Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more quackerhacker's commentslogin

I have applecare for my 15 MBP w/retina (THANKFULLY), and I can attest that I've had to have Apple replaced the logic board twice. Both times, the screen's backlight would just go out.

Great to hear Apple is doing this, but then disappointing that it's even an issue for a $2k+ laptop.


Wow, just looked over the API, this api method GET /currencies, gives me hope that in the later future Coinbase will provide exchange rates for foreign currencies. That would be amazingly awesome!


Just seeing the dates that the companies complied (or were forced to comply) is disappointing. A full year after Steve Jobs passes and stepped down as CEO, then Apple is added to that list.

Way to go Yahoo for sticking it our then.


I wonder if I'm the only one who gets annoyed by how many suggestions of evolutionary theory there are in the article.

we acquired our mites from our ape ancestors...

as early humans walked out of Africa...

I believe in evolution...but I believe in misinterpretation a lot more.


What is it you believe was misinterpreted? That mites were passed over rather than staying through the process of evolution?


TFA annoyed me much less than those hand-wavy evo-psych essays do. Actually the evolutionary stuff made sense, if one assumes that mites inhabiting different animal species are themselves different species, which do not or cannot interbreed. Maybe other research has indicated that?


It's amazingly sad that instead of competing through innovation, marketing, or price adjustments...that capital would get devoted to competitor sabotage of QOS (almost like a real life DDOS attack). What a terrible usage of capital and resources!


Sometimes these threads are just serendipity!

I just recently finished a multithreaded program where I found obtaining the pid [on linux: getpid()] of child processes spawn was only effective by utilizing a common pipe that was non-blocking [fcntl(pipefd[1], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK) ].

In other, more humorous words, as a "parent," it's great to know what your "child," is doing (or in this sense), who your child is (the actual pid), instead of just kill SIGTERM them.


This isn't surprising at all considering our government seeked to block Huawei routers from being used in telecom infrastructure back in 2012 [1], over some of the same national security concerns.

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/08/us-usa-china-huawe...


The difference being, of course, that US can in no way block the use of Chinese equipment, given that most of the hardware is actually manufactured in China (or neighboring countries).


A "whois Google.com" or "whois apple.com".


I can't even imagine the justification in a board meeting that allows for shrinkage on their scale for such an easy resolution.

To me, a simple resolution would be to escalate the "item not received," issue to a state side department (not in India, from what I'm understanding), track recent orders and customer interaction (super simple algorithm), and lastly and MOST importantly do not allow customer orders to be given out so freely with a verification of address and name (at least require an account pin or last 4 digits for the order in question).

If Amazon implemented at least these barriers, then the security of an account would fall where it should...back on the owner...not so easily be phished through Whois data, or just knowing someone has an Amazon account.

It's almost as if a black hat could use a phone book and tie names, with addresses and phone numbers and straight phish for data. This is just way too easy for fraud that the fact that it's Amazon is appalling.


Amazing that the scammer is even able to have the fraudulent replacement item sent to a different address than where the order was originally sent not once, but twice and an address not associated with the account nor confirmed/verified and could possibly be linked to multiple accounts.

Seems like a blatant oversight in loss prevention and fraudulent data sifting. Not only does it admit that an account has been compromised in some shape (socially most likely), but it disappointingly shows incompetence in Amazon CSRs.


If I recall, to deliver to a new address, Amazon requires you to verify by entering the card details you are using for the purchase, to prevent fraud. They should be doing the same here.


Maybe that fails for zero cost items like this as there is no card being used?


But if its a return, surely they can pair it with the original purchase, inc. the address and card used?


The card might have expired and be destroyed, so you could have a valid reason for not being able to produce the number.


In which case, you would simply get in touch with support and prove your identity and purchase some other way as my thinking is that this would a rare occurence, since receiving a faulty purchase pair using a card that has expired and you no longer hold whilst living at a completely different address is a freak event. Plus, couldn't you still use the expired card as verification even it expired?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: