That's nonsense. After user-friendly design, everyone know that the thing that comes next is a better idiot. That's the natural progression. Once you come up with the perfect design, you'll find people that have no idea how to use it. Those are the better idiots.
What's the Latin phrase, about "who benefits?" It applies here. Who benefits from online advertising? Among others, Google, one of Apple's main competitors and the single major threat to the IOS ecosystem. Hurting online advertising hurts Google, and Apple thinks that benefits them.
Whoa, go easy on me there pal. Like I said, you won. You definitely won. As for me, I'll just watch the free market to see who everyone who makes money on fake news targets. The free market can't be wrong, after all, so if everyone is pumping out conservative tabloid fodder that's all the evidence I need about your ability to think rationally and critically. I know it's a hard pill for you to swallow. But, remember. You won. You always do. That's what you are, you're a winner. You know it, I know it, the free market knows it.
Now, back to your scheduled rant over "you liberals", as if you think you're describing me. I'm not trying to suggest you have no idea what you're talking about, I'm just pointing out that you've won. I'm sure that you're late to post the latest story about a child sex ring being run from a pizza restaurant on your Facebook feed, so I don't want to keep you. I just want you to remember that you're a winner. Go ahead, strut around like you've earned it, because you definitely have.
By default, a fake news publisher has no credibility, unless you're a liberal hearing what you want to hear after suffering an embarrassing election defeat.
They have no credibility by definition, yet liberals like you lap it up.
Ah. Well, you could have saved some typing and just said "because I say so." You're setting the defaults, you're setting the definition, etc. If I understood your own habits I'm sure I could point to plenty of sources of fake news which you feel differently about because you agree with it, but if your argument boils down to "because I say so" then there's not exactly any room for discussion. So now I'm arguing with some anonymous person who doesn't understand who I am and who wants to make their own rules. I think I'll go ahead and bow out here. I'd like to say it was an enjoyable discussion, but when you wrestle with a pig you end up covered in shit and the pig likes it. Or, a more apt metaphor for your case might be playing chess with a pigeon: the pigeon just shits on the board and struts around like it won. I don't think you're understanding anything I'm saying here in the first place, so I'll save some time and just let you think you've won. Great job!
my point remains that it is ridiculous to believe someone who is known to produce fake news.
That's a stupid point, so please elaborate. Why is it ridiculous? This is some old-fashioned investigative journalism that tracked him down and got him to talk about it. At first he didn't want to talk, then he opened up a little bit. It's obvious what his motivation was for producing the fake news in the first place - he admits to quite a bit of money. What's his motivation for doing a fake interview? He's not getting money from a fake interview. Why not believe that some of the basic claims he makes are true? He has no reason to lie. If he was going to lie, might as well not do the interview at all. So, again, please elaborate on your point. Because it really sounds like you're just trying to make an argument along of the lines of "if they say stuff I agree with, it's true, and if they don't, then it's not true."
They have no credibility by definition, yet liberals like you lap it up.
Liberals like me, huh? Yeah, you know so much about me, Anonymous Coward.
I simply highlighted the lopsided coverage of the supposed "fake news"
I'm not sure what you find lopsided about the coverage. Yeah, fake news has been around for a long time, you've been able to see it at every grocery checkout lane for as long as I can remember. You used to see articles about Bat Boy, or Hillary meeting with aliens. It used to be obvious that it was bullshit, and the people who believed in it like it was true were people who were generally not to be taken seriously. The thing that is different about this election is all of a sudden you have all of these conservatives passing around that article about Hillary meeting with aliens like it actually happened, that there are people making a lot of money on that fact, that some people think the obviously fake stories colored peoples real opinions of people, that the effect was enough to partly influence a presidential election, and that the people behind it, the people publishing the stories, were willing to talk about it. Yeah, fake news has been around forever, but I don't think tabloid fodder has ever helped push a candidate to the presidency, and that's why it is newsworthy. It's just a footnote that it was conservatives with no research ability or desire who were the ones duped into believing everything. You were just talking about critical thinking when reading news, I'm surprised that you need me to point all of this out to you.
All of the sudden fake news goes from being about ad revenue to excusing the failures of a useless, corrupt political party and their fanatical followers.
I'm not sure what you think you're arguing about here, Mr. Critical Thinker, but if you want my opinion then Hillary Clinton is an historically bad candidate, probably an awful person, I believe the poster child for political corruption and a lack of integrity, and that the DNC was completely in her pocket the entire time and fielded probably the only candidate capable of losing to the single most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling, who is now leading our country (also in an historically bad way). I've never liked her, and I didn't vote for her, in any election, so again, I'm not sure what exactly you think you're arguing about here, but I think you're the only one arguing those points.
Now, go back and look at the date on that article. It's from last November. This isn't "all of the sudden" (and it's "all of a sudden", but you "read good" so you knew that). This has always been about ad revenue. That's what the current story that CNN is talking about is also about - the same people who made money last time are getting ready to do it again, and here's a look at them. You don't give a shit about any of that though, because all you see is identity politics. It doesn't matter to you that the fact that Putin and Russia want t
but this news based on an interview of a supposed, unnamed fake news publisher is real.
If you're referring to the link that I posted, which contains the interview I quoted, some observations:
1. You did not click on the link.
2. You did click on the link, but did not read the story.
3. You did click on the link and read the story, but you didn't understand anything.
In case you're still not getting it, the person is cited, by name, in an interview about a rather famous piece of fake news which he admits to publishing. That's a pretty fantastic tactic you're going with there though. "This 'fake-news' interview does not fit into my predefined worldview which says that liberals are idiots and I'm not, even though it's my side that falls for the fake news. Since this goes against what my gut tells me, I'm going to suggest that this interview itself is fake news. Checkmate, libs!"
As for the rest of your so-called "observations", the fact that people make 5 figures per month spreading obvious bullshit to conservatives tends to undermine your arguments about who engages in group think, who questions what they read, who does even the most basic research, etc.
I thought fake news was about Russia influencing the election, not "clicks" to generate advertising money.
"If there's one thing I know, it's that if Russia is using bots to spread the stories that they want to spread, then that makes it impossible for teenagers in Macedonia to create bullshit news sites and get ad revenue. The two things cannot co-exist in any possible universe. I know this is true because I'm a fancy conservative thinker that reads news in a critical way while I paint everyone else with as broad a brush as possible."
Anyway, see you next time, Anonymous Coward, you bastion of intelligent analysis.
Yes, facts have a well known liberal bias, right? Forget about the interviews over the past year with the creators of these fake news sites talking about how and why they target conservatives, since now that it's CNN that is reporting on this everything is fake and there's liberal bias everywhere, right? All of those interviews are now retro-actively fake because CNN decided to report on it also.
So despite the stories for the past year or so about groups of young people in Macedonia cranking out fake news sites, you've decided that this story is fake because CNN is now also reporting on it. So, just to be clear, you're saying that anything reported by CNN is fake, correct? Anything at all, if it appears on the CNN site, it's fake, right?
The "entire Russia thing" is the epitome of fake news? Well, you're not necessarily wrong. Here's some research which shows that some of these bots, identifying themselves as British people or whatever, post exclusively between 8am and 8pm Moscow time. People pushing out propaganda which favors Russia and their goal of destabilizing the Western governments set up after the fall of the Soviet Union, doing their work during 12-hour days in Moscow time.
just because people share these things, doesnt mean they fall for them. that is something that seems to be ignored.
Sharing things and "falling for them" are precisely the same thing, whether you want to believe that or not. What's the goal of the people creating the fake news stories? To get people to share them, and click on them. That's the goal. The goal is not to get people to believe them. They don't make money when people believe their stories, they make money when people read and share them. So, you did fall for them. You're one of the people paying the people who write fake news, so congratulations.
As far as the political lean of the stories, the creators themselves will point out how stories that would appeal to conservatives spread far more quickly than those targeted at liberals. The people who would share a story like the fake Denver Guardian story in the article don't even bother to look at the source site and figure out that this fake news story is literally the only one posted on the site. You'll get people calling bullshit on any little detail on a site like Slashdot and doing research to back up their point of view, but that doesn't happen on the Facebook feeds of conservatives. People like the guy in that article rely on the lack of fact-checking among conservatives to bring him 5 figures in income per month, so it obviously works.
When did you notice that fake news does best with Trump supporters?
Well, this isn't just a Trump-supporter problem. This is a right-wing issue. Sarah Palin's famous blasting of the lamestream media is kind of record and testament to the rise of these kinds of people. The post-fact era is what I would refer to it as. This isn't something that started with Trump. This is something that's been in the works for a while. His whole campaign was this thing of discrediting mainstream media sources, which is one of those dog whistles to his supporters. When we were coming up with headlines it's always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat.
We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.
Don't worry, you'll figure it out when someone uses your personal data that they stole from Equifax to open accounts in your name, which causes your credit rating to go down, which will show up on your credit report. From Equifax.
Anyone want to place wagers on whether or not Equifax will drop your score because people stole your identity with the data they got from Equifax?
I don't think it was a scam per se, the people running the company are just idiots. Selling bags of pre-crushed fruit and vegetable juice is great if they can do it efficiently and cheaply, there was no reason to tack on some $400 machine to remove the juice from the bag. Or, make the machine a $20 add-on to buying the juice if you really want a machine to do it for you, it really doesn't need to be a complex machine and there's certainly no reason to restrict it to only work with a single brand of bag, that makes it less useful. They shot themselves in the foot by making the machine their primary product instead of the juice. It's just short-sightedness, they didn't even realize what their product was.
Do you think any end user cared when/usr was locked down a couple of years ago?
I don't know, did it cause problems for anyone? If it didn't affect anyone, I doubt anyone cared. If it caused problems, I'm sure that people cared even without understanding the underlying reason why.
What good does it do to allow anyone to opt out at this point?
I guess we'll find out. If Apple forces an update to hardware and it causes problems, then we'll have our answer.
Why would the file format on a network file share matter? It should be irrelevant to any machine other than the server actually sharing the drive.
I'm just taking that from TFA. It *should* be irrelevant, but apparently it depends how the share points are set up.
Volumes formatted with APFS can't offer share points over the network using AFP. SMB and NFS are supported when using APFS.
Not being part of the Apple ecosystem, I'm not familiar with AFP or why someone would choose that over either SMB or NFS, but apparently there is a situation where converting to APFS will cause problems for network shares.
Sierra was a big bag of hurt; so as long as Apple keeps offering security updates for El Capitan, I'm good.
That's fine, but you wouldn't be able to read a USB device formatted with APFS. I don't know whether or not that matters for your particular situation, but Apple has made the decision that USB devices which are apparently initially set up on newer Macs will not be readable by older Macs.
Which end user is truly concerned about the file system? Which end user even knows what that is?
That's the argument? It's OK because Apple users don't know what a file system is?
If you can't run High Sierra for whatever reason right now
OK, but if Apple users don't even know what a file system is, how will they know if updating any one of their plethora of Apple devices might break compatibility with any other devices? If they upgrade, and it doesn't work, can they revert?
if you update, the system either works or it doesn't.
Is that the updated motto? Apple: it either works or it doesn't.
Because being forced into APFS is terrible... why exactly?
Notwithstanding the fact that this Slashdot "article" looks like someone who was trying to reply to an email on an existing conversation accidentally posted an out-of-context chunk to Slashdot instead, clicking on the one link and looking at the bullet points would suggest that APFS is not compatible with MacOS versions prior to 10.12.6, so that any computers running those prior versions would not be able to read or write to the updated devices, it sounds like Boot Camp does not support APFS, and it may affect network file shares. In other words, whenever you push your entire base toward a single standard there is bound to be a certain set of users who are going to have problems switching, but it sounds like Apple gets a free pass. It's bad for other people to force all of their users to move in a certain direction, regardless of whether they want to or not, but it's OK when Apple does it I guess.
Given Trump's successes thus far, can his behavior truly be said to be a problem?
I think you answer your own question right here:
I would suggest that it seems he's specifically trolling the left to provoke a disproportionate response.
There are a lot of responsibilities and expectations that people have for the office of President. Trolling Americans in order to provoke a disproportionate response is not one of them. That's a behavior problem. Maybe instead of trolling people he should be trying to set the actual tone of the debate and try to work at healing wounds instead of opening new ones. That's the kind of behavior we expect from a president, from any party. We expect the person to rise to the office, and instead Trump has dragged the office of President down to his level. So, yeah, his behavior can truly be said to be a problem.
but they aren't doing "their side" any favors by allowing him to further provoke them.
Here's more evidence that his behavior is a problem. You are suggesting that maybe it is counter-productive or beneath someone to respond to the President. The President Of The United States. That if the President addresses you, with the objective of provoking you, that you somehow need to be the bigger person and not respond. To the President Of The United States. The American people have never had a relationship like that with their president, at least not that I'm aware of. Several months ago when Trump was attacking the Morning Joe show, I think on ABC, with just all of these stupid personal insults, there was a quote by someone with a title that was something like "Senior VP of Communications" or something, and he pointed out that he never expected that it would be beneath him to respond to the POTUS. We are in new territory here, and it is largely because of Trump's behavior. So, yeah, it's a problem.
With leadership from people like you, hopefully one day the US can be just as good as India.
Don't worry though, that child will go up for adoption, which always works out for the kids. At least the kid won't be alone, there's 30 million orphans to keep her company. We're almost there with India though, just like if that kid was in the US she won't have access to health care, because like you point out it's her responsibility to buy medical insurance for herself, which totally makes sense for an orphan, and she'll get all of the public education she needs, just like in the US. Until she's 14. Then she's on her own. But let's rejoice that another of the 1.3 billion lives in India has started, I'm sure it will be a great one. This is a fantastic victory for conservatives everywhere.
We can only hope that the enlightened thinking of India makes its way to the US soon. Unlike shitty Luxembourg, with its stupid #1 health care system that no one can learn from, or dumbass Finland, with its free education at every level. Their #1 education ranking is a sham and there's absolutely nothing we can learn by studying them. "Health care and job training is the responsibility of the individual", the debate starts and ends there. This is an incredibly simple world, and we need incredibly simple rules like that to live by.
In fact, we should go even farther. This country is absolutely full of leeches and parasites, and you know who I'm talking about. Teachers. They get paid extravagant salaries, which is the only reason we can justify making them pay for all of their own classroom materials, but we can fix that problem. Let's kill the public education system altogether, let's abolish public schools completely and really make individuals pay their own way. That's exactly how we end up with a well-educated work force that will allow our country to continue our economic march to victory. We can just get rid of the entire department of education, imagine how much better off the country will be if we keep all of that money and give it back to the rich in tax cuts! The free market will fix this problem nicely, only the most profitable schools will survive, they can stuff as many kids in one classroom to maximize revenue, since that's the really important thing to us Americans, and they can hire whoever is willing to work for the lowest pay and benefits, because that's how you attract real talent. Yes, if we force the next generation to pay for their own education the entire way, and health care for that matter, then by the time I'm old and retired this country will have an extremely solid foundation for the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, That Guy is still around? After all these years?
You are old, That Guy. You've been saying this for what feels like forever.
That's nonsense. After user-friendly design, everyone know that the thing that comes next is a better idiot. That's the natural progression. Once you come up with the perfect design, you'll find people that have no idea how to use it. Those are the better idiots.
When I'm posting this, you account for 24.2% of the replies to this story. Are you sure you're the fake one?
Oh. Apple's competitor is Samsung? Why is that? Is it because they sell a lot of phones? What software do those phones run? Who makes it?
What's the Latin phrase, about "who benefits?" It applies here. Who benefits from online advertising? Among others, Google, one of Apple's main competitors and the single major threat to the IOS ecosystem. Hurting online advertising hurts Google, and Apple thinks that benefits them.
Whoa, blast from the past.
Whoa, go easy on me there pal. Like I said, you won. You definitely won. As for me, I'll just watch the free market to see who everyone who makes money on fake news targets. The free market can't be wrong, after all, so if everyone is pumping out conservative tabloid fodder that's all the evidence I need about your ability to think rationally and critically. I know it's a hard pill for you to swallow. But, remember. You won. You always do. That's what you are, you're a winner. You know it, I know it, the free market knows it.
Now, back to your scheduled rant over "you liberals", as if you think you're describing me. I'm not trying to suggest you have no idea what you're talking about, I'm just pointing out that you've won. I'm sure that you're late to post the latest story about a child sex ring being run from a pizza restaurant on your Facebook feed, so I don't want to keep you. I just want you to remember that you're a winner. Go ahead, strut around like you've earned it, because you definitely have.
Please re-read my previous elaborations:
By default, a fake news publisher has no credibility, unless you're a liberal hearing what you want to hear after suffering an embarrassing election defeat.
They have no credibility by definition, yet liberals like you lap it up.
Ah. Well, you could have saved some typing and just said "because I say so." You're setting the defaults, you're setting the definition, etc. If I understood your own habits I'm sure I could point to plenty of sources of fake news which you feel differently about because you agree with it, but if your argument boils down to "because I say so" then there's not exactly any room for discussion. So now I'm arguing with some anonymous person who doesn't understand who I am and who wants to make their own rules. I think I'll go ahead and bow out here. I'd like to say it was an enjoyable discussion, but when you wrestle with a pig you end up covered in shit and the pig likes it. Or, a more apt metaphor for your case might be playing chess with a pigeon: the pigeon just shits on the board and struts around like it won. I don't think you're understanding anything I'm saying here in the first place, so I'll save some time and just let you think you've won. Great job!
my point remains that it is ridiculous to believe someone who is known to produce fake news.
That's a stupid point, so please elaborate. Why is it ridiculous? This is some old-fashioned investigative journalism that tracked him down and got him to talk about it. At first he didn't want to talk, then he opened up a little bit. It's obvious what his motivation was for producing the fake news in the first place - he admits to quite a bit of money. What's his motivation for doing a fake interview? He's not getting money from a fake interview. Why not believe that some of the basic claims he makes are true? He has no reason to lie. If he was going to lie, might as well not do the interview at all. So, again, please elaborate on your point. Because it really sounds like you're just trying to make an argument along of the lines of "if they say stuff I agree with, it's true, and if they don't, then it's not true."
They have no credibility by definition, yet liberals like you lap it up.
Liberals like me, huh? Yeah, you know so much about me, Anonymous Coward.
I simply highlighted the lopsided coverage of the supposed "fake news"
I'm not sure what you find lopsided about the coverage. Yeah, fake news has been around for a long time, you've been able to see it at every grocery checkout lane for as long as I can remember. You used to see articles about Bat Boy, or Hillary meeting with aliens. It used to be obvious that it was bullshit, and the people who believed in it like it was true were people who were generally not to be taken seriously. The thing that is different about this election is all of a sudden you have all of these conservatives passing around that article about Hillary meeting with aliens like it actually happened, that there are people making a lot of money on that fact, that some people think the obviously fake stories colored peoples real opinions of people, that the effect was enough to partly influence a presidential election, and that the people behind it, the people publishing the stories, were willing to talk about it. Yeah, fake news has been around forever, but I don't think tabloid fodder has ever helped push a candidate to the presidency, and that's why it is newsworthy. It's just a footnote that it was conservatives with no research ability or desire who were the ones duped into believing everything. You were just talking about critical thinking when reading news, I'm surprised that you need me to point all of this out to you.
All of the sudden fake news goes from being about ad revenue to excusing the failures of a useless, corrupt political party and their fanatical followers.
I'm not sure what you think you're arguing about here, Mr. Critical Thinker, but if you want my opinion then Hillary Clinton is an historically bad candidate, probably an awful person, I believe the poster child for political corruption and a lack of integrity, and that the DNC was completely in her pocket the entire time and fielded probably the only candidate capable of losing to the single most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling, who is now leading our country (also in an historically bad way). I've never liked her, and I didn't vote for her, in any election, so again, I'm not sure what exactly you think you're arguing about here, but I think you're the only one arguing those points.
Now, go back and look at the date on that article. It's from last November. This isn't "all of the sudden" (and it's "all of a sudden", but you "read good" so you knew that). This has always been about ad revenue. That's what the current story that CNN is talking about is also about - the same people who made money last time are getting ready to do it again, and here's a look at them. You don't give a shit about any of that though, because all you see is identity politics. It doesn't matter to you that the fact that Putin and Russia want t
but this news based on an interview of a supposed, unnamed fake news publisher is real.
If you're referring to the link that I posted, which contains the interview I quoted, some observations:
1. You did not click on the link.
2. You did click on the link, but did not read the story.
3. You did click on the link and read the story, but you didn't understand anything.
In case you're still not getting it, the person is cited, by name, in an interview about a rather famous piece of fake news which he admits to publishing. That's a pretty fantastic tactic you're going with there though. "This 'fake-news' interview does not fit into my predefined worldview which says that liberals are idiots and I'm not, even though it's my side that falls for the fake news. Since this goes against what my gut tells me, I'm going to suggest that this interview itself is fake news. Checkmate, libs!"
As for the rest of your so-called "observations", the fact that people make 5 figures per month spreading obvious bullshit to conservatives tends to undermine your arguments about who engages in group think, who questions what they read, who does even the most basic research, etc.
I thought fake news was about Russia influencing the election, not "clicks" to generate advertising money.
"If there's one thing I know, it's that if Russia is using bots to spread the stories that they want to spread, then that makes it impossible for teenagers in Macedonia to create bullshit news sites and get ad revenue. The two things cannot co-exist in any possible universe. I know this is true because I'm a fancy conservative thinker that reads news in a critical way while I paint everyone else with as broad a brush as possible."
Anyway, see you next time, Anonymous Coward, you bastion of intelligent analysis.
I think this is just an excuse for the researchers to be dicks.
"There's a wild bat colony near my house. Let's put up some glass panels and some cameras."
Yes, facts have a well known liberal bias, right? Forget about the interviews over the past year with the creators of these fake news sites talking about how and why they target conservatives, since now that it's CNN that is reporting on this everything is fake and there's liberal bias everywhere, right? All of those interviews are now retro-actively fake because CNN decided to report on it also.
So despite the stories for the past year or so about groups of young people in Macedonia cranking out fake news sites, you've decided that this story is fake because CNN is now also reporting on it. So, just to be clear, you're saying that anything reported by CNN is fake, correct? Anything at all, if it appears on the CNN site, it's fake, right?
The "entire Russia thing" is the epitome of fake news? Well, you're not necessarily wrong. Here's some research which shows that some of these bots, identifying themselves as British people or whatever, post exclusively between 8am and 8pm Moscow time. People pushing out propaganda which favors Russia and their goal of destabilizing the Western governments set up after the fall of the Soviet Union, doing their work during 12-hour days in Moscow time.
just because people share these things, doesnt mean they fall for them. that is something that seems to be ignored.
Sharing things and "falling for them" are precisely the same thing, whether you want to believe that or not. What's the goal of the people creating the fake news stories? To get people to share them, and click on them. That's the goal. The goal is not to get people to believe them. They don't make money when people believe their stories, they make money when people read and share them. So, you did fall for them. You're one of the people paying the people who write fake news, so congratulations.
As far as the political lean of the stories, the creators themselves will point out how stories that would appeal to conservatives spread far more quickly than those targeted at liberals. The people who would share a story like the fake Denver Guardian story in the article don't even bother to look at the source site and figure out that this fake news story is literally the only one posted on the site. You'll get people calling bullshit on any little detail on a site like Slashdot and doing research to back up their point of view, but that doesn't happen on the Facebook feeds of conservatives. People like the guy in that article rely on the lack of fact-checking among conservatives to bring him 5 figures in income per month, so it obviously works.
When did you notice that fake news does best with Trump supporters?
Well, this isn't just a Trump-supporter problem. This is a right-wing issue. Sarah Palin's famous blasting of the lamestream media is kind of record and testament to the rise of these kinds of people. The post-fact era is what I would refer to it as. This isn't something that started with Trump. This is something that's been in the works for a while. His whole campaign was this thing of discrediting mainstream media sources, which is one of those dog whistles to his supporters. When we were coming up with headlines it's always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat.
We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.
Don't worry, you'll figure it out when someone uses your personal data that they stole from Equifax to open accounts in your name, which causes your credit rating to go down, which will show up on your credit report. From Equifax.
Anyone want to place wagers on whether or not Equifax will drop your score because people stole your identity with the data they got from Equifax?
Fun Fact: Juice isn't good for you
I have another fun fact: blanket statements are stupid. Yeah, even that one.
I don't think it was a scam per se, the people running the company are just idiots. Selling bags of pre-crushed fruit and vegetable juice is great if they can do it efficiently and cheaply, there was no reason to tack on some $400 machine to remove the juice from the bag. Or, make the machine a $20 add-on to buying the juice if you really want a machine to do it for you, it really doesn't need to be a complex machine and there's certainly no reason to restrict it to only work with a single brand of bag, that makes it less useful. They shot themselves in the foot by making the machine their primary product instead of the juice. It's just short-sightedness, they didn't even realize what their product was.
Do you think any end user cared when /usr was locked down a couple of years ago?
I don't know, did it cause problems for anyone? If it didn't affect anyone, I doubt anyone cared. If it caused problems, I'm sure that people cared even without understanding the underlying reason why.
What good does it do to allow anyone to opt out at this point?
I guess we'll find out. If Apple forces an update to hardware and it causes problems, then we'll have our answer.
Why would the file format on a network file share matter? It should be irrelevant to any machine other than the server actually sharing the drive.
I'm just taking that from TFA. It *should* be irrelevant, but apparently it depends how the share points are set up.
Volumes formatted with APFS can't offer share points over the network using AFP. SMB and NFS are supported when using APFS.
Not being part of the Apple ecosystem, I'm not familiar with AFP or why someone would choose that over either SMB or NFS, but apparently there is a situation where converting to APFS will cause problems for network shares.
Sierra was a big bag of hurt; so as long as Apple keeps offering security updates for El Capitan, I'm good.
That's fine, but you wouldn't be able to read a USB device formatted with APFS. I don't know whether or not that matters for your particular situation, but Apple has made the decision that USB devices which are apparently initially set up on newer Macs will not be readable by older Macs.
Is that really a list of the merits of APFS, or the shortcomings of what it's supposed to replace?
Which end user is truly concerned about the file system? Which end user even knows what that is?
That's the argument? It's OK because Apple users don't know what a file system is?
If you can't run High Sierra for whatever reason right now
OK, but if Apple users don't even know what a file system is, how will they know if updating any one of their plethora of Apple devices might break compatibility with any other devices? If they upgrade, and it doesn't work, can they revert?
if you update, the system either works or it doesn't.
Is that the updated motto? Apple: it either works or it doesn't.
Because being forced into APFS is terrible... why exactly?
Notwithstanding the fact that this Slashdot "article" looks like someone who was trying to reply to an email on an existing conversation accidentally posted an out-of-context chunk to Slashdot instead, clicking on the one link and looking at the bullet points would suggest that APFS is not compatible with MacOS versions prior to 10.12.6, so that any computers running those prior versions would not be able to read or write to the updated devices, it sounds like Boot Camp does not support APFS, and it may affect network file shares. In other words, whenever you push your entire base toward a single standard there is bound to be a certain set of users who are going to have problems switching, but it sounds like Apple gets a free pass. It's bad for other people to force all of their users to move in a certain direction, regardless of whether they want to or not, but it's OK when Apple does it I guess.
Given Trump's successes thus far, can his behavior truly be said to be a problem?
I think you answer your own question right here:
I would suggest that it seems he's specifically trolling the left to provoke a disproportionate response.
There are a lot of responsibilities and expectations that people have for the office of President. Trolling Americans in order to provoke a disproportionate response is not one of them. That's a behavior problem. Maybe instead of trolling people he should be trying to set the actual tone of the debate and try to work at healing wounds instead of opening new ones. That's the kind of behavior we expect from a president, from any party. We expect the person to rise to the office, and instead Trump has dragged the office of President down to his level. So, yeah, his behavior can truly be said to be a problem.
but they aren't doing "their side" any favors by allowing him to further provoke them.
Here's more evidence that his behavior is a problem. You are suggesting that maybe it is counter-productive or beneath someone to respond to the President. The President Of The United States. That if the President addresses you, with the objective of provoking you, that you somehow need to be the bigger person and not respond. To the President Of The United States. The American people have never had a relationship like that with their president, at least not that I'm aware of. Several months ago when Trump was attacking the Morning Joe show, I think on ABC, with just all of these stupid personal insults, there was a quote by someone with a title that was something like "Senior VP of Communications" or something, and he pointed out that he never expected that it would be beneath him to respond to the POTUS. We are in new territory here, and it is largely because of Trump's behavior. So, yeah, it's a problem.
With leadership from people like you, hopefully one day the US can be just as good as India.
Don't worry though, that child will go up for adoption, which always works out for the kids. At least the kid won't be alone, there's 30 million orphans to keep her company. We're almost there with India though, just like if that kid was in the US she won't have access to health care, because like you point out it's her responsibility to buy medical insurance for herself, which totally makes sense for an orphan, and she'll get all of the public education she needs, just like in the US. Until she's 14. Then she's on her own. But let's rejoice that another of the 1.3 billion lives in India has started, I'm sure it will be a great one. This is a fantastic victory for conservatives everywhere.
We can only hope that the enlightened thinking of India makes its way to the US soon. Unlike shitty Luxembourg, with its stupid #1 health care system that no one can learn from, or dumbass Finland, with its free education at every level. Their #1 education ranking is a sham and there's absolutely nothing we can learn by studying them. "Health care and job training is the responsibility of the individual", the debate starts and ends there. This is an incredibly simple world, and we need incredibly simple rules like that to live by.
In fact, we should go even farther. This country is absolutely full of leeches and parasites, and you know who I'm talking about. Teachers. They get paid extravagant salaries, which is the only reason we can justify making them pay for all of their own classroom materials, but we can fix that problem. Let's kill the public education system altogether, let's abolish public schools completely and really make individuals pay their own way. That's exactly how we end up with a well-educated work force that will allow our country to continue our economic march to victory. We can just get rid of the entire department of education, imagine how much better off the country will be if we keep all of that money and give it back to the rich in tax cuts! The free market will fix this problem nicely, only the most profitable schools will survive, they can stuff as many kids in one classroom to maximize revenue, since that's the really important thing to us Americans, and they can hire whoever is willing to work for the lowest pay and benefits, because that's how you attract real talent. Yes, if we force the next generation to pay for their own education the entire way, and health care for that matter, then by the time I'm old and retired this country will have an extremely solid foundation for the future.