Nice strawman! Not only do you put words in the mouths of your perceived 'opponents,' you present a situation that will never realistically exist to ensure it can't be tested!
Yes, it is bias that made those Samsung designs appear dated back to before the iPhone. It is also not bias that similar pro Apple/anti Samsung images manage to exclude all of these similar designs that predate the iPhone.
All makes sense now. I'm beginning to wonder how highly Apple fans would rate on the authoritarianism scale.
They're only not-evidence in the fiction that is the legal world. Nobody's rights are being protected by restricting this evidence; there's no poisoned tree here. There is no logical reason that it shouldn't be considered in the trial.
I find it unsettling that someone who composes sentences as well as you do would call Sarah Can't-Even-Finish-Her-Term Palin competent, experienced, and wise.
So, what, are you trying to argue that -- unlike the refreshes of Nintendo's handheld hardware -- the yearly refreshes of the iDevices are functionally identical?
If you have a massive, deep and uncritical affection for Nintendo's traditional franchises (and let's face it, a lot of people on slashdot do), then it's fairly good. You've got Mario, Mario Kart, a Zelda remake, a Starfox remake and so on. That said, none of these are doing anything interestingly different. They are straight technical facelifts for the old franchises.
Yeah, that's it. A massive, deep, and uncritical affection. It couldn't be because people get tired of sifting through drek and don't mind that there are consistently solid (if not always truly inspired) games available for Nintendo's systems. I didn't bother reading the rest of your spiel because I've heard it before.
But besides that, why the fuck do you care what people play?
This is disingenuous, because it says nothing about what you're actually *buying* for that price. If an iPad is $500 worth of hardware in a $700 package, and a Galaxy Tab is $600 worth of hardware in a $700 package, then it really doesn't matter that they're the same price; the Galaxy Tab is the better deal, all other things considered.
But then, IMO, anyone spending $500+ on a toy that's going to be mostly collecting dust and then worthless in a year or two is a moron IMO. Google finally got the price point right with the Nexus tablet.
The accurate picture of what environmental activists do is irrelevant. The caricature of them being hysterical chicken littles that chain themselves to (insert object of their objection here) is all you hear from their opponents. It's a convenient straw man to paint the other guy as completely unreasonable when you're trying to woo people to your side of an issue. I think this is what the GP was referring to.
It doesn't matter that only a tiny handful of people ever did chain themselves to anything; it only matters that you paint anyone that disagrees with you as being just like those crazy people.
This is Slashdot...and as such, articles like this are usually posted for the agenda's sake.
Let me guess: if an article is posted that supports your preconceived notions, that's just good reporting. These ones that challenge it? Clearly an agenda.
silentcoder has been remarkably patient with you. He's given you multiple excellent summaries of how the only thing that really matters is global ambient temperature increases, while you keep concentrating on the fact that it got cold yesterday where you live and have the gall to argue that it's the same thing.
Then you have the exceptional gall to fling condescending one-liners, move the goalposts (in one argument you claim that hot/cold weather is the same argument, then in the next you switch the argument to be about ALL indicators) while accusing him of ad hominem and strawman attacks when he's done none of those things.
TL;DR: your 'arguments' are bad, and you should feel bad.
You're incapable of reading. The 5 degree increase that the GP is talking about is a reference to AGW believers overestimating the effect of global warming, as opposed to AGW deniers ignoring the actual 0.5 degree increase. This was all in a story just a few days ago, as another poster pointed out to you; apparently you missed both the story and the correction, and also missed silentcoder's entire explanation after you saw "5 degree increase".
A perfect example of when it's a bad idea to give the customer what they want -- Homer's car also comes to mind.
Also, last time I was playing WoW back in the WotLK days, the majority of subscribers seemed to be happy with sitting around in general chat making Chuck Norris or Anal [whatever] jokes. This isn't a population of erudite people.
You sound like a whiny 5 year old who isn't getting his way.
Says the guy wishing death on people who disagree with him.
I'll reiterate my earlier post: it would be perfectly OK if Apple wants to invent a new, more capable connector for AV devices as an industry standard. It is unacceptable to patent it and make it completely proprietary to their own hardware. That's an attempt at lock-in and is anticompetitive. If their devices are so great they shouldn't *need* to resort to lock-in to keep people buying them.
I'm sure Apple gets its feelings *really* hurt when people 'condescendingly' suggest that they should be using a standard goddamn connector like everybody else.
The problem is that you've internalized your ownership of Apple products to the point that you take any criticism -- no matter how valid -- of them as a company as a personal attack on yourself. I own Apple hardware -- I have an original iPod Nano (the scroll wheel + flash memory was, IMO, what made it the best MP3 player for my own uses at the time), I've got an old clamshell Macbook that I sometimes use as a generic Unix-y test environment, and a beefy quad-core MacBook Pro for when I'm on the road. I'm not fanatical about them as a company though, so when they do stupid shit I can call them on it without feeling like I'm attacking a small part of myself. Once you get over that, you might even be able to criticize them as well -- it's going to be tough for you though, because fans of Apple exhibit the same brain patterns (look it up) as religious people, and we all know how tough it is to lose religion. You're not alone though -- see also jo_ham, kthreadd, and SuperKendall. Maybe you guys can all get together and start a recovery group.
But back on topic -- personally, I've been doing home AV stuff since I was a teenager. I like to be able to buy shit that you can just plug together and it works. You can get a Denon amp and a Toshiba CD player and a Samsung TV and hook it all up using standard connections and none of it has any issues. With Apple's dock connector, that's no longer the case: I have to buy special hardware to get it wired up to my system, and if I ever want to use a different manufacturer's MP3 player, that special hardware is now useless landfill fodder.
NOTE: If Apple had opened up the female end of their dock connector as a standard to the rest of the industry, and industry had adopted it and I could go out and get any MP3 player and have it hook into this de-facto standard port on my hardware, then that would be great. Instead, they only license the MALE end, because they don't want any competition. And no, creating a differently shaped connector with X number of input/output lines is *not* in any way novel or worthy of patent protection. Even creating a protocol to talk over this connector is not in any way novel or worthy of patent protection. Now there's a cottage industry of iDevice-only accessories that could just as easily work with a different connector, but no other individual player in the market has the clout to build such a standard connection. So in this case, fuck them and their proprietary connector(s) straight to hell.
If you listen to Apple apologists, making use of pretty much any form of a "settings" menu is beyond the capabilities of the average user. In that respect, having to read directions on enabling "allow unknown sources" is about accessible as reading directions on jailbreaking an iPhone.
You mean that FRAND patent counter-suit to Apple's "you copied us" suit? You have a funny definition of "attacking" if it includes defensive counter-suits.
Have you looked at Apple's customer satisfaction numbers?
It's a pretty well-known psychological effect that people who buy a luxury product (and for many people, a $200+ smartphone is definitely a luxury product -- particularly one with a famous logo on it) will do everything they can to rationalize their purchase. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone talking about how they had to take their iDevice into the Apple store to have it fixed, but then turn around and talk about how great Apple products are because nothing ever goes wrong with them.
I'm not saying that all Apple owners are rationalizing, but many will -- and those customer satisfaction numbers will reflect that. The adjusted customer satisfaction numbers for Apple probably are still higher than most other manufacturers, but it's not nearly as cut-and-dried as it appears.
There are two types of in-app purchases on Android: managed and unmanaged. The developer of the app gets to set what each type of purchase is when they add it to their Google Play listing.
Managed purchases are tracked by Google. You can only purchase these once -- you either have it or you don't. This would be useful for something like buying game expansions or extra costumes or whatever. These can be restored by the app when it gets reinstalled on any device.
Unmanaged purchases aren't tracked. Google Play just sends your app a notice that says "hey, someone just bought this" and it's up to your app to keep track of these. These are for things like consumables that someone might want to buy repeatedly. If you have no way of backing up these purchases, they will disappear when you wipe your phone.
I believe that iOS has pretty much the same thing available. My girlfriend has Apple hardware and when she's had to reinstall (so far twice on her 4S and once on her iPad) she's lost any "unmanaged" type purchases made, and in a couple of cases lost things that seem like they should be managed -- so the situation really isn't any different on iOS.
Slashdot Mirror
even though this looks a lot like election year posturing.
Yes, because patent litigation reform is *so* high on the list of issues that the voting public cares about.
--Jeremy
Nice strawman! Not only do you put words in the mouths of your perceived 'opponents,' you present a situation that will never realistically exist to ensure it can't be tested!
9/10!
--Jeremy
Yes, it is bias that made those Samsung designs appear dated back to before the iPhone. It is also not bias that similar pro Apple/anti Samsung images manage to exclude all of these similar designs that predate the iPhone.
All makes sense now. I'm beginning to wonder how highly Apple fans would rate on the authoritarianism scale.
--Jeremy
They're only not-evidence in the fiction that is the legal world. Nobody's rights are being protected by restricting this evidence; there's no poisoned tree here. There is no logical reason that it shouldn't be considered in the trial.
http://phandroid.com/2012/07/31/pre-iphone-design-concepts-add-weight-to-samsungs-defense-in-patent-trial/
--Jeremy
I find it unsettling that someone who composes sentences as well as you do would call Sarah Can't-Even-Finish-Her-Term Palin competent, experienced, and wise.
--Jeremy
Not a strawman argument; they're using a slippery slope.
That doesn't make it any more valid, however.
--Jeremy
So, what, are you trying to argue that -- unlike the refreshes of Nintendo's handheld hardware -- the yearly refreshes of the iDevices are functionally identical?
--Jeremy
If you have a massive, deep and uncritical affection for Nintendo's traditional franchises (and let's face it, a lot of people on slashdot do), then it's fairly good. You've got Mario, Mario Kart, a Zelda remake, a Starfox remake and so on. That said, none of these are doing anything interestingly different. They are straight technical facelifts for the old franchises.
Yeah, that's it. A massive, deep, and uncritical affection. It couldn't be because people get tired of sifting through drek and don't mind that there are consistently solid (if not always truly inspired) games available for Nintendo's systems. I didn't bother reading the rest of your spiel because I've heard it before.
But besides that, why the fuck do you care what people play?
--Jeremy
People here freak out when a developer copies another developer's game.
And, note, it's perfectly legal for them to do so.
--Jeremy
which is selling products at the same price.
This is disingenuous, because it says nothing about what you're actually *buying* for that price. If an iPad is $500 worth of hardware in a $700 package, and a Galaxy Tab is $600 worth of hardware in a $700 package, then it really doesn't matter that they're the same price; the Galaxy Tab is the better deal, all other things considered.
But then, IMO, anyone spending $500+ on a toy that's going to be mostly collecting dust and then worthless in a year or two is a moron IMO. Google finally got the price point right with the Nexus tablet.
--Jeremy
These are things that the climate alarmists don't understand.
There's that strawman again. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is an unreasonable alarmist."
--Jeremy
The accurate picture of what environmental activists do is irrelevant. The caricature of them being hysterical chicken littles that chain themselves to (insert object of their objection here) is all you hear from their opponents. It's a convenient straw man to paint the other guy as completely unreasonable when you're trying to woo people to your side of an issue. I think this is what the GP was referring to.
It doesn't matter that only a tiny handful of people ever did chain themselves to anything; it only matters that you paint anyone that disagrees with you as being just like those crazy people.
--Jeremy
This is Slashdot...and as such, articles like this are usually posted for the agenda's sake.
Let me guess: if an article is posted that supports your preconceived notions, that's just good reporting. These ones that challenge it? Clearly an agenda.
--Jeremy
silentcoder has been remarkably patient with you. He's given you multiple excellent summaries of how the only thing that really matters is global ambient temperature increases, while you keep concentrating on the fact that it got cold yesterday where you live and have the gall to argue that it's the same thing.
Then you have the exceptional gall to fling condescending one-liners, move the goalposts (in one argument you claim that hot/cold weather is the same argument, then in the next you switch the argument to be about ALL indicators) while accusing him of ad hominem and strawman attacks when he's done none of those things.
TL;DR: your 'arguments' are bad, and you should feel bad.
--Jeremy
You're loony.
You're incapable of reading. The 5 degree increase that the GP is talking about is a reference to AGW believers overestimating the effect of global warming, as opposed to AGW deniers ignoring the actual 0.5 degree increase. This was all in a story just a few days ago, as another poster pointed out to you; apparently you missed both the story and the correction, and also missed silentcoder's entire explanation after you saw "5 degree increase".
--Jeremy
(I was mimicking...)
Who? The other deniers that mischaracterize and invent ridiculous strawmen about the people who are concerned about global warming?
--Jeremy
A perfect example of when it's a bad idea to give the customer what they want -- Homer's car also comes to mind.
Also, last time I was playing WoW back in the WotLK days, the majority of subscribers seemed to be happy with sitting around in general chat making Chuck Norris or Anal [whatever] jokes. This isn't a population of erudite people.
--Jeremy
You mean the iPod nano headphone jack location from 2005 and iPod touch headphone jack location from 2007?
Yeah, but this is on a *smartphone*.
Think about it. You'll get it if you're not a fanboi.
--Jeremy
You sound like a whiny 5 year old who isn't getting his way.
Says the guy wishing death on people who disagree with him.
I'll reiterate my earlier post: it would be perfectly OK if Apple wants to invent a new, more capable connector for AV devices as an industry standard. It is unacceptable to patent it and make it completely proprietary to their own hardware. That's an attempt at lock-in and is anticompetitive. If their devices are so great they shouldn't *need* to resort to lock-in to keep people buying them.
--Jeremy
I'm sure Apple gets its feelings *really* hurt when people 'condescendingly' suggest that they should be using a standard goddamn connector like everybody else.
The problem is that you've internalized your ownership of Apple products to the point that you take any criticism -- no matter how valid -- of them as a company as a personal attack on yourself. I own Apple hardware -- I have an original iPod Nano (the scroll wheel + flash memory was, IMO, what made it the best MP3 player for my own uses at the time), I've got an old clamshell Macbook that I sometimes use as a generic Unix-y test environment, and a beefy quad-core MacBook Pro for when I'm on the road. I'm not fanatical about them as a company though, so when they do stupid shit I can call them on it without feeling like I'm attacking a small part of myself. Once you get over that, you might even be able to criticize them as well -- it's going to be tough for you though, because fans of Apple exhibit the same brain patterns (look it up) as religious people, and we all know how tough it is to lose religion. You're not alone though -- see also jo_ham, kthreadd, and SuperKendall. Maybe you guys can all get together and start a recovery group.
But back on topic -- personally, I've been doing home AV stuff since I was a teenager. I like to be able to buy shit that you can just plug together and it works. You can get a Denon amp and a Toshiba CD player and a Samsung TV and hook it all up using standard connections and none of it has any issues. With Apple's dock connector, that's no longer the case: I have to buy special hardware to get it wired up to my system, and if I ever want to use a different manufacturer's MP3 player, that special hardware is now useless landfill fodder.
NOTE: If Apple had opened up the female end of their dock connector as a standard to the rest of the industry, and industry had adopted it and I could go out and get any MP3 player and have it hook into this de-facto standard port on my hardware, then that would be great. Instead, they only license the MALE end, because they don't want any competition. And no, creating a differently shaped connector with X number of input/output lines is *not* in any way novel or worthy of patent protection. Even creating a protocol to talk over this connector is not in any way novel or worthy of patent protection. Now there's a cottage industry of iDevice-only accessories that could just as easily work with a different connector, but no other individual player in the market has the clout to build such a standard connection. So in this case, fuck them and their proprietary connector(s) straight to hell.
--Jeremy
If you listen to Apple apologists, making use of pretty much any form of a "settings" menu is beyond the capabilities of the average user. In that respect, having to read directions on enabling "allow unknown sources" is about accessible as reading directions on jailbreaking an iPhone.
--Jeremy
Who says that Windows works?
Are you making the claim that it doesn't? The entire software industry would seem to disagree with you.
--Jeremy
You mean that FRAND patent counter-suit to Apple's "you copied us" suit? You have a funny definition of "attacking" if it includes defensive counter-suits.
--Jeremy
Have you looked at Apple's customer satisfaction numbers?
It's a pretty well-known psychological effect that people who buy a luxury product (and for many people, a $200+ smartphone is definitely a luxury product -- particularly one with a famous logo on it) will do everything they can to rationalize their purchase. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone talking about how they had to take their iDevice into the Apple store to have it fixed, but then turn around and talk about how great Apple products are because nothing ever goes wrong with them.
I'm not saying that all Apple owners are rationalizing, but many will -- and those customer satisfaction numbers will reflect that. The adjusted customer satisfaction numbers for Apple probably are still higher than most other manufacturers, but it's not nearly as cut-and-dried as it appears.
--Jeremy
There are two types of in-app purchases on Android: managed and unmanaged. The developer of the app gets to set what each type of purchase is when they add it to their Google Play listing.
Managed purchases are tracked by Google. You can only purchase these once -- you either have it or you don't. This would be useful for something like buying game expansions or extra costumes or whatever. These can be restored by the app when it gets reinstalled on any device.
Unmanaged purchases aren't tracked. Google Play just sends your app a notice that says "hey, someone just bought this" and it's up to your app to keep track of these. These are for things like consumables that someone might want to buy repeatedly. If you have no way of backing up these purchases, they will disappear when you wipe your phone.
I believe that iOS has pretty much the same thing available. My girlfriend has Apple hardware and when she's had to reinstall (so far twice on her 4S and once on her iPad) she's lost any "unmanaged" type purchases made, and in a couple of cases lost things that seem like they should be managed -- so the situation really isn't any different on iOS.
--Jeremy