no they don't.. in theory, google has been benefiting from this first-generation crop of technically minded management.. if this study means they're going to move away from that, then expect to see a lot of the reasons to work for google over say, microsoft, fade away real quick. while a certain amount of people skill is important, what really gets the job done at the end of the day is someone who can code algorithms. those types tend NOT to be people people, and a management that cannot tolerate or understand such a crowd will create that typical antagonistic environment that google has up to now been able to minimize. they wont retain their best people if they go this route.
the point being that such security is impossible to enforce across the board, so the only answer is to prevent companies from collecting it in the first place. they may keep it for the duration of a sale/service rendering until receipt of payment.. after that they must delete.. something like that.
corporations can't (yet) imprison you against your will.. they still have to expend rather large amounts of resources to convince the government to do so. piss off the right government official however, and your life is over. I'd say both are two sides of the same shitty coin. combined is where the real toxicity to freedom comes from.
most adults also seem to forget that their social structures are hardly more developed than they were in high school. cliques, cliches, stereotypes, and fallacies abound, especially when individuals in a group make judgements about a potential recruit (say a new employee). this is why personal information should be in the control of the person who it belongs to.
yes..and left wing parties support majority cliques at the expense of individuals.. how is that any better? net neutrality is not about choosing to get fucked..it's about which hole you want to be fucked in. either isps turn the internet into shitty ma-bell era pay-as-you-go services like cell networks, or you have government deciding what goes.. I'd like neither, but people like me who actually like freedom for individuals taking precedence over the blanket enforcement of irrational group-think policies, have no voice in government.
I don't get it.. you made the case for why privacy is important and then closed with the typical 'as long as you live a boring life by not doing 'anything wrong' then everything will be fine'. like you said, what's wrong is a subjective thing.. what you did today may be considered heinous 20 years from now, and without any sort of privacy, or even reduced capacity for collective forgetfulness (buried in a filing cabnet..maybe.. vs instant search away) you'll get the shaft for it.
this assumes that terms like 'integrity' 'interesting', and 'dick' are objective measurements.. they're not. in fact, we're all dicks to somebody, interesting to somebody else (for all kinds of reasons, 'good' and 'bad' to different people at different times), and we all know people judge integrity differently. the difference is point of view and priorities. This is why privacy is important. you can't please everyone, so better off that most remain ignorant of every detail of your life.
So while you're talking about apologists in their various forms, you're turning a blind eye and are allowing (and in my eyes, therefore condoning) bullying in school.
false dilemma. no i did not condone anything in my post. yes I know what the article is about. in fact, I argued that overreaching faculty in itself is a form of bullying. adding more to the pot doesn't teach anything but that it's acceptable once you have enough authority. some of the worst bullying comes not from the other students, but from the faculty who set the stage for the crap that happens in the hallways/schoolyards later. humiliate a kid in class a few times, and watch how the other students jump on the bandwagon. one instance in class can last for weeks worth of torment from the others. the teachers have the power and set the stage..
As far as I'm concerned - you are the apologist. You are condoning bullying in school. And you then have the audacity to suggest that the teachers are the bullies?
no I am not. you reason like a politician. the teachers can ALSO be the bullies, and the power this article talks about would help that along. Yes you do need to get used to some bullying. welcome to the real world. what we should be teaching kids is how to stand up for themselves..with eloquent reason that shatters the fallacies of those around them, as well as self-defense skill for those lunkheads who are immune to reason and only understand the fist. This simpering passive-aggressive 'politically-correct' nonsense that tolerates no expression whatsoever is why kids today bottle everything up and then explode later.
also, taking their property creates a defiant relationship between the teacher and student.. what good does that do? anger over the conflict does not put one in a learning mood, especially when the teacher is the target of the anger. really, the colleges (at least the ones that don't treat students like junior high schoolers) have this right. do what you want, but disrupt the class and you're out. it's your grade.
the students are not responsible for the teacher's well-being, nor should they be. the teacher is being paid under the assumption he knows how to teach. part of that is keeping their interest. if the teacher can't do this, he has failed. if a few kids are non-intrusively not paying attention, whether it's related to phone use or not, he's ok. those kids will pass or fail. if the whole class is failing, that's the teacher's fault.
1. kids who don't want to learn can't be forced to. if the kid's being disruptive AND not paying attention, he should be thrown out for the period. 2. so? we should make a rule against something for the sole reason that many would do it? 3. then the behavior is disruptive. "your phones are too loud.. turn them down or get out" I"m talking about nondisruptive behavior. 4. like the headphones example, it's not about the device or its capabilities. it's about whether the student's behavior is disruptive to other students. the teacher's ego is irrelevant. he's got the grade book. if the kid hasn't mastered the material, then fail him. that's a fair punishment. if he knows the material, then there's no reason for the teacher to be upset. 5. and so....? most of the problems in school are due to obsessive compulsive control freakery on the part of the faculty. in the old days, we just threw the disruptives out of class until they shaped up or dropped out. 6. fine..call him up to the board.. he'll walk up there and either demonstrate his mastery before sitting back down to his game of whatever on his phone, or he'll demonstrate he's failing to the whole class. if he cares about his classmates' opinions he 'might' be motivated to change. usually, bad performance isn't solely due to simple laziness, and kids in that situation have usually quit caring about what others think of their performance long ago. insults from the teacher will just make him even less interested in the class. 7. yah.. the irony is that most authority figures can't muster up any justification for the rules they set except for "mine is bigger/stronger than yours"
anyway this article was about stopping 'bullying.' it's really just another 'for the children' argument to satiate micromanagement types.
If the teacher's doing his job, the kid is playing with his phone or whatever because he knows the material and is bored. if he's one of two or three who hasn't mastered it, then the class average is safe.. if lots of kids, attentive or not, are having trouble passing, then that suggests a bad teacher who should not have the right to take his fear of losing employment out on the students. keeping the kid in class when he's being disruptive will drop the average for the class. letting a non attentive but non disruptive kid stay in class is ok because it gives him the chance to change his ways if he's failing, and/or pick up bits of knowledge he didn't realize he didn't know about the subject if he's passing.
I'm sure there'll be plenty of apologists here who will say
1. "I'm old and I don't like that young people have better times ahead of them so I am happy to hear about them being clamped down in some way." 2. the legal apologist who says if the law allows/denies it, it must be ok/not ok. who cares that we're discussing, at least obliquely, the effects of this scenario that it creates. 3. "when I was a kid" douchebags. 4. the wannabe tyrant who props up his insecurities by always siding with big brother tyrants.
How about just throwing out the kids who are disruptive in class? this way no property has to be ruined, no lawsuits filed, and the kids who want to be there to learn (or at least graduate) can do so. if it's the kind of thing where the kid's sitting there quietly with headphones on, leave him alone.. he's not bothering anyone else. the only reason teachers throw these kinds of 'offenders' out is because of their insecure feelings of being 'dissed.' Really, it's not necessary because the kid will fail the class...or pass it because he already knew the material. Remind him that paying attention is important and he'll need to take off the 'phones to do that. if he says 'no' just say 'remember there's a test next week, I hope you'll be prepared.' and leave it at that. if the kid keeps forgetting to turn off his cell phone ringer, then throw him out of the class until he starts remembering. none of this requires a panopticonic policy. of course such policies have a benefit for the emotional security challenged people out there who are more often than not in-charge.
The 'cyber bullying 'excuse for this new 'power' is just another form of 'for the children.' searching/confiscating phones and deleting files on them is not going to stop bullying.. in fact, all this will do is enable yet another way for faculty to bully students.
these punishments were banned because they were heavily abused by hypocritical bullies. most people have trouble with handling power justly over prolonged periods of time. even the most fair of teachers will statistically succumb to abusing it because it's the quickest way to get the behavior they want now at the expense of a balanced adult later on.
If we were to bring corporal punishment back, then I think it's only fair that the kids have a shot at hitting the teacher should it be shown that he was lying about their behavior. of course, no one will support that. The real answer is just to throw misbehaving kids out of class. beatings aren't necessary. nor are other forms of bullying that probably resulted in these kids labeling this teacher a pedo out of revenge.
My favorite part is where they're saying the principal violated their privacy by making them log in to facebook at the school. You posted a severely damning lie about an agent of the school on a pseudo-public social website and now you're worried about your privacy?
she shouldn't have been able to do that.
Suspended for 10 days is a puny slap on the wrist. Yes Honor Roll students screw up too, and just because they generally do the write thing doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished, people need to wake up, children need appropriate and sane levels of discipline or they turn in to jack-asses later in life.
depends on the character of the discipliner. Most discipliners these days are hypocritical jackasses themselves who are really just bullies with a badge. No one breeds contempt for authority faster than people like this. the faculty has most of the power so therefore they have most of the blame for the situation in school. if honor roll students are calling a teacher such a name, I'd say there's more going on here than simple asshattery.
Punishment is an accepted step in teaching children how to behave, last I checked.
it only works when the punishers are not blatant hypocrites themselves. in fact, most disrespect towards an authority figure or organization comes from its own hypocritical behavior. lose the respect, and lose the control. lose the control, and people start dissing you. don't want to lose the control, don't lose the respect. don't want to lose the respect? don't be a hypocrite. most school policies are highly hypocritical. I fail to see the justice in a policy that says "lying about a faculty member's behavior is punishable and faculty gets to decide what is a lie and what isn't." The policy at my highschool was written this way.
ut they were all 12-13 years of age, which should mean they already know that lying about their teacher being a pedo/rapist is wrong.
so the answer to everything nowadays is expulsion? shitty reductionist reasoning like this is going to end up making every offense, real or bogus, punishable by death.
That is the punishment step. The kids did wrong, they know it, and they were caught. Now they get to face up to the consequences.
as will the punishers have to face the consequences of their own actions: expelled kids will end up on the street where they cause more harm to society and/or they'll be unemployable so we'll have to fund their unemployment checks...all because of all this excessive lashing out that was caused (probably) by a teacher behaving hypocritically in these kids' class.
maybe what's needed are some strong privacy laws? if we make every avenue for expression a liability pit like you say facebook is, then we've effectively killed free speech.
uh yes.. it is.. since when is free speech defined by those who think said speech is unacceptable? since seriously? is society that overly sensitive nowadays? wow.
Whatever. I've had mine for nearly a year now and it still gets over 10 hours. Maybe in another 2-3 years it'll degrade but, honestly, like I give a care.
you might if it goes dead and you can't carry an extra. also, your needs != everyone elses.
The iPad is incredibly cheap.
no, it's not. none of the tablet devices are.. they all need a $300 price drop minimum to become interesting.
iOS devices have a track record of holding up well against new cycles of iOS for at least a couple of years.
uh no.. each successive upgrade seems to get slower and slower. whether that's intentional or not, who knows.. this is true on all apple systems, not just the ios devices. android isn't exempt from this either.. in fact desktop pcs suffer too.
It's amazing how, on Slashdot, completely make-believe, possibly-maybe-in-the-future downsides for iOS seem to outrank actual, major-fuck-up downsides happening right now for Android.
it's also amazing how apple fanboys blatantly ignore faults in their products, and even turn them into features solely to justify their emotionally driven purchasing habits. android has its problems too, for sure, but apple is not this holy grail. get over it already.
"No 4G!". Okay, seriously, get out more.
seriously? this is your answer? it could be used against your entire rant here. get out more!! it's just a damned computer.. oh wait, this is slashdot where people care about stuff like this. the 'go out and get laid' fallacy doesn't apply here nor does it address the complaint of no 4G support. it sounds like you're using emotionally justified fallacies to shield yourself from the flaws others perceive in the product you bought so that your ego wont take a hit. otherwise you wouldn't have posted this at all.
"No 7-inch screen!". Fuck off. This from the same crowd that roared that the iPad was just a big iPhone. 7-inch screens are a cop-out by bullshit manufacturers who cannot price-match the iPad at 10 inches.
well, the ipad IS a big iphone.. the android slates are big android phones. for some people the larger device is a setback. they'd rather have a laptop at that point. you know what? they're right! at that size, a small laptop is a better value in terms of functionality per unit of real estate..and probably price as well.
"No Flash!". Yeah okay. You get that one. I'm really missing those wicked banner ads spamming my eyes from all corners. What about iAd, you might cleverly retort? I have 200 apps and maybe 15 that I use daily or very often, and I have never - as in not once, ever - seen an iAd.
that doesn't mean you won't in the future.. remember, with these devices, you don't own shit and the 'apps' you 'buy' can be pulled/updated at any time. enjoy your apple colored rectal shaft. at least with android, you can opt for alternatives or write your own software so long as you buy from a vendor that doesn't have delusions of apple-'grandeur' (motorola).
It's clear that, at Slashdot, nothing less than absolute perfection (perfection being measured in some cases against yardsticks that exist only in people's dreams) will make an Apple product even remotely acceptable. On the other hand, when it comes to poxy Motorola or Samsung shitboxes that actually ARE left out of OS upgrades and ARE more expensive and DO have crappy battery life... well, we seem to have endless patience for those.
perhaps this double standard is the result of apple users having the reputation for overly emotional, highly insecure obsessions concerning their apple products. they preen and pimp themselves as some kind of holier-than-thou saviors of computing when all they really did was buy generic hardware inside a shiny plastic box like everyone else...except that they paid a premium for it in just about all cases. this r
..without complete openness in all aspects of our lives as well.
so how do you propose to keep everyones' life completely open? a tyrannical police state? oh wait, world governments are already busy building that as we speak.
Slashdot Mirror
no they don't.. in theory, google has been benefiting from this first-generation crop of technically minded management.. if this study means they're going to move away from that, then expect to see a lot of the reasons to work for google over say, microsoft, fade away real quick. while a certain amount of people skill is important, what really gets the job done at the end of the day is someone who can code algorithms. those types tend NOT to be people people, and a management that cannot tolerate or understand such a crowd will create that typical antagonistic environment that google has up to now been able to minimize. they wont retain their best people if they go this route.
the point being that such security is impossible to enforce across the board, so the only answer is to prevent companies from collecting it in the first place. they may keep it for the duration of a sale/service rendering until receipt of payment.. after that they must delete.. something like that.
government doesn't need to be efficient to pull off a fascist state. it just needs the right leadership and sufficient time.
corporations can't (yet) imprison you against your will.. they still have to expend rather large amounts of resources to convince the government to do so. piss off the right government official however, and your life is over. I'd say both are two sides of the same shitty coin. combined is where the real toxicity to freedom comes from.
most adults also seem to forget that their social structures are hardly more developed than they were in high school. cliques, cliches, stereotypes, and fallacies abound, especially when individuals in a group make judgements about a potential recruit (say a new employee). this is why personal information should be in the control of the person who it belongs to.
no but politics can jail those who code, administer, or run network cables.
Republicans represent the interests of very very wealthy people.
so do democrats..
They are against changes, innovations, new ideas and anything that benefits anyone who isn't in the club.
so do democrats.. they just get their handouts from different clubs, though even many of those overlap as they pull both parties' strings.
Because from a rich person's viewpoint, everyone is out to grab some of what they have.
that's why they lobby both parties in order to retain control.
(oh, and I am not claiming that Democrats got it all right).
at least you admit this much.
yes..and left wing parties support majority cliques at the expense of individuals.. how is that any better? net neutrality is not about choosing to get fucked..it's about which hole you want to be fucked in. either isps turn the internet into shitty ma-bell era pay-as-you-go services like cell networks, or you have government deciding what goes.. I'd like neither, but people like me who actually like freedom for individuals taking precedence over the blanket enforcement of irrational group-think policies, have no voice in government.
I don't get it.. you made the case for why privacy is important and then closed with the typical 'as long as you live a boring life by not doing 'anything wrong' then everything will be fine'. like you said, what's wrong is a subjective thing.. what you did today may be considered heinous 20 years from now, and without any sort of privacy, or even reduced capacity for collective forgetfulness (buried in a filing cabnet..maybe.. vs instant search away) you'll get the shaft for it.
that or I just missed your sarcastic irony..
this assumes that terms like 'integrity' 'interesting', and 'dick' are objective measurements.. they're not. in fact, we're all dicks to somebody, interesting to somebody else (for all kinds of reasons, 'good' and 'bad' to different people at different times), and we all know people judge integrity differently. the difference is point of view and priorities. This is why privacy is important. you can't please everyone, so better off that most remain ignorant of every detail of your life.
So while you're talking about apologists in their various forms, you're turning a blind eye and are allowing (and in my eyes, therefore condoning) bullying in school.
false dilemma. no i did not condone anything in my post. yes I know what the article is about. in fact, I argued that overreaching faculty in itself is a form of bullying. adding more to the pot doesn't teach anything but that it's acceptable once you have enough authority. some of the worst bullying comes not from the other students, but from the faculty who set the stage for the crap that happens in the hallways/schoolyards later. humiliate a kid in class a few times, and watch how the other students jump on the bandwagon. one instance in class can last for weeks worth of torment from the others. the teachers have the power and set the stage..
As far as I'm concerned - you are the apologist. You are condoning bullying in school. And you then have the audacity to suggest that the teachers are the bullies?
no I am not. you reason like a politician. the teachers can ALSO be the bullies, and the power this article talks about would help that along. Yes you do need to get used to some bullying. welcome to the real world. what we should be teaching kids is how to stand up for themselves..with eloquent reason that shatters the fallacies of those around them, as well as self-defense skill for those lunkheads who are immune to reason and only understand the fist. This simpering passive-aggressive 'politically-correct' nonsense that tolerates no expression whatsoever is why kids today bottle everything up and then explode later.
also, taking their property creates a defiant relationship between the teacher and student.. what good does that do? anger over the conflict does not put one in a learning mood, especially when the teacher is the target of the anger. really, the colleges (at least the ones that don't treat students like junior high schoolers) have this right. do what you want, but disrupt the class and you're out. it's your grade.
the students are not responsible for the teacher's well-being, nor should they be. the teacher is being paid under the assumption he knows how to teach. part of that is keeping their interest. if the teacher can't do this, he has failed. if a few kids are non-intrusively not paying attention, whether it's related to phone use or not, he's ok. those kids will pass or fail. if the whole class is failing, that's the teacher's fault.
1. kids who don't want to learn can't be forced to. if the kid's being disruptive AND not paying attention, he should be thrown out for the period.
2. so? we should make a rule against something for the sole reason that many would do it?
3. then the behavior is disruptive. "your phones are too loud.. turn them down or get out" I"m talking about nondisruptive behavior.
4. like the headphones example, it's not about the device or its capabilities. it's about whether the student's behavior is disruptive to other students. the teacher's ego is irrelevant. he's got the grade book. if the kid hasn't mastered the material, then fail him. that's a fair punishment. if he knows the material, then there's no reason for the teacher to be upset.
5. and so....? most of the problems in school are due to obsessive compulsive control freakery on the part of the faculty. in the old days, we just threw the disruptives out of class until they shaped up or dropped out.
6. fine..call him up to the board.. he'll walk up there and either demonstrate his mastery before sitting back down to his game of whatever on his phone, or he'll demonstrate he's failing to the whole class. if he cares about his classmates' opinions he 'might' be motivated to change. usually, bad performance isn't solely due to simple laziness, and kids in that situation have usually quit caring about what others think of their performance long ago. insults from the teacher will just make him even less interested in the class.
7. yah.. the irony is that most authority figures can't muster up any justification for the rules they set except for "mine is bigger/stronger than yours"
anyway this article was about stopping 'bullying.' it's really just another 'for the children' argument to satiate micromanagement types.
If the teacher's doing his job, the kid is playing with his phone or whatever because he knows the material and is bored. if he's one of two or three who hasn't mastered it, then the class average is safe.. if lots of kids, attentive or not, are having trouble passing, then that suggests a bad teacher who should not have the right to take his fear of losing employment out on the students. keeping the kid in class when he's being disruptive will drop the average for the class. letting a non attentive but non disruptive kid stay in class is ok because it gives him the chance to change his ways if he's failing, and/or pick up bits of knowledge he didn't realize he didn't know about the subject if he's passing.
I'm sure there'll be plenty of apologists here who will say
1. "I'm old and I don't like that young people have better times ahead of them so I am happy to hear about them being clamped down in some way."
2. the legal apologist who says if the law allows/denies it, it must be ok/not ok. who cares that we're discussing, at least obliquely, the effects of this scenario that it creates.
3. "when I was a kid" douchebags.
4. the wannabe tyrant who props up his insecurities by always siding with big brother tyrants.
How about just throwing out the kids who are disruptive in class? this way no property has to be ruined, no lawsuits filed, and the kids who want to be there to learn (or at least graduate) can do so. if it's the kind of thing where the kid's sitting there quietly with headphones on, leave him alone.. he's not bothering anyone else. the only reason teachers throw these kinds of 'offenders' out is because of their insecure feelings of being 'dissed.' Really, it's not necessary because the kid will fail the class...or pass it because he already knew the material. Remind him that paying attention is important and he'll need to take off the 'phones to do that. if he says 'no' just say 'remember there's a test next week, I hope you'll be prepared.' and leave it at that. if the kid keeps forgetting to turn off his cell phone ringer, then throw him out of the class until he starts remembering. none of this requires a panopticonic policy. of course such policies have a benefit for the emotional security challenged people out there who are more often than not in-charge.
The 'cyber bullying 'excuse for this new 'power' is just another form of 'for the children.' searching/confiscating phones and deleting files on them is not going to stop bullying.. in fact, all this will do is enable yet another way for faculty to bully students.
these punishments were banned because they were heavily abused by hypocritical bullies. most people have trouble with handling power justly over prolonged periods of time. even the most fair of teachers will statistically succumb to abusing it because it's the quickest way to get the behavior they want now at the expense of a balanced adult later on.
If we were to bring corporal punishment back, then I think it's only fair that the kids have a shot at hitting the teacher should it be shown that he was lying about their behavior. of course, no one will support that. The real answer is just to throw misbehaving kids out of class. beatings aren't necessary. nor are other forms of bullying that probably resulted in these kids labeling this teacher a pedo out of revenge.
My favorite part is where they're saying the principal violated their privacy by making them log in to facebook at the school. You posted a severely damning lie about an agent of the school on a pseudo-public social website and now you're worried about your privacy?
she shouldn't have been able to do that.
Suspended for 10 days is a puny slap on the wrist. Yes Honor Roll students screw up too, and just because they generally do the write thing doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished, people need to wake up, children need appropriate and sane levels of discipline or they turn in to jack-asses later in life.
depends on the character of the discipliner. Most discipliners these days are hypocritical jackasses themselves who are really just bullies with a badge. No one breeds contempt for authority faster than people like this. the faculty has most of the power so therefore they have most of the blame for the situation in school. if honor roll students are calling a teacher such a name, I'd say there's more going on here than simple asshattery.
Punishment is an accepted step in teaching children how to behave, last I checked.
it only works when the punishers are not blatant hypocrites themselves. in fact, most disrespect towards an authority figure or organization comes from its own hypocritical behavior. lose the respect, and lose the control. lose the control, and people start dissing you. don't want to lose the control, don't lose the respect. don't want to lose the respect? don't be a hypocrite. most school policies are highly hypocritical. I fail to see the justice in a policy that says "lying about a faculty member's behavior is punishable and faculty gets to decide what is a lie and what isn't." The policy at my highschool was written this way.
ut they were all 12-13 years of age, which should mean they already know that lying about their teacher being a pedo/rapist is wrong.
so the answer to everything nowadays is expulsion? shitty reductionist reasoning like this is going to end up making every offense, real or bogus, punishable by death.
That is the punishment step. The kids did wrong, they know it, and they were caught. Now they get to face up to the consequences.
as will the punishers have to face the consequences of their own actions: expelled kids will end up on the street where they cause more harm to society and/or they'll be unemployable so we'll have to fund their unemployment checks...all because of all this excessive lashing out that was caused (probably) by a teacher behaving hypocritically in these kids' class.
maybe what's needed are some strong privacy laws? if we make every avenue for expression a liability pit like you say facebook is, then we've effectively killed free speech.
uh yes.. it is.. since when is free speech defined by those who think said speech is unacceptable? since seriously? is society that overly sensitive nowadays? wow.
Whatever. I've had mine for nearly a year now and it still gets over 10 hours. Maybe in another 2-3 years it'll degrade but, honestly, like I give a care.
you might if it goes dead and you can't carry an extra. also, your needs != everyone elses.
The iPad is incredibly cheap.
no, it's not. none of the tablet devices are.. they all need a $300 price drop minimum to become interesting.
iOS devices have a track record of holding up well against new cycles of iOS for at least a couple of years.
uh no.. each successive upgrade seems to get slower and slower. whether that's intentional or not, who knows.. this is true on all apple systems, not just the ios devices. android isn't exempt from this either.. in fact desktop pcs suffer too.
It's amazing how, on Slashdot, completely make-believe, possibly-maybe-in-the-future downsides for iOS seem to outrank actual, major-fuck-up downsides happening right now for Android.
it's also amazing how apple fanboys blatantly ignore faults in their products, and even turn them into features solely to justify their emotionally driven purchasing habits. android has its problems too, for sure, but apple is not this holy grail. get over it already.
"No 4G!". Okay, seriously, get out more.
seriously? this is your answer? it could be used against your entire rant here. get out more!! it's just a damned computer.. oh wait, this is slashdot where people care about stuff like this. the 'go out and get laid' fallacy doesn't apply here nor does it address the complaint of no 4G support. it sounds like you're using emotionally justified fallacies to shield yourself from the flaws others perceive in the product you bought so that your ego wont take a hit. otherwise you wouldn't have posted this at all.
"No 7-inch screen!". Fuck off. This from the same crowd that roared that the iPad was just a big iPhone. 7-inch screens are a cop-out by bullshit manufacturers who cannot price-match the iPad at 10 inches.
well, the ipad IS a big iphone.. the android slates are big android phones. for some people the larger device is a setback. they'd rather have a laptop at that point. you know what? they're right! at that size, a small laptop is a better value in terms of functionality per unit of real estate..and probably price as well.
"No Flash!". Yeah okay. You get that one. I'm really missing those wicked banner ads spamming my eyes from all corners. What about iAd, you might cleverly retort? I have 200 apps and maybe 15 that I use daily or very often, and I have never - as in not once, ever - seen an iAd.
that doesn't mean you won't in the future.. remember, with these devices, you don't own shit and the 'apps' you 'buy' can be pulled/updated at any time. enjoy your apple colored rectal shaft. at least with android, you can opt for alternatives or write your own software so long as you buy from a vendor that doesn't have delusions of apple-'grandeur' (motorola).
It's clear that, at Slashdot, nothing less than absolute perfection (perfection being measured in some cases against yardsticks that exist only in people's dreams) will make an Apple product even remotely acceptable. On the other hand, when it comes to poxy Motorola or Samsung shitboxes that actually ARE left out of OS upgrades and ARE more expensive and DO have crappy battery life... well, we seem to have endless patience for those.
perhaps this double standard is the result of apple users having the reputation for overly emotional, highly insecure obsessions concerning their apple products. they preen and pimp themselves as some kind of holier-than-thou saviors of computing when all they really did was buy generic hardware inside a shiny plastic box like everyone else...except that they paid a premium for it in just about all cases. this r
yeah but they don't have the right to abscond with other people's money...no matter WHAT their TOS says.
I was with you until
..without complete openness in all aspects of our lives as well.
so how do you propose to keep everyones' life completely open? a tyrannical police state? oh wait, world governments are already busy building that as we speak.
sorry, some of us like to buy things to own, not rent for exorbitant prices.