For some weird reason, wikipedia has chosen to source that statement to an article from Verge, rather than the direct Apple source. Apple's statement can be found at http://www.apple.com/iphone-6/...
If I were Google, I'd simply reply to the court with Fuck You, and turn off Google.de, and then wait for their response since I don't care if I have users in Germany or not. But hey, I'm not Google, and I'm sure they care about making money there, so I wonder if they'll start answering that support address for only provably German users, or for anyone that uses that address regardless of location?
I want to drastically increase my clients exposure to attack by opening remote holes in their network firewall through my equipment. How can I best go about doing so?
I have no love for Oracle, but the blame cannot be placed at their feet. As has been reported in local Oregon and nationwide news, Oracle insisted Oregon hire a project manager and systems integrator, either because the contract did not permit Oracle to fulfill those roles or Oracle was not capable of performing those roles. Oregon refused those requests, despite many warnings from Oracle and Cover Oregon's own director that without such services the site would not be ready to go live. Instead, Oregon placed a gag order on everyone involved in the project to hide the problems from the public. This is very much a problem caused by Oregon, not by any willful fraud by Oracle. This is also SOP for Oregon Government, with just about any project they undertake. (Full disclosure, I am one of many pissed off Oregonians.)
I'm not surprised at this, it is par for the course for many telephone support agents. I used to do telephone support for Hewlett Packard, until they let me go because I couldn't meet the sales quotas. Not because customers disliked me, not because I couldn't fix customers pc's, but because I couldn't meet a goal of $80.00-$100.00 average revenue per call. Most companies treat their support departments as a revenue drain, since the price of support is no longer built into the purchase price of the item sold in the race to reach the cheapest prices to gain market share. In the case of Comcast, it's pure profit since they overcharge on the services anyway.
It seems to me that it is much more accurate to talk about this "data Verizon is requesting from Netflix" rather than "data Netflix is sending Verizon". It's not like Netflix is passing data through Verizon to reach Comcast subscribers. Rather, Verizon is demanding this data from Netflix, on behalf of it's own subscribers, and intentionally limiting how much of it actually reaches their subscribers and how quickly.
Sure, if you have a post-paid monthly or pre-paid monthly plan, they all currently include unlimited texting. Their pay as you go plan, however, still charges 10c per sent or received text message.
Exactly this. They state in the article that they had off-site backups. What use are off-site backups if the "on-site" control panel has direct online access to them? "In summary, most of our data, backups, machine configurations and offsite backups were either partially or completely deleted."
But even that is doing it wrong. Your fingerprint is NOT a password, it's a login ID. It should only ever be used to identify an account name, rather than be used to protect said account. Using a fingerprint as a password is why it is so trivial to bypass, and gain access to these improperly secured devices.
So, I'll take a moment to answer myself
:P. There is a growing discussion thread on Apple's support community regarding reduced capabilities in Pages 5. That discussion can be found at https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5468056.
This is the first I've heard of it as well. The only things I've been able to find are anecdotal comments on other blogs about this new upgrade policy from Apple. One commenter went as far as to say that he refuses to open his documents in the new version because they would be destroyed. I have not been able to find any factual source or review confirming problems with the new iWork applications, so if gp has sources, it would be nice to see them.
Ugh. Math. Puke. Easy method. Step 1: Divide new value by old value. Step 2: Convert that to a percentage by multiplying by 100. Step 3: Subtract 100% from that. Doesn't sound too bad. 21 inch diameter divided by 19 inch diameter is 1.10526, times 100 is 110.526, minus 100 is 10.526. So it is roughly a 10.53 % increase from 19 inch tires to 21 inch tires. So far, so good. Now the reporter claims cruise control set to 45 mph, data claims 60 mph. 60 / 45 = 1.3333... (1 and 1/3) x 100 = 133.3333 - 100 = 33.3333 or 33 and 1/3 percent increase in speed. Now, I'm no math major, but I would say that a 10 percent increase in tire diameter should translate to a 10 % increase in speed if the speedometer was incorrectly set, NOT a 33 percent increase. I call bunk on the reporter's theory about the tire dimensions being the cause of the discrepancy.
You've never worked in a customer support call center before, have you? Average Joe doesn't care where the email/game/internet/whatever came from, they typically call the support of the device they see in front of them. If it's their phone, they call the phone company. If it's the computer, they call the computer manufacturer. It doesn't matter if they really should be calling someone else, the first call is invariably to the support of the device immediately in front of them. We're like a 411 information service, apparently. I get the most fun from people calling for support for their computer when the display is from one maker, and the pc another. Almost all of the time, if the caller is over 40, they call the maker of the display first since that is the name/logo immediately available. You might think I'm joking, but Average Joe isn't an idiot, he isn't "dumb". He needs help NOW, and simply calls the immediately obvious name first and goes from their.
Hurrah for posting before reading the whole article and the article's sources. So the ECJ (I guess Europe's equivalent of the US Supreme Court, correct me if wrong) determined that licenses can be transferred, even for downloaded software. The exclusive right to control distribution of a copy is exhausted on it's first sale. So even though this group suing Valve lost in 2010 over a very similar issue, they will likely prevail after this new ruling by the ECJ. Nice going Europe, I only wish we could convince US courts to follow the same reasoning.
And that is the difference between Owning a physical copy of a software title, and Licensing a digital version of the same. Games on Steam are not sold as property that can be traded, they are licensed to you the purchaser for your personal use. Now, if you are saying that German law requires that the licensor permit the licensee (are those even the right terms?) to transfer the license to an arbitrary third party at any time, that's a right that the license cannot take away. I'm not German, and am definitely no lawyer, but I rather doubt the law works that way.