The person that wrote the title is a professional writer, they know how words work.
From what I have seen pass the "Editors" at Slashdot, I wouldn't bet on either clauses of your statement being true.
This is a Tech-Blog; not the Wall Street Journal, nor the New York Times. If you're looking for examples of erudite journalism, you've come to the wrong genre.
If they're not making a profit off the discounted items, then no money goes to AIDs research. It's not a decent gesture. They're only doing it because it'll drum up more sales. If they really cared, they wouldn't advertise it, or at least not right before.
But I thought the meme on Slashdot was that Apple makes "obscenely high" profits on their products; so which is it?
1. Apple is being disingenuous because they won't be making any profits to give away?
2. Apple is evil because they make "high" profits?
Actually, a lot of companies have a moral compass, even "evil" ones. I mean, do you consider Apple evil because they sue over patents?
Um, if it makes Apple "evil" to protect their IP from being directlyrippedoff by well-heeled competitors (cough, Samsung, cough), then I think you need to adjust your definition of "evil".
I mean, if you were the CEO of Apple, what would you have done in that instance? I mean, look at the Techcrunch article with the "Before iPhone" and "After iPhone" Samsung pictures. Tell me you wouldn't have been incensed, probably moved to litigation.
In fact, when writing physical checks to pay bills was the norm, and based on some ideas from that book, I would regularly fill-in pieces of the MICR OCR field-delimiters at the bottoms of my personal checks to delay their processing by the Federal Reserve Clearinghouse, I know it worked, because I would receive those checks back "re-striped" with new (no doubt manually-generated) OCR strips stuck on the bottoms of the check. It was usually good for a 3 to 5 business-day delay "float", while (I assume) the check got kicked-out of the automatic scanner, and routed to the "manual processing" pile. And, since my account wasn't debited until the check "cleared" this process, I avoided a non-sufficient-funds "bounce" fee, and the payor thought that I had paid "on time" (which I technically had).
I kept waiting to get a nasty letter from my bank or the Fed saying "quit it, or you're going to jail!", but I never did.
Of course, a big part of it is Apple is able to tweak the software to their needs and spend time doing so. Samsung doesn't have that luxury when they release more than 1 new smartphone a week (56 so far in 2014 alone!) and 1 new tablet every two weeks [arstechnica.com]. Or LG, which released 41 since the start of the year. Versus Apple's 6 or so (4 of which were just minor tweaks of the base model)..
Excuse me, but is anyone holding a gun to either Samsung or LG's proverbial heads, forcing them to throw design after design at the wall to see what sticks? It's like every single prototype that some engineer slaps together, the marketing guys steal right off the bench and put into full production. What maroons!
In fact, in the face of their 60% drop in profits, Samsung just announced they are reigning-in their insane new-model-creation rate, and focusing on "quality" over "quantity".
All I have to say to Samsung is: "Duh". Where EVAR did you get THAT idea...?
Yes, you can for sure install untrusted apps on iOS without hacking. I can remember from the top of my head at least three ways. Phones in dev mode (not the problem here), Enterprise certs and beta software distributed through TestFlight.
I believe that the limit on TestFlight is 100 phones, and those have to be added to a "List".
Enterprise Certs are easily determinable and Revokable by Apple.
The system is just about as secure as could reasonably be designed.
The same kind of popups are shown to the people who install malware to their Windows machines. And yet they just click next-next-next-ok, as the ad banner promised something cool, like free money or pictures of . No matter what your iGod, Steve the great lied to you, the Apple devices are just as vulnerable to stupid users as any device out there.
One question: Is there any reasonable security scheme that can defeat social engineering 100% of the time?
I'm not trolling; I seriously want to know what Apple could have done to prevent this, and still allow for "corporate" apps.
You act as if mass shootings are something that have existed only in the time that SSRIs have been available. The US saw a number of prominent mass shootings in the 1960s and 1970s. This is not a new problem, though your anecdotal experience consuming contemporary mass media might mislead you to believe it is.
I didn't say that SSRIs were responsible for all school shootings, did I?
Now, go back to that "history", and tell me that there isn't a strong possibility of a correlation between the "Rampage" school shootings and the introduction of SSRIs.
People have been mentally ill for millenia. Almost never resulted in school "Rampage" shootings. Kids have had access to guns for centuries. Almost never resulted in school "Rampage" shootings. Kids have been bullied, molested, and otherwise abused by faculty and classmates. Almost never resulted in school "Rampage" shootings.
Yet, SSRIs come on the scene in 1987, and just look at the statistics...
Long story short; SSRIs are the product of half a century of careful research and not the evil scapegoat you and your preferred cable news channel ignorantly make them out to be.
Then why the Black Box Warning, warning SPECIFICALLY of those side-effects?
Then why does every single television commercial for every single SSRI (including the 'repurposed' ones, like Lyrica and Wellbutrin) contain the same warning about "Suicidal thoughts or actions" (which is part of the same Black Box Warning)?
You said it yourself "...everyone's body chemistry is different so any drug can have adverse effects including but not limited to behavior"
And one of the biggest problems with SSRIs, is that many doctors (particularly those not particularly skilled in mental health matters, but that still have a prescription pad), will, after prescribing the latest SSRI that the cute Pharma Rep. came in and dumped a bunch of samples of, will, after the Patient comes back and says "I don't think this is working, doctor; I feel like I'm not getting any better, or maybe even worse." will, instead of thinking of that Black Box Warning, say "Well, perhaps we need to INCREASE the dose..." Many of them will do that repeatedly, even OVER the max recommended dose, simply because they believe the literature that the Pharma Rep. left with those free samples...
I am very glad that SSRIs worked for you; but they are still far from innocuous drugs, period. Again, see the Black Box Warning.
Here's a different hypothesis: People with mental disorders are more likely to commit violent crimes [treatmenta...center.org].
Except one hole in your hypothesis: SSRIs are supposedly intended to treat DEPRESSION. and it is also understood that people suffering from Depression are rarely, if ever, violent.
And it is FAR from settled that there is a causal relationship between mental illness of any sort and violent behavior. In fact, the linked study states:
"Several general conclusions are supported by this brief overview. First, mental disorders are neither necessary, nor sufficient causes of violence. The major determinants of violence continue to be socio-demographic and socio-economic factors such as being young, male, and of lower socio-economic status.
Second, members of the public undoubtedly exaggerate both the strength of the relationship between major mental disorders and violence, as well as their own personal risk from the severely mentally ill. It is far more likely that people with a serious mental illness will be the victim of violence."
So there.
Also, consider the facts that:
1. Mental illness has existed for milennia
2. Ready access to firearms has existed for centuries
3. SSRIs have existed for about 20 years.
4. Studies abound that link SSRIs (and esp. SSRI withdrawal) with homicidal and suicidal behavior. (And about that Black Box Warning...)
And yet you want to hang your hat on something as demonstrably non-causal (and vague!) as "Mental Illness"?
Alternatively we could spend money on mental health and outreach programs for troubled children. But spending all the money on a reactive system is probably better than a proactive approach...
Or, even better, we could just take all the damned SSRIs off the market; because, if you look at the history, these "school shootings" were virtually unknown until SSRIs came on the scene, then there has been a steady drip, drip, drip of these incidents, and particularly in the U.S.A., where SSRIs are hideously over-prescribed.
I mean, there's already a damned Black Box warning on SSRIs; what more do you need as a "heads up" to doctors (and the public) that these things are dangerous beyond all reason?
The issue is when it sends a message to a person who was formerly iOS, but has since moved to android.
Yeah, I figured out that was the real issue later. You're right, that would be a hassle. Good that Apple (finally) fixed it, though I think all the hater bullshit is entirely unwarranted. It was just a thing that didn't come up in design meetings until after the "real world" started providing more use-case data.
While I'm still on iOS myself, this was a long overdue issue. It's incredibly frustrating to have to switch on/off imessage to send messages to people who have moved over to android. iMessage was/is a great idea, but it took a bit too long for this bug fix to be resolved.
I send SMS messages to Android users all the time from iMessage. What are you talking about? Are you talking about only from OS X, or iOS, too?
IRC, jabber and xabber. Good IM clients with integrated support for a bunch of protocols and servers exist for every device I've ever heard of (with the possible exception of iPhones due to Apple's 'we hate you' policy towards users)
Nice Try, Hater.
Not only is Cisco Jabber available for iOS, and according to Xabber's Blog, Xabber is currently in development for iOS; but In about 2 seconds of Googling, I found FOUR iOS IRC Clients:
Slashdot Mirror
The person that wrote the title is a professional writer, they know how words work.
From what I have seen pass the "Editors" at Slashdot, I wouldn't bet on either clauses of your statement being true.
This is a Tech-Blog; not the Wall Street Journal, nor the New York Times. If you're looking for examples of erudite journalism, you've come to the wrong genre.
If they're not making a profit off the discounted items, then no money goes to AIDs research. It's not a decent gesture. They're only doing it because it'll drum up more sales. If they really cared, they wouldn't advertise it, or at least not right before.
But I thought the meme on Slashdot was that Apple makes "obscenely high" profits on their products; so which is it?
1. Apple is being disingenuous because they won't be making any profits to give away?
2. Apple is evil because they make "high" profits?
Can't have it both ways.
Actually, a lot of companies have a moral compass, even "evil" ones. I mean, do you consider Apple evil because they sue over patents?
Um, if it makes Apple "evil" to protect their IP from being directly ripped off by well-heeled competitors (cough, Samsung, cough), then I think you need to adjust your definition of "evil".
I mean, if you were the CEO of Apple, what would you have done in that instance? I mean, look at the Techcrunch article with the "Before iPhone" and "After iPhone" Samsung pictures. Tell me you wouldn't have been incensed, probably moved to litigation.
Morality is for the working class. If you want to succeed in a capitalist economy, it's better to be amoral.
Reminds me of a Book that has been around since the late 1970s (and still available on Amazon, I believe) :
"Why S.O.B.s Succeed And Nice Guys Fail In a Small Business"
No truer words were ever penned.
In fact, when writing physical checks to pay bills was the norm, and based on some ideas from that book, I would regularly fill-in pieces of the MICR OCR field-delimiters at the bottoms of my personal checks to delay their processing by the Federal Reserve Clearinghouse, I know it worked, because I would receive those checks back "re-striped" with new (no doubt manually-generated) OCR strips stuck on the bottoms of the check. It was usually good for a 3 to 5 business-day delay "float", while (I assume) the check got kicked-out of the automatic scanner, and routed to the "manual processing" pile. And, since my account wasn't debited until the check "cleared" this process, I avoided a non-sufficient-funds "bounce" fee, and the payor thought that I had paid "on time" (which I technically had).
I kept waiting to get a nasty letter from my bank or the Fed saying "quit it, or you're going to jail!", but I never did.
Apple is not really a technology brand these days
lolwut?
Apple is in the same league: as long as the brand remains premium, it does not matter what the output is or for that matter what their quality is.
Too bad for your theory that Apple remains the top performer and the tops in quality and customer satisfaction.
Of course, a big part of it is Apple is able to tweak the software to their needs and spend time doing so. Samsung doesn't have that luxury when they release more than 1 new smartphone a week (56 so far in 2014 alone!) and 1 new tablet every two weeks [arstechnica.com]. Or LG, which released 41 since the start of the year. Versus Apple's 6 or so (4 of which were just minor tweaks of the base model)..
Excuse me, but is anyone holding a gun to either Samsung or LG's proverbial heads, forcing them to throw design after design at the wall to see what sticks? It's like every single prototype that some engineer slaps together, the marketing guys steal right off the bench and put into full production. What maroons!
In fact, in the face of their 60% drop in profits, Samsung just announced they are reigning-in their insane new-model-creation rate, and focusing on "quality" over "quantity".
All I have to say to Samsung is: "Duh". Where EVAR did you get THAT idea...?
It's bad enough that everything we know is wrong
There's a Seeker born every minute!
Group hug!
If we're talking about "getting off", shouldn't that be "Group Tug"?
hated almost everything about it dont use it and will never buy one again
And this is relevant, how?
Yes, you can for sure install untrusted apps on iOS without hacking. I can remember from the top of my head at least three ways. Phones in dev mode (not the problem here), Enterprise certs and beta software distributed through TestFlight.
I believe that the limit on TestFlight is 100 phones, and those have to be added to a "List".
Enterprise Certs are easily determinable and Revokable by Apple.
The system is just about as secure as could reasonably be designed.
All of those hoops are removed if the app is signed by an Apple 'enterprise deployment' certificate. Someone anyone can get just by asking.
Bzzzt! Wrong!
You have to be Registered as an "Enterprise" Developer; which is a different level from the regular $99/yr. iOS Dev. Registration.
And since that means these Apps are "signed", it should be about 5 seconds before their Cert. was revoked by Apple.
B-B-B-B-But Apple said I was protected and viruses dont happen to them.
Find me one instance where Apple said that.
[Crickets]
The same kind of popups are shown to the people who install malware to their Windows machines. And yet they just click next-next-next-ok, as the ad banner promised something cool, like free money or pictures of . No matter what your iGod, Steve the great lied to you, the Apple devices are just as vulnerable to stupid users as any device out there.
One question: Is there any reasonable security scheme that can defeat social engineering 100% of the time?
I'm not trolling; I seriously want to know what Apple could have done to prevent this, and still allow for "corporate" apps.
So basically they have to click a link and hit next a few times.
No. You're thinking of Android.
You Apple apologists are turning me into an iPhobe. Just man up and face the vulns.
No. The GP is right.
This is NOT something that ANYONE can install accidently. You have to jump through some serious hoops to make it happen.
You act as if mass shootings are something that have existed only in the time that SSRIs have been available. The US saw a number of prominent mass shootings in the 1960s and 1970s. This is not a new problem, though your anecdotal experience consuming contemporary mass media might mislead you to believe it is.
I didn't say that SSRIs were responsible for all school shootings, did I?
But, looking at the history of school shootings in the U.S. (particularly "mass shootings"), you can see an incredible uptick in the 1990s and 2000s.
Prozac (the first SSRI) was first prescribed in 1987.
Now, go back to that "history", and tell me that there isn't a strong possibility of a correlation between the "Rampage" school shootings and the introduction of SSRIs.
People have been mentally ill for millenia. Almost never resulted in school "Rampage" shootings. Kids have had access to guns for centuries. Almost never resulted in school "Rampage" shootings. Kids have been bullied, molested, and otherwise abused by faculty and classmates. Almost never resulted in school "Rampage" shootings.
Yet, SSRIs come on the scene in 1987, and just look at the statistics...
Long story short; SSRIs are the product of half a century of careful research and not the evil scapegoat you and your preferred cable news channel ignorantly make them out to be.
Then why the Black Box Warning, warning SPECIFICALLY of those side-effects?
Then why does every single television commercial for every single SSRI (including the 'repurposed' ones, like Lyrica and Wellbutrin) contain the same warning about "Suicidal thoughts or actions" (which is part of the same Black Box Warning)?
You said it yourself "...everyone's body chemistry is different so any drug can have adverse effects including but not limited to behavior"
And one of the biggest problems with SSRIs, is that many doctors (particularly those not particularly skilled in mental health matters, but that still have a prescription pad), will, after prescribing the latest SSRI that the cute Pharma Rep. came in and dumped a bunch of samples of, will, after the Patient comes back and says "I don't think this is working, doctor; I feel like I'm not getting any better, or maybe even worse." will, instead of thinking of that Black Box Warning, say "Well, perhaps we need to INCREASE the dose..." Many of them will do that repeatedly, even OVER the max recommended dose, simply because they believe the literature that the Pharma Rep. left with those free samples...
I am very glad that SSRIs worked for you; but they are still far from innocuous drugs, period. Again, see the Black Box Warning.
Here's a different hypothesis: People with mental disorders are more likely to commit violent crimes [treatmenta...center.org].
Except one hole in your hypothesis: SSRIs are supposedly intended to treat DEPRESSION. and it is also understood that people suffering from Depression are rarely, if ever, violent.
And it is FAR from settled that there is a causal relationship between mental illness of any sort and violent behavior. In fact, the linked study states:
"Several general conclusions are supported by this brief overview. First, mental disorders are neither necessary, nor sufficient causes of violence. The major determinants of violence continue to be socio-demographic and socio-economic factors such as being young, male, and of lower socio-economic status.
Second, members of the public undoubtedly exaggerate both the strength of the relationship between major mental disorders and violence, as well as their own personal risk from the severely mentally ill. It is far more likely that people with a serious mental illness will be the victim of violence."
So there.
Also, consider the facts that:
1. Mental illness has existed for milennia
2. Ready access to firearms has existed for centuries
3. SSRIs have existed for about 20 years.
4. Studies abound that link SSRIs (and esp. SSRI withdrawal) with homicidal and suicidal behavior. (And about that Black Box Warning...)
And yet you want to hang your hat on something as demonstrably non-causal (and vague!) as "Mental Illness"?
Alternatively we could spend money on mental health and outreach programs for troubled children. But spending all the money on a reactive system is probably better than a proactive approach...
Or, even better, we could just take all the damned SSRIs off the market; because, if you look at the history, these "school shootings" were virtually unknown until SSRIs came on the scene, then there has been a steady drip, drip, drip of these incidents, and particularly in the U.S.A., where SSRIs are hideously over-prescribed.
I mean, there's already a damned Black Box warning on SSRIs; what more do you need as a "heads up" to doctors (and the public) that these things are dangerous beyond all reason?
Just remember, whatever you do, don't ever drop your books in the hallway.
Trust me. Don't do it.
That was EXACTLY my thought, too.
I wonder how quickly they will disable the system because of that, and similar "false alarms" render it a bad joke?
The issue is when it sends a message to a person who was formerly iOS, but has since moved to android.
Yeah, I figured out that was the real issue later. You're right, that would be a hassle. Good that Apple (finally) fixed it, though I think all the hater bullshit is entirely unwarranted. It was just a thing that didn't come up in design meetings until after the "real world" started providing more use-case data.
While I'm still on iOS myself, this was a long overdue issue. It's incredibly frustrating to have to switch on/off imessage to send messages to people who have moved over to android. iMessage was/is a great idea, but it took a bit too long for this bug fix to be resolved.
I send SMS messages to Android users all the time from iMessage. What are you talking about? Are you talking about only from OS X, or iOS, too?
IRC, jabber and xabber. Good IM clients with integrated support for a bunch of protocols and servers exist for every device I've ever heard of (with the possible exception of iPhones due to Apple's 'we hate you' policy towards users)
Nice Try, Hater.
Not only is Cisco Jabber available for iOS, and according to Xabber's Blog, Xabber is currently in development for iOS; but In about 2 seconds of Googling, I found FOUR iOS IRC Clients:
Palaver
Colloquy
LimeChat
Turbo IRC
There may (probably are) more; but those are sufficient to put your little rant to rest...
Smart watches fail on look good and discrete. They look gaudy and are designed to catch others eyes so they know how cool you are.
Yeah, it's a good thing that mechanical watches are so low-key and discrete...
How many people have been infected by contact with this doctor?
Don't know yet. I don't think he has been back in the U.S. for 21 days, yet.