The ad network detailed in the two PDFs, dated May and December of last year, linked by dszd0g in the message directly above the first one you replied to in this thread.
Full disclosure: I've got a bit of a beef with Amazon right now so I'm really no Amazon supporter.
Yes you can and no he's not. I'll leave figuring out why your wrong as an exercise for the reader; it shouldn't take anyone with a room-temp-or-higher IQ more than a few seconds.
Steve Jobs was a genius. He could market like none other and he really did have his finger on the pulse of what the Apple experience should be IMO. Sadly, his vision of the Apple experience wasn't what I wanted until shortly before his death; I actually began liking what he was doing around 2010 (not that he was doing anything different, more that what I wanted had changed to better align with that) and I've been swaying farther and farther away from Apple ever since he passed.
Apple has driven off a cliff, my friend. Just because it's a long way to the bottom doesn't mean they're not falling or they'll never splatter on the ground below. You don't see it because, from your perspective, they're still hovering in the air cartoon-style, but you surely must recognize the lack of ground beneath them and understand what that means; they haven't built up too much momentum yet to be able to reverse course, but Cook seems to be trying as hard as he can to destroy the Apple experience.
Apple was far from perfect under Jobs, but you could tell they were at least trying to provide the best possible experience. It really doesn't seem like they're even trying anymore.
Their privacy policy is precisely why I'm surprised they're not selling data.
Then again, then sell tracking data via their ad network, and they sell the ability to sell to their customers (at a 30% tax)... so Cooks' statement is, in reality, patently false. If we, Apple's users, did not exist, they would find themselves unable to sell ads or access to their digital storefronts; we are what they're selling there.
Actually, the law says otherwise. Whether or not my camera will still be there when I go back, or whether it's creepy or not, are completely different issues. Plenty of private parties have cameras sitting in locations where they're not physically present; ever seen a news channel traffic cam? That's just one example, there are many more.
Are there limits on the retention of photos and video I shoot in a public space?
This is no different.
You can't tout the argument that one should have no expectation of privacy in a public space (which is the only justification I ever hear for these cameras) while simultaneously shouting "MUH PRIVACIES!" The world doesn't work like that, it's one or the other and you have to choose.
Indeed, we dare not put a price on the value of a human life. Freedom and liberty, however, are worth more; they cost quite a large number of human lives.
Indeed, fewer people to bribe means they can demand a higher price for their corruption.
When you can offer any store clerk $20 you can easily find one (out of millions) who'll take it. The price goes way up when only a handful of people have access; but you know this to be true, so you approach them with a number with at least a couple of commas in it.
Think about it, we're talking the kind of person who willingly took a job policing encryption keys "to help bad guys get caught". Who here actually believes they wouldn't take 20 years salary to out someone accused of $random_bad_thing by a government official with an axe to grind and a $1mil check?
And the kicker is that person could be their ex, the guy who cut them off on the freeway that morning, or their daughter's new boyfriend; and $random_bad_thing could be completely fabricated.
But yes, the archives would be protected and access would be limited and audited. Surely someone making $50k/yr would never take 20 years salary in exchange for breaking the rules; after all, it takes so much longer than 20 years to find a new job.
I did read the question wrong initially (and answered it before the rest of the lot, to boot), just as you did. It wasn't until I came back and read some of the other answers that I realized my mistake.
Like you, I don't manage permissions that closely; for similar reasons, and with the additional note that I don't do anything all that interesting on my phone in the first place.
I don't allow apps permissions that would grant them the content of my messages (unless they're messaging apps, of course) or phone calls, and the apps that do get those permissions I would expect to constantly see accessing them. If an app has access to speaker and microphone, location services on my device are irrelevant if someone else nearby has location services turned on and is broadcasting an ultrasonic beacon; the app vendor will know where they are and that I was near them. That's just one of many reasons I don't let the Facebook app live on my phone (just as an example of an app that does this).
I really don't get why people worry so much about this, to be honest. At least, I don't get why they worry about it on their phones, when their computers don't even give them that information. Sure, there are applications that can track data and resource access on a PC -- just as there are on Android (if you're rooted -- and no, I don't know the name of one off-hand, I haven't rooted a phone in several years) -- but not on iOS, of course.
That's not a stab at iOS, either. It works perfectly well for what the people who choose to use it (which includes me, just not my phone) wish to do with it.
A) Applications do exist that require performance you can only get from bare metal
B) Fields do exist that require that you don't put certain data in the hands of a 3rd party (think medical and legal, just for starters)
C) It's not uncommon for a business to wish to continue operations when their internet connection is down.
D) As your container host provider, I can see all of your dirty little secrets. That new service you're trying to bring to market with a team of 5? The one that's 50% done? The one you've handed me all of the current source code to? I've got a team of 50 working on getting it to market a year ahead of you and a big enough war chest to bankrupt you if you sue. Aren't you glad you used containers?
Okay, so, the answer to my question is really "other peoples' servers", which makes the answer to your question "the people who run the servers you host your containers on."
Did you honestly think all of that happened without servers?
Slashdot Mirror
The ad network detailed in the two PDFs, dated May and December of last year, linked by dszd0g in the message directly above the first one you replied to in this thread.
Full disclosure: I've got a bit of a beef with Amazon right now so I'm really no Amazon supporter.
Yes you can and no he's not. I'll leave figuring out why your wrong as an exercise for the reader; it shouldn't take anyone with a room-temp-or-higher IQ more than a few seconds.
Steve Jobs was a genius. He could market like none other and he really did have his finger on the pulse of what the Apple experience should be IMO. Sadly, his vision of the Apple experience wasn't what I wanted until shortly before his death; I actually began liking what he was doing around 2010 (not that he was doing anything different, more that what I wanted had changed to better align with that) and I've been swaying farther and farther away from Apple ever since he passed.
I'm guessing the first step you took was to not buy an iPhone X.
Apple has driven off a cliff, my friend. Just because it's a long way to the bottom doesn't mean they're not falling or they'll never splatter on the ground below. You don't see it because, from your perspective, they're still hovering in the air cartoon-style, but you surely must recognize the lack of ground beneath them and understand what that means; they haven't built up too much momentum yet to be able to reverse course, but Cook seems to be trying as hard as he can to destroy the Apple experience.
Apple was far from perfect under Jobs, but you could tell they were at least trying to provide the best possible experience. It really doesn't seem like they're even trying anymore.
Then again, they sell tracking data via their ad network... [typo corrected]
... which is data about its users.
Asking the important questions as usual. I kind of want to know, now, too...
Of course!
I'll ignore the remark about property owner because we're talking about public spaces. From there, that's not as true as you might think.
Their privacy policy is precisely why I'm surprised they're not selling data.
Then again, then sell tracking data via their ad network, and they sell the ability to sell to their customers (at a 30% tax)... so Cooks' statement is, in reality, patently false. If we, Apple's users, did not exist, they would find themselves unable to sell ads or access to their digital storefronts; we are what they're selling there.
I'd be more concerned if his dildos [sic, btw] had headphone jacks. Nobody should want to hear that shit.
So, you're saying Tim Cook just saved Apple?
... for now.
As an Apple user, I'm honestly surprised by this and don't expect it to continue for much longer.
Too many people just don't get this. Very well stated.
Actually, the law says otherwise. Whether or not my camera will still be there when I go back, or whether it's creepy or not, are completely different issues. Plenty of private parties have cameras sitting in locations where they're not physically present; ever seen a news channel traffic cam? That's just one example, there are many more.
I can also shoot from anywhere I'm allowed to access. It's really no different.
Funny, the camera I have aimed down my street, which is in a public place, hasn't been stolen yet.
Are there limits on the retention of photos and video I shoot in a public space?
This is no different.
You can't tout the argument that one should have no expectation of privacy in a public space (which is the only justification I ever hear for these cameras) while simultaneously shouting "MUH PRIVACIES!" The world doesn't work like that, it's one or the other and you have to choose.
Indeed, we dare not put a price on the value of a human life. Freedom and liberty, however, are worth more; they cost quite a large number of human lives.
Soon followed by the Retroactive Probe Equality Act, because the APE Act only applied to future victims.
Indeed, fewer people to bribe means they can demand a higher price for their corruption.
When you can offer any store clerk $20 you can easily find one (out of millions) who'll take it. The price goes way up when only a handful of people have access; but you know this to be true, so you approach them with a number with at least a couple of commas in it.
Think about it, we're talking the kind of person who willingly took a job policing encryption keys "to help bad guys get caught". Who here actually believes they wouldn't take 20 years salary to out someone accused of $random_bad_thing by a government official with an axe to grind and a $1mil check?
And the kicker is that person could be their ex, the guy who cut them off on the freeway that morning, or their daughter's new boyfriend; and $random_bad_thing could be completely fabricated.
But yes, the archives would be protected and access would be limited and audited. Surely someone making $50k/yr would never take 20 years salary in exchange for breaking the rules; after all, it takes so much longer than 20 years to find a new job.
I did read the question wrong initially (and answered it before the rest of the lot, to boot), just as you did. It wasn't until I came back and read some of the other answers that I realized my mistake.
Like you, I don't manage permissions that closely; for similar reasons, and with the additional note that I don't do anything all that interesting on my phone in the first place.
I don't allow apps permissions that would grant them the content of my messages (unless they're messaging apps, of course) or phone calls, and the apps that do get those permissions I would expect to constantly see accessing them. If an app has access to speaker and microphone, location services on my device are irrelevant if someone else nearby has location services turned on and is broadcasting an ultrasonic beacon; the app vendor will know where they are and that I was near them. That's just one of many reasons I don't let the Facebook app live on my phone (just as an example of an app that does this).
I really don't get why people worry so much about this, to be honest. At least, I don't get why they worry about it on their phones, when their computers don't even give them that information. Sure, there are applications that can track data and resource access on a PC -- just as there are on Android (if you're rooted -- and no, I don't know the name of one off-hand, I haven't rooted a phone in several years) -- but not on iOS, of course.
That's not a stab at iOS, either. It works perfectly well for what the people who choose to use it (which includes me, just not my phone) wish to do with it.
Oh and yes, since you really wanted me to say it... Serverless app do still have servers behind them.
Oh, let me think...
A) Applications do exist that require performance you can only get from bare metal
B) Fields do exist that require that you don't put certain data in the hands of a 3rd party (think medical and legal, just for starters)
C) It's not uncommon for a business to wish to continue operations when their internet connection is down.
D) As your container host provider, I can see all of your dirty little secrets. That new service you're trying to bring to market with a team of 5? The one that's 50% done? The one you've handed me all of the current source code to? I've got a team of 50 working on getting it to market a year ahead of you and a big enough war chest to bankrupt you if you sue. Aren't you glad you used containers?
Need I continue?
Okay, so, the answer to my question is really "other peoples' servers", which makes the answer to your question "the people who run the servers you host your containers on."
Did you honestly think all of that happened without servers?