- selective quoting by evangelicals to "prove" Thomas Jefferson was a Christian, and one reason why the USA was therefore created as a Christian nation.
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."
- still selective quoting (source), but providing much better context to the one-liner and suggests the exact opposite of what the evangelicals claim.
BTW, just writing the Nazis off as pure evil is intellectually lazy; we don't examine how they got to where they got, and how they were able to brainwash so many people and do so much damage.
I totally agree, and the same can be said of modern terrorists. But try even suggesting we look beyond the suicide bombings, 9/11 etc, and look at *why* they're doing it, and you will be labeled a terrorist sympathizer, bleeding heart liberal, and worse by the right wing (ironically).
They always fail to see that understanding their past and motivations is NOT excusing them (Nazis or terrorists) for what they did.
It's been over a decade since I read it, but IIRC most of the people the book follows were neither delusional or consciously following a warped ideology. They did what they were coaxed and coerced to do at first, but in very short order it became routine to them and they thought nothing of orders to continue.
A very chilling read, and like the Stanford prison experiment, a reminder of how thin the veneer of humanity and civilization is in all of us, no matter how much we think that WE personally are a good person and would never do such a thing.
That's true, but those product lines are bigger than you'd think, and Apple has fewer product lines than you think. Office is a gigantic ecosystem including cloud services, it's technically one product but it contains a huge number of sub products. Windows is again a whole bunch of different stuff, though it's probably a shrinking not growing portion of their product set. [...]
You can't on one hand call the iPod, iPhone and iPad a single product line ("three different variations of exactly the same device") and then argue that MS has more product lines than we think because Office is split into "sub-products", and Windows into "a whole bunch of different stuff". Other than the Touch, iPods don't overlap with the iPhone or iPad except management through iTunes (I'll get to that later).
Contrasting with apple, if you look more closely, apple have, OSX which makes them no money and Macs which haven't had a significant market share increase in decades. Then you've essentially got the iPhone, the iPhone without the phone, and a bigger iPhone without a phone plus iTunes which feeds the previous three products. The vast majority of Apple's income comes from iTunes and three different variations of exactly the same device.
You mean Macs still don't have significant market share, period. Macs have gone from about 3% US / iTunes is a tiny fraction by comparison and has been for years.
And although iTunes (the computer program, not the media or app store) used to be the management backbone for all three, this is now only needed for iPods (except the touch). With iOS5 and iCloud they have cut that dependency to almost nothing. Updates can be done on-device, iDevice computer sync of photos, music, video, contacts, calendars, and backups can be done through iCloud. You only need the iTunes program to restore iOS (or a backup) to the device.
Even before iOS5, you didn't have to tie it to an iTunes installation. I know people who haven't connected their iPhone to their computer or iTunes in over a year, and manage new music and apps just fine. These people have no backups of their data, of course, but that's hardly a habit unique to iPhone users.
You can only get apps from the App Store, of course, but on the iDevice it's not through the iTunes app. And if you're willing to forgo the default music and video player apps, you can side-load music and video from anywhere (even AVIs, MKVs, and WMVs) into 3rd party apps, from a computer over wifi.
It's not just an on-campus cafeteria--Apple already has this at their 1 Infinite Loop HQ, and they have food stands outside in the quad, too.
But that cafeteria is accessible to visitors with a pass and employee escort. This new place looks to be Apple employees only, no exceptions. A quick search didn't suggest Google does the same thing.
Also, the GP missed the fact that this new one is *off campus*, so calling it a restaurant isn't wrong.
Still not really worthy of giving a crap, but it involves Apple, and highlights their culture of secrecy, so it makes the news.
Re:House of Representatives
on
House Passes CISPA
·
· Score: 4, Informative
At least the SCOTUS ruling that political donations = free speech, and can remain anonymous, has made official what we already knew--your vote doesn't matter. Those with money get to "vote" for both sides, so they own whoever wins regardless.
Except for material we may license to you, Apple does not claim ownership of the materials and/or Content you submit or make available on the Service. However, by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content, you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available, without any compensation or obligation to you.
Skydrive has similar wording, but the Google TOS does not. In Apple's case, the clause only applies to Content uploaded to areas of the service that aren't set as 100% restricted to just yourself. Clause applies to content you share with friends or the public.
But, AFAICT the current iCloud service is a sync service to all devices under the same account, and has no sharing functionality at all, so this "grant Apple..." clause doesn't seem to apply to content stored in iCloud.
I've never bought into the image of benevolence Google always presents to the public, and that's cost me Slashdot karma over the years, but I don't care. It will be very interesting to see who defends this. It would be difficult not to see them as sellouts of themselves, all too happy to trash their own privacy rights, eager to please the advertising megacorp and defend them from attack. Wake up!
(emphasis mine)
Irony: Samsung, biggest seller of Google Android-based phones, staged an astroturfing/advertising stunt by bringing in a couple busloads of people to the front of the Apple Store in Sydney, Australia, who then yelled at customers inside to "Wake up!".
Canadian bank (with massive US presence), password only for online banking. Worse, the password only allows alphanumeric characters--no symbols, not even dashes or periods. The discussion forums I log into have stronger password requirements than that.
Rate limits shouldn't be on originating IPs, but failed logins to the user ID itself (e.g. if failedLogin, increment user's failedLoginCounter. If counter reaches 10 failed attempts within 2 minutes, deny login attempts for 5 minutes).
There should also be a "suspicious activity" flag on the account; Google's sometimes gets invoked when I log in from a machine/IP that I've never logged in on before. If dozens of IPs try and fail to log in to the same account (suggesting a botnet) that should definitely be a flag.
I don't like the hardware comparison picture "proof" myself, that's why I wasn't objecting to that. I just couldn't let the "It's almost as if Apple's a marketing company first" bit pass... Apple had something clearly superior in the ways that mattered to regular users.
Marketing gets people in the door, it can't keep them if your product is crappy or doesn't do what they expect. That's why some people try the iPhone, honestly don't like it for whatever reason, switch to something else, and that's cool by me--at least they tried and didn't lock themselves into an "I don't like Apple, I won't try it" mindset.
Works in reverse too: marketing meant a friend got a Blackberry Torch, but after 6 months of daily problems including total freezes, she ditched it for my nearly 3-year old iPhone 3GS, which she absolutely loves. Another user solidly in the Apple camp now, because it lived up to the marketing/hype that ironically turned her away from the iPhone in the first place.
The iPhone was released in late June '07 but was *announced/demo'ed* January 9. This is a critical point because it widens your hypothetical reaction time between iPhone and N810 from 3 months to 10. Not saying there was any copying, or that the N810 was a reaction to the iPhone, but with almost a full year after the iPhone was demo'ed, it's harder to claim parallel development with near-100% certainty.
The N810 also had a *resistive* touchscreen, and... well, wasn't a phone but an "internet tablet" that relied on wifi or a Bluetooth bridge.
Meanwhile, the LG KE850, aka Prada was not announced Jan 2007, it was announced Dec 12, 2006, less than a month before the iPhone was demo'd. And if your original point with the N810 was that 3 months wasn't enough time for Nokia to copy Apple, Apple definitely didn't copy LG, with less than a month between both announcements (and over Christmas, too).
I watched various video reviews (example), and LG's own promo video from 2007, and about the only thing similar between the Prada and iPhone is that it has a capacitive touchscreen. The user interface in no way measures up to the original iPhone UI. The Prada at launch didn't have a full keyboard (so T9 only for text entry), and judging from the various apps they basically just transplanted onto a touchscreen the same small-screen, large-text interface seen on phones with a T9 keyboard, with very few UI innovations. Entering contacts was as awkward as I remember when I borrowed a phone in 2005. No multitouch, and what little swiping I saw was for scroll bars, which the reviewer had a very awkward time using, and the responsiveness was jerky (but "good enough", of course).
I tried finding images or video of their internet browser. Instead my top hits included an 8-step guide for setting up its internet connection first. I gave up after reviews said it was hopelessly outdated, and navigation/display options were "very poor". No wonder they never bothered showing it in demos and reviews.
I know this particular thread is about the hardware. I am not the original poster, and I have no problem saying there's parallel development in touchscreen hardware for phones.
But judging by what I see of the first Prada... no way in hell was it Apple's marketing alone that propelled the iPhone to the top, like you're implying.
The Prada got into user's hands before the iPhone by a few months, but its UI carried over far too much baggage and inappropriate interface elements from older phones, so it was completely and rightly eclipsed less than a month after its intro by the iPhone's intro/demo. And unlike Microsoft's infamous vapourware demos, what we saw of the iPhone in Jan 2007, we got that summer.
No one deserves a 20-year patent monopoly. Or at least no software does.
But that's the way the patent system is set up. We should be somewhat thankful they never increased the time limit on protection, like they did copyrights.
Until this flawed system is fixed, and fixed *properly*, these dumb patents will continue to be filed, granted, contested, and litigated. Thank the lawyers--only politicians have more ability give themselves a guaranteed revenue stream.
Similarly, a computer monitor should not have a built in computer (or vice versa), unless the computer is a replaceable module. The TV or Monitor still have a lot of lifetime (and economic value) long after the computer is hopelessly obsolete. (Yes, I'm looking at you, iMac integrated computer and monitor. But then Apple products seem to be for people with more money then sense.)
I'm sorry, instead of "iMac" I think you meant to say "laptop computer", which vastly outsell traditional desktop computers these days.
A Fox affiliate station won a court decision saying their news no obligation to actually be factual.
SCOTUS has ruled that money, in the form of millions in political donations, is not only free speech/expression, but could remain anonymous to avoid consequences (which is NOT how free speech works--you are free to speak, but aren't protected from consequences and actions by the people, as long as they're legal. Only the government is restricted from taking action against you. All in theory, of course).
If false advertising isn't already protected speech now, it surely will be within 10 years.
cause that is the true question; science is $$, and, even more importantly, there are a limited number of talented people who can do science (I mean, how many guys can hit a major league fastball ?) I would say that spending a lot on cosmology is less important then cancer, but thats my bias
I hope you don't believe that advanced-level scientists can be moved to a different field just because another field is "more important." I once read a comment on a story about the shuttle program shutting down, "just move the NASA scientists to other fields, like cancer research". It displayed an absolutely mind-boggling level of ignorance, sheer stupidity even, about people in fields of science and research. A physicist is not a chemist is not a biologist, they didn't choose their field because of the money, they chose it because they have the skills and passion for it.
You used a sports analogy. Well, how many pro basketball players would be any good at pro ice hockey?
Very glad to see you didn't include "install and run anti-virus" on the list.
As I noted above, Windows users got hit just as bad with Conficker, percentage-wise, despite being conditioned to run antivirus and anti-malware tools all the time. Those tools do very little against new malware that exploit already-patched vulnerabilities.
Despite most Mac users not having antivirus installed, it still had roughly the same percentage of users infected as a platform where users DO have antivirus and anti-malware installed (or their users are very aware they're supposed to be running them), but the latter's supposed protections against malware were useless at detecting and/or preventing the Conficker outbreaks.
My takeaway is that Mac users therefore *still* would not benefit from installing and running antivirus software that sucks up resources all the time. The better defence is simply to do system updates weekly.
I thought about doing that for my stuff linked to my TV--TV itself, cable box, speakers and PS3. Mainly because of the cable box which draws 25W even in standby.
Then we got switched to "smart" power meters, which lets us track energy use during which hours, and by far the biggest electricity consumer is the 5 minute hot shower. The hot water tank is electrical, and makes up over 2/3 my normal daily usage, even with all the TV, computer and gaming.
In the end I didn't bother switching the electronics off when not in use. It'll cost me a few extra dollars a year, but for practical purposes it's negligible.
As much as I don't want to see that, that would clearly fall under "freedom of speech/expression". And if it offends or disgusts you, you don't have a right not to be offended.
Frankly, the supreme court decision to make large piles of anonymous campaign donations qualify for "freedom of speech/expression" is far more offensive and disgusting.
Apple is a corporation. Douchery is expected from time to time. No, they don't deserve sympathy and no one asked you to give them any, but don't piss on them undeservedly.
Suing other companies? To turn your words around... poor little Samsung. Poor little Google and Motorola. Why are those multi-billion revenue, multi-national corporations getting any sympathy from you at all over the fact they're being sued?
And FYI the Chinese workers of their contractor (i.e. they're not Apple employees) ARE being paid living wages. For China. Of course there's some abuse and workers are sometimes taken advantage of, but tell me this doesn't happen to minimum-wage workers (i.e. true "below living wage", especially if working part-time) at fast-food places, serving staff at restaurants, corner stores, etc.
Your earlier comment:
I do wonder how it is that an organisation that "rakes in" about 1% *annually* of what Apple raked in last *quarter* is somehow bullying Apple? Poor little Apple.
You don't see how a smaller organization can bully or attack a much larger one? Money is irrelevant. I assume you're an adult male. Now imagine a 10-year old girl falsely accuses you of... well, use your imagination. Not to equate child abuse to Greenpeace's actions, other than to demonstrate that words and accusations that trigger extreme emotions have enormous power, even when they're total lies, even when you show contrary evidence many will never believe you. And you can't strike back effectively to stop the slander or the damage done to you.
Greenpeace hides their propaganda behind "good intentions." They are even less deserving of my sympathy.
Slashdot Mirror
"I am a Christian"
- selective quoting by evangelicals to "prove" Thomas Jefferson was a Christian, and one reason why the USA was therefore created as a Christian nation.
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."
- still selective quoting (source), but providing much better context to the one-liner and suggests the exact opposite of what the evangelicals claim.
BTW, just writing the Nazis off as pure evil is intellectually lazy; we don't examine how they got to where they got, and how they were able to brainwash so many people and do so much damage.
I totally agree, and the same can be said of modern terrorists. But try even suggesting we look beyond the suicide bombings, 9/11 etc, and look at *why* they're doing it, and you will be labeled a terrorist sympathizer, bleeding heart liberal, and worse by the right wing (ironically).
They always fail to see that understanding their past and motivations is NOT excusing them (Nazis or terrorists) for what they did.
Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland is a book that looks at exactly what it took to turn perfectly good, reasonable people into cold-blooded killers.
It's been over a decade since I read it, but IIRC most of the people the book follows were neither delusional or consciously following a warped ideology. They did what they were coaxed and coerced to do at first, but in very short order it became routine to them and they thought nothing of orders to continue.
A very chilling read, and like the Stanford prison experiment, a reminder of how thin the veneer of humanity and civilization is in all of us, no matter how much we think that WE personally are a good person and would never do such a thing.
That's true, but those product lines are bigger than you'd think, and Apple has fewer product lines than you think. Office is a gigantic ecosystem including cloud services, it's technically one product but it contains a huge number of sub products. Windows is again a whole bunch of different stuff, though it's probably a shrinking not growing portion of their product set. [...]
You can't on one hand call the iPod, iPhone and iPad a single product line ("three different variations of exactly the same device") and then argue that MS has more product lines than we think because Office is split into "sub-products", and Windows into "a whole bunch of different stuff". Other than the Touch, iPods don't overlap with the iPhone or iPad except management through iTunes (I'll get to that later).
Contrasting with apple, if you look more closely, apple have, OSX which makes them no money and Macs which haven't had a significant market share increase in decades. Then you've essentially got the iPhone, the iPhone without the phone, and a bigger iPhone without a phone plus iTunes which feeds the previous three products. The vast majority of Apple's income comes from iTunes and three different variations of exactly the same device.
You mean Macs still don't have significant market share, period. Macs have gone from about 3% US / iTunes is a tiny fraction by comparison and has been for years.
And although iTunes (the computer program, not the media or app store) used to be the management backbone for all three, this is now only needed for iPods (except the touch). With iOS5 and iCloud they have cut that dependency to almost nothing. Updates can be done on-device, iDevice computer sync of photos, music, video, contacts, calendars, and backups can be done through iCloud. You only need the iTunes program to restore iOS (or a backup) to the device.
Even before iOS5, you didn't have to tie it to an iTunes installation. I know people who haven't connected their iPhone to their computer or iTunes in over a year, and manage new music and apps just fine. These people have no backups of their data, of course, but that's hardly a habit unique to iPhone users.
You can only get apps from the App Store, of course, but on the iDevice it's not through the iTunes app. And if you're willing to forgo the default music and video player apps, you can side-load music and video from anywhere (even AVIs, MKVs, and WMVs) into 3rd party apps, from a computer over wifi.
It's not just an on-campus cafeteria--Apple already has this at their 1 Infinite Loop HQ, and they have food stands outside in the quad, too.
But that cafeteria is accessible to visitors with a pass and employee escort. This new place looks to be Apple employees only, no exceptions. A quick search didn't suggest Google does the same thing.
Also, the GP missed the fact that this new one is *off campus*, so calling it a restaurant isn't wrong.
Still not really worthy of giving a crap, but it involves Apple, and highlights their culture of secrecy, so it makes the news.
At least the SCOTUS ruling that political donations = free speech, and can remain anonymous, has made official what we already knew--your vote doesn't matter. Those with money get to "vote" for both sides, so they own whoever wins regardless.
The one in front. They'd at least have the guts to do it to my face.
And for completeness, Apple's terms:
Except for material we may license to you, Apple does not claim ownership of the materials and/or Content you submit or make available on the Service. However, by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content, you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available, without any compensation or obligation to you.
Skydrive has similar wording, but the Google TOS does not. In Apple's case, the clause only applies to Content uploaded to areas of the service that aren't set as 100% restricted to just yourself. Clause applies to content you share with friends or the public.
But, AFAICT the current iCloud service is a sync service to all devices under the same account, and has no sharing functionality at all, so this "grant Apple..." clause doesn't seem to apply to content stored in iCloud.
I've never bought into the image of benevolence Google always presents to the public, and that's cost me Slashdot karma over the years, but I don't care. It will be very interesting to see who defends this. It would be difficult not to see them as sellouts of themselves, all too happy to trash their own privacy rights, eager to please the advertising megacorp and defend them from attack. Wake up!
(emphasis mine)
Irony: Samsung, biggest seller of Google Android-based phones, staged an astroturfing/advertising stunt by bringing in a couple busloads of people to the front of the Apple Store in Sydney, Australia, who then yelled at customers inside to "Wake up!".
Similar idea with chip-and-PIN credit cards. It's not to protect you, it's to protect the issuer/bank.
"The PIN entered matched your credit card chip, our Chip-and-PIN system is secure, so you're obviously trying to defraud us."
Canadian bank (with massive US presence), password only for online banking. Worse, the password only allows alphanumeric characters--no symbols, not even dashes or periods. The discussion forums I log into have stronger password requirements than that.
Rate limits shouldn't be on originating IPs, but failed logins to the user ID itself (e.g. if failedLogin, increment user's failedLoginCounter. If counter reaches 10 failed attempts within 2 minutes, deny login attempts for 5 minutes).
There should also be a "suspicious activity" flag on the account; Google's sometimes gets invoked when I log in from a machine/IP that I've never logged in on before. If dozens of IPs try and fail to log in to the same account (suggesting a botnet) that should definitely be a flag.
I don't like the hardware comparison picture "proof" myself, that's why I wasn't objecting to that. I just couldn't let the "It's almost as if Apple's a marketing company first" bit pass... Apple had something clearly superior in the ways that mattered to regular users.
Marketing gets people in the door, it can't keep them if your product is crappy or doesn't do what they expect. That's why some people try the iPhone, honestly don't like it for whatever reason, switch to something else, and that's cool by me--at least they tried and didn't lock themselves into an "I don't like Apple, I won't try it" mindset.
Works in reverse too: marketing meant a friend got a Blackberry Torch, but after 6 months of daily problems including total freezes, she ditched it for my nearly 3-year old iPhone 3GS, which she absolutely loves. Another user solidly in the Apple camp now, because it lived up to the marketing/hype that ironically turned her away from the iPhone in the first place.
You are correct, that's exactly what RIM did:
"A venture capitalist quoted in the online PDF [says] that RIM 'dramatically misjudged' how important the user experience would turn out to be."
They thought "users wanted great battery life, great security, great mail handling, minimal network use, and a great keyboard experience." It turns out, a great user experience beats all those things.
The iPhone was released in late June '07 but was *announced/demo'ed* January 9. This is a critical point because it widens your hypothetical reaction time between iPhone and N810 from 3 months to 10. Not saying there was any copying, or that the N810 was a reaction to the iPhone, but with almost a full year after the iPhone was demo'ed, it's harder to claim parallel development with near-100% certainty.
The N810 also had a *resistive* touchscreen, and... well, wasn't a phone but an "internet tablet" that relied on wifi or a Bluetooth bridge.
Meanwhile, the LG KE850, aka Prada was not announced Jan 2007, it was announced Dec 12, 2006, less than a month before the iPhone was demo'd. And if your original point with the N810 was that 3 months wasn't enough time for Nokia to copy Apple, Apple definitely didn't copy LG, with less than a month between both announcements (and over Christmas, too).
I watched various video reviews (example), and LG's own promo video from 2007, and about the only thing similar between the Prada and iPhone is that it has a capacitive touchscreen. The user interface in no way measures up to the original iPhone UI. The Prada at launch didn't have a full keyboard (so T9 only for text entry), and judging from the various apps they basically just transplanted onto a touchscreen the same small-screen, large-text interface seen on phones with a T9 keyboard, with very few UI innovations. Entering contacts was as awkward as I remember when I borrowed a phone in 2005. No multitouch, and what little swiping I saw was for scroll bars, which the reviewer had a very awkward time using, and the responsiveness was jerky (but "good enough", of course).
I tried finding images or video of their internet browser. Instead my top hits included an 8-step guide for setting up its internet connection first. I gave up after reviews said it was hopelessly outdated, and navigation/display options were "very poor". No wonder they never bothered showing it in demos and reviews.
I know this particular thread is about the hardware. I am not the original poster, and I have no problem saying there's parallel development in touchscreen hardware for phones.
But judging by what I see of the first Prada... no way in hell was it Apple's marketing alone that propelled the iPhone to the top, like you're implying.
The Prada got into user's hands before the iPhone by a few months, but its UI carried over far too much baggage and inappropriate interface elements from older phones, so it was completely and rightly eclipsed less than a month after its intro by the iPhone's intro/demo. And unlike Microsoft's infamous vapourware demos, what we saw of the iPhone in Jan 2007, we got that summer.
No one deserves a 20-year patent monopoly. Or at least no software does.
But that's the way the patent system is set up. We should be somewhat thankful they never increased the time limit on protection, like they did copyrights.
Until this flawed system is fixed, and fixed *properly*, these dumb patents will continue to be filed, granted, contested, and litigated. Thank the lawyers--only politicians have more ability give themselves a guaranteed revenue stream.
Similarly, a computer monitor should not have a built in computer (or vice versa), unless the computer is a replaceable module. The TV or Monitor still have a lot of lifetime (and economic value) long after the computer is hopelessly obsolete. (Yes, I'm looking at you, iMac integrated computer and monitor. But then Apple products seem to be for people with more money then sense.)
I'm sorry, instead of "iMac" I think you meant to say "laptop computer", which vastly outsell traditional desktop computers these days.
A Fox affiliate station won a court decision saying their news no obligation to actually be factual.
SCOTUS has ruled that money, in the form of millions in political donations, is not only free speech/expression, but could remain anonymous to avoid consequences (which is NOT how free speech works--you are free to speak, but aren't protected from consequences and actions by the people, as long as they're legal. Only the government is restricted from taking action against you. All in theory, of course).
If false advertising isn't already protected speech now, it surely will be within 10 years.
cause that is the true question; science is $$, and, even more importantly, there are a limited number of talented people who can do science (I mean, how many guys can hit a major league fastball ?)
I would say that spending a lot on cosmology is less important then cancer, but thats my bias
I hope you don't believe that advanced-level scientists can be moved to a different field just because another field is "more important." I once read a comment on a story about the shuttle program shutting down, "just move the NASA scientists to other fields, like cancer research". It displayed an absolutely mind-boggling level of ignorance, sheer stupidity even, about people in fields of science and research. A physicist is not a chemist is not a biologist, they didn't choose their field because of the money, they chose it because they have the skills and passion for it.
You used a sports analogy. Well, how many pro basketball players would be any good at pro ice hockey?
Very glad to see you didn't include "install and run anti-virus" on the list.
As I noted above, Windows users got hit just as bad with Conficker, percentage-wise, despite being conditioned to run antivirus and anti-malware tools all the time. Those tools do very little against new malware that exploit already-patched vulnerabilities.
Let me see if I read this right...
Despite most Mac users not having antivirus installed, it still had roughly the same percentage of users infected as a platform where users DO have antivirus and anti-malware installed (or their users are very aware they're supposed to be running them), but the latter's supposed protections against malware were useless at detecting and/or preventing the Conficker outbreaks.
My takeaway is that Mac users therefore *still* would not benefit from installing and running antivirus software that sucks up resources all the time. The better defence is simply to do system updates weekly.
I thought about doing that for my stuff linked to my TV--TV itself, cable box, speakers and PS3. Mainly because of the cable box which draws 25W even in standby.
Then we got switched to "smart" power meters, which lets us track energy use during which hours, and by far the biggest electricity consumer is the 5 minute hot shower. The hot water tank is electrical, and makes up over 2/3 my normal daily usage, even with all the TV, computer and gaming.
In the end I didn't bother switching the electronics off when not in use. It'll cost me a few extra dollars a year, but for practical purposes it's negligible.
As much as I don't want to see that, that would clearly fall under "freedom of speech/expression". And if it offends or disgusts you, you don't have a right not to be offended.
Frankly, the supreme court decision to make large piles of anonymous campaign donations qualify for "freedom of speech/expression" is far more offensive and disgusting.
At last year's Apple developer conference, they showed pictures of the North Carolina facility, both inside and out. After some analysis the author suggests what was shown were "Teradata gear, maybe HP and NetApp".
Don't know if this helps you at all...
Apple is a corporation. Douchery is expected from time to time. No, they don't deserve sympathy and no one asked you to give them any, but don't piss on them undeservedly.
Suing other companies? To turn your words around... poor little Samsung. Poor little Google and Motorola. Why are those multi-billion revenue, multi-national corporations getting any sympathy from you at all over the fact they're being sued?
And FYI the Chinese workers of their contractor (i.e. they're not Apple employees) ARE being paid living wages. For China. Of course there's some abuse and workers are sometimes taken advantage of, but tell me this doesn't happen to minimum-wage workers (i.e. true "below living wage", especially if working part-time) at fast-food places, serving staff at restaurants, corner stores, etc.
Your earlier comment:
I do wonder how it is that an organisation that "rakes in" about 1% *annually* of what Apple raked in last *quarter* is somehow bullying Apple? Poor little Apple.
You don't see how a smaller organization can bully or attack a much larger one? Money is irrelevant. I assume you're an adult male. Now imagine a 10-year old girl falsely accuses you of... well, use your imagination. Not to equate child abuse to Greenpeace's actions, other than to demonstrate that words and accusations that trigger extreme emotions have enormous power, even when they're total lies, even when you show contrary evidence many will never believe you. And you can't strike back effectively to stop the slander or the damage done to you.
Greenpeace hides their propaganda behind "good intentions." They are even less deserving of my sympathy.