Slashdot Mirror

I'd love to hear what the Republicans in Congress say on this.

Well, there were 184 votes in favor of the amendment banning this practice. Only 1 vote was from a Republican.

Only one Republican voted for it. 183 Democrats (and Independents?) did. So there's a real difference.

http://www.dailytech.com/Proposed+Amendment+to+Prevent+Employers+from+Asking+for+Facebook+UsernamesPasswords+Fails/article24337.htm

If you don't look too close, you can call it bipartisan and be pissed at both parties. If you look closer, however, you see the blame falls primarily on one side of the aisle, as with this amendment. Same thing with CISPA, SOPA and PIPA.

Bitcoin mining is barely profitable now. Bitcoin "difficulty" self-adjusts so that the number of new Bitcoins created per unit time remains constant. Currently, that number is about 6*50*24*30 = 216K bitcoins per month, worth about $900K/month. Every few years, the number of coins created per unit time drops, so that eventually there will be a fixed number of coins, 21 million. Around the end of 2012, half of all Bitcoins that will ever be created will have been created, and the production rate drops in half, according to a schedule built into all the programs that accept Bitcoins.

All Bitcoin "miners" are thus in competition for a fixed and declining amount of revenue. Many have already dropped out, as can be seen from the hash rate statistics. In areas with high electricity costs, even running existing hardware doesn't pay. Buying new hardware in bulk was popular in early 2011, but not any more.

Of course, if you can find some sucker to provide a GPU and pay for the power, the economics looks better. Hence the Bitcoin trojan. The concept of a VC-funded Bitcoin trojan is a bit much. Putting in $500K to suck money out of the system might pay off in the short term, but it's not something that can grow. If you put in $5M, you'd be competing with yourself for a finite revenue stream. Also, running a background GPU job on anything that isn't plugged in will produce some very angry users as their batteries die.

If you think mere rarity will make Bitcoins grow in value, go on eBay and see what collectable stuff from the Franklin Mint (once a big maker of "collectables") goes for.

Actually, the only mistake I appear to have made was in crediting Apple with the swipe-to-unlock patent. It seems the truth is more complicated.

Incidentally, the patent mentioned in that linked article doesn't cover swipe to unlock. Here's claim 1:

1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program with computer program code, which, when read by a mobile handheld computer unit, allows the computer to present a user interface for the mobile handheld computer unit, the user interface comprising:

a touch sensitive area in which a representation of a function is provided, wherein the representation consists of only one option for activating the function and wherein the function is activated by a multi-step operation comprising (i) an object touching the touch sensitive area at a location where the representation is provided and then (ii) the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from the touched location, wherein the representation of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding.

Since the unlock switch is relocated under your finger as you swipe, it doesn't infringe this patent.

Actually, the only mistake I appear to have made was in crediting Apple with the swipe-to-unlock patent. It seems the truth is more complicated.

Read that article and the associated claims, and tell me how, in your professional opinion as a patent attorney, the "progress of science and the useful arts" was advanced when the USPTO granted a 20-year monopoly on all likely implementations of the slide-to-unlock gesture.

This oughtta be good.

Sure. First, you're begging the question - your question requires that "all likely implementations" are covered by this patent, which means that you're presuming there's no reasonable way to design around the patent. That's not true.

Second, there's no requirement that an individual patent advances the "progress of science and the useful arts". Rather, that's the mission of the patent system (and copyright system) as a whole. Within that, however, there may be patents on gambling devices, butt-kicking machines, machines for fooling customers into thinking they're drinking fresh squeezed orange juice instead of concentrate, etc., none of which particularly advance the useful arts. However, the required public disclosure advances the useful arts because it takes away the incentives to have trade secrets. White papers, functional specs, open sourcing of proprietary code, etc. Those are what the patent system encourages and protects, and those are what advance the useful arts.

So, finally, yes. The USPTO granting patents, even on something like slide-to-unlock, encourages public disclosure of new inventions and promotes the progress of the useful arts.

Actually, the only mistake I appear to have made was in crediting Apple with the swipe-to-unlock patent. It seems the truth is more complicated.

Read that article and the associated claims, and tell me how, in your professional opinion as a patent attorney, the "progress of science and the useful arts" was advanced when the USPTO granted a 20-year monopoly on all likely implementations of the slide-to-unlock gesture.

This oughtta be good.

Your last comment comment about China is interesting:

The villain in the remake of Red Dawn was actually switched from China (realistic) to North Korea (ridiculous) in order to not upset China (and its movie audiences). I guess the producers figured that "vaguely Asian-looking" actors could just as easily be viewed by American audiences as Korean.

There is "sand" involved here, though: heads are nestled deeply in it.

It's interesting that you and the parent AC believe this is somehow a "war on the academic sector". There is indeed a war, but it's not coming from within. First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

Asia's balance of power: China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."

China’s military rise: The dragon’s new teeth
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

And now on to what's happening every day in US academic and business environments:

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Att

First question that came to mind when I read the article was, "will the update be pushed, or will the driver have to initiate it?" Second question was, "updates can't be done while the engine's running..... can it?" I assume this mbrace2 system is tied into the car' main OS based on what the "secrets" linked article says.

Can't find many details atm, but evidently you get to pay a yearly subscription fee for the updates... sounds nice.

Of course. Look how much they pay for those laws:

Google: American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

They are the clearing house for all laws that are purchased by corporations. They'll even write the law for you and then helpfully handle the "lobbying effort" to get the law passed. And by "lobbying effort" I mean they will pump millions into the campaigns of lawmakers who will push and pass their laws. And by "push and pass" I mean the way you push and pass a rock-hard stool. And by "stool" I mean Republican.

I'm putting the above to music, in my effort to re-make Schoolhouse Rock for the 21st century. "How to get law passed if you are a wealthy corporation" is the title of this one.

Yeah, only Republicans sell out.

Which must be why you can't spell DMCA without that BIG FAT D.

Which must be why the MPAA explicitly threatened that right-wing wacko Rethuglican Barack Obama:

MPAA Chief Threatens Obama, Congress for SOPA Rejection

"Don't take us for granted."

That was the message the former Democrat Senator from Connecticut Chris Dodd sent his old Senate colleague -- and now President -- Barack Obama...

He comments, "Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."

The NSA operates under the assumption that they are permanently compromised and heavily compartmentalize and set up internal firewalls as a result.

...in the JD Power IQS Customer Satisfaction Rankings:
"Ford went from a fifth place ranking in the 2011 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study to a mediocre 23rd place showing this year. Sister-brand Lincoln took a similar nosedive, falling from eighth place all the way down to 17th place this year. ... Not surprisingly, MyFord Touch was the biggest contributor to Ford's fall from grace. "
And who designed the MyFord touch? Give you one guess.

I had the same fear, the image at actual size would have bad detail. However, Nokia has sample images available for download that look amazing, seems suspicious. Link to sample pics towards the bottom. http://www.dailytech.com/Nokias+41+MP+Super+Phone+to+Sport+Symbian+See+EuroOnly+Launch/article24093.htm

The link you gave is grievously flawed.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to do better job than cite one study out of 54 and claim it's not broad enough for your liking.

No word about the vast wealth generated by not restricting human industry on a global scale or the add-on effects of increasing human poverty.

Of course, climate change may already be making human poverty worse. Please remember the policy I gave you does not restrict human industry. That is a potential solution to the problem, but one which I would place in the "extreme" reactions. We could pass laws that restrict the ability of industry to release carbon dioxide. However, it's highly probable that it would cheaper and less disruptive to introduce a carbon tax. A carbon tax doesn't restrict human industry, it puts a price on the externality of carbon dioxide emissions and thus corrects a fundamental flaw in the marketplace. Implemented in a revenue neutral way, a carbon tax can shift the tax burden from activity we want to encourage (investment, employment) to activity we want to discourage (carbon emissions).

The first thing to remember about this remarkable display of ignorance and shallow blitheness is that one doesn't see opportunity costs. One doesn't see the industry and productivity the developed world could have had, if they hadn't chased that industry off to China and elsewhere.

That's a pretty simplistic analysis of the Chinese situation. Lax environmental regulations are a common reason for offshoring to China. Low wage rates is usually the primary motivating factor, although Apple, of course, appreciates the fact that Foxconn basically employ slaves who can be literally worked to death.

Well, there's a lot of bitter, powerless people on Slashdot who complain ineffectually that the business world treats them unfairly, employing cheap Chinese or whatever workers in an unregulated environment rather. Well, that's a consequence of environmental regulation. They also complain that they don't get the free shit that they picked up a right for. Well, that's a psychological consequence of environmental regulation, that what petty thing you want is actually some high-minded principle.

I've heard more people shocked be how bad the environmental degradation in China has become than I've heard people claiming they're out of job because of that. Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard someone complain that their job was shipped to China because China has no environmental regulations. Interestingly enough, China is going through a bit of an environmental revolution. It turns out that Chinese workers don't like living in smog covered cities any more than Americans do.

This is typical of the blindness that surrounds so much of environmentalism.

And killing people so long as it can't be directly linked to your actions is a hallmark of unfettered capitalism (see cigarettes, asbestos, dow chemicals*). As it turns out, most people would like a middle ground where businesses don't poison their neighbours and kill their employees but still provide a robust capitalistic system.

* As it turns out cigarettes, asbestos and climate change deniers have one thing in common: the same PR firms.

It works. People like it. Redesigns are expensive.

Maybe they'd change it to avoid getting sued by Samsung for copying the Samsung Digital Photo Frame design: http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/47/samsung_digital_photo_frame.gif

Yeah, that looks exactly like an iPad. Especially the back.

Are other news outlets jumping on the bandwagon?

Do slashdot posters ignore anything that Apple may have done to improve the situation?

http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Apple+Cuts+07+Percent+of+iPad+Profit+to+Give+Factory+Workers+Big+Raise/article18571.htm

Not Trolling. Not FUD.

Yes, it was idiotic, but it did happen.

http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Apple+Caught+Photoshopping+Galaxy+Tab+101+to+Look+Like+iPad+for+Lawsuit/article22459.htm

http://www.technobuffalo.com/companies/apple/apple-could-have-given-faulty-evidence-in-euro-samsung-case/

http://pauloflaherty.com/2011/08/16/was-apple-caught-fudging-the-facts/

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/15/did-apple-alter-photos-of-the-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-in-its-inj/

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/15/apples-evidence-in-european-galaxy-tab-injunction-was-seriously-misleading-as-in-false/

do you need more?

You make some interesting points. However, the Win32 API will probably remain the same. As such, it will be a simple matter of recompiling legacy apps for ARM. I don't see the big problem here? Furthermore, enabling touch support for an existing code base is a matter of tweaking the UI layer. You could argue that those apps will not be very user friendly if not designed from the ground up to be touch friendly, but being able to leverage existing code means you're already halfway there.

As for your question of - why prefer it to a netbook? Because a tablet which has a detachable mouse and keyboard makes more sense than a netbook. Would you rather spend money on and lug around 3 or 4 devices, and maintain software on all of them, or have one device which does it all? I'm saying that things will eventually head that way. That's the only way Microsoft can break the tablet market. And in the process of doing so, they will kill the desktop PC/laptop market. Stuff like the Asus Transformer and the Motorola Atrix are a portent of things to come.

As for Word, MS word is the defacto word processing standard, whether we like it or not. 94% of the market is with Office. MS word, or extremely good compatibility with it, will be critical to most users. Libre Office compatibility with MS word is very poor. I have tried it, and have experienced it first hand. A piece of software that 94% of people use has every chance to make or break Android.

What I'm saying in summary is, if a user had a chance to buy a Windows 8 Tablet, and run Word on it (and connect mouse/keyboard to it), they'd probably buy that, instead of spending another $500 on an Android tablet on which they can do less.

Are you really all that surprised? I mean, isn't NY the same state whose (Democrat) senators claim that the First Amendment is a privilege, not a right?

Congressional staff most certainly use the Internet.

Talk to Capcom...

http://www.dailytech.com/Capcoms+OneSave+Game+Hits+The+Mercenaries+3D+Kills+Potential+Used+Game+Sales/article22025.htm

I've seen some of the stuff they are working on in their "labs", and a lot of it is indeed quite innovative. Yet very little ever makes it to a product. Wonder why? There are some smart people working on interesting things in Redmond, but apparently at some level on the Microsoft machine, it all gets patented and forgotten (until they need to ass fuck someone with the patent?)

Thing is, this observation isn't new- it's been commented on for *years* that Microsoft have labs stuffed full of very clever and innovative people, yet still seem to end up churning out mediocre, uninspiring crap. One explanation is that internal politics are responsible- this article comment from someone who claims to have worked at Microsoft (click link for full version) is informative:-

There have been many instances at Microsoft where genuine innovations have sat on the shelf or been half-heartedly brought to market [.. In 2002 MS had..] a prototype smartphone that had (essentially) all the useability features of an iPhone, including a trick interface, accelerometer and multi-touch. It was cobbled together and not very pretty, but as a proof of concept, it worked. Yet it never saw the light of day. Why?

Brass’s tablet project was well advanced in the labs too, but somehow never got the traction it deserved internally. [..]

Microsoft has a Darwinian internal structure. Each business unit has to fight for scarce resources, - they compete with each other and only the strong survive. Succeeding in that environment involves more than just having a good (or even great) product or project. Unless you’re Office or Windows, you have to build symbiotic relationships with other business units (preferably the big guys) just to ensure your survival. You have to make their success (at least partially) dependent on yours

[..Secondly..] in its youth, Microsoft could afford to hire only the best and the brightest. Smart people are flexible and innovative in their approach and this reflects in the company’s culture. As the enormous growth of the late 90s took hold, we couldn’t keep up with the demand for more employees and as a consequence, the quality bar dropped. We started employing people who were merely good, not outstanding. These new people were less flexible, less able to handle organisational ambiguity and less passionate about what they were doing. They started to build bureaucracy as a safety-net and as a structure in which they were comfortable operating. Goodbye to dynamic decision-making and rapid market responses.

Anyway, bottom line; the "smart" people starting work there know (or must be really, *really* blinkered not to know) of this reputation, so why are they working there? Silly money?

I'll grant that they came up with Kinect recently, which was pretty innovative (albeit as a response to the Wii controller) and smacked of research turned into a workable product. But that was pretty recent (so couldn't have inspired any but the newest recruits) and probably benefitted from being an XBox product that was out of the way of the entrenched interests and politics of the main Windows-focussed divisions, and in an area where MS had more to gain than lose from innovation.

This story says the crash was pilot error.

http://www.dailytech.com/Despite+OBOGS+Failure+Pilot+Error+Blamed+in+Fatal+F22+Raptor+Crash/article23526.htm

Right now, it's illegal (per FAA regs) to use drones for commercial purposes. There are reports that someone has tried it anyway, but those who don't wish to draw the FAA's ire are waiting until the regs describing how and where drones can be used for commercial uses are finalized (expected some time in 2012, although that may be delayed with the recent arrest and subsequent resignation of Randy Babbit).

If they gain enough market share from it they could be looking at a Anti Trust suit.

Already there: http://www.dailytech.com/US+Justice+Department+Climbs+Aboard+EBook+Antitrust+Investigation+/article23466.htm

On a phone vs. phone basis, Apple is winning.

Except for last quarter.

I never said they "stole" the idea like the OP did. I said they copied them and then patented implementations of it, and then act as if they are the greatest, most innovative company of all time. You can copy something *while* giving credit at the same time, *and* sue everybody else doing similar things (which is essentially what Apple did).

http://www.dailytech.com/Judge+Refuses+Apples+Request+for+Preliminary+Injunction+Against+Samsung/article23014.htm

Tell me how in any way these smartphone "features" deserve patent protection. The patent system has basically turned into a protection racket.

YES! They should open source it. I know they paid $1.2 billion for WebOS, but there are so many companies making so much money off of open source, they'll make back their money in no time. Look how much Google has earned off of Andriod! I don't know exactly what it is, but it's used on 56% of smartphones so I'm sure it _A LOT_.

Obviously not, but today, Obama actively sought the Supreme Court's acquiescence in warrantless GPS tracking. So, Obama is actually responsible for this particular usage because it complies with his general policy goals. Do you seriously think Obama had no idea what was being argued in his name at the SCOTUS?

http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Administration+Fights+to+Allow+Warrantless+GPS+Tracking/article22021.htm

Remember that RSA thing, didn't Lockheed get hacked? http://www.dailytech.com/Reports+Hackers+Use+Stolen+RSA+Information+to+Hack+Lockheed+Martin/article21757.htm

It was 550,000/day in mid-July. http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Sets+Earnings+Record+Sees+550K+Android+Activations+Daily/article22164.htm

Heh, Apple would probably photoshop a rotary phone to look like an iPhone...

http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Caught+Using+Photoshop+to+Fake+More+Pics+in+Lawsuits/article22500.htm

Apple #1? I don't think so.

I own an iPhone, and yes I know Apple gets way more press than Android... but Apple has 28% market share. Andriod has 56% and is growing:

Android Market Share Reaches 56 Percent; RIM's, Microsoft's Cut in Half

And this slightly older article:
Android market share nears 50% worldwide

The Passport Canada website had a security flaw discovered by a user. They took the website down, fixed the problem, and kindly abstained from pursuing legal action. If a government can behave civilly, surely others can too.

According to the latest market-share statistics, most people prefer Android.

Considering how much of the cost of the ISS comes from putting the pieces in orbit to begin with, you can be pretty sure that they won't be de-orbiting it until they have to.

Or 2020, whichever comes first...

http://www.dailytech.com/International+Space+Station+to+Deorbit+After+2020/article22277.htm

-AI

and Wozniak is who i respect more then jobs. jobs was little more then a egomaniac control freak.(see pirates of silicon valley). yes some apple products were successful under him but many people seem to forget stuff like the apple cube or 'the your holding it wrong' debacle instead of admitting the antenna was grounded wrong..

all the ones that were successful were neither the first to market nor the best available either, they were only the best marketed. if you looked past the ad's and away from best buy or target you could find great deals on much better products.

that's where he excelled as a marketing guy. he also seemed to have reached new lows before he died though in abusing the legal system to get a complete ban on any sort or rectangular thin computer device in Germany (see here: http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Crushes+Samsung+in+German+Court+Galaxy+Tab+101+Ban+is+Complete/article22682.htm ) and other countries using photoshoped( see here: http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/195473/apple-files-inaccurate-evidence-dutch-samsung-case and here: http://www.pcworld.com/article/238047/apple_offers_flawed_evidence_in_lawsuit_against_samsung.html ) pictures that were made to make the galaxy tab look more similar to the ipad then it actually was. But i guess android out selling apple's iphone( see here: http://www.mobilemarketingwatch.com/android-outsells-iphone-2-to-1-in-summer-smartphone-sales-18775/ ) was too much of a blow to his ego to get those 'inovating juices' flowing?

That happens all the time (in my paint analogy). Customers want a certain brand, certain color, etc. I don't see the difference (or why my first comment was considered 'trolling', but whatever). MS Office has a 94% market share (if you believe http://www.dailytech.com/Office+2010+to+Launch+Today+Microsoft+Owns+94+Percent+of+the+Market/article18360.htm), then why wouldn't any company, gov't or otherwise, be justified in requesting it?

Or may be German courts are pretty insulting to the intelligence of the German courts?

The immediate ban on sales shows either that or lack of integrity - because other court after detailed examination gives the result of "No infringements found in tablets (which were banned by Germany), one patent about gallery app behaviour stands, so smartphones are waiting for the patch to fix that"

Here are some links from this very article comments, collected for your (in)covenience.

I hope you can find which one corresponds to which one of the points you all keep repeating.

Apple has silly design patents on obvious shapes.

... they don't have to license.

... because a EU court already wrote the design claims off as obvious and having prior art.

The vast majority of Microsoft commerical products are developed in C++. There are instances of Microsoft commercial applications and tools written in .NET but the core product offerings SQL Server, MS Office, Windows, and even Visual Studio are all written in C++. This means those applications have to be ported to the ARM processor which is very doable. I imagine the more tenuous issue has to do with Microsoft's very longtime relationship with Intel and the x86 instruction set. If Microsoft starts embracing the ARM instruction as an equal to Intel x86 that would cause riffs in the WinTel alliance. The market has forced Microsoft's hand already on releasing a specific version of Windows 8 to run on the ARM and that has not pleased Intel. But Intel had to capitulate and cannot blame them since Intel's own chip really cannot fully compete with the ARM on several levels. What I think will be interesting is to see if Microsoft continues the port to ARM and offers not only Windows 8 on ARM laptops and workstations but also begins to port their other core applications to the ARM instruction set. After being involved on way or another for decades in the computer industry, the ARM chip and its adoption rate seem very similar to how Intel began on disconnected PCs and then moved to portable PCs and finally into the data center and beyond. Likewise, the ARM chip have started out on low power, small devices and some are foreseeing the adoption of this efficient chip architecture into laptops, desktops, and data centers with several large companies like Nividia and Dell taking a large gamble on it. In fact, the ARM chip is being considers for a super computer. From a chip architectural perspective, it is easier to scale go up than down.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/nvidia-eyes-arm-based-supercomputers/13343

But Intel is a fierce competitor and they will not sit around while someone eats their market share. They have crushed the competition before (Cyrix, PowerPC, DEC, AMD) and they will attempt to do so again. To me what is different about ARM is that the adoption is happening automatically and organically in the market place. It is not a force-fed situation with expensive marketing campaigns and an army of sales people.
http://www.dailytech.com/IDF+2011+Intel+Looks+to+Take+a+Bite+Out+of+ARM+AMD+With+3D+FinFET+Tech/article22719.htm

Apple is trying to reduce market selection, sorry I couldn't find where I read this. Apple also believes they own the right to make touch devices, http://www.dailytech.com/Apples+Lawyers+Take+Quest+to+Kill+Android+to+Japan/article22660.htm

Jake Davis was framed by the real Topiary, Daniel Sandberg:

http://www.dailytech.com/Exclusive+British+Police+Duped+by+LulzSec+Into+Arresting+the+Wrong+Guy/article22280.htm

who is probably hiding in a cave right now since all his personal info has been freely available online for some time.

Nothing that Apple is doing that nobody else is doing.

Actually, that is not true. After the FoxConn issues, Apple helped give employees a huge raise.

Foxconn makes stuff for many other companies besides Apple, but Apple is the only company that did this.

From another angle, few other computers companies that I know of go to such great lengths to reduce use of toxic materials in manufacturing... that's party why they went to aluminum cases, to which are water cut.

Please don't put words into my mouth. Inever said you choose Apple products because they're shiny or trendy. Why you like Apple products is irrelevant here. What I was referencing was the fact that you were moved enough by my comparison of Apple with Microsoft to comment about it on the internets.

The comparison still stands. They're both entirely motivated by greed. Ethics takes a back-seat to profit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the main reason we all hate Microsoft? Why call one company out on their ethics violations and not another?

Yes, Flash is a proprietary multimedia format. That doesn't change the fact that by not allowing Flash on iOS, Apple is preventing iOS users from accessing a lot of online content. That has forced many sites (YouTube, for example) to stop using Flash so iOS devices can view their content. It doesn't matter that Flash is annoying, slow, and proprietary, this is still a clear-cut case of Apple making a unilateral decision on web technology. Apple also disabled Google Voice on iPhones so

As for the interrogations, sources are here, and here, and here. If that isn't a totalitarian management strategy, Idon't know what is.

BTW just because Microsoft uses tamper resistant screws doesn't mean it's not a violation of consumer rights. If you can't fix it, you don't really own it.

According to this article the upgrade costs $50.

There are indications that they have the wrong guy: http://www.dailytech.com/Exclusive+British+Police+Duped+by+LulzSec+Into+Arresting+the+Wrong+Guy/article22280.htm

which wouldn't surprise me as making things point to some other likely suspect is exactly what i would do if i were performing acts like hacking the CIA....

This guy was framed by the real Topiary as revenge for impersonating him. See:

http://www.dailytech.com/Exclusive+British+Police+Duped+by+LulzSec+Into+Arresting+the+Wrong+Guy/article22280.htm

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22280
Evidence such as previously leaked information, IRC logs, and the age, identity and location of the suspect arrested suggest that they caught the wrong person.

well, lulzsec had their main guy nabbed, so they're out of action. right? or, wait, did they get the wrong guy?

maybe l.s. can refocus world attention and let everyone know that we have rogue senators trying to pull a fast one on us.

the world needs new heros. sadly, we can't count on our 'elected' officials to work in our interests. I hope there is someone out there who can.