I would, but I can't resize my screen from 640x480 - the settings window is taller than that and the ok button is off the screen with no way to select it. I sent a text from my android phone to someone who could help me fix it, but I don't think he got it. I then logged onto an unsecured wifi access point in the coffee shop I was in, and a guy next to me said "hey, I know that guy in your email address book too!".
I was so frustrated with all these security issues I instead switched to BeOS.
I can see exactly why this has happened. The offending malware is a trojan, that is installed via social engineering.
It have seen a couple of hits lately on google image search, where clicking on one of the images takes you to a remote server where you get the familiar-to-windows-users "this is your hard drive" trick, where the browser shows a reasonable approximation of a Finder window, and shows a "scanning for viruses" progress bar, followed by an inevitable "your computer is at risk! click here to fix the problem!". I assume the link takes you to a site that downloads the "MacProtector" trojan which is what many people have been complaining about - essentially a simple program with no close button or quit option that nags you to pay for removal software. The website clearly uses browser detection and just serves up the appropriate windows/osx version of the con page.
You can kill it using the terminal, or using command+option+escape, or from the Activity Monitor (and it's not sophisticated enough to be able to stop you, if you know how to terminate processes unlike some of the more nasty malware on windows that disables the task manager etc). I suspect that it's only a matter of time before it gets more difficult to remove.
However, the term "malware explosion" seems very sensationalist - it's *a* piece of malware that has hit a lot of clueless users all of a sudden who are not used to dealing with this sort of thing due to the generally low malware issue on OS X to date.
Mac OS X users need to be aware of social engineering scams like this and to be careful about what they install (this is not a virus or drive by install) - it's no different to the trojan that was being distributed in the warez copy of Office for Mac that deleted files etc, just that the delivery method can now target people who are simply browsing google image search.
As always with security-related stories, no Mac users don't think our platform is immune to threats. It seems the only people making those sort of wild claims are the anti-Mac people who crow that it's what they think we would say (wow, awkward sentence). There are no "immune" systems, merely "safer" vs "less safe".
When it comes to trojans though, every OS is equally vulnerable, although this is skewed by the userbase somewhat (for example, far fewer 'normal' computer users on Linux distros who would be taken in by the social engineering). If we assume the Mac and Windows user base is broadly the same in terms of distribution (ie, from clueless all the way up to power users) then it is only a matter of time before a "big" trojan comes along for OS X - and here it is.
Calling it a "malware explosion" is just inaccurate though.
Smallpox has taught us a great deal about diseases and how to cure them, including novel methods that have lead to cures for other diseases. The study of it has barely scratched the surface.
Destroying it and taking your closed-minded, narrow approach is like throwing out "OtherOS" on the PS3 because it can be used to facility game piracy. That's the only possible use for it, right?
Oh it definitely does - off the top of my head: the currency converter widget if you have it enabled, the date and time if you have it set to use Apple's server for accurate time, the push notification system on iOS if you have it on, OS X software update, system prefs networking (in the same manner as this Windows thing, to probe network connectivity).
And, for things on your internal network, Bonjour services like "I'm awake" and "any other zeroconf stuff out there?", or "I'm going to sleep, please send a WoL if you need any services I have running".
The "oh, it's all the cost of doing business" excuse is bogus. VAT in the UK is 20%, and we're on the high side. There's no way that VAT+duty/currency exchange fees comes to 40% more. It's just plain customer unfairness.
* You claimed no one was forcing people to do things they didn't want to do in their job. * I suggested it wasn't that simple, since not everyone has the luxury to risk their income on ideology. * you suggested that yes, you totally should and that anything other than rigidly adhering to your own morals in the course of your low paying job was "cowardice" * I suggest this is a naive outlook since people's circumstances often leave them with little option. * You handwave away family commitments, calling them "optional" and "you chose to have them, so it's your own fault" * You suggest that being homeless, even briefly, is preferable to putting up with a bad employer while you attempt to find better employment. * You suggest that the welfare state will adequately take care if you in a timely fashion (I assure you, it does not - hooray for red tape, however don;t let this be an indicator that I am against it, I am so left leaning my right foot is not load bearing). * My suggestion that your view is somewhat blinkered, and that every person who doesn;t immediately walk away from a moral issue with their employer is a coward is a vastly, vastly simplistic viewpoint that ignores a large amount of evidence to the contrary is ignored or handwaved away.
Let's face it, your original comments were absurdly simplistic and naive and you got called on them, by more than just me, and you've been trying to dig your way out of it ever since.
And in your argument, despite your "careful choice of vocabulary" you are ignoring a major part of the issue that while people are not literally forced do things at their job that they may not agree with on moral grounds, they may not have a choice in a practical sense. You then further compound this by labelling anyone who "doesn't have the courage" (ie, who might not be able to so easily give up the job - because that is what is at stake her - you either do the job, get fired or quit at the level we are talking) as a "coward" when it is just not that simple.
I am sure there are some who just surf along under the radar and don;t rock the boat through cowardice, but there are an equal or (in my experience) a much greater number of those who are simply stuck with their lot. It is not as simple as merely not doing something you disagree with in our example of a tech support role, or a salesman, or a janitor in a planned parenthood clinic / tea party headquarters, BNP Village Fete coordinator / Mosque window cleaner etc etc.
The welfare state ostensibly looks after everyone when they need it, but it is not always so clear cut or available in time.
Also, note no back-pedalling - simply a restatement of my "wild assumption" bait until you took it. Back pedalling would be an attempt to reframe my argument - the fact that it happens to correlate with my assessment that you are naive in your outlook on this issue is merely useful coincidence, although your argument *is* rooted in the safety of someone who has a security net to fall into if they're faced with a choice like this. You just conveniently ignore that not everyone has that available to them when making your argument that "technically" people aren't forced, and thus it mist clearly and unambiguously be a demonstration of cowardice with no other possible explanations.
Ah, and now you've taken the really quite obvious bait. My assumptions about your existence are just as valid as the ones you made in your original post; that is, almost certainly erroneous. It just serves to highlight the point all the more effectively that the world is not as cut and dried as a glib soundbite makes it out to be. "The poor are only poor because they don't work hard", "there's no such thing as being 'forced' to keep a job - you can simply leave!", "my personal circumstances apply to everyone, so if I don't need help then neither should my neighbour!".
As it happens I have an excellent relationship with both of my parents, thanks for asking.
Your point, when we boil right down to it, is that in the Western world, anyone can just leave their job at any time if they disagree with what's happening there (or for any reason) and be just fine and dandy. I am telling you (as are many others) that even with a welfare state that is simply not the case for a vast number of people.To think otherwise, in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary, is simply naive - as I stated originally.
You are just ranting now, and pulling in edge-cases to further your trolling (I really hope it's trolling for your own sake, lest you eventually get hit in the face by the real world).
"Reason" has nothing to do with it, since it's very clear that your argument has no foundation, that you lost the argument after the first round of replies from multiple people and are now scratching around desperately for something to make us all go "oh of course, I didn't think of that one tiny edge case, now everything is suddenly totally different from everything I ever experienced; we bow to the armchair quarterback".
I'm not sure you're going to find it. My own argument comes from personal experience and good old fashioned learning.
But hey, if you want me to be all "moral at the expense of safety and security" then you won't mind if I crash in your mom's basement? She can pay for my food, my heat, my power and my computer+net connection (since posting on slashdot seems to be part of all this), yes? As long as I'm doing it for "moral reasons".
My god, I was joking about living in your mom's basement and never having seen the sun or provided for yourself, but now I see it's either totally accurate or you're trolling expertly.
What would have happened if you didn't pay those bills/rent? It sounds like you chose the easy, immoral option and you're hiding your own shame by shaking your fists in the air at those who wouldn't (and don't). Of course, you may have sabotaged your employer by deliberately performing "badly", i.e. being honest, in which case - bravo!
What do you think would happen if I stop paying for food and shelter? I was subsisting at the time as it was and did not have the luxury of turning down work. It's very easy to take an idealistic stand from the comfort of your hypothetical armchair, but when you really *are* living paycheck to paycheck things are a little different. I am fortunate to live in a country with a reasonably good welfare state but as a relatively young single male I am pretty far down the totem pole, and even jobseekers' allowance is pretty thin when you have more than the most lean of expenses.
You can talk all you want about "taking the easy way out" but its all so much hot air that I've heard before. You try living at the very thin end of the wedge and tell me how "easy" everything is.
In what way am I "angrily shaking my fist" at "those who [don't take jobs they find immoral]"? At no point have I said that at all - my point is very clearly that not everyone has the ability to flippantly walk away from paying work. I applaud those who do 'take a stand', and envy those who can take that stand because they are well supported via other means (and my goodness the current generation is entitled), but don;t mistake that for being angry; it is merely an observation.
If you haven't learned already because of your sheltered existence then you soon will, that not everyone is as fortunate as you are. If you have the luxury of turning down a job for any reason then congratulations, you are very fortunate. Don't pretend that the inability of others to do the same is in any way an indication of their moral failing.
Haha, that's rich playing the "breaking the chains of oppression" card for a tech support job. I know, I know, 'from the smallest acorn comes the mightiest oak' etc, but come on - you're now clutching at straws because people called you on your naive statement that has the wash of "mom and dad's support mechanism" decision making.
As for me, well you have no idea what I am like or what my circumstances are although you're clearly welcome to just assume. Suffice to say I've never actually worked a 9-5, but then I am also aware of the fortunate position I am in. Doesn't mean I'm unaware of others though, or that I think everyone is like me; on the contrary, I am well aware that not everyone is like me at all, and that we don't all have the same choices and circumstances available to us. In other words, I have lived in the real world and it's not as black and white as you like to make out from the no-natural-light basement room of your mom's house; at least, that's how your arguments sound.
I did work as a door to door salesman for a few weeks because I had no choice and I had bills and rent to pay. It was the least comfortable thing I ever did because I absolutely disagreed with their sales tactics - especially preying on the elderly (we sold double glazing and other home improvements, often that were unnecessary). As soon as I was able, I left but I didn't have the luxury of simply walking away.
Idealistic causes are all very well and good, as long as you can afford the food and shelter to fight them.
The iPads currently don;t have the high dpi display that the iPhone 4 has - I expect it to be in the next iPad (I mean, what else are they going to do to improve it, other than increase cpu and gpu power - they seem to be shunning external connectors and card slots).
I personally found that the iPad (first gen) was great for watching BBC iPlayer, albeit not HD content and did make me consider getting one for that sort of use in the future, as well as the basic features (casual email, casual games etc). Right now it's a "luxury" that I simply cannot justify since I have a perfectly good desktop machine, but I figure by the time I'm getting paid (partway through a masters right now), they'll have a screen suitable for pretty much any TV content, HD included.
My number for "iPads sold" was for iPhones - the number of iPads sold is about 20 million, not 100 million. Still a nice chunk of volume for a subcontractor though.
Apple: "Hi, we'd like to use this on the iPad 3. We sold 100 million iPads, and iPad 2's are selling at a similar rate. So, how much for 100 million of these displays?"
Samsung (listening to high-school-politics slashdotters): "they are not for sale at any price! muahahahahaha!"
Apple: "Ok, good luck on shipping that volume on the Xoom 2, we'll just go back to LG who make our current iPhone screen and sink the money into R&D for scaling up their own high DPI screen"
In the real world, money talks. Apple has a lot of it, and a track record of high-volume orders. What do you think Samsung is going to do if Apple comes calling, seriously?
Say what you like about Apple, but they are an 800 pound gorilla in the mobile space right now - if they come to you for manufacture of a part for their new mobile device (phone, iPod, tablet) then you bite their hand off to get the pen to sign the deal.
I'm only 30 and my eyesight has deteriorated slightly - I have it corrected just fine with glasses, but reading small text for long periods is still annoying. I think the P has a point; we really need resolution independent widgets in our OSes so we can really take advantage of high DPI displays.
I do agree that we've gone a bit crazy on the widescreen format though.
Ok, so by that yardstick, why all the fuss about Apple being "late" (by a month) in releasing the Webkit changes? Yesterday everyone was telling me that they shouldn't have shipped running binaries until they were ready to release the code, as the GPL requires. (which in my opinion Apple absolutely needs to get sorted immediately)
Now because it's Android and Google they get a pass on that? If they shipped a working tablet then the source code needs to be out there *right now* - that was the whole point of Android in comparison to iOS, I thought?
Remarkable, but unsurprising doublespeak on/.
If it wasn't ready, they shouldn't have released it on the Xoom, but they realised that the "soon, we will have an iPad killer" was getting into a sort of Duke Nukem Forever situation, with Apple one-upping them with the iPad 2 before Android was anywhere close to ready to take them on properly.
I'm not saying it's not a disadvantage - it clearly is a downside, but in the Top Gear instance, they did the full shoot for the day and the car still had 20% charge - enough to drive it 50 miles on normal roads.
And my point is that if you have such a vehicle you plan accordingly (ie, if you want to drive it home afterwards, leave enough charge in it, or arrange enough time to put some charge into it before you go. If you're far enough from the track that you need a significant proportion of the charge to get there then similarly, you need to plan for that. Until we get much faster charging, or systems that enable a hybrid energy storage mode (battery coupled to a super capacitor anyone?), this is something that you have to take into account. Just as you have to if you drive a V12 twin turbo monster while petrol is £5 per gallon. It may take a while to charge up, but power-per-pound/dollar is way ahead of petrol. Perhaps for the cost of the fuel used by the petrol car you could rent a trailer to get the car to the track, or perhaps simply pocket the cash and use it for a nice dinner nearby while you wait for your Tesla to charge up while you do so you can both make the trip home?
iTunes gift cards are bought with money, and are exchanged for an identical amount of money and are *totally optional*, and a common feature among almost all large retailers.
You can use the entirety of the iTunes store and App Store without ever using an iTunes gift card. Just like you can shop in any major retailer without ever buying one of their gift cards and using it for your purchase.
Your attempts to just sling mud at Apple for no good reason because of an optional gift card system that works entirely in the currency of the country you're in (ie, you by a £15 gift card [or receive one as a gift] and you redeem it for £15, that stays in those units on the store), as part of a discussion about a story involving the obfuscation of real money behind virtual currency systems like "points" is just laughably thin.
Nonsense. The Tesla charges to 100% from flat in 3.5 hours on a 240v/90A circuit, so even if you only have access to a domestic socket (240v/13A) you can charge it enough to get home, assuming you're not hundreds of miles away (and if you are, then forward planning really should be included, since if you're at the track with an electric car, you're going to have to charge it when you're done).
On a domestic UK socket you can put about 5 to 10% charge into it in an hour or so - enough for about 25-30 miles.
The lack of planning on the part of the owner is not the car's fault, like running out of petrol when the filling stations are closed is not the fault of the petrol design.
Not always easy. Back when.tv was opened up I immediately registered joe.tv because, hey, it's a three letter domain name that is also my name. It cost me $50 to do (still 'expensive' for a domain name, even then), and I owned it for about 35 hours or so - the DNS changes had just finished settling for me and it was resolving to my online journal.
Then the name company took it off me, because they "accidentally sold it for less than was intended" and all my attempts to say "you sold it, it is now mine" were met with "we're bigger than you, you won't win this".
The domain was relisted for $1500/pa. I guess first come, first serve is fine... if you're a big company with money to spend. This wasn't even a case that someone wanted it - the registrar realised that they could sell it for more and took it back off me. They did at least refund my money, but that really isn't the point. Right now, the domain is sitting idle.
Slashdot Mirror
I would, but I can't resize my screen from 640x480 - the settings window is taller than that and the ok button is off the screen with no way to select it. I sent a text from my android phone to someone who could help me fix it, but I don't think he got it. I then logged onto an unsecured wifi access point in the coffee shop I was in, and a guy next to me said "hey, I know that guy in your email address book too!".
I was so frustrated with all these security issues I instead switched to BeOS.
I can see exactly why this has happened. The offending malware is a trojan, that is installed via social engineering.
It have seen a couple of hits lately on google image search, where clicking on one of the images takes you to a remote server where you get the familiar-to-windows-users "this is your hard drive" trick, where the browser shows a reasonable approximation of a Finder window, and shows a "scanning for viruses" progress bar, followed by an inevitable "your computer is at risk! click here to fix the problem!". I assume the link takes you to a site that downloads the "MacProtector" trojan which is what many people have been complaining about - essentially a simple program with no close button or quit option that nags you to pay for removal software. The website clearly uses browser detection and just serves up the appropriate windows/osx version of the con page.
You can kill it using the terminal, or using command+option+escape, or from the Activity Monitor (and it's not sophisticated enough to be able to stop you, if you know how to terminate processes unlike some of the more nasty malware on windows that disables the task manager etc). I suspect that it's only a matter of time before it gets more difficult to remove.
However, the term "malware explosion" seems very sensationalist - it's *a* piece of malware that has hit a lot of clueless users all of a sudden who are not used to dealing with this sort of thing due to the generally low malware issue on OS X to date.
Mac OS X users need to be aware of social engineering scams like this and to be careful about what they install (this is not a virus or drive by install) - it's no different to the trojan that was being distributed in the warez copy of Office for Mac that deleted files etc, just that the delivery method can now target people who are simply browsing google image search.
As always with security-related stories, no Mac users don't think our platform is immune to threats. It seems the only people making those sort of wild claims are the anti-Mac people who crow that it's what they think we would say (wow, awkward sentence). There are no "immune" systems, merely "safer" vs "less safe".
When it comes to trojans though, every OS is equally vulnerable, although this is skewed by the userbase somewhat (for example, far fewer 'normal' computer users on Linux distros who would be taken in by the social engineering). If we assume the Mac and Windows user base is broadly the same in terms of distribution (ie, from clueless all the way up to power users) then it is only a matter of time before a "big" trojan comes along for OS X - and here it is.
Calling it a "malware explosion" is just inaccurate though.
Smallpox has taught us a great deal about diseases and how to cure them, including novel methods that have lead to cures for other diseases. The study of it has barely scratched the surface.
Destroying it and taking your closed-minded, narrow approach is like throwing out "OtherOS" on the PS3 because it can be used to facility game piracy. That's the only possible use for it, right?
Just checking.
Oh it definitely does - off the top of my head: the currency converter widget if you have it enabled, the date and time if you have it set to use Apple's server for accurate time, the push notification system on iOS if you have it on, OS X software update, system prefs networking (in the same manner as this Windows thing, to probe network connectivity).
And, for things on your internal network, Bonjour services like "I'm awake" and "any other zeroconf stuff out there?", or "I'm going to sleep, please send a WoL if you need any services I have running".
Nowhere near 40%.
The "oh, it's all the cost of doing business" excuse is bogus. VAT in the UK is 20%, and we're on the high side. There's no way that VAT+duty/currency exchange fees comes to 40% more. It's just plain customer unfairness.
Mods, really? How the hell is this offtopic?
"Welcome to the 4th annual cider making conference, hosted at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA"
"I brought some apples."
"Sorry, those are offtopic."
No, read it carefully - it is well stated.
We'll bullet point it.
* You claimed no one was forcing people to do things they didn't want to do in their job.
* I suggested it wasn't that simple, since not everyone has the luxury to risk their income on ideology.
* you suggested that yes, you totally should and that anything other than rigidly adhering to your own morals in the course of your low paying job was "cowardice"
* I suggest this is a naive outlook since people's circumstances often leave them with little option.
* You handwave away family commitments, calling them "optional" and "you chose to have them, so it's your own fault"
* You suggest that being homeless, even briefly, is preferable to putting up with a bad employer while you attempt to find better employment.
* You suggest that the welfare state will adequately take care if you in a timely fashion (I assure you, it does not - hooray for red tape, however don;t let this be an indicator that I am against it, I am so left leaning my right foot is not load bearing).
* My suggestion that your view is somewhat blinkered, and that every person who doesn;t immediately walk away from a moral issue with their employer is a coward is a vastly, vastly simplistic viewpoint that ignores a large amount of evidence to the contrary is ignored or handwaved away.
Let's face it, your original comments were absurdly simplistic and naive and you got called on them, by more than just me, and you've been trying to dig your way out of it ever since.
And in your argument, despite your "careful choice of vocabulary" you are ignoring a major part of the issue that while people are not literally forced do things at their job that they may not agree with on moral grounds, they may not have a choice in a practical sense. You then further compound this by labelling anyone who "doesn't have the courage" (ie, who might not be able to so easily give up the job - because that is what is at stake her - you either do the job, get fired or quit at the level we are talking) as a "coward" when it is just not that simple.
I am sure there are some who just surf along under the radar and don;t rock the boat through cowardice, but there are an equal or (in my experience) a much greater number of those who are simply stuck with their lot. It is not as simple as merely not doing something you disagree with in our example of a tech support role, or a salesman, or a janitor in a planned parenthood clinic / tea party headquarters, BNP Village Fete coordinator / Mosque window cleaner etc etc.
The welfare state ostensibly looks after everyone when they need it, but it is not always so clear cut or available in time.
Also, note no back-pedalling - simply a restatement of my "wild assumption" bait until you took it. Back pedalling would be an attempt to reframe my argument - the fact that it happens to correlate with my assessment that you are naive in your outlook on this issue is merely useful coincidence, although your argument *is* rooted in the safety of someone who has a security net to fall into if they're faced with a choice like this. You just conveniently ignore that not everyone has that available to them when making your argument that "technically" people aren't forced, and thus it mist clearly and unambiguously be a demonstration of cowardice with no other possible explanations.
Ah, and now you've taken the really quite obvious bait. My assumptions about your existence are just as valid as the ones you made in your original post; that is, almost certainly erroneous. It just serves to highlight the point all the more effectively that the world is not as cut and dried as a glib soundbite makes it out to be. "The poor are only poor because they don't work hard", "there's no such thing as being 'forced' to keep a job - you can simply leave!", "my personal circumstances apply to everyone, so if I don't need help then neither should my neighbour!".
As it happens I have an excellent relationship with both of my parents, thanks for asking.
Your point, when we boil right down to it, is that in the Western world, anyone can just leave their job at any time if they disagree with what's happening there (or for any reason) and be just fine and dandy. I am telling you (as are many others) that even with a welfare state that is simply not the case for a vast number of people.To think otherwise, in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary, is simply naive - as I stated originally.
You are just ranting now, and pulling in edge-cases to further your trolling (I really hope it's trolling for your own sake, lest you eventually get hit in the face by the real world).
"Reason" has nothing to do with it, since it's very clear that your argument has no foundation, that you lost the argument after the first round of replies from multiple people and are now scratching around desperately for something to make us all go "oh of course, I didn't think of that one tiny edge case, now everything is suddenly totally different from everything I ever experienced; we bow to the armchair quarterback".
I'm not sure you're going to find it. My own argument comes from personal experience and good old fashioned learning.
But hey, if you want me to be all "moral at the expense of safety and security" then you won't mind if I crash in your mom's basement? She can pay for my food, my heat, my power and my computer+net connection (since posting on slashdot seems to be part of all this), yes? As long as I'm doing it for "moral reasons".
My god, I was joking about living in your mom's basement and never having seen the sun or provided for yourself, but now I see it's either totally accurate or you're trolling expertly.
I wouldn't bet money on the latter.
What would have happened if you didn't pay those bills/rent? It sounds like you chose the easy, immoral option and you're hiding your own shame by shaking your fists in the air at those who wouldn't (and don't). Of course, you may have sabotaged your employer by deliberately performing "badly", i.e. being honest, in which case - bravo!
What do you think would happen if I stop paying for food and shelter? I was subsisting at the time as it was and did not have the luxury of turning down work. It's very easy to take an idealistic stand from the comfort of your hypothetical armchair, but when you really *are* living paycheck to paycheck things are a little different. I am fortunate to live in a country with a reasonably good welfare state but as a relatively young single male I am pretty far down the totem pole, and even jobseekers' allowance is pretty thin when you have more than the most lean of expenses.
You can talk all you want about "taking the easy way out" but its all so much hot air that I've heard before. You try living at the very thin end of the wedge and tell me how "easy" everything is.
In what way am I "angrily shaking my fist" at "those who [don't take jobs they find immoral]"? At no point have I said that at all - my point is very clearly that not everyone has the ability to flippantly walk away from paying work. I applaud those who do 'take a stand', and envy those who can take that stand because they are well supported via other means (and my goodness the current generation is entitled), but don;t mistake that for being angry; it is merely an observation.
If you haven't learned already because of your sheltered existence then you soon will, that not everyone is as fortunate as you are. If you have the luxury of turning down a job for any reason then congratulations, you are very fortunate. Don't pretend that the inability of others to do the same is in any way an indication of their moral failing.
Haha, that's rich playing the "breaking the chains of oppression" card for a tech support job. I know, I know, 'from the smallest acorn comes the mightiest oak' etc, but come on - you're now clutching at straws because people called you on your naive statement that has the wash of "mom and dad's support mechanism" decision making.
As for me, well you have no idea what I am like or what my circumstances are although you're clearly welcome to just assume. Suffice to say I've never actually worked a 9-5, but then I am also aware of the fortunate position I am in. Doesn't mean I'm unaware of others though, or that I think everyone is like me; on the contrary, I am well aware that not everyone is like me at all, and that we don't all have the same choices and circumstances available to us. In other words, I have lived in the real world and it's not as black and white as you like to make out from the no-natural-light basement room of your mom's house; at least, that's how your arguments sound.
I did work as a door to door salesman for a few weeks because I had no choice and I had bills and rent to pay. It was the least comfortable thing I ever did because I absolutely disagreed with their sales tactics - especially preying on the elderly (we sold double glazing and other home improvements, often that were unnecessary). As soon as I was able, I left but I didn't have the luxury of simply walking away.
Idealistic causes are all very well and good, as long as you can afford the food and shelter to fight them.
Not everyone can live in their mom's basement eating Cheez Its and drinking Mountain Dew while they search for another job.
Protip: some people actually live in the real world.
The iPads currently don;t have the high dpi display that the iPhone 4 has - I expect it to be in the next iPad (I mean, what else are they going to do to improve it, other than increase cpu and gpu power - they seem to be shunning external connectors and card slots).
I personally found that the iPad (first gen) was great for watching BBC iPlayer, albeit not HD content and did make me consider getting one for that sort of use in the future, as well as the basic features (casual email, casual games etc). Right now it's a "luxury" that I simply cannot justify since I have a perfectly good desktop machine, but I figure by the time I'm getting paid (partway through a masters right now), they'll have a screen suitable for pretty much any TV content, HD included.
My number for "iPads sold" was for iPhones - the number of iPads sold is about 20 million, not 100 million. Still a nice chunk of volume for a subcontractor though.
Apple: "Hi, we'd like to use this on the iPad 3. We sold 100 million iPads, and iPad 2's are selling at a similar rate. So, how much for 100 million of these displays?"
Samsung (listening to high-school-politics slashdotters): "they are not for sale at any price! muahahahahaha!"
Apple: "Ok, good luck on shipping that volume on the Xoom 2, we'll just go back to LG who make our current iPhone screen and sink the money into R&D for scaling up their own high DPI screen"
In the real world, money talks. Apple has a lot of it, and a track record of high-volume orders. What do you think Samsung is going to do if Apple comes calling, seriously?
Say what you like about Apple, but they are an 800 pound gorilla in the mobile space right now - if they come to you for manufacture of a part for their new mobile device (phone, iPod, tablet) then you bite their hand off to get the pen to sign the deal.
Oh how I wish my eyes were still that good!
I'm only 30 and my eyesight has deteriorated slightly - I have it corrected just fine with glasses, but reading small text for long periods is still annoying. I think the P has a point; we really need resolution independent widgets in our OSes so we can really take advantage of high DPI displays.
I do agree that we've gone a bit crazy on the widescreen format though.
Ok, so by that yardstick, why all the fuss about Apple being "late" (by a month) in releasing the Webkit changes? Yesterday everyone was telling me that they shouldn't have shipped running binaries until they were ready to release the code, as the GPL requires. (which in my opinion Apple absolutely needs to get sorted immediately)
Now because it's Android and Google they get a pass on that? If they shipped a working tablet then the source code needs to be out there *right now* - that was the whole point of Android in comparison to iOS, I thought?
Remarkable, but unsurprising doublespeak on /.
If it wasn't ready, they shouldn't have released it on the Xoom, but they realised that the "soon, we will have an iPad killer" was getting into a sort of Duke Nukem Forever situation, with Apple one-upping them with the iPad 2 before Android was anywhere close to ready to take them on properly.
I'm not saying it's not a disadvantage - it clearly is a downside, but in the Top Gear instance, they did the full shoot for the day and the car still had 20% charge - enough to drive it 50 miles on normal roads.
And my point is that if you have such a vehicle you plan accordingly (ie, if you want to drive it home afterwards, leave enough charge in it, or arrange enough time to put some charge into it before you go. If you're far enough from the track that you need a significant proportion of the charge to get there then similarly, you need to plan for that. Until we get much faster charging, or systems that enable a hybrid energy storage mode (battery coupled to a super capacitor anyone?), this is something that you have to take into account. Just as you have to if you drive a V12 twin turbo monster while petrol is £5 per gallon. It may take a while to charge up, but power-per-pound/dollar is way ahead of petrol. Perhaps for the cost of the fuel used by the petrol car you could rent a trailer to get the car to the track, or perhaps simply pocket the cash and use it for a nice dinner nearby while you wait for your Tesla to charge up while you do so you can both make the trip home?
iTunes gift cards are bought with money, and are exchanged for an identical amount of money and are *totally optional*, and a common feature among almost all large retailers.
You can use the entirety of the iTunes store and App Store without ever using an iTunes gift card. Just like you can shop in any major retailer without ever buying one of their gift cards and using it for your purchase.
Your attempts to just sling mud at Apple for no good reason because of an optional gift card system that works entirely in the currency of the country you're in (ie, you by a £15 gift card [or receive one as a gift] and you redeem it for £15, that stays in those units on the store), as part of a discussion about a story involving the obfuscation of real money behind virtual currency systems like "points" is just laughably thin.
The phrase is "grasping at straws".
Nonsense. The Tesla charges to 100% from flat in 3.5 hours on a 240v/90A circuit, so even if you only have access to a domestic socket (240v/13A) you can charge it enough to get home, assuming you're not hundreds of miles away (and if you are, then forward planning really should be included, since if you're at the track with an electric car, you're going to have to charge it when you're done).
On a domestic UK socket you can put about 5 to 10% charge into it in an hour or so - enough for about 25-30 miles.
The lack of planning on the part of the owner is not the car's fault, like running out of petrol when the filling stations are closed is not the fault of the petrol design.
Can you compress air in a German fashion too?
Not always easy. Back when .tv was opened up I immediately registered joe.tv because, hey, it's a three letter domain name that is also my name. It cost me $50 to do (still 'expensive' for a domain name, even then), and I owned it for about 35 hours or so - the DNS changes had just finished settling for me and it was resolving to my online journal.
Then the name company took it off me, because they "accidentally sold it for less than was intended" and all my attempts to say "you sold it, it is now mine" were met with "we're bigger than you, you won't win this".
The domain was relisted for $1500/pa. I guess first come, first serve is fine... if you're a big company with money to spend. This wasn't even a case that someone wanted it - the registrar realised that they could sell it for more and took it back off me. They did at least refund my money, but that really isn't the point. Right now, the domain is sitting idle.
What have Apple got to do with this?
All their iTMS and App Store purchases are done with actual money.
Or were you just lumping them in for good measure, just because?