Yeah, "back in the day". Welcome to the new age of gps in trucks, and in company issued phones with fleet tracking.

Yep, I read it the other way.

The fact that the gender wasn't mentioned in the summary at all let alone the sentence he singled out; led me to initially assume he'd just assumed it was a boy. So I read it as:

I read it as:

  "A boy did this, so what?... why wouldn't a girl be able to?"

I realized as the thread developed that he meant:

  "A girl did this; why would we think she couldn't?"

And he originally replied to the thread himself essentially confirming this and also WTFing the fact that the gender he thought was in the summary wasn't actually present. /shrug. one of those cases where I wish I could at least edit posts or add an update to them after the fact...

So they publish their minimum requirements. And then if the user wants to try it on a system older than that or there is hardware in the system no longer officially supported by the OS, then that's up to the user. Windows

And even on phones, all you needed was the option to go back. Its not like there was any reason that you should have had to "live through that hell".

That is not a contradiction.

No more than regulations are "essentially essentially a form of planned economy"

They are; but the presence of some regulations does not mean free market capitalism is all gone.

The world is not black and white.

Which is why civilized nations protect their citizens with import tarifs etc.

And yes, the TPP is an idiotic move that will further erode local industry.

Not really. As 'far as the hardware will allow' is frequently that apple has decided to drop support for a chipset or io controller or something. And the old hardware would run have run the new software just fine if they hadn't simply dropped support for it.

You can't drop support for a chipset from the OS, and then turn around then say your OS doesn't run on it because the hardware won't allow it. Apple does exactly that all the time.

In other cases they've set completely arbitrary limits on old hardware, and I myself have on several occasions used 3rd party shims to get new versions of OSX onto older hardware that apple had decided was no longer supported -- and they ran just fine -- in some cases they ran better (as for a while OSX was becoming faster with successive releases (lepard to snow leopard in particular). And if the older hardware had been a high spec unit (with extra ram from the factory) or had aftermarket ram upgrades they ran just fine.

Apple certainly isn't the worst offender by a long shot. But they are hardly the golden boy here.

No, not quite. Messages on iphone CAN use SMS to communicate with other phones but that's about it. So yes a dumbphone can reason an iphone with sms, and the iphone will display the sms in messages and let the iphone user use messages to reply... but that''s it.

For example, what if the person you are trying to reach from your 'dumb phone' however is NOT using an iphone with an SMS plan? Or what if they are using messages on an iPod touch or macbook pro? These can't "fail over to SMS" to receive messages from an android or dumb phone. And since the android and dumb phone can't use messages native protocol they can't communicate.

I've been up and down this mess several times already. My daughters friends have a mix of hand me down iphones, ipod touches, and ipads that they chat on with messages. If I give my daughter an android, which would be my preference -- she would not be able to chat with her friends unless they ALL moved over to an alternative messaging app (such as skype), which would be difficult for her to make happen. (In some cases the kids are using a 'family' ipad; and would need their parents permission to even install another app... so the whole group is basically captured on messages and ios or lose the ability to talk to these kids.)

Agreed his particular example wasn't great. However you can use skype on everything from smart TVs to blackberries to linux desktops. Yes, it is end to end a microsoft software product, and not truly open, but it runs on pretty much anything.

That's wrong. Microsoft has finanicial incentive not to... they'd prefer you ran windows and xbox and windows phones; you might argue they HAVE to support ios or become irrelevant; but that doesn't explain their support for osx, blackberry, or linux...

Similarly, apple messages+facetime, by being apple only IS hurting it. Lots of people use it on their mac or ipad, but they all have to have something else installed to talk to the other half of the planet who isn't running an apple product. If messages+facetime was x-plat it could well become as ubiquitous as skype; and it would be a good halo product to attract people to the apple hardware. As it is, it's mostly within-family product because no large organization or heterogenous group of people are ever ALL running just Apple products. There's always someone with a Windows computer or Android phone... and usually lots of people like that.

Even in my daughters group; as the kids are getting older and starting to get phones -- i fully expect the 'apple monopoly' on their communications is going to end. Because as they advance in their teens they'll all soon have phones etc. And they'll have permission to install apps etc. They'll all but inevitably shift to hangouts or skype or something as a group. I can already see it beginning; and my daughters next phone won't be an iphone -- none of the upcoming handme downs are iphones so unless she get a job buys it herself but that's still a few years out yet.

What are you talking about? A girl did do this.

But messages and facetime are both not, which would be the relevant products here.

It can be yes. I specifically said that as long there was sufficient suitable candidates after screening out users it wouldn't be a concern to the employer.

It goes without saying that if there aren't sufficient suitable candidates after screening that you'll need to go back and start looking at those screened candidates.

Your anecdote is an example of this happening; and I don't dispute that it happens; but that hardly makes it universally the case that what is true for one large organization and one (especially widespread) drug is true in all cases or for all drugs.

Not really. Perhaps I work as an employee under the table and my boss is a drug user. OR his wife who picks it up at the bank is. Or the manager who actually hands me my pay. Or maybe its even the bank teller at the business counter at the bank.

In any case, it would take several separate tests over a period of weeks to establish that I take cash regularly from a drug user. Otherwise, the money could be from pretty much anything... maybe he bought my kids bunk bed frame at our last garage sale...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trade+dre...

Clearly its not tainted by any drugs you may have sold. You would have gotten the money before they took said drugs, and any residue from them taking the drugs would not appear on the money.

At worst they've proven you've transacted with a person who takes drugs. That's not even slightly illegal.

QED.

That said, yes, civil forfeiture is often abused. And as I've replied elsewhere in the thread a couple times -- if they are out to abuse civil forfeiture -- then it really doesn't matter what the outcome of this test is; they'll just take your possessions on some other flimsy pretext. (Simply having significant cash on you, within 100 miles of a border, irrespective of any drug evidence has been sufficient in the past for them to seize it....no need for a chemistry set)

Bottom line: this test really has no bearing on the problem of civil forfeiture.

Because they have evidence my money was handled by a sweaty drug USER? How is that even theoretically illegal? Why should it be seized?

And all it takes to resolve that is using individually wrapped soap packets.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post vis a vis privacy, invasiveness, etc.

Non-use does imply they are not actively addicted though. So selecting non-users effectively screens the problem addicts out.

The fact that it screens out users who aren't addicts as well? I don't dispute it. But what employer cares? As long as they get enough good candidate applicants from the non-using pool to hire from, the fact that they screened some potentially good candidates from the using but not addicted category isn't much of a concern.