Crime is so bad in the UK because of lack of effective government policy.
Countries like Switzerland and to a lesser extent Canada are proof you can have fairly high levels of gun ownership, but not have US style crime levels. It's also true that the UK is apparent proof that you can have very strict gun controls and fairly low levels of gun ownership but still have serious violent crime problems.
That doesn't mean that making guns harder to own in the US (particularly through the enforcement of proper background checks, mandatory training courses, certification for different weapon types and strict licensing laws) couldn't save hundreds - maybe even thousands - of lives every year.
Perhaps, like driving lessons, (opt-in) gun control classes should form part of the high school curriculum. I'm not suggesting giving kids access to guns, even in a training facility (in the same way that sex education classes don't involve practicing sex), but providing some grounding so that from an early age kids likely to own or be around guns have proper understanding of appropriate behavior around weapons and so that proper gun control - and the consequences of misuse - can be ingrained.
I don't entirely disagree - certainly without the marketing and brand it wouldn't have reached the level of penetration it has - but I think it's success (in the form of initial positive reaction, which makes or breaks a product) was also from it being what people actually wanted, that is to say it's design. By which I mean it the first "large capacity" player that was easy to use and ultra portable.
The first 32 & 64 MB Rio's (with SD slots) were absolutely superb, really fantastic (although shipped with rubbish software). But the later (6 GB?) models that started shipping before the iPod were the size of CD players, i.e. most people couldn't fit them in their pocket, and so like portal CD players never really got much attention from anyone. The ease of use (i.e. having a decent sized, very responsive display) was also a big part of their appeal.
I would the design and iTunes (which you mentioned) are a big part of why it got so much "grass roots" support, purely because it was something people wanted (the increasingly annoyingly restrictive aspects of iTunes not withstanding - it wasn't that bad initially, although I guess there is a lesson in that).
There does seem to be some indication of a small number of potential benefits (in amongst some more clearly bogus correlations than are highlighted by practitioners in defense of the practice). However, the results seem biased by such fundamental principles as those who are circumcised for religious reasons are more likely to be strictly observant of a religion than your average test subject, and as a result I think it's fair to say less likely to lead a sexual lifestyle that is promiscuous / that puts them at a higher risk of infection.
Personally, having looked at the risk factors involved, I think it seems clear on inspection that the supposed benefits are at best incredibly marginal, and do not outweigh the clear harm done and the risks of the carrying out the process itself (although, where it's a common practice, such as in the US, it is at least less risky than it is elsewhere). I think the drive for medical justification is a case of Doctors who personally favor the practice for their own personal reasons, looking for hard medical evidence to support their stance (at best, because it fits in with their religion, at worst because it's a profitable practice).
Regarding HIV, I don't think having African men circumcised would have any positive impact on the spread of HIV in Africa. It seems like the sort of policy Thabo Mbeki would endorse (and would likely make things worse). I wouldn't be at all surprised to find he has in fact endorsed that approach at some point, but I'm too lazy to Google for it. 8)
In parting, I would note the benefits cited (e.g. apparent reduced risk of certain fairly uncommon infections) can typically be directly paralleled in females by removal of the labia majora, but that comparison is rarely made as society is more ready to immediately discount female genital mutilation as being unacceptable. To me, that fact on it's own provides a clear indicator that male genital mutilation is only seen as more acceptable practice purely because of an illogical cultural bias that society has so far failed to shake off.
So in other words, it's legal. I went out of my way to make the situation and my position clear, you've chosen to try and pick and argument, and be an ass about it.
In the UK, if I were to have a child of mine circumcised, not only would I find it hard most likely impossible to get the hospital to carry it out, but if I did find someone who was willing to carry it out privately as the child would neither be from a Jewish nor Muslim background it is quite clear I would be open for prosecution for assault, even if I didn't carry out the work myself. Which, while from my perspective is much less than ideal (as I still do not think the legislation is robust enough, as I have said), directly contrasts with the situation in the US where it is routinely carried out without any clinical or cultural justification (or even consideration).
If you'd been following the press reports and court rulings more carefully you might be better informed. You seem to be entirely, relying on Wikipedia to tell you everything you need to know on it and it's not covering the whole story. You don't even seem to be reading the Wikipedia article, which directly contradicts you (not me):
The only reference on Wikipedia article to a legal opinion - in the form of one published in the Journal of Medical Ethic by Fox and Thomson at Keele University's School of Law - states unequivocally that "there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful." in the opening paragraph of the paper.
To provide a counter point, a representative from the General Medical Council stated that, in the opinion of the GMC, that it was an ethical issue not a legal one and that they do not believe that male circumcision on the UK is illegal. The GMC, however, are not a legal body and the statement was only the opinion of a representative from the standards committee (not a lawyer).
One might assume that having having the apparent backing of the GMC (who have published guidelines on the topic) would at least grant some level of legal protection for a licensed practitioner carrying out the procedure, but even I was (if only somewhat) surprised to hear that in the opinions of the legal professionals who were panelists on a BBC debate on the topic last year, that that was not the case and that relying on the GMC's published opinion would not be a valid case for defense. Of course they still have the power to have to have a doctor stuck off for breaking any guidelines which they do choose to set out, all of which is a little incongruous.
Which European country is 'more enlightened'? Off the top of my head? Finland and Germany have already ruled it's illegal without consent. As noted, in the UK the legislation also affords more protection than in the US (even if it is still incomplete).
Many European states are in a similar situation, not least because many have similar legislation in place (e.g. state specific legislation - such as the UK's Human Rights Act - and incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights). In the UK the HRA in particular has been a hot topic for a while and has already had a huge impact on health care here and is frequently noted as being relevant when the topic of male circumcision is discussed by medical practitioners and human rights lawyers.
So... why is male genital mutilation still acceptable in the USA? That's certainly something that illudes me.
I'm leaning towards "the parents who do that do their children are ignorant and unthinking, and don't realize it's a practice that's consider barbaric - and is illegal - in more enlightened European countries" and "the commercial nature of the US healthcare system has lead to hospitals routinely carry out entirely unnecessary cosmetic surgery - even when it's harmful to the patient - because it's profitable".
Religious zealots have certainly managed to brainwash the US populace on this one, to convince them it's a "morally acceptable" practice, even a humorous thing to discuss if you've had your genitals mutilated. In reality, it's an outdated, entirely unnecessary, damaging and irreparable act of barbarism - IMO anyone carrying out this practice on children should be locked up (and, if a medical practitioner, have their license permanently revoked).
If grown adults want to have this procedure carried out on themselves then, apart from undergoing some counciling, they may as well be allowed to have it carried out by someone qualified. If indeed grown adults were left to make the decision for themselves, I think the percentage of people who would volunteer for this practice would be tiny and the industry around it would almost completely die out in the US (apart from within certain specific religious groups).
Fat chance of much change on that front happening in the US though.
Here in the UK it's illegal to carry out the practice, with a caveat: When it can be proven before a judge that a the child is likely to suffer as a result and both parents agree they want it carried out (e.g. if the child is Jewish or Muslim and likely to be teased, harassed or singled out by their cultural peers and so in some way negatively impacted as a result of the operation not being carried out) then it may be carried out (but Doctors or Surgeons are not obligated to carry it out, and may refuse to do it, that it's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath being a common citation as grounds for refusal).
While I can appreciate on the surface this is an attempt to reach some pragmatic accommodation, I think this is the wrong approach and the law needs to be changed here too. I don't see medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children's genitals as acceptable, full stop. It's systematic of the UK justice system though - in the eyes of the populace the government rarely deals with the perpetrators of crimes directly or appropriately - it's easier just to tell the rest of us to change our behaviors to fit in with however they have redefined the problem.
Instead, they sell, sell, sell accounts with "unlimited" bandwidth at X speed; add something in their ToS that some unknown amount of usage is too much; and then blame their infrasture problems on those that use BitTorrent and the like (whether they are used for legal or illegal purposes) rather than on their own irresponsibility and money-grabbing. You can buy an account with 1:1 contention, unlimited transfer and a decent QoS guarantee instead of the 20:1-50:1 DSL account with a bandwith cap on it that you actually bought, but it's going to cost you a hell of a lot more, because it costs more to provide that kind of service.
Consumers would rather grab the cheapest deal, ignore what they are actually buying and blame *evil corporations* than their own greed when the quality service they get on their 15 USD a month ADSL connection isn't as good as it is on hundreds-of-dollars-a-month SDSL package. The reality in the DSL market is that most (say in the order of 90%) customers have a service that is far LESS contended than advertised (although cable is more oversold, but then course cable tends to offer higher speeds in the first place... ).
The problem is the guys (who often have 2 DSL accounts) and are hooked up to P2P, doing max utilisation day in and day out on their second line. The correct way to deal with them is traffic shaping, so they get a slower service (e.g. take the 5% of users pirating software like crazy and let them contend against each other, leaving the 95% of customers using the service reasonably with a top quality service and, in practice, no contention). However, building infrastructure to handle that is costly, particularly with regard to man hours of qualified staff, so many do the cheaper thing, and just ask (read: tell) the guys who are making the service unworkable to go find another provider.
Uhappy with that? Well get this:
You can be sure that providers who take on the expense of implementing proper QoS for residential DSL customers are going to use it (not least to try and claw some money back from the investment) - and that means enforcing their QoS for everybody (not just the very heavy P2P users), and would make things worse for the majority of customers. It's basically inevitable (as firmware gets better and QoS gets easier to impliment), and statistically that's going to negatively impact more customers, but given the amount of bitching by greedy customers - who's basic motivation for unlimited bandwith is the wholesale downloading of software and movies they haven't paid for in any case - I will have no sympathy.
Consumers get really cheap internet access rates because they are buying a service that is contented and bandwidth capped. High speed network connections with guaranteed 1:1 contention and all-the-bandwith-you-can-use cost hundreds of dollars a month, not 10 dollars a month.
There is plenty of choice out there - it's a case of pick the level of service you want and stop bitching. It's not rocket science.
You don't have to buy a contended or reduced service, those who want the Quality of Service say a bank or ISP might buy you can. Of course it's not going to be anything like as cheap as the contended services typically sold to consumers or small businesses, because it's not possible to offer that same level of service for 10-20 USD a month.
So called "net neutrality" crusaders evidently want 1:1 contention, guaranteed high QoS with no packet loss or rate limiting, even on external networks, beyond the borders of their providers and to not have to pay any more than they are now (or, if possible, less). They want the moon on the stick and the idea of a fair price for a fair service has gone out the window (even though they are plenty of good providers to choose from, many people - as is the case with other products - will choose go with the cheapest and then wonder why their service is below average).
"Net neutrality" advocates seem to expect all the network capacity to handle this to magically appear from nowhere, as if the switch capacity and network management required to implement what they are demanding would all be take care of by fairies, they very notion of capacity being a limited resource on a network seems to have escaped them.
If people don't want a shitty contended service, they shouldn't buy it. Operators should not be obliged to run their network at a loss in order to provide people with a better level of service than they are reasonably entitled to. There are plenty of operators to choose from in most urban areas, and many different types of service.
The only instance where I can see that a case can reasonably be made for regulation to guarantee a minimum level of service for consumers is when dealing with incumbent telco's - or when competition in a specific region is weak and where enabling greater competitiveness is prohibitively costly or simply likely to take an extended period of time to achieve.
I've always liked that rule too, and for me it makes pretty good sense for the teenage to mid twenties age bracket, which is a vulnerable time for many (especially younger girls - often teenagers - who I've seen hit on by much older, typically married men, who've used every cliched lie and trick in the book on them and left them really emotionally screwed up a few weeks or months later).
I got into what can only be described as the only real flamewar I've been in on/. after I suggested that maybe a 54 year old movie star who left his wife and family for a 17 year old fan (which IMO is an outrageous abuse for someone in his position given her age) was maybe not such as great an "American hero" as he is made out to be. I find it all the more inappropriate that this fan was younger than one of his own children, which I think is probably another hint it was all rather inappropriate.
Pretty much everyone else who responded disagreed and saw nothing wrong in it. It rather left me with the impression that/. is exceptionally creepy.
Unfortunately the actor in question was James Doohan so (despite his butchering of a Scottish accent and generally questionable acting) because he was in Star Trek and didn't technically do anything illegal he's beyond reproach.
I say technically not illegal because it appears what he did constitute a crime in some states in the US (some of which, IIRC, have rules relating to intercourse and/or marriages involving teenagers and older partners - specifically to protect them against much older predatory adults). Sadly not all US states afford such generous protection for teenagers, so while in some states some acts would end up with the perpetrator listed on the National Sex Offenders registrar, in other states they are entirely legal.
At the Dulles airport, they make crap up and just hassle you because they can. You feel like you're in East Germany in 1961.
But what can you do?...
Now of course, Airports are beyond miserable. Amen to that.
FWIW, this is why I won't be going back to the US any time soon (although I've been there several times in the past, and to Canada). I really like the US, I like the people and the country. Americans are some of the warmest most friendly and helpful people anywhere in the world. I have relatives there and I could quite happily spend my holidays there every year, one state at a time.
The US tourist board run adverts on TV telling us to come visit at DiscoverAmerica.com, which - given the way they treat you when you do get there, post 9/11 - is entirely a mixed message it seems to me. Trips there are nothing but a hassle with endless queuing and stupid security checks. I've had on multiple trips and the absolutely insane delays and had to deal with concentration-camp guards that pass for Airport security staff that ask you stupid pointless questions and what you do for a living.
For example, on our last trip (which I didn't want to go on, but a relative had just died, and there was a service):
We didn't have all the technical details of where we were staying at every point in our trip - we didn't need them - but they detained us because we didn't have them. They then directed us to a computer and let us *Google for them*. We filled out the details and they let us on our way. I have no idea what the point in that was. I could have named any hotel chain in a nearby city and said "oh yeah, that one", it's not like they called to check.
You certainly can't expect to turn up and just "take each day as it comes" as they expect you to say exactly where you will be and where you are staying. Personally I like to be spontaneous and free wheeling while I'm on holiday - especially when I'm visiting somewhere like the US where there is so much to see. On the last two trips I did multiple flights internally too, that was also an unbelievable hassle. Even the major airports are not designed to have large queues like there are now - clearly waiting areas and shopping areas have been altered to turn them into giant queuing zones.
Of course there are queues at UK airports and some silly rules (e.g. flying from Heathrow to a domestic airport requires you take off your shoes, but fly back to Heathrow from a domestic airport and you don't have to) but the delays don't seem any worse than pre 9/11, especially now that new faster facilities are available. The security staff are by and large pretty chilled out. I've heard of some abuses by immigration officials specifically (who seem to be hired primarily on the basis of how much they hate foreigners), but I've also seen them shrug off abuse and being ranted at at by drunk passengers late for a flight for having to wait all of 10 minutes to go through security (from guys who were quite obviously in the bar when they should have been checking in).
I'm looking forward to a future administration sorting this mess out and restoring some semblance of normality, I just hope that happens sooner rather than later. I know the US economy is a behemoth but the current regime has got to be hurting trade and tourism and impacting on the bottom line (I'm sure it's denting consumer confidence too, and so helping to depress the domestic market).
But that makes assumptions about what others value.
Only the assumptions that they value a computer that can (and I quote) "do basic stuff computer stuff".
OK Mr. Smartass: Do you think this will be a flop -- as in it would have been better off for Apple if they had never bothered with it?
I think it would have been better (both for Apple, and for consumers) if they had built what people appear to have actually been clamouring for - namely brought back having a small "Pro" laptop (like they used to have, with the PowerBook range, but with updated technology), not an expensive-but-limited outsized-Mac OS X-running UMPC. Like the iPhone in Europe, I think it's set to be not disliked per se, but viewed as overpriced and not particularly good value for money. The critics in the press would seem to agree that this years MWSF wasn't up to much.
Everyone I know (who gives a toss) feels basically the same way, even the one guy I know who actually has an iPhone, and they pretty much all have a laptop (about half of them Macs) and some kind of >250 GBP smartphone (even those who arn't geeks). I don't know anyone who actually want's a MacBook Air, AFAICS people are pretty indifferent to it, it looks nice but even casual users and fashion victims seem to be bawlking at it's limitations for a device at that pricepoint.
You can get a laptop for free by signing up for an AOL broadband contract, or by signing a mobile phone contract (or a full featured entry level one for 200-250 GBP at retail). This makes it seem all the more expensive even for something of it's size and functionality - you'd have to really want to run Mac OS X (and really not like Windows or Linux) to opt for the MacBook Air over a conventional "ultra portable". Like many Apple customers I don't mind paying a bit more for a Mac, but for what is ultimately a novelty item - at least as far as most power users with money to spend are going to be concerned - at the list price it's just not a very desirable product
Your argument seems to center around that this laptop is not a good standalone device -- that you need a separate computer to be able to do some basic computer stuff
If you buy a computer and still need a "separate computer to be able to do some basic computer stuff" then it rather implies the computer you've just bought is of fairly limited value.
If it was UMPC then there are reasonable trade offs for a some users (although the UMPC market is pretty small), but it's not - it's a laptop it's more or less the same size as a regular 13" MacBook, but much less functional and more expensive - and given that the trade offs are a whole lot less appealing.
Do you really think that there is no market for such a device?
Oh yes that's exactly what I said. Exactly. I said there is no market in the world for this device.
I think that not shipping something a insignificantly cheap as a front row remote (which is only a tiny IR remote after all) is petty, I also thing that building a device that requires "yet another set of adapters" (specifically for power and for video output) really puts me off the Apple brand (and I say that as a big fan of Apple products).
Given the price, I can understand selling the optical drive separately, though clearly users ARE going to find they need one at some point (such as when they are not near another computer, or the only other computers nearby are locked down corporate desktops they can't install the remote disc software on).
IMO they should have bundled the remote, the cheap USB-to-RJ45 Ethernet adapter and a DVI/VGA adapter - given the premium price of this product and that they have decided to use yet another interface for video out (and yet another power adepter interface). The lack of consistency in devices from Apple is rapidly heading beyond my tolerance point.
* Having bought multiple video, battery and power adapters (at the greatly inflated prices Apple charge for batteries and power adapters in particular) for my PowerBooks then MacBook I am not keen to go through the process again anytime soon.
I can understand selling the USB optical drive separately, but I think basically ALL USERS are going to want one (even if they don't realize it right away) and it's just a way of hiding the real cost of ownership. There are going to be plenty of times people are away from another computer they can use (not just traveling or in meeting rooms, but also in work places, where the only computers are locked down and where they won't be able to install the remote disc software).
Lots of people (myself included) wanted to see a more portable MacBook Pro, I don't think many people will really want this product (and that it will be a fairly big disappointment, like the iPhone has been in Europe).
It's a small issue, but not bundling the cheap IR remote seems to me to be symptomatic of Apple's general lack of focus on that side of things over the last year or two in particular. They have left the Apple TV to languish, along with Front Row. iTunes has been given the ability to manage video content, but it's half hearted. I guess Steve is bored of that stuff now.
Of course, given the number of issues with Leopard, it could be argued they are not really that bothered about software any more (unless it's on a phone...).
It wasn't a matter of just trying the firmware update again; for those who bricked there were no options available to bring the device back to functionality --until now.
That is incorrect. They could have loaded a new firmware image to the device via the USB interface.
I think people splitting hairs about the use of the term "brick" are missing the point.
If a device doesn't boot simply because the OS installed on it is hosed, then it is not bricked.
Software can't be installed on a brick. If it's possible to run or load software on a device, it's not a brick.
The fact is, such tests show that under normal viewing conditions most people simply dont have eyes and visual centers good enough to reliably notice the difference between SD and HD, nevermind deciding what looks best
"The fact is" that's not true, you don't have any references and you don't know what you are talking about.
I have a 50" Plasma and it's really REALLY obvious when it's displaying HD content and when it's not. There is no mistaking it. It's as obvious as noticing that a TFT is running at 640x480 instead of 1024x768. Once you've seen HD content on it, it's immediately apparent if the content was filmed for HDTV broadcast.
When I've miss an episode of shows I watch in HD, such as BSG, Bones, Atlantis or Torchwood (e.g. because my PVR was full) the much higher definition picture, and 5.1 surround that comes with them being developed for HDTV is so noticeable I don't even bother to watch the SD repeats (such as on Sky Two, or BBC Three), I just wait for it to come back on one of the HD channels.
I could just as easily go to the store and pickup the original CD for only a small bit more than or, more than likely, the same price as the download. I find it a lot easier and quicker download tracks from the iTunes music store in just a few seconds than go to a store.
For me it's also a bonus that they are already in a digital file format (which I what I want because that's what's compatible with my my iPod, my phone, PC/Mac and home audio system). If it came on CD I'd have to rip them then chuck the CD in a box - rather than just click "Buy" and start listening to the track/album right away. I also find it handy that it's automatically downloaded and organized by iTunes, which stores them just the way I like (and it's configurable) - it also works just fine with the 'iTunes Music' folder mounted via NFS of a Linux system where I store/backup/serve my data from.
Personally, I have no problems with the 512 Kbps non-DRM'd tracks at present. Quality wise, what pisses me off is the lousy quality of the videos on the iTunes Music Store (that and the so-limited-it's-worthless selection of TV content on it here in the UK). That, and the videos are DRM'd of course. I would note that if the Apple TV didn't have a cripplingly restrictive defective-by-design implementation with regard to the way it accesses content remotely OR you if could at burn the video's to DVD then in practice the DRM would not particularly bother me. If they only allow 5 computers to be authorized able to play your DRM'd files at any give time, there is clearly no need for the Apple TV to insist that you can only send content to it from one of those computers at a given time - but it's the same BS with the iPod.
Although (going off topic a bit here) it's fair to say would rather have a much wider range of music on the iTMS, it's also fair to note that can't usually get what I'm after unless I go to a very large store either (e.g. like a large Virgin Megastore, as was) or to a second hand/specialist store - and I don't even think my tastes are that eclectic.
It's also worth noting that UK TV has quite different standards to US TV.
I don't mean so much in terms of quality in terms of shows (many of the best shows are US, which obviously have much better production values) but in so far as regulations such as "how much advertising is allowed" (i.e. none on the BBC, only X minutes in every hour on other stations, with no more than Y breaks in an hour) also there rules about product placement (which is not legal in the UK, on any channel - though sponsorship is fine) and slightly different laws about portrayal of sex / bad language / violence, etc.
All analog channels (at least as so far as I am aware) have regulations about having a certain remit e.g. including quotas for certain types of programs, such as "educational" shows. I seem to recall they all get some funding for this too. I think there is a fair bit of regulation regarding TV shows aimed at children (as well - I think - as voluntary codes of practice regarding advertising), though I am not sure how that compares with the US.
I mention this because as a specific result of heavy regulation of advertising watching free-to-air TV in the UK (which is also extended to channels offered by satellite and cable broadcasters who wish to operate in the UK) is *much* more tolerable than in the US, while it's getting worse (as the regulator loosens up and allows more advertising) you don't get the same number of annoying adverts going on, so you can actually sit down and watch a show that isn't on a premium channel without getting so PO'd with all the advertising you switch off (which seems to be the case in the US). I think that's worth understanding - and why only having only a small number of free-to-air channels wasn't really all that bad for some time.
I gather quite a few other European countries have not entirely dissimilar set ups with regard to a "TV license" / tax. Personally I dislike the license fee enormously (though I'd happily pay a reasonable fee to access BBC quality programming) and would prefer just to enforce strong regulation on the commercial channels) and also with regard to "public service broadcasting" remits.
Oh and the BBC have a commercial arm. Somewhat sneakily they either do - or at least used to - part own some UK cable/satellite channels - that show pretty much only old BBC content (things like Dr Who, Red Dwarf, etc.). They also make money from selling the rights to air these shows to commercial stations. As well as BBC shows that are either entirely made by a third party (e.g. they had The Simpsons for a while, and quite a few comedy shows are made-to-order by a third party) they also partner with other broadcasters around the world (and presumably they share the rights and the production costs with them for those shows).
Form factor and hassle factor aside, I don't think that's true.
I think those are good reasons to get a prebuilt system from someone like Dell or Apple - I have both Mac's at home (a laptop and desktop for development) as well as systems I've built myself (a gaming system & a backup / file server) - but in terms of specification you can still build comparable systems (in terms of speed and features) for a similar price.
Although even going back 10 years at least (when Gateway were king of the consumer PC market) vendors have made it though thanks to barging power though bulk buying and cutting corners, and price, where they think users won't notice (e.g. by using integrated graphics, lower quality sound cards, slower bus speeds).
This is going off topic, but I don't want to let this one slide (not least as you called the OP 'flagrantly ignorant', which IMO is just plain wrong - it was bit of a flame, but I think it was on the money).
That little piece of paper can mean a huge different in how much you are paid once you graduate. Is that fair? No, but it is not stupid to go to college. That is an incorrect assertion. Going to college does not mean you earn more, but the evidence is that the people who are more likely to earn more any way (more likely as they are to have come from a well educated, white middle class background, to invoke a stereotype) do typically go to college. They are not smarter for going to college, and going to college does not make them inherently able to earn more.
What happens is, after several years of non-compulsory higher education (i.e. instead of bailing out at 16, they stay on till 21-22), most people end up in jobs they could have been in anyway if they'd spent those years actually working in their field. Instead of making a positive income in the intervening time (and doing that to make investments, and pay for their own place and getting an early step on the property ladder) they end up saddling themselves with thousands of GBP/USD/EUR worth of debt (and/or have their parents pick up the tab).
If you are doing a college course in computing in the UK or US (or most parts of Europe), my advice is: DON'T. Total waste of your time. Take an entry level position now, and change job after a year or two. Do that a couple of times until you feel you are moderately able in your field and earning comfortably. Don't get sucked into one job for too long if it's not what you ultimately want to do or if it doesn't pay enough.
I would note if I had gone to college instead of getting (a pretty poor paying) first job, I wouldn't have been able to buy my first place when I was 18 and I wouldn't already have been earning 30-50% above an average graduate's salary by the time I was 20-21. All in all, 10 years later as it is, I'd be much worse off.
My mother is university lecturer as it happens, and teaches medical students. Despite her being quite senior and well paid, and about to retire, I've been earning more than her since I was 20. Which is a bad indictment of the value society places on those in teaching positions and and indication of how big the deficit still is good software/systems engineers (formally qualified or not).
With regard to:
The stupid part is to rely on your college education to make you an outstanding member of whatever field you are in As far as software developers go, maybe 1 in 30-50 graduates are keepers (at interview), which I'd say is about the same for non-graduates, probably slightly worse odds than it is for non-graduates. I would say this is because there are usually a number of candidates that think graduating is all that's required, and that J2EE is the be-all and end all (and that operating systems, SQL databases and LDAP directories are "stuff they don't need to worry about" - I expect that is a familiar experience for many here).
Never mind 'making people an outstanding member of their field they are in', they should be at least teaching them more than they could learn themselves down the local library in half the time. Currently, that is not happening. The GOOD graduates are the ones who've taught themselves things that are outside the curriculum (and it's that very spirit that makes them valuable throughout their careers).
*Indifference* to bricking the modded iPhones is fairly likely. I absolutely agree with you there. I'm often disappointed that vendors don't at least make some effort to avoid breaking things (like for example, they could make a patch that checksums files about to be patch and lets you know if things don't look right before applying the patch), but I doubt they will put any effort into that sort of approach, which is a shame really.
I'd be really surprised if an update left an iPhone un-restorable though, I mean restoring using a Firmware restore tool from Apple works fine on iPods of various descriptions (including flash based Nano's) even when the you screw up entirely *cough* so I assume (I guess it's documented on ipodlinux.org) that the firmware-update mechaism doesn't rely on being able to boot the device in a traditional manner. I would be surprised if anything you do to the regular OS on the boot volume can break it beyond the point where that sort of reset wouldn't work.
I've assumed (very possibly wrongly) that in the iPod's the software to handle resets is a tiny bootloader in ROM. Maybe someone who knows about iPod hacking can clear that up.
But it's another thing to be well aware about the hacked devices. The fact that they release an international FUD press statement shows that they DO care about them, and not exactly in the positive sense. I think all it shows is they are aware of the issue and as with any vendor in this situation it's just a bit of ass covering. I doubt they are really that bothered - not least because I suspect the percentage of people doing it is really tiny (surely 0.1%), and because once the contracts are up they are obliged to allow people to use them on other networks (and they are not going to break purely unlocked iPhones then - of course for ones with otherwise modified software all bets are still off).
and then threaten to turn them into paperweights if you dare to use them away from their selected few. No, they didn't. They are not talking about "bricking" only network-unlocked phones (the actual quote was in the context of hacked iPods too). You are spreading FUD, like most people are on this thread, and the flamers and moderators are lapping it up too.
In fact, in Europe (I don't know about the US) phones *must* be unlockable (providers often refer to this a 'subsidy code' - it's cheaper to buy it from a third party). It can be around 3-4 UKP to buy a subsidy code (generated from your IMEI) online, it's usually about 10-20 UKP to get it done on the high street and about 50+ UKP to get one from the original provider.
After the contract period is up on AT&T from what I have read I believe they are letting you use the device with other providers . I'm not sure if that is through legal mandate or not, as I've indicated I don't know what US legislation there is covering network interoperability for mobile phones.
In either case their most certianly ARE going to be unlocked iPhones out there, that's not the issue. All that's being said here is that "if you've modified the software on your iPhone, upgrading it [i.e. applying a binary delta which is intend to patch against the original OS] might prevent the phone from booting". I would add that if you find that even remotely surprising you are not sufficiently technical to be messing around applying 3rd party hacks to your phone's OS (and that you can almost certainly restore the original firmware on it, even if it won't boot - as with the iPod's).
Slashdot is mis-representing the truth and people who love an excuse to rant against Apple are lapping it up in blind ignorance.
Apple's taking the position that they don't "mean" to brick it, but it just "might happen" anyways, which of course is total bullshit. To any developer I would think it would be immediately obvious what you are saying is not true (it's in no way 'total bullshit' that rendering the device unable to boot "might happen" accidentally). Hell, even to any use of a Linux or BSD distribution that uses binary packages that should be immediately obvious it's a likely scenario that you could screw the device by blindly applying a delta to a binary that is different from the intended target binary.
Of course it might "brick" a hacked iPod without them meaning to (note, Phil Schiller is quoted as specially referring to 'unlocked or hacked' iPhones). Even if they are just making a minor update to a simple app, they might be using a newer version of an existing library in the new version, so that library update gets rolled into the delta too. That might also mean other more core things (which have been recompiled to also use that new library) get included and a hack that hooks into them might break, which would screw up the device, rendering it unusable.
This is unlikely to affect users who have only unlocked their phone and is much more likely to affect at users who have also modded their phones in other ways (particularly if they have any software that activates on startup - and particularly software that might screw up if it can't start properly).
I don't have an iPhone, but I'm assuming even if it was "bricked" to the point of not being able to start up normally it would *still* be possible to reset the firmware on it (as it is with the iPods), so it wouldn't *really* be bricked - hence my use of inverted commas.
Ah yes, and of course linking to goatse doesn't qualify you as "being a dick"? If you had to follow the link to work out where it was going then the first link really is more up your street.
Slashdot Mirror
Crime is so bad in the UK because of lack of effective government policy.
Countries like Switzerland and to a lesser extent Canada are proof you can have fairly high levels of gun ownership, but not have US style crime levels. It's also true that the UK is apparent proof that you can have very strict gun controls and fairly low levels of gun ownership but still have serious violent crime problems.
That doesn't mean that making guns harder to own in the US (particularly through the enforcement of proper background checks, mandatory training courses, certification for different weapon types and strict licensing laws) couldn't save hundreds - maybe even thousands - of lives every year.
Perhaps, like driving lessons, (opt-in) gun control classes should form part of the high school curriculum. I'm not suggesting giving kids access to guns, even in a training facility (in the same way that sex education classes don't involve practicing sex), but providing some grounding so that from an early age kids likely to own or be around guns have proper understanding of appropriate behavior around weapons and so that proper gun control - and the consequences of misuse - can be ingrained.
I don't entirely disagree - certainly without the marketing and brand it wouldn't have reached the level of penetration it has - but I think it's success (in the form of initial positive reaction, which makes or breaks a product) was also from it being what people actually wanted, that is to say it's design. By which I mean it the first "large capacity" player that was easy to use and ultra portable.
The first 32 & 64 MB Rio's (with SD slots) were absolutely superb, really fantastic (although shipped with rubbish software). But the later (6 GB?) models that started shipping before the iPod were the size of CD players, i.e. most people couldn't fit them in their pocket, and so like portal CD players never really got much attention from anyone. The ease of use (i.e. having a decent sized, very responsive display) was also a big part of their appeal.
I would the design and iTunes (which you mentioned) are a big part of why it got so much "grass roots" support, purely because it was something people wanted (the increasingly annoyingly restrictive aspects of iTunes not withstanding - it wasn't that bad initially, although I guess there is a lesson in that).
There does seem to be some indication of a small number of potential benefits (in amongst some more clearly bogus correlations than are highlighted by practitioners in defense of the practice). However, the results seem biased by such fundamental principles as those who are circumcised for religious reasons are more likely to be strictly observant of a religion than your average test subject, and as a result I think it's fair to say less likely to lead a sexual lifestyle that is promiscuous / that puts them at a higher risk of infection.
Personally, having looked at the risk factors involved, I think it seems clear on inspection that the supposed benefits are at best incredibly marginal, and do not outweigh the clear harm done and the risks of the carrying out the process itself (although, where it's a common practice, such as in the US, it is at least less risky than it is elsewhere). I think the drive for medical justification is a case of Doctors who personally favor the practice for their own personal reasons, looking for hard medical evidence to support their stance (at best, because it fits in with their religion, at worst because it's a profitable practice).
Regarding HIV, I don't think having African men circumcised would have any positive impact on the spread of HIV in Africa. It seems like the sort of policy Thabo Mbeki would endorse (and would likely make things worse). I wouldn't be at all surprised to find he has in fact endorsed that approach at some point, but I'm too lazy to Google for it. 8)
In parting, I would note the benefits cited (e.g. apparent reduced risk of certain fairly uncommon infections) can typically be directly paralleled in females by removal of the labia majora, but that comparison is rarely made as society is more ready to immediately discount female genital mutilation as being unacceptable. To me, that fact on it's own provides a clear indicator that male genital mutilation is only seen as more acceptable practice purely because of an illogical cultural bias that society has so far failed to shake off.
In the UK, if I were to have a child of mine circumcised, not only would I find it hard most likely impossible to get the hospital to carry it out, but if I did find someone who was willing to carry it out privately as the child would neither be from a Jewish nor Muslim background it is quite clear I would be open for prosecution for assault, even if I didn't carry out the work myself. Which, while from my perspective is much less than ideal (as I still do not think the legislation is robust enough, as I have said), directly contrasts with the situation in the US where it is routinely carried out without any clinical or cultural justification (or even consideration).
If you'd been following the press reports and court rulings more carefully you might be better informed. You seem to be entirely, relying on Wikipedia to tell you everything you need to know on it and it's not covering the whole story. You don't even seem to be reading the Wikipedia article, which directly contradicts you (not me):
The only reference on Wikipedia article to a legal opinion - in the form of one published in the Journal of Medical Ethic by Fox and Thomson at Keele University's School of Law - states unequivocally that "there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful." in the opening paragraph of the paper.
To provide a counter point, a representative from the General Medical Council stated that, in the opinion of the GMC, that it was an ethical issue not a legal one and that they do not believe that male circumcision on the UK is illegal. The GMC, however, are not a legal body and the statement was only the opinion of a representative from the standards committee (not a lawyer).
One might assume that having having the apparent backing of the GMC (who have published guidelines on the topic) would at least grant some level of legal protection for a licensed practitioner carrying out the procedure, but even I was (if only somewhat) surprised to hear that in the opinions of the legal professionals who were panelists on a BBC debate on the topic last year, that that was not the case and that relying on the GMC's published opinion would not be a valid case for defense. Of course they still have the power to have to have a doctor stuck off for breaking any guidelines which they do choose to set out, all of which is a little incongruous. Which European country is 'more enlightened'? Off the top of my head? Finland and Germany have already ruled it's illegal without consent. As noted, in the UK the legislation also affords more protection than in the US (even if it is still incomplete).
Many European states are in a similar situation, not least because many have similar legislation in place (e.g. state specific legislation - such as the UK's Human Rights Act - and incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights). In the UK the HRA in particular has been a hot topic for a while and has already had a huge impact on health care here and is frequently noted as being relevant when the topic of male circumcision is discussed by medical practitioners and human rights lawyers.
I'm leaning towards "the parents who do that do their children are ignorant and unthinking, and don't realize it's a practice that's consider barbaric - and is illegal - in more enlightened European countries" and "the commercial nature of the US healthcare system has lead to hospitals routinely carry out entirely unnecessary cosmetic surgery - even when it's harmful to the patient - because it's profitable".
Religious zealots have certainly managed to brainwash the US populace on this one, to convince them it's a "morally acceptable" practice, even a humorous thing to discuss if you've had your genitals mutilated. In reality, it's an outdated, entirely unnecessary, damaging and irreparable act of barbarism - IMO anyone carrying out this practice on children should be locked up (and, if a medical practitioner, have their license permanently revoked).
If grown adults want to have this procedure carried out on themselves then, apart from undergoing some counciling, they may as well be allowed to have it carried out by someone qualified. If indeed grown adults were left to make the decision for themselves, I think the percentage of people who would volunteer for this practice would be tiny and the industry around it would almost completely die out in the US (apart from within certain specific religious groups).
Fat chance of much change on that front happening in the US though.
Here in the UK it's illegal to carry out the practice, with a caveat: When it can be proven before a judge that a the child is likely to suffer as a result and both parents agree they want it carried out (e.g. if the child is Jewish or Muslim and likely to be teased, harassed or singled out by their cultural peers and so in some way negatively impacted as a result of the operation not being carried out) then it may be carried out (but Doctors or Surgeons are not obligated to carry it out, and may refuse to do it, that it's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath being a common citation as grounds for refusal).
While I can appreciate on the surface this is an attempt to reach some pragmatic accommodation, I think this is the wrong approach and the law needs to be changed here too. I don't see medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children's genitals as acceptable, full stop. It's systematic of the UK justice system though - in the eyes of the populace the government rarely deals with the perpetrators of crimes directly or appropriately - it's easier just to tell the rest of us to change our behaviors to fit in with however they have redefined the problem.
Consumers would rather grab the cheapest deal, ignore what they are actually buying and blame *evil corporations* than their own greed when the quality service they get on their 15 USD a month ADSL connection isn't as good as it is on hundreds-of-dollars-a-month SDSL package. The reality in the DSL market is that most (say in the order of 90%) customers have a service that is far LESS contended than advertised (although cable is more oversold, but then course cable tends to offer higher speeds in the first place
The problem is the guys (who often have 2 DSL accounts) and are hooked up to P2P, doing max utilisation day in and day out on their second line. The correct way to deal with them is traffic shaping, so they get a slower service (e.g. take the 5% of users pirating software like crazy and let them contend against each other, leaving the 95% of customers using the service reasonably with a top quality service and, in practice, no contention). However, building infrastructure to handle that is costly, particularly with regard to man hours of qualified staff, so many do the cheaper thing, and just ask (read: tell) the guys who are making the service unworkable to go find another provider.
Uhappy with that? Well get this:
You can be sure that providers who take on the expense of implementing proper QoS for residential DSL customers are going to use it (not least to try and claw some money back from the investment) - and that means enforcing their QoS for everybody (not just the very heavy P2P users), and would make things worse for the majority of customers. It's basically inevitable (as firmware gets better and QoS gets easier to impliment), and statistically that's going to negatively impact more customers, but given the amount of bitching by greedy customers - who's basic motivation for unlimited bandwith is the wholesale downloading of software and movies they haven't paid for in any case - I will have no sympathy.
Consumers get really cheap internet access rates because they are buying a service that is contented and bandwidth capped. High speed network connections with guaranteed 1:1 contention and all-the-bandwith-you-can-use cost hundreds of dollars a month, not 10 dollars a month.
There is plenty of choice out there - it's a case of pick the level of service you want and stop bitching. It's not rocket science.
You don't have to buy a contended or reduced service, those who want the Quality of Service say a bank or ISP might buy you can. Of course it's not going to be anything like as cheap as the contended services typically sold to consumers or small businesses, because it's not possible to offer that same level of service for 10-20 USD a month.
So called "net neutrality" crusaders evidently want 1:1 contention, guaranteed high QoS with no packet loss or rate limiting, even on external networks, beyond the borders of their providers and to not have to pay any more than they are now (or, if possible, less). They want the moon on the stick and the idea of a fair price for a fair service has gone out the window (even though they are plenty of good providers to choose from, many people - as is the case with other products - will choose go with the cheapest and then wonder why their service is below average).
"Net neutrality" advocates seem to expect all the network capacity to handle this to magically appear from nowhere, as if the switch capacity and network management required to implement what they are demanding would all be take care of by fairies, they very notion of capacity being a limited resource on a network seems to have escaped them.
If people don't want a shitty contended service, they shouldn't buy it. Operators should not be obliged to run their network at a loss in order to provide people with a better level of service than they are reasonably entitled to. There are plenty of operators to choose from in most urban areas, and many different types of service.
The only instance where I can see that a case can reasonably be made for regulation to guarantee a minimum level of service for consumers is when dealing with incumbent telco's - or when competition in a specific region is weak and where enabling greater competitiveness is prohibitively costly or simply likely to take an extended period of time to achieve.
I've always liked that rule too, and for me it makes pretty good sense for the teenage to mid twenties age bracket, which is a vulnerable time for many (especially younger girls - often teenagers - who I've seen hit on by much older, typically married men, who've used every cliched lie and trick in the book on them and left them really emotionally screwed up a few weeks or months later).
/. after I suggested that maybe a 54 year old movie star who left his wife and family for a 17 year old fan (which IMO is an outrageous abuse for someone in his position given her age) was maybe not such as great an "American hero" as he is made out to be. I find it all the more inappropriate that this fan was younger than one of his own children, which I think is probably another hint it was all rather inappropriate.
/. is exceptionally creepy.
I got into what can only be described as the only real flamewar I've been in on
Pretty much everyone else who responded disagreed and saw nothing wrong in it. It rather left me with the impression that
Unfortunately the actor in question was James Doohan so (despite his butchering of a Scottish accent and generally questionable acting) because he was in Star Trek and didn't technically do anything illegal he's beyond reproach.
I say technically not illegal because it appears what he did constitute a crime in some states in the US (some of which, IIRC, have rules relating to intercourse and/or marriages involving teenagers and older partners - specifically to protect them against much older predatory adults). Sadly not all US states afford such generous protection for teenagers, so while in some states some acts would end up with the perpetrator listed on the National Sex Offenders registrar, in other states they are entirely legal.
But what can you do?
Now of course, Airports are beyond miserable. Amen to that.
FWIW, this is why I won't be going back to the US any time soon (although I've been there several times in the past, and to Canada). I really like the US, I like the people and the country. Americans are some of the warmest most friendly and helpful people anywhere in the world. I have relatives there and I could quite happily spend my holidays there every year, one state at a time.
The US tourist board run adverts on TV telling us to come visit at DiscoverAmerica.com, which - given the way they treat you when you do get there, post 9/11 - is entirely a mixed message it seems to me. Trips there are nothing but a hassle with endless queuing and stupid security checks. I've had on multiple trips and the absolutely insane delays and had to deal with concentration-camp guards that pass for Airport security staff that ask you stupid pointless questions and what you do for a living.
For example, on our last trip (which I didn't want to go on, but a relative had just died, and there was a service):
We didn't have all the technical details of where we were staying at every point in our trip - we didn't need them - but they detained us because we didn't have them. They then directed us to a computer and let us *Google for them*. We filled out the details and they let us on our way. I have no idea what the point in that was. I could have named any hotel chain in a nearby city and said "oh yeah, that one", it's not like they called to check.
You certainly can't expect to turn up and just "take each day as it comes" as they expect you to say exactly where you will be and where you are staying. Personally I like to be spontaneous and free wheeling while I'm on holiday - especially when I'm visiting somewhere like the US where there is so much to see. On the last two trips I did multiple flights internally too, that was also an unbelievable hassle. Even the major airports are not designed to have large queues like there are now - clearly waiting areas and shopping areas have been altered to turn them into giant queuing zones.
Of course there are queues at UK airports and some silly rules (e.g. flying from Heathrow to a domestic airport requires you take off your shoes, but fly back to Heathrow from a domestic airport and you don't have to) but the delays don't seem any worse than pre 9/11, especially now that new faster facilities are available. The security staff are by and large pretty chilled out. I've heard of some abuses by immigration officials specifically (who seem to be hired primarily on the basis of how much they hate foreigners), but I've also seen them shrug off abuse and being ranted at at by drunk passengers late for a flight for having to wait all of 10 minutes to go through security (from guys who were quite obviously in the bar when they should have been checking in).
I'm looking forward to a future administration sorting this mess out and restoring some semblance of normality, I just hope that happens sooner rather than later. I know the US economy is a behemoth but the current regime has got to be hurting trade and tourism and impacting on the bottom line (I'm sure it's denting consumer confidence too, and so helping to depress the domestic market).
But that makes assumptions about what others value.
Only the assumptions that they value a computer that can (and I quote) "do basic stuff computer stuff".
OK Mr. Smartass: Do you think this will be a flop -- as in it would have been better off for Apple if they had never bothered with it?
I think it would have been better (both for Apple, and for consumers) if they had built what people appear to have actually been clamouring for - namely brought back having a small "Pro" laptop (like they used to have, with the PowerBook range, but with updated technology), not an expensive-but-limited outsized-Mac OS X-running UMPC. Like the iPhone in Europe, I think it's set to be not disliked per se, but viewed as overpriced and not particularly good value for money. The critics in the press would seem to agree that this years MWSF wasn't up to much.
Everyone I know (who gives a toss) feels basically the same way, even the one guy I know who actually has an iPhone, and they pretty much all have a laptop (about half of them Macs) and some kind of >250 GBP smartphone (even those who arn't geeks). I don't know anyone who actually want's a MacBook Air, AFAICS people are pretty indifferent to it, it looks nice but even casual users and fashion victims seem to be bawlking at it's limitations for a device at that pricepoint.
You can get a laptop for free by signing up for an AOL broadband contract, or by signing a mobile phone contract (or a full featured entry level one for 200-250 GBP at retail). This makes it seem all the more expensive even for something of it's size and functionality - you'd have to really want to run Mac OS X (and really not like Windows or Linux) to opt for the MacBook Air over a conventional "ultra portable". Like many Apple customers I don't mind paying a bit more for a Mac, but for what is ultimately a novelty item - at least as far as most power users with money to spend are going to be concerned - at the list price it's just not a very desirable product
Your argument seems to center around that this laptop is not a good standalone device -- that you need a separate computer to be able to do some basic computer stuff
If you buy a computer and still need a "separate computer to be able to do some basic computer stuff" then it rather implies the computer you've just bought is of fairly limited value.
If it was UMPC then there are reasonable trade offs for a some users (although the UMPC market is pretty small), but it's not - it's a laptop it's more or less the same size as a regular 13" MacBook, but much less functional and more expensive - and given that the trade offs are a whole lot less appealing.
Do you really think that there is no market for such a device?
Oh yes that's exactly what I said. Exactly. I said there is no market in the world for this device.
*rolls eyes*
Right, because that's the only thing I mentioned.
I think that not shipping something a insignificantly cheap as a front row remote (which is only a tiny IR remote after all) is petty, I also thing that building a device that requires "yet another set of adapters" (specifically for power and for video output) really puts me off the Apple brand (and I say that as a big fan of Apple products).
Given the price, I can understand selling the optical drive separately, though clearly users ARE going to find they need one at some point (such as when they are not near another computer, or the only other computers nearby are locked down corporate desktops they can't install the remote disc software on).
IMO they should have bundled the remote, the cheap USB-to-RJ45 Ethernet adapter and a DVI/VGA adapter - given the premium price of this product and that they have decided to use yet another interface for video out (and yet another power adepter interface). The lack of consistency in devices from Apple is rapidly heading beyond my tolerance point.
* Having bought multiple video, battery and power adapters (at the greatly inflated prices Apple charge for batteries and power adapters in particular) for my PowerBooks then MacBook I am not keen to go through the process again anytime soon.
I can understand selling the USB optical drive separately, but I think basically ALL USERS are going to want one (even if they don't realize it right away) and it's just a way of hiding the real cost of ownership. There are going to be plenty of times people are away from another computer they can use (not just traveling or in meeting rooms, but also in work places, where the only computers are locked down and where they won't be able to install the remote disc software).
Lots of people (myself included) wanted to see a more portable MacBook Pro, I don't think many people will really want this product (and that it will be a fairly big disappointment, like the iPhone has been in Europe).
It's a small issue, but not bundling the cheap IR remote seems to me to be symptomatic of Apple's general lack of focus on that side of things over the last year or two in particular. They have left the Apple TV to languish, along with Front Row. iTunes has been given the ability to manage video content, but it's half hearted. I guess Steve is bored of that stuff now.
Of course, given the number of issues with Leopard, it could be argued they are not really that bothered about software any more (unless it's on a phone...).
Or just use (GNU) find :-)
> find $PATH -type f -exec grep -i "$PATTERN" {} \;
It wasn't a matter of just trying the firmware update again; for those who bricked there were no options available to bring the device back to functionality --until now.
That is incorrect. They could have loaded a new firmware image to the device via the USB interface.
I think people splitting hairs about the use of the term "brick" are missing the point.
If a device doesn't boot simply because the OS installed on it is hosed, then it is not bricked.
Software can't be installed on a brick. If it's possible to run or load software on a device, it's not a brick.
The fact is, such tests show that under normal viewing conditions most people simply dont have eyes and visual centers good enough to reliably notice the difference between SD and HD, nevermind deciding what looks best
"The fact is" that's not true, you don't have any references and you don't know what you are talking about.
I have a 50" Plasma and it's really REALLY obvious when it's displaying HD content and when it's not. There is no mistaking it. It's as obvious as noticing that a TFT is running at 640x480 instead of 1024x768. Once you've seen HD content on it, it's immediately apparent if the content was filmed for HDTV broadcast.
When I've miss an episode of shows I watch in HD, such as BSG, Bones, Atlantis or Torchwood (e.g. because my PVR was full) the much higher definition picture, and 5.1 surround that comes with them being developed for HDTV is so noticeable I don't even bother to watch the SD repeats (such as on Sky Two, or BBC Three), I just wait for it to come back on one of the HD channels.
For me it's also a bonus that they are already in a digital file format (which I what I want because that's what's compatible with my my iPod, my phone, PC/Mac and home audio system). If it came on CD I'd have to rip them then chuck the CD in a box - rather than just click "Buy" and start listening to the track/album right away. I also find it handy that it's automatically downloaded and organized by iTunes, which stores them just the way I like (and it's configurable) - it also works just fine with the 'iTunes Music' folder mounted via NFS of a Linux system where I store/backup/serve my data from.
Personally, I have no problems with the 512 Kbps non-DRM'd tracks at present. Quality wise, what pisses me off is the lousy quality of the videos on the iTunes Music Store (that and the so-limited-it's-worthless selection of TV content on it here in the UK). That, and the videos are DRM'd of course. I would note that if the Apple TV didn't have a cripplingly restrictive defective-by-design implementation with regard to the way it accesses content remotely OR you if could at burn the video's to DVD then in practice the DRM would not particularly bother me. If they only allow 5 computers to be authorized able to play your DRM'd files at any give time, there is clearly no need for the Apple TV to insist that you can only send content to it from one of those computers at a given time - but it's the same BS with the iPod.
Although (going off topic a bit here) it's fair to say would rather have a much wider range of music on the iTMS, it's also fair to note that can't usually get what I'm after unless I go to a very large store either (e.g. like a large Virgin Megastore, as was) or to a second hand/specialist store - and I don't even think my tastes are that eclectic.
It's also worth noting that UK TV has quite different standards to US TV.
I don't mean so much in terms of quality in terms of shows (many of the best shows are US, which obviously have much better production values) but in so far as regulations such as "how much advertising is allowed" (i.e. none on the BBC, only X minutes in every hour on other stations, with no more than Y breaks in an hour) also there rules about product placement (which is not legal in the UK, on any channel - though sponsorship is fine) and slightly different laws about portrayal of sex / bad language / violence, etc.
All analog channels (at least as so far as I am aware) have regulations about having a certain remit e.g. including quotas for certain types of programs, such as "educational" shows. I seem to recall they all get some funding for this too. I think there is a fair bit of regulation regarding TV shows aimed at children (as well - I think - as voluntary codes of practice regarding advertising), though I am not sure how that compares with the US.
I mention this because as a specific result of heavy regulation of advertising watching free-to-air TV in the UK (which is also extended to channels offered by satellite and cable broadcasters who wish to operate in the UK) is *much* more tolerable than in the US, while it's getting worse (as the regulator loosens up and allows more advertising) you don't get the same number of annoying adverts going on, so you can actually sit down and watch a show that isn't on a premium channel without getting so PO'd with all the advertising you switch off (which seems to be the case in the US). I think that's worth understanding - and why only having only a small number of free-to-air channels wasn't really all that bad for some time.
I gather quite a few other European countries have not entirely dissimilar set ups with regard to a "TV license" / tax. Personally I dislike the license fee enormously (though I'd happily pay a reasonable fee to access BBC quality programming) and would prefer just to enforce strong regulation on the commercial channels) and also with regard to "public service broadcasting" remits.
Oh and the BBC have a commercial arm. Somewhat sneakily they either do - or at least used to - part own some UK cable/satellite channels - that show pretty much only old BBC content (things like Dr Who, Red Dwarf, etc.). They also make money from selling the rights to air these shows to commercial stations. As well as BBC shows that are either entirely made by a third party (e.g. they had The Simpsons for a while, and quite a few comedy shows are made-to-order by a third party) they also partner with other broadcasters around the world (and presumably they share the rights and the production costs with them for those shows).
Form factor and hassle factor aside, I don't think that's true.
I think those are good reasons to get a prebuilt system from someone like Dell or Apple - I have both Mac's at home (a laptop and desktop for development) as well as systems I've built myself (a gaming system & a backup / file server) - but in terms of specification you can still build comparable systems (in terms of speed and features) for a similar price.
Although even going back 10 years at least (when Gateway were king of the consumer PC market) vendors have made it though thanks to barging power though bulk buying and cutting corners, and price, where they think users won't notice (e.g. by using integrated graphics, lower quality sound cards, slower bus speeds).
What happens is, after several years of non-compulsory higher education (i.e. instead of bailing out at 16, they stay on till 21-22), most people end up in jobs they could have been in anyway if they'd spent those years actually working in their field. Instead of making a positive income in the intervening time (and doing that to make investments, and pay for their own place and getting an early step on the property ladder) they end up saddling themselves with thousands of GBP/USD/EUR worth of debt (and/or have their parents pick up the tab).
If you are doing a college course in computing in the UK or US (or most parts of Europe), my advice is: DON'T. Total waste of your time. Take an entry level position now, and change job after a year or two. Do that a couple of times until you feel you are moderately able in your field and earning comfortably. Don't get sucked into one job for too long if it's not what you ultimately want to do or if it doesn't pay enough.
I would note if I had gone to college instead of getting (a pretty poor paying) first job, I wouldn't have been able to buy my first place when I was 18 and I wouldn't already have been earning 30-50% above an average graduate's salary by the time I was 20-21. All in all, 10 years later as it is, I'd be much worse off.
My mother is university lecturer as it happens, and teaches medical students. Despite her being quite senior and well paid, and about to retire, I've been earning more than her since I was 20. Which is a bad indictment of the value society places on those in teaching positions and and indication of how big the deficit still is good software/systems engineers (formally qualified or not).
With regard to: The stupid part is to rely on your college education to make you an outstanding member of whatever field you are in As far as software developers go, maybe 1 in 30-50 graduates are keepers (at interview), which I'd say is about the same for non-graduates, probably slightly worse odds than it is for non-graduates. I would say this is because there are usually a number of candidates that think graduating is all that's required, and that J2EE is the be-all and end all (and that operating systems, SQL databases and LDAP directories are "stuff they don't need to worry about" - I expect that is a familiar experience for many here).
Never mind 'making people an outstanding member of their field they are in', they should be at least teaching them more than they could learn themselves down the local library in half the time. Currently, that is not happening. The GOOD graduates are the ones who've taught themselves things that are outside the curriculum (and it's that very spirit that makes them valuable throughout their careers).
I'd be really surprised if an update left an iPhone un-restorable though, I mean restoring using a Firmware restore tool from Apple works fine on iPods of various descriptions (including flash based Nano's) even when the you screw up entirely *cough* so I assume (I guess it's documented on ipodlinux.org) that the firmware-update mechaism doesn't rely on being able to boot the device in a traditional manner. I would be surprised if anything you do to the regular OS on the boot volume can break it beyond the point where that sort of reset wouldn't work.
I've assumed (very possibly wrongly) that in the iPod's the software to handle resets is a tiny bootloader in ROM. Maybe someone who knows about iPod hacking can clear that up.
In fact, in Europe (I don't know about the US) phones *must* be unlockable (providers often refer to this a 'subsidy code' - it's cheaper to buy it from a third party). It can be around 3-4 UKP to buy a subsidy code (generated from your IMEI) online, it's usually about 10-20 UKP to get it done on the high street and about 50+ UKP to get one from the original provider.
After the contract period is up on AT&T from what I have read I believe they are letting you use the device with other providers . I'm not sure if that is through legal mandate or not, as I've indicated I don't know what US legislation there is covering network interoperability for mobile phones.
In either case their most certianly ARE going to be unlocked iPhones out there, that's not the issue. All that's being said here is that "if you've modified the software on your iPhone, upgrading it [i.e. applying a binary delta which is intend to patch against the original OS] might prevent the phone from booting". I would add that if you find that even remotely surprising you are not sufficiently technical to be messing around applying 3rd party hacks to your phone's OS (and that you can almost certainly restore the original firmware on it, even if it won't boot - as with the iPod's).
Slashdot is mis-representing the truth and people who love an excuse to rant against Apple are lapping it up in blind ignorance.
Of course it might "brick" a hacked iPod without them meaning to (note, Phil Schiller is quoted as specially referring to 'unlocked or hacked' iPhones). Even if they are just making a minor update to a simple app, they might be using a newer version of an existing library in the new version, so that library update gets rolled into the delta too. That might also mean other more core things (which have been recompiled to also use that new library) get included and a hack that hooks into them might break, which would screw up the device, rendering it unusable.
This is unlikely to affect users who have only unlocked their phone and is much more likely to affect at users who have also modded their phones in other ways (particularly if they have any software that activates on startup - and particularly software that might screw up if it can't start properly).
I don't have an iPhone, but I'm assuming even if it was "bricked" to the point of not being able to start up normally it would *still* be possible to reset the firmware on it (as it is with the iPods), so it wouldn't *really* be bricked - hence my use of inverted commas.