Of course, to be able to read that "ecological" ebook, you just need to extract and rape the planet of non-renewable rare metals so you can manufacture the various device display and electronics components...
Its a crying shame that most software developers don't use computers. Then we'd be able to solve that problem "for free" as they say. Oh, well...
People blame silly decisions on "PCI" all the time as well. I'm not a QSA but I do a lot of work in payments and took my last small company through PA-DSS level 1, so I've got some background there.
Having said that, anyone who touches a credit card should generally be in a PCI scope - even if you're a small mom-n-pop bookstore that takes Stripe. The worst abuse that I've seen though is trying to convince people that they should go all the way to "level one" compliance. The levels are based on your processing volume, with 4 being the lowest and 1 the highest. There's a self-abasement questionnaire, level 4 takes about 15 minutes, 2 takes all of 30 minutes (each with a truly trivial systems scan if you're doing work on the internet). Level 1, on the other hand, is designed for people staggering amounts of money and requires expensive on-site audits.
Like premium gas, there's no reason to level up beyond where you need to be except for silly marketing purposes - yet more and more people who trust their consultant advisors are doing so, because its a relatively easy way for consultants to make bank.
Make the case that your solution is cheaper than the existing solution if it is in fact cheaper.
It may not be. Don't assume that everyone who came before you is an idiot - they may well have ended up where they are now due to a series of compromises to work around issues that you know nothing about. Why not ask someone who's been involved in the security decisions for a few years why things are the way that they are first?
THAT is why many people avoid Apple like the plague. They've lost their lead, had their fun and are now fighting fowl.
Yup. Random mostly-unsubstantiated rumors that totally happened to a friend of your cousin's roommate are indeed why many people avoid Apple products. Others know that things like this - including such goodies as the "if you hold it the wrong way it dies," issue - are totally overblown if not completely fictional.
An awful lot of people put an awful lot of music on their iPods that wasn't bought from Apple. It all basically worked. The plural of anecdote may not really be data, but in a lot of ways its far more trustworthy than random anti-Apple stories coming out of the woodwork.
If they didn't keep your transaction open, they wouldn't be able to charge you for damage or incidentals. It's why hotels require credit cards for bookings in the first place. Usually they haven't seen your room when you check out.
Unless they saved the credit card number, either directly or through vaulting at their provider. Both of those are easy and common, and the second one is even safe (since it only allows that particular merchant to charge the card at will, it doesn't appeal to thieves like an actual credit card number would).
Except... Once the guests are at the hotel and checking in, the hotel will ask for their credit card and pre-auth the amount. Why would you pre-auth a card marked not to be used except if the guests do not show up? This card you should reserve the cost of a single night at the time of booking, and clear once the guests arrive.
Because that's the only way to tell that its a real credit card instead of a bunch of made up numbers that happen to look like a credit card number. The whole reason that pre-authorizations exist is to allow people to show that they're "good for the debt" without actually paying for it (yet).
Yes, but how much more would it make if all those private servers were monetized?
People fail to do the math properly. Dropping free usage by 99% and increasing paid usage by 10% still increases paid usage by 10% - and at the end of the day, that's what's important to the owners of most commercial ventures.
There you go, bringing facts to a bitchfest
Nobody is forced to buy their stuff. People who choose to buy deserve being treated like this.
It is pretty clear what apple thinks of their users, and they are right.
Yup. Apple thinks that their users are the kind of people who value a machine that doesn't randomly lose all of its data after an SSD upgrade and don't want to spend the time to do the brand research themselves, rather than the kind of people who desperately value a
Apple happens to be pretty much right about that. Even as a developer, one of the reasons that I prefer Apple kit to code on is that I don't have to worry about working on it as well as what I'm supposed to be working on.
Broken hardware is dealt with by caveat emptor
And ignoring this silly edict is part of what has made Apple one of the most successful solutions providers of all time.
By whom? Can the owner of a Mac choose which code signing certificate authorities to trust? If not, how does that inability benefit the computer's users?
Yup. Of course, doing that is a little technically challenging - probably intentionally, since people blindly doing so would defeat the entire purpose. Many posts in this thread have information about signing your own certs, for that matter.
Yes, all you need to do is become an Apple developer and pay the $100 for a dev cert if you want to take the easy way, or spend an extra 5 minutes and generate your own cert for code signing and add it to the system keychain. Neither are particularly difficult for a developer type of person to do, probably a little beyond the scope of your average desktop user though
Making arcane things that could potentially screw up your system beyond the scope of an average desktop user is generally seen as a Good Thing, too
Getting "permission" to sign a KEXT (from Apple)
What gives Apple the right to decide what one can do with their computer? If I want to allow a particular KEXT to run, I should be allowed to. Microsoft asks for every unsigned driver if I wish to allow the installation. Why can Apple not support driver approval by the user? Or does Apple actually believe that it knows better?
Because Apple's support includes supporting the entire solution - hardware and installed OS. When things go wrong they'll actually work with you to fix them rather than simply pointing fingers. Naturally this gives them a really strong incentive to make sure that both of those item continue to work in harmony; part of their approach to that is restricting the more arcane things that the majority of end-users don't have enough experience to do safely.
For anyone who has enough experience to know when to accept an unsigned kernel extension, there's a trivial command to allow it; I happen to agree that people who can't figure out how to enable unsigned drivers really shouldn't be installing them.
Launch mass of Rosetta was 3000kg (3Mg). The lander mass is 100kg. Only counting the mass of the lander and not counting the mass of the Rosetta craft that got it there is like only counting the mass of the astronaut and not the mass of the ship. You still have a large multiple, but 30 times less than you calculated.
So only 500X? Oh, well then. Let's get going tomorrow!
Yes, but you have the heat anyway so inefficiency doesn't matter. It would be a silly way to get cool air if you didn't want the heat in the first place, but that's not what's going on.
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.
