But they could have put a thin layer of a transparent insulator over the antenna, completely avoiding this problem, and keeping the looks. It seems retarded that they didn't.
No, it is a case of a crappy engineering. The point of the antenna design, as marketed, was to increase reception dramatically, not be the same as current designs.
A simple, low-cost solution would have been to apply a thin, transparent layer of some kind of insulating material over the antenna. Then it would look practically identical to what it is now, actually do what Apple says it does, in all use cases, and we would have evidence of competent engineers working at Apple.
Ugh. Reception goes down when bridging the antennas with your hand. Do you dispute that? If you do, you are a moron.
Reception going down doesn't necessarily make you drop calls. Oh boy, duh again.
The iPhone 4's antenna was sold as an amazing feat of engineering, that will improve things. Then it turns out that some moron didn't put a thin, transparent coating over it, making its "advancement" pointless.
So we have a phone, that has a "greatly improved antenna design", that turns out to be designed by a retard. Then Jobs tells us all that this is by design, and everything is fine.
Yes I would call that being in a reality distortion field.
No it is not the same issue on every phone. It is very clear that is not the case.
Yes, any phone will see reduced reception when covered with your hand. Duh.
But, the iPhone 4 will see much worse reception when covered by your hand AND bridging the metal contacts with another conductor, in this case, your hand.
It is amazing to me that anyone falls for this. Steve Jobs is truly a master of generating a reality distortion field.
For some reason which I may never fully understand, many people have chosen to swear fealty to a corporation, and will do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to make sure Apple seems to do no wrong. Steve Jobs will never, ever admit it was just bad engineering from the beginning, since that risks breaking the reality distortion field.
Oh please. It was an issue of bridging metal contacts with another conductor - your hand. Any competent antenna engineer would know that would be an issue, even without testing.
Whoever is responsible for this should be fired, as should anyone who should have caught the mistake of the incompetent engineer(s), and their jobs should be given to competent people.
Steve Jobs' response doesn't impress me. It is another example of his reality distortion field confusing the issue for everyone and whipping up the religious fervor of everyone who for some reason swore fealty to a corporation.
My friend's wife is in an architecture program, and she told me that they are literally taught to completely ignore all engineering concerns, and only design structures that look cool. I believe she was told to "make at least one point touching the ground, and then the engineers can figure out how to make it work." The program is supposed to be pretty prestigious.
I volunteer to fly to Japan and lead the effort to solve this problem. With my hand-picked team of hot, I mean, dedicated Japanese women, I'll make sure lots of new drivers are produced.
Not to dispute your point, but you do realize that "law enforcement" consists of many different organizations, with many different jurisdictions, with many different people, right? You make it sound like there is one US-wide police hive mind that deems every case "worthy" or "unworthy". I doubt this person's campus police are tied into this apparently incredibly profitable crime-ignoring enterprise you speak of.
Oh please. Your implication is surely that there is some country such as, I don't know, the USA that is just as China bad but hides it, somehow making China more admirable. That is such a ridiculous assertion that my head just exploded. I'm sure the people living in China know all about this recent activity and are testament to the fact that... oh wait, no they don't, they have no idea what is going on, and there is no legal avenue to find out.
Your attempt at being funny just comes off as being a smart-ass. Both of your "counter-examples" are things people have to choose to watch, while telemarketers call you whether you want them to or not.
I don't know, I'm sure they work hard and all, but it is a completely different culture. "Working hard" has a completely different definition, that doesn't always involve "work". They are more used to memorizing mountains of information than focusing on the concepts. For the physics GRE exam, for example, I know for a *fact* that all of the Chinese students cheat like crazy on it. After taking the exam they write down every problem they can remember and add it to a huge compilation. They don't re-write the exam often, and there are only so many different exams they give out. So if you memorize enough questions, you will have most of any possible exam memorized.
When you take the exam, you have to write down that you promise not to disclose anything about it to anyone else. If they found out that you cheated or gave answers to others, you might have something bad happen, like have your score revoked. But my colleague said in China, "everyone does it".
And it shows too, since grad committees won't even consider a Chinese applicant unless they have a near-perfect score, since they know they all cheat. In a sick way, though, if the Chinese student doesn't have a high score they aren't considered at all because they didn't even bother to try cheating.
One of my Chinese peers showed me the Chinese website that compiled questions as well as the pile of questions they used to study for the exam. It kind of pissed me off because I studied for months and months for hours a day to do well, while they just studied for a couple weeks, and got a much better score.
Oh and also women who do that are typically very bad at conflict resolution. And I mean actual conflict resolution, not "let it fester under the surface for a while then let it explode out when I'm in attack mode".
At what point will you "buy" the claims? You aren't an expert, so you can't decide, but here we have an independent expert disputing the claim that the VP8 developers made. Why isn't this expert good enough? You just assume that they don't know enough about VP8, when this is his specialty. Why? I'm all for learning as much about a topic as possible before forming an opinion on it, but that doesn't mean you *have* to form an opinion on everything. At some point, you have to allow the specialists to do what they do. And if you have no idea what they are doing or talking about (like here), maybe you shouldn't bother being in the discussion, as you add nothing to it.
Since each kernel comes with a complete changelog, it is only "unknown" to people who aren't capable of reading it. It has always been the responsibility of those who build kernels to pay attention to this. I don't recall there ever being a special designation on the front page of kernel.org to designate kernels that fix security vulnerabilities. If you go through a vendor I'm sure they keep up on this or they are incompetent. If you patch your own kernels then you should pay attention to the changelogs. As always.
No kidding. In general when a man gets pissed at you, he lets you know, and maybe hits you or yells at you, but in the end you work it out. On the other hand when a typical woman gets pissed at you, you had better watch out. She probably won't tell you, and instead will use psychological methods to tear you apart from the inside in an attempt to completely ruin you and leave you a quivering shell of a man. Women are vicious. Men are so much easier to deal with because they bring problems out in the open. Most girls I have dated have said proudly that they think like guys, and don't act the way most women do (as I explained earlier). But guess what? They still do it, just not as often.
You are missing my point. Most of the comments negative about religion aren't filled with thoughtful analysis and critical thought. They boil down to "lolol religion sux, I'm smarter than them, look at them they are so dumb, hahaha".
It gets kind of tiring reading that. Most (not all, but most) of the anti-religious comments seem to be from people who are at the same level of cognitive ability as the religious people they despise so much, with the defining characteristic being that they hate them.
The biggest complaint I see is that "religious people aren't tolerant", which is a gross over-generalization, which is a big example of how these people are unable to make distinctions between people within large groups. But besides that, they aren't tolerant of the religious people. They jump at the chance to tear them to shreds whenever possible.
Here is basically what I see in my head when I read stories like this (and you should be glad you aren't in my head, it is disgusting in there):
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #1]: Oh man, these religious people are so stupid *FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #2]: Yeah, aren't we so much smarter than them? Look at all of the stupid things they believe! *FAP FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #3]: I hate them so much. What losers. What is wrong with them? Why don't they want to think like we do and hang with us? *FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #1]: I know! We just have to suffer the burden of having higher intelligence than all of these morons. *FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #2]: So, its my turn to eat the cracker this time, right guys? *FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #3]: No, you had it last time! It is MY turn now! *FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #2]: Oh that's right. Hey do you want to have a go at each other for a while? You know, spice it up? *FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #3]: Sure, I was wondering when you would ask! *FAP FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #1]: Ew, you guys are so gay. Oh and remember the cracker is mine next week. *FAP FAP FAP*
Great, another story where the discussion will be flooded with anti-religious posts, with everyone practically foaming at the mouth to condemn people who don't think like they do. Like any of it matters. You are all just yelling into the void for no reason, and doing a big anti-religious circle-jerk as you all congratulate yourselves on how much smarter you are than these people.
At lest that's the picture that I get in my head when I read all of these comments.
I don't own an IPhone nor do I want one, but that isn't a good solution. They sell this product as the "ultimate phone" and get you to sign a 2 year contract explicitly because you want this super-phone for a reasonable price, despite the fact it is with the worst carrier in America. Then the phone turns out to suck, so you exchange it. Great. Now you are stuck with a 2 year contract with AT&T, and have a phone that you could have probably used on a much better carrier. Oh boy.
What other product as Apple released that had a flaw as bad as this? This isn't just a flaw but displays gross incompetence on the part of the engineers involved.
I'm seriously asking, because I'd like to know what made that part of the "Apple Product Cycle".
I'm in physics, not computer science or a related field, and I've heard of Knuth.
But to be fair, the computer scientists I know don't give a crap about who did what, and care less about names than almost any other field I know of.
Slashdot Mirror
But they could have put a thin layer of a transparent insulator over the antenna, completely avoiding this problem, and keeping the looks. It seems retarded that they didn't.
No, it is a case of a crappy engineering. The point of the antenna design, as marketed, was to increase reception dramatically, not be the same as current designs.
A simple, low-cost solution would have been to apply a thin, transparent layer of some kind of insulating material over the antenna. Then it would look practically identical to what it is now, actually do what Apple says it does, in all use cases, and we would have evidence of competent engineers working at Apple.
Ugh. Reception goes down when bridging the antennas with your hand. Do you dispute that? If you do, you are a moron.
Reception going down doesn't necessarily make you drop calls. Oh boy, duh again.
The iPhone 4's antenna was sold as an amazing feat of engineering, that will improve things. Then it turns out that some moron didn't put a thin, transparent coating over it, making its "advancement" pointless.
So we have a phone, that has a "greatly improved antenna design", that turns out to be designed by a retard. Then Jobs tells us all that this is by design, and everything is fine.
Yes I would call that being in a reality distortion field.
No it is not the same issue on every phone. It is very clear that is not the case.
Yes, any phone will see reduced reception when covered with your hand. Duh.
But, the iPhone 4 will see much worse reception when covered by your hand AND bridging the metal contacts with another conductor, in this case, your hand.
It is amazing to me that anyone falls for this. Steve Jobs is truly a master of generating a reality distortion field.
For some reason which I may never fully understand, many people have chosen to swear fealty to a corporation, and will do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to make sure Apple seems to do no wrong. Steve Jobs will never, ever admit it was just bad engineering from the beginning, since that risks breaking the reality distortion field.
Oh please. It was an issue of bridging metal contacts with another conductor - your hand.
Any competent antenna engineer would know that would be an issue, even without testing.
Whoever is responsible for this should be fired, as should anyone who should have caught the mistake of the incompetent engineer(s), and their jobs should be given to competent people.
Steve Jobs' response doesn't impress me. It is another example of his reality distortion field confusing the issue for everyone and whipping up the religious fervor of everyone who for some reason swore fealty to a corporation.
My friend's wife is in an architecture program, and she told me that they are literally taught to completely ignore all engineering concerns, and only design structures that look cool. I believe she was told to "make at least one point touching the ground, and then the engineers can figure out how to make it work." The program is supposed to be pretty prestigious.
I volunteer to fly to Japan and lead the effort to solve this problem. With my hand-picked team of hot, I mean, dedicated Japanese women, I'll make sure lots of new drivers are produced.
Not to dispute your point, but you do realize that "law enforcement" consists of many different organizations, with many different jurisdictions, with many different people, right? You make it sound like there is one US-wide police hive mind that deems every case "worthy" or "unworthy". I doubt this person's campus police are tied into this apparently incredibly profitable crime-ignoring enterprise you speak of.
Oh please. Your implication is surely that there is some country such as, I don't know, the USA that is just as China bad but hides it, somehow making China more admirable. That is such a ridiculous assertion that my head just exploded. I'm sure the people living in China know all about this recent activity and are testament to the fact that... oh wait, no they don't, they have no idea what is going on, and there is no legal avenue to find out.
Your attempt at being funny just comes off as being a smart-ass. Both of your "counter-examples" are things people have to choose to watch, while telemarketers call you whether you want them to or not.
I don't know, I'm sure they work hard and all, but it is a completely different culture. "Working hard" has a completely different definition, that doesn't always involve "work". They are more used to memorizing mountains of information than focusing on the concepts. For the physics GRE exam, for example, I know for a *fact* that all of the Chinese students cheat like crazy on it. After taking the exam they write down every problem they can remember and add it to a huge compilation. They don't re-write the exam often, and there are only so many different exams they give out. So if you memorize enough questions, you will have most of any possible exam memorized.
When you take the exam, you have to write down that you promise not to disclose anything about it to anyone else. If they found out that you cheated or gave answers to others, you might have something bad happen, like have your score revoked. But my colleague said in China, "everyone does it".
And it shows too, since grad committees won't even consider a Chinese applicant unless they have a near-perfect score, since they know they all cheat. In a sick way, though, if the Chinese student doesn't have a high score they aren't considered at all because they didn't even bother to try cheating.
One of my Chinese peers showed me the Chinese website that compiled questions as well as the pile of questions they used to study for the exam. It kind of pissed me off because I studied for months and months for hours a day to do well, while they just studied for a couple weeks, and got a much better score.
Oh and also women who do that are typically very bad at conflict resolution. And I mean actual conflict resolution, not "let it fester under the surface for a while then let it explode out when I'm in attack mode".
I think men are capable of it, they just don't resort to that option first.
At what point will you "buy" the claims? You aren't an expert, so you can't decide, but here we have an independent expert disputing the claim that the VP8 developers made. Why isn't this expert good enough? You just assume that they don't know enough about VP8, when this is his specialty. Why? I'm all for learning as much about a topic as possible before forming an opinion on it, but that doesn't mean you *have* to form an opinion on everything. At some point, you have to allow the specialists to do what they do. And if you have no idea what they are doing or talking about (like here), maybe you shouldn't bother being in the discussion, as you add nothing to it.
Since each kernel comes with a complete changelog, it is only "unknown" to people who aren't capable of reading it. It has always been the responsibility of those who build kernels to pay attention to this. I don't recall there ever being a special designation on the front page of kernel.org to designate kernels that fix security vulnerabilities. If you go through a vendor I'm sure they keep up on this or they are incompetent. If you patch your own kernels then you should pay attention to the changelogs. As always.
Yay for sensationalist writing.
No kidding. In general when a man gets pissed at you, he lets you know, and maybe hits you or yells at you, but in the end you work it out. On the other hand when a typical woman gets pissed at you, you had better watch out. She probably won't tell you, and instead will use psychological methods to tear you apart from the inside in an attempt to completely ruin you and leave you a quivering shell of a man. Women are vicious. Men are so much easier to deal with because they bring problems out in the open. Most girls I have dated have said proudly that they think like guys, and don't act the way most women do (as I explained earlier). But guess what? They still do it, just not as often.
Oops I meant to say, "...with the main difference being..."
I'm kind of drunk, so my typing might fail a bit.
You are missing my point. Most of the comments negative about religion aren't filled with thoughtful analysis and critical thought. They boil down to "lolol religion sux, I'm smarter than them, look at them they are so dumb, hahaha".
It gets kind of tiring reading that. Most (not all, but most) of the anti-religious comments seem to be from people who are at the same level of cognitive ability as the religious people they despise so much, with the defining characteristic being that they hate them.
The biggest complaint I see is that "religious people aren't tolerant", which is a gross over-generalization, which is a big example of how these people are unable to make distinctions between people within large groups. But besides that, they aren't tolerant of the religious people. They jump at the chance to tear them to shreds whenever possible.
Here is basically what I see in my head when I read stories like this (and you should be glad you aren't in my head, it is disgusting in there):
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #1]: Oh man, these religious people are so stupid *FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #2]: Yeah, aren't we so much smarter than them? Look at all of the stupid things they believe! *FAP FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #3]: I hate them so much. What losers. What is wrong with them? Why don't they want to think like we do and hang with us? *FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #1]: I know! We just have to suffer the burden of having higher intelligence than all of these morons. *FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #2]: So, its my turn to eat the cracker this time, right guys? *FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #3]: No, you had it last time! It is MY turn now! *FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #2]: Oh that's right. Hey do you want to have a go at each other for a while? You know, spice it up? *FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #3]: Sure, I was wondering when you would ask! *FAP FAP FAP FAP*
[Intolerant anti-religious nut #1]: Ew, you guys are so gay. Oh and remember the cracker is mine next week. *FAP FAP FAP*
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'
Boo hoo, you can't get other people to do your jobs for you, you lazy fuckers!
I never said that when religious people do it, it isn't wrong. Of course it is!
On another note, you don't like how they act, so you decide to act just like them? Sounds smart.
Great, another story where the discussion will be flooded with anti-religious posts, with everyone practically foaming at the mouth to condemn people who don't think like they do. Like any of it matters. You are all just yelling into the void for no reason, and doing a big anti-religious circle-jerk as you all congratulate yourselves on how much smarter you are than these people.
At lest that's the picture that I get in my head when I read all of these comments.
I don't own an IPhone nor do I want one, but that isn't a good solution. They sell this product as the "ultimate phone" and get you to sign a 2 year contract explicitly because you want this super-phone for a reasonable price, despite the fact it is with the worst carrier in America. Then the phone turns out to suck, so you exchange it. Great. Now you are stuck with a 2 year contract with AT&T, and have a phone that you could have probably used on a much better carrier. Oh boy.
What other product as Apple released that had a flaw as bad as this? This isn't just a flaw but displays gross incompetence on the part of the engineers involved.
I'm seriously asking, because I'd like to know what made that part of the "Apple Product Cycle".
I'm in physics, not computer science or a related field, and I've heard of Knuth. But to be fair, the computer scientists I know don't give a crap about who did what, and care less about names than almost any other field I know of.