? The story is that this gave huge ammunition to all the people trying to dump on Apple or Foxconn, but it worked. Foxconn is down from 21 suicides in one year (which is about the same rate as the murder rate for retail employees in the USA), to just three in the last two years. On the other hand, San Francisco refuses to take action at the Golden Gate Bridge, where a massively larger number of suicides happen year after year.
Just saying: Tim Cook is the CEO. He is _not_ a substantial shareholder. It takes about 500 million dollar to own just 0.1% of AAPL, Tim Cook is nowhere near, and 0.1% doesn't make you a "substantial shareholder". He runs the company because he was hired to run the company.
And that's a valid reason for not changing the policy, but instead he basically tells owners of the company that they should sell their stock
Stock holders don't own the company. If they owned the company, they would be liable for any debt if the company goes bankrupt.
oh you are correct, the stock holders voted no question. but the way he handeled it was wrong, you dont insult your bosses ,regardless if they are majority or not. All he did was contribute to the idea that apple is full of smug
Did you ever watch "The Blues Brothers"? The scene where they demonstrate what's the proper way to treat neo nazis? Tim Cook has done the same thing here. A right-wing group calling themselves a "Think Tank", trying to push their disgusting right-wing agenda in a company's share holder meeting, and they get told off.
Yes, Apple is truly evil for using solar panels instead of polluting the environment by burning coal in Northern Carolina.
One more reason that I wont ever buy another apple product
Tim Cook telling these right-wing psychopaths to piss off is surely a reason to avoid buying Apple products.
What kind of bullshit is this? Extremist climate change deniers turning up in the Apple shareholder meeting, and trying to foist their idiotic "profit above anything" agenda on Apple, getting the response they deserve (actually, not _quite_ what they deserve, corporal punishment is what they deserve), and that makes you want to avoid Apple products?
No, it is meant to stop sophisticated attackers. It will be interesting to see what happens the first time the police decide they need to access one of these and request that Boeing help them. If designed correctly there should be nothing Boeing could do to help them, but considering all the fat defence contracts and government money that goes their way I doubt they would have neglected to put an NSA approved back-door in.
In the case of the iPhone, there is no back door, but there is a front door. The only way to get into an iPhone is to either crack a 256 bit key (per file), or to enter the passcode. Only software code-signed by Apple can unlock an iPhone. In normal use, that's the software that runs when the user types in his passcode. Apple and Apple only can replace this software. And then they can try to unlock the phone at the amazing rate of ten attempts per second (the passcode hash function is calibrated to use one tenth of a second). They can crack a four digit passcode. However, you can set a twelve digit, or twelve digit and letter or longer code. 10 digits should take about 3 years, 10 digits and letters is uncrackable.
Of course that requires that the police has the phone, and that they have a legal warrant.
[Disclaimer: I do not work for Apple]
Pure FUD. Go to the Apple website, do a bit of searching around, until you find the document describing the iPhone security features. At this point in time, there is no police force that can read email from a confiscated iPhone unless the user unlocks it.
You do realize your Macbook is not an iPhone and does not run anything approaching the same operating system?
The operating system is actually more than 85% identical :-) Still, I don't know how turning on a non-existing encryption option on iOS (it's not an option, you can't turn it off) would mess up his MacBook, and how messing up his MacBook would require him to re-install the OS on his iPhone.
Put an iPhone in a faraday cage and the data won't be deleted. No way for the signal from Steven in the sky to tell it to delete the data. Disassemble the device, hot air the flash chips off the phone to you own custom boards ... boom, full access to all the data. (Actually, not entirely true for smarter users with encrypted data, but close enough for this discussion, since all 3 of those iPhone users who encrypt their data don't have anything that matters anyway.)
That's the point - you don't have full access to the data. You have no access to the data. You have access to an encrypted file system, where every single file is encrypted with a different random 256 bit key.
A person is not a douchebag for having a bluetooth headset, or Google Glass. That is like saying people with tattoos are criminals or somesuch. You are projecting. You are using some physical artifact to judge what a person's intent and character are.
Exactly. That's what we do. If you don't like, don't wear tattoos and don't be a glasshole. And I really wonder when Apple will change its spelling checker and not try to insert a space between "glass" and "hole".
The only difference seems to be that with this phone, if an attacker tries to get at the data you end up with a non-working phone and an attacker without data, while with an iPhone you end up with a working phone and an attacker without data. OK, this phone has also some more security claims, but of course they are not proven.
In reality, the big advantage of SSD is zero access time for reading gazillions of 4 KB blocks. And there the transfer speed doesn't really make much difference. Even just 100 MB/second is 25,000 random four KB blocks.
This will always happen when you go to places where the rejects of society hang out. Deal with it and find other places to go to.
On the other hand, I and most others quite enjoy watching a glasshole getting punched.
Also, he's almost certainly wrong about it not being a work made for hire since work that is commissioned for use "as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work" is one of the nine things congress explicitly calls out as a work made for hire under copyright law. So even if he wasn't already wrong about her having created a copyright in the first place, he'd still be wrong about it not being a work made for hire.
You didn't read the summary, right? There was no work for hire. There was a contract signed, but one of the signers was a convicted felon who used an alias to sign, which was against his probation rules. The signed contract was void. He also didn't pay the actress and hadn't any intention to pay, so if the contract had been valid, he would have still been in breach of his contract.
While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law. Actors working for hire have no copyright claims unless explicitly documented in their contract. Having this video taken down using copyright claims is a miscarriage of justice.
Actually, that seems to be the other way round. The actor _has_ the copyright on his performance, except when the contract says otherwise. Of course the contract says otherwise. Every contract between film companies and actors says otherwise. Just like my employment contract says that the copyright for code I write at work is assigned to my company. But if I write code for my company, but the contract is invalid because the company directory was banned from doing any business and lied about it, they didn't pay me and didn't intend to pay me, then the code is _mine_, no matter what the contract says.
It's close enough as to make no difference. Do you really think that EVERY actress/actor who finds the released movie different than the one she/he worked on can get the movie pulled when they have ZERO ownership of it? Absurd.
Not everyone. But possibly one who wasn't paid for acting, where there was never any intention for paying her, _and_ the film is something that she would never have agreed to act in.
So not EVERY but this one. And you say ZERO ownership: If she never received the payment that she should have received, then she has SOME ownership.
Not being a friend of Assange at all (who jumped bail and now is costing the Ecuadorian government lots of money), but what does that have to do with anything? And everybody can ask themselves what they would look like if someone tried hard to show them in the worst possible light.
Correct me if I misunderstood something here but these people are trying to commit visa fraud themselves. They are paying a company for the purpose of getting a visa just so they can get into the country to look for a job with other companies in the US and transfer their visa. They know that these are shell companies that will not actually employ them.
How would they have any idea that visa fraud would be involved? There is bureaucracy, which might be impossible to penetrate for someone who doesn't have knowledge how this bureaucracy works. You hire someone who knows best what forms to fill out, where to send them and so on. It's as much fraud as hiring a lawyer to defend yourself in court, or hiring a CV writer to create a much better CV than you could.
With all the setups of this type I have heard of there is no opt out.
At my place, the company has an unencrypted, password-free WiFi network running in parallel, mostly intended for visitors, but obviously free to use for employees. Of course you can't get at any company resources from that network (except those that can be accessed freely from anywhere). Being unencrypted, it's your responsibility to use https.
Yes, let's honor a "man" who was a billionaire who refused to acknowledge his daughter's existence for 17 years, while she and her mother lived paycheck to paycheck. While this was going on, he named a computer after her.
You could ask Jobs' first daughter what she thinks about it (he had four children, by the way, including two daughters). For all that is publicly known, she was quite OK with her father, so it is very unlikely that she would protest against a Steve Jobs stamp.
On the other hand, whatever you accuse him of in his private life is actually quite irrelevant. If you think he shouldn't get on a stamp for being a bad father, then surely there should be at least a few thousand men put on stamps for being extraordinarily good fathers? But they aren't. Qualities as a parent are entirely unimportant on that scale.
1: What happens if a glitch happens during the update process? No-start conditions suck, and having to get a tow to a dealer because of some glitch isn't popular. One European car brand, you have to "register" a new battery with the dealer, or the vehicle will not start, or if it does, it will function in a degraded mode.
That's simple. Have an EPROM with space for two sets of software. When the software starts, it looks for the first one that is marked "valid". In the upgrade process, the last steps are to mark the new software as "valid", check that it reads back as "valid" reliably, then mark the old software as "invalid".
For your other argument: Much cheaper than "other the air" updates are updates via a USB stick. Get the stick in the mail. Update only works if you have your car keys. Same security checks obviously as with an "Over the Air" update.
Well, assuming I'm an auto manufacturer, I'd respond, "that depends - which is cheaper, doing a recall and fixing the issue, or paying out settlements to X number of people who will be hurt if we don't issue a recall?"
Being an auto manufacturer, you might think it to yourself, you might act accordingly, but you would never, ever say this out loud. As soon as you admit having allowed people to get hurt because it is cheaper for you, you are in an incredible amount of trouble.
The people who are scoffing at Google Glass right now just can't afford it yet.
Bloody idiot. How much are they, $1,500? Outside your mother's basement, people can afford to pay $1,500 for some useful tech. Google Glass isn't useful. It's the nerd's mark. It's a big "kick me" sign that you put on your own face.
A new device that can instantly impair any glasshole recording you! You go up to them, point the hole at them, and press down! And that's all! Of course, I'm talking about spray paint.
Coke and electronics hate each other.
Wow... it sounds like it's the non Glass-wearing crowd who are the ones in need of a little lesson in public behaviour.
I think they get it quite right. You are not suggesting that Google should sell a GG + gun combination? Armed glassholes who give the unwashed masses a little lesson in public behaviour?