It is probably safer to say that they did not detect lithium in the star's atmosphere.
The light that we see from a star tends to fit a blackbody curve, which says a lot about the temperature of a star but nothing about the composition. However, the stellar atmosphere will contain absorption or emission lines that tell us about the composition of the atmosphere. It doesn't say anything about the interior of the star.
Now my recollections of stellar models is quite hazy, but I do recall that different processes happen within the star. Some stars have convective regions, which means that there is a mixing of the material inside the star. There are also radiative regions, where there is no mixing of the materials so the star ends up stratified.
The statification doesn't really tell us why there is no lithium in the atmosphere, since that should have been around since the big bang. Now this doesn't really tell us why there is no Lithium in the atmosphere, but if does suggest that there are cases where it would not be replenished even if the star it was orbiting had a surplus of resources.
The article suggests that Doxer initiated contact, which is a solid strike against him and I think I agree with how the counter intelligence unit handled it because of that.
Now if Doxer had been contacted because he had a known weakness, that would be a different story. That is especially true since his weakness was knowing the condition of his son and to dig up dirt on his estranged wife. In that case, I would be concerned about a case of entrapment and how it would be easier to resolve the situation by providing him with information without blackmailing him. But that is not the case, and he simply should have used family contacts or hired someone to investigate the situation.
The fact that we can talk to Linux users contributing back to the community is a wonderful thing, because how many software vendors will accept anything more than feature requests and bug reports from its customers and distributors.
Yet I also think that this idea of reciprocity is dangerous. It is great that Red Hat contributes code for code, but what is wrong with Ubuntu packaging up the system in a palatable form in exchange for code? Or, to go further afield and look at the user (yes, I know that the article is not about users), what is wrong with a charitable organization using Linux without returning anything to the FLOSS ecosystem? They are, after all, contributing to society in other ways.
What matters in the great scheme of things is that we give as much as we take.
Because that part of nature called humanity is one of the most destructive forces on the face of this planet.
As a species we are quite systematic about that destruction. Even the massive destruction of forest fires is tempered by the rain and delayed (if not outright halted) by natural features like rivers and lakes. Humans will clear cut rain or shine, then build roads and bridges to reach even further. Even predators are tempered by dwindling food stocks if they over consume. Yet humans will invent even more creative ways to harvest what little remains, then go on to clear the land for agriculture (with a limited number of species receiving our graces to survive).
Oh, and sometimes people will stop those "animals fighting animals". We will battle natural forest fires. We will exterminate invasive species. We will cull one species to preserve another.
Conservation isn't just a bunch of tree huggers with a political agenda. Yes, those people exist. On the other hand, there are many conservationists who are quite knowledgeable about the consequences of humanity's actions upon ecosystems and how damage to those ecosystems affects humanity.
If they were talking about an endangered animal, particularly an easily recognisable and cute species, I'm sure that quite a few people would be changing their tone. The problem is that trees just don't have that huggable demeanour and very few people could tell the difference between a cherry and a peach tree unless it was bearing fruit. I also think that people have no conception of how long it takes a lot of plants to mature to the point where they can be harvested. The trees in your yard may grow from a sapling to maturity in a decade, but part of the reason why they were selected was because of how quickly they mature. (The same can be said for reforesting. We tend to use common trees that mature quickly so that it looks better to armchair environmentalists and can be harvested sooner.)
But sure, express your outrage over the government because you can't take the time to think through the issues. That is, after all, how we make sound policy decisions.
There are plenty of Kindle-like devices on the market. Sometimes the Kindle will offer things they don't (keyboard, 3G, etc.). Sometimes the competition will offer things Amazon doesn't (touch screen, SD slot, etc.).
Here's the thing: I think Amazon wants to have a tablet to avoid becoming irrelevant in the ereader space because it is literally fighting a two front war: you have the special purpose, typically e-ink based, readers on one side; and you have the general purpose, large format, colour tablets on the other.
Is it going to work for Amazon? I'm not a businessman so I don't know. But I do think that Amazon is going to be crushed in the tablet market and that they should be working on perfecting what they have (e.g. ePub support, functional PDF support, colour reflective displays, higher refresh rates on displays, etc.) to combat their ereader competition.
I understand what you're saying, but I also fear that you are taking it to an extreme. You seem to be suggesting that children are treated as property, and yes some adults do that. Yet a lot of what you're describing here is a consequence of adults being responsible for the physical, emotional, and social welfare of a developing person. Once they have reached that point, presumably they can take care of themselves.
I largely attribute this 'teachers are not friends of students' bit to big city attitudes. Teachers are unlikely to have an existing relationship with a child or their family in large urban areas.
I would also question the judgement of a teacher who oversteps professional boundaries and becomes friends with a student who they teach. This is because teachers are in a 'position of trust.' That basically means that a teacher is given access to and authority over a child, usually for an intended purpose (in this case, to educate them). Yet this position can also be abused. Sometimes that abuse will have positive consequences, such as a healthy relationship between and adults and a child (e.g. the adult serves as a positive role model, provides supports in challenging times, or mentors the child in activities outside of the scope of schooling). Sometimes that abuse will have extraordinarily negative consequences, such as a teacher using their position to gain access to children then physically, emotionally, or sexually abusing them.
The jurisdiction that I'm licensed in didn't make electronic communications with students illegal, but the teacher licensing body did create a set of guidelines. Even though I don't entirely agree with those guidelines, they don't: force the disclosure of a teacher's electronic communications; dictate what types of services a teacher can or cannot use; or create absurd situations, such as the children of a teacher scenario. The worse that can happen for violating those standards is the loss of your teaching license, so you can still have a life outside of teaching if something does go wrong. (Assuming that you didn't go anything criminal.)
I would also like to see some education on the parental front. I would much rather a parent monitoring my communications with a child than my employer. After all, it is the parent who is ultimately responsible for the upbringing of the child and it is the parent who should be deciding the boundaries that other adults have with their children.
Here's a deep and dark secret about digital electronics: it really analog and subject to the same laws of physics as everything else. The only reason why we call it digital is because of how we treat those analog signals. Voltages between 0 V and 0.8 V may be considered as a 'zero', voltages between 2.8 V and 3.5 V may be considered as 'one'. And, of course you don't have a clean transition between those two states either. The transition is defined by the properties of the materials. The properties of the materials are defined by environmental conditions (e.g. temperature). Cooling the electronics down will change how long the contents of RAM will be preserved. Is it enough of a difference? I don't know. What I will say is that I've seen noticeable differences in the amount of noise in CCD detectors from cooling them down.
If you link to a web page that contains illegal content, you are abetting in a crime.
Should there be standards regarding when linking to illegal content is prosecuted? Certainly. I doubt that we want to reach a point where someone can be sued for linking to software because they weren't aware that the software was obscuring an obscure patent. Yet linking to a site that distributes cracked software (key generators, etc.) probably should be fair game because the person creating the link should be aware of the legality of the site that they are linking to. As for this case, it sounds like it is in the fuzzy middle ground.
Yes, that Unix bit did bring in new customers. Given the type of people who I work and socialize with, that is abundantly clear. But I don't think we can make that argument for the market as a whole. Simply put, the majority of computer buyers don't care what's under the hood as long as it does what they want it to.
Would Copland have been able to make the transition to Intel or ARM? I haven't seen the code base, so I don't have a clue. If it couldn't, that would have had a definite impact. The transition to Intel was definitely important from the perspective of making high performance computers (sorry PowerPC fans). The ability to use an existing OS definitely would reduce the R&D costs involved with making the new devices. Yet I also think that it's silly to suggest that Apple would set out to develop a new OS which was not portable across architectures. They knew better than Microsoft the pains of supporting multiple architectures. You could find the 6502, 65816, 680x0, PowerPC, and various ARMs in their products. (They also attempted to use a different processor prior to the PowerPC.)
On the psychological angle though, I agree. Jobs helped there. But so did Gates.
Huh. Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9 were both released under Jobs' guard. Apple was able to sell slick looking hardware with it. (The iMac G3 may look dated today, but it was something out of this world in the late 1990s.)
Incidentally, Apple was already working on a replacement (Copland). Even though it was ultimately deemed a failure, Apple worked on it for roughly 2 years. In contrast, it took nearly 4 years to get Mac OS X out the door and most Mac users wouldn't even touch that until 10.2 came out. Would Copland have saved the day if it was released? I don't know, but it may have.
And what is it with people's inabilities to distinguish between non-multitasking and cooperative multitasking these days?
The Steve Jobs who was forced to leave Apple in the 1980s is not the same Jobs who returned to Apple in the 1990s. By the time of his return he was a much more experienced businessman, having not just Apple under his belt but NeXT and Pixar.
We should also remember that the 1990s were a very tough time for Apple, even with Jobs as the CEO. He undoubtedly had acquired a lot more experience during that phase. He also had a fair bit of luck on his side. (IIRC, the iMac was basically handed to him from the previous guard and no one saw the iPod for what it would become when it was introduced.)
The tone of the article seems to be that the departure of Jobs was the downfall of Apple, but it may have been the saviour of Apple. And even though we can probably agree that Jobs brought Apple back from the dead, he certainly had some helping hands.
I agree that tablets cannot replace computers. But ask yourself two questions:
Are people expecting them to replace computers?
How many people actually need computers?
Computers were wonderful for a while since they enabled rapid technological innovations and people wanted access to those innovations, but I think we're eventually going to see people ditch computers for devices that are more suited to their needs.
(Yes, I know that tablets are computers. But I would also suggest that a lot of people don't see them as computers.)
Picking on Facebook is easy because what they do is quite visible, yet there are many other services that do the same thing without the user's knowledge. Where is the outcry against them?
Maybe we should be thanking Facebook for being so crass that they are raising awareness.
What does the component and manufacturing of a tablet cost, in relation to a laptop? I would expect tablets to be similar, if not less expensive, to produce. (Ignoring R&D costs of course, but you can make that up with high volume and low margins.)
The fact is that big conservative businesses rarely branch out into risky new technologies unless the margins are high and the margins for their existing products are nearing the end of a race to the bottom. Desktops hit the bottom, so they rushed to laptops. Laptops hit the bottom, so they are rushing to tablets.
Selling a product at a loss doesn't help unless you have some other revenue stream.
Console makers get away with it because they license developers. Besides, the production cycle on a console is long enough to actually put them into the black over the long run.
Cellular companies get away with it because customers are locked into a contract, and have to pay a large sum to get out of it.
Tablet makers though? I guess Apple has their app store and other developers can do the same, but most they would have to sell a lot of apps to make up the difference (since most apps are significantly cheaper than most console games, if you're using that model). The service model may work, but I honestly don't know how many people are going to be willing to pay for yet another internet connection. After all, the people who buy tablets are likely already paying for home internet and cellular internet service.
... it looks like the new dialogs are going to include some useful diagnostic information in detailed view. Wondering why it went from 15 minutes to 2 hours? Oh, that's because the transfer rates dropped 90% around the time that I launched such-and-such a program. Maybe I shouldn't do that next time.
Granted, my biggest criticism is that the copy process grinds to a halt every time Windows Explorer doesn't know what to do. They should either figure out the problem before the copy happens (which they can do in most of the cases where you want to merge folders or have identical file names) so that you don't have a half-botched job; or keep copying the files that can be copied in the background while you're waiting for input from the user on the troublesome cases. If Windows 8 fixes that problem, I'll be gleefully happy because I don't like babysitting copy operations.
They have SSR (DEAR, etc.) because many children and youth simply will not have the "opportunity" to read otherwise. In that respect it is an incredibly useful way to use time and it does seem to be effective.
That being said, it is only that way because of social problems that should not exist.
My last Mac came pre-installed with a demo of iWork. The one before that came pre-installed with a demo of Microsoft Office.
Then there's the stuff that a lot of people find useful but I just don't want. Some of which is quite easy to remove (e.g. iLife) and some of which is difficult or impossible to remove (e.g. iTunes). And don't get Apple wrong: iTunes isn't bundled as a wonderful media player. It is bundled to sell you more stuff (which is why most crapware exists).
Same here, but I've noticed that the non-removable applications and games on my old phone were buried under menus that I rarely used. On the new phone, well, they're right in my face and a fair number of them are little more than links to websites. Which is much more obnoxious.
Thankfully I can choose to bury that stuff in folders on my current phone, but how long will it be until they remove that capability? (After all, they do it to make money. You can't make money on what users don't see.)
Thankfully the market is still reasonably competitive though, so we can still make the choice to reject those phones. Hopefully enough people are smart enough to do so, so that everyone doesn't have to live with the consequences.
... that the ideal technological device for the display of a rectangular image is something roughly the shape and size of a modern tablet. And they figured this out when displays virtually always involved some sort of projection and focussing (either through the electron gun of a CRT or the light of a projector) which would have made such devices impossible.
And we need judges, lawyers, and marketplace chaos to figure that out today. Maybe society is getting dumber.
Slashdot Mirror
It is probably safer to say that they did not detect lithium in the star's atmosphere.
The light that we see from a star tends to fit a blackbody curve, which says a lot about the temperature of a star but nothing about the composition. However, the stellar atmosphere will contain absorption or emission lines that tell us about the composition of the atmosphere. It doesn't say anything about the interior of the star.
Now my recollections of stellar models is quite hazy, but I do recall that different processes happen within the star. Some stars have convective regions, which means that there is a mixing of the material inside the star. There are also radiative regions, where there is no mixing of the materials so the star ends up stratified.
The statification doesn't really tell us why there is no lithium in the atmosphere, since that should have been around since the big bang. Now this doesn't really tell us why there is no Lithium in the atmosphere, but if does suggest that there are cases where it would not be replenished even if the star it was orbiting had a surplus of resources.
The article suggests that Doxer initiated contact, which is a solid strike against him and I think I agree with how the counter intelligence unit handled it because of that.
Now if Doxer had been contacted because he had a known weakness, that would be a different story. That is especially true since his weakness was knowing the condition of his son and to dig up dirt on his estranged wife. In that case, I would be concerned about a case of entrapment and how it would be easier to resolve the situation by providing him with information without blackmailing him. But that is not the case, and he simply should have used family contacts or hired someone to investigate the situation.
The fact that we can talk to Linux users contributing back to the community is a wonderful thing, because how many software vendors will accept anything more than feature requests and bug reports from its customers and distributors.
Yet I also think that this idea of reciprocity is dangerous. It is great that Red Hat contributes code for code, but what is wrong with Ubuntu packaging up the system in a palatable form in exchange for code? Or, to go further afield and look at the user (yes, I know that the article is not about users), what is wrong with a charitable organization using Linux without returning anything to the FLOSS ecosystem? They are, after all, contributing to society in other ways.
What matters in the great scheme of things is that we give as much as we take.
Because that part of nature called humanity is one of the most destructive forces on the face of this planet.
As a species we are quite systematic about that destruction. Even the massive destruction of forest fires is tempered by the rain and delayed (if not outright halted) by natural features like rivers and lakes. Humans will clear cut rain or shine, then build roads and bridges to reach even further. Even predators are tempered by dwindling food stocks if they over consume. Yet humans will invent even more creative ways to harvest what little remains, then go on to clear the land for agriculture (with a limited number of species receiving our graces to survive).
Oh, and sometimes people will stop those "animals fighting animals". We will battle natural forest fires. We will exterminate invasive species. We will cull one species to preserve another.
Conservation isn't just a bunch of tree huggers with a political agenda. Yes, those people exist. On the other hand, there are many conservationists who are quite knowledgeable about the consequences of humanity's actions upon ecosystems and how damage to those ecosystems affects humanity.
If they were talking about an endangered animal, particularly an easily recognisable and cute species, I'm sure that quite a few people would be changing their tone. The problem is that trees just don't have that huggable demeanour and very few people could tell the difference between a cherry and a peach tree unless it was bearing fruit. I also think that people have no conception of how long it takes a lot of plants to mature to the point where they can be harvested. The trees in your yard may grow from a sapling to maturity in a decade, but part of the reason why they were selected was because of how quickly they mature. (The same can be said for reforesting. We tend to use common trees that mature quickly so that it looks better to armchair environmentalists and can be harvested sooner.)
But sure, express your outrage over the government because you can't take the time to think through the issues. That is, after all, how we make sound policy decisions.
I know that this case is special because it is a FLOSS project and very few of the users directly support it, but:
The developer needs to fulfil the requirements of the client. It is not the developer's place to dictate the requirements to the client.
Now I currently run modern hardware, but I've been stuck in that legacy hardware ghetto before. And it ain't pretty.
There are plenty of Kindle-like devices on the market. Sometimes the Kindle will offer things they don't (keyboard, 3G, etc.). Sometimes the competition will offer things Amazon doesn't (touch screen, SD slot, etc.).
Here's the thing: I think Amazon wants to have a tablet to avoid becoming irrelevant in the ereader space because it is literally fighting a two front war: you have the special purpose, typically e-ink based, readers on one side; and you have the general purpose, large format, colour tablets on the other.
Is it going to work for Amazon? I'm not a businessman so I don't know. But I do think that Amazon is going to be crushed in the tablet market and that they should be working on perfecting what they have (e.g. ePub support, functional PDF support, colour reflective displays, higher refresh rates on displays, etc.) to combat their ereader competition.
I understand what you're saying, but I also fear that you are taking it to an extreme. You seem to be suggesting that children are treated as property, and yes some adults do that. Yet a lot of what you're describing here is a consequence of adults being responsible for the physical, emotional, and social welfare of a developing person. Once they have reached that point, presumably they can take care of themselves.
I largely attribute this 'teachers are not friends of students' bit to big city attitudes. Teachers are unlikely to have an existing relationship with a child or their family in large urban areas.
I would also question the judgement of a teacher who oversteps professional boundaries and becomes friends with a student who they teach. This is because teachers are in a 'position of trust.' That basically means that a teacher is given access to and authority over a child, usually for an intended purpose (in this case, to educate them). Yet this position can also be abused. Sometimes that abuse will have positive consequences, such as a healthy relationship between and adults and a child (e.g. the adult serves as a positive role model, provides supports in challenging times, or mentors the child in activities outside of the scope of schooling). Sometimes that abuse will have extraordinarily negative consequences, such as a teacher using their position to gain access to children then physically, emotionally, or sexually abusing them.
The jurisdiction that I'm licensed in didn't make electronic communications with students illegal, but the teacher licensing body did create a set of guidelines. Even though I don't entirely agree with those guidelines, they don't: force the disclosure of a teacher's electronic communications; dictate what types of services a teacher can or cannot use; or create absurd situations, such as the children of a teacher scenario. The worse that can happen for violating those standards is the loss of your teaching license, so you can still have a life outside of teaching if something does go wrong. (Assuming that you didn't go anything criminal.)
I would also like to see some education on the parental front. I would much rather a parent monitoring my communications with a child than my employer. After all, it is the parent who is ultimately responsible for the upbringing of the child and it is the parent who should be deciding the boundaries that other adults have with their children.
Worse. Photos of kittens playing with balls of yarn! Something that he can't let his colleagues see lest he be shamed for the rest of his life.
Here's a deep and dark secret about digital electronics: it really analog and subject to the same laws of physics as everything else. The only reason why we call it digital is because of how we treat those analog signals. Voltages between 0 V and 0.8 V may be considered as a 'zero', voltages between 2.8 V and 3.5 V may be considered as 'one'. And, of course you don't have a clean transition between those two states either. The transition is defined by the properties of the materials. The properties of the materials are defined by environmental conditions (e.g. temperature). Cooling the electronics down will change how long the contents of RAM will be preserved. Is it enough of a difference? I don't know. What I will say is that I've seen noticeable differences in the amount of noise in CCD detectors from cooling them down.
If you link to a web page that contains illegal content, you are abetting in a crime.
Should there be standards regarding when linking to illegal content is prosecuted? Certainly. I doubt that we want to reach a point where someone can be sued for linking to software because they weren't aware that the software was obscuring an obscure patent. Yet linking to a site that distributes cracked software (key generators, etc.) probably should be fair game because the person creating the link should be aware of the legality of the site that they are linking to. As for this case, it sounds like it is in the fuzzy middle ground.
Yes, that Unix bit did bring in new customers. Given the type of people who I work and socialize with, that is abundantly clear. But I don't think we can make that argument for the market as a whole. Simply put, the majority of computer buyers don't care what's under the hood as long as it does what they want it to.
Would Copland have been able to make the transition to Intel or ARM? I haven't seen the code base, so I don't have a clue. If it couldn't, that would have had a definite impact. The transition to Intel was definitely important from the perspective of making high performance computers (sorry PowerPC fans). The ability to use an existing OS definitely would reduce the R&D costs involved with making the new devices. Yet I also think that it's silly to suggest that Apple would set out to develop a new OS which was not portable across architectures. They knew better than Microsoft the pains of supporting multiple architectures. You could find the 6502, 65816, 680x0, PowerPC, and various ARMs in their products. (They also attempted to use a different processor prior to the PowerPC.)
On the psychological angle though, I agree. Jobs helped there. But so did Gates.
Huh. Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9 were both released under Jobs' guard. Apple was able to sell slick looking hardware with it. (The iMac G3 may look dated today, but it was something out of this world in the late 1990s.)
Incidentally, Apple was already working on a replacement (Copland). Even though it was ultimately deemed a failure, Apple worked on it for roughly 2 years. In contrast, it took nearly 4 years to get Mac OS X out the door and most Mac users wouldn't even touch that until 10.2 came out. Would Copland have saved the day if it was released? I don't know, but it may have.
And what is it with people's inabilities to distinguish between non-multitasking and cooperative multitasking these days?
The Steve Jobs who was forced to leave Apple in the 1980s is not the same Jobs who returned to Apple in the 1990s. By the time of his return he was a much more experienced businessman, having not just Apple under his belt but NeXT and Pixar.
We should also remember that the 1990s were a very tough time for Apple, even with Jobs as the CEO. He undoubtedly had acquired a lot more experience during that phase. He also had a fair bit of luck on his side. (IIRC, the iMac was basically handed to him from the previous guard and no one saw the iPod for what it would become when it was introduced.)
The tone of the article seems to be that the departure of Jobs was the downfall of Apple, but it may have been the saviour of Apple. And even though we can probably agree that Jobs brought Apple back from the dead, he certainly had some helping hands.
I agree that tablets cannot replace computers. But ask yourself two questions:
Are people expecting them to replace computers?
How many people actually need computers?
Computers were wonderful for a while since they enabled rapid technological innovations and people wanted access to those innovations, but I think we're eventually going to see people ditch computers for devices that are more suited to their needs.
(Yes, I know that tablets are computers. But I would also suggest that a lot of people don't see them as computers.)
Picking on Facebook is easy because what they do is quite visible, yet there are many other services that do the same thing without the user's knowledge. Where is the outcry against them?
Maybe we should be thanking Facebook for being so crass that they are raising awareness.
What does the component and manufacturing of a tablet cost, in relation to a laptop? I would expect tablets to be similar, if not less expensive, to produce. (Ignoring R&D costs of course, but you can make that up with high volume and low margins.)
The fact is that big conservative businesses rarely branch out into risky new technologies unless the margins are high and the margins for their existing products are nearing the end of a race to the bottom. Desktops hit the bottom, so they rushed to laptops. Laptops hit the bottom, so they are rushing to tablets.
Selling a product at a loss doesn't help unless you have some other revenue stream.
Console makers get away with it because they license developers. Besides, the production cycle on a console is long enough to actually put them into the black over the long run.
Cellular companies get away with it because customers are locked into a contract, and have to pay a large sum to get out of it.
Tablet makers though? I guess Apple has their app store and other developers can do the same, but most they would have to sell a lot of apps to make up the difference (since most apps are significantly cheaper than most console games, if you're using that model). The service model may work, but I honestly don't know how many people are going to be willing to pay for yet another internet connection. After all, the people who buy tablets are likely already paying for home internet and cellular internet service.
... it looks like the new dialogs are going to include some useful diagnostic information in detailed view. Wondering why it went from 15 minutes to 2 hours? Oh, that's because the transfer rates dropped 90% around the time that I launched such-and-such a program. Maybe I shouldn't do that next time.
Granted, my biggest criticism is that the copy process grinds to a halt every time Windows Explorer doesn't know what to do. They should either figure out the problem before the copy happens (which they can do in most of the cases where you want to merge folders or have identical file names) so that you don't have a half-botched job; or keep copying the files that can be copied in the background while you're waiting for input from the user on the troublesome cases. If Windows 8 fixes that problem, I'll be gleefully happy because I don't like babysitting copy operations.
They have SSR (DEAR, etc.) because many children and youth simply will not have the "opportunity" to read otherwise. In that respect it is an incredibly useful way to use time and it does seem to be effective.
That being said, it is only that way because of social problems that should not exist.
My last Mac came pre-installed with a demo of iWork. The one before that came pre-installed with a demo of Microsoft Office.
Then there's the stuff that a lot of people find useful but I just don't want. Some of which is quite easy to remove (e.g. iLife) and some of which is difficult or impossible to remove (e.g. iTunes). And don't get Apple wrong: iTunes isn't bundled as a wonderful media player. It is bundled to sell you more stuff (which is why most crapware exists).
Same here, but I've noticed that the non-removable applications and games on my old phone were buried under menus that I rarely used. On the new phone, well, they're right in my face and a fair number of them are little more than links to websites. Which is much more obnoxious.
Thankfully I can choose to bury that stuff in folders on my current phone, but how long will it be until they remove that capability? (After all, they do it to make money. You can't make money on what users don't see.)
Thankfully the market is still reasonably competitive though, so we can still make the choice to reject those phones. Hopefully enough people are smart enough to do so, so that everyone doesn't have to live with the consequences.
... that the ideal technological device for the display of a rectangular image is something roughly the shape and size of a modern tablet. And they figured this out when displays virtually always involved some sort of projection and focussing (either through the electron gun of a CRT or the light of a projector) which would have made such devices impossible.
And we need judges, lawyers, and marketplace chaos to figure that out today. Maybe society is getting dumber.