Why not just slap her in the face? She'd probably like that better. . .
handheld GPS has changed the way we drive, walk and find restaurants.
That's listed under "iPhone."
US intelligence agencies don't have industrial espionage programs.
Of course they do, industrial espionage is within their original scope of operations so they've been doing it all along.
Talking on a cellphone in public should be a federal crime. In fact, let's give up all our freedoms in order to avoid minor annoyances!
Maybe you don't understand the historical context here. During WW2 the various allied forces were able to gain an advantage by breaking NAZI codes and the codes used by the Japanese Imperial forces. By having advanced knowledge of enemy movements, allied forces were able to defeat enemies with superior forces. Specifically, they were able to destroy the Japanese surface fleet, and the German u-boat fleet.
Intelligence acts as a force multiplier. And after the war, governments took notice of the important role it played. It's fun to talk about hostile organizations like they don't exist or they threat they pose is overstated. But the reality is they do exist, and signals intelligence is an important part of any strategy to combat them. It's naive to suggest that the US government could be stable in the long term without it.
That said, it would also be foolish to operate this program without oversight and transparency. As I said, an obvious potential for abuse exists and has been overlooked.
The answer is that since WWII signals intelligence has played a more and more important role in the way governments address issues of national security. In the past this kind of large scale surveillance didn't happen because it wasn't possible. Now that it is, it constitutes a powerful tool that if used properly can allow government agents to anticipate attacks and other criminal activities.
Citizens are rightly concerned that this kind of surveillance may be misused to settle personal vendettas or attack opponents the establishment. However, these concerns can only be addressed by requiring more transparency and public review of how the programs are used. If we were to roll back the programs themselves it would give terrorist organizations and foreign governments a distinct advantage in signals intelligence.
Apple doesn't have an advertising based business model (nor does Microsoft) so while they might be looking though your files, they aren't selling the information they glean to advertisers. They don't need to look through it for information to use in targeting ads to you they way Google does.
Apple, Google and MS all have their own browser to sell you.
Apple has their own browser because once upon a time their users were treated like second-class citizens and Apple need to write a fast browser themselves to keep up. Since then the situation has improved with Firefox and Crome, but Apple has continued to use their own browser. I've never seen any indication that Apple uses Safari to track their user's internet usage. That makes sense, because Apple would not have a good user for that data.
They all have an app store.
I've never seen a "recommended for you" feature on Apple's app store, and if they are tracking what apps I buy (other than simply to allow me to re-download apps) I haven't seen any indication of it. There is a feature in iTunes to recommend new songs to you, but it's off by default.
They all have preferred search engines
Apple has a default search engine, but the default is Google. It's easy to change it to Yahoo! or Bing.
and you can bet every one of them is selling every tiny piece of data it can track for every user
Again, I haven't seen any indication Apple is selling any of this information, and it appears they make an effort to respect their users' privacy. Perhaps the problem is that you are so used to getting things for "free" that you don't even realize there are companies out there who don't consider advertising to be a viable business model.
Look, the article you're commenting about says they're going to treat the water with their Advanced Liquid Processing System prior to discharge. That will take most of the radionuclides out. I know most people can't be bothered to do even basic research before making unfounded claims, but maybe you should consider it? In cases like this, where there are real risks, unfounded fear mongering will detract from those risks in the long-run.
That's true, but if your developer can't even make the schema, they were just going to fail anyway. At least this way you learn they're in over their heads before all the money is spent.
If insurance providers were willing to do away with lifetime maximum payouts, and accept maximum out of pocket expenses in order to comply with the ADA, they would probably be willing to comply with an API. Their only alternative is would be going out of business.
The thing is they could get it fixed if the people writing the ACA knew what they were doing. First of all, you don't need to meet their API spec, they need to meet yours. Secondly, if they can't meet your spec, they can't offer a health insurance product. How hard is that? But legislators don't even know what an API is, so they wouldn't know a good spec from a cookbook. That's why government agencies often botch this kind of thing (and they aren't the only ones).
The so-called cost savings of outsourcing projects are a lie too, but that's another rant.
The key is only outsourcing part of the project, not the whole thing. If you are working alongside your contractor, you have a better idea of what they are doing and they have a better understanding of your needs. But if you hand over the entire project to a contractor, and you just try to oversee it, you are likely to run into communication problems which will definitely lead to unnecessary costs.
This isn't rocket science. Grab example schema from a private insurance firm, adapt them to this task, and go from there.
This is almost certainly what was done, it's exactly the kind of hair brained scheme businessmen and politicians always want to try. It is needlessly conservative. Get a good developer and make a schema specifically for your project. Like you said, it isn't rocket-science. There isn't some dark magic involved in developing a schema. You make a list of all the data you need to track and then you find a good way to break it out into tables and normalize it.
Don't try to shoehorn some existing schema into your project, you'll end up tracking data you don't need and storing data you do need inefficiently.
Also, having worked with both NoSQL and relational databases, I'd suggest you not shy away from NoSQL simply because it is not as established. You can still develop and enforce a schema in a NoSQL database, but it is more versatile in terms of what you can store and less versatile in terms of what kind of queries can be run. You should chose the technology that is best suited to you application and not be afraid to explore technologies you haven't worked with before.
Still not working for me.