I'm not sure I follow your argument. JS is bad b/c it's client side? Doesnt that paint all fat clients and every piece of software before the "web" in the same light?
No it doesn't. JS runs automatically on my computer when I visit a website. By default our browsers execute it automatically. This is wrong. They do not ask for permission or check for signed code or offer any protection at all. JS infections are so rampant that a name has been given to it (drive by infections) as all you have to do is visit a website and its malicious JS runs on your computer and does the rest. Delivering malware via JS is now the cybercriminal’s favored means of attack.
With one difference: You install traditional software by choice. On the web, you don't have a choice, everyone can just install and execute whatever they please.
[I am not a lawyer, you should always consult a trained legal professional when working with legal matters.]
Don't let corporations bully you. Find lawyers who are willing to work on the case and pursue it. I would hope money isn't your only motivation, but if they have committed a crime, at the very least your local District Attorney or the FBI should review and begin pursuing any criminal charges.
Assuming any criminal complaints "stick" it will make a civil suit much easier on you down the road.
Primarily because tracking people 24/7 through GPS in their phone is a privacy no-no. Next tot that: GPS is really unreliable in buildings and oldfolks tend to live in appartment blocks. Also hight (floor) is an issue as well as battery life.
Why would nurses, who have been given the phones in the first place (and do the billing) not be able to run 24/7 GPS on their own phones? Also, it wouldn't even have to be 24/7, if they work from 9-5 then its only during those hours.
Also, why would this be a no-no? How do you think map applications work? And 'local recommendations' apps?
Currently the battery of the phone lasts for at least a week. With GPS this would be reduced to a day or less. Also location services are opt in. You would not be able to opt-out of time tracking through GPS, which makes a big difference. The article you linked actually to explains the dangers of location tracking in great detail. You should read it :)
I have read it and linked to it because it is actually happening. You suggested its a 'no-no', which is definitely not the case.
I think you may believe I want the patient to carry the phone, but I am suggesting the nurse.
My father worked in Public health for 40 years, two decades ago we explored the idea of cards such as this for patients, but came to the conclusion they fell short for a variety of reasons, including patients losing the devices, patients transferring to different clinics and not having their original card etc etc. As is the case with current medical records, there is a stronger guarantee the doctors will be able to review existing case history is the data and files are stored with the hospital or care provider, not receiver.
Finally, I am pretty sure the nurse can charge a phone daily.
this appears to be far more anecdotal evidence than research. I was thinking a published study, not simply consumers noticing price differences on checkout, haphazard sampling to say the very least..
Read the article. The news (for people who weren't in the Lion beta program) is that if you open up a Terminal prompt and type 'java', it will automatically install Java for you.
So, it's not really deprecated anymore. In fact, Java was updated a few times during the beta process.
They never called it "deprecated" — they said it was an optional install in 10.7 and would no longer receive the same level of support. They gave Rosetta the same treatment in 10.6. It's gone now. All signs point to this being a grace period for Java devs to figure something else out.
It's always best to qualify your statements with "... that I'm aware of." ;)
Straight from the horse's mouth:
As of the release of Java for Mac OS X 10.6 Update 3, the Java runtime ported by Apple and that ships with Mac OS X is deprecated. Developers should not rely on the Apple-supplied Java runtime being present in future versions of Mac OS X.
The Java runtime shipping in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, and Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, will continue to be supported and maintained through the standard support cycles of those products.
I see it as fairly unnecessary to qualify things that way, because it's implied in any statement of fact that we're speaking according to our knowledge. I'd never write "according to your knowledge."
At any rate, this is still not a reversal of any stance. Apple never said it would not ship a Java runtime for Lion (and iirc it has been this way in Lion for a long time), and it still isn't recommended that developers depend on this.
I was just responding to your erroneous correction that Apple never said it was "deprecated", when in fact they explicitly said so. :)
Even our Apple rep said it was deprecated and he sure as heck doesn't read Developer notes, so I'd have to assume he got the news through some other chain at Apple.
Perhaps other orgs were protesting as loudly as our org was.
