Around here a higher than average subset adhere to strange personal religions that financial benefit from your own ingenuity is somehow immoral
There are many arguments against software patents - this however is just a straw man.
and that the world is better off if real companies can't use these ideas and make them a practical reality (but that's ok, some guy sitting in his parents basement will knock off a buggy implementation in 10 years time, for freeeeeee man).
Your argument is the wrong way round - under the patent system, we're left to the individual who comes up with them to come up with an implementation, which might work, might not, or maybe he might sell it to a company, who then might use it, or they might just use it as a bartering tool against other companies. Under the suggestions of the OP, real companies will be able to use these ideas and make them a practical reality.
If he makes his idea available for all, then that means those companies with resources are also free to be able to use this.
(I presumed by "out of the hands of private entities/patent trolls", he means companies that patent them to prevent others using them, and not that he wants to prevent companies from using the idea - after all, if he did that, then he too would be a patent troll.)
Again, useless without the breakdown. Especially as I suspect that combines the Iphone figures with those of the Ipod touch.
But sure, I concede that in the much newer and smaller market of wifi devices, the Apple may be one of the players (but still that isn't evidence to say they are number one), however I was talking about the much larger phone market. The Ipod touch isn't even a phone!
Give us figures of market share instead of these dubious browser stats you keep plugging.
Other phone can do internet standard, but almost no one use it. Google even proved this when it announced that the iphone is responsible for 50x more web searches than the next closest phone.
The people who like to say well this and that phone are like the iPhone.
Well users of those phones have proved that they simply are not.
I can't quite parse those last two sentences? But Google's stats hardly prove me wrong when I say that I use my phone for Internet access! And I question those stats - I believe Google is the default for the Iphone, where as it isn't for many phones. Even Opera Mobile until recently used Yahoo rather than Google. It's also not clear how they detect or categorise phones - for example, my phone uses Opera Mini, which will go through Opera's servers. The real tell-tale sign about this statistic is the fact that they don't give us a market share, they simply say it's the most common, which means for all we know the competition is just spread across a large number of categories. Without knowing the full breakdown, it's meaningless.
But anyway even if it's relevant, on the contrary, it supports my point - that the Iphone is nothing new, but it seems to be generating hype from the fact that many people seem to be unaware of the features of phones these days, so when they hear someone saying about the Iphone accessing the Internet, or they see an ad for it, they think "Oh wow, that's so new".
It's just like when everyone fell for Windows 95 and how amazing it supposedly was because it "could multitask and had a GUI". Apple are the new Microsoft: advertising old technology as if it were new, and getting away with it.
Plenty of parallel rasterization hardware cards are on the market, the first one I used was the Voodoo2 SLI.
Indeed, but furthermore you don't even need SLI - any bog standard graphics card these days have multiple cores. The 8800GT for example has 128 stream processors. I don't quite get this argument of "OMG we now have two cores, this means ray-tracing will take over", since it ignores that (a) as you note standard rasterised graphics is also embarrassingly parallel, and (b) GPUs have been taken advantage of this in the form of multiprocessing for years.
In fact, I was ranting to my boss just now about the fact that my phone browser forgets cookies when the browser is closed (which happens every time you close the clamshell, annoyingly). It's particularly apparent when using PayPal Mobile, which shows you a regular login page by default. You can opt to log in using your mobile number and a PIN, and if you've got the cookie you'll be automatically redirected. Mine, unfortunately, forgets the cookie.
Cookies work fine on my dirt cheap phone. Just a thought that you might want to shop around before getting the Iphone which for some reason now seems to be treated as a default choice.
No, Apple are taking advantage of the fact that every smartphone out there has interfaces and browsers that suck, while the iPhone's is somewhat decent.
My non-smartphone can at least run Opera Mini, which does fine. Are smartphone browsers really that bad? I've known friends who've happily browsed the web on smartphones like the Treo for years, and they never seemed to have a problem.
See, this is what I mean about people talking about the Iphone - it's always "Iphone is better, it just is, other phones suck!" and never any specific features or examples. Refining this to "Iphone's UI/browser is better, it just is, other phones' UI/browsers suck!" doesn't answer the question.
T-Mobile UK have intentionally made my Samsung Z560 more annoying to use.... So basically, I'm buying an iPhone as soon as a 3G model comes out.
That's an issue with your network. And at least with many other phones you have a choice of network!
My phone with Vodafone has none of that crap on (and I can view 11 bookmarks on screen at once btw, on my cheap phone's smallish screen).
I mean, I'm genuinely confused - you are displeased with your network, and your conclusion is not to switch network, but to buy an Iphone? Do you really think that there's some kind of network conspiracy where all the networks put crap on all the phones, with the sole exception of the Iphone?
The iPhone could be equipped with a perpetual motion machine and a love ray that instantly seduces any woman it is aimed at, and some people would still complain that it doesn't support MMS, and thus they would rather have their free flip phone.
Unlikely. But if the free flip phones had a perpetual motion machine and a love ray that instantly seduces any woman it is aimed at, some people would still rather have their expensive Iphone, and that's still all we'd hear about on Slashdot.
But since neither is true, that's irrelevant.
(Can you give me some unique features of the Iphone - features that you bought it for - or can you only give me things which are as real as perpetual motion machines?)
The other reply got modded flamebait, but the spirit of the answer was correct - consider how it's not just marketing from Apple themselves, but from phone shops that promote it, and news media from Slashdot to the BBC. What's this - a news article not about the release of Iphone, but simply a new version supporting a feature that's long been a standard? Most phones don't get a story at all.
Apple appear to be taking advantage that many people are unaware how almost every phone (even cheap ones) can do Internet access as standard, so they are able to promote it as a new and wonderful thing (even on Slashdot, I see this happening).
(And it's not clear it has "succeeded" apart from in the sense of not flopping? Sure it's succeeded, but so has the Treo and many other phones, but if you mean been a success above all others, that's not clear at all to me.)
Strangely I was thinking the opposite - why so late?
(And really - do we have a Slashdot story for every 3G phone that comes out? I had to double-check my calendar to make sure I hadn't slipped five years or more into the past. Maybe we can have news stories about other new fangled technologies like texting, MMS and Java?)
But according to TFA, both men and women were tested at only observing women's behaviour.
The obvious question is, how good are men and women at judging men's behaviour? It could just be that people are better at judging the behaviour of their own gender.
There are other parts that are suspicious, for example: 67% reported that they had experienced an incident in which a male acquaintance misperceived their friendliness to be an indication of sexual interest
How did they determine that the male had misperceived this? Well, there are obvious cases such as the man trying to snog her, but there is also the risk that it's the woman misperceiving the man's responses. After all, the man would report the same thing - "This woman took my friendliness to be an indication that I was interested in her"!
"Monopolists" might be a better term, but why not just be specific and blame "People who support patents", rather than trying to brand them capitalists, "monopoly capitalists", communists or whatever else?
Patent dementia. The kind of thing communists mean when they say "capitalists will sell the rope for the nooses to hang them".
You can't blame capitalism for patents though. Patents are a Government granted and enforced monopoly. In fact, I'd say they're very un-capitalist, in that the state steps in to control the free market, and preventing private individuals from manufacturing (effectively taking away the means of production from them). Patents are about Government control of the market and means of production.
A capitalist would sell you the rope to hang himself. But in a world with patents, you wouldn't be allowed to hang him, because the state has granted someone else a patent of "A means of terminating an individual's life by means of the application of rope and acceleration in a gravitational field"...
I agree - whilst I have no general problem with restrictions on children (as long as it is just children, and not adults), I do note that it's only the unpopular things which get restricted or banned: films, computer games, sex (and it's sex viewed "deviant" that is more likely to be restricted), minority religions (like paganism, Wicca), rock music, swearing.
On the other hand - and I honestly don't mean this as flamebait - one could make the same case that mainstream religious books such as the Bible are just as much as a potentially harmful influence on young children as computer games or rock music [*]. Yet far from restricting access to children, it is a legal requirement that all children in the UK be coerced into daily Christian worship in state schools.
[*] Dawkins has reported on a interesting study by George Tamarin on the effects of reading the Bible on children's views of morality ( http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1794986.htm ), which reminds me of the "After viewing some porn, people were more likely to believe rape myths" studies we hear about. Those studies are currently looking sufficient to criminalise some sexual images even for adults here in the UK, yet no one (not even Dawkins!) would suggest this same level of "evidence" is sufficient for restricting access of the Bible to children, let alone criminalising possession of it.
but that doesn't mean we should just toss them out in the woods and let them fend for themselves either.
I don't see anyone suggesting that!
"Nanny state" typically refers to the idea of imposing restrictions on adults. And that is relevant in a debate about children, because many people (including this Government) propose restrictions on adults, and then cry "Please won't somebody think of then children" as justification.
I fully agree though that it's a false dichotomy - often the nanny state restrictions people call for do nothing to help children anyway. And referring to adult restrictions as a nanny state in no way implies that we are calling for children to be tossed out in the woods.
While you are absolutely correct that science is based on faith
I don't think you are using "faith" the same way I do:
Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
You are confusing "We can't prove things with 100% absolute certainty" with "Believing things in the absence of evidence". The former is obviously true, but that has nothing to do with the latter. When people talk about the virtues of having faith (usually in the context of religious belief), you can bet that they are talking about the latter.
And I'm not sure that science is based on belief anyway. "The sun will rise tomorrow" is a prediction, and if it doesn't, that just means we modify our understanding of the Universe, it doesn't mean science is wrong.
You win the prize for more irrelevant analogy. Perhaps you need to involve a car?
Anyhow, the market share is far from proven. The question is why we hear about Iphone over and over again, and rarely, if at all, any stories about the many other phones out there which have well and truely proven themselves in the market.
Also, the fact that I have MacOS 7, MacOS 8, and MacOS 9 cd's says you're very wrong about Mac only having one other OS.
There's classic Mac OS, and there's OS X (and yes, Newton OS). Counting every single version number as an entirely different "OS" doesn't change that - in that case, there are loads of operating systems named "OS X" (at least 6, and loads more if we count all the sub-releases too).
There were 9 other versions of MacOS before OSX, built to run on powerPC processors.
No, there was one other operating system that Apple produced before OS X for use on Macs (that Apple use the same trademark for both, and that they have now adopted a version number system that keeps OS X on version "10" for obvious reasons, is just marketing stuff).
Given that this is the year 2008, when we're talking about liking or not liking Apple or Google, or Microsoft, which do you think is most relevant: The operating system and products they've been producing for years? Or another product they produced before then, but discontinued years ago?
Well, I guess some people hold grudges for a long time, but it seems a bit odd to be judging companies today solely on things done decades ago.
The analogy doesn't make sense and actually at least with Facebook it ISN'T virtual friends unlike old fashioned web forums. It is real friends. But good job tricking some dimwit with modpoints into thinking your comment was relevant or thoughtful.
I agree, and I'm surprised at the moderation too - the irony of people on Slashdot joking about only having online friends! Maybe just because they don't have any friends IRL, they assume everyone else must be like them.
It's not 1990 anymore - since just about everyone IRL has Internet access, it's perfectly feasible to communicate with real friends through the Internet, just like with phones etc (honestly, and I thought this was supposed to be a up to date tech site? Maybe it's just the dislike of "social networking" sites that seems to plague these stories - time to view at -1 I guess).
Why would it? No-one uses ogg anyway. The reason iTunes does not support ogg is that it would be almost pointless.
Firstly, even if few people use ogg, doesn't excuse the lack of feature. For them, itunes simply isn't an option.
Secondly, even if I mainly use mp3, I might occasionally come across an ogg I want to play. If I'm using an application, I don't expect to have to transcode it or miss out - I expect it to Just Work.
In both cases, the user is left having to say "Well I can't use ogg, because I'm an itunes user" - ironically, the very opposite situation that Apple fans tell us to expect from its products. Even if I don't care about ogg, news like this (along with the iphone's lack of standard features) makes me reluctant to ever get an Apple product, because there might be some standard feature I do care about, but Apple decided not to include for me.
Most liberals are uninformed idiots. The democrat party was pretty cool...50 years ago.
How does the latter support the former?
I am liberal, and I don't give a crap about the democrat party. (I'm liberal in the sense of supporting individual freedoms and opposing authoritarianism.)
(I also hate Macs btw, so another reason to be wary of generalisations!)
Also, what was funny was that most of them were very vocal about the Apple/Mac superiority, but they were booting their Macbooks to Windows or using Windows in Virtual PC for their work.
Indeed, and what I find particularly bizarre is the way that being able to run Windows is now touted as an advantage! I think the logic is that the sum total of applications it can run is higher, because Windows can't run Mac apps. But the fact that the total number of applications Macs could run before was vastly smaller than Windows was never accepted as an argument! And I've not seen a single Linux user try to claim the same advantage via WINE. Plus it ignores other platforms - a standard PC still probably outnumbers the Mac when you consider all the various other OSs you could install.
Slashdot Mirror
Around here a higher than average subset adhere to strange personal religions that financial benefit from your own ingenuity is somehow immoral
There are many arguments against software patents - this however is just a straw man.
and that the world is better off if real companies can't use these ideas and make them a practical reality (but that's ok, some guy sitting in his parents basement will knock off a buggy implementation in 10 years time, for freeeeeee man).
Your argument is the wrong way round - under the patent system, we're left to the individual who comes up with them to come up with an implementation, which might work, might not, or maybe he might sell it to a company, who then might use it, or they might just use it as a bartering tool against other companies. Under the suggestions of the OP, real companies will be able to use these ideas and make them a practical reality.
If he makes his idea available for all, then that means those companies with resources are also free to be able to use this.
(I presumed by "out of the hands of private entities/patent trolls", he means companies that patent them to prevent others using them, and not that he wants to prevent companies from using the idea - after all, if he did that, then he too would be a patent troll.)
Again, useless without the breakdown. Especially as I suspect that combines the Iphone figures with those of the Ipod touch.
But sure, I concede that in the much newer and smaller market of wifi devices, the Apple may be one of the players (but still that isn't evidence to say they are number one), however I was talking about the much larger phone market. The Ipod touch isn't even a phone!
Give us figures of market share instead of these dubious browser stats you keep plugging.
Other phone can do internet standard, but almost no one use it. Google even proved this when it announced that the iphone is responsible for 50x more web searches than the next closest phone.
The people who like to say well this and that phone are like the iPhone.
Well users of those phones have proved that they simply are not.
I can't quite parse those last two sentences? But Google's stats hardly prove me wrong when I say that I use my phone for Internet access! And I question those stats - I believe Google is the default for the Iphone, where as it isn't for many phones. Even Opera Mobile until recently used Yahoo rather than Google. It's also not clear how they detect or categorise phones - for example, my phone uses Opera Mini, which will go through Opera's servers. The real tell-tale sign about this statistic is the fact that they don't give us a market share, they simply say it's the most common, which means for all we know the competition is just spread across a large number of categories. Without knowing the full breakdown, it's meaningless.
But anyway even if it's relevant, on the contrary, it supports my point - that the Iphone is nothing new, but it seems to be generating hype from the fact that many people seem to be unaware of the features of phones these days, so when they hear someone saying about the Iphone accessing the Internet, or they see an ad for it, they think "Oh wow, that's so new".
It's just like when everyone fell for Windows 95 and how amazing it supposedly was because it "could multitask and had a GUI". Apple are the new Microsoft: advertising old technology as if it were new, and getting away with it.
Plenty of parallel rasterization hardware cards are on the market, the first one I used was the Voodoo2 SLI.
Indeed, but furthermore you don't even need SLI - any bog standard graphics card these days have multiple cores. The 8800GT for example has 128 stream processors. I don't quite get this argument of "OMG we now have two cores, this means ray-tracing will take over", since it ignores that (a) as you note standard rasterised graphics is also embarrassingly parallel, and (b) GPUs have been taken advantage of this in the form of multiprocessing for years.
In fact, I was ranting to my boss just now about the fact that my phone browser forgets cookies when the browser is closed (which happens every time you close the clamshell, annoyingly). It's particularly apparent when using PayPal Mobile, which shows you a regular login page by default. You can opt to log in using your mobile number and a PIN, and if you've got the cookie you'll be automatically redirected. Mine, unfortunately, forgets the cookie.
Cookies work fine on my dirt cheap phone. Just a thought that you might want to shop around before getting the Iphone which for some reason now seems to be treated as a default choice.
No, Apple are taking advantage of the fact that every smartphone out there has interfaces and browsers that suck, while the iPhone's is somewhat decent.
My non-smartphone can at least run Opera Mini, which does fine. Are smartphone browsers really that bad? I've known friends who've happily browsed the web on smartphones like the Treo for years, and they never seemed to have a problem.
See, this is what I mean about people talking about the Iphone - it's always "Iphone is better, it just is, other phones suck!" and never any specific features or examples. Refining this to "Iphone's UI/browser is better, it just is, other phones' UI/browsers suck!" doesn't answer the question.
T-Mobile UK have intentionally made my Samsung Z560 more annoying to use. ... So basically, I'm buying an iPhone as soon as a 3G model comes out.
That's an issue with your network. And at least with many other phones you have a choice of network!
My phone with Vodafone has none of that crap on (and I can view 11 bookmarks on screen at once btw, on my cheap phone's smallish screen).
I mean, I'm genuinely confused - you are displeased with your network, and your conclusion is not to switch network, but to buy an Iphone? Do you really think that there's some kind of network conspiracy where all the networks put crap on all the phones, with the sole exception of the Iphone?
The iPhone could be equipped with a perpetual motion machine and a love ray that instantly seduces any woman it is aimed at, and some people would still complain that it doesn't support MMS, and thus they would rather have their free flip phone.
Unlikely. But if the free flip phones had a perpetual motion machine and a love ray that instantly seduces any woman it is aimed at, some people would still rather have their expensive Iphone, and that's still all we'd hear about on Slashdot.
But since neither is true, that's irrelevant.
(Can you give me some unique features of the Iphone - features that you bought it for - or can you only give me things which are as real as perpetual motion machines?)
The other reply got modded flamebait, but the spirit of the answer was correct - consider how it's not just marketing from Apple themselves, but from phone shops that promote it, and news media from Slashdot to the BBC. What's this - a news article not about the release of Iphone, but simply a new version supporting a feature that's long been a standard? Most phones don't get a story at all.
Apple appear to be taking advantage that many people are unaware how almost every phone (even cheap ones) can do Internet access as standard, so they are able to promote it as a new and wonderful thing (even on Slashdot, I see this happening).
(And it's not clear it has "succeeded" apart from in the sense of not flopping? Sure it's succeeded, but so has the Treo and many other phones, but if you mean been a success above all others, that's not clear at all to me.)
Strangely I was thinking the opposite - why so late?
(And really - do we have a Slashdot story for every 3G phone that comes out? I had to double-check my calendar to make sure I hadn't slipped five years or more into the past. Maybe we can have news stories about other new fangled technologies like texting, MMS and Java?)
But according to TFA, both men and women were tested at only observing women's behaviour.
The obvious question is, how good are men and women at judging men's behaviour? It could just be that people are better at judging the behaviour of their own gender.
There are other parts that are suspicious, for example: 67% reported that they had experienced an incident in which a male acquaintance misperceived their friendliness to be an indication of sexual interest
How did they determine that the male had misperceived this? Well, there are obvious cases such as the man trying to snog her, but there is also the risk that it's the woman misperceiving the man's responses. After all, the man would report the same thing - "This woman took my friendliness to be an indication that I was interested in her"!
"Monopolists" might be a better term, but why not just be specific and blame "People who support patents", rather than trying to brand them capitalists, "monopoly capitalists", communists or whatever else?
Patent dementia. The kind of thing communists mean when they say "capitalists will sell the rope for the nooses to hang them".
You can't blame capitalism for patents though. Patents are a Government granted and enforced monopoly. In fact, I'd say they're very un-capitalist, in that the state steps in to control the free market, and preventing private individuals from manufacturing (effectively taking away the means of production from them). Patents are about Government control of the market and means of production.
A capitalist would sell you the rope to hang himself. But in a world with patents, you wouldn't be allowed to hang him, because the state has granted someone else a patent of "A means of terminating an individual's life by means of the application of rope and acceleration in a gravitational field"...
I agree - whilst I have no general problem with restrictions on children (as long as it is just children, and not adults), I do note that it's only the unpopular things which get restricted or banned: films, computer games, sex (and it's sex viewed "deviant" that is more likely to be restricted), minority religions (like paganism, Wicca), rock music, swearing.
On the other hand - and I honestly don't mean this as flamebait - one could make the same case that mainstream religious books such as the Bible are just as much as a potentially harmful influence on young children as computer games or rock music [*]. Yet far from restricting access to children, it is a legal requirement that all children in the UK be coerced into daily Christian worship in state schools.
[*] Dawkins has reported on a interesting study by George Tamarin on the effects of reading the Bible on children's views of morality ( http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1794986.htm ), which reminds me of the "After viewing some porn, people were more likely to believe rape myths" studies we hear about. Those studies are currently looking sufficient to criminalise some sexual images even for adults here in the UK, yet no one (not even Dawkins!) would suggest this same level of "evidence" is sufficient for restricting access of the Bible to children, let alone criminalising possession of it.
but that doesn't mean we should just toss them out in the woods and let them fend for themselves either.
I don't see anyone suggesting that!
"Nanny state" typically refers to the idea of imposing restrictions on adults. And that is relevant in a debate about children, because many people (including this Government) propose restrictions on adults, and then cry "Please won't somebody think of then children" as justification.
I fully agree though that it's a false dichotomy - often the nanny state restrictions people call for do nothing to help children anyway. And referring to adult restrictions as a nanny state in no way implies that we are calling for children to be tossed out in the woods.
While you are absolutely correct that science is based on faith
I don't think you are using "faith" the same way I do:
Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
You are confusing "We can't prove things with 100% absolute certainty" with "Believing things in the absence of evidence". The former is obviously true, but that has nothing to do with the latter. When people talk about the virtues of having faith (usually in the context of religious belief), you can bet that they are talking about the latter.
And I'm not sure that science is based on belief anyway. "The sun will rise tomorrow" is a prediction, and if it doesn't, that just means we modify our understanding of the Universe, it doesn't mean science is wrong.
They remind me of the pro Iraq war crowd ...
You win the prize for more irrelevant analogy. Perhaps you need to involve a car?
Anyhow, the market share is far from proven. The question is why we hear about Iphone over and over again, and rarely, if at all, any stories about the many other phones out there which have well and truely proven themselves in the market.
Copyright is decided by the law - a company doesn't get to dictate the law simply by writing a so-called "EULA".
(And it's not clear to me if this new "EULA" is presented to the user when automatically installed by Itunes?)
Also, the fact that I have MacOS 7, MacOS 8, and MacOS 9 cd's says you're very wrong about Mac only having one other OS.
There's classic Mac OS, and there's OS X (and yes, Newton OS). Counting every single version number as an entirely different "OS" doesn't change that - in that case, there are loads of operating systems named "OS X" (at least 6, and loads more if we count all the sub-releases too).
There were 9 other versions of MacOS before OSX, built to run on powerPC processors.
No, there was one other operating system that Apple produced before OS X for use on Macs (that Apple use the same trademark for both, and that they have now adopted a version number system that keeps OS X on version "10" for obvious reasons, is just marketing stuff).
Given that this is the year 2008, when we're talking about liking or not liking Apple or Google, or Microsoft, which do you think is most relevant: The operating system and products they've been producing for years? Or another product they produced before then, but discontinued years ago?
Well, I guess some people hold grudges for a long time, but it seems a bit odd to be judging companies today solely on things done decades ago.
Facebook and Myspace - the AIDS and HIV of the cyber age... nothing better than a virtual friends
- says User Joseph1337 posting to Slashdot.
The analogy doesn't make sense and actually at least with Facebook it ISN'T virtual friends unlike old fashioned web forums. It is real friends. But good job tricking some dimwit with modpoints into thinking your comment was relevant or thoughtful.
I agree, and I'm surprised at the moderation too - the irony of people on Slashdot joking about only having online friends! Maybe just because they don't have any friends IRL, they assume everyone else must be like them.
It's not 1990 anymore - since just about everyone IRL has Internet access, it's perfectly feasible to communicate with real friends through the Internet, just like with phones etc (honestly, and I thought this was supposed to be a up to date tech site? Maybe it's just the dislike of "social networking" sites that seems to plague these stories - time to view at -1 I guess).
Why would it? No-one uses ogg anyway. The reason iTunes does not support ogg is that it would be almost pointless.
Firstly, even if few people use ogg, doesn't excuse the lack of feature. For them, itunes simply isn't an option.
Secondly, even if I mainly use mp3, I might occasionally come across an ogg I want to play. If I'm using an application, I don't expect to have to transcode it or miss out - I expect it to Just Work.
In both cases, the user is left having to say "Well I can't use ogg, because I'm an itunes user" - ironically, the very opposite situation that Apple fans tell us to expect from its products. Even if I don't care about ogg, news like this (along with the iphone's lack of standard features) makes me reluctant to ever get an Apple product, because there might be some standard feature I do care about, but Apple decided not to include for me.
Most liberals are uninformed idiots. The democrat party was pretty cool...50 years ago.
How does the latter support the former?
I am liberal, and I don't give a crap about the democrat party. (I'm liberal in the sense of supporting individual freedoms and opposing authoritarianism.)
(I also hate Macs btw, so another reason to be wary of generalisations!)
Also, what was funny was that most of them were very vocal about the Apple/Mac superiority, but they were booting their Macbooks to Windows or using Windows in Virtual PC for their work.
Indeed, and what I find particularly bizarre is the way that being able to run Windows is now touted as an advantage! I think the logic is that the sum total of applications it can run is higher, because Windows can't run Mac apps. But the fact that the total number of applications Macs could run before was vastly smaller than Windows was never accepted as an argument! And I've not seen a single Linux user try to claim the same advantage via WINE. Plus it ignores other platforms - a standard PC still probably outnumbers the Mac when you consider all the various other OSs you could install.