I don't see why this won't apply to 3G or any other type of tethering either, since it's all the same.
Because the issue is in which part of the wireless spectrum they are using. As far as I can tell, this ruling only applies to the new C Block spectrum, not the parts of the spectrum they used to have.
Exactly. This was the feature that Google basically spent $4B on a few years ago. The spectrum for LTE went to carriers specifically with the requirement that they follow "net neutrality" style rules on usage; no blocking or "channeling" certain features according to service.
So the problem is Zuckerberg's alone to bear? How about the responsibility of the Banks in price fixing the IPO? How about the attempted over inflation of the stock by those same banks on opening day? How about the SEC and their lack of (either ability or willingness) enforcing their own rules and regulations?
I'm not a fan of Facebook by any means. They have done numerous shitty things and continue to do shitty things. The Capitalist Economy has mechanisms for dealing with those practices. To blame the financial fiasco on one person is simply ludicrous!
Well he is the captain of the ship... Unless you have reason to believe he was substantially mislead by one of his employees or paid advisors, then yes that company is his to make or break. And right now it is breaking under the weight of a valuation that was so untenable as to be obvious to anyone but the most over-optimistic of investment bankers. He should have known better and didnt. Just think of what else he should know about running a company but doesn't, and extrapolate the probability of his success out. He should have sold his idea to those Harvard dickwads and walked away, at least they have a degree in screwing up businesses, instead of just winging it.
Wall Street greed strikes again. I'm just glad that I wasn't stupid enough to invest. My off-the-cuff valuation would have been somewhere around $5/share.
And just last year, we were on Slashdot ( http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/18/004226/goldman-sachs-says-no-facebook-shares-for-us-investors ) debating the merits of Facebook allowing direct investment without being publicly traded, specifically how small investors in the US couldn't buy into facebook due to them being privately held. A number of "insightful" posters waxed theological about how "overprotective" the US investment system is for having a restriction like this. I hope those wise investors got the opportunity to throw their money in back when Facebook was a $100B company...
In a word: yes. Up until about 2 years ago, I used to make the bi-monthly trek to my mother's house to clean off the virus/trojan/malware du jour from her Windows computer.
Not knocking your skills or anything, but you overlooked the numerous security options that have been present in XP, Vista, and are even stronger in 7. If you give a user no install/modify rights, and set the machine up to automatically update software, you won't have to deal with fixing those sorts of issues constantly. It's actually very similar to the Linux approach except not as much is done for you out of the box.
I would much rather get a call of "i tried to install xyz thing and it told me i couldnt!" than "i just installed xyz thing and now all my grandkids pictures are gone!!!!" The tools are there in Windows, it's a matter of how often and how well they are used.
Best case scenario, you are right and they can "get used to" the new Linux desktop in front of them. That still saddles YOU with being tier 1, 2, 3, n support for basically the rest of your life. Worst case, things go horribly wrong, days/weeks of work are lost, and you are on the hook for that too.
Just playing devil's advocate, but is supporting Windows 7 and MS office really that bad?
Being that my version of the Galaxy S3 was purchased through Verizon, and they are notoriously slow with software updates, i can safely say that this feature will be present on my phone for a long time to come. Thanks for being lazy slackers, Verizon!
Sooner or later one of the studios is going to step into the vacuum of streaming rentals and realize there is a ton of money to be made there. Think about it, the day the movie hits theaters just start a streaming rental service starting at a premium (say $50 per view). Then concoct an algorithm (this might take a few runs to get just right) that decrements the price based on the day's demand for that title (relatively low demand, price goes down). That way, each day the price goes down (theoretically) by just enough to make the rental sales go up. Get that algorithm just right and you basically milk the entire world audience out of exactly how much they are willing to part with to watch a given title. If the theaters get in on the action, they too could have pricing based on the age and popularity of the film making the cinema experience actually tolerable since later runs will drop in price instead of spending all their time at a top-tier theater at full price, then jumping to a bottom-tier theater at a lower price (if the bottom tier even exists in a market).
If Netflix dies I guess that's the end of DVD-by-mail. I know at least one person who won't be happy. He rents the DVD and then he & his wife watch the movie or TV show together.
Nonsense, either Netflix will stay open, or there is always Blockbuster dvd-by-mail which is a nearly identical service. At the top-tier of title popularity, Redbox and other kiosk style rentals are everywhere (which is why they are eating up Netflix revenue like crazy.)
Plus, if Netflix is gone maybe the vacuum will spur someone to finally crack the enigma that is "Streaming Rentals" that don't cost an arm and a leg. It's clearly an issue of licensing and not technology or logistics, so it has to happen at some point, right?
Surely, this "friend" you know has little to worry about.
Are there perfectly acceptable non-trolling things to do with anonymity? Of course! I don't disagree with you at all; I am merely pointing out that most people would (as we have seen in every avenue of anonymous or semi-anonymous content) use it to troll. And I love the irony of my post being modded "troll", so that's a win.
Lack of options in a multiple choice question is almost always a way to manufacture a false N-chotomy for the reader. Referendum-type votes do it all the time to manipulate the results. If the question is "Why would you not like to reveal personally identifiable data online" then one of the fields should be either free-form, or "because I'm not a complete muppet."
If they did add that, they would need to also include (and make default) the option that is almost certainly the correct one: "I want to troll with no repercussion."
But that's just the problem: there AREN'T smaller phones available, at least on the high end. If you want a smaller cutting-edge phone you're pretty much out of luck.
What about iPhones? A TON of people love iPhones, and they are nice and small. Or Winmo phones? Blackberries? Android (to a lesser extent)... Honestly, the article feels like it is trying to incriminate android handset makers for "not knowing what customers want" just because the "flagship" android devices from Samsung, Motorola, HTC, and LG all have 4.5-4.8" screens. If you look just a tad deeper you will find 4.0" or smaller screen devices are plentiful and the CPU speed isn't too far behind the curve.
Small hands? get an iPhone. Really like Android as an OS but dont have big hands? Get a smaller screen version and put up with having (gasp!) only one CPU core. Or check out Windows Mobile (samsung's WinMo entry is quite small by comparison). If you are getting a phone with a smaller screen, either you are a lilliputian or you don't really expect that the phone is going to be able to play 1080p video anyway... And if you are so sure smaller phones are what consumers want, feel free to start your own phone company and prove all of the other guys wrong.
Because as with all good pushers the first patch is free. Subsequent patches cost $40K to recertify. At least that's what the voices in my heard said they overhead someone else tell another person.
If that's the case then I kind of do blame Microsoft. Making the first one free is clearly too low of a burden for devs to take seriously. They throw a bunch of bug fixes into the patch and then release it to the world, and don't really think "if i missed just one thing then this is going to get real expensive real fast". They should have a graduated scale, maybe $100 for the first patch, $1,000 for the second, $10,000 for the third, and so on. That way devs can get the first few out the door while still grasping the seriousness of what's going on.
I mean, think of it from Microsoft's perspective: If you had devs come out with a new patch like every single Tuesday, wouldn't you be pissed off at all the extra work you had to do?
That's true. Well, beyond what they charged him for the dev kit, and the fee to publish on XBLA, plus their part of the profits from the game sold, plus the tens of thousands he paid them to certify the first patch. So, you know, the hundreds of thousands (at a guess, could be millions or a few thousand) of dollars they have made off him. Beyond that, nothing at all!
OTOH, he did fuck up, and he could publish the patch even now if he really wanted to (but it only affects a few people who already finished the game before the patch, so it wouldn't be worth it financially from his point of view). Frankly, neither MSFT nor Fish comes up looking very good from this whole ordeal.
Maintaining the XBLA platform, curating many many games, watching for bugs (which is why this one even got caught in the first place) and all that is not cheap. The unfortunate thing is that it looks like the developer basically says that since the bug is only likely to exhibit itself on systems where the game has been played a lot (i.e. customers that already paid) that he isn't going to incur the cost of releasing the patch. It sure sounds like "thanks for the money, now here's your bug". If the bug stopped users from buying it in the first place, do you think he would so quickly scoff at the cost?
So the guy blames Microsoft after being the one pushing out a faulty patch to begin with? LOLWUT?
Something does not add up; a patch was produced for the game with apparently no fanfare regarding the cost for "recertification," and then when it was revealed that a bug still existed (albeit in an apparently hard-to-spot corner case) only then did he go ballistic and cry foul? He must have known about this "extortionate" fee beforehand, so why only complain after a bug he put in the software made him pay it twice?
But what you do most is carry it around. Give me a small smartphone and a good tablet and I'm set.
Everyone carries their phone around differently. For a lot of people (myself included) a larger phone has no problem fitting in the pocket of any pair of pants they own. Wearing pants when leaving the house is a given, therefore the phone will always have a place to be stored. A tablet, on the other hand, requires me to carry some sort of accessory bag (either a backpack or something that too closely resembles a purse) given that they are fragile, therefore the burden to carry a tablet is FAR higher than to carry a large-screened phone. And for that matter, if I am going to haul a backpack around I might as well just put my laptop in it and be able to *really* do what I need to do instead of carrying around a tablet for additional tasks, which (let's be honest) is just a smartphone with a large display.
If you can easily stow a tablet (say, if you have a purse) then yes tablets are great and you probably would find a smaller phone more useful. Not everyone is in the same boat though, which is something this article appears to miss. I suspect a hint of Apple bias but I won't bother going there.
I personally like the larger screen devices that are going on the market. Being a male of above average height and hand size, these kinds of phones are just as easy for me to carry, and offer a better visual experience (after all why have such a powerful smartphone if you are limited to 3.5" of screen space). Surely the larger phones aren't for everyone, and to that end there are still smaller screened phones you can buy, no one is making you buy a large screen phone. Choice is good!
Quite a while ago for work I was asked to verify where the circuits we're using come into our buildings to verify diverse entry - basically to reduce the chances of a 'backhoe day'. Even tho we were paying for the DS3s, the BEST I could get out of the major carriers was "Well, they go from your site, to (city X), to (city Y)."
The carriers just figure "It's need to know. And even tho you're paying $massive, you don't need to know."
Sorry, but this is dumb. All you need to do is call the "call before you dig" number and say you are planning on putting some very deep fenceposts all the way around the property. Within 72 hours you will have nice spray-painted, color-coded lines marking all underground utilities. Follow the lines to the building, then identify what wires are on the inside of the building for each entry point. If the telco guy shows up and only sprays one line, you know you have a problem.
...when looked at by political groupings, did any particular political grouping's perceptions of the temperate correlate more closely to reality than the others?
i.e. was there one or more political ideologies that was more divorced from reality than the others, by any meaningful statistical deviation? Or were they all off, just in different directions based on political ideology?
They gracefully side-stepped this in the Ars article: "And those cultural affiliations had about the effect you'd expect. Individualists, who often object to environmental regulations as an infringement on their freedoms, tended to think the temperatures hadn't gone up in their area, regardless of whether they had. Strong egalitarians, in contrast, tended to believe the temperatures had gone up."
Basically, the temperature is what you think it is. If you don't believe in global warming then it isn't getting warmer. If you do believe in global warming then it is getting warmer. The thing is, global warming over the past few years is very real, and only one group acknowledged that. The study did not explore the possibility that global warming believers might think that the temperature is going up even if it isn't..
My Nexus 7 arrived on Tuesday, and I opened it just fine. The tape used to keep the box closed was a little interesting, looked almost like it had been melted on, but nothing anyone with a pair of scissors or box cutters should have trouble with.
Google would like to make it at least mildly challenging to buy a product, swap the product with modelling clay, and return the box for full retail value. Apple puts aesthetics first. Good for them, but really we are getting pretty high and mighty when we think a little bit of tape is going to induce wrap-rage. I bought a pair of scissors from home depot the other day that required, you guessed it, another pair of (heavy duty) scissors just to cut the plastic fused clamshell open. If you can open a box with a slightly pointy fingernail, or a key, or a ballpoint pen, then guess what it's NOT THAT HARD.
Well, of all the things that qualify as first world problems...
And really? People keep i* packaging? That's kinda weird and squirrelly.
Exactly... The story about "packaging fetishists" is just as much about doing something wrong as it is about doing it right. Why not just make packaging that is easy to open and recycle, and let the consumer enjoy just the product instead of worrying about the box? Or, at least, make the box in a form factor that is easy to actually reuse instead of inspiring Apple fans to collect shelves and shelves of meaningless cardboard. I mean, at least pewter figurines or tea sets or pictures of old people has some prolonged sentimental value. With an iPad, are you really going to give two shits about it after you get the next generation version?
Thanks, Apple, for putting time into thinking about how to get me to hang on to MORE shit I don't need.
I'm sorry but if you can't help your kid in elementary school then you should be doing the homework with them. There is nothing hard or advanced in elementary school, that by the time your an adult you shouldn't know. If a parent can't assist there child in the courses there being taught then they should be going back to school.
You make a good point... Nevertheless, if I were your elementary school teacher, you would be getting an F for the 3 blatant errors you made in that paragraph. Are you trolling or did you really never learn the difference between their, there, and they're?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why this won't apply to 3G or any other type of tethering either, since it's all the same.
Because the issue is in which part of the wireless spectrum they are using. As far as I can tell, this ruling only applies to the new C Block spectrum, not the parts of the spectrum they used to have.
Exactly. This was the feature that Google basically spent $4B on a few years ago. The spectrum for LTE went to carriers specifically with the requirement that they follow "net neutrality" style rules on usage; no blocking or "channeling" certain features according to service.
So should we not trust you? I mean that was a simple explanation so by your logic you must be lying.
That depends on whether or not he is a Cretan.
So the problem is Zuckerberg's alone to bear? How about the responsibility of the Banks in price fixing the IPO? How about the attempted over inflation of the stock by those same banks on opening day? How about the SEC and their lack of (either ability or willingness) enforcing their own rules and regulations?
I'm not a fan of Facebook by any means. They have done numerous shitty things and continue to do shitty things. The Capitalist Economy has mechanisms for dealing with those practices. To blame the financial fiasco on one person is simply ludicrous!
Well he is the captain of the ship... Unless you have reason to believe he was substantially mislead by one of his employees or paid advisors, then yes that company is his to make or break. And right now it is breaking under the weight of a valuation that was so untenable as to be obvious to anyone but the most over-optimistic of investment bankers. He should have known better and didnt. Just think of what else he should know about running a company but doesn't, and extrapolate the probability of his success out. He should have sold his idea to those Harvard dickwads and walked away, at least they have a degree in screwing up businesses, instead of just winging it.
Wall Street greed strikes again. I'm just glad that I wasn't stupid enough to invest. My off-the-cuff valuation would have been somewhere around $5/share.
And just last year, we were on Slashdot ( http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/18/004226/goldman-sachs-says-no-facebook-shares-for-us-investors ) debating the merits of Facebook allowing direct investment without being publicly traded, specifically how small investors in the US couldn't buy into facebook due to them being privately held. A number of "insightful" posters waxed theological about how "overprotective" the US investment system is for having a restriction like this. I hope those wise investors got the opportunity to throw their money in back when Facebook was a $100B company...
You're right, expectation management is key. That's no fault of Windows (or Linux) though.
is supporting Windows and Office that bad?
In a word: yes. Up until about 2 years ago, I used to make the bi-monthly trek to my mother's house to clean off the virus/trojan/malware du jour from her Windows computer.
Not knocking your skills or anything, but you overlooked the numerous security options that have been present in XP, Vista, and are even stronger in 7. If you give a user no install/modify rights, and set the machine up to automatically update software, you won't have to deal with fixing those sorts of issues constantly. It's actually very similar to the Linux approach except not as much is done for you out of the box.
I would much rather get a call of "i tried to install xyz thing and it told me i couldnt!" than "i just installed xyz thing and now all my grandkids pictures are gone!!!!" The tools are there in Windows, it's a matter of how often and how well they are used.
Best case scenario, you are right and they can "get used to" the new Linux desktop in front of them. That still saddles YOU with being tier 1, 2, 3, n support for basically the rest of your life. Worst case, things go horribly wrong, days/weeks of work are lost, and you are on the hook for that too.
Just playing devil's advocate, but is supporting Windows 7 and MS office really that bad?
Being that my version of the Galaxy S3 was purchased through Verizon, and they are notoriously slow with software updates, i can safely say that this feature will be present on my phone for a long time to come. Thanks for being lazy slackers, Verizon!
Sooner or later one of the studios is going to step into the vacuum of streaming rentals and realize there is a ton of money to be made there. Think about it, the day the movie hits theaters just start a streaming rental service starting at a premium (say $50 per view). Then concoct an algorithm (this might take a few runs to get just right) that decrements the price based on the day's demand for that title (relatively low demand, price goes down). That way, each day the price goes down (theoretically) by just enough to make the rental sales go up. Get that algorithm just right and you basically milk the entire world audience out of exactly how much they are willing to part with to watch a given title. If the theaters get in on the action, they too could have pricing based on the age and popularity of the film making the cinema experience actually tolerable since later runs will drop in price instead of spending all their time at a top-tier theater at full price, then jumping to a bottom-tier theater at a lower price (if the bottom tier even exists in a market).
If Netflix dies I guess that's the end of DVD-by-mail. I know at least one person who won't be happy. He rents the DVD and then he & his wife watch the movie or TV show together.
Nonsense, either Netflix will stay open, or there is always Blockbuster dvd-by-mail which is a nearly identical service. At the top-tier of title popularity, Redbox and other kiosk style rentals are everywhere (which is why they are eating up Netflix revenue like crazy.)
Plus, if Netflix is gone maybe the vacuum will spur someone to finally crack the enigma that is "Streaming Rentals" that don't cost an arm and a leg. It's clearly an issue of licensing and not technology or logistics, so it has to happen at some point, right?
Surely, this "friend" you know has little to worry about.
"a well-managed government project"
Gave me shivers down my spine.
Hey, even a one in a million chance will come through now and then...
Are there perfectly acceptable non-trolling things to do with anonymity? Of course! I don't disagree with you at all; I am merely pointing out that most people would (as we have seen in every avenue of anonymous or semi-anonymous content) use it to troll. And I love the irony of my post being modded "troll", so that's a win.
Trolololo- no.
Lack of options in a multiple choice question is almost always a way to manufacture a false N-chotomy for the reader. Referendum-type votes do it all the time to manipulate the results. If the question is "Why would you not like to reveal personally identifiable data online" then one of the fields should be either free-form, or "because I'm not a complete muppet."
If they did add that, they would need to also include (and make default) the option that is almost certainly the correct one: "I want to troll with no repercussion."
But that's just the problem: there AREN'T smaller phones available, at least on the high end. If you want a smaller cutting-edge phone you're pretty much out of luck.
What about iPhones? A TON of people love iPhones, and they are nice and small. Or Winmo phones? Blackberries? Android (to a lesser extent)... Honestly, the article feels like it is trying to incriminate android handset makers for "not knowing what customers want" just because the "flagship" android devices from Samsung, Motorola, HTC, and LG all have 4.5-4.8" screens. If you look just a tad deeper you will find 4.0" or smaller screen devices are plentiful and the CPU speed isn't too far behind the curve.
Small hands? get an iPhone. Really like Android as an OS but dont have big hands? Get a smaller screen version and put up with having (gasp!) only one CPU core. Or check out Windows Mobile (samsung's WinMo entry is quite small by comparison). If you are getting a phone with a smaller screen, either you are a lilliputian or you don't really expect that the phone is going to be able to play 1080p video anyway... And if you are so sure smaller phones are what consumers want, feel free to start your own phone company and prove all of the other guys wrong.
Because as with all good pushers the first patch is free. Subsequent patches cost $40K to recertify. At least that's what the voices in my heard said they overhead someone else tell another person.
If that's the case then I kind of do blame Microsoft. Making the first one free is clearly too low of a burden for devs to take seriously. They throw a bunch of bug fixes into the patch and then release it to the world, and don't really think "if i missed just one thing then this is going to get real expensive real fast". They should have a graduated scale, maybe $100 for the first patch, $1,000 for the second, $10,000 for the third, and so on. That way devs can get the first few out the door while still grasping the seriousness of what's going on.
I mean, think of it from Microsoft's perspective: If you had devs come out with a new patch like every single Tuesday, wouldn't you be pissed off at all the extra work you had to do?
I dislike MSFT, but they owe him nothing.
That's true. Well, beyond what they charged him for the dev kit, and the fee to publish on XBLA, plus their part of the profits from the game sold, plus the tens of thousands he paid them to certify the first patch. So, you know, the hundreds of thousands (at a guess, could be millions or a few thousand) of dollars they have made off him. Beyond that, nothing at all!
OTOH, he did fuck up, and he could publish the patch even now if he really wanted to (but it only affects a few people who already finished the game before the patch, so it wouldn't be worth it financially from his point of view). Frankly, neither MSFT nor Fish comes up looking very good from this whole ordeal.
Maintaining the XBLA platform, curating many many games, watching for bugs (which is why this one even got caught in the first place) and all that is not cheap. The unfortunate thing is that it looks like the developer basically says that since the bug is only likely to exhibit itself on systems where the game has been played a lot (i.e. customers that already paid) that he isn't going to incur the cost of releasing the patch. It sure sounds like "thanks for the money, now here's your bug". If the bug stopped users from buying it in the first place, do you think he would so quickly scoff at the cost?
So the guy blames Microsoft after being the one pushing out a faulty patch to begin with? LOLWUT?
Something does not add up; a patch was produced for the game with apparently no fanfare regarding the cost for "recertification," and then when it was revealed that a bug still existed (albeit in an apparently hard-to-spot corner case) only then did he go ballistic and cry foul? He must have known about this "extortionate" fee beforehand, so why only complain after a bug he put in the software made him pay it twice?
But what you do most is carry it around. Give me a small smartphone and a good tablet and I'm set.
Everyone carries their phone around differently. For a lot of people (myself included) a larger phone has no problem fitting in the pocket of any pair of pants they own. Wearing pants when leaving the house is a given, therefore the phone will always have a place to be stored. A tablet, on the other hand, requires me to carry some sort of accessory bag (either a backpack or something that too closely resembles a purse) given that they are fragile, therefore the burden to carry a tablet is FAR higher than to carry a large-screened phone. And for that matter, if I am going to haul a backpack around I might as well just put my laptop in it and be able to *really* do what I need to do instead of carrying around a tablet for additional tasks, which (let's be honest) is just a smartphone with a large display.
If you can easily stow a tablet (say, if you have a purse) then yes tablets are great and you probably would find a smaller phone more useful. Not everyone is in the same boat though, which is something this article appears to miss. I suspect a hint of Apple bias but I won't bother going there.
I personally like the larger screen devices that are going on the market. Being a male of above average height and hand size, these kinds of phones are just as easy for me to carry, and offer a better visual experience (after all why have such a powerful smartphone if you are limited to 3.5" of screen space). Surely the larger phones aren't for everyone, and to that end there are still smaller screened phones you can buy, no one is making you buy a large screen phone. Choice is good!
Quite a while ago for work I was asked to verify where the circuits we're using come into our buildings to verify diverse entry - basically to reduce the chances of a 'backhoe day'. Even tho we were paying for the DS3s, the BEST I could get out of the major carriers was "Well, they go from your site, to (city X), to (city Y)."
The carriers just figure "It's need to know. And even tho you're paying $massive, you don't need to know."
Sorry, but this is dumb. All you need to do is call the "call before you dig" number and say you are planning on putting some very deep fenceposts all the way around the property. Within 72 hours you will have nice spray-painted, color-coded lines marking all underground utilities. Follow the lines to the building, then identify what wires are on the inside of the building for each entry point. If the telco guy shows up and only sprays one line, you know you have a problem.
...when looked at by political groupings, did any particular political grouping's perceptions of the temperate correlate more closely to reality than the others?
i.e. was there one or more political ideologies that was more divorced from reality than the others, by any meaningful statistical deviation? Or were they all off, just in different directions based on political ideology?
They gracefully side-stepped this in the Ars article: "And those cultural affiliations had about the effect you'd expect. Individualists, who often object to environmental regulations as an infringement on their freedoms, tended to think the temperatures hadn't gone up in their area, regardless of whether they had. Strong egalitarians, in contrast, tended to believe the temperatures had gone up."
Basically, the temperature is what you think it is. If you don't believe in global warming then it isn't getting warmer. If you do believe in global warming then it is getting warmer. The thing is, global warming over the past few years is very real, and only one group acknowledged that. The study did not explore the possibility that global warming believers might think that the temperature is going up even if it isn't..
Good, now do you're vs your, and you're on your way to a passing grade ;-)
My Nexus 7 arrived on Tuesday, and I opened it just fine. The tape used to keep the box closed was a little interesting, looked almost like it had been melted on, but nothing anyone with a pair of scissors or box cutters should have trouble with.
Google would like to make it at least mildly challenging to buy a product, swap the product with modelling clay, and return the box for full retail value. Apple puts aesthetics first. Good for them, but really we are getting pretty high and mighty when we think a little bit of tape is going to induce wrap-rage. I bought a pair of scissors from home depot the other day that required, you guessed it, another pair of (heavy duty) scissors just to cut the plastic fused clamshell open. If you can open a box with a slightly pointy fingernail, or a key, or a ballpoint pen, then guess what it's NOT THAT HARD.
Well, of all the things that qualify as first world problems...
And really? People keep i* packaging? That's kinda weird and squirrelly.
Exactly... The story about "packaging fetishists" is just as much about doing something wrong as it is about doing it right. Why not just make packaging that is easy to open and recycle, and let the consumer enjoy just the product instead of worrying about the box? Or, at least, make the box in a form factor that is easy to actually reuse instead of inspiring Apple fans to collect shelves and shelves of meaningless cardboard. I mean, at least pewter figurines or tea sets or pictures of old people has some prolonged sentimental value. With an iPad, are you really going to give two shits about it after you get the next generation version?
Thanks, Apple, for putting time into thinking about how to get me to hang on to MORE shit I don't need.
I'm sorry but if you can't help your kid in elementary school then you should be doing the homework with them. There is nothing hard or advanced in elementary school, that by the time your an adult you shouldn't know. If a parent can't assist there child in the courses there being taught then they should be going back to school.
You make a good point... Nevertheless, if I were your elementary school teacher, you would be getting an F for the 3 blatant errors you made in that paragraph. Are you trolling or did you really never learn the difference between their, there, and they're?