The suicide rate at Foxconn is lower than all 50 U.S. states and lower than China's national average. Don't let facts get in the way of your goofy emotionalism, though.
Same here. Funny how they say they got 9x faster graphics and 2x faster CPU, but didn't bother implementing retina display
You seriously think they can ship a 2048x1536 tablet with 10 hours of battery life? I don't even think Apple's high-end cinema displays have resolutions that high.
What freedom do you think you have because you bought a phone with less quality control? Because that's really what you're saying.
Computing has matured. The world has trended away from the Wild West model we all suffered through on Windows where anything goes, and it's moving toward Slashdot's new favorite phrase--the walled garden. This is the model that's been in use on game consoles for years, which have crushed PC gaming in sales because people got tired of maintaining their PCs. They don't want to maintain their phone OS either.
You don't understand. Android is based on Linux, and it's from Google--two of Slashdot's biggest loves. That automatically means it's the greatest thing ever and that no criticism is valid, and anyone who chooses an iPhone is brainwashed, dumb, trendy, and so on.
Never mind that Android isn't open due to carrier control, its unit sales are only because it's on multiple phones and carriers and gets slapped onto every crappy low-tier smartphone out there (complete with unremovable junkware), and the user interface can't even do an animated scroll without the Java garbage collector kicking in and making it choppy.
Anyone who thinks Android is some great victory should consider that Google, an advertising company, barely makes any money from it. The idea was to get phone users onto Google services so that their data could be indexed for context-sensitive ads. That's one reason that free apps are encouraged--free apps that just so happen to use Google ads. However, Android has not been a money-maker, while Apple is making ridiculous amounts of money from iOS devices. Not to mention the fact that Android phones and software are often clones of what Apple is doing, from the overall look of the phones (go look at what Android phones were originally supposed to look like before the iPhone came out) to the interfaces of the apps themselves. Apple is the winner here.
Others will say that it's because it's an "open" platform, but that's another way of saying there's less quality control. Android isn't actually that open--it's at the whim of the carriers, who even have their own third-party stores and unremovable junkware, just like on your average OEM PC. It's the Windows model that served us so well (cough) all those years.
Slashdotters on Google Native Client: "Native code running in the browser is the future! I can't believe this. It's amazing! Google rocks."
Slashdotters on ActiveX: "Haha, even Microsoft is adding a way to turn off ActiveX. It sucks. Look at that caption saying it can interfere with a webpage! Hahaha! Who ever thought native code in the browser was a good idea?"
It's as if Slashdotters have completely forgotten the last 20 or so years of Windows history. "What? You mean people are confused by and ignore permission dialogs?"
Are you like some kind of leftover hippie? You even throw around the word "corporate" as if it's automatically a bad thing. The very computer you used to type your post was spawned from the evil corporate world you hate so much.
You won't ever admit it, of course, but the fact is that there is a trade-off between controlled and open that involves security, reliability, and speed, and the world is moving toward the paradigm of appliance computing. Most people don't give a shit about "openness" or being able to install software from any third-party. This is little different from the system already in place on game consoles, for example, which has beaten out PC gaming. In other words, you're part of a niche, but you didn't know it, because, until recently, everyone else was forced to use Wild West platforms like Windows. Now, so-called "walled gardens" are taking over, and app stores are the new way to get software. Even Windows is getting one.
That people are willingly choosing this new way of computing drives you crazy.
Obviously this means we should abdicate (forcibly, if necessary) all control over our computing devices to large corporations with a vested interest in denying us the ability to use them as we see fit.
How funny. If this was Hotmail, there would be tons of posts bashing Microsoft and contrasting them to the oh-so-great Gmail service. But because it's Gmail, there are tons of "It's your fault for trusting in the cloud" posts.
The interesting question is how the disaster is addressed. Will Google recover the data? Will it be quick? Seamless? If so, then the real lesson here isn't the weakness of the cloud, but rather its strength. Anything can go wrong with any system, but maybe Google's well-run cloud can handle the problem with minimal incidence.
And the point is that you have no say in the matter. You must "sit tight" and wait on Google to do something to save your valuable data. Yet, for some reason, you perceive a list of unanswered questions as a strength of the cloud, as if helplessly wondering what Google is going to do to save the data you've stored in its free service is an advantageous position to be in.
Everybody knows that things go wrong, cloud or no cloud. So what's the real value-added to calling out cloud services every time something fails?
The value is in reminding everyone that relying on a so-called "cloud" (the buzzword people use now to refer to anything that's web-based) puts you in a passive, helpless position when something goes wrong, trusting in the keeper of your data to competently save your ass.
Apple's product placement has gotten out of hand in recent years. Everywhere in coffee shops, airports, college campuses, and libraries you see the glowing Apple logo. The shareholders should really ask tough questions why Apple is wasting so much money paying these people to use their products.
"The shareholders should ask tough questions about why Apple is spending money to advertise their products! It's out of hand!"
At its core, it's a (legal) form of bait-and-switch. You are led to believe you are purchasing a movie. You are purchasing an ad-laden movie.
This is completely stupid. An ad-laden movie is still a movie, and they can put whatever they want in their movie. It's not "bait-and-switch" just because you don't like it.
What is it about Apple articles on Slashdot that brings out the peanut gallery? There has never been such a high level of dumbness when it comes to Apple as there has been from Slashdotters lately, since the website first began in the late 90s.
Slashdot Mirror
What is this, 2010? Apple-haters already tried this argument, and after millions of iPad sales, clearly failed.
The suicide rate at Foxconn is lower than all 50 U.S. states and lower than China's national average. Don't let facts get in the way of your goofy emotionalism, though.
Mentioning that 1.3 lbs is not heavy is drinking Kool-aid?
You seriously believe that? It couldn't be that they just wanted an iPad last year?
You seriously think they can ship a 2048x1536 tablet with 10 hours of battery life? I don't even think Apple's high-end cinema displays have resolutions that high.
Why are so many anti-Apple posters on Slashdot anonymous?
Hard-Coded Bias in Google's "Algorithmic" Search Results
Right, the whole point is that it's far more unlikely.
What freedom do you think you have because you bought a phone with less quality control? Because that's really what you're saying.
Computing has matured. The world has trended away from the Wild West model we all suffered through on Windows where anything goes, and it's moving toward Slashdot's new favorite phrase--the walled garden. This is the model that's been in use on game consoles for years, which have crushed PC gaming in sales because people got tired of maintaining their PCs. They don't want to maintain their phone OS either.
So, one vulnerability compared to 21 more malware apps from Android that Google had to remove? I'll take the one vulnerability.
You don't understand. Android is based on Linux, and it's from Google--two of Slashdot's biggest loves. That automatically means it's the greatest thing ever and that no criticism is valid, and anyone who chooses an iPhone is brainwashed, dumb, trendy, and so on.
Never mind that Android isn't open due to carrier control, its unit sales are only because it's on multiple phones and carriers and gets slapped onto every crappy low-tier smartphone out there (complete with unremovable junkware), and the user interface can't even do an animated scroll without the Java garbage collector kicking in and making it choppy.
Anyone who thinks Android is some great victory should consider that Google, an advertising company, barely makes any money from it. The idea was to get phone users onto Google services so that their data could be indexed for context-sensitive ads. That's one reason that free apps are encouraged--free apps that just so happen to use Google ads. However, Android has not been a money-maker, while Apple is making ridiculous amounts of money from iOS devices. Not to mention the fact that Android phones and software are often clones of what Apple is doing, from the overall look of the phones (go look at what Android phones were originally supposed to look like before the iPhone came out) to the interfaces of the apps themselves. Apple is the winner here.
"As an App platform." But I guess Android fanboys were too busy emotionally reacting and modding his post down to read the entire sentence.
Others will say that it's because it's an "open" platform, but that's another way of saying there's less quality control. Android isn't actually that open--it's at the whim of the carriers, who even have their own third-party stores and unremovable junkware, just like on your average OEM PC. It's the Windows model that served us so well (cough) all those years.
Slashdotters on Google Native Client: "Native code running in the browser is the future! I can't believe this. It's amazing! Google rocks."
Slashdotters on ActiveX: "Haha, even Microsoft is adding a way to turn off ActiveX. It sucks. Look at that caption saying it can interfere with a webpage! Hahaha! Who ever thought native code in the browser was a good idea?"
It's as if Slashdotters have completely forgotten the last 20 or so years of Windows history. "What? You mean people are confused by and ignore permission dialogs?"
Are you like some kind of leftover hippie? You even throw around the word "corporate" as if it's automatically a bad thing. The very computer you used to type your post was spawned from the evil corporate world you hate so much.
You won't ever admit it, of course, but the fact is that there is a trade-off between controlled and open that involves security, reliability, and speed, and the world is moving toward the paradigm of appliance computing. Most people don't give a shit about "openness" or being able to install software from any third-party. This is little different from the system already in place on game consoles, for example, which has beaten out PC gaming. In other words, you're part of a niche, but you didn't know it, because, until recently, everyone else was forced to use Wild West platforms like Windows. Now, so-called "walled gardens" are taking over, and app stores are the new way to get software. Even Windows is getting one.
That people are willingly choosing this new way of computing drives you crazy.
You mean like the carriers who control Android?
What do you think a smartphone is, exactly? A magic slab of plastic?
How funny. If this was Hotmail, there would be tons of posts bashing Microsoft and contrasting them to the oh-so-great Gmail service. But because it's Gmail, there are tons of "It's your fault for trusting in the cloud" posts.
And the point is that you have no say in the matter. You must "sit tight" and wait on Google to do something to save your valuable data. Yet, for some reason, you perceive a list of unanswered questions as a strength of the cloud, as if helplessly wondering what Google is going to do to save the data you've stored in its free service is an advantageous position to be in.
The value is in reminding everyone that relying on a so-called "cloud" (the buzzword people use now to refer to anything that's web-based) puts you in a passive, helpless position when something goes wrong, trusting in the keeper of your data to competently save your ass.
They, on the other hand, made money off of indexing your personal data and selling advertising space for it. What a deal!
It's not a "whoosh" if the original post is so devoid of clear sarcasm that it comes off as a legitimate post.
"The shareholders should ask tough questions about why Apple is spending money to advertise their products! It's out of hand!"
This is completely stupid. An ad-laden movie is still a movie, and they can put whatever they want in their movie. It's not "bait-and-switch" just because you don't like it.
What is it about Apple articles on Slashdot that brings out the peanut gallery? There has never been such a high level of dumbness when it comes to Apple as there has been from Slashdotters lately, since the website first began in the late 90s.
Why do you care if there's product placement or not? Does it physical hurt you or something?