Have you read the entire thing? It's about comparing them to VCs wives, presumably housewives, not about a special female perspective on, say a female focused startup, but being compared to a female who wants to be in a traditional role in a patriarchal society. Not sure how any one can miss it as badly as you did.
I read it. She's ranting about something else - a VC suggesting he has no female-founded companies in his portfolio because very few apply - and somehow this offends her.
But along the way, she claims that "the extent to which she is founding a company is the extent to which I have something in common with her", which pretty much contradicts the entire pro-diversity narrative.
Barely anyone cares about online privacy. MS found that out with the failed Scroogled campaign which they scrapped after it tanked. People value free stuff more than privacy.
There are some interesting court cases going on though, with the analogs of your scenario but with student data.
>MS found that out with the failed Scroogled campaign which they scrapped after it tanked.
it tanked because it was a terrible campaign not because people don't care about online privacy. The fact that it was MS all of companies running it made it even more terrible.
I suspect you are confusing not caring about privacy with a feeling of powerlessness mixed with a general ignorance of any alternatives (which might not exist in some situations). The meme that people want to give up privacy in some kind of barter for services is just projection and wishful thinking in most cases.
>IMO bricking on touch ID issues is extreme, but maximises the security of the device.
We are all smart people here and there are several ways to have security without bricking expensive hardware.
First, the update can wipe the device instead of bricking it.
Second, Apple can provide an option to replace the fingerprint chip and charge, $150-$200 or whatever it costs for it.
There would be several better solutions that the most profitable company in the world could figure out if they wanted to. It's funny how their particular solution happens to make them even more money through shutting down third party repairs and making people buy new phones.
This is like your home alarm software(made by the home builder) remotely burning down your house and telling you to build a new one because someone may have tampered with home access and could possibly enter your home.
Second, Apple can provide an option to replace the fingerprint chip and charge, $150-$200 or whatever it costs for it.
At the end of the article, it said that affected customers should contact Apple Support. Are you sure they are not offering a hardware fix at that point? It doesn't sound to me like they're just letting people hang.
>When Olmos, who says he has spent thousands of pounds on Apple products over the years, took it to an Apple store in London, staff told him there was nothing they could do, and that his phone was now junk. He had to pay £270 for a replacement and is furious.
There is a failure in the apple stores vs phone support. I went to two Apple stores to try to get my watch band replaced or fixed under warranty and was told by both of them "no way no how" - but phone support had no problem replacing the band.
I find the stores are somewhat inconsistent in their application of policy. (Particular if the policy isn't well defined ahead of time, as in this case)
(As an aside, the practice of requiring an appointment to talk to a support person or even just drop off a broken computer is maddening.)
Alternative interpretation -- "A custom voided his warranty by installing some rando third-party aftermarket parts, and is furious that it didn't work out."
This is more like your Tesla car's keyfob misfunctioning and you get it repaired by a non-Tesla dealer. The dealer could've put in a backdoor to get into the vehicle.
Tesla releases a big new update for their car software and now your Tesla is completely bricked and Tesla refuses to repair it, saying you have to buy a new car.
In regards to warranty repairs automakers can (and often do) deny coverage due to the presence of non-OEM parts. Outside of warranty / safety repairs they are certainly not obligated to perform service.
Hunh. My bad, I was under the impression (based off some other comments) that replacing the home button/finger scanner with a legit one and updating the security pair would make the issue go away, but looks like I was wrong.
and how can I be sure that in the Apple store they are fixing the phone with a thrustworthy component?
and so on...
Apple excuses make no sense this time.
All of Ubuntu's mobile offerings have always been full GNU environments, so yes, it is very likely you could run LO and, say, Blender on this thing. You can already run them on a Nexus 4 with Ubuntu Touch too, but the screen might have impeded your usability a bit.
"As part of a potentially explosive lawsuit making its way through federal court, the giant online-services provider Google has acknowledged scanning the contents of millions of email messages sent and received by student users of the company’s Apps for Education tool suite for schools. In the suit, the Mountain View, Calif.-based company also faces accusations from plaintiffs that it went further, crossing a “creepy line” by using information gleaned from the scans to build “surreptitious” profiles of Apps for Education users that could be used for such purposes as targeted advertising."
"A Google spokeswoman confirmed to Education Week that the company “scans and indexes” the emails of all Apps for Education users for a variety of purposes, including potential advertising, via automated processes that cannot be turned off—even for Apps for Education customers who elect not to receive ads. The company would not say whether those email scans are used to help build profiles of students or other Apps for Education users, but said the results of its data mining are not used to actually target ads to Apps for Education users unless they choose to receive them."
...
"Student-data-privacy experts contend that the latter claim is contradicted by Google’s own court filings in the California suit. They describe the case as highly troubling and likely to further inflame rising national concern that protection of children’s private educational information is too lax."
"Mr. Thiele said his district has used Google Apps for Education since 2008. Officials there have always been aware that the company does “back-end processing” of students’ email messages, he said, but the district’s agreement with Google precludes such data from being used to serve ads to students or staff members. As long as the company abides by those terms, Mr. Thiele said, “I don’t have any problem with it.” In an emailed statement provided to Education Week, Bram Bout, the director of Google Apps for Education, said that “ads in Gmail are turned off by default for Google Apps for Education and we have no plans to change that in the future.”"
...
"Those plaintiffs in the California lawsuit allege that Google treats Google Apps for Education email users virtually the same as it treats consumer Gmail users. That means not only mining students’ email messages for key words and other information, but also using resulting data—including newly created derivative information, or “metadata”—for “secret user profiling” that could serve as the basis for such activities as delivering targeted ads in Google products other than Apps for Education, such as Google Search, Google+, and YouTube."
"The plaintiffs allege that Google has employed such practices since around 2010, when it began using a new technology, known as Content Onebox, that allows the company to intercept and scan emails before they reach their intended recipients, rather than after messages are delivered to users’ inboxes, regardless of whether ads are turned off."
"While the allegations by the plaintiffs are explosive, it’s the sworn declarations of Google representatives in response to their claims that have truly raised the eyebrows of observers and privacy experts. Contrary to the company’s earlier public statements, Google representatives acknowledged in a September motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ request for class certification that the company’s consumer-privacy policy applies to Apps for Education users. Thus, Google argues, it has students’ (and other Apps for Education users’) consent to scan and process their emails."
"In November, Kyle C. Wong, a lawyer representing Google, also argued in a formal declaration submitted to the court in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification that the company’s data-mining practices are widely known, and that the plaintiffs’ complaints that the scanning and processing of their emails was done secretly are thus invalid. Mr. Wong cited extensive media coverage about Google’s data mining of Gmail consumer users’
>Mr. Wong’s inclusion of the following reference to the disclosure provided to students at the University of Alaska particularly caught the attention of privacy advocates: The University of Alaska (“UA”) has a “Google Mail FAQs,” which asks, “I hear that Google reads my email. Is this true?” The answer states, “They do not ‘read’ your email per se. For use in targeted advertising on their other sites, if your email is not encrypted, software (not a person) does scan your email and compile keywords for advertising. For example, if the software looks at 100 emails and identifies the word ‘Doritos’ or ‘camping’ 50 times, they will use that data for advertising on their other sites.”
“The fact that Google put this in their declaration means we take it as true,” said Ms. Barnes of the privacy watchdog group EPIC. Google’s sworn court statements reveal that the company has violated student trust by using students’ education records for profit.”
From a Google filing in court about Gmail privacy:
>Indeed, “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979).
>it's "inconceivable" that someone using a Gmail account would not be aware that the information in their email would be known to Google.
>NVIDIA will therefore provide a few Vulkan extensions from day zero, so that you as developer can enjoy less obstacles on your path to Vulkan. We will support consuming GLSL shader strings directly next to Vulkan's mandatory SPIR-V input
Nefarious intent aside. This will make it much easier to port large projects over piece by piece so its not an all or nothing proposal that requires a complete rewrite from day 1.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/02/0...
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.ht...