Re: Capability
As more devices gain dedicated machine learning hardware, what's to say that these kind of techniques are not going to be present in other brands' devices?
22 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Aug 2012
30% seems to be the industry normal. The downside, however, is the developing for the Apple ecosystem is rather pricey - you have to develop on a Mac (not the cheapest machines in the world) and then pay to be part of the developer program - so that needs to be taken into account too.
The big problem here is that for the past 17 years or so, Epic Games has no issues with being promoted at special Apple events, claimed that they were making a good deal of money from sales via the App Store (the 30% has not changed in all that time) and are only now throwing a temper tantrum which includes breaking the terms of service which they agreed to abide by.
And as for the 30% - let the customer of your app absorb the cost. If it's a good app, people will buy it.
So the schools don't enforce *any* form of device policy management that would prevent the students from using school Google accounts with Google apps on their personal devices outside of the school networks (or at least severely restrict it)?
I thought that would be a number one priority if you bought a personal device into school. Any school work on a personal device needs to have the device partly managed by the school. Basic BOYD management, I'd have thought.
Which has a massive tonne of options for dealing with crap like that? What content policies were in place, etc. etc. What about ACLs for the Google Groups? Why didn't they use the tools available to them to manage this kind of stuff? I also don't believe the directorate when it says they shouldn't have been able to use their own personal devices - unless it's a massive great big security hole in G Suite, which I doubt. Once they do sort this out, I suggest sending everybody involved in maintaining the system on a G Suite admin course post-haste.
I'd personally prefer to see Apple switch to AMD processors (which would keep in line with them using AMD graphics) for their "Pro" line of desktops and laptops for a good few more years yet until we can see proof that Apple's silicon is absolutely suitable for running a macOS desktop and CPU crunching applications (e.g. increasing the number of cores). Moving to the A-series of ARM processors would cause headaches for those that use Macs using Windows VMs or Boot Camp - unless Apple has plans to provide compatibility with Windows for ARM processors. But that seems rather distant given what I've been reading about Microsoft's Surface Pro X.
ARM seems more suitable for consumers right now, but less so for more CPU and GPU munching professionals. I'm still slightly miffed that Apple provides such small amount of RAM to iPhones. While I'm sure it manages memory reasonable well, I begrudge having to wait for it to close my bus ticket app in the background because something else needs the RAM (even if I don't touch the phone for the rest of the day - it takes a while to launch the app and go through the rigmarole of getting the ticket ready - TfL this isn't).
Plus is it feasible for Apple to cotinue to use Intel's Thunderbolt in ARM based Macs? What's the licensing like for that?
But surely there are quite a few filtering systems (including SpamHaus and SpamCop and their ilk) that treat IPs belonging to broadband providers as "bad"? I've experienced issues where customers have been running their own mailservers on a broadband connection and wondering why it's being rejected.
I wouldn't say they're devious or blackmailers, but they are a massive, massive, massive, massive, massive, massive pain in the arse to deal with. And I found out recently that an IP address assigned to a DigitalOcean virtual host was blacklisted because SpamHaus still considered it to be BOGON.
I was thinking backend rather than frontend - and yeah, users don't care about the backend. But the point of view from site administrators, you want to do your best to reassure users that you give some kind of damn about the transmission of data.
But I can't think of an easier way of saying to a user "this site is slightly more trustworthy than a non-secure site because it has an SSL/TLS certificate, but the person or organisation behind this site could be as dogdy as hell" if Google keeps changing the display of URLs in the address bar, or removing the likes of the EV status from immediate view. I'd rather still have that info at a glance than hiding it. Clickers are going to click.
Given the many different types of SSL/TLS certificates out there (as well as their different verification methods) alongside the multitude of devices which take SSL/TLS certs - automation of renewals is going to vary considerably. I think maybe a better approach might be to invest a bit more in the whole certificate transparency/logging system alongside the certificate authority authorisation DNS record to state which CAs can issue certificates for domains.
The EE website has been appalling for many years. They still haven't gotten around to fixing the "Too Many Redirects" issue resulting from an expired/dormant account being associated with a new account (reported many times without seeing any form of fix - looks to be a server related issue triggered by their web application). Plus the site itself, when it's active, is often slow to the point of being unusable. Plus many "Sorry! There's been a problem" with the iOS app, forcing log out and logging in again.
Given that I used to work in the film and television business, the BBC being one such client, the use of VPNs were commonplace between the post-production facility and the studios/client. This also included sending large chunks of data via UDP-based "super fast" transfer programs.
We VPNed from anywhere and everywhere and was a requirement of the studios and clients - and not all traffic went through specialist media ISPs like Sohonet either.
So BBC World's argument for ISPs policing traffic seems rather odd to me on that point alone.
Yep. Happy to. People are happy to fork out a TV license fee, plus Sky subscription with all the trimmings, buy Blu-Rays on top of that, go to the cinema, theatre, etc. etc. etc. etc. That costs a fair old whack of money each month. Why would you begrudge me £48 to watch something now - albeit in SD and streamed - then buy and watch the HD version with lots of extras - assuming I enjoy the SD stuff in the first place?
I don't have Sky. Do not want Sky. Given my viewing habits, not worth it. I rent individual film titles from iTunes or Blinkbox if they're not available via Netflix. I also occasionally buy Blu-Rays. The rest of the time I watch the very occasional program PVRed from Freeview.
Entertainment is subjective. Cost is subjective. I don't buy into this piracy argument even if the pirates do a better job at distributing stuff ;)
It isn't ideal. I realise that. But it's good enough for me to watch it (I should be able to AirPlay it over my Mac laptop to my Apple TV device - yes, SD, but then again Now TV doesn't even let me do that so - meh).
I still have access to my purchased Blinkbox content from several years back, so this service (and what you've bought) isn't going to go away over night. I'll still buy the Blu-Ray box set. £18 isn't that much to see it first without any extras or in HD.
It really depends: how desperate are people to watch this *now* despite the limitations? Nobody is forcing anybody to turn to use Blinkbox or to turn to piracy.