15) "Describe to me the process and benefits of wearing a seatbelt." -- Active Network, Client Applications Specialist interview. Keeps you Locked Up nice and tight during car fires.
"I didn't mention cars." (Candidate makes obvious, but possibly unwarranted assumptions.)
"Do you mean car seat belts?"
"I don't think you're a good fit here; too pedantic."
How about the car you drive?
A hybrid, which needs more green house gasses to build.
A small, car which cannot carry enough people and good thus needing an extra car.
A medium sized car, which gives off more carbon, and yet still doesn't fit everything you need.
A large car/Suv/Truck you can carry what you need however a lot of time you just polluting gas.
That truck can't carry your stuff when you move home (well, not when _I_ move home), so why don't you buy a removal lorry?
Seriously, in the last ten years I have once or twice hired a minibus, shared with others, once hired a white van to transport a treadmill, once had to ask a friend with a white van to transport a garden shed, and once hired a 7.5 ton lorry when I bought a complete new home office on eBay. Buying a large car for these rare situations is ridiculous.
What you're saying is that Nazism is so toxic and so powerful that it overwhelms the minds of those it is exposed to, such that they cannot control themselves. If that's what you believe, then you've already lost. No law can save you from such a force.
Well, that's not what they believe in Germany. They believe that there are different kinds of assholes, and nazi assholes are such bad assholes that they should be removed from the streets and put into jail.
I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call? Reasonable policy exceptions must be allowed.
How is that different from a user whose phone battery ran out? Or one who forgot to top up his pay-as-you-go plan? Or one who has turned off their phone in a cinema? Has any cinema ever been sued because someone was unable to take an emergency-related call? What about a person who doesn't have a mobile phone?
The best way to do this, should they choose to support the H.264 format, is to add a tiny annoyance to video files in that format.
Like a 5 second intro that displays their policy in the format war, and how users are better off with the open version of the video.
Your problem is that the huge majority of Wikipedia users would be disgusted at your idea. Wikipedia is about getting information out in the best possible way. And for videos, whether you like it or not, h.264 is the best possible way. Whatever donations Wikipedia is getting today, intentionally messing with videos to annoy people will kill them. It's easier to get donations from people who are used to paying for value products and not from freetards.
Android already supports WebM (http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html). I'm thinking this is more of a "should we care about the people with iPhones?" My answer would be "no." That'll add more pressure on Apple to not be jackasses w/ their mobile OS.
I think you got the "jackasses" upside down here. Google, as they have done on other occassions, bought a video codecs with the sole purpose of upsetting the established standard. WebM is not patent encumbered until it is successful, and if it ever is successful, there will be patent owners trying to blackmail. Just as Google / Motorola have tried themselves. I mean that is a pathetic joke, attacking h.264 as being patent encumbered, and then patent trolling.
Except a locked shed requires a physical object, i.e. key, to be opened. The cops don't need you to incriminate yourself if they can find the key (or get a proper warrant to circumvent it).
That doesn't make a difference. Giving the passcode to encrypted information is not self incriminating. It's only self incriminating if the fact that you can provide the password incriminates you, beyond the information itself. And that could be with a physical key as well. You claim that all the stolen TVs in your garage have nothing to do with you and you don't even have a key. Having a key would be incriminating.
Of course you can, but it won't look good, and a UK jury isn't restricted from inferring from that fact.
For example, if you tell the jury that you have an alibi, and the police had no chance to question the person providing the alibi or do any checking, then the jury can assume that you just made it up on the spot.
Jaywalking isn't a crime in the UK. You can walk pretty much wherever you like, except on motorways, and cars have to get out your way.
I was told that of all traffic deaths in the UK, 4 percent are on the motorway. And of those four percent, 20 percent are pedestrians. Feel free to walk on the motorway anytime you like:-(
This goes directly against prior decisions by the European Court of Human Rights. There is very clear and unambiguous legal precedent, that a person under criminal investigation need not bear witness against himself.
This was widely discussed in US decisions, but probably applies to Europe as well. If there is evidence, then giving the prosecution access to that evidence is not "bearing witness against yourself". The case where you _actually_ don't have to reveal a password is if admitting that you know the password would incriminate you. Not what's on the drive, but the fact that you know the password. For example, a man is murdered by being hit by a laptop. In the laptop there's an encrypted drive. If you have the password, that's strong evidence you are the murderer (and nobody cares what's actually on the drive). You don't have to reveal the password.
Google for the definition of "conspiracy", and the definition of "attempt" which is also interesting. If you discuss a crime with people, and one in that group does _anything_ that would help committing the crime (for example googling for pictures of that army base), you are member of a conspiracy.
iOS is actually very similar. Without an application like PhoneView or Xcode, just connecting a device will not provide obvious access to per application data that is not explicitly shared. If the device is locked, then access is unavailable even to those methods. If the application itself requested data protection, then even physical access to the flash chips would prove useless. Of course, a developer who decided to store everything in plain text would probably not take the extra strep to request encryption. I just wonder why they didn't use the system Keychain. Easy to use and the OS takes care of all these problems.
First, everything is always encrypted on the iPhone. With no passcode, that doesn't help much because the iPhone itself can read the data. With passcode set, the iPhone needs the passcode to read the data and no way around that. In addition, apps can request that a file is encrypted with a different key, which means the passcode needs to be entered _for that file_. And there's the keychain of course.
Security risks are: Unencrypted backups to iTunes (there's a switch "encrypt backups". Turn it on). And as the case here, crash reporting or logging software that leaks information. Or having a phone without passcode.
You say iOS running on Apple products only is anti-competitive. That's wrong. Apple is the copyright holder and has the right to restrict where its software can be used. That was made quite clear by courts a few years ago that absolutely made clear that Apple has the right to restrict MacOS X to Apple computers.
Now if you argued that Apple only allows you to run iOS on the iPhone, and not other operating systems, that's different. If Google wants to port Android to the iPhone, they should ask if Apple minds, and quite possibly they wouldn't. But actually, I haven't heard any evidence that any phone manufacturer wanted to port iOS to their phones.
Right. I wondered why PCs and phones were even being lumped into the same category for comparison, especially since Apple's OS X and iOS are considered to be separate products. The strongest conceptually similarity between PCs and phones is that they both contain microprocessors. But if that's the criteria, Toyota outsells them all, since every automobile contains multiple microprocessors.
From a product point of view, it doesn't make sense. It makes sense if you look just at money. Let's say comparing the revenue that Samsung makes from selling refrigerators to Apple's Apple TV business. Doesn't make sense from a product point of view, but I would be interested to know, because I have genuinely no idea how much people spend on refrigerators.
Now people saying that Xbox and Windows phones should be added: This is not a Microsoft vs. Apple comparison, it is PC vs. Apple hardware. Apple sells a lot, lot more computers than Microsoft and always has:-) (someone will not get this, I'm sure).
You seriously do not understand. I will break it down for you.
You buy a phone with a contract. However, you pay nothing for the phone. Instead, the cost is hidden in 24 monthly payments of your contract.
After 24 months, your phone is paid for. You would reasonably expect that your contract now gets cheaper, but it doesn't. You still pay 1/24th of the price of a new phone + profit every month. You get ripped off.
If you accept a new phone, then the same payment changes from "ripoff" to "paying back a loan for your new phone". The phone isn't free, you pay for it. With decent companies (T-Mobile in the USA, O2 depending on contract in the UK), after 24 months your monthly payments drop. Unless you take a new phone, so they go up again. If you use your phone for 3 or 4 years, you save a lot of money. Just not with the usual ripoff contracts.
batteries expire and many 'common' (ie iPhone) phones batteries and also many uncommon (eg Nokia Windows Phones) aren't easily replaced - having said that, Steve managed to do it, so I guess I could:
Replacing an iPhone battery is really easy. Take it to an Apple Store, hand over £55, and they put in a new battery for you. Now if you mean "end user replaceable", that's a different matter. And "replaceable by a guy on a market stall" is also a different matter.
...but 25% of iPhones don't even make it to 2 years [squaretrade.com].
I thought squaretrade repairs these phones? So really the number would be "25% are getting some repair within two years", and then they live on.
Apple also has a nice "out of warranty" repair program: If your phone breaks long out of warranty, as long as it is in one piece Apple will replace it with an identical refurbished phone for about half the price of a basic new one. According to posts elsewhere, there seem to be people taking advantage of this by buying broken phones very cheap and replacing them with refurbished ones.
Will my son get his gift card money back? I doubt it.
Did you try it? Like, by clicking on the link "report a problem", problem description "my kid had no idea that this purchase would actually cost real money".
When you walk out of the Target, you get the receipt. With Apple, you get the receipt days later, after they batch your purchases together. That's close enough to lying. Why not give an immediate email confirmation? Oh, then people might notice and cancel the purchase.
When you get the receipt, days later, every single purchase is individually listed, and has a link where you can report problems and get your money back. So what exactly is your problem here?
No you didn't. You can drop the lies, you're only fooling people who automatically assume you're correct without checking.
In defense of the previous poster, he tried to open an account with an _invalid_ credit card, and Apple does indeed insist that a credit card must be valid. He may have completely missed that having _no_ credit card is OK, but if you enter a credit card, it must be valid.
For example, Candy Crush is a decent game that you get for free if you ignore all the in-app purchases. You can play 35 levels, and if you are happy improving your high scores, you get a lot of fun for nothing.
You can buy more levels, which is fine for me because they give value for money, and you actually have to finish the previous levels before you can buy more. Your 10 year old will take months to spend $10 on new levels.
There are of course purchases that are much too expensive. They are also for things that I would consider "cheating".
Having had an iTunes account (Apple ID) fail to download free games after a CC expiration date passed until I followed the instructions to update the payment method, I think you are wrong. Perhaps there is a way to make it work, but not easily, and certainly not in the Apple-no-hassle way Apple users come to expect.
Said that before: You can't have an account with an invalid credit card. You can have an account without a credit card. At that point, you could have removed the credit card completely.
I created an "appleID" a week ago, it absolutely refused to move forward until i entered a VALID credit card. I tried to enter one and it was unhappy as it was a US card and said i was in canada at the time. Clicking the small "change this location" allowed me to proceed. Granted this was on "Mavericks" and all i wanted was the updates so unsure about the credit card requirement.
You can't open an account with an invalid credit card (or one that isn't accepted in that country). You _can_ open an account without a credit card.
Slashdot Mirror
15) "Describe to me the process and benefits of wearing a seatbelt." -- Active Network, Client Applications Specialist interview. Keeps you Locked Up nice and tight during car fires.
"I didn't mention cars." (Candidate makes obvious, but possibly unwarranted assumptions.)
"Do you mean car seat belts?"
"I don't think you're a good fit here; too pedantic."
Could be when spell-checkers made us sloppy about proper usage. It's "Death throes" unless you're talking wrestling.
Wouldn't you use a spelling checker instead of a spell checker, unless your name is Harry Potter?
How about the car you drive?
A hybrid, which needs more green house gasses to build.
A small, car which cannot carry enough people and good thus needing an extra car.
A medium sized car, which gives off more carbon, and yet still doesn't fit everything you need.
A large car/Suv/Truck you can carry what you need however a lot of time you just polluting gas.
That truck can't carry your stuff when you move home (well, not when _I_ move home), so why don't you buy a removal lorry?
Seriously, in the last ten years I have once or twice hired a minibus, shared with others, once hired a white van to transport a treadmill, once had to ask a friend with a white van to transport a garden shed, and once hired a 7.5 ton lorry when I bought a complete new home office on eBay. Buying a large car for these rare situations is ridiculous.
What you're saying is that Nazism is so toxic and so powerful that it overwhelms the minds of those it is exposed to, such that they cannot control themselves. If that's what you believe, then you've already lost. No law can save you from such a force.
Well, that's not what they believe in Germany. They believe that there are different kinds of assholes, and nazi assholes are such bad assholes that they should be removed from the streets and put into jail.
I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call? Reasonable policy exceptions must be allowed.
How is that different from a user whose phone battery ran out? Or one who forgot to top up his pay-as-you-go plan? Or one who has turned off their phone in a cinema? Has any cinema ever been sued because someone was unable to take an emergency-related call? What about a person who doesn't have a mobile phone?
The best way to do this, should they choose to support the H.264 format, is to add a tiny annoyance to video files in that format. Like a 5 second intro that displays their policy in the format war, and how users are better off with the open version of the video.
Your problem is that the huge majority of Wikipedia users would be disgusted at your idea. Wikipedia is about getting information out in the best possible way. And for videos, whether you like it or not, h.264 is the best possible way. Whatever donations Wikipedia is getting today, intentionally messing with videos to annoy people will kill them. It's easier to get donations from people who are used to paying for value products and not from freetards.
Android already supports WebM (http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html). I'm thinking this is more of a "should we care about the people with iPhones?" My answer would be "no." That'll add more pressure on Apple to not be jackasses w/ their mobile OS.
I think you got the "jackasses" upside down here. Google, as they have done on other occassions, bought a video codecs with the sole purpose of upsetting the established standard. WebM is not patent encumbered until it is successful, and if it ever is successful, there will be patent owners trying to blackmail. Just as Google / Motorola have tried themselves. I mean that is a pathetic joke, attacking h.264 as being patent encumbered, and then patent trolling.
Except a locked shed requires a physical object, i.e. key, to be opened. The cops don't need you to incriminate yourself if they can find the key (or get a proper warrant to circumvent it).
That doesn't make a difference. Giving the passcode to encrypted information is not self incriminating. It's only self incriminating if the fact that you can provide the password incriminates you, beyond the information itself. And that could be with a physical key as well. You claim that all the stolen TVs in your garage have nothing to do with you and you don't even have a key. Having a key would be incriminating.
Of course you can, but it won't look good, and a UK jury isn't restricted from inferring from that fact.
For example, if you tell the jury that you have an alibi, and the police had no chance to question the person providing the alibi or do any checking, then the jury can assume that you just made it up on the spot.
Jaywalking isn't a crime in the UK. You can walk pretty much wherever you like, except on motorways, and cars have to get out your way.
I was told that of all traffic deaths in the UK, 4 percent are on the motorway. And of those four percent, 20 percent are pedestrians. Feel free to walk on the motorway anytime you like :-(
This goes directly against prior decisions by the European Court of Human Rights. There is very clear and unambiguous legal precedent, that a person under criminal investigation need not bear witness against himself.
This was widely discussed in US decisions, but probably applies to Europe as well. If there is evidence, then giving the prosecution access to that evidence is not "bearing witness against yourself". The case where you _actually_ don't have to reveal a password is if admitting that you know the password would incriminate you. Not what's on the drive, but the fact that you know the password. For example, a man is murdered by being hit by a laptop. In the laptop there's an encrypted drive. If you have the password, that's strong evidence you are the murderer (and nobody cares what's actually on the drive). You don't have to reveal the password.
He has been jailed for discussing something?
Google for the definition of "conspiracy", and the definition of "attempt" which is also interesting. If you discuss a crime with people, and one in that group does _anything_ that would help committing the crime (for example googling for pictures of that army base), you are member of a conspiracy.
iOS is actually very similar. Without an application like PhoneView or Xcode, just connecting a device will not provide obvious access to per application data that is not explicitly shared. If the device is locked, then access is unavailable even to those methods. If the application itself requested data protection, then even physical access to the flash chips would prove useless. Of course, a developer who decided to store everything in plain text would probably not take the extra strep to request encryption. I just wonder why they didn't use the system Keychain. Easy to use and the OS takes care of all these problems.
First, everything is always encrypted on the iPhone. With no passcode, that doesn't help much because the iPhone itself can read the data. With passcode set, the iPhone needs the passcode to read the data and no way around that. In addition, apps can request that a file is encrypted with a different key, which means the passcode needs to be entered _for that file_. And there's the keychain of course.
Security risks are: Unencrypted backups to iTunes (there's a switch "encrypt backups". Turn it on). And as the case here, crash reporting or logging software that leaks information. Or having a phone without passcode.
You say iOS running on Apple products only is anti-competitive. That's wrong. Apple is the copyright holder and has the right to restrict where its software can be used. That was made quite clear by courts a few years ago that absolutely made clear that Apple has the right to restrict MacOS X to Apple computers.
Now if you argued that Apple only allows you to run iOS on the iPhone, and not other operating systems, that's different. If Google wants to port Android to the iPhone, they should ask if Apple minds, and quite possibly they wouldn't. But actually, I haven't heard any evidence that any phone manufacturer wanted to port iOS to their phones.
Right. I wondered why PCs and phones were even being lumped into the same category for comparison, especially since Apple's OS X and iOS are considered to be separate products. The strongest conceptually similarity between PCs and phones is that they both contain microprocessors. But if that's the criteria, Toyota outsells them all, since every automobile contains multiple microprocessors.
From a product point of view, it doesn't make sense. It makes sense if you look just at money. Let's say comparing the revenue that Samsung makes from selling refrigerators to Apple's Apple TV business. Doesn't make sense from a product point of view, but I would be interested to know, because I have genuinely no idea how much people spend on refrigerators.
:-) (someone will not get this, I'm sure).
Now people saying that Xbox and Windows phones should be added: This is not a Microsoft vs. Apple comparison, it is PC vs. Apple hardware. Apple sells a lot, lot more computers than Microsoft and always has
You seriously do not understand. I will break it down for you.
You buy a phone with a contract. However, you pay nothing for the phone. Instead, the cost is hidden in 24 monthly payments of your contract.
After 24 months, your phone is paid for. You would reasonably expect that your contract now gets cheaper, but it doesn't. You still pay 1/24th of the price of a new phone + profit every month. You get ripped off.
If you accept a new phone, then the same payment changes from "ripoff" to "paying back a loan for your new phone". The phone isn't free, you pay for it. With decent companies (T-Mobile in the USA, O2 depending on contract in the UK), after 24 months your monthly payments drop. Unless you take a new phone, so they go up again. If you use your phone for 3 or 4 years, you save a lot of money. Just not with the usual ripoff contracts.
batteries expire and many 'common' (ie iPhone) phones batteries and also many uncommon (eg Nokia Windows Phones) aren't easily replaced - having said that, Steve managed to do it, so I guess I could :
Replacing an iPhone battery is really easy. Take it to an Apple Store, hand over £55, and they put in a new battery for you. Now if you mean "end user replaceable", that's a different matter. And "replaceable by a guy on a market stall" is also a different matter.
I wonder at which point smartphones will become fast enough so that people will stick the same phone for at least five years or so.
An iPhone 5s just about beats the slowest 2010 MacBook in benchmarks.
...but 25% of iPhones don't even make it to 2 years [squaretrade.com].
I thought squaretrade repairs these phones? So really the number would be "25% are getting some repair within two years", and then they live on.
Apple also has a nice "out of warranty" repair program: If your phone breaks long out of warranty, as long as it is in one piece Apple will replace it with an identical refurbished phone for about half the price of a basic new one. According to posts elsewhere, there seem to be people taking advantage of this by buying broken phones very cheap and replacing them with refurbished ones.
Will my son get his gift card money back? I doubt it.
Did you try it? Like, by clicking on the link "report a problem", problem description "my kid had no idea that this purchase would actually cost real money".
When you walk out of the Target, you get the receipt. With Apple, you get the receipt days later, after they batch your purchases together. That's close enough to lying. Why not give an immediate email confirmation? Oh, then people might notice and cancel the purchase.
When you get the receipt, days later, every single purchase is individually listed, and has a link where you can report problems and get your money back. So what exactly is your problem here?
No you didn't. You can drop the lies, you're only fooling people who automatically assume you're correct without checking.
In defense of the previous poster, he tried to open an account with an _invalid_ credit card, and Apple does indeed insist that a credit card must be valid. He may have completely missed that having _no_ credit card is OK, but if you enter a credit card, it must be valid.
The BS is Apple calling it a free app.
For example, Candy Crush is a decent game that you get for free if you ignore all the in-app purchases. You can play 35 levels, and if you are happy improving your high scores, you get a lot of fun for nothing.
You can buy more levels, which is fine for me because they give value for money, and you actually have to finish the previous levels before you can buy more. Your 10 year old will take months to spend $10 on new levels.
There are of course purchases that are much too expensive. They are also for things that I would consider "cheating".
Having had an iTunes account (Apple ID) fail to download free games after a CC expiration date passed until I followed the instructions to update the payment method, I think you are wrong. Perhaps there is a way to make it work, but not easily, and certainly not in the Apple-no-hassle way Apple users come to expect.
Said that before: You can't have an account with an invalid credit card. You can have an account without a credit card. At that point, you could have removed the credit card completely.
I created an "appleID" a week ago, it absolutely refused to move forward until i entered a VALID credit card. I tried to enter one and it was unhappy as it was a US card and said i was in canada at the time. Clicking the small "change this location" allowed me to proceed. Granted this was on "Mavericks" and all i wanted was the updates so unsure about the credit card requirement.
You can't open an account with an invalid credit card (or one that isn't accepted in that country). You _can_ open an account without a credit card.