It was the iPhone 3G. At one point I had to reinstall iOS on it, however, Apple had removed most older versions of apps from the app store that would run under the latest iOS that the 3G would run.
I'd upgraded to iOS 4, but like most 3G users found, iOS 4 drained a 3G's battery life much faster. I switched back to the older version of iOS 3, but this wiped out all the apps installed, something I wasn't warned about beforehand, and none of the "full backups" I'd made had this either. However, because Apple had removed most of the iOS 3 (and, I found, iOS 4.2.1) compatible versions of apps, I lost the ability to install and run about 2/3 of the apps that I'd been using the previous day, with no real way to get them back.
Are they Android "fan boys" or do they merely prefer it over the alternatives?
If you want a smartphone these days, you only have a few options: Windows Phone, iPhone, and Android. Blackberry is dead. At least with an Android phone, it's possible to flash it with an alternative firmware like CyanogenMod. So to me, Android is the best of the available choices.
I still like my Galaxy S5 over the iPhone I used to have, by a wide margin. But Android has since burned me too, most noticeably with the roadblocks that the phone (is this Android? Google? AT&T?) put up to prevent me from getting root access on my phone, and the other stupid barriers they put into place to make their external SDcard slot less useful.
Dude. Steve Jobs was an asshole. He was an asshole who wanted the Apple user experience to be good, and he was absolutely a hyper-competent asshole. But that doesn't change the sort of personality he had.
Nice strawman you've got there.
Steve Jobs != Apple, Inc.
Ah, but the guy you were responding to was comparing CEO temperaments.
HOWEVER, that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with APPLE pulling a similar stunt to what GOOGLE is doing here. Nothing whatsoever. Because, as I said, there is ZERO evidence that APPLE has EVER done anything even remotely evil as what Google is doing.
I've had my share of Apple reducing the functionality of my iPhone before. But nothing quite on the level of this "total brickage" bullshit.
When will people figure out that if you don't have the source code and build toolchain, you don't own the product?
When will people figure out that if you don't have the design specs & tooling, you don't own the product?
Which one sounds stupider? Neither, they're both stupid.
They're not equally stupid though. When a product requires online support to work properly, they don't have something that's nearly reliable as the older offline model.
"Consumers" (COWS) are just going to have to feel sufficient pain before they realize why they want a Libre OpenBarista instead of the iSmug Brewer+.
Consumers are never going to want Libre OpenBarista. They don't want to set up their stupid OpenBarista server, they don't want to maintain the software, they don't want to do all the nonsense that I have just gotten used to doing with F/OSS packages over the last several decades. They want to brew their coffee, not mess around with servers, not futz with network settings, and they certainly don't want to spend time setting it up according to the poorly written directions, have it mysteriously fail to work with a cryptic error message, then deal with some dickweed on a crappy support forum who tells him he clearly didn't read the fucking manual hard enough.
For the average consumer, the priority list for what they want to deal with is: Libre OpenBarista plain old coffeepot iSmug Brewer+. And that's the right decision for them.
But that's not even the worst part, the worst part was that Apple refused to unbrick the devices, and basically forced everybody to come to their repair shops. Why is that bad? Because right to repair is actually codified in US law, meaning it's illegal for a manufacturer to create countermeasures for you doing self repairs and/or going to third parties for repair.
Oh, but don't you get it? This isn't "blocking the right to repair," it's all about blocking any non-Apple modification to a trusted device. Being able to get it repaired is just an unintentional side-effect. Which apparently companies do have the right to do now, DMCA anti-circumvention seems to trump other laws.
Dude. Steve Jobs was an asshole. He was an asshole who wanted the Apple user experience to be good, and he was absolutely a hyper-competent asshole. But that doesn't change the sort of personality he had.
Latency and packet loss from any source to any destination? or withing the access network itself?? I mean if the company peers with many upstream transit providers via BGP they really aren't in control of average latency at all when it leaves their network. Also latency and packet loss will be higher during periods of congestion. Forget that most modern switches don't really even have buffers on 40g and 100g interfaces so when you aggregate you can still have discards when over the second you are nowhere close to 100gbps...
I'm not sure what it's like for Comcast now, but five-plus years ago they were well-known for having eternally-oversubscribed regional networks, and one dude with a huge download or torrent would raise pings and cause dropped packets for everyone.
But yeah, it seems difficult otherwise to qualify what "packet loss" means. Is it, say, poor-quality lines to the local office, such that the customer's speed even to the ISP itself is slow? Or does that refer to the ISP's connections to the outside world? They're two different problems that might have the same symptom: "slow youtube speeds."
Why SHOULD someone who's decided to skip the line and avoid the legal requirements of proper immigration get empathy from those they're cheating?
For the same reason that a black woman who decided to sit at the front of the bus or a black man who ignored the "no coloreds" sign at the sandwich shop should get empathy.
It's more like the man at the back of the line waiting to get onto the bus pushing past the woman in front of him so he can get to the last seat before she can.
This strokes me as an odd conclusion to come to. What do you mean by open borders? Like, no passport control whatsoever and just anyone can come and go as they please? I can't imagine there are very many people at all that would want something that chaotic and unregulated.
In California there are quite a few of these people. I've seen them regularly in the Latino community (and they're not necessarily Latino -- it's as much a Marin or Berkeley upper-class white attitude as it is anything else) and they are adamant about a few points:
1) They lump "legal immigrants" and "illegal immigrants" into one category, "immigrants" and refuse to call either group anything else, because they want to blur the line, as if there was no difference in actions. Because to them, there is no difference in actions. They know that if you're against any immigration at all, you're xenophobic, maybe racist, and a hypocrite. So the name of the game right now is to tar people against illegal immigration as being against "immigrants." And that's because...
2) They claim that freedom of movement is a human right, and if you do not let anyone cross whatever country border they want at any time they desire, without restriction, then you are trampling on their human rights. Country borders and laws are meaningless and evil if they impede people from living wherever they want. So there's no such thing as "illegal immigration," and thus, no "illegal immigrants."
Yeah, I won't give AT&T my credit card number because I don't want them just reaching in and taking money whenever they feel like it.
This is pretty much why I don't give Paypal direct access to my bank account no matter how much they beg for it. They have been known to 'fine' users they believe broke their ToS, and if they have your account well.. they can just reach in and take out the money. Once it's gone, you have little recourse.
Never ever EVER give a company your credit card number for automated billing. NEVER EVER EVER give them your bank account information for automated billing.
You asked for this problem when you signed up.
In my case, AT&T got me when I paid my bill by check on time. They then sent a refund check to me for that amount, recharged my account, and put a late fee on top. It took a long time to figure out since the sequence of events was so nonsensical. And the AT&T finance rep swore they did not receive a payment for that month even though I had the canceled check. When I refused to pay the extra charge they closed my account for non-payment (after being told the account was going to be frozen to prevent just that), and when I asked I was told that since the account was terminated, I would have to sign up for a new one with a new email address, and my old email address was no longer available. Back then, EVERYTHING was tied to that email address.
I learned then never to trust AT&T, and switched to a local ISP. AT&T sucks.
I'm also curious what the contraction in their catalog is caused by, are they really taking on less A list shows or are they not bringing in as many C list made for TV movies.
The contraction is due to a fundamental disagreement about pricing between Netflix and the content companies. Netflix offers a "one size fits all, unlimited streaming for a fixed price per month" model that the content companies don't like. They want titles to be pay-per-view, they want to charge more for different titles, and charge more for high-def versus low-def, things Netflix says degrades the viewer experience (and they're not wrong). So the content companies, who say that customers should be paying far more than Netflix charges for the content they watch, charge exorbitant fees when these streaming deals come up for negotiation, if they're willing to allow Netflix to stream at all.
Unlike with DVDs and Blu-Rays, where you buy one and you keep it forever, you, me, and Netflix can lose the right to see anything through streaming at any time. It's the return of the "bad old days" when Disney would pull back a title and put it back into "The Disney Vault," so they could make a big event of releasing the movie from The Vault a few years later. It's an exploitation of copyright, but the pendulum of power has swung way over to the side of the content companies.
Their original shows are just icing on the cake. But lately Netflix seems to think that they can be just another TV network like HBO, and have neglected what made most of their customers subscribe to their service in the first place.
What are you talking about, their DVD and Blu-Ray selection is still great!
Their streaming options always, always sucked. But that's not really their fault -- with the current set of laws in the US, you can't run a good online streaming service. You just can't.
I'm wondering if the editors sometimes remove names to prevent ad-hom attacks on the story
That would require them to know that everybody thinks you're a trolling asshat. Which is unlikely because they don't even know that everyone thinks *they're* asshat's.
Humm, maybe they just think you're an asshat too?
So you're saying that the editors don't read comments anymore? I'm not sure about that...
Though it'd explain some of the anti-comment design decisions that went into Slashdot Beta.
This would be true if we used oil to make electricity which, for the most part in the United States of America, we don't. (Don't come back saying lots of villages in Alaska use diesel generators because I know that. I'm talking about grid power throughout the land)
In parts of the country that don't use coal and nuclear, natural gas is burned to generate electricity. It's the largest single source of electricity generation in California, out-generating all other domestic energy sources combined.
Probably has more to do with cheap oil than the Chinese at least the current situation.
Solyndra's collapse predates the cheap oil boom. Prices are currently around $40/barrel, but they were at around $91/barrel inflation adjusted in 2011, the year Solyndra filed for bankruptcy. Oil was extremely cheap in the 90s, then rose in the mid-2000s to near-historic high levels, where they stayed until 2015 when the price fell back down to c. 2003 levels.
No, I didn't, because I expect (in vain) the editors to do their job and make stories understandable for the great majority of their readership without having to refer to another website.
I don't think that's too much to ask of a site like this.
But they did do that. The first link in the summary is the wikipedia description of the service. This is hypertext, why write everything inline when a link is supposed to describe any term?
Unless of course the Slashdot editors added that in after posting.
So any gay men in the room, or any heterosexual women, or hell any fucking married men or religious men can just go get fucked, is that about the size of it?
Nothing confirms that adolescent mindset more at/. than people like you.
I'm a gay man and I have absolutely no problem with pretty girls dancing. I don't tend to have a stick up my ass like the ever-so-outraged crowd does, though.
the equivalent of strippers that didn't even get their clothes off
I'm pretty sure there must be a better designation for that.
I've been seeing more that a lot of people cannot fathom the concept of good-looking professional dancers who are just... dancers. I've seen a lot of those sorts of comments here ("good looking dancers = prostitution and bribery"), I've seen plenty of comments to go along with that Shakira music video from Zootopia ("in the concert at the end of Zootopia why are all those strippers on stage?"). Just this notion that anyone showing off the body has to be a prostitute is depressingly common.
Hiring dancers is bribery now? I think that would be small small tiny potatoes compared with the regular bribery "cost of doing business" in that far east division.
Slashdot Mirror
It was the iPhone 3G. At one point I had to reinstall iOS on it, however, Apple had removed most older versions of apps from the app store that would run under the latest iOS that the 3G would run.
I'd upgraded to iOS 4, but like most 3G users found, iOS 4 drained a 3G's battery life much faster. I switched back to the older version of iOS 3, but this wiped out all the apps installed, something I wasn't warned about beforehand, and none of the "full backups" I'd made had this either. However, because Apple had removed most of the iOS 3 (and, I found, iOS 4.2.1) compatible versions of apps, I lost the ability to install and run about 2/3 of the apps that I'd been using the previous day, with no real way to get them back.
Are they Android "fan boys" or do they merely prefer it over the alternatives?
If you want a smartphone these days, you only have a few options: Windows Phone, iPhone, and Android. Blackberry is dead. At least with an Android phone, it's possible to flash it with an alternative firmware like CyanogenMod. So to me, Android is the best of the available choices.
I still like my Galaxy S5 over the iPhone I used to have, by a wide margin. But Android has since burned me too, most noticeably with the roadblocks that the phone (is this Android? Google? AT&T?) put up to prevent me from getting root access on my phone, and the other stupid barriers they put into place to make their external SDcard slot less useful.
Dude. Steve Jobs was an asshole. He was an asshole who wanted the Apple user experience to be good, and he was absolutely a hyper-competent asshole.
But that doesn't change the sort of personality he had.
Nice strawman you've got there.
Steve Jobs != Apple, Inc.
Ah, but the guy you were responding to was comparing CEO temperaments.
HOWEVER, that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with APPLE pulling a similar stunt to what GOOGLE is doing here. Nothing whatsoever. Because, as I said, there is ZERO evidence that APPLE has EVER done anything even remotely evil as what Google is doing.
I've had my share of Apple reducing the functionality of my iPhone before. But nothing quite on the level of this "total brickage" bullshit.
When will people figure out that if you don't have the source code and build toolchain, you don't own the product?
When will people figure out that if you don't have the design specs & tooling, you don't own the product?
Which one sounds stupider? Neither, they're both stupid.
They're not equally stupid though. When a product requires online support to work properly, they don't have something that's nearly reliable as the older offline model.
"Consumers" (COWS) are just going to have to feel sufficient pain before they realize why they want a Libre OpenBarista instead of the iSmug Brewer+.
Consumers are never going to want Libre OpenBarista. They don't want to set up their stupid OpenBarista server, they don't want to maintain the software, they don't want to do all the nonsense that I have just gotten used to doing with F/OSS packages over the last several decades. They want to brew their coffee, not mess around with servers, not futz with network settings, and they certainly don't want to spend time setting it up according to the poorly written directions, have it mysteriously fail to work with a cryptic error message, then deal with some dickweed on a crappy support forum who tells him he clearly didn't read the fucking manual hard enough.
For the average consumer, the priority list for what they want to deal with is: Libre OpenBarista plain old coffeepot iSmug Brewer+. And that's the right decision for them.
Lifetime warranties and assurances are for you the buyer's lifetime. Don't be facetious.
That's not being facetious, lifetime updates are for the buyer or the seller. Whichever dies first ends the agreement.
But that's not even the worst part, the worst part was that Apple refused to unbrick the devices, and basically forced everybody to come to their repair shops. Why is that bad? Because right to repair is actually codified in US law, meaning it's illegal for a manufacturer to create countermeasures for you doing self repairs and/or going to third parties for repair.
Oh, but don't you get it? This isn't "blocking the right to repair," it's all about blocking any non-Apple modification to a trusted device. Being able to get it repaired is just an unintentional side-effect. Which apparently companies do have the right to do now, DMCA anti-circumvention seems to trump other laws.
Dude. Steve Jobs was an asshole. He was an asshole who wanted the Apple user experience to be good, and he was absolutely a hyper-competent asshole.
But that doesn't change the sort of personality he had.
Latency and packet loss from any source to any destination? or withing the access network itself?? I mean if the company peers with many upstream transit providers via BGP they really aren't in control of average latency at all when it leaves their network. Also latency and packet loss will be higher during periods of congestion. Forget that most modern switches don't really even have buffers on 40g and 100g interfaces so when you aggregate you can still have discards when over the second you are nowhere close to 100gbps...
I'm not sure what it's like for Comcast now, but five-plus years ago they were well-known for having eternally-oversubscribed regional networks, and one dude with a huge download or torrent would raise pings and cause dropped packets for everyone.
But yeah, it seems difficult otherwise to qualify what "packet loss" means. Is it, say, poor-quality lines to the local office, such that the customer's speed even to the ISP itself is slow? Or does that refer to the ISP's connections to the outside world? They're two different problems that might have the same symptom: "slow youtube speeds."
Why SHOULD someone who's decided to skip the line and avoid the legal requirements of proper immigration get empathy from those they're cheating?
For the same reason that a black woman who decided to sit at the front of the bus or a black man who ignored the "no coloreds" sign at the sandwich shop should get empathy.
It's more like the man at the back of the line waiting to get onto the bus pushing past the woman in front of him so he can get to the last seat before she can.
This strokes me as an odd conclusion to come to. What do you mean by open borders? Like, no passport control whatsoever and just anyone can come and go as they please? I can't imagine there are very many people at all that would want something that chaotic and unregulated.
In California there are quite a few of these people. I've seen them regularly in the Latino community (and they're not necessarily Latino -- it's as much a Marin or Berkeley upper-class white attitude as it is anything else) and they are adamant about a few points:
1) They lump "legal immigrants" and "illegal immigrants" into one category, "immigrants" and refuse to call either group anything else, because they want to blur the line, as if there was no difference in actions. Because to them, there is no difference in actions. They know that if you're against any immigration at all, you're xenophobic, maybe racist, and a hypocrite. So the name of the game right now is to tar people against illegal immigration as being against "immigrants." And that's because...
2) They claim that freedom of movement is a human right, and if you do not let anyone cross whatever country border they want at any time they desire, without restriction, then you are trampling on their human rights. Country borders and laws are meaningless and evil if they impede people from living wherever they want. So there's no such thing as "illegal immigration," and thus, no "illegal immigrants."
You make the case that a lot of people who deserve to get paid were involved.
They have to be in denial and avoidance. Why would they read comments? They don't RTFA!
They read the comments so they can find out what the story is about, the same as the rest of us!
Yeah, I won't give AT&T my credit card number because I don't want them just reaching in and taking money whenever they feel like it.
This is pretty much why I don't give Paypal direct access to my bank account no matter how much they beg for it. They have been known to 'fine' users they believe broke their ToS, and if they have your account well.. they can just reach in and take out the money. Once it's gone, you have little recourse.
Never ever EVER give a company your credit card number for automated billing. NEVER EVER EVER give them your bank account information for automated billing.
You asked for this problem when you signed up.
In my case, AT&T got me when I paid my bill by check on time. They then sent a refund check to me for that amount, recharged my account, and put a late fee on top. It took a long time to figure out since the sequence of events was so nonsensical. And the AT&T finance rep swore they did not receive a payment for that month even though I had the canceled check. When I refused to pay the extra charge they closed my account for non-payment (after being told the account was going to be frozen to prevent just that), and when I asked I was told that since the account was terminated, I would have to sign up for a new one with a new email address, and my old email address was no longer available. Back then, EVERYTHING was tied to that email address.
I learned then never to trust AT&T, and switched to a local ISP. AT&T sucks.
I'm also curious what the contraction in their catalog is caused by, are they really taking on less A list shows or are they not bringing in as many C list made for TV movies.
The contraction is due to a fundamental disagreement about pricing between Netflix and the content companies. Netflix offers a "one size fits all, unlimited streaming for a fixed price per month" model that the content companies don't like. They want titles to be pay-per-view, they want to charge more for different titles, and charge more for high-def versus low-def, things Netflix says degrades the viewer experience (and they're not wrong). So the content companies, who say that customers should be paying far more than Netflix charges for the content they watch, charge exorbitant fees when these streaming deals come up for negotiation, if they're willing to allow Netflix to stream at all.
Unlike with DVDs and Blu-Rays, where you buy one and you keep it forever, you, me, and Netflix can lose the right to see anything through streaming at any time. It's the return of the "bad old days" when Disney would pull back a title and put it back into "The Disney Vault," so they could make a big event of releasing the movie from The Vault a few years later. It's an exploitation of copyright, but the pendulum of power has swung way over to the side of the content companies.
Their original shows are just icing on the cake. But lately Netflix seems to think that they can be just another TV network like HBO, and have neglected what made most of their customers subscribe to their service in the first place.
What are you talking about, their DVD and Blu-Ray selection is still great!
Their streaming options always, always sucked. But that's not really their fault -- with the current set of laws in the US, you can't run a good online streaming service. You just can't.
That would require them to know that everybody thinks you're a trolling asshat. Which is unlikely because they don't even know that everyone thinks *they're* asshat's.
Humm, maybe they just think you're an asshat too?
So you're saying that the editors don't read comments anymore? I'm not sure about that...
Though it'd explain some of the anti-comment design decisions that went into Slashdot Beta.
This would be true if we used oil to make electricity which, for the most part in the United States of America, we don't.
(Don't come back saying lots of villages in Alaska use diesel generators because I know that. I'm talking about grid power throughout the land)
In parts of the country that don't use coal and nuclear, natural gas is burned to generate electricity. It's the largest single source of electricity generation in California, out-generating all other domestic energy sources combined.
Probably has more to do with cheap oil than the Chinese at least the current situation.
Solyndra's collapse predates the cheap oil boom. Prices are currently around $40/barrel, but they were at around $91/barrel inflation adjusted in 2011, the year Solyndra filed for bankruptcy. Oil was extremely cheap in the 90s, then rose in the mid-2000s to near-historic high levels, where they stayed until 2015 when the price fell back down to c. 2003 levels.
Source
No, I didn't, because I expect (in vain) the editors to do their job and make stories understandable for the great majority of their readership without having to refer to another website.
I don't think that's too much to ask of a site like this.
But they did do that. The first link in the summary is the wikipedia description of the service. This is hypertext, why write everything inline when a link is supposed to describe any term?
Unless of course the Slashdot editors added that in after posting.
Or... here's a thought.... don't cater to sexuality at all.
Don't cater to the THE most effective marketing tactic at a show that's put on because you're trying to sell something?
So any gay men in the room, or any heterosexual women, or hell any fucking married men or religious men can just go get fucked, is that about the size of it?
Nothing confirms that adolescent mindset more at /. than people like you.
I'm a gay man and I have absolutely no problem with pretty girls dancing.
I don't tend to have a stick up my ass like the ever-so-outraged crowd does, though.
the equivalent of strippers that didn't even get their clothes off
I'm pretty sure there must be a better designation for that.
I've been seeing more that a lot of people cannot fathom the concept of good-looking professional dancers who are just... dancers.
I've seen a lot of those sorts of comments here ("good looking dancers = prostitution and bribery"), I've seen plenty of comments to go along with that Shakira music video from Zootopia ("in the concert at the end of Zootopia why are all those strippers on stage?"). Just this notion that anyone showing off the body has to be a prostitute is depressingly common.
Hiring dancers is bribery now? I think that would be small small tiny potatoes compared with the regular bribery "cost of doing business" in that far east division.