I honestly don't know why people publish this stuff. Now, thanks to the press, there will be a bump in MSFT prices, and the hedge fund manager is laughing all the way to the bank.
evil is not limited to torture, stealing food, poisoning, etc. Apple does, however, torture people with their shennanigans (e.g. you're not holding it correctly), steals intellectual property, and poisons the english language (e.g. what "app store" means). The faults with our legal system does not lie with Apple, but they are definitely in the forefront where all of the twisting and wiglling is occuring.
Honestly, an IP address for every bulb?!! Retards. What's next? An IP address for every piece of toast? But ignore the toaster. Besides, imagine the potential for mischief (accidental or intentional).
After taking a massive dump onto their supply chain (Samsung), Apple has declared that Intel is their new chip maker of choice. Spin. Spin. Spin. Go the revisionist Apple PR people. Spin. Spin. Spin.
Ugh. Where to start? Here's just the tip of the iceberg: 1. rectangular electronic devices with/without rounded corners 2, icons: either in rows & columns or all over the place 3. cell phones 4. devices with touch screens 5. multi-touch 6. pinch to zoom and perhaps the biggest: 7. thinking they invented everything
Protected? What about the poor guy that was "lying on his family-room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises" because his neighbor was sending kiddie porn and using his open WiFi to do it.
I would rather have a slim Ubuntu on my phone than have Android on my x86 box/slate/tablet/whatever. There are plenty of good operating systems out there and I would rather not have Google's also-ran, closed-source OS in front of me.
I think the question is academic. Should you give the IT department access to a server that they should disconnect from the network? It just doesn't matter.
Besides, does the "envisaged" server and apps (CalDAV, BSD, and OpenLDAP) comply with HIPAA or any other rules/laws/IT policies at this hospital? Are the iPhone's device security policies persistent? What else aren't you telling the IT people?
It's still a hospital. It still needs to abide by whatever laws & rules that apply to hospitals. Shame on the powers-that-be in the "academic environments" that eschew laws & policies that protect patients.
Google has meddled in open-source projects (i.e. Android) in ways that are surprising: 1. Closed source 3.0 (at least for now) 2. Google has filed cease and desist against CyanogenMod
Either it's open or it isn't. If 800lb gorillas can just walk over open source projects at will, aren't they all at risk?
Of course it's premature. What rule are they objecting to? It doesn't exist yet. Sheesh! Verizon should have been penalized for filing a frivolous suit.
So, is BP is trying to implement the "I lost my laptop" excuse to keep from paying all of those claims?
What I want to know is: why do people store all of this information on individual laptops? Things like this have happened so many times before. When will those pinheads learn?
When are designers going to get it into their heads that touch displays make terrible keyboards!!! I will gladly keep my rigid keyboard in lieu of the roll-up display.
Besides, I saw sketches of something similar years ago. This isn't new.
Microsoft did not have total control of the PC marketplace (after all, they don't make PCs). They also did not have control over what apps could run on the Windows platform---they just refused to remove parts of the Windows platform.
Apple, however, has total control over the iPhone platform. They sell the hardware, software, and control what apps are available. This is an obvious monopoly of a fairly popular platform (at the end of FY2010, 73.5 million iPhones had been sold).
I really don't care about the specific app. I just want to know why Apple should remove apps just because they are offensive. I can understand if an app were to be removed because it is illegal (and only removed from those areas where it is illegal). I cannot understand why Apple should remove apps just because they are offensive.
Censorship is wrong, whatever the reason. Apple harms all developers and users by doing this.
Tuition is expensive because US colleges are extremely greedy and everyone wants a "College Degree". Few people (other than students) complain when tuition is hiked every year. Regardless, tuition for technical degrees tends to be more expensive than other degrees at a given institution because most technical curricula require more credits for the degree. However, expensive tuition doesn't stop non-technical degree seekers. Of course, many of these non-technical degree seekers will eventually command salaries in excess of their technical counterparts once they have worked in their respective fields for a while. The real shame is the cost of advanced degrees. Technical degree seekers with advanced degrees really do not get rewarded for the extra time spent in school and doing research. So, why bother?
The evolution/intelligent design "debate" in the US, as you allude to, is a fine example of the "whatever" I mentioned. It's truly sad when US legislators insist on cramming their pet theories into laws mandating their acknowledgement. What's next? An American political reform movement that wants to advance its pro-phlogiston theories?
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly don't know why people publish this stuff.
Now, thanks to the press, there will be a bump in MSFT prices, and the hedge fund manager is laughing all the way to the bank.
This just proves that you can make a dish smarter.
Let me know when they can actually make my smartphone smarter.
evil is not limited to torture, stealing food, poisoning, etc.
Apple does, however, torture people with their shennanigans (e.g. you're not holding it correctly), steals intellectual property, and poisons the english language (e.g. what "app store" means).
The faults with our legal system does not lie with Apple, but they are definitely in the forefront where all of the twisting and wiglling is occuring.
So, maybe it's not just the end of our world, but Saturn as well?
Honestly, an IP address for every bulb?!! Retards.
What's next? An IP address for every piece of toast? But ignore the toaster.
Besides, imagine the potential for mischief (accidental or intentional).
After taking a massive dump onto their supply chain (Samsung), Apple has declared that Intel is their new chip maker of choice.
Spin. Spin. Spin. Go the revisionist Apple PR people. Spin. Spin. Spin.
Ugh. Where to start?
Here's just the tip of the iceberg:
1. rectangular electronic devices with/without rounded corners
2, icons: either in rows & columns or all over the place
3. cell phones
4. devices with touch screens
5. multi-touch
6. pinch to zoom
and perhaps the biggest:
7. thinking they invented everything
Engadget has an interesting article that covers some of this: http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/
And one other interesting article: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
I thought that the .NET Micro Framework (the platform that the SPOT watch was based) is currently open source. At least, you can port it to the platform of your choice. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=16fa5d31-a583-4c0d-af74-f4d5e235d5bc
Protected? What about the poor guy that was "lying on his family-room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises" because his neighbor was sending kiddie porn and using his open WiFi to do it.
http://o.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014867387_wifi25.html
The EFF doesn't know what it's talking about here.
If the aliens conquer us, we use whatever they want.
If we conquer them, we force them to use whatever we want.
How long until they sue someone.
Who haven't they sued yet?
I would rather have a slim Ubuntu on my phone than have Android on my x86 box/slate/tablet/whatever.
There are plenty of good operating systems out there and I would rather not have Google's also-ran, closed-source OS in front of me.
When I read about things like this, the picture in my mind is simply jackbooted thugs trampling over the constitution.
WTF? Are government agencies trying to solve the energy crisis by harnessing the energy of our founding fathers spinning in their graves?
How will this prevent identity theft? Seems to me that it will make it potentially easier to steal someone's identity.
I think the question is academic. Should you give the IT department access to a server that they should disconnect from the network?
It just doesn't matter.
Besides, does the "envisaged" server and apps (CalDAV, BSD, and OpenLDAP) comply with HIPAA or any other rules/laws/IT policies at this hospital? Are the iPhone's device security policies persistent? What else aren't you telling the IT people?
It's still a hospital. It still needs to abide by whatever laws & rules that apply to hospitals.
Shame on the powers-that-be in the "academic environments" that eschew laws & policies that protect patients.
Google has meddled in open-source projects (i.e. Android) in ways that are surprising:
1. Closed source 3.0 (at least for now)
2. Google has filed cease and desist against CyanogenMod
Either it's open or it isn't. If 800lb gorillas can just walk over open source projects at will, aren't they all at risk?
Of course it's premature. What rule are they objecting to? It doesn't exist yet.
Sheesh! Verizon should have been penalized for filing a frivolous suit.
So, is BP is trying to implement the "I lost my laptop" excuse to keep from paying all of those claims?
What I want to know is: why do people store all of this information on individual laptops?
Things like this have happened so many times before. When will those pinheads learn?
What you say may have some truth but I seriously doubt that Orkin Design had the inputting of Chinese characters in mind when designing this.
When are designers going to get it into their heads that touch displays make terrible keyboards!!!
I will gladly keep my rigid keyboard in lieu of the roll-up display.
Besides, I saw sketches of something similar years ago. This isn't new.
Microsoft did not have total control of the PC marketplace (after all, they don't make PCs). They also did not have control over what apps could run on the Windows platform---they just refused to remove parts of the Windows platform.
Apple, however, has total control over the iPhone platform. They sell the hardware, software, and control what apps are available. This is an obvious monopoly of a fairly popular platform (at the end of FY2010, 73.5 million iPhones had been sold).
Then why doesn't the DOJ have a problem with this? They wanted to crucify Microsoft for less.
I really don't care about the specific app. I just want to know why Apple should remove apps just because they are offensive. I can understand if an app were to be removed because it is illegal (and only removed from those areas where it is illegal). I cannot understand why Apple should remove apps just because they are offensive.
Censorship is wrong, whatever the reason. Apple harms all developers and users by doing this.
I don't exactly get what your point is.
Tuition is expensive because US colleges are extremely greedy and everyone wants a "College Degree". Few people (other than students) complain when tuition is hiked every year. Regardless, tuition for technical degrees tends to be more expensive than other degrees at a given institution because most technical curricula require more credits for the degree. However, expensive tuition doesn't stop non-technical degree seekers. Of course, many of these non-technical degree seekers will eventually command salaries in excess of their technical counterparts once they have worked in their respective fields for a while. The real shame is the cost of advanced degrees. Technical degree seekers with advanced degrees really do not get rewarded for the extra time spent in school and doing research. So, why bother?
The evolution/intelligent design "debate" in the US, as you allude to, is a fine example of the "whatever" I mentioned. It's truly sad when US legislators insist on cramming their pet theories into laws mandating their acknowledgement. What's next? An American political reform movement that wants to advance its pro-phlogiston theories?