According to/. Apple is "dying" in the smartphone marketplace under withering domination by Android. If that's the case, how can they be in violation of antitrust laws if they are not in a monopoly position? Surely consumers are free to choose another platform? Or is all of the Android talk simply false?
It's either one or the other. (Hint: Android's marketshare is not made up).
Your point might be more potent if the App Store wasn't run at near break even. The 30% cut for app purchases covers hosting, bandwidth and payment processing.
Now, the in-app 30% seems very harsh, but it has been suggested it exists to limit the ability of app developers to "dodge" the 30% service fee by giving the app away for free and then charging in-app to upgrade it. Whatever the reason, I think the in-app purchase policy needs to be looked at, and certainly when combined with the other conditions that prevent companies from offering different prices for the same things in other stores (eg, Amazon's own kindle store vs in-app on iOS need to be the same price, inclusive of the 30% cut).
Either way, the 30% cut for the app purchase itself is nowhere near "excessive" given that it covers specific services (*especially* payment processing) on behalf of the developer. It's practically a steal to not have to deal with that nonsense in-house.
If you approach it from the standpoint that there's possibly "some sort of global scarcity" tactic where every single scientist is somehow involved in a secret cabal, then I'm not sure any evidence one way or the other is going to swing it. I mean, in that situation any evidence that supports you is "proof of the conspiracy!!!" and any that doesn't is "part of the conspiracy of lies".
How about more along the lines of a "Good ol' Boy" network with lots of groupthink and tribalism.
If you think that describes the scientific community as a whole (as in, across the globe and involving every institution that does any research related to climate change) then you've clearly never met any scientists!
The fact that you're calling people "warmists" is really not helping your case here. It's clear you have made up your mind that the science is simply wrong.
Grab any number of science journals going back over a decade and follow the papers that have been published. Those that have stood up to extensive peer review all have the same trend - an imperfect system that is obviously going to have a number of professionals phoning it in, but given the extensively large nature and vast number of papers and research involved it can't all be put down to a couple of guys "never requesting data for review".
If that's the best you can do, then it's hardly much to worry about, other than the clear point that peer review is misunderstood by the general public and that scientific research has an image problem and does not know how to deal with well-funded smear campaigns. Their opponents have had years of political campaign experience to hone their skills.
A scientist isn't a "warmist" - your label clearly demonstrates that you think they approached their research with a specific end goal in mind (sort of how climate change denial works - setting out with a specific agenda). Science doesn't work like that, and the fact that you think it does suggests you are attributing ulterior motives to scientists that you disagree with.
That last line is the whole point - that you can post a comment like yours and yet feel that it specifically applies to climate science only. What you have posted, with the pros and cons of various studies and data and different scientists is true of ALL science. Ask a hundred scientists about the Higgs Boson and you'll get about 70 different answers, along with a great many complaining about the cost of the LHC. Climate science is no different, but these totally normal differences of opinion between scientists (as well as them arguing over how to interpret various data and models) has been seized by those with an agenda to push (specifically that AGW does not exist) and painted to be much more than it is (ie, that it means scientists are 'divided' on the topic).
There's no way you're ever going to find total consensus on the data as a whole, primarily because there is so much of it and it's impossible for every scientist to review every single piece of it, and secondly because by its very nature experimental evidence is going to be seen differently by different scientists. The magic trick that the denialists have pulled off is to make people believe "no 100% consensus" = "scientists lying" = "scientists infighting" = "heroic underdog scientists trying to bring you 'the truth' being silenced" when it simply isn't so.
Based on current scientific understanding and research, AGW is a significant contributor to the overall models we have. Where it all falls down is when non-scientists start wading into the debate and throwing doubt into people's minds not about the science itself (although there have been some serious attempts) but on the integrity of the scientists themselves by manufacturing controversy that simply does not exist.
"Trust but verify" is exactly how peer reviewed science works.
The fact that climate change denialists have resorted to attacking the personal integrity of the scientists involved speaks volumes. There are volumes and volumes of data and experiments that suggest that AGW is a significant effect. Whether that causes some doomsday scenario is impossible to say. There's no simple "heads I win, tails you lose", not least because the data set and research covers thousands of scientists and thousands and thousands of experiments.
Without any data to hand, it is difficult to say one way or the other - I certainly can't say for sure (unlike the OP who does assert one specific position with no evidence).
My position is that as a member of the scientific community, I tend to agree with most of the peer-reviewed science on AGW - more specifically the chemistry aspects (as a chemist, it's the easiest stuff for me to digest beyond the abstracts).
My point would be to look at the models used and data collected from a wide variety of different scientists and institutions. If you approach it from the standpoint that there's possibly "some sort of global scarcity" tactic where every single scientist is somehow involved in a secret cabal, then I'm not sure any evidence one way or the other is going to swing it. I mean, in that situation any evidence that supports you is "proof of the conspiracy!!!" and any that doesn't is "part of the conspiracy of lies".
Standing back and looking at the whole system objectively really doesn't suggest such a thing.
Very arrogant of you to assume I'm going to "learn" anything from that site, or that I won't assess the site's contents and draw my own conclusions based on my experience (I am scientist).
I may be lazy, there't no argument there. I'm also a terrible procrastinator, but I tend to find that actually looking at a source is useful before dismissing it. I mean, it doesn't help that the site is owned and run by a well-known AGW denier with an agenda - also famous for banning extracts being used in certain newspapers after they were critical of him - how very scientifically professional! I really want to put my trust in him! I mean, he can come out against the vast, vast majority of the scientific community and tell everyone they are wrong, but if a newspaper criticises his work in any way then he bans them from quoting him or using extracts! That's not at all hypocritical! It's certainly not the antithesis of how scientific discourse works!
I think perhaps you should look into more sources than just those promoted by prominent Climate Change Deniers who can't accept criticism of their work for some reason (perhaps because it's been shown to not stand up to peer review? naaahhhh! couldn't be that!).
No, what I'm saying is the exact opposite of that.
The OP brought up the truck and drew a generalisation, only for someone to call out that it was such and that because he drove a truck and yet didn't fit the mould that it was obviously a generalisation.
I'm not disputing that, however, I am asserting that you don't even need to go as far as the vehicle the OP drives given the sum total of the original post was a bunch of ill-informed, citation-free ranting about how climate science is merely some political tool.
I think you need to take some first grade level science classes before giving your "informed" opinion on how you think climate change, and how specifically the mechanisms of AGW work.
Yes, that's fine and all, but I bet those who *don't* fit that redneck mould wouldn't post this:
The planet has been heating up since the ice age. Other planets in the system are heating up too. If you want to think the sky is falling to play into some global scarcity tactic that's cool, but I'm going to keep driving my truck to work.
Which reads like he took it off the back of a "what the scary libruls want U to beleeeve" flyer handed out at a teabagger rally.
We have plenty of trustworthy science, but a huge and well funded propaganda machine telling people that those scientists are untrustworthy and "politically motivated". You've bought into the propaganda machine hook, line and sinker.
Now, there will certainly be cases of scientists and professionals that are crooked and politically/financially motivated (see, for example, Andrew Wakefield and vaccines - a whole, damaging scare because he wanted to make money off his competing vaccine for MMR), or the "cold fusion" science researchers, but they are very swiftly exposed by peer review.
That intelligent people can still be claiming that "nothing a climate scientist puts out" is trustworthy at all is just a demonstration of how powerful people like like Koch brothers are and how effective extremely large dumptrucks full of money are at running propaganda campaigns.
It doesn't help that very few people are able to interpret the data for themselves and must rely on an actual scientist, and somehow when this is related to climate science that's seen as a bad thing? Ask yourself why that is; why it has become ingrained to look at only climate science and say "I don't understand this data so it's clearly a trick!". This doesn't happen in other fields with equally difficult and impenetrable data, like cancer research or quantum mechanics - there's been no pervasive, relentless smear campaign that results in anything those scientists say being dismissed out of hand because they're "politically motivated and untrustworthy".
After the retraction, I don't know if I even care if this is Apple at this point. Quite frankly I'd be surprised if this was at the plant producing Apple goods. The latest outbreak of suicides and protestations have been over the division that manufactures Xboxes, funny enough.
Not Apple's gear.
I notice a lot of people place a great deal of emphasis on whether it's Apple or not.
All things considered, that's pretty damn sad.
These workers are being mistreated and all you people can think about is whether it has something to do with Apple!
Whether or not Apple is evil is beside the point. Whether or not Apple has something to do with this particular incident in Brazil is beside the point. The point is, these workers are being mistreated, and the first thing you people think about is Apple! Frankly, that's fucking insane.
A lot of people place emphasis on it because the counter is true - Apple is being beaten with this stick, so when it's *not* anything to do with Apple, why is that suddenly wrong to point that out? This is not an attempt to justify worker abuse, but aiming the criticism at the right companies involved is a good start. Not to mention that making stuff up and claiming it is true (Mike Daisey) does more harm to your cause than anything else.
Apple (and others) need to be taken to task for sure, but unless the criticism is wielded accurately, people will simply assume you're the boy crying wolf again and stop taking the issue seriously, which is the worst thing that could happen.
And to be fair, he already covered your exception - unless being an Android enthusiast doesn't accurately cover someone who specifically avoids Apple products?
Then you accused him of being a paid shill for Apple, and got faux-offended when he responded to your insult in kind, so much so that you dug deep for the most juvenile "offensive" comeback that you could muster?
3:2 Pulldown is only for conversion to NTSC (US TV broadcast).
Conversion of film footage to PAL is very definitely just increasing the playback speed by 4%, and it does affect the audio pitch; I've had a couple of US friends comment on how different a (well known) film sounds to them when watching the PAL version.
Their revenue breakdown is in the mid single digits for content while it's something like 60%+ for iOS hardware. The content stores merely act as a driver for hardware sales, and always have.
The most expensive iPad was *never* over $1000, even at launch.
There was a lot of talk in the run up to the announcement that it would be hugely expensive and "well over $1000 because it's Apple" only for all those predictions being quietly swept under the carpet when the actual prices were announced.
Then, of course, everyone started on how the iPad (the first gen) would be quickly destroyed by the soon-to-come "cheaper", "faster", "better" Android tablets... and we're still waiting, three generations on. The closest I ever saw was the Transformer, which was $100 cheaper than the iPad 2 and comparable to it, only for the retina iPad to come out and leave everyone trying to catch up again.
It's not often Apple competes on price, but in the tablet market they really are, and have since the launch of the original iPad.
Or tell her to go and buy an Apple TV (or other brand of ready made box, like the Google TV box whatever it's called).
That's the whole point of this article - the market is already well served for people like you and I, but it won't properly take off until someone comes along with something simple enough to set up, maintain and use for the average user.
Apple's method, however, is exactly as described - an Apple TV and an iPad combined make a great living room combination. That doesn't mean it's the only way to do it, or that other solutions might be better in some cases.
Apple's method is very easy to set up and use, and doesn't require a computer in the living room that has to pass the (unfortunately named) "wife test" - although I think it should be more accurately named "the non-tech savvy test".
XBMC (and HTPCs in general) are excellent, and I use XBMC all the time but it's not *quite* there yet as a solution that someone like my mother, for example, could use on a regular basis without me going over there every so often to sort out occasional issues that are trivial for a tech literate person to solve in seconds or minutes but that baffle many "normal" people.
That's what the thrust of the article about in-car systems is driving at; if you're technically minded or can handle pressing and configuring many buttons and esoteric menus and so on then the current situation suits you just fine. If there's just one thing that BBC's Top Gear can demonstrate, it's just how unintuitive and woeful modern in-car entertainment and sat nav systems are on many cars, even really expensive and fancy ones. Maybe Apple is not the one to solve that problem (remember them them dipping their toe into the water with BMW officially with the Mini?), but the current state of affairs is crying out for something decent - it's no surprise that the very intuitive and easy to use TomTom satnav became so popular.
Well, if it works as suggested then it will cause those who believe in global warming purely because someone told them it was happening to go and look at the evidence and decide for themselves, in which case they'll keep their opinion intact but will have come to it by a more scientific approach. Win-win.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would they be?
According to /. Apple is "dying" in the smartphone marketplace under withering domination by Android. If that's the case, how can they be in violation of antitrust laws if they are not in a monopoly position? Surely consumers are free to choose another platform? Or is all of the Android talk simply false?
It's either one or the other. (Hint: Android's marketshare is not made up).
Your point might be more potent if the App Store wasn't run at near break even. The 30% cut for app purchases covers hosting, bandwidth and payment processing.
Now, the in-app 30% seems very harsh, but it has been suggested it exists to limit the ability of app developers to "dodge" the 30% service fee by giving the app away for free and then charging in-app to upgrade it. Whatever the reason, I think the in-app purchase policy needs to be looked at, and certainly when combined with the other conditions that prevent companies from offering different prices for the same things in other stores (eg, Amazon's own kindle store vs in-app on iOS need to be the same price, inclusive of the 30% cut).
Either way, the 30% cut for the app purchase itself is nowhere near "excessive" given that it covers specific services (*especially* payment processing) on behalf of the developer. It's practically a steal to not have to deal with that nonsense in-house.
Also, what does Foxxcon have to do with this?
If you approach it from the standpoint that there's possibly "some sort of global scarcity" tactic where every single scientist is somehow involved in a secret cabal, then I'm not sure any evidence one way or the other is going to swing it. I mean, in that situation any evidence that supports you is "proof of the conspiracy!!!" and any that doesn't is "part of the conspiracy of lies".
How about more along the lines of a "Good ol' Boy" network with lots of groupthink and tribalism.
If you think that describes the scientific community as a whole (as in, across the globe and involving every institution that does any research related to climate change) then you've clearly never met any scientists!
The fact that you're calling people "warmists" is really not helping your case here. It's clear you have made up your mind that the science is simply wrong.
Grab any number of science journals going back over a decade and follow the papers that have been published. Those that have stood up to extensive peer review all have the same trend - an imperfect system that is obviously going to have a number of professionals phoning it in, but given the extensively large nature and vast number of papers and research involved it can't all be put down to a couple of guys "never requesting data for review".
If that's the best you can do, then it's hardly much to worry about, other than the clear point that peer review is misunderstood by the general public and that scientific research has an image problem and does not know how to deal with well-funded smear campaigns. Their opponents have had years of political campaign experience to hone their skills.
A scientist isn't a "warmist" - your label clearly demonstrates that you think they approached their research with a specific end goal in mind (sort of how climate change denial works - setting out with a specific agenda). Science doesn't work like that, and the fact that you think it does suggests you are attributing ulterior motives to scientists that you disagree with.
That last line is the whole point - that you can post a comment like yours and yet feel that it specifically applies to climate science only. What you have posted, with the pros and cons of various studies and data and different scientists is true of ALL science. Ask a hundred scientists about the Higgs Boson and you'll get about 70 different answers, along with a great many complaining about the cost of the LHC. Climate science is no different, but these totally normal differences of opinion between scientists (as well as them arguing over how to interpret various data and models) has been seized by those with an agenda to push (specifically that AGW does not exist) and painted to be much more than it is (ie, that it means scientists are 'divided' on the topic).
There's no way you're ever going to find total consensus on the data as a whole, primarily because there is so much of it and it's impossible for every scientist to review every single piece of it, and secondly because by its very nature experimental evidence is going to be seen differently by different scientists. The magic trick that the denialists have pulled off is to make people believe "no 100% consensus" = "scientists lying" = "scientists infighting" = "heroic underdog scientists trying to bring you 'the truth' being silenced" when it simply isn't so.
Based on current scientific understanding and research, AGW is a significant contributor to the overall models we have. Where it all falls down is when non-scientists start wading into the debate and throwing doubt into people's minds not about the science itself (although there have been some serious attempts) but on the integrity of the scientists themselves by manufacturing controversy that simply does not exist.
Cool story bro.
"Trust but verify" is exactly how peer reviewed science works.
The fact that climate change denialists have resorted to attacking the personal integrity of the scientists involved speaks volumes. There are volumes and volumes of data and experiments that suggest that AGW is a significant effect. Whether that causes some doomsday scenario is impossible to say. There's no simple "heads I win, tails you lose", not least because the data set and research covers thousands of scientists and thousands and thousands of experiments.
Without any data to hand, it is difficult to say one way or the other - I certainly can't say for sure (unlike the OP who does assert one specific position with no evidence).
My position is that as a member of the scientific community, I tend to agree with most of the peer-reviewed science on AGW - more specifically the chemistry aspects (as a chemist, it's the easiest stuff for me to digest beyond the abstracts).
My point would be to look at the models used and data collected from a wide variety of different scientists and institutions. If you approach it from the standpoint that there's possibly "some sort of global scarcity" tactic where every single scientist is somehow involved in a secret cabal, then I'm not sure any evidence one way or the other is going to swing it. I mean, in that situation any evidence that supports you is "proof of the conspiracy!!!" and any that doesn't is "part of the conspiracy of lies".
Standing back and looking at the whole system objectively really doesn't suggest such a thing.
Who said I didn't look?
Very arrogant of you to assume I'm going to "learn" anything from that site, or that I won't assess the site's contents and draw my own conclusions based on my experience (I am scientist).
I may be lazy, there't no argument there. I'm also a terrible procrastinator, but I tend to find that actually looking at a source is useful before dismissing it. I mean, it doesn't help that the site is owned and run by a well-known AGW denier with an agenda - also famous for banning extracts being used in certain newspapers after they were critical of him - how very scientifically professional! I really want to put my trust in him! I mean, he can come out against the vast, vast majority of the scientific community and tell everyone they are wrong, but if a newspaper criticises his work in any way then he bans them from quoting him or using extracts! That's not at all hypocritical! It's certainly not the antithesis of how scientific discourse works!
I think perhaps you should look into more sources than just those promoted by prominent Climate Change Deniers who can't accept criticism of their work for some reason (perhaps because it's been shown to not stand up to peer review? naaahhhh! couldn't be that!).
No, what I'm saying is the exact opposite of that.
The OP brought up the truck and drew a generalisation, only for someone to call out that it was such and that because he drove a truck and yet didn't fit the mould that it was obviously a generalisation.
I'm not disputing that, however, I am asserting that you don't even need to go as far as the vehicle the OP drives given the sum total of the original post was a bunch of ill-informed, citation-free ranting about how climate science is merely some political tool.
I think you need to take some first grade level science classes before giving your "informed" opinion on how you think climate change, and how specifically the mechanisms of AGW work.
Weather is climate like me pissing on the ground is rain.
Nice try though.
Yes, that's fine and all, but I bet those who *don't* fit that redneck mould wouldn't post this:
The planet has been heating up since the ice age. Other planets in the system are heating up too. If you want to think the sky is falling to play into some global scarcity tactic that's cool, but I'm going to keep driving my truck to work.
Which reads like he took it off the back of a "what the scary libruls want U to beleeeve" flyer handed out at a teabagger rally.
What nonsense.
We have plenty of trustworthy science, but a huge and well funded propaganda machine telling people that those scientists are untrustworthy and "politically motivated". You've bought into the propaganda machine hook, line and sinker.
Now, there will certainly be cases of scientists and professionals that are crooked and politically/financially motivated (see, for example, Andrew Wakefield and vaccines - a whole, damaging scare because he wanted to make money off his competing vaccine for MMR), or the "cold fusion" science researchers, but they are very swiftly exposed by peer review.
That intelligent people can still be claiming that "nothing a climate scientist puts out" is trustworthy at all is just a demonstration of how powerful people like like Koch brothers are and how effective extremely large dumptrucks full of money are at running propaganda campaigns.
It doesn't help that very few people are able to interpret the data for themselves and must rely on an actual scientist, and somehow when this is related to climate science that's seen as a bad thing? Ask yourself why that is; why it has become ingrained to look at only climate science and say "I don't understand this data so it's clearly a trick!". This doesn't happen in other fields with equally difficult and impenetrable data, like cancer research or quantum mechanics - there's been no pervasive, relentless smear campaign that results in anything those scientists say being dismissed out of hand because they're "politically motivated and untrustworthy".
So where's your peer-reviewed research that backs up your claim?
Right wing shouty heads on Fox News don't count, I'm afraid.
"crApp"?
You're trying too hard. We get it: you don't think smartphones are useful or worthwhile. Perhaps they're simply not for you?
After the retraction, I don't know if I even care if this is Apple at this point. Quite frankly I'd be surprised if this was at the plant producing Apple goods. The latest outbreak of suicides and protestations have been over the division that manufactures Xboxes, funny enough.
Not Apple's gear.
I notice a lot of people place a great deal of emphasis on whether it's Apple or not.
All things considered, that's pretty damn sad.
These workers are being mistreated and all you people can think about is whether it has something to do with Apple!
Whether or not Apple is evil is beside the point. Whether or not Apple has something to do with this particular incident in Brazil is beside the point. The point is, these workers are being mistreated, and the first thing you people think about is Apple! Frankly, that's fucking insane.
A lot of people place emphasis on it because the counter is true - Apple is being beaten with this stick, so when it's *not* anything to do with Apple, why is that suddenly wrong to point that out? This is not an attempt to justify worker abuse, but aiming the criticism at the right companies involved is a good start. Not to mention that making stuff up and claiming it is true (Mike Daisey) does more harm to your cause than anything else.
Apple (and others) need to be taken to task for sure, but unless the criticism is wielded accurately, people will simply assume you're the boy crying wolf again and stop taking the issue seriously, which is the worst thing that could happen.
Your mom says your Eggo is ready.
And to be fair, he already covered your exception - unless being an Android enthusiast doesn't accurately cover someone who specifically avoids Apple products?
Then you accused him of being a paid shill for Apple, and got faux-offended when he responded to your insult in kind, so much so that you dug deep for the most juvenile "offensive" comeback that you could muster?
Trolling: you're doing it wrong.
Indeed, without having that massive boondoggle at CERN we could have funded at least 1 more month of the Iraq war!
3:2 Pulldown is only for conversion to NTSC (US TV broadcast).
Conversion of film footage to PAL is very definitely just increasing the playback speed by 4%, and it does affect the audio pitch; I've had a couple of US friends comment on how different a (well known) film sounds to them when watching the PAL version.
Why would they want to?
Their revenue breakdown is in the mid single digits for content while it's something like 60%+ for iOS hardware. The content stores merely act as a driver for hardware sales, and always have.
I see you've just pulled numbers out of your ass.
The most expensive iPad was *never* over $1000, even at launch.
There was a lot of talk in the run up to the announcement that it would be hugely expensive and "well over $1000 because it's Apple" only for all those predictions being quietly swept under the carpet when the actual prices were announced.
Then, of course, everyone started on how the iPad (the first gen) would be quickly destroyed by the soon-to-come "cheaper", "faster", "better" Android tablets... and we're still waiting, three generations on. The closest I ever saw was the Transformer, which was $100 cheaper than the iPad 2 and comparable to it, only for the retina iPad to come out and leave everyone trying to catch up again.
It's not often Apple competes on price, but in the tablet market they really are, and have since the launch of the original iPad.
Ok, now tell your mom to do that.
Or tell her to go and buy an Apple TV (or other brand of ready made box, like the Google TV box whatever it's called).
That's the whole point of this article - the market is already well served for people like you and I, but it won't properly take off until someone comes along with something simple enough to set up, maintain and use for the average user.
You don't, that's the beauty of choice.
Apple's method, however, is exactly as described - an Apple TV and an iPad combined make a great living room combination. That doesn't mean it's the only way to do it, or that other solutions might be better in some cases.
Apple's method is very easy to set up and use, and doesn't require a computer in the living room that has to pass the (unfortunately named) "wife test" - although I think it should be more accurately named "the non-tech savvy test".
XBMC (and HTPCs in general) are excellent, and I use XBMC all the time but it's not *quite* there yet as a solution that someone like my mother, for example, could use on a regular basis without me going over there every so often to sort out occasional issues that are trivial for a tech literate person to solve in seconds or minutes but that baffle many "normal" people.
That's what the thrust of the article about in-car systems is driving at; if you're technically minded or can handle pressing and configuring many buttons and esoteric menus and so on then the current situation suits you just fine. If there's just one thing that BBC's Top Gear can demonstrate, it's just how unintuitive and woeful modern in-car entertainment and sat nav systems are on many cars, even really expensive and fancy ones. Maybe Apple is not the one to solve that problem (remember them them dipping their toe into the water with BMW officially with the Mini?), but the current state of affairs is crying out for something decent - it's no surprise that the very intuitive and easy to use TomTom satnav became so popular.
I guess it works on global warmers then.
Well, if it works as suggested then it will cause those who believe in global warming purely because someone told them it was happening to go and look at the evidence and decide for themselves, in which case they'll keep their opinion intact but will have come to it by a more scientific approach. Win-win.