You are not 'broadcasting to everyone'. These people set up these routers with the intent to broadcast only to their personal equipment (hence the expectation of privacy). The supreme court already ruled on this regarding infrared and ruled it wasn't 'in plain sight' and that Infrared from a persons home would fall under reasonable privacy, irregardless of whether it radiated outside of the home. The same would apply to WiFi (if not, how would you claim that Infrared and WiFi differ in regards to the Plain Sight test?).
Apparently 37 other states would also argue against your reasoning as well.
Two entirely different scenarios. A residential neighborhood is not the same as a Starbucks lobby. People have an expectation of privacy in their homes, where the same does not apply on a public WiFi hotspot.
I just realized I forgot a key point above (see what happens when you are too verbose?);)
When someone uses equipment to convert something that isn't normally in plain view into plain view, it becomes 'snooping' and fails the first test used by the Supreme Court to determine 'expectation of privacy'.
You realize you just won the States arguments against Google right?
What? You can't see heat & neither can I (in the context of this discussion of course). You need a device to translate that heat into the visible spectrum.
Being stupid, or failing to follow a warning does not excuse the actions of others taking advantage of that, and no amount of wrangling will change that fact. It doesn't matter if the user secured their WiFi or not. They have a reasonable expectation that their data will be private. Google had no right to collect that data unless it received prior release from the user to collect such data.
Reasonable expectation of privacy is extended to a persons home. If said person was strolling about naked in front of their window, in full view of their neighbors, then they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If they did so in their bathroom with the blinds closed, and someone happened to peek through the blinds and take snapshots, then that would be a violation of privacy. The same rule applies here, which is why Google is facing so many legal challenges from so many states. There is clear precedence here from the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Nixes Warrantless Heat-Sensor Searches, Oregon Grow-Op Case Updates Fourth Amendment to Deal With New Technologies
Police must first obtain a search warrant before using a heat-sensing device to look inside a person's home, a narrowly divided Supreme Court ruled Monday. In an unusual Supreme Court alliance, conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined with liberals David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer to form a 5-4 majority.
"This is an important victory for the Fourth Amendment because it says again the home is a protected area," University of Iowa law professor James Tomkovicz, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Los Angeles Times. "I think [the justices] were worried about what comes next, the technology that would allow the government to stay out but detect what is going on inside the home."
"Privacy and search The expectation of privacy is crucial to distinguishing a legitimate, reasonable police search and seizure from an unreasonable one. In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Justice Harlan issued a concurring opinion articulating the two-part test later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court as the test for determining whether a police or government search is subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment: (1) governmental action must contravene an individual's actual, subjective expectation of privacy; (2) and that expectation of privacy must be reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as such. To meet the first part of the test, the person from whom the information was obtained must demonstrate that they, in fact, had an actual, subjective expectation that the evidence obtained would not be available to the public. In other words, the person asserting that a search was conducted must show that they kept the evidence in a manner designed to ensure its privacy. The first part of the test is related to the notion "in plain view". If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed.
Obviously, in the above example, heat signatures detected in infrared are not "in plain view", just as WiFi signals, encrypted or not, are not "in plain view". If technology happens to make it easier to go to the local store and buy equipement to detect such, it still doesn't change the basic premise of "in plain view".
You assume that the WiFi routers in question did in fact warn the users that the connection was unsecured, while many homes have routers that are years old. It is only recently that they started coming with better configuration software that prompts to setup a secure network, and even then the options can be
Reasonable means...typical home owners are not going to understand the reasons to create a cage, have the means, or technical knowledge to do this, let alone work around issues like cell signals, radio, etc.
From what I've read, it doesn't matter as it was not intended to be public. This relates to the same situation police officers faced attempting to record thermal data by reading the thermals off the side of a person house. They argued that since they were not entering into a private residence, but rather reading the data from the external walls, that there was no invasion of privacy. The supreme court threw the argument out, indicating that there was an expectation of privacy involved, and that it was not legal to collect such data without a warrant.
(although the Supreme Court has held that more invasive technological means of obtaining information about the inside of your home, like thermal imaging technology to detect heat sources, is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant).
Given that many of the phones in the links above drop upwards of 30 dBm, I'd have to say your full of shit, as 30 dBm in a mediocre signal area is certainly enough to cause a phone to drop a call, regardless of carrier, make, or model. If you started with -80 dBm, which is decently strong, you could drop to -110 and drop easily. These are not typical gorilla grips either, but just people holding the phone in their hand.
It happens on all phones, and to suddenly claim only Apple branded signal loss is 'evil' is a bit silly.
I wondered about this. Did anandtech actually open the innards and hook up a monitor, or did they base their observation on the number of bars showing? If the latter, it doesn't seem very scientific. You would think they would need to measure directly off of the antenna internals to get an accurate reading.
Apple is not just closely involved with Webkit. They wrote it. Apple created a fork of KHTML and KJS and Webkit was born from that. In 2005 Apple open sourced Webkit and released it to the wild. Contrary to common belief, Apple actually gives quite a bit back to the Open Source community.
Looks more like AT&T is pleading with Apple to be kind and Apple is telling AT&T to stuff it.
But in meetings with Apple engineers and marketers over the subsequent year, Rinne and other AT&T executives discovered that Apple wasn’t playing by traditional wireless rules. It wasn’t interested in cooperating, especially if it meant hobbling what had quickly become its marquee product. For Apple, the idea of restricting the iPhone was akin to asking Steve Jobs to ditch the black turtleneck. “They tried to have that conversation with us a number of times,” says someone from Apple who was in the meetings. “We consistently said ‘No, we are not going to mess up the consumer experience on the iPhone to make your network tenable.’ They’d always end up saying, ‘We’re going to have to escalate this to senior AT&T executives,’ and we always said, ‘Fine, we’ll escalate it to Steve and see who wins.’ I think history has demonstrated how that turned out.”
I also found this part particularly funny. Talk about a difference in corporate environment...
When an AT&T representative suggested to one of Jobs’ deputies that the Apple CEO wear a suit to meet with AT&T’s board of directors, he was told, “We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.”
What kind of apps are you planning for your children to see on their smartphones? Hell I'm not a prude, but your arguments have gotten a little offtrack with you obsession with allow them to see cock on a smartphone.
Seriously, would you buy a phone that had a selling point that it let your children see random cock, or the one that prevented it? If you choose the former, I'd be really interested to see what kind of parent you turn out to be.
If the phone is for an adult, you realize they can always open up the browser, and hit millions of porn sites, with every depravity of their desire, assuming the phone has some sort parental controls, and that those controls are not turned on.
Your point is more insightful to my mind then they give you credit for. For a 'casual (new) end user', they won't know the value or benefit of either OS. Their needs are more result/goal focused and specific like (I want to play games), or (I wan't to check email and browse the internet), rather than (I'm interested in the philosophy of Open Source and it's associated communities).
The site is simplistic, I'll give you that. Almost too simplistic as it limits the choices users make. I would think an approach with a few simple 'goals' in mind would have been better served, like
Do you intend to play store bought games Do you plan to use it to check e-mail and browse the internet Do you plan to use your PC with productivity apps like Office Do you have plans to use your PC for media applications like authoring music, video, or other artistic applications
Possibly from those, give them the option to browse examples of each, like Office, OpenOffice, various game examples like Bioshock 2 or Halo, etc. New users won't understand anything other than simple goals, and it's not realistic to assume they will quickly grasp everything needed in order to make the right choice.
From those, give certain points based on user goals, where some might be mutually exclusive (for instance, a 'gamer' choice would exclude Ubuntu under normal circumstances, although they could certainly try it later once they have a better grasp, so Windows would be a good fit there), and before anyone goes there, I understand you can get games running under linux, but you certainly wouldn't expect a beginner to do so. PC's can be overwhelming enough to new users.
They could also list the benefits of each in terms the user could understand. For instance, cost of software, software support, availability of software. Each choice represents both pros and cons in each of those areas. Let the user go as deep as they wan't, or leave it as simple as a few questions to be answered and spit out a choice based on those answers.
I see that page as at least a step in that direction. Could have been done better, but I don't think it's a slap on the face of Ubuntu (at least not directly).
GPL would have been preferable as it would have forced the telecom folks to give back to the community. You make it sound as if the Apache license is a good thing. It basically gives wireless providers free reign to add (or remove) any features they deem fit:
According to the Android FAQ page, "The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate using the platform without the requirement to contribute those innovations back to the open-source community." The page promises that "industry players can add proprietary functionality to their products based on Android without needing to contribute anything back to the platform," and, to be sure, "companies can remove functionality if they choose."
GPL would have been much more preferable. Google was busy greasing the wallets of the wireless providers while promising the moon to the tech crowd. This is the result. Shocking but true. The wireless providers are more interested in keeping control of their hardware platform then they are catering to the open source community.
Who'd have thought?
As to licensing, Google defines the license that Android is sold under. It was acquired by Google, along with the rights to Android of course. The fact remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* type of copyright license has the right to revoke that license unless they specifically waived those rights. They couldn't effect any existing releases of Android as they have already licensed those and released them to the wild so to speak, but they can most certainly revoke or change licensing terms for future releases.
A "cock flapping about" isn't something a child would normally see in the U.S. The corporations are staying in line with what they believe the American consumer would accept. The corporations job isn't to change sexual awareness or to start a sexual revolution. Their goal is to sell product. Do you base your phone purchase specifically on the ability to see cock waving in front of children? I'm betting that's a pretty low priority for most buyers, and I would imagine MS came to the same conclusion. It is perfectly within their rights to refuse to sell overtly sexual apps in their marketplace. It is perfectly within your right to refuse to purchase it for that reason, but you can't fault them for refusing to do so just as they can't fault you for refusing to buy it.
As with all things, life is never black and white and it doesn't fit nicely into calculations on a blackboard. Although he could adapt, he can also attempt to stop global warming. The two are not mutually exclusive. The 'attempt' is much like a vote in a political system. If you get enough votes, you win the election. The same principal applies. Although the efforts of a single individual are ineffectual, the efforts of millions are not.
The fault is Google's as well. They could demand that the OS remain open source, instead they went with profit. Google does own the rights to Android do they not? They can also set the terms for it's license.
To claim that Google isn't at fault here is a bit disingenuous, when they are the ones who have the ability to enforce openness and failed to do so.
Considering he demonstrated the exact same effect with HTC and Nokia phones live this morning, I would say the problem was pretty clearly not isolated to the iPhone 4 and it's antenna design. Every phone on the market suffers from this to some extent, and the ones shown in the demo also dropped fro 5 bars to 1. It has been blown way out of proportion. The 4G demonstrated almost a one dropped call more out of 100 calls as compared to the 3GS. Most of the noise it turns out, was just that. Noise...
As to your other point, they are offering a full refund after 90 days, no questions asked, and no restocking fee. If you try a case, and you still aren't satisfied, you can return it for a full refund.
This is the reason people buy Apple and they consistently rank tops in customer satisfaction, and why the return rate for the 4G is only 1.4% compared to 6% for the 3GS. People know they will be taken care of. End the end, if it still doesn't suite your needs, return it and get a full refund.
I disagree, and I'm an Apple product fan. It is censorship, but not all censorship is 'bad' simply because it's censorship. Slashdot has censorship in it's modding rules, effectively hiding comments below a certain threshold (although you could still see them if you change your prefs in a few places). If you don't log in, you don't even see comments below a certain threshold, and if you are logged in, you must change your threshold to see them by default.
I just don't have an issue with it, just as I don't have an issue with moderation done here to hide the typical anon trolling posts. Those posts add no value to the conversation and I'm frankly glad to be rid of them. I suspect the same Applies to these threads on the official Apple forums.
I dont go to the Apple forums to read news on products. I come to slashdot. Those forums are for tech support to my mind, and not general discussion. Apple is well within it's rights to moderate comments in any fashion they please. Frankly it doesn't bother me because I dont' go there for information. I know that they moderate heavily so the value there isn't that great for product opinion and frank discussion.
I don't think the parents post is a Troll. It is a valid point. He owns his car, and can control what is 'posted' on it. Granted there is more public interest in the Apple issue, but the basics are the same. They own the site, and moderate the content. In the above example, no one would ever claim someone was censoring for removing an expletive from the side of their car. It's not like someone can't Google "iPhone 4 Antenna" and get thousands of differing opinions that match what they are looking for.
Apple is big, but not that big. They don't control every blog on the internet. They are refusing to leave such posts on their own forums, which is perfectly within their right. If I was a stockholder in that company, I would expect such action to be taken.
Personally, I find the whole antenna debacle a bit silly. Everyone I know buys cases for these things. They did it for the first gen, and have done so for every phone that's out. it's more rare to see one in it's bare form. I liken this to Windows and Virus Scanners. Although you could buy it and run it without it (and it's certainly not included in the OS), no one does. It's just not that big of a deal. Without the cover, I still can't get mine to drop more than two bars, and hasn't dropped a single call (I've had it since the 16th of last month, so almost a full calendar month).
Hell, even consumer reports, although they said they couldn't recommend it unless Apple provided a free workaround for the antenna issue, still rated it as the highest ranked and best smart phone available. The hysteria around this has gotten ridiculous.
Something as simple as stirring up some dust can mean death to a cave diver. It takes a special kind of person (nut) to do this. I watched a few specials on this and how easy it is to die. All I've got to say is that it must take a pair the size of the the former twin towers. I'm not fearful of enclosed spaces in the slightest, but this is just insane. On top of that, if you manage to get that deep, you have to account for the trip back, meaning if you exceed your air supply by getting lost in dirty water, or any other number of potential gotchas, you could easily end up overstaying your welcome and just not have enough time to get back out again.
I could actually see myself paying for a feature film about this. Not out of an interest in doing it myself, but seeing the extreme conditions man will venture into to quench an unstoppable curiosity.
This could be huge. If I'm understanding this correctly, they basically set a "Venus Fly Trap" that collects specific antibodies that attach to this customized HIV Virus/molecule. Using this technology, they could basically build custom 'catchers' to collect all sorts of anti-bodies that may have been previously missed, once they identify the surface proteins that these antibodies normally key to. Hopefully someone familiar with molecular biology can clarify, but it reads as if they design a customized HIV virus, and tweak it so that attracts specific antibodies that normally key to a surface protein on a cell. The implications here are huge if that's the case. They could net all sorts of useful antibodies for a huge range of diseases.
Is that the gist of this? (and apologies as I'm not a biologist).
From TFA:
They found the antibodies using a novel molecular device they developed that homes in on the specific cells that make antibodies against HIV. The device is an HIV protein that the scientists modified so it would react only with antibodies specific to the site where the virus binds to cells it infects.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not 'broadcasting to everyone'. These people set up these routers with the intent to broadcast only to their personal equipment (hence the expectation of privacy). The supreme court already ruled on this regarding infrared and ruled it wasn't 'in plain sight' and that Infrared from a persons home would fall under reasonable privacy, irregardless of whether it radiated outside of the home. The same would apply to WiFi (if not, how would you claim that Infrared and WiFi differ in regards to the Plain Sight test?).
Apparently 37 other states would also argue against your reasoning as well.
Your ruling would only apply to vision impaired people? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is becoming in trying to avoid 'in plain sight'?
Two entirely different scenarios. A residential neighborhood is not the same as a Starbucks lobby. People have an expectation of privacy in their homes, where the same does not apply on a public WiFi hotspot.
A laptop is infinitely more complex than a piece of glass. I wouldn't consider common eye glasses special equipment, and neither would a judge.
I just realized I forgot a key point above (see what happens when you are too verbose?) ;)
When someone uses equipment to convert something that isn't normally in plain view into plain view, it becomes 'snooping' and fails the first test used by the Supreme Court to determine 'expectation of privacy'.
You realize you just won the States arguments against Google right?
Being stupid, or failing to follow a warning does not excuse the actions of others taking advantage of that, and no amount of wrangling will change that fact. It doesn't matter if the user secured their WiFi or not. They have a reasonable expectation that their data will be private. Google had no right to collect that data unless it received prior release from the user to collect such data.
Reasonable expectation of privacy is extended to a persons home. If said person was strolling about naked in front of their window, in full view of their neighbors, then they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If they did so in their bathroom with the blinds closed, and someone happened to peek through the blinds and take snapshots, then that would be a violation of privacy. The same rule applies here, which is why Google is facing so many legal challenges from so many states. There is clear precedence here from the Supreme Court.
More information on Expectation of Privacy
Obviously, in the above example, heat signatures detected in infrared are not "in plain view", just as WiFi signals, encrypted or not, are not "in plain view". If technology happens to make it easier to go to the local store and buy equipement to detect such, it still doesn't change the basic premise of "in plain view".
You assume that the WiFi routers in question did in fact warn the users that the connection was unsecured, while many homes have routers that are years old. It is only recently that they started coming with better configuration software that prompts to setup a secure network, and even then the options can be
Reasonable means...typical home owners are not going to understand the reasons to create a cage, have the means, or technical knowledge to do this, let alone work around issues like cell signals, radio, etc.
From what I've read, it doesn't matter as it was not intended to be public. This relates to the same situation police officers faced attempting to record thermal data by reading the thermals off the side of a person house. They argued that since they were not entering into a private residence, but rather reading the data from the external walls, that there was no invasion of privacy. The supreme court threw the argument out, indicating that there was an expectation of privacy involved, and that it was not legal to collect such data without a warrant.
https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy
Given that many of the phones in the links above drop upwards of 30 dBm, I'd have to say your full of shit, as 30 dBm in a mediocre signal area is certainly enough to cause a phone to drop a call, regardless of carrier, make, or model. If you started with -80 dBm, which is decently strong, you could drop to -110 and drop easily. These are not typical gorilla grips either, but just people holding the phone in their hand.
It happens on all phones, and to suddenly claim only Apple branded signal loss is 'evil' is a bit silly.
You mean like these videos?
Death grip on Droid X, EVO, Droid Incredible, Nexus One, Galaxy 1, G1, etc.
* Droid X: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-kFc..._with_droid_x/
* Samsung I9000 Galaxy S: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LROTHrTR92k
* HTC Evo Signal Attenuation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pj2YBYTbag
* Samsung Galaxy 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
* Samsung Galaxy 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPCQdYtPihg
* Droid Incredible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaDE941PzQk
* Droid Incredible (With Network Extender in Room): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpEQH...eature=related
* Nexus One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEIA_lMwqJA
* Nexus One vs. iPhone (start at 1:29): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvMoV4_C4aA
* Nexus One: http://posterous.com/getfile/files.p...n_-_iPhone.m4v
* Nexus One (after Google's update to correct): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2g5J4qPp54
* Nexus One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deCkjeHYT-g
* Android G1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CDaxhjUs9M
* "Major signal degradation when Nexus One is picked up" (N1 Thread on On this Problem): http://www.google.com/support/forum/...9184c33e&hl=en
I wondered about this. Did anandtech actually open the innards and hook up a monitor, or did they base their observation on the number of bars showing? If the latter, it doesn't seem very scientific. You would think they would need to measure directly off of the antenna internals to get an accurate reading.
Apple is not just closely involved with Webkit. They wrote it. Apple created a fork of KHTML and KJS and Webkit was born from that. In 2005 Apple open sourced Webkit and released it to the wild. Contrary to common belief, Apple actually gives quite a bit back to the Open Source community.
Looks more like AT&T is pleading with Apple to be kind and Apple is telling AT&T to stuff it.
I also found this part particularly funny. Talk about a difference in corporate environment...
What kind of apps are you planning for your children to see on their smartphones? Hell I'm not a prude, but your arguments have gotten a little offtrack with you obsession with allow them to see cock on a smartphone.
Seriously, would you buy a phone that had a selling point that it let your children see random cock, or the one that prevented it? If you choose the former, I'd be really interested to see what kind of parent you turn out to be.
If the phone is for an adult, you realize they can always open up the browser, and hit millions of porn sites, with every depravity of their desire, assuming the phone has some sort parental controls, and that those controls are not turned on.
Your point is more insightful to my mind then they give you credit for. For a 'casual (new) end user', they won't know the value or benefit of either OS. Their needs are more result/goal focused and specific like (I want to play games), or (I wan't to check email and browse the internet), rather than (I'm interested in the philosophy of Open Source and it's associated communities).
The site is simplistic, I'll give you that. Almost too simplistic as it limits the choices users make. I would think an approach with a few simple 'goals' in mind would have been better served, like
Do you intend to play store bought games
Do you plan to use it to check e-mail and browse the internet
Do you plan to use your PC with productivity apps like Office
Do you have plans to use your PC for media applications like authoring music, video, or other artistic applications
Possibly from those, give them the option to browse examples of each, like Office, OpenOffice, various game examples like Bioshock 2 or Halo, etc. New users won't understand anything other than simple goals, and it's not realistic to assume they will quickly grasp everything needed in order to make the right choice.
From those, give certain points based on user goals, where some might be mutually exclusive (for instance, a 'gamer' choice would exclude Ubuntu under normal circumstances, although they could certainly try it later once they have a better grasp, so Windows would be a good fit there), and before anyone goes there, I understand you can get games running under linux, but you certainly wouldn't expect a beginner to do so. PC's can be overwhelming enough to new users.
They could also list the benefits of each in terms the user could understand. For instance, cost of software, software support, availability of software. Each choice represents both pros and cons in each of those areas. Let the user go as deep as they wan't, or leave it as simple as a few questions to be answered and spit out a choice based on those answers.
I see that page as at least a step in that direction. Could have been done better, but I don't think it's a slap on the face of Ubuntu (at least not directly).
GPL would have been preferable as it would have forced the telecom folks to give back to the community. You make it sound as if the Apache license is a good thing. It basically gives wireless providers free reign to add (or remove) any features they deem fit:
According to the Android FAQ page, "The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate using the platform without the requirement to contribute those innovations back to the open-source community." The page promises that "industry players can add proprietary functionality to their products based on Android without needing to contribute anything back to the platform," and, to be sure, "companies can remove functionality if they choose."
GPL would have been much more preferable. Google was busy greasing the wallets of the wireless providers while promising the moon to the tech crowd. This is the result. Shocking but true. The wireless providers are more interested in keeping control of their hardware platform then they are catering to the open source community.
Who'd have thought?
As to licensing, Google defines the license that Android is sold under. It was acquired by Google, along with the rights to Android of course. The fact remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* type of copyright license has the right to revoke that license unless they specifically waived those rights. They couldn't effect any existing releases of Android as they have already licensed those and released them to the wild so to speak, but they can most certainly revoke or change licensing terms for future releases.
A "cock flapping about" isn't something a child would normally see in the U.S. The corporations are staying in line with what they believe the American consumer would accept. The corporations job isn't to change sexual awareness or to start a sexual revolution. Their goal is to sell product. Do you base your phone purchase specifically on the ability to see cock waving in front of children? I'm betting that's a pretty low priority for most buyers, and I would imagine MS came to the same conclusion. It is perfectly within their rights to refuse to sell overtly sexual apps in their marketplace. It is perfectly within your right to refuse to purchase it for that reason, but you can't fault them for refusing to do so just as they can't fault you for refusing to buy it.
As with all things, life is never black and white and it doesn't fit nicely into calculations on a blackboard. Although he could adapt, he can also attempt to stop global warming. The two are not mutually exclusive. The 'attempt' is much like a vote in a political system. If you get enough votes, you win the election. The same principal applies. Although the efforts of a single individual are ineffectual, the efforts of millions are not.
The fault is Google's as well. They could demand that the OS remain open source, instead they went with profit. Google does own the rights to Android do they not? They can also set the terms for it's license.
To claim that Google isn't at fault here is a bit disingenuous, when they are the ones who have the ability to enforce openness and failed to do so.
Considering he demonstrated the exact same effect with HTC and Nokia phones live this morning, I would say the problem was pretty clearly not isolated to the iPhone 4 and it's antenna design. Every phone on the market suffers from this to some extent, and the ones shown in the demo also dropped fro 5 bars to 1. It has been blown way out of proportion. The 4G demonstrated almost a one dropped call more out of 100 calls as compared to the 3GS. Most of the noise it turns out, was just that. Noise...
As to your other point, they are offering a full refund after 90 days, no questions asked, and no restocking fee. If you try a case, and you still aren't satisfied, you can return it for a full refund.
This is the reason people buy Apple and they consistently rank tops in customer satisfaction, and why the return rate for the 4G is only 1.4% compared to 6% for the 3GS. People know they will be taken care of. End the end, if it still doesn't suite your needs, return it and get a full refund.
I disagree, and I'm an Apple product fan. It is censorship, but not all censorship is 'bad' simply because it's censorship. Slashdot has censorship in it's modding rules, effectively hiding comments below a certain threshold (although you could still see them if you change your prefs in a few places). If you don't log in, you don't even see comments below a certain threshold, and if you are logged in, you must change your threshold to see them by default.
I just don't have an issue with it, just as I don't have an issue with moderation done here to hide the typical anon trolling posts. Those posts add no value to the conversation and I'm frankly glad to be rid of them. I suspect the same Applies to these threads on the official Apple forums.
I dont go to the Apple forums to read news on products. I come to slashdot. Those forums are for tech support to my mind, and not general discussion. Apple is well within it's rights to moderate comments in any fashion they please. Frankly it doesn't bother me because I dont' go there for information. I know that they moderate heavily so the value there isn't that great for product opinion and frank discussion.
I don't think the parents post is a Troll. It is a valid point. He owns his car, and can control what is 'posted' on it. Granted there is more public interest in the Apple issue, but the basics are the same. They own the site, and moderate the content. In the above example, no one would ever claim someone was censoring for removing an expletive from the side of their car. It's not like someone can't Google "iPhone 4 Antenna" and get thousands of differing opinions that match what they are looking for.
Apple is big, but not that big. They don't control every blog on the internet. They are refusing to leave such posts on their own forums, which is perfectly within their right. If I was a stockholder in that company, I would expect such action to be taken.
Personally, I find the whole antenna debacle a bit silly. Everyone I know buys cases for these things. They did it for the first gen, and have done so for every phone that's out. it's more rare to see one in it's bare form. I liken this to Windows and Virus Scanners. Although you could buy it and run it without it (and it's certainly not included in the OS), no one does. It's just not that big of a deal. Without the cover, I still can't get mine to drop more than two bars, and hasn't dropped a single call (I've had it since the 16th of last month, so almost a full calendar month).
Hell, even consumer reports, although they said they couldn't recommend it unless Apple provided a free workaround for the antenna issue, still rated it as the highest ranked and best smart phone available. The hysteria around this has gotten ridiculous.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/13/consumer_reports_ranks_apples_iphone_4_best_smartphone_available.html
Something as simple as stirring up some dust can mean death to a cave diver. It takes a special kind of person (nut) to do this. I watched a few specials on this and how easy it is to die. All I've got to say is that it must take a pair the size of the the former twin towers. I'm not fearful of enclosed spaces in the slightest, but this is just insane. On top of that, if you manage to get that deep, you have to account for the trip back, meaning if you exceed your air supply by getting lost in dirty water, or any other number of potential gotchas, you could easily end up overstaying your welcome and just not have enough time to get back out again.
I could actually see myself paying for a feature film about this. Not out of an interest in doing it myself, but seeing the extreme conditions man will venture into to quench an unstoppable curiosity.
This could be huge. If I'm understanding this correctly, they basically set a "Venus Fly Trap" that collects specific antibodies that attach to this customized HIV Virus/molecule. Using this technology, they could basically build custom 'catchers' to collect all sorts of anti-bodies that may have been previously missed, once they identify the surface proteins that these antibodies normally key to. Hopefully someone familiar with molecular biology can clarify, but it reads as if they design a customized HIV virus, and tweak it so that attracts specific antibodies that normally key to a surface protein on a cell. The implications here are huge if that's the case. They could net all sorts of useful antibodies for a huge range of diseases.
Is that the gist of this? (and apologies as I'm not a biologist).
From TFA: