Apple loaned GT more than half a billion dollars to build the plant. When GT failed to deliver, Apple stopped giving them money. When GT ran into financial difficulties, Apple offered to give them more money and defer repayments to keep them afloat.
What did you expect Apple to do? Just keep on giving them more money indefinitely without getting anything in return?
They have to be smart enough to jailbreak, point to an alternative app store, and install a corrupted app.
No, this is unnecessary. The malicious applications are signed as an enterprise application, so no jailbreaking is necessary. They are distributed using Apple's standard OTA distribution mechanism designed for enterprise applications and beta testing, so no alternative App Store is necessary.
What happens is that the user goes to a malicious/compromised website, this redirects them to the application, and iOS prompts the user with something like:
malicious-website.com would like to install "Gmail"
Cancel | Install
If I remember correctly, there's an additional prompt if it's the first time you've installed an application from that particular developer.
You still have to be dumb to install an application when you are unexpectedly prompted to, but it's a lot simpler to do than you realise.
I had to interview over 5k of them just to come up with 150 that were anywhere near hiring
You interviewed five thousand people? Are you sure you have that number right? Assuming you interviewed five people a day every single working day, it would take you four years to interview that many people. That's assuming no time off, no sickness, a steady supply of candidates, etc. I know a fair number of people in HR across a few organisations, and they don't manage to interview anywhere near that many people on a regular basis.
You're comparing two numbers from different sources. The "more than 30" source is "news reports suggest". The "less than 3%" source is Virgin Galactic. It's not that Virgin Galactic can't add up, it's that they have more accurate numbers than suggestions from news reports.
So if someone is out of date with the terminology I can't explain it to them because that makes me a patronizing asshole? OK, noted.
I said nothing of the sort. By all means, explain it. That's a good thing. Just don't liken them to technological halfwits while you are doing it. That's unwarranted.
I've got no problem with encouraging the correct terminology, it's the fact that it implies somebody who is a bit out of date with the project's branding is a technological halfwit who doesn't understand the difference between an organisation and a software package. It's KDE themselves that mixed the two up.
It hardly seems right to liken people referring to the desktop as "KDE" as if they were people saying that they "boot their Microsoft". KDE stands for the KDesktop Environment, and it has referred to the software itself for the majority of it's existence.
But with Apple Watch's requirement that the user constantly monitor its energy
Just because you're likely to have to charge it overnight, it doesn't mean that the user has to "constantly monitor its energy". This is a ridiculously biased perspective.
Yeah, but just because you have your phone on you, it doesn't mean it's as convenient to use as a watch. When I go running, I've usually got my phone strapped to my upper arm. It's difficult to see the screen or take an action compared with if I could just glance at my wrist. The watch also has a heart rate monitor.
I wonder if there's a longer term strategy to start migrating devices like the MacBook Air over to their A-series CPUs, instead of Intel.
They have undoubtedly got internal prototypes of a MacBook Air running OS X on their own processors. And their development toolchain and libraries are merging iOS and OS X more and more every year. This year, there were a couple of WWDC talks specifically about sharing code between the two platforms.
I think it's fairly obvious that the technology stack is ready both on the software and hardware side. It's just switching architectures isn't just about whether you can, it's about when the best time is to maximise chances of success. When they moved to Intel, they could supply an emulation layer to run older applications. That won't work as well this time around because it will be a lot slower. So they will need to push developers hard to port their software, and their best tool for doing that - the Mac App Store - isn't a huge success.
One thing they've been doing in their latest hardware designs is supplying two chips that are used in different circumstances. Surfing the web? Use the low power GPU. Playing a game? Switch to the high power GPU. Need to detect orientation? Use the low power accelerometer. Need accurate movement information? Use the high power accelerometer.
They could conceivably do this with their laptops. Ship an Intel co-processor for running things like Photoshop that haven't been ported, and switch it off when you're only running ARM64-only applications for better battery life. It would raise manufacturing costs, but it would ease the transition and Apple might be willing to take the hit on it for that reason. And they just added a feature to point out applications that hog battery to the end user last year. They are making this visible for a reason.
Aside from their computer lineup, the other piece of the puzzle is Apple TV. They've already got the makings of a very successful games console. They have a set-top box running iOS, CPUs and GPUs that can handle good quality games, dedicated controllers, a large games library, and an online distribution channel. Their current hardware is underpowered, but drop an iPad Air 2's internals into an Apple TV box and they'd have a very successful console.
My phrase "near absolute" in context to the rest of my writings could be interpreted in many different ways.
No, there's only one meaning: not quite, but almost, absolute. Now it's debatable exactly how near you have to be to qualify as "near absolute", but TubeSteak did a good job of pointing out that SCOTUS has several large failings in this area, which is enough to demonstrate that it is not near absolute.
The fact that you are still stuck on debating the semantics of my original post demonstrates you have nothing of actual value to contribute to the conversation.
You said something untrue and dumb. You are repeatedly insulting and dismissing people who point that out. The people who are pointing out your mistake are signal, you are noise. Learn to ignore your ego and admit when you are wrong and maybe you won't drag discussions into the sewer so much.
Your response demonstrates that you failed to read and understand my points.
No, he rightly took issue with your description of SCOTUS' interpretation of free speech as "near absolute", which simply isn't true. Your reply now is defending the much milder, different claim that free speech in the USA is better than in the UK. That may be so, but that doesn't make SCTOUS' interpretation of free speech "near absolute" by any means. This is the country that invented the concepts of a piece of code being a munition and a prime number being property, remember.
All they've done is double the PPI of the existing displays exactly. This is going to be like the transition from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4 - everything will have the same physical dimensions, but applications that support retina displays will look sharper.
I'm sure if you want to use your screen as something that's quadruple the logical size you'll be able to, but this is intended to be a visual quality upgrade, not a real estate upgrade. What you'll get by default will simply be a clearer version of what you already have with existing 27" displays.
There's a particular kind of feminist known as a TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) who see trans women as men who are pretending to be women so they can rape women. They put massive amounts of effort into uncovering and harassing trans women, outing them to employers and schools, etc. Drag queens aren't trans women, but if I had to lay money on a responsible party, my best guess would be a TERF.
If I post photo X as a blogger user, it should be up to me to decide if I want to take it down or not, not Google
Not if you aren't the copyright holder, don't have a license to publish copies from the copyright holder, and Google receives a valid DMCA request.
Sue the Blogger user if you don't like their content, not Google.
Google are only protected from copyright infringement liability if they take action when they receive DMCA requests. If they don't, then they aren't protected by the safe harbour provisions of the DMCA.
Apple will continue licensing siri technology. Yes, they'll probably look for alternatives (the same way they are looking for an alternative to the Samsung chip fabrication).
I would be amazed if they weren't already working on this. You mention chip fabrication, but bringing software development in house compared with bringing manufacturing in house is a hell of a lot easier.
This is more akin to Google Maps vs Apple Maps. They are reliant upon licensing software from a competitor for a major feature. While they've almost certainly got a long-term contract in place that lets them use the technology on their own terms, at some point that contract will expire, and they'll be beholden to whatever new contract terms are offered. With Maps, the new terms were unacceptable, the timing was awful and they were underprepared to switch. You'd better believe bringing voice recognition in house in plenty of time for switching over is a priority.
Can't women just do this on any other dating site by not having any photos on their profile and sending photos once they've been talking to a man for a while?
Why would a man join this site compared with dating sites that let him see photos and don't make him jump through silly hoops?
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of operating systems in this country. Windows XP was the operating system to run. Then Apple came out with OS X. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called Windows Vista. That's Aero UI and a sidebar. For widgets. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened - the bastards went to mobile. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling a desktop operating system with a sidebar. Aero or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to Windows 10.
Sure, we could go to Windows 9 next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, 8 worked out pretty well, and 9 is the next number after 8. So let's play it safe. Let's make a better UI and call it the Start Screen. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!
Interface Builder has not changed in any fundamental ways since it debuted in 1988 with NeXTstep.
I'd say storyboards and auto layout are pretty big changes. Before storyboards, nibs were basically just view hierarchies and whichever other objects you threw in there. With storyboards, they can contain an entire application's user interface, including the transitions between different screens.
it is NOT a screen drawing tool. It is an object instantiation and configuration tool.
It's both. It's a screen drawing tool that uses object instantiation and configuration to accomplish that.
I simply doubt that companies other than Apple have any means to collect reliable data at all.
Yes, but your doubts are based on incorrect guesses you have made about collection methods and personal experience, both of which are worthless.
Furthermore, the statistics coming out of these companies are roughly the same as the statistics published by Apple, and you don't believe them either! So basically, your attitude is "if I don't like the stats, they are wrong". Well sorry, but you not liking the stats is not a reason to disbelieve them.
Otherwise we had not that company releasing every year a statistics claiming that Microsofts web server (IIS) where the most widely used one, ah well second most widely used:)
Huh? None of the companies we are talking about publish statistics like those.
However if you have ideas how they measure iOS versions share them, I'm full ear.
No you aren't. If you were paying attention, you'd already know how they measure iOS versions. The information is right there waiting for you to read it, but you ignored it already in favour of your own incorrect guesswork.
you gave me two links, I checked one and the 'usage distribution' of iOSes made no sense at all
No, what you mean is that you didn't like the statistics. They make perfect sense.
there was no information how they gathered that statistic
All you are showing here is that you didn't bother looking. That information is available on their websites, in one case at the bottom of the page I linked to.
I get that you don't like the fact that iOS adoption of new versions is high, but can you try to understand the difference between what you would like to be the case and what actually is the case?
If three different companies all independently measuring iOS adoption all come up with roughly the same figures, the fact that you know people who haven't upgraded does not outweigh those statistics.
Now, if you aren't willing to pay attention to reliable sources and think your personal experience is more relevant than statistics sourced from millions of people, don't bother responding, as it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with you.
Staying close to the cutting edge is easy when it's an incremental change. It's a very different thing when it means throwing out all of your your code.
Adopting Swift doesn't mean throwing out all of your code. You can have Swift classes in a mostly Objective-C codebase and Objective-C classes in a mostly Swift codebase as you wish.
I could be wrong, but I really, truly don't see anything about the new language that makes me want to start rewriting those billions of lines of existing code in a new language.
Who is talking about doing that? The conversation is about Swift being the dominant language for iOS development. If most new code is written in Swift, then it's dominant regardless of the fact that there's lots of legacy Objective-C code out there.
Apple is positioning this not as a replacement for Objective-C, but as a replacement for the Ruby/Python/Perl bridges
That's not even close to accurate. Read the Apple material, watch the WWDC videos, talk to the Apple engineers. This is not a replacement for a scripting bridge, it's intended to be the first choice for typical developers.
tell me why in the world you think that Apple won't take even longer to replace a non-temporary language
Once more, the conversation is about whether or not Swift will be the dominant language, not whether it will be the only supported language. Nobody is arguing that Apple are going to remove Objective-C support tomorrow.
Preliminary third-party analysis of Swift shows that for many simple operations, it is more than an order of magnitude slower than Objective-C. Assuming their testing methodology does not prove to be invalid for some reason
It already has for the most part, where have you been? Most of the benchmarks out there were run with beta tools, had different compiler switches, or other beginner level mistakes. Yes, there are some areas where Swift is slower, but most application developers aren't going to be significantly affected by that. Letting vague aspersions about performance dictate your language choice is nuts. Most of the time it doesn't matter and when it does, which language is faster depends on the exact thing you are doing.
if you're thinking about writing a major app in Swift, you should probably think twice
This is just FUD. Most languages are fast enough for typical use cases, and if you think you are going to be in the minority affected by performance issues, you really should consider Swift rather than dismiss it because depending on your use case, it could be faster for your situation.
start with Objective-C. That will let you get started working with real-world code now
Ah yes, my running streak of conversations involving the phrase "real-world" meaning "things I don't irrationally dislike" remains unbroken.
There is absolutely nothing that is not "real-world" about Swift.
The vast majority of what you learnâ"the frameworks themselvesâ"won't change if you later decide to switch to Swift. Only the syntax changes.
If you think that the only difference between Objective-C and Swift is syntax, then you really haven't given Swift more than a passing glance. It's a very different language.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't sound like this situation at all.
Apple loaned GT more than half a billion dollars to build the plant. When GT failed to deliver, Apple stopped giving them money. When GT ran into financial difficulties, Apple offered to give them more money and defer repayments to keep them afloat.
What did you expect Apple to do? Just keep on giving them more money indefinitely without getting anything in return?
No, this is unnecessary. The malicious applications are signed as an enterprise application, so no jailbreaking is necessary. They are distributed using Apple's standard OTA distribution mechanism designed for enterprise applications and beta testing, so no alternative App Store is necessary.
What happens is that the user goes to a malicious/compromised website, this redirects them to the application, and iOS prompts the user with something like:
If I remember correctly, there's an additional prompt if it's the first time you've installed an application from that particular developer.
You still have to be dumb to install an application when you are unexpectedly prompted to, but it's a lot simpler to do than you realise.
No, of course not, because that's not what "I" means.
You interviewed five thousand people? Are you sure you have that number right? Assuming you interviewed five people a day every single working day, it would take you four years to interview that many people. That's assuming no time off, no sickness, a steady supply of candidates, etc. I know a fair number of people in HR across a few organisations, and they don't manage to interview anywhere near that many people on a regular basis.
You're comparing two numbers from different sources. The "more than 30" source is "news reports suggest". The "less than 3%" source is Virgin Galactic. It's not that Virgin Galactic can't add up, it's that they have more accurate numbers than suggestions from news reports.
I said nothing of the sort. By all means, explain it. That's a good thing. Just don't liken them to technological halfwits while you are doing it. That's unwarranted.
I've got no problem with encouraging the correct terminology, it's the fact that it implies somebody who is a bit out of date with the project's branding is a technological halfwit who doesn't understand the difference between an organisation and a software package. It's KDE themselves that mixed the two up.
It hardly seems right to liken people referring to the desktop as "KDE" as if they were people saying that they "boot their Microsoft". KDE stands for the K Desktop Environment, and it has referred to the software itself for the majority of it's existence.
You mean like what happened with KDE 4? Because that really turned out well.
Just because you're likely to have to charge it overnight, it doesn't mean that the user has to "constantly monitor its energy". This is a ridiculously biased perspective.
Yeah, but just because you have your phone on you, it doesn't mean it's as convenient to use as a watch. When I go running, I've usually got my phone strapped to my upper arm. It's difficult to see the screen or take an action compared with if I could just glance at my wrist. The watch also has a heart rate monitor.
They have undoubtedly got internal prototypes of a MacBook Air running OS X on their own processors. And their development toolchain and libraries are merging iOS and OS X more and more every year. This year, there were a couple of WWDC talks specifically about sharing code between the two platforms.
I think it's fairly obvious that the technology stack is ready both on the software and hardware side. It's just switching architectures isn't just about whether you can, it's about when the best time is to maximise chances of success. When they moved to Intel, they could supply an emulation layer to run older applications. That won't work as well this time around because it will be a lot slower. So they will need to push developers hard to port their software, and their best tool for doing that - the Mac App Store - isn't a huge success.
One thing they've been doing in their latest hardware designs is supplying two chips that are used in different circumstances. Surfing the web? Use the low power GPU. Playing a game? Switch to the high power GPU. Need to detect orientation? Use the low power accelerometer. Need accurate movement information? Use the high power accelerometer.
They could conceivably do this with their laptops. Ship an Intel co-processor for running things like Photoshop that haven't been ported, and switch it off when you're only running ARM64-only applications for better battery life. It would raise manufacturing costs, but it would ease the transition and Apple might be willing to take the hit on it for that reason. And they just added a feature to point out applications that hog battery to the end user last year. They are making this visible for a reason.
Aside from their computer lineup, the other piece of the puzzle is Apple TV. They've already got the makings of a very successful games console. They have a set-top box running iOS, CPUs and GPUs that can handle good quality games, dedicated controllers, a large games library, and an online distribution channel. Their current hardware is underpowered, but drop an iPad Air 2's internals into an Apple TV box and they'd have a very successful console.
No, there's only one meaning: not quite, but almost, absolute. Now it's debatable exactly how near you have to be to qualify as "near absolute", but TubeSteak did a good job of pointing out that SCOTUS has several large failings in this area, which is enough to demonstrate that it is not near absolute.
You said something untrue and dumb. You are repeatedly insulting and dismissing people who point that out. The people who are pointing out your mistake are signal, you are noise. Learn to ignore your ego and admit when you are wrong and maybe you won't drag discussions into the sewer so much.
No, he rightly took issue with your description of SCOTUS' interpretation of free speech as "near absolute", which simply isn't true. Your reply now is defending the much milder, different claim that free speech in the USA is better than in the UK. That may be so, but that doesn't make SCTOUS' interpretation of free speech "near absolute" by any means. This is the country that invented the concepts of a piece of code being a munition and a prime number being property, remember.
All they've done is double the PPI of the existing displays exactly. This is going to be like the transition from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4 - everything will have the same physical dimensions, but applications that support retina displays will look sharper.
I'm sure if you want to use your screen as something that's quadruple the logical size you'll be able to, but this is intended to be a visual quality upgrade, not a real estate upgrade. What you'll get by default will simply be a clearer version of what you already have with existing 27" displays.
There's a particular kind of feminist known as a TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) who see trans women as men who are pretending to be women so they can rape women. They put massive amounts of effort into uncovering and harassing trans women, outing them to employers and schools, etc. Drag queens aren't trans women, but if I had to lay money on a responsible party, my best guess would be a TERF.
Not if you aren't the copyright holder, don't have a license to publish copies from the copyright holder, and Google receives a valid DMCA request.
Google are only protected from copyright infringement liability if they take action when they receive DMCA requests. If they don't, then they aren't protected by the safe harbour provisions of the DMCA.
I would be amazed if they weren't already working on this. You mention chip fabrication, but bringing software development in house compared with bringing manufacturing in house is a hell of a lot easier.
This is more akin to Google Maps vs Apple Maps. They are reliant upon licensing software from a competitor for a major feature. While they've almost certainly got a long-term contract in place that lets them use the technology on their own terms, at some point that contract will expire, and they'll be beholden to whatever new contract terms are offered. With Maps, the new terms were unacceptable, the timing was awful and they were underprepared to switch. You'd better believe bringing voice recognition in house in plenty of time for switching over is a priority.
Can't women just do this on any other dating site by not having any photos on their profile and sending photos once they've been talking to a man for a while?
Why would a man join this site compared with dating sites that let him see photos and don't make him jump through silly hoops?
Yosemite, which is the version that Apple are just about to release, runs on plenty of Macs released in 2007. The same goes for the current version.
Fuck everything, we're doing Windows 10.
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of operating systems in this country. Windows XP was the operating system to run. Then Apple came out with OS X. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called Windows Vista. That's Aero UI and a sidebar. For widgets. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened - the bastards went to mobile. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling a desktop operating system with a sidebar. Aero or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to Windows 10.
Sure, we could go to Windows 9 next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, 8 worked out pretty well, and 9 is the next number after 8. So let's play it safe. Let's make a better UI and call it the Start Screen. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!
Not reading the sources I provided is impolite. I haven't been "ranting nonsense", I've been pointing out how and why you are wrong.
I linked to these. You didn't read them.
I'd say storyboards and auto layout are pretty big changes. Before storyboards, nibs were basically just view hierarchies and whichever other objects you threw in there. With storyboards, they can contain an entire application's user interface, including the transitions between different screens.
It's both. It's a screen drawing tool that uses object instantiation and configuration to accomplish that.
Yes, but your doubts are based on incorrect guesses you have made about collection methods and personal experience, both of which are worthless.
Furthermore, the statistics coming out of these companies are roughly the same as the statistics published by Apple, and you don't believe them either! So basically, your attitude is "if I don't like the stats, they are wrong". Well sorry, but you not liking the stats is not a reason to disbelieve them.
Huh? None of the companies we are talking about publish statistics like those.
No you aren't. If you were paying attention, you'd already know how they measure iOS versions. The information is right there waiting for you to read it, but you ignored it already in favour of your own incorrect guesswork.
No, what you mean is that you didn't like the statistics. They make perfect sense.
All you are showing here is that you didn't bother looking. That information is available on their websites, in one case at the bottom of the page I linked to.
I get that you don't like the fact that iOS adoption of new versions is high, but can you try to understand the difference between what you would like to be the case and what actually is the case?
If three different companies all independently measuring iOS adoption all come up with roughly the same figures, the fact that you know people who haven't upgraded does not outweigh those statistics.
Now, if you aren't willing to pay attention to reliable sources and think your personal experience is more relevant than statistics sourced from millions of people, don't bother responding, as it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with you.
Adopting Swift doesn't mean throwing out all of your code. You can have Swift classes in a mostly Objective-C codebase and Objective-C classes in a mostly Swift codebase as you wish.
Who is talking about doing that? The conversation is about Swift being the dominant language for iOS development. If most new code is written in Swift, then it's dominant regardless of the fact that there's lots of legacy Objective-C code out there.
That's not even close to accurate. Read the Apple material, watch the WWDC videos, talk to the Apple engineers. This is not a replacement for a scripting bridge, it's intended to be the first choice for typical developers.
Once more, the conversation is about whether or not Swift will be the dominant language, not whether it will be the only supported language. Nobody is arguing that Apple are going to remove Objective-C support tomorrow.
It already has for the most part, where have you been? Most of the benchmarks out there were run with beta tools, had different compiler switches, or other beginner level mistakes. Yes, there are some areas where Swift is slower, but most application developers aren't going to be significantly affected by that. Letting vague aspersions about performance dictate your language choice is nuts. Most of the time it doesn't matter and when it does, which language is faster depends on the exact thing you are doing.
This is just FUD. Most languages are fast enough for typical use cases, and if you think you are going to be in the minority affected by performance issues, you really should consider Swift rather than dismiss it because depending on your use case, it could be faster for your situation.
Ah yes, my running streak of conversations involving the phrase "real-world" meaning "things I don't irrationally dislike" remains unbroken.
There is absolutely nothing that is not "real-world" about Swift.
If you think that the only difference between Objective-C and Swift is syntax, then you really haven't given Swift more than a passing glance. It's a very different language.