If they converted 1160 "qualified on 'paper'" applicants to (say) 205 next round of interview applicants and eliminated all of one ethnicity in that process then statistics are a fine way to show bias. 25 and 7 ultimate positions aren't enough to use statistics alone to make the case, particularly when 11 out of the 25 and one out of the 7 were asian. So, the number of cases where they claim bias did the decision making are 10 or fewer. I'm not saying that the department of labor is wrong. But, I am saying that it's idiotic to use only statistical mathematics to argue about 10 decisions. They need additional evidence of bias.
Agreed. Side-note and would love to hear your thoughts on this (this is a real question, not some BS or trick)...
Pre-question info - if you have 100 applicants; 40 asian; 30 white; 20 hispanic; 10 misc... They all have resumes that show that they meet the direct technical knowledge specifications for a position (e.g. Oracle Database Migration, Windows Server 2008+ administration, etc) but have an interesting little logic which is perfectly valid in there: "able to think outside the box".
All 100 are interviewed. It is confirmed and even on video that out of all of the applicants, when given a complex logic question that doesn't have a "book answer", 15 of the whites were creative and even cunning, 9 of the asians were, 5 hispanic were, and 1 misc. was... You interview another time and find that out of all of the ones that were capable, 5 old whites, 1 asian, no hispanics, and and nix the misc. were capable of completing a logical jump while weighing risk and sometimes even simplifying the issue to the point of realizing that it didn't require analysis/etc. Fact: the 5 old whites had experience, hands-on and not. The asian had only read in college text how stuff works (etc etc) and didn't get the concept of what was being analyzed.
Question - if you have a deadline and need people right now to solve a major problem that you company could go under if it didn't solve, you decide to hire the 5 whites and the asian, even though the asian was incapable of meeting the non-specific requirement of essentially "thinking abstract/outside the box" with actual demonstrable sessions... Do you feel it's fair for your company to get a complaint and investigation which shows you were not meeting the required numbers for "equality"?
I ask the question because I think it's the biggest load of horse shit in employment. In places I've worked, the residency of the surrounding area was primarily white. Another was a nice mix of all. Another was a mix of all but for IT positions, 90% were white applicants; the rest didn't even have the education nor were they interested. I've been denied a position I was a perfect match for (I had inside info) and a young African-Ameican was hired who didn't meet all of the qualifications and was basically asking others questions every day to figure out how to do their work because it was something they were completely unfamiliar with. They didn't ever "get it" and were terminated for "lack of work" just to avoid BS when, really, they were canned because they weren't getting work done without draining from the resources from the rest of the team.
I don't know if I'm missing something that's key and obvious or if I'm just a casualty of reality. I fail to understand why a company must risk / essentially waste money to meet racial requirements when the applicants that are hired to meet said requirements DO NOT. Don't even come close. At the same time, a perfectly qualified person who is looking for work after moving back to their "home" city after spending years in other cities seeing that it wasn't 'for them' is denied a job they are perfectly qualified for and the interviewers loved. To get hit with that shit and be expected to feel there is "equality" is complete, said above, horse shit. I get sick to my stomach thinking about it because the position was a dream job, not just a perfect job I was qualified for.
Or maybe they, *gasp*, hire based on qualifications and merit rather than some racist guideline the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has laid out.
Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome.
You are NOT allowed to do that. EVER. BAD, Anonymous commenter. BAD! *rolls up newspaper*
This is very educational! The whole time I thought they were doing web searches about the most popular or dangerous topics of the day, ranking them, having humans sift through them and pick duplicates, use the duplicates to verify that they are not biased, and using AI to learn from previous interactions what the key words are after content is delivered; this allowed them to find what words to respond to with "hope" and/or "change" prefixed, suffixed, or inserted before and or after "to" and "and". This code has embarrassed my analytical skills severely. I can't believe it was that simple all along. now that I see it, it's SO OBVIOUS./humor:)
China's GDP is about 2/3rds that of the U.S. So yes it is a bit surprising that iOS app store revenue is greater for China than for the U.S. My guess would be the later introduction of the iPhone and iPad into China means people there are still in the "stocking up on apps they want" stage, while Americans left that phase 4-5 years ago.
You're examining a derived figure for a restricted activity and comparing it as an indicator of economic welfare. Smart phones are luxury items with restricted distribution based on service. That is before the element of the restricted app market itself. The best app is for geolocated weather forecasts that farmers can use.
Let's play a game. Would you eat a dog turd for 20 bucks? If you're like most people, you just had a "are you fucking kidding me? That'd be disgusting!" moment. You saw the amount I threw out there, but it was so low that you didn't give it a second thought.
Now, what if I asked you if you'd eat a dog turd for 20,000? Bet you're considering it. 200,000? Even more so. 2,000,000...20,000,000... well, you get the idea.
Let's bring this back around to the samsung situation; they hoped to control the dialog, and in order to do that they need to control the news reports. If they could have gotten this guy on the payroll, it would have lessened the PR damage. They were already on the hook for the recall, they had to have known it, but perhaps they were looking to salvage the brand name.
The only fault I have with this behavior is that they misread the situation and lowballed the guy. Some dumbass manager probably pulled the "penny wise pound foolish" card.
Agreed. You have a good point.
Side note... after you said "pound foolish", my brain jumped to creating some twitter thingie or something.. hash tag? As you can see, the end result is that I don't use Twitter. LOL.
Good point? on what basis? There is hardly any evidence to support his conjecture.
There is pretty good evidence to support it from their point and mine; you just have to desire to accept it or discard it:
Personal observation. I know (and don't know but observe) 100, 150, something like that people and their habits. My observations match up with the "point" that the parent comment made about "low end customers", expanding to "target buyer" in my logical jump, based on my observational data.
Head count over a billion more than U.S. Hmm. My question is why is the exceeding number so small!? I know it's still overall developing and all that, but still.
The damage to your name is done. It's going to get around in FAR more places than a YouTube video or gaming mod. It's already public knowledge. It has hate, love, jokes, stories, tabloid material.... Just give it the eff up already. Something happened and it's done. It can't be undone. All you can do is compensate and move on.
Maybe you should try playing on the negativity as a way to assist advertising safe new products. When a company jokes about themselves about external things that were forced upon them (the public view, not the hardware failure-that's bad decision), people get a laugh and eventually get over it (the harmed aside, of course).
Don't go all 'iddqd' to get God Mode and pull SCO-like crap for years to try any force your name back into superiority with court rulings and forced censorship. It shots you in the foot every..single..effing..time you do it.
As long as the phone is not remarkably slow, does it matter if the storage is slower than the upper model? People buy the iPhone for iOS and its ergonomics.
Agreed. Add on teen to tween factors ("I have what the others have so I'm part of the 'in' group" et al) and it's like almost every other device/product. It can even be compared to clothing in price/quality/brand-name-BS. You have to analyze something to see if it's a real Gucci or a fake; the t[w]eens don't care; they focus on impression.
Speed isn't something that's critical for handheld storage with limited processor speeds/bandwidth from the air or cables/etc unless you're testing to find flaws or best options. In that case, why would you want the smaller device if it's going to be heavily used and transferred to/from..? I can say "it takes me 5 minutes to transfer my 29GB of music to my 32GB storage phone" or "it takes me 5 minutes to transfer 232GB to my 256GB storage phone". Apples and oranges. I know the math is bad there, but I can't do math. You get the point.;)
Okay, devil's advocate time. What if Apple is intentionally using cheaper (read: slower) chips for devices that don't have a lot of capacity to save money, while using more expensive ones on larger capacity ones, to prevent huge lags in time for transfers/saves/backups/etc that the larger ones would experience with the same chips (just more of them)? It sounds like a solid business decision that makes sense for $ and doesn't harm the customer unless they check to see if they're being "harmed", which is a definition that customer applies in this context themselves; they aren't truly being harmed.
Devil's advocate can't overrule the non-devil, so it's basically flame bait for Apple to have this thrown in the public eye in my public-view opinion. I am not a fan of Apple's. In fact, I refuse to purchase any of their crap after learning factually what they do hardware-wise and as a company... so this is saying a lot coming from me - that it doesn't matter. I don't see it as a "wrong" they are doing unless there is company documentation that can be verified that dictates that this is an up-sale tactic and more than just a flat speed is involved (e.g. software makes the lag seem greater even when the chip-side block read/write/modify and rewrite speeds are not experiencing the normal slow-down that comes with near-maxing). Heck, I can't even say much there because I don't know if Apple's filesystem used on the iOS devices seeks empty blocks before first-available anyhow.
As someone who doesn't like Apple products or its business practices, I say I don't see this as something I consider bad. I would expect a cheap low-capacity Android device with slower write speed on the storage to be the same thing and acceptable to me as a consumer; again, as long as the intentional software-based slowdown effect isn't used to encourage up-sale. That's sleazy no matter how you look at it (even if you're the one benefiting from it).
Or alternatively (but unlikely) they are using bigger capacity chips in the cheaper model. Say 2x16 and then 8x8 for the bigger model. Either way I think it would be a sign that they decided explicitly to give a perf benefit to the larger device.
Think of it this way though: 32GB model is going to your low end customers. These are people that are either light users or it is their first smart phone. Anything you give them will likely be vastly better than they were used to so why (other than being moral) treat them the same as your "good" customers?
Good point about target buyer. The difficulty now comes on Apple's part to say that, technically explain why it is the way it is (which they won't), or come up with an interesting damage control plan for people feeling "unequal", even though they are, in fact, on an unequal playing field... so to speak. I'll change my last name if they recall all of the device and re-ship with equal speed somehow cooked in.;)
This kind of makes no sense. You'd have to be living in a cave to not know that they throttle your service after a certain amount. I'd much prefer that than being cut off or forced to pay extra like Comcast is/will be doing for "unlimited service". *That is as long as the throttle was sufficient to use the Internet*. Some ISPs (not all) think a couple mbps is still good enough for an entire family. Fining Comcast for 2.3 million while they were actually stealing money from customers for services they did not ask for.. what the hell? This will just go towards eliminating unlimited tiers.
You have a good point, but I can only see abuse-picking by limiting of resources, like they would do what dialup providers did in the old days (circa 1995). If there was too much use and people were complaining about busy signals (in this case read: "my wireless data xfer is so slow"), you would knock the longest time online users off to allow slots for others.
In this case, it could be a system of: sure, allow unlimited for everyone... But, after a week or less, people would complain about how slow their unlimited data is and companies could respond with "Ah. We see someone who is pulling 50mbps and has been for over an hour now, we'll block their data access for 5 minutes (or until they call in)." A war will start over what "need" is -vs- "want" and yadda yadda... things would become more restricted for everyone or end up where they are now.
It's a hopeless battle because people want something that they can't get unless companies have the money and desire to provide a medium capable of giving them what they want. That's where the confusion lies. I have "unlimited data" but it's a "just in case". When I'm at work or home, I turn on the WiFi. Unless I, for some reason, lose all access to the 'net, I don't know why I would need (or even want) 80mbps up to and over 17gb of data (my cutoff at this moment due to my less use and 'rollover' which I didn't even ask for). I don't see using LTE as a "money savings" of $49.99/mo for my 50mbps hardline 'net at home being logical or viable.
No, that should not cover them, as they are advertising a limit after the fact. The issue here is where they say "unlimited" which by any technically-competent person would imply you can use as much bandwidth as you can receive at any time with zero time restrictions or other restrictions.
If you advertise throttling at any point and time, you are lying about your unlimited service. Unlimited means NO LIMITS. Period. Oxford has yet to change that definition, and fuck 'legal' definitions as they are often not based upon factual information.
Agree, but disagree on a point... "Unlimited" is the volume of data that you can use in a month (in those companies' eyes). The public understand it as that, as well. "Unlimited without throttling" is another definition that involves speed+amount are both unlimited (I can't imagine what that plan would cost). Having said that..
In the future, I'm sure companies other than T-Mobile will offer Unlimited without throttling, but have random slowdowns that they can limit by node (so your friend sitting by you pulling the same data at the same time will also be "slower") so it doesn't look targeted with proof. The companies will say it's natural bandwidth limitation (hey, you wanted unlimited so now everyone's overusing) and unless tech stats are pulled and reviewed, it's not arguable. Unless there's a whistle-blower.... and.... Scene!
It depends on whether you take "unlimited" to mean that it has no limits, or whether you take it to mean only that no limits have been imposed by the provider. In a notion of a "limited" plan, the provider decides what those limits are, and either directly limits usage to within those limits, or else charges the subscriber a larger fee for exceeding them. Note, in this case, it is not physical infrastructure that is imposing any limit, but rather, it is a particular policy that is being used by the service provider. "Unlimited" therefore, should reasonably mean only that no such policies are utilized by the provider, and that the provider is not taking any action to actually "limit" the subscirber's usage beyond what provider's infrastructure could have otherwise provided for an arbitrary user.
The difference depends on whether you take the words "limited" or "unlimited" to be adjectives describing a plan, or transitive verbs that operate on a plan.
This is "precedent" in the future. Now the definition will be clearly defined or fine print enlarged/bolded. Actually, they probably won't do any of that, but hey. Precedent! I expect all of us will get mailings (non T-Mobile customers) about the specifics of our data plans just to cover ass.
So they tried to avoid bad PR. Maybe I've become jaded, but where's the problem with that?
The implication, I think, is that samsung had intended to cover it up in the hopes of preserving the Note line, but I think that'd be quite a stretch given everything else.
What the heck? Talk about a gamble. It's already public news. Bribing or anything like a bribe to keep peoples' media/opinions/etc to themselves and getting caught doing it makes your "wrongness" look MANY times worse than just admitting fault and compensating those harmed. Not trying to argue with you, but come on..... If I have a mail server with tons of stuff and try to make it disappear after the public knows about it... Yeah.
If you're going to bribe someone to keep a major, possibly company destroying, event secret then you should probably offer him more than $900. Cheap out on the bribes and it will come back to bite you in the end.
But that's like 10 billion yen... that's a huge number to the receiver. Oh. wait.
In Ohio, TriHealth and Group Health Associates are both "coming up with a cool new system" for hipsters and people who love to use computers instead of talk to people. Oh, wait.. They're FORCING people to use the automated systems (look like mini kiosks) instead of talking to someone just to "check in" or announce that you have arrived for an appointment.
You can get around it, but you have to talk to a single person sitting at a desk for usually 5+ minutes just to convince them you're not going to use this stupid system and want them to check you in manually. They try to convince you to use it and that they can't help you. You have to call bullshit and raise your tone of voice before they will ask for your name and perform a few clicks, followed by "Dr. [so-and-so] will see you whenever."
Why? They take pictures of you every time you use them. I'm sure TriHealth nor Group Health Assoc. feed information to anyone else for $ or $ breaks. *cough*
It's not just you. Science says that women are better at multitasking than men, but they're still shit at it. We all are. We have to context switch as surely as does a processor.
You're dead-on. One of the incidents where ADD (as a concept, not modern day popular naming convention) is a great help.
I like how he chose the words "open platform" rather than "secure platform", "stable platform", "reliable platform".
Windows 10 is an Open operating system. Open to viruses and Malware . Wait I take that back Windows 10 meets the very definition of malware and a software virus.
The funny thing is that VAX VMS is the "parent" of the Windows kernel, and many approaches between the systems are very similar (to the extent that Digital sued Microsoft and won). The ACL permission scheme is the most striking.
VMS had very good security - the best in the business. It's hard to understand how that went so very wrong for Windows. There has been commentary that Dave Cutler himself practically threw the issue overboard.
The best I can figure (and I've been thinking since win-vs-anything began) is that MS made the $ decision to make a change to their OS to accommodate for a large international-sized corporation. That lead to rush, poor debugging and safety testing. Heck, security wasn't a BIG deal back then, it was just localized. That was the proverbial gun. Once changes were introduced to accommodate something someone wanted to make MS more money, there were bugs introduced where some were discovered quickly and others not for years. Then hacking to try and find the bugs became a "I'm the coolest 3133t on the planet" game. Some were taken advantage of, others patches released for.
In between those times, people complained about things changing in the OS that they didn't like or that they didn't have time to write "all new software" for. MS decided to ensure their foothold by making those users happy with leaving legacy things in place while adding new options and functions. Then came the kernel explosion - DOS to NT. DOS code had to be used to keep users satisfied enough to not abandon, while NT was being expanded upon simultaneously. Once the company reached a certain size and the number of developers exceeded the number that could maintain any sane communication, the company forked. Each fork controls something completely or more than another part. Decisions became difficult - agree that three forks leave something crappy while throwing something new in to compete with other OSes now becoming the desktop war. 32 to 64-bit. Servers and workstations. The code is so full of holes and bugs that it would have to be rewritten from near scratch to cover them, and there isn't enough time to do that to keep up with the expansion of other OSes.
Security is only a concern when it harms the company image, not its primary driver that overrides decisions of GUI improvement, speed, functions to cove all buzzword crud of the day (e.g. "The Cloud").... They are in a place where they can't recover unless they take full control while at the same time making things work the way consumers want them to. But, with their advantage, they can slack on the consumer happiness now. Now it's Windows 10. They are only hanging on because of their initial success in business. Home consumers like Apple sometimes; Linux others. It's just a mess now and the consumer is the one who gets to be in the middle of the battle while "feeling" that all of these things are "for their own good and nothing else". Bullshit. Every company and Human does what's best for themsel[f|ves]. Anyone who says they don't is lying or blind to the fact given their own over-justification.
Anyhow, I believe what went wrong was greed and competition, both seen as the same thing in the company's eyes - success. Security was overlooked, sometime hacked to appear that it was there and filled in later, while at the same time making up their own version of a security standard or failing to meet others. In my eyes, as long as they can keep the workstation where I work using their OS, they have control via fear of change and failure (of companies to switch to another OS or screw something up royally in the process).
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for your candor!
If they converted 1160 "qualified on 'paper'" applicants to (say) 205 next round of interview applicants and eliminated all of one ethnicity in that process then statistics are a fine way to show bias. 25 and 7 ultimate positions aren't enough to use statistics alone to make the case, particularly when 11 out of the 25 and one out of the 7 were asian. So, the number of cases where they claim bias did the decision making are 10 or fewer. I'm not saying that the department of labor is wrong. But, I am saying that it's idiotic to use only statistical mathematics to argue about 10 decisions. They need additional evidence of bias.
Agreed. Side-note and would love to hear your thoughts on this (this is a real question, not some BS or trick)...
Pre-question info - if you have 100 applicants; 40 asian; 30 white; 20 hispanic; 10 misc... They all have resumes that show that they meet the direct technical knowledge specifications for a position (e.g. Oracle Database Migration, Windows Server 2008+ administration, etc) but have an interesting little logic which is perfectly valid in there: "able to think outside the box".
All 100 are interviewed. It is confirmed and even on video that out of all of the applicants, when given a complex logic question that doesn't have a "book answer", 15 of the whites were creative and even cunning, 9 of the asians were, 5 hispanic were, and 1 misc. was... You interview another time and find that out of all of the ones that were capable, 5 old whites, 1 asian, no hispanics, and and nix the misc. were capable of completing a logical jump while weighing risk and sometimes even simplifying the issue to the point of realizing that it didn't require analysis/etc. Fact: the 5 old whites had experience, hands-on and not. The asian had only read in college text how stuff works (etc etc) and didn't get the concept of what was being analyzed.
Question - if you have a deadline and need people right now to solve a major problem that you company could go under if it didn't solve, you decide to hire the 5 whites and the asian, even though the asian was incapable of meeting the non-specific requirement of essentially "thinking abstract/outside the box" with actual demonstrable sessions... Do you feel it's fair for your company to get a complaint and investigation which shows you were not meeting the required numbers for "equality"?
I ask the question because I think it's the biggest load of horse shit in employment. In places I've worked, the residency of the surrounding area was primarily white. Another was a nice mix of all. Another was a mix of all but for IT positions, 90% were white applicants; the rest didn't even have the education nor were they interested. I've been denied a position I was a perfect match for (I had inside info) and a young African-Ameican was hired who didn't meet all of the qualifications and was basically asking others questions every day to figure out how to do their work because it was something they were completely unfamiliar with. They didn't ever "get it" and were terminated for "lack of work" just to avoid BS when, really, they were canned because they weren't getting work done without draining from the resources from the rest of the team.
I don't know if I'm missing something that's key and obvious or if I'm just a casualty of reality. I fail to understand why a company must risk / essentially waste money to meet racial requirements when the applicants that are hired to meet said requirements DO NOT. Don't even come close. At the same time, a perfectly qualified person who is looking for work after moving back to their "home" city after spending years in other cities seeing that it wasn't 'for them' is denied a job they are perfectly qualified for and the interviewers loved. To get hit with that shit and be expected to feel there is "equality" is complete, said above, horse shit. I get sick to my stomach thinking about it because the position was a dream job, not just a perfect job I was qualified for.
Or maybe they, *gasp*, hire based on qualifications and merit rather than some racist guideline the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has laid out.
Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome.
You are NOT allowed to do that. EVER. BAD, Anonymous commenter. BAD! *rolls up newspaper*
*Bill Clinton voice*
"Could you please explain to me what the definition of 'Startup' is?"
Heh
say(rnd() % 1 ? "hope" : "change)
This is very educational! The whole time I thought they were doing web searches about the most popular or dangerous topics of the day, ranking them, having humans sift through them and pick duplicates, use the duplicates to verify that they are not biased, and using AI to learn from previous interactions what the key words are after content is delivered; this allowed them to find what words to respond to with "hope" and/or "change" prefixed, suffixed, or inserted before and or after "to" and "and". This code has embarrassed my analytical skills severely. I can't believe it was that simple all along. now that I see it, it's SO OBVIOUS. /humor :)
China's GDP is about 2/3rds that of the U.S. So yes it is a bit surprising that iOS app store revenue is greater for China than for the U.S. My guess would be the later introduction of the iPhone and iPad into China means people there are still in the "stocking up on apps they want" stage, while Americans left that phase 4-5 years ago.
I've been educated. Thanks. Embarrassing.
All that's ringing through my head is "..and the next wave of 'We'll 'help you' starts."
You're examining a derived figure for a restricted activity and comparing it as an indicator of economic welfare. Smart phones are luxury items with restricted distribution based on service. That is before the element of the restricted app market itself. The best app is for geolocated weather forecasts that farmers can use.
I bow. You have a good point there.
Oh, and no pun intended. :)
Everyone has their price.
Let's play a game. Would you eat a dog turd for 20 bucks? If you're like most people, you just had a "are you fucking kidding me? That'd be disgusting!" moment. You saw the amount I threw out there, but it was so low that you didn't give it a second thought.
Now, what if I asked you if you'd eat a dog turd for 20,000? Bet you're considering it. 200,000? Even more so. 2,000,000...20,000,000... well, you get the idea.
Let's bring this back around to the samsung situation; they hoped to control the dialog, and in order to do that they need to control the news reports. If they could have gotten this guy on the payroll, it would have lessened the PR damage. They were already on the hook for the recall, they had to have known it, but perhaps they were looking to salvage the brand name.
The only fault I have with this behavior is that they misread the situation and lowballed the guy. Some dumbass manager probably pulled the "penny wise pound foolish" card.
Agreed. You have a good point.
Side note... after you said "pound foolish", my brain jumped to creating some twitter thingie or something.. hash tag? As you can see, the end result is that I don't use Twitter. LOL.
Good point? on what basis? There is hardly any evidence to support his conjecture.
There is pretty good evidence to support it from their point and mine; you just have to desire to accept it or discard it:
Personal observation. I know (and don't know but observe) 100, 150, something like that people and their habits. My observations match up with the "point" that the parent comment made about "low end customers", expanding to "target buyer" in my logical jump, based on my observational data.
China Population (2013): 1.357 billion
U.S. Population (2014): 318.9 million
Head count over a billion more than U.S. Hmm. My question is why is the exceeding number so small!? I know it's still overall developing and all that, but still.
The damage to your name is done. It's going to get around in FAR more places than a YouTube video or gaming mod. It's already public knowledge. It has hate, love, jokes, stories, tabloid material.... Just give it the eff up already. Something happened and it's done. It can't be undone. All you can do is compensate and move on.
Maybe you should try playing on the negativity as a way to assist advertising safe new products. When a company jokes about themselves about external things that were forced upon them (the public view, not the hardware failure-that's bad decision), people get a laugh and eventually get over it (the harmed aside, of course).
Don't go all 'iddqd' to get God Mode and pull SCO-like crap for years to try any force your name back into superiority with court rulings and forced censorship. It shots you in the foot every..single..effing..time you do it.
As long as the phone is not remarkably slow, does it matter if the storage is slower than the upper model? People buy the iPhone for iOS and its ergonomics.
Agreed. Add on teen to tween factors ("I have what the others have so I'm part of the 'in' group" et al) and it's like almost every other device/product. It can even be compared to clothing in price/quality/brand-name-BS. You have to analyze something to see if it's a real Gucci or a fake; the t[w]eens don't care; they focus on impression.
Speed isn't something that's critical for handheld storage with limited processor speeds/bandwidth from the air or cables/etc unless you're testing to find flaws or best options. In that case, why would you want the smaller device if it's going to be heavily used and transferred to/from..? I can say "it takes me 5 minutes to transfer my 29GB of music to my 32GB storage phone" or "it takes me 5 minutes to transfer 232GB to my 256GB storage phone". Apples and oranges. I know the math is bad there, but I can't do math. You get the point. ;)
Okay, devil's advocate time. What if Apple is intentionally using cheaper (read: slower) chips for devices that don't have a lot of capacity to save money, while using more expensive ones on larger capacity ones, to prevent huge lags in time for transfers/saves/backups/etc that the larger ones would experience with the same chips (just more of them)? It sounds like a solid business decision that makes sense for $ and doesn't harm the customer unless they check to see if they're being "harmed", which is a definition that customer applies in this context themselves; they aren't truly being harmed.
Devil's advocate can't overrule the non-devil, so it's basically flame bait for Apple to have this thrown in the public eye in my public-view opinion. I am not a fan of Apple's. In fact, I refuse to purchase any of their crap after learning factually what they do hardware-wise and as a company... so this is saying a lot coming from me - that it doesn't matter. I don't see it as a "wrong" they are doing unless there is company documentation that can be verified that dictates that this is an up-sale tactic and more than just a flat speed is involved (e.g. software makes the lag seem greater even when the chip-side block read/write/modify and rewrite speeds are not experiencing the normal slow-down that comes with near-maxing). Heck, I can't even say much there because I don't know if Apple's filesystem used on the iOS devices seeks empty blocks before first-available anyhow.
As someone who doesn't like Apple products or its business practices, I say I don't see this as something I consider bad. I would expect a cheap low-capacity Android device with slower write speed on the storage to be the same thing and acceptable to me as a consumer; again, as long as the intentional software-based slowdown effect isn't used to encourage up-sale. That's sleazy no matter how you look at it (even if you're the one benefiting from it).
Or alternatively (but unlikely) they are using bigger capacity chips in the cheaper model. Say 2x16 and then 8x8 for the bigger model. Either way I think it would be a sign that they decided explicitly to give a perf benefit to the larger device.
Think of it this way though: 32GB model is going to your low end customers. These are people that are either light users or it is their first smart phone. Anything you give them will likely be vastly better than they were used to so why (other than being moral) treat them the same as your "good" customers?
Good point about target buyer. The difficulty now comes on Apple's part to say that, technically explain why it is the way it is (which they won't), or come up with an interesting damage control plan for people feeling "unequal", even though they are, in fact, on an unequal playing field... so to speak. I'll change my last name if they recall all of the device and re-ship with equal speed somehow cooked in. ;)
This kind of makes no sense. You'd have to be living in a cave to not know that they throttle your service after a certain amount. I'd much prefer that than being cut off or forced to pay extra like Comcast is/will be doing for "unlimited service". *That is as long as the throttle was sufficient to use the Internet*. Some ISPs (not all) think a couple mbps is still good enough for an entire family. Fining Comcast for 2.3 million while they were actually stealing money from customers for services they did not ask for.. what the hell? This will just go towards eliminating unlimited tiers.
You have a good point, but I can only see abuse-picking by limiting of resources, like they would do what dialup providers did in the old days (circa 1995). If there was too much use and people were complaining about busy signals (in this case read: "my wireless data xfer is so slow"), you would knock the longest time online users off to allow slots for others.
In this case, it could be a system of: sure, allow unlimited for everyone... But, after a week or less, people would complain about how slow their unlimited data is and companies could respond with "Ah. We see someone who is pulling 50mbps and has been for over an hour now, we'll block their data access for 5 minutes (or until they call in)." A war will start over what "need" is -vs- "want" and yadda yadda... things would become more restricted for everyone or end up where they are now.
It's a hopeless battle because people want something that they can't get unless companies have the money and desire to provide a medium capable of giving them what they want. That's where the confusion lies. I have "unlimited data" but it's a "just in case". When I'm at work or home, I turn on the WiFi. Unless I, for some reason, lose all access to the 'net, I don't know why I would need (or even want) 80mbps up to and over 17gb of data (my cutoff at this moment due to my less use and 'rollover' which I didn't even ask for). I don't see using LTE as a "money savings" of $49.99/mo for my 50mbps hardline 'net at home being logical or viable.
Your cheery response is noted, but they could be rejected.
I like your style!
Unfortunately, there are always decision makers to be "bought out".
No, that should not cover them, as they are advertising a limit after the fact. The issue here is where they say "unlimited" which by any technically-competent person would imply you can use as much bandwidth as you can receive at any time with zero time restrictions or other restrictions.
If you advertise throttling at any point and time, you are lying about your unlimited service. Unlimited means NO LIMITS. Period. Oxford has yet to change that definition, and fuck 'legal' definitions as they are often not based upon factual information.
Agree, but disagree on a point... "Unlimited" is the volume of data that you can use in a month (in those companies' eyes). The public understand it as that, as well. "Unlimited without throttling" is another definition that involves speed+amount are both unlimited (I can't imagine what that plan would cost). Having said that..
In the future, I'm sure companies other than T-Mobile will offer Unlimited without throttling, but have random slowdowns that they can limit by node (so your friend sitting by you pulling the same data at the same time will also be "slower") so it doesn't look targeted with proof. The companies will say it's natural bandwidth limitation (hey, you wanted unlimited so now everyone's overusing) and unless tech stats are pulled and reviewed, it's not arguable. Unless there's a whistle-blower.... and.... Scene!
It depends on whether you take "unlimited" to mean that it has no limits, or whether you take it to mean only that no limits have been imposed by the provider. In a notion of a "limited" plan, the provider decides what those limits are, and either directly limits usage to within those limits, or else charges the subscriber a larger fee for exceeding them. Note, in this case, it is not physical infrastructure that is imposing any limit, but rather, it is a particular policy that is being used by the service provider. "Unlimited" therefore, should reasonably mean only that no such policies are utilized by the provider, and that the provider is not taking any action to actually "limit" the subscirber's usage beyond what provider's infrastructure could have otherwise provided for an arbitrary user.
The difference depends on whether you take the words "limited" or "unlimited" to be adjectives describing a plan, or transitive verbs that operate on a plan.
This is "precedent" in the future. Now the definition will be clearly defined or fine print enlarged/bolded. Actually, they probably won't do any of that, but hey. Precedent! I expect all of us will get mailings (non T-Mobile customers) about the specifics of our data plans just to cover ass.
So they tried to avoid bad PR. Maybe I've become jaded, but where's the problem with that?
The implication, I think, is that samsung had intended to cover it up in the hopes of preserving the Note line, but I think that'd be quite a stretch given everything else.
What the heck? Talk about a gamble. It's already public news. Bribing or anything like a bribe to keep peoples' media/opinions/etc to themselves and getting caught doing it makes your "wrongness" look MANY times worse than just admitting fault and compensating those harmed. Not trying to argue with you, but come on..... If I have a mail server with tons of stuff and try to make it disappear after the public knows about it... Yeah.
If you're going to bribe someone to keep a major, possibly company destroying, event secret then you should probably offer him more than $900. Cheap out on the bribes and it will come back to bite you in the end.
But that's like 10 billion yen... that's a huge number to the receiver. Oh. wait.
In Ohio, TriHealth and Group Health Associates are both "coming up with a cool new system" for hipsters and people who love to use computers instead of talk to people. Oh, wait.. They're FORCING people to use the automated systems (look like mini kiosks) instead of talking to someone just to "check in" or announce that you have arrived for an appointment.
You can get around it, but you have to talk to a single person sitting at a desk for usually 5+ minutes just to convince them you're not going to use this stupid system and want them to check you in manually. They try to convince you to use it and that they can't help you. You have to call bullshit and raise your tone of voice before they will ask for your name and perform a few clicks, followed by "Dr. [so-and-so] will see you whenever."
Why? They take pictures of you every time you use them. I'm sure TriHealth nor Group Health Assoc. feed information to anyone else for $ or $ breaks. *cough*
Or is that just me?
It's not just you. Science says that women are better at multitasking than men, but they're still shit at it. We all are. We have to context switch as surely as does a processor.
You're dead-on. One of the incidents where ADD (as a concept, not modern day popular naming convention) is a great help.
I like how he chose the words "open platform" rather than "secure platform", "stable platform", "reliable platform".
Windows 10 is an Open operating system. Open to viruses and Malware . Wait I take that back Windows 10 meets the very definition of malware and a software virus.
Daz what I'm sayin'!
The funny thing is that VAX VMS is the "parent" of the Windows kernel, and many approaches between the systems are very similar (to the extent that Digital sued Microsoft and won). The ACL permission scheme is the most striking.
VMS had very good security - the best in the business. It's hard to understand how that went so very wrong for Windows. There has been commentary that Dave Cutler himself practically threw the issue overboard.
The best I can figure (and I've been thinking since win-vs-anything began) is that MS made the $ decision to make a change to their OS to accommodate for a large international-sized corporation. That lead to rush, poor debugging and safety testing. Heck, security wasn't a BIG deal back then, it was just localized. That was the proverbial gun. Once changes were introduced to accommodate something someone wanted to make MS more money, there were bugs introduced where some were discovered quickly and others not for years. Then hacking to try and find the bugs became a "I'm the coolest 3133t on the planet" game. Some were taken advantage of, others patches released for.
In between those times, people complained about things changing in the OS that they didn't like or that they didn't have time to write "all new software" for. MS decided to ensure their foothold by making those users happy with leaving legacy things in place while adding new options and functions. Then came the kernel explosion - DOS to NT. DOS code had to be used to keep users satisfied enough to not abandon, while NT was being expanded upon simultaneously. Once the company reached a certain size and the number of developers exceeded the number that could maintain any sane communication, the company forked. Each fork controls something completely or more than another part. Decisions became difficult - agree that three forks leave something crappy while throwing something new in to compete with other OSes now becoming the desktop war. 32 to 64-bit. Servers and workstations. The code is so full of holes and bugs that it would have to be rewritten from near scratch to cover them, and there isn't enough time to do that to keep up with the expansion of other OSes.
Security is only a concern when it harms the company image, not its primary driver that overrides decisions of GUI improvement, speed, functions to cove all buzzword crud of the day (e.g. "The Cloud").... They are in a place where they can't recover unless they take full control while at the same time making things work the way consumers want them to. But, with their advantage, they can slack on the consumer happiness now. Now it's Windows 10. They are only hanging on because of their initial success in business. Home consumers like Apple sometimes; Linux others. It's just a mess now and the consumer is the one who gets to be in the middle of the battle while "feeling" that all of these things are "for their own good and nothing else". Bullshit. Every company and Human does what's best for themsel[f|ves]. Anyone who says they don't is lying or blind to the fact given their own over-justification.
Anyhow, I believe what went wrong was greed and competition, both seen as the same thing in the company's eyes - success. Security was overlooked, sometime hacked to appear that it was there and filled in later, while at the same time making up their own version of a security standard or failing to meet others. In my eyes, as long as they can keep the workstation where I work using their OS, they have control via fear of change and failure (of companies to switch to another OS or screw something up royally in the process).
So what Mr. Cook meant by "courage" was it would take courage for brand loyal consumers to switch from Androids to an inferior Apple product.
What is "inferior", pray tell, about the iPhone 7? Answer carefully, as I can most likely logically and factually refute any of your reasoning.
It's not as white as your teeth.