Go look how many times this claim has been made, how many times it has been refuted (including a good refutation in the VERY STORY you post here), and then tell me that the pro-RFRA folks are being intellectual honest.
Never mind, by even parroting this claim you have proven you have not trouble with lying at all.
No. The Pro-RFRA people, including Gov. Pence, are the ones who are being dishonest.
The Indiana Law is NOT "The same as what Obama Signed". Not even close. For one thing, the Federal RFRA had Bipartisan support. The Indiana RFRA was voted STRICTLY on Party Lines (guess which Party?). But the pro-RFRA crowd never mentions THAT, do they? they just keep talking about a Law that isn't THIS law.
Just like Mike Pence going on This Week yesterday and lying his ASS off REPEATEDLY by stating that this was ONLY restricting actions by the GOVERNMENT. That is only true if you count COURT ORDERS as an "Action by the Government". If you read the analysis of the Federal RFRA and Indiana RFRA linked above, you'll see that I am correct.
Or maybe you're referring to the lead theocratic, Bill Clinton, who signed a federal RFRA law back in 1993?
Ya know; it's time this particular rubric is laid to rest.
The Indiana RFRA (IRIFRA) is NOT, as Gov. Pence would have you believe, simply a Copypasta of the Federal RFRA; and as usual, the Devil's in the Details. Here's a couple of differences:
1. The Federal RFRA Restricts its application to suits involving the Government or its employees and agents. The IRFRA specifically states that the Government does NOT have to be a Party to the Action; and furthermore, that the Government may INTERVENE in any action on the RFRA issues.
2. The Federal RFRA does NOT preclude lawsuits regarding RFRA issues; the IRFRA specifically states that the RFRA can be used as an "Affirmative Defense" in lawsuits. An "Affirmative Defense" is just one step from immunitization. For example, a Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense. It does NOT hinge on the Merits of the case; but rather what amounts to a Jurisdictional issue.
Those two things alone make the IRFRA nothing like the Federal RFRA.
And as proof of the fact that this is nothing more, and nothing less, than an end-run against the LGBT community, you need look no farther than the picture of Gov. Pence at the PRIVATE (that is, by INVITATION-ONLY) signing of the IRFRA Bill into Law. The people who are standing CLOSEST to Pence (again, no accident) for the Photo-Op, just HAPPEN to be the same 3 or 4 people who have been the MOST vocal opponents to Gay Marriage in the State. By the way, the Press (let alone the Public) wasn't invited.
BTW, I live in Indiana, where a LOT more information regarding this has been presented than leaks out into the National/International news.
You don't have Class Actions in the UK? How telling...
It's not so simple. The following is an amateur explanation of how things work. Perhaps someone can explain it better?
The UK has loser pays on legal fees. Once one person wins a lawsuit on a common basis, others can expect to win also. If the company lost those cases in court (as would now be very likely), the company would be liable for both sides' legal bills in lots of individual cases. So, after losing one representative case in what would be class action in the USA, a defendant has a very strong incentive to settle the others. People who would be in a class in the USA can band together to fund the initial representative case.
Thanks for the explanation, that does help.
But I still don't like the "Loser Pays" rule, when there is a big difference between the resources of an individual trying to sue a well-heeled company (let alone the government) with the sheer legal might to run roughshod over almost any arguments or experts the lowly individual might bring to the bar. But that's a discussion for another time.
This problem was caused by a bug in Safari that ignored the no tracking setting and accepted and returned the cookies. This court case is just absurd. The target should be Apple not Google.
People seem to forget a lot of the time that when you bring a civil suit you need to show at least two things: evidence that the party you're suing did wrong and that you suffered in some way as a result which allows you to seek relief through the courts. I think its going to be hard for anyone to show how Google's actions hurt them.
You are wrong. At least in the U.S.
Doing wrong = Liability.
Harm to the Plaintiff = Damages.
They aren't the same. But having said that, the Defendants (Respondents) will likely move for either Summary Judgment or a "Directed Verdict" if the Plaintiff cannot allege actual harm.
On what grounds could one sue? I imagine it would be quite hard to prove real damages with a price-tag attached.
Also, we don't have class-action lawsuits in the UK.
Perhaps "Breach of Contract"? I am SURE, even without looking, that, buried deep down on Google's site, is some document that starts "By using this service, you agree to the following terms and conditions..."
You don't have Class Actions in the UK? How telling...
If people opted out and were still tracked, that's fair game for suing.
Now what's the damages? A government trying to duplicate Chrome + Google search engine could not do so, and you'd probably have been taxed a hundred pounds per taxpayer in a failed attempt to do so.
So I'd offer to settle to keep allowing you to use Chrome and Google for free, or get the hell off and go to IE and Bing.
And to answer itzly's comment below, NO ONE (that expects to walk away) is going to be landing a passenger airliner in "terrain"
Depends on what you call "terrain". Not so long ago, US 1549 made a successful landing in Hudson River. Would you want the computer to prevent that ? If not, how are you going to stop a suicidal pilot to hit a bridge support instead ?
The point is that with current state of technology, it's better to trust the judgement of an experienced pilot than a computer system. Look at Turkish Airlines 1951 for instance. The computer messed up and landed the plane a mile north of the runway due to faulty radio altimeter, killing 9 people on board. Mechanical problems are still more common than suicidal pilots.
Both good points. I'm not sure we are at the point in autopilot design that could have fully "understood" US1549's dilemma, other than the fact that I think there were several warning alarms going off in the cockpit (like engine failure, stall warning, and icing warning) PRIOR to when the Pilot would have "requested" the autopilot to disengage. I think that even now, that autopilot software could be written to allow manual control in that situation, without exposing too many cases where a rogue Pilot could set-up those kinds of conditions PRIOR to disengaging the autopilot.
And, OTOH, I very much doubt that, other than the low-altitude and proximity-alarms, that there was much that the Germanwing's avionics was upset about even seconds before the co-Pilot screwed the pooch... Maybe I'm wrong; but I still think that even a fairly primitive system could tell the difference between a pilot attempting to regain control of an aircraft that was in distress from a pilot that was simply trying to drive into a mountain.... Or a skyscraper.
As for the Turkish Airlines flight, I DO think that GPS and inertial-guidance-assisted positioning, coupled with on-board mapping, even of the "Car Navigation Computer" quality, could have prevented THAT tragedy. IOW, the computer should have had some "redundancy" in its position-determination software. That one COULD have been avoided without having to graft a homing-pigeon-brain into the autopilot!
If an owner whose car is fitted with the On-Star system can call them up to unlock his door should he lock himself out, why not put similar system in big planes?
Because driving your car into a skyscraper only kills you.
Seems like the easiest thing in this situation is to have the ability for someone on the ground (flight control, the airline, etc.) to be able to override any locks on the cockpit and open the door. Just put some sort of satellite communication device outside, near the door of the cabin.
This would be available in a situation like the Germanwings flight, or if the pilot became legitimately incapacitated.
And then, a tech-savvy Terrorist Group hacks the comm. protocol and unlocks the door for the awaiting hijackers already on the plane...
Nearly every solution has a potential for misuse, unfortunately.
Feel free to put on the Tin Foil Hat, but something has been bugging me about this whole thing.
It seems to me that one of the many primary directives of a flight control system would be prevent controlled flight into terrain. Knowing where you are, where you are pointed and what's in front of you terrain wise is pretty stand stuff. Airbus planes already actively prevent pilots from doing stupid stuff that could overstress the aircraft. So how was this guy able to "program" a decent into a fucking mountain range? Makes no sense. Either something is off, or someone needs to file one hell of bug report or enhancement request.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
And to answer itzly's comment below, NO ONE (that expects to walk away) is going to be landing a passenger airliner in "terrain". You'd might as well crash it neatly into the side of a mountain, because your death will be more certain and quicker.
However, I think that autopilots are now getting "smart" enough that an overarching "rule" could be created to take control of the aircraft FROM THE PILOT if the present flight trajectory places the plane (and its meatsack cargo) in imminent danger, and simultaneously send a distress message, including the aircraft's position, to a satellite. The AutoPilot would then attempt to (safely) return the plane to its pre-programmed flight-path (of course obeying things like the ICARS system). Details of how the system could be "convinced" to return the plane to in-cockpit control would have to be worked-out, and the actual equipment would have to be substantially hardened against attack/destruction; but that might possibly avoid the "Crazy Pilot has the last word" problem.
Hobby Lobby is a recent example of businesses which are run by people with specific beliefs that have affected how they do business, Chick-Fil-A is another. Both businesses are closed on Sunday out of deference to their religious beliefs. Are you implying they should NOT be free to do that?
Entirely a different argument.
In the case of those two businesses imposing their own private "blue laws", there is absolutely NO DISCRIMINATION against a CERTAIN CLASS of the population. NO ONE can shop at those two businesses; it isn't just the "heathens" that are excluded.
In the case of the Religious Bigotry Protection Act, we have actually CODIFIED an Entanglement between Religion and Government, without even the slightest scintilla of "Overriding Public Interest" in endorsing this discriminatory behavior UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
Can't Buy Alcohol/Cigs until Age/Sell Alcohol/Cigs to those under that Age: Public Health Interest.
Can't Vote Until Age of Majority: Fits in with longstanding doctrine of many proscribed behaviors by Minors.
Don't Have to Serve Someone who Doesn't Agree with Your Religion (without having to CLEARLY POST your Religion): Where's the Public Interest?
Forcing people to do business with people in situations where they object, does NOT seem like freedom to me.
Sure it is.
Those people who are offended by having to serve persons who's private behavior does not comport with their world-view have the FREEDOM to not engage in business with the PUBLIC.
If they want to exclude certain persons, then they need to open a PRIVATE CLUB, not a PUBLIC BUSINESS.
And, isn't it odd that Conservative Republicans (who, make no mistake, are the driving-force between this regressive legislation) are always trumpeting the phrase "Less Government Regulation; Smaller Government!" and "Let the Free Market Sort It Out!", are the first to run to the Legislature to ram-through this barely-Constitutional steaming pile of Government Entanglement in Religious Matters?
Oh, and this is brought to you by the ONLY State in the U.S. that STILL has a ban on Sunday Alcohol Sales (which just got defeated YET AGAIN a few weeks ago).
I am ashamed to be a Hoosier at this point. But I gotta tell you, I wouldn't want to actually EAT the cake that was baked by a baker who didn't want to be baking it...
The possibility of all kinds of "interesting" extra-ingredients comes immediately to mind...
By the way, one of the facts that probably isn't making the National News, is that there is actually some push-back from certain Government officials. For example, the Mayor of Indianapolis has stated publicly that he does NOT want Governor Pence to sign the bill into law today. but alas, just checking a local news site, I guess the bastard did just that. Sigh.
Speaking to the quality of Apple's input devices specifically, I find the lack of key travel and mildly idiosyncratic layout on Apple's own branded keyboards uncomfortable for serious typing in exactly the same way the Surface Type-style keyboard is. I also question the ergonomics of the palmrests on its notebooks and the insistence on comically oversized touchpads as input devices.
What is "mildly idiosyncratic" about Apple's keyboard layout, that isn't echoed a dozen different ways in every other laptop? And if you're talking about on-screen keyboards, then I think there is even LESS consensus on what is the "proper" layout.
As to palmrests on notebooks, I believe they are more ergonomically-correct; but I do wish they wouldn't get as warm as they do; so we'll call that a "draw".
But I think that you're in the minority in calling Apple's trackpads "Comically-oversized". It seems to be the consensus that, as far as TrackPads go, Apple has the only one worth using.
Apple doesn't do SecureBoot, they just make their devices a PITA to maintain.
Between pentalobes, glue-fastened glass, components in hard-to-reach locations, and active hostility towards self-maintenance, Apple could claim prior art on the concept of SecureBoot.
You do realize, of course, that pretty much all of those packaging choices are not done to annoy you; but rather to achieve a design-goal, usually thinness.
And besides, on the laptops to which you are obviously referring, Apple rightly has determined that a vanishingly-small percentage of customers actually engage in DIY component-level service of their laptops.
And if you take a peek inside of "thin" laptops from other manufacturers, you will find they use the same manufacturing techniques, such as glued display assemblies. And laptops have ALWAYS put components where they fit; not where they will be the most serviceable. Get over it.
As for Pentalobe (SIPR) screws, you just have to buy a cheap hand tool, available from dozens of sources, such as Amazon. Big whoop. At one time, Torx screws were "exotic", too. And Apple isn't the only company that uses these fasteners; not by a long shot. If you were a real technician, you'd know that.
Secure boot could be a good thing if the user was allowed total control, but microsoft shows their true goal here, which is to take total control of the PC market.
I know of at least one PC hardware OEM who won't likely play that game...
And let's face it, the Apple watch is a copy of existing Samsung/LG/Pebble device (even if Apple thought it up first)
Ok, that's a ridiculous statement.
1. How can something (the Apple watch) be a "copy" of something if they thought-it-up first?
2. Each of the Smartwatches you mentioned has enough "uniqueness" to not be considered a simple "copy" of the other(s). That's like saying that all mechanical watches that have a "Calendar" function (complication?) are somehow "Copies" of whoever put the first "date" function on a watch.
Yes, when the iPhone came out, Nokia's phones could already take great pictures, send all sorts of messages, open documents, run real apps and include 3G radios.
...And look at Nokia Go... Down the Drain.
Does Tag really think that significant number of people in the luxury watch market actually use Android?
People generally will gravitate toward a peripheral product (watch) that is well-supported by the main product (phone).
And I would be willing to bet that most people that would be the demographic for a Tag Huerer watch are not running Android.
Apple seems to think that everyone should make all their devices Apple devices. That's not going to happen. "Ecosystem" is already an outdated concept. It's about playing nicely with everything now.
My BlackBerry does a better job syncing with my MacBook Pro than my iPhone does, by the way. Pretty sad.
iCloud service has a Windows Client as well.
Bounce it up to iCloud and back down. Or use something like GoodReader to transfer it directly (even peer-peer) via ftp/sftp, WebDAV, AFP, SMB, http (GoodReader has a built-in http file-server), Dropbox, Google Drive, etc.
People were saying 'it just works' about MacOS when it was, by far, the worst POS on the market (Basically anytime prior to X).
It didn't have pre-emtive multitasking or protected memory. Any app failure required a reboot, but 'it just works'.
It makes sense, when you realize they are just repeating what they were told.
Actually, the "It Just Works" (which was never official Apple marketing-speak) sort of just appeared sometime after OS X was released; but the concept was around back in the MacOS "Classic" days. But in that time period, the concept mainly referred to the ease with which things like Applications, Networking, Printing and Driver installation and configuration was possible with the Mac, relative to DOS and Windows environments at the time.
I got sick and tired of dealing with iTunes and its many failures and switched to Android. My wife still has an iDevice and regularly gripes when they change the interface, move stuff around for no reason and otherwise make the design "better".
Nothing ever changes on your Android phone because it never gets OS Updates...
Slashdot Mirror
Go look how many times this claim has been made, how many times it has been refuted (including a good refutation in the VERY STORY you post here), and then tell me that the pro-RFRA folks are being intellectual honest.
Never mind, by even parroting this claim you have proven you have not trouble with lying at all.
No. The Pro-RFRA people, including Gov. Pence, are the ones who are being dishonest.
The IRFRA differs from the Federal RFRA on several key points. This is where the "there" is.
The Indiana Law is NOT "The same as what Obama Signed". Not even close. For one thing, the Federal RFRA had Bipartisan support. The Indiana RFRA was voted STRICTLY on Party Lines (guess which Party?). But the pro-RFRA crowd never mentions THAT, do they? they just keep talking about a Law that isn't THIS law.
Just like Mike Pence going on This Week yesterday and lying his ASS off REPEATEDLY by stating that this was ONLY restricting actions by the GOVERNMENT. That is only true if you count COURT ORDERS as an "Action by the Government". If you read the analysis of the Federal RFRA and Indiana RFRA linked above, you'll see that I am correct.
You mean like the 19 other states that already have similar laws? http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Or maybe you're referring to the lead theocratic, Bill Clinton, who signed a federal RFRA law back in 1993?
Ya know; it's time this particular rubric is laid to rest.
The Indiana RFRA (IRIFRA) is NOT, as Gov. Pence would have you believe, simply a Copypasta of the Federal RFRA; and as usual, the Devil's in the Details. Here's a couple of differences:
1. The Federal RFRA Restricts its application to suits involving the Government or its employees and agents. The IRFRA specifically states that the Government does NOT have to be a Party to the Action; and furthermore, that the Government may INTERVENE in any action on the RFRA issues.
2. The Federal RFRA does NOT preclude lawsuits regarding RFRA issues; the IRFRA specifically states that the RFRA can be used as an "Affirmative Defense" in lawsuits. An "Affirmative Defense" is just one step from immunitization. For example, a Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense. It does NOT hinge on the Merits of the case; but rather what amounts to a Jurisdictional issue.
Those two things alone make the IRFRA nothing like the Federal RFRA.
And as proof of the fact that this is nothing more, and nothing less, than an end-run against the LGBT community, you need look no farther than the picture of Gov. Pence at the PRIVATE (that is, by INVITATION-ONLY) signing of the IRFRA Bill into Law. The people who are standing CLOSEST to Pence (again, no accident) for the Photo-Op, just HAPPEN to be the same 3 or 4 people who have been the MOST vocal opponents to Gay Marriage in the State. By the way, the Press (let alone the Public) wasn't invited.
BTW, I live in Indiana, where a LOT more information regarding this has been presented than leaks out into the National/International news.
It's not so simple. The following is an amateur explanation of how things work. Perhaps someone can explain it better? The UK has loser pays on legal fees. Once one person wins a lawsuit on a common basis, others can expect to win also. If the company lost those cases in court (as would now be very likely), the company would be liable for both sides' legal bills in lots of individual cases. So, after losing one representative case in what would be class action in the USA, a defendant has a very strong incentive to settle the others. People who would be in a class in the USA can band together to fund the initial representative case.
Thanks for the explanation, that does help.
But I still don't like the "Loser Pays" rule, when there is a big difference between the resources of an individual trying to sue a well-heeled company (let alone the government) with the sheer legal might to run roughshod over almost any arguments or experts the lowly individual might bring to the bar. But that's a discussion for another time.
This problem was caused by a bug in Safari that ignored the no tracking setting and accepted and returned the cookies. This court case is just absurd. The target should be Apple not Google.
Haters gotta hate, don't they?
he case relates to the anxiety and distress this intrusion upon autonomy has caused."
Autonomy? This in a nation with CCTV cameras every 10 yards or so...
I know; I thought that was funny, too.
But maybe the British Courts are swinging the pendulum the other way, now...
People seem to forget a lot of the time that when you bring a civil suit you need to show at least two things: evidence that the party you're suing did wrong and that you suffered in some way as a result which allows you to seek relief through the courts. I think its going to be hard for anyone to show how Google's actions hurt them.
You are wrong. At least in the U.S.
Doing wrong = Liability.
Harm to the Plaintiff = Damages.
They aren't the same. But having said that, the Defendants (Respondents) will likely move for either Summary Judgment or a "Directed Verdict" if the Plaintiff cannot allege actual harm.
On what grounds could one sue? I imagine it would be quite hard to prove real damages with a price-tag attached.
Also, we don't have class-action lawsuits in the UK.
Perhaps "Breach of Contract"? I am SURE, even without looking, that, buried deep down on Google's site, is some document that starts "By using this service, you agree to the following terms and conditions..."
You don't have Class Actions in the UK? How telling...
If people opted out and were still tracked, that's fair game for suing.
Now what's the damages? A government trying to duplicate Chrome + Google search engine could not do so, and you'd probably have been taxed a hundred pounds per taxpayer in a failed attempt to do so.
So I'd offer to settle to keep allowing you to use Chrome and Google for free, or get the hell off and go to IE and Bing.
Spoken like a true "Glad to be surveilled" Brit.
And to answer itzly's comment below, NO ONE (that expects to walk away) is going to be landing a passenger airliner in "terrain"
Depends on what you call "terrain". Not so long ago, US 1549 made a successful landing in Hudson River. Would you want the computer to prevent that ? If not, how are you going to stop a suicidal pilot to hit a bridge support instead ?
The point is that with current state of technology, it's better to trust the judgement of an experienced pilot than a computer system. Look at Turkish Airlines 1951 for instance. The computer messed up and landed the plane a mile north of the runway due to faulty radio altimeter, killing 9 people on board. Mechanical problems are still more common than suicidal pilots.
Both good points. I'm not sure we are at the point in autopilot design that could have fully "understood" US1549's dilemma, other than the fact that I think there were several warning alarms going off in the cockpit (like engine failure, stall warning, and icing warning) PRIOR to when the Pilot would have "requested" the autopilot to disengage. I think that even now, that autopilot software could be written to allow manual control in that situation, without exposing too many cases where a rogue Pilot could set-up those kinds of conditions PRIOR to disengaging the autopilot.
And, OTOH, I very much doubt that, other than the low-altitude and proximity-alarms, that there was much that the Germanwing's avionics was upset about even seconds before the co-Pilot screwed the pooch... Maybe I'm wrong; but I still think that even a fairly primitive system could tell the difference between a pilot attempting to regain control of an aircraft that was in distress from a pilot that was simply trying to drive into a mountain.... Or a skyscraper.
As for the Turkish Airlines flight, I DO think that GPS and inertial-guidance-assisted positioning, coupled with on-board mapping, even of the "Car Navigation Computer" quality, could have prevented THAT tragedy. IOW, the computer should have had some "redundancy" in its position-determination software. That one COULD have been avoided without having to graft a homing-pigeon-brain into the autopilot!
If an owner whose car is fitted with the On-Star system can call them up to unlock his door should he lock himself out, why not put similar system in big planes?
Because driving your car into a skyscraper only kills you.
Seems like the easiest thing in this situation is to have the ability for someone on the ground (flight control, the airline, etc.) to be able to override any locks on the cockpit and open the door. Just put some sort of satellite communication device outside, near the door of the cabin.
This would be available in a situation like the Germanwings flight, or if the pilot became legitimately incapacitated.
And then, a tech-savvy Terrorist Group hacks the comm. protocol and unlocks the door for the awaiting hijackers already on the plane...
Nearly every solution has a potential for misuse, unfortunately.
Feel free to put on the Tin Foil Hat, but something has been bugging me about this whole thing.
It seems to me that one of the many primary directives of a flight control system would be prevent controlled flight into terrain. Knowing where you are, where you are pointed and what's in front of you terrain wise is pretty stand stuff. Airbus planes already actively prevent pilots from doing stupid stuff that could overstress the aircraft. So how was this guy able to "program" a decent into a fucking mountain range? Makes no sense. Either something is off, or someone needs to file one hell of bug report or enhancement request.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
And to answer itzly's comment below, NO ONE (that expects to walk away) is going to be landing a passenger airliner in "terrain". You'd might as well crash it neatly into the side of a mountain, because your death will be more certain and quicker.
However, I think that autopilots are now getting "smart" enough that an overarching "rule" could be created to take control of the aircraft FROM THE PILOT if the present flight trajectory places the plane (and its meatsack cargo) in imminent danger, and simultaneously send a distress message, including the aircraft's position, to a satellite. The AutoPilot would then attempt to (safely) return the plane to its pre-programmed flight-path (of course obeying things like the ICARS system). Details of how the system could be "convinced" to return the plane to in-cockpit control would have to be worked-out, and the actual equipment would have to be substantially hardened against attack/destruction; but that might possibly avoid the "Crazy Pilot has the last word" problem.
Hobby Lobby is a recent example of businesses which are run by people with specific beliefs that have affected how they do business, Chick-Fil-A is another. Both businesses are closed on Sunday out of deference to their religious beliefs. Are you implying they should NOT be free to do that?
Entirely a different argument.
In the case of those two businesses imposing their own private "blue laws", there is absolutely NO DISCRIMINATION against a CERTAIN CLASS of the population. NO ONE can shop at those two businesses; it isn't just the "heathens" that are excluded.
In the case of the Religious Bigotry Protection Act, we have actually CODIFIED an Entanglement between Religion and Government, without even the slightest scintilla of "Overriding Public Interest" in endorsing this discriminatory behavior UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
Can't Buy Alcohol/Cigs until Age/Sell Alcohol/Cigs to those under that Age: Public Health Interest.
Can't Vote Until Age of Majority: Fits in with longstanding doctrine of many proscribed behaviors by Minors.
Don't Have to Serve Someone who Doesn't Agree with Your Religion (without having to CLEARLY POST your Religion): Where's the Public Interest?
Forcing people to do business with people in situations where they object, does NOT seem like freedom to me.
Sure it is.
Those people who are offended by having to serve persons who's private behavior does not comport with their world-view have the FREEDOM to not engage in business with the PUBLIC.
If they want to exclude certain persons, then they need to open a PRIVATE CLUB, not a PUBLIC BUSINESS.
And, isn't it odd that Conservative Republicans (who, make no mistake, are the driving-force between this regressive legislation) are always trumpeting the phrase "Less Government Regulation; Smaller Government!" and "Let the Free Market Sort It Out!", are the first to run to the Legislature to ram-through this barely-Constitutional steaming pile of Government Entanglement in Religious Matters?
Oh, and this is brought to you by the ONLY State in the U.S. that STILL has a ban on Sunday Alcohol Sales (which just got defeated YET AGAIN a few weeks ago).
I am ashamed to be a Hoosier at this point. But I gotta tell you, I wouldn't want to actually EAT the cake that was baked by a baker who didn't want to be baking it...
The possibility of all kinds of "interesting" extra-ingredients comes immediately to mind...
By the way, one of the facts that probably isn't making the National News, is that there is actually some push-back from certain Government officials. For example, the Mayor of Indianapolis has stated publicly that he does NOT want Governor Pence to sign the bill into law today. but alas, just checking a local news site, I guess the bastard did just that. Sigh.
Speaking to the quality of Apple's input devices specifically, I find the lack of key travel and mildly idiosyncratic layout on Apple's own branded keyboards uncomfortable for serious typing in exactly the same way the Surface Type-style keyboard is. I also question the ergonomics of the palmrests on its notebooks and the insistence on comically oversized touchpads as input devices.
What is "mildly idiosyncratic" about Apple's keyboard layout, that isn't echoed a dozen different ways in every other laptop? And if you're talking about on-screen keyboards, then I think there is even LESS consensus on what is the "proper" layout.
As to palmrests on notebooks, I believe they are more ergonomically-correct; but I do wish they wouldn't get as warm as they do; so we'll call that a "draw".
But I think that you're in the minority in calling Apple's trackpads "Comically-oversized". It seems to be the consensus that, as far as TrackPads go, Apple has the only one worth using.
Proving that just because you can write bangup search engine software, doesn't mean you understand how embedded development works...
Honestly, I think the Thermostat was just a lucky fluke. Witness the engineering prowess of Nest in their smoke alarms.
Proving that just because you can write bangup search engine software, doesn't mean you understand how embedded development works...
Honestly, I think the Thermostat was just a lucky fluke. Witness the engineering prowess of Nest in their smoke alarms.
Apple doesn't do SecureBoot, they just make their devices a PITA to maintain.
Between pentalobes, glue-fastened glass, components in hard-to-reach locations, and active hostility towards self-maintenance, Apple could claim prior art on the concept of SecureBoot.
You do realize, of course, that pretty much all of those packaging choices are not done to annoy you; but rather to achieve a design-goal, usually thinness.
And besides, on the laptops to which you are obviously referring, Apple rightly has determined that a vanishingly-small percentage of customers actually engage in DIY component-level service of their laptops.
And if you take a peek inside of "thin" laptops from other manufacturers, you will find they use the same manufacturing techniques, such as glued display assemblies. And laptops have ALWAYS put components where they fit; not where they will be the most serviceable. Get over it.
As for Pentalobe (SIPR) screws, you just have to buy a cheap hand tool, available from dozens of sources, such as Amazon. Big whoop. At one time, Torx screws were "exotic", too. And Apple isn't the only company that uses these fasteners; not by a long shot. If you were a real technician, you'd know that.
Secure boot could be a good thing if the user was allowed total control, but microsoft shows their true goal here, which is to take total control of the PC market.
I know of at least one PC hardware OEM who won't likely play that game...
...real expensive watch people don't use smartphones at all. Smartphones are a shitty substitute for a human personal assistant (with a smartphone).
You're right about that!
And let's face it, the Apple watch is a copy of existing Samsung/LG/Pebble device (even if Apple thought it up first)
Ok, that's a ridiculous statement.
1. How can something (the Apple watch) be a "copy" of something if they thought-it-up first?
2. Each of the Smartwatches you mentioned has enough "uniqueness" to not be considered a simple "copy" of the other(s). That's like saying that all mechanical watches that have a "Calendar" function (complication?) are somehow "Copies" of whoever put the first "date" function on a watch.
Yes, when the iPhone came out, Nokia's phones could already take great pictures, send all sorts of messages, open documents, run real apps and include 3G radios.
...And look at Nokia Go... Down the Drain.
Does Tag really think that significant number of people in the luxury watch market actually use Android?
People generally will gravitate toward a peripheral product (watch) that is well-supported by the main product (phone).
And I would be willing to bet that most people that would be the demographic for a Tag Huerer watch are not running Android.
Jus' sayin'...
That assumes you have a Mac.
Apple seems to think that everyone should make all their devices Apple devices. That's not going to happen. "Ecosystem" is already an outdated concept. It's about playing nicely with everything now.
My BlackBerry does a better job syncing with my MacBook Pro than my iPhone does, by the way. Pretty sad.
iCloud service has a Windows Client as well.
Bounce it up to iCloud and back down. Or use something like GoodReader to transfer it directly (even peer-peer) via ftp/sftp, WebDAV, AFP, SMB, http (GoodReader has a built-in http file-server), Dropbox, Google Drive, etc.
People were saying 'it just works' about MacOS when it was, by far, the worst POS on the market (Basically anytime prior to X).
It didn't have pre-emtive multitasking or protected memory. Any app failure required a reboot, but 'it just works'.
It makes sense, when you realize they are just repeating what they were told.
Actually, the "It Just Works" (which was never official Apple marketing-speak) sort of just appeared sometime after OS X was released; but the concept was around back in the MacOS "Classic" days. But in that time period, the concept mainly referred to the ease with which things like Applications, Networking, Printing and Driver installation and configuration was possible with the Mac, relative to DOS and Windows environments at the time.
I got sick and tired of dealing with iTunes and its many failures and switched to Android. My wife still has an iDevice and regularly gripes when they change the interface, move stuff around for no reason and otherwise make the design "better".
Nothing ever changes on your Android phone because it never gets OS Updates...