I'm not sure what your point is? That having a removable battery as part of the design makes it quicker to replace? Well, obviously. Given that I have replaced the battery only once over the lifespan of the device, I'm not sure I'm really going to quibble over 15 minutes vs 1 minute, especially since the built-in design results in a physically bigger battery and a smaller case.
They certainly have their place (I wouldn't want a camera with a built in battery - the flash eats it for lunch if you are shooting lots of pics at an event), but for the Touch it's great.
Handy for a camera, to be able to swap out quickly on the move, but you pay for it with compromises on the design (and size/capacity of battery) to have a battery bay accessible from the outside.
Given that the vast majority of people don't carry a spare battery for their iPod Touch/iPhone etc, the design was better served by not having to consider that (so they could put in a bigger battery wherever they could fit it).
I see that you're trying to play the "built in battery sucks!" argument, but given that I have replaced that battery just once in the lifespan of the device (to date), a relaxed 15 minutes is not bad for all the extra capacity over the prior years of the device.
Opening an iPod Touch is easy. Took me about 15 minutes to swap out the battery. That included making tea.
Also what battery manufacturer is this? Don't make me use a wikipedia "citation needed" tag. I've had no problems obtaining replacement batteries for the iPhone (even the 3G) and iPod Touch lineup.
My 3Gs was a snap - 10 minutes and $20 and it's as good as new. The 3G it replaced is still going strong - I gave it to a family member.
I replaced the HD myself in my 2006 iMac. Still going strong.
Have also replaced hard drives in at least 3 different types of Mac (iBook, Powerbook 12", Macbook Pro), and the optical drive (with a generic whitebox DVD burner) in a 12" Powerbook.
The i5 and i7's in the new iMacs are socketed, the GPU is on a separate board, the HD and optical drive are SATA, Apple also released a firmware update for the MBP to ensure stable SATA3 6GB/s speed even though they don't personally ship any SATA3 parts after homebrew users mentioned that it would be nice to have 6GB/s with their aftermarket SSDs....
As for short shelf lives, I am still using an old PPC 15" Powerbook. Still works beautifully. Battery only lasts a couple of hours now, but that's to be expected.
Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder.
The free market is not remotely interested in R&D of new technologies. It will be there like a barnacle when it's all worked out and profitable though, which will be never unless it is funded by other sources.
Oh I'm totally on board with that - if you didn't check out code at any point after the break in you're fine. I'm not trying to spin this out of proportion or anything, just putting across how I think it is right now. At the moment my feeling is "source potentially contaminated after x date, will wait for community checks against the codebase" before saying definitively one way or the other, but it's probably all ok, or will be.
You're trying to dig your way out of a hole because you jumped the gun trying to "pwn" someone in the comments and have gone back and read the summary more carefully and now realise it does not say what you first thought.
Even with the FDA, if a situation occurs in a food factory (say, some guys break in and next morning you find empty bottles of poison on the floor), the owners are going to say "it doesn't look like any of the packaged containers have been tampered with, but we are in the process of checking them". This is the situation we are in now.
When giving out a press release, you can be "pretty damn sure" that their words are chosen carefully - if they were certain, they would say so. They will know soon enough, after their investigation.
Indeed, but in that analogy, the person who canned the food originally is where you would ordinarily place your trust and risk assessment (and whether that person/company has a good track record/has official recognition etc), and is they are saying "someone broke in to our factory last night and we're reasonably certain that the food is not poisoned, but we are still checking".
That's the point being addressed here - with the GP seeming to question reading comprehension (he believes the kernel source is totally safe, based on the summary). I'm (and the GGP) don't believe it says that.
I should have clarified, I said that as part of the British science community.
It should have been much more quickly and decisively stepped on.
And as for the media acknowledging its wrongdoing, it can *barely* bring itself to say "hacking a dead girl's voicemail was wrong, and deleting her messages to get more story material was possibly a little outside the rules". You had a former NotW editor trying to defend the position on Newsnight. Laughable.
In this case, the primary blame belongs with the self-appointed "guardian of the public morals" the Daily Mail, but since when is that new?
1) national healthcare systems reduce the cost for everyone 2) a side effect is free healthcare for those who "game" the system 3) to prevent people gaming the system and solely working on the basis of "personal responsibility" you would prefer to stay in a private system where you would pay more for the same care, purely because going to a national system would allow point two to happen, but it's ok because *you're* ok and covered, even though you're paying considerably more than you need to.
That's called "cutting your nose off to spite your face", and is a very short sighted and limited view.
Certainly advocate for personal responsibility, but also understand that there will always be people gaming the system (as well as people who are genuinely hard up and doing their best to get out of it). The fact that people like that exist is not a reason to eliminate a beneficial possibility for the vast majority of the population.
The purpose of a national healthcare system isn't to provide free rides to those who abuse the system, it's merely a side effect that can be minimised as much as possible but not eliminated. The benefits to those who *do* take part in it properly (ie, the vast, vast majority of the population) make it extremely worthwhile.
The risk "wasn't zero" (excluding the common risks that the single shots share with the MMR shot) because Andrew Wakefield made up lies designed to do exactly what you did - to select single shots over the MMR shot, since the company he was working for (and being paid very well by) was developing a new single shot measles vaccine.
Of course, instead of convincing people to take the single shot, instead the media circus started and suddenly "common sense" stopped people getting vaccinations *at all*.
It really isn't an ad hominem if it's actually addressing the argument, even if it is a very provocative stance. This same position arises often in the healthcare debate - "why should I pay into a single payer healthcare system so that Joe Sixpack next door who is unemployed and smokes and drinks can get a free lung transplant at my expense!" (even though using a national healthcare system reduces the cost to each person over a private system *and* has the altruistic bonus of covering the less fortunate). They just can't get past the idea that someone might be getting something "they don't deserve" at their expense, even though ultimately they are better off overall.
Herd immunity is exactly the same. Opting out "why should *I* put my kids at risk because your friend is allergic to the vaccine" is just short sighted and selfish. It ignores the fact that if herd immunity drops low enough you are trading a 0.0001% risk for a much higher risk of *actually getting measles* (which I assure you, is worse than the potential minuscule chance of reaction to the vaccine)
I'm sorry, but MMR does not cause autism. It was made up, in order to sell a more profitable (for the guy who made up the lie and the company that paid him) single vaccine.
It has been one of the most shameful situations to come out of the British science community.
The "study" was massively flawed, and the paper has been discredited and removed from publication.
Now, you may have valid concerns over 0.5% reaction rates to administered medicines (allergies, sensitivity to compounds etc) that cause adverse reactions in some people - and so do the medical professionals; it's why we don't routinely vaccinate 100% of the population, but "causing autism" is not one of them.
"Rip, Mix, Burn" had nothing to do with the iTunes Music Store, it was one of Apple's big advertising campaigns for the original iMac (the first with a CD burner) back in the late 90s/early 2000s (I think iTunes was released in late 2000, on OS9). The advert was all about taking all your favourite songs from the CDs you owned (remember CDs?), ripping them in iTunes (way, way, way before it had a music store) and making Mix CDs of your tunes.I was using it as an early data point on how Apple saw music on the Mac for home users - that they should be able to do what they liked with it, and this new fangled "iTunes" and the new CD burner in the iMac allowed them to do this.
The very specific advertising slogan (hence me using it in quotes) was "Rip. Mix. Burn"
(disclaimer, "first with a CD burner" meaning 'first iMac' not 'first computer ever with a CD burner')
Well, the model is clearly designed with small transactions in mind - if a company wants to price their software at a higher value, then those are the breaks.
If you're selling a piece of software that can stand at $100, then the cut Apple takes is hardly important, even if it is $30 per purchase. Those $100 apps are also generating *less* in fees for Apple compared to some of the cheapest apps on the store - to use the ever popular Angry Birds, at £0.59 on the UK store has grossed more than TomTom's GPS navigation app that was initially priced at £70 (now £40).
Rovio is paying Apple more for hosting and payment processing than TomTom, despite selling their app for 118 times less.
The App Store (and music store) exist to drive hardware sales. The vast, vast bulk of Apple's profits are from hardware. The App Store and Music Store are weakly profitable for them (it's running a little over break even).
The App Store is very profitable for the developers of apps though (2.5 billion dollars in revenue paid out to third party developers since launch).
Exactly, it was Apple's plan all along, and very successful it was. It's one of the reasons they did not licence the FairPlay dRM system to other companies - they needed it to die off, not become standard.
It's a strawman argument because you've taken the analogy and applied it literally to the argument, as a means of rebuttal.
In other words, you are implying that the OP's stance on jailbreaking is that it's as dangerous and unsavoury as wiring your house shoddily so it creates a fire hazard, when that is clearly not what is being said.
Slashdot Mirror
Well done? Is that what you were after?
I'm not sure what your point is? That having a removable battery as part of the design makes it quicker to replace? Well, obviously. Given that I have replaced the battery only once over the lifespan of the device, I'm not sure I'm really going to quibble over 15 minutes vs 1 minute, especially since the built-in design results in a physically bigger battery and a smaller case.
They certainly have their place (I wouldn't want a camera with a built in battery - the flash eats it for lunch if you are shooting lots of pics at an event), but for the Touch it's great.
Handy for a camera, to be able to swap out quickly on the move, but you pay for it with compromises on the design (and size/capacity of battery) to have a battery bay accessible from the outside.
Given that the vast majority of people don't carry a spare battery for their iPod Touch/iPhone etc, the design was better served by not having to consider that (so they could put in a bigger battery wherever they could fit it).
I see that you're trying to play the "built in battery sucks!" argument, but given that I have replaced that battery just once in the lifespan of the device (to date), a relaxed 15 minutes is not bad for all the extra capacity over the prior years of the device.
Cool story bro.
Opening an iPod Touch is easy. Took me about 15 minutes to swap out the battery. That included making tea.
Also what battery manufacturer is this? Don't make me use a wikipedia "citation needed" tag. I've had no problems obtaining replacement batteries for the iPhone (even the 3G) and iPod Touch lineup.
My 3Gs was a snap - 10 minutes and $20 and it's as good as new. The 3G it replaced is still going strong - I gave it to a family member.
I replaced the HD myself in my 2006 iMac. Still going strong.
Have also replaced hard drives in at least 3 different types of Mac (iBook, Powerbook 12", Macbook Pro), and the optical drive (with a generic whitebox DVD burner) in a 12" Powerbook.
The i5 and i7's in the new iMacs are socketed, the GPU is on a separate board, the HD and optical drive are SATA, Apple also released a firmware update for the MBP to ensure stable SATA3 6GB/s speed even though they don't personally ship any SATA3 parts after homebrew users mentioned that it would be nice to have 6GB/s with their aftermarket SSDs....
As for short shelf lives, I am still using an old PPC 15" Powerbook. Still works beautifully. Battery only lasts a couple of hours now, but that's to be expected.
Did you even spend 1 second on google?
Of course Apple makes an iPad keyboard. It was launched *with the original iPad*.
Bluetooth keyboards (including Apple's) also work.
Tax money paid to this company: $0.00
It was a loan guarantee, that has not cost the government anything, yet.
Market forces. hahahahahaha.
Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder.
The free market is not remotely interested in R&D of new technologies. It will be there like a barnacle when it's all worked out and profitable though, which will be never unless it is funded by other sources.
Lots and lots and lots of red tape.
Also, they are expensive to build. It's like activation energy. Sure you can burn a diamond, you just need to get over that Ea hump first.
We are talking Earth/Moon, not Sun/Earth.
Oh I'm totally on board with that - if you didn't check out code at any point after the break in you're fine. I'm not trying to spin this out of proportion or anything, just putting across how I think it is right now. At the moment my feeling is "source potentially contaminated after x date, will wait for community checks against the codebase" before saying definitively one way or the other, but it's probably all ok, or will be.
You're trying to dig your way out of a hole because you jumped the gun trying to "pwn" someone in the comments and have gone back and read the summary more carefully and now realise it does not say what you first thought.
Even with the FDA, if a situation occurs in a food factory (say, some guys break in and next morning you find empty bottles of poison on the floor), the owners are going to say "it doesn't look like any of the packaged containers have been tampered with, but we are in the process of checking them". This is the situation we are in now.
When giving out a press release, you can be "pretty damn sure" that their words are chosen carefully - if they were certain, they would say so. They will know soon enough, after their investigation.
Indeed, but in that analogy, the person who canned the food originally is where you would ordinarily place your trust and risk assessment (and whether that person/company has a good track record/has official recognition etc), and is they are saying "someone broke in to our factory last night and we're reasonably certain that the food is not poisoned, but we are still checking".
That's the point being addressed here - with the GP seeming to question reading comprehension (he believes the kernel source is totally safe, based on the summary). I'm (and the GGP) don't believe it says that.
Here's a can of food for you to eat.
I am in the process of verifying if it has been tampered with, but I'm not 100% certain. It's probably ok.
Why aren't you eating it?
I should have clarified, I said that as part of the British science community.
It should have been much more quickly and decisively stepped on.
And as for the media acknowledging its wrongdoing, it can *barely* bring itself to say "hacking a dead girl's voicemail was wrong, and deleting her messages to get more story material was possibly a little outside the rules". You had a former NotW editor trying to defend the position on Newsnight. Laughable.
In this case, the primary blame belongs with the self-appointed "guardian of the public morals" the Daily Mail, but since when is that new?
You have very succinctly made my point for me.
So, to sum up:
1) national healthcare systems reduce the cost for everyone
2) a side effect is free healthcare for those who "game" the system
3) to prevent people gaming the system and solely working on the basis of "personal responsibility" you would prefer to stay in a private system where you would pay more for the same care, purely because going to a national system would allow point two to happen, but it's ok because *you're* ok and covered, even though you're paying considerably more than you need to.
That's called "cutting your nose off to spite your face", and is a very short sighted and limited view.
Certainly advocate for personal responsibility, but also understand that there will always be people gaming the system (as well as people who are genuinely hard up and doing their best to get out of it). The fact that people like that exist is not a reason to eliminate a beneficial possibility for the vast majority of the population.
The purpose of a national healthcare system isn't to provide free rides to those who abuse the system, it's merely a side effect that can be minimised as much as possible but not eliminated. The benefits to those who *do* take part in it properly (ie, the vast, vast majority of the population) make it extremely worthwhile.
The risk "wasn't zero" (excluding the common risks that the single shots share with the MMR shot) because Andrew Wakefield made up lies designed to do exactly what you did - to select single shots over the MMR shot, since the company he was working for (and being paid very well by) was developing a new single shot measles vaccine.
Of course, instead of convincing people to take the single shot, instead the media circus started and suddenly "common sense" stopped people getting vaccinations *at all*.
It really isn't an ad hominem if it's actually addressing the argument, even if it is a very provocative stance. This same position arises often in the healthcare debate - "why should I pay into a single payer healthcare system so that Joe Sixpack next door who is unemployed and smokes and drinks can get a free lung transplant at my expense!" (even though using a national healthcare system reduces the cost to each person over a private system *and* has the altruistic bonus of covering the less fortunate). They just can't get past the idea that someone might be getting something "they don't deserve" at their expense, even though ultimately they are better off overall.
Herd immunity is exactly the same. Opting out "why should *I* put my kids at risk because your friend is allergic to the vaccine" is just short sighted and selfish. It ignores the fact that if herd immunity drops low enough you are trading a 0.0001% risk for a much higher risk of *actually getting measles* (which I assure you, is worse than the potential minuscule chance of reaction to the vaccine)
I'm sorry, but MMR does not cause autism. It was made up, in order to sell a more profitable (for the guy who made up the lie and the company that paid him) single vaccine.
It has been one of the most shameful situations to come out of the British science community.
The "study" was massively flawed, and the paper has been discredited and removed from publication.
Now, you may have valid concerns over 0.5% reaction rates to administered medicines (allergies, sensitivity to compounds etc) that cause adverse reactions in some people - and so do the medical professionals; it's why we don't routinely vaccinate 100% of the population, but "causing autism" is not one of them.
"Rip, Mix, Burn" had nothing to do with the iTunes Music Store, it was one of Apple's big advertising campaigns for the original iMac (the first with a CD burner) back in the late 90s/early 2000s (I think iTunes was released in late 2000, on OS9). The advert was all about taking all your favourite songs from the CDs you owned (remember CDs?), ripping them in iTunes (way, way, way before it had a music store) and making Mix CDs of your tunes.I was using it as an early data point on how Apple saw music on the Mac for home users - that they should be able to do what they liked with it, and this new fangled "iTunes" and the new CD burner in the iMac allowed them to do this.
The very specific advertising slogan (hence me using it in quotes) was "Rip. Mix. Burn"
(disclaimer, "first with a CD burner" meaning 'first iMac' not 'first computer ever with a CD burner')
Well, the model is clearly designed with small transactions in mind - if a company wants to price their software at a higher value, then those are the breaks.
If you're selling a piece of software that can stand at $100, then the cut Apple takes is hardly important, even if it is $30 per purchase. Those $100 apps are also generating *less* in fees for Apple compared to some of the cheapest apps on the store - to use the ever popular Angry Birds, at £0.59 on the UK store has grossed more than TomTom's GPS navigation app that was initially priced at £70 (now £40).
Rovio is paying Apple more for hosting and payment processing than TomTom, despite selling their app for 118 times less.
You have that exactly backwards.
The App Store (and music store) exist to drive hardware sales. The vast, vast bulk of Apple's profits are from hardware. The App Store and Music Store are weakly profitable for them (it's running a little over break even).
The App Store is very profitable for the developers of apps though (2.5 billion dollars in revenue paid out to third party developers since launch).
Exactly, it was Apple's plan all along, and very successful it was. It's one of the reasons they did not licence the FairPlay dRM system to other companies - they needed it to die off, not become standard.
That would be HFS+ (the filesystem used by OS X)
You say that like Full Screen Apps are a feature.
*mutters something about prying windowed apps from his cold, dead hands*
It's a strawman argument because you've taken the analogy and applied it literally to the argument, as a means of rebuttal.
In other words, you are implying that the OP's stance on jailbreaking is that it's as dangerous and unsavoury as wiring your house shoddily so it creates a fire hazard, when that is clearly not what is being said.