Not exactly a design flaw... it's one little spot. And once you are aware of it, you go right for it like some hypnotized automaton. Some people had to be taught to touch the spot. This isn't a design flaw, and other phones have this second flaw as well in different places you are just as likely to find by accident. They weren't lying, all cell manufacturers also have to deal with it. Some even point out in the manual where to avoid touching, such as the Incredible... it also has a very distinctive "death spot."
From the moment I read Gizmodo's article, I knew this was all hogwash. It's like saying your car is defective because when you twist the starter and hold it there, it makes an awful noise and eventually will burn out... not a design flaw... all starters do that.
I can control your weak mind the same way Gizmodo did. Don't think of elephants! Don't think of elephants! Now... what are you thinking? (yes, that I saw Inception, beauty movie).
Actually, by definition, this is all histerical, just not ha ha histerical... but slap you in the face until you stop raving, histerical. Apple was burned by Gizmodo, and ravenous Apple zealots, not the antenna design, in the same way radio listeners were burned (once upon a time, remember radio?) by Orson Wells. Histerical.
What am I missing here? I feel like there is an aspect i'm not considering.
There is an economics to fighting certain victimless crimes... the DEA, for example, bad asses that they are (absolutely no doubt of that, do not mess with), would not be nearly as strong if medical cannabis were legal. It's the easy bust, like grinding out a living rather than taking the big score. They're human too, and I guess they deserve an easy day once in a while.
Other drugs, such as prescription drug crime, has a different situation. Oxycontin, miracle drug for those in terminal pain, is highly abused. But it is highly abused as a direct result of the Big Pharm pushing it through doctors. So, we have pregnant women robbing pharmacies because of the greed of Big Pharm.
Crimes like video piracy are pursued because of the power of lobbies like the RIAA.
There are precious few lobbies against murder, rape or assault. Perhaps there are grassroot sorta movements, with lots of people, but Big Money beats a big roster every time.
If only it were possible to somehow... restore the integrity of our lawmakers and enforcers bosses.... But SCOTUS saw fit to turn money into speach... and make nearly everything 'interstate commerce,' even if it isn't sold nor cross state lines... these must be fixed, I think. Our Founders never would have agreed with that. People (not 'citizens') first, Freedom second, security third, and money is barely mentioned in their highly instructive documents.
I think Jefferson was right about revolution. Problem is, I don't think anyone can do better than they did, so I am fearful of what would replace our increasingly more facist society. Remember the pro football strike? That was one of teh coolest seasons evar. I'd like to see a law banning professional politicians, or anyone self-seeking election. It should be law that only those that don't seek office can be nominated and elected...... well... just a crazy idea.
Also, and this is way way off subject, but as a society advances, the younger members of society get smarter, younger, with better education. We should pull out all the stops in elementary and secondary education, and really dig into the kids, and prepare them, make the best of them our leaders between the ages of, say, 21-35. The young are more ideal, less greedy, less likely to be coerced. Lets face it, their brains are just better than older brains, once their wild horses are broken. We should eliminate nearly every politician over the age of 40... but if they're awesome and wise, then they become the clerks and the advisors, rather than the other way around, because what we really have are invisible wonderkind writing speeches and policy that the older politicians simply sign their name to, take credit for... there are no more brilliant statesmen like John Quincy Adams or Woodrow Wilson left. What we have are handsome suits propped up by hollow ambition.
ah, yes, I do mind if you redefine my terms willy nilly, because reliability does not mean endurance or longevity. Toshiba is certainly very reliable... for the warranty period. Along with most other laptop manufacturers... But after the warranty ends, Apple is king.
What's weird is... I mean... If evolution really works, how is there are so many cases of cieliacs and (a subsequent poster points out) peanut allergies. Obviously this isn't the case, but it seems like maybe they're the next step... too early to tell, but that they're here at all sort of tells us they're more likely to procreate. Why is this absurd and obviously incorrect?
I don't think you are lying, just missing salient details.
Most MacBooks will last a long time; 6 years would be about average, but 7 years or more is not uncommon. That's better than twice as long as any other laptop manufacturer. So consider the useful life of the machine before you throw money away on garbage. Because, no matter what, you get what you pay for. I don't even have to know what the machine is to tell you a $1500 machine is gonna be a lot better than a $350 machine. They aren't made of the same stuff, nor designed the same way. Believe it or not, there's a damn good reason for the higher price tag: quality and expense of materials, engineering and design.
Oh and don't give me crap about Macs being better - the $1500 model actually had 1 GB less memory and 500 megahertz slower speed than the $450 Toshiba laptop
But we must, because your information is incorrect, and you are missing an important detail: quality. Sure, for the first year, both will perform similarly. But by year 3, it will be readily apparent that the MacBook is a superior machine. By year 8, while the MacBook will be religated to running the previous point something of Apple's OS, there will be no Toshiba laptop, it will have been recycled, because not only will the Toshiba branded hard drive be dead (roughly 1 month out of warranty, expect Toshiba HD death (yes, I know Apple sometimes uses Toshiba branded drives... that's how I know how Toshiba drives behave)), but the power connector will have snapped off the motherboard, and even if you replace the battery, you can't get it to charge because it won't stay connected to the power cord. But besides that, I'm sure if the Toshiba laptop could last more than 5 years, it would run Windows 8 just fine (note: final sentence is sarcasm).
Windows laptops, unless they happen to be a Mac, are good for about a year and a half. Then they get pretty annoying. After 3 years, they are nearly unusable. By year 5, lets be honest, they collect dust and prevent papers from blowing away, and nothing else.
You misunderstand me. By the time they got around to sentencing, Child's had already been imprisoned for longer than the crime deserved punishment. That's what I mean by malicious prosecution (even innocent men look guilty when they are imprisoned), and unlawful imprisonment (the punishment, when fully calculated, far outweighs the crime).
I call it malicious prosecution and unlawful imprisonment. How much time had he spent incarcerated BEFORE they tried and sentenced him? This punishment before conviction is becoming all too common a tactic for prosecutors.
The problem is that he flat out broke the law, and it was pretty obvious he knew he was doing wrong, he just thought they couldn't touch him. He had become infected with the sysadmin diesase of thinking that he owned the systems and could do as he pleased, and that he could make himself indispensable.
So sorry, but don't try and pass this off as "stupid jurors." The man had someone with the peak of network training sitting on his jury.
Again, no one seems to be able to address this, from Child's perspective, by what obligation was he required to keep working, without pay, once his position was terminated? Where is this legal principle that invalidates the Emancipation Proclimation? Because I call an involuntary requirement to continue working without compensation slavery.
There is a major principle of employment here that the city violated most grievously: don't put the cart before the horse, or, first socks, THEN shoes. If you are an employer, you must act tactfully and intelligently. Childs should never have been fired BEFORE relinquishing the information that only he had that they needed to replace him or continue operating their network. They should have HIRED someone to replace him BEFORE they fired him, and told Childs that the new guy was his backup, and needed all the access he had. Once his responsibilities were duplicated, that very Friday, they should have cut him his last check and escorted him off the grounds, during which time, the new guy would be securing, and replacing, all the passwords. They are punishing Childs a bit too harshly because his employers were incompetent.
Good points, and I can't disagree entirely... except that they fired him. Once his employment was terminated, I don't quite understand by what obligation he was required to keep working... without pay. Allow me to exaggerate a bit to make a point, but technically, an involuntary requirement to work without pay is also known as slavery.
The people who really ought to be having a miserable time in prison get a free pass to carry on tormenting and hurting other people for their own amusement. Other people who have nowhere to escape and nobody to turn to for help.
I see the justice system as inexplicably unbalanced as well. Why are nonviolent crimes pursued more vehemently than violent crimes? Why spend billions jailing, say, potheads, and other perpetrators of victimless crimes, rather than a hard push to eliminate violence and murder? How can any nonviolent crime with no victims that are physically violated ever be equal or worse than any violent crime? Why is any man allowed to punch any other man in the face, and 99% of the time its unprosecutable, and the victim is punished for not "sucking it up?"
Interesting, isn't it? I suppose you'll say that not all crime twarted is reported, but you know that's bull... if anything, the accidental gun deaths are boring news... stop a crime with your gun? that's almost national news material.
I don't have a citation for you. But I've seen the numbers not even the NRA can deny: accidental gun deaths are pretty damn popular, and exponentially (yup... that's a factor of 10, baby) more popular than that 1 in a million shot to actually get to protect yourself with your gun (where you actually discharge your weapon, not wave it around as a deterrent).
I will say this, however. If I had a daughter, and she worked late in a sketchy part of town, say, a waitress at the local strip of bars, and would always leave work with cash, I'd like her to be proficient with and carry a gun. So, if there is a rational reason to carry, then do so. BUT, if you just LIKE GUNS for the sake of guns, or if you are severly paranoid, and have NO RATIONAL REASON for carrying, meaning, in your mundane life, you just never enter into sketchy situations (like me! For whatever reason, I'm always pretty safe), then carrying or owning a gun will only hasten your mortality. Statistically speaking.
how the loyalists try to spin this one as a good thing.
Thanks! I'll give it a shot. Apple has been applying for software (and hardware) patents for the last 8-10 years or so that they have no intention of actually creating and bringing to market. All one needs to do to verify this is to take a look at some of their patent submissions, then be honest with yourself about what Apple sells, and the quality of product Apple sells. Getting it? Apple is seeking patents on things that they DON'T want brought to market. Once they have the patent, they are assured that it will never get anywhere. Why would they do this? Look to their explanations about Flash on iOS and Adobe's third party dev tools. Same thing. That's why.
Seriously, there are more "guns" solutions than there are high-tech solutions. Where are the geeks?
The gun owning ones? Dead. or maimed. Self-inflicted, accidental. or in jail for involuntary manslaughter for killing their child or loved one, unintentionally, of course. And statistically speaking, that is. Numbers don't lie, you insecure freaks. Oh... there was that one... that one in 250,000 incidents that actually did get to use his gun effectively and stopped the crime. Good for him. The other 249,999 just weren't quick enough, or got nervous, or something... forgot to point in the corner while cleaning, or incompetantly left a round chambered when unwisely letting their child see with their hands. Yes, tragic (as in ironically caused their own downfall).
It doesn't matter that they are targeted, even if there are billions of devices to target, the target is still smaller than a less secure OS, and the OS of choice for virus authors. They are not pioneers. They don't climb mountains just because they're there. They climb the easiest mountain, not the most numerous.
Can't happen. Display-PDF is an integral part of the system. They'd have to dump the GUI, but the benefits far outweigh the deficits. The could go back to Display-PostScript, but then they'd be filling Adobe's coffers again. (PDF is open source, PostScript is not).
And iPhones are a GREAT target for virus writers. Mobility, Bluetooth, WiFi, what's not to like?
UNIX. For whatever reason, historically, the only virus authors for UNIX-type systems seem to do it for the sake of research and not destruction. Also, it's a very small target compared to the bullseye on other, non-UNIX-like systems. Do you often reach over the dollar to pick up the dime? Why should virus authors be any different?
Macs (and the iPhone) do not yet have any active viruses in the wild.
And it may never happen. UNIX has been around for a while, much longer than, say, Windows. The attack vector in Windows is far wider and far more inviting. There are UNIX virii, and have been for decades, but mostly they are proof of concept for research. Those that say it's only a matter of time before Apple and OS X are hopelessly infected as most networked Winboxes are fail to see that it's very difficult for viruses on UNIX and UNIX-like systems to gain a foothold... and it's not going to get any easier for them to do so.
originally, it stood for "Printer Direct File," but as it was discovered that it might be useful to more than commercial printers, they changed it to "Portable Document Format." And PDF is PostScript, more or less. At any rate, I can't help but wonder if this jailbreak team is a beard for Adobe retaliating against Apple for the extremely humanitarian decision to ban Flash from iOS.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly a design flaw... it's one little spot. And once you are aware of it, you go right for it like some hypnotized automaton. Some people had to be taught to touch the spot. This isn't a design flaw, and other phones have this second flaw as well in different places you are just as likely to find by accident. They weren't lying, all cell manufacturers also have to deal with it. Some even point out in the manual where to avoid touching, such as the Incredible... it also has a very distinctive "death spot."
From the moment I read Gizmodo's article, I knew this was all hogwash. It's like saying your car is defective because when you twist the starter and hold it there, it makes an awful noise and eventually will burn out... not a design flaw... all starters do that.
I can control your weak mind the same way Gizmodo did. Don't think of elephants! Don't think of elephants! Now... what are you thinking? (yes, that I saw Inception, beauty movie).
Actually, by definition, this is all histerical, just not ha ha histerical... but slap you in the face until you stop raving, histerical. Apple was burned by Gizmodo, and ravenous Apple zealots, not the antenna design, in the same way radio listeners were burned (once upon a time, remember radio?) by Orson Wells. Histerical.
What am I missing here? I feel like there is an aspect i'm not considering.
There is an economics to fighting certain victimless crimes... the DEA, for example, bad asses that they are (absolutely no doubt of that, do not mess with), would not be nearly as strong if medical cannabis were legal. It's the easy bust, like grinding out a living rather than taking the big score. They're human too, and I guess they deserve an easy day once in a while.
Other drugs, such as prescription drug crime, has a different situation. Oxycontin, miracle drug for those in terminal pain, is highly abused. But it is highly abused as a direct result of the Big Pharm pushing it through doctors. So, we have pregnant women robbing pharmacies because of the greed of Big Pharm.
Crimes like video piracy are pursued because of the power of lobbies like the RIAA.
There are precious few lobbies against murder, rape or assault. Perhaps there are grassroot sorta movements, with lots of people, but Big Money beats a big roster every time.
If only it were possible to somehow... restore the integrity of our lawmakers and enforcers bosses.... But SCOTUS saw fit to turn money into speach... and make nearly everything 'interstate commerce,' even if it isn't sold nor cross state lines... these must be fixed, I think. Our Founders never would have agreed with that. People (not 'citizens') first, Freedom second, security third, and money is barely mentioned in their highly instructive documents.
I think Jefferson was right about revolution. Problem is, I don't think anyone can do better than they did, so I am fearful of what would replace our increasingly more facist society. Remember the pro football strike? That was one of teh coolest seasons evar. I'd like to see a law banning professional politicians, or anyone self-seeking election. It should be law that only those that don't seek office can be nominated and elected... ... well... just a crazy idea.
Also, and this is way way off subject, but as a society advances, the younger members of society get smarter, younger, with better education. We should pull out all the stops in elementary and secondary education, and really dig into the kids, and prepare them, make the best of them our leaders between the ages of, say, 21-35. The young are more ideal, less greedy, less likely to be coerced. Lets face it, their brains are just better than older brains, once their wild horses are broken. We should eliminate nearly every politician over the age of 40... but if they're awesome and wise, then they become the clerks and the advisors, rather than the other way around, because what we really have are invisible wonderkind writing speeches and policy that the older politicians simply sign their name to, take credit for... there are no more brilliant statesmen like John Quincy Adams or Woodrow Wilson left. What we have are handsome suits propped up by hollow ambition.
ah, yes, I do mind if you redefine my terms willy nilly, because reliability does not mean endurance or longevity. Toshiba is certainly very reliable... for the warranty period. Along with most other laptop manufacturers... But after the warranty ends, Apple is king.
What's weird is... I mean... If evolution really works, how is there are so many cases of cieliacs and (a subsequent poster points out) peanut allergies. Obviously this isn't the case, but it seems like maybe they're the next step... too early to tell, but that they're here at all sort of tells us they're more likely to procreate. Why is this absurd and obviously incorrect?
I don't think you are lying, just missing salient details.
Most MacBooks will last a long time; 6 years would be about average, but 7 years or more is not uncommon. That's better than twice as long as any other laptop manufacturer. So consider the useful life of the machine before you throw money away on garbage. Because, no matter what, you get what you pay for. I don't even have to know what the machine is to tell you a $1500 machine is gonna be a lot better than a $350 machine. They aren't made of the same stuff, nor designed the same way. Believe it or not, there's a damn good reason for the higher price tag: quality and expense of materials, engineering and design.
Oh and don't give me crap about Macs being better - the $1500 model actually had 1 GB less memory and 500 megahertz slower speed than the $450 Toshiba laptop
But we must, because your information is incorrect, and you are missing an important detail: quality. Sure, for the first year, both will perform similarly. But by year 3, it will be readily apparent that the MacBook is a superior machine. By year 8, while the MacBook will be religated to running the previous point something of Apple's OS, there will be no Toshiba laptop, it will have been recycled, because not only will the Toshiba branded hard drive be dead (roughly 1 month out of warranty, expect Toshiba HD death (yes, I know Apple sometimes uses Toshiba branded drives... that's how I know how Toshiba drives behave)), but the power connector will have snapped off the motherboard, and even if you replace the battery, you can't get it to charge because it won't stay connected to the power cord. But besides that, I'm sure if the Toshiba laptop could last more than 5 years, it would run Windows 8 just fine (note: final sentence is sarcasm).
Windows laptops, unless they happen to be a Mac, are good for about a year and a half. Then they get pretty annoying. After 3 years, they are nearly unusable. By year 5, lets be honest, they collect dust and prevent papers from blowing away, and nothing else.
You misunderstand me. By the time they got around to sentencing, Child's had already been imprisoned for longer than the crime deserved punishment. That's what I mean by malicious prosecution (even innocent men look guilty when they are imprisoned), and unlawful imprisonment (the punishment, when fully calculated, far outweighs the crime).
I think the punishment is out of proportion.
CU, Martin
I call it malicious prosecution and unlawful imprisonment. How much time had he spent incarcerated BEFORE they tried and sentenced him? This punishment before conviction is becoming all too common a tactic for prosecutors.
The problem is that he flat out broke the law, and it was pretty obvious he knew he was doing wrong, he just thought they couldn't touch him. He had become infected with the sysadmin diesase of thinking that he owned the systems and could do as he pleased, and that he could make himself indispensable.
So sorry, but don't try and pass this off as "stupid jurors." The man had someone with the peak of network training sitting on his jury.
Again, no one seems to be able to address this, from Child's perspective, by what obligation was he required to keep working, without pay, once his position was terminated? Where is this legal principle that invalidates the Emancipation Proclimation? Because I call an involuntary requirement to continue working without compensation slavery.
There is a major principle of employment here that the city violated most grievously: don't put the cart before the horse, or, first socks, THEN shoes. If you are an employer, you must act tactfully and intelligently. Childs should never have been fired BEFORE relinquishing the information that only he had that they needed to replace him or continue operating their network. They should have HIRED someone to replace him BEFORE they fired him, and told Childs that the new guy was his backup, and needed all the access he had. Once his responsibilities were duplicated, that very Friday, they should have cut him his last check and escorted him off the grounds, during which time, the new guy would be securing, and replacing, all the passwords. They are punishing Childs a bit too harshly because his employers were incompetent.
Good points, and I can't disagree entirely... except that they fired him. Once his employment was terminated, I don't quite understand by what obligation he was required to keep working... without pay. Allow me to exaggerate a bit to make a point, but technically, an involuntary requirement to work without pay is also known as slavery.
This.
The people who really ought to be having a miserable time in prison get a free pass to carry on tormenting and hurting other people for their own amusement. Other people who have nowhere to escape and nobody to turn to for help.
I see the justice system as inexplicably unbalanced as well. Why are nonviolent crimes pursued more vehemently than violent crimes? Why spend billions jailing, say, potheads, and other perpetrators of victimless crimes, rather than a hard push to eliminate violence and murder? How can any nonviolent crime with no victims that are physically violated ever be equal or worse than any violent crime? Why is any man allowed to punch any other man in the face, and 99% of the time its unprosecutable, and the victim is punished for not "sucking it up?"
They fired him. After they fired him, by what obligation was he required to work for free?
Hurd was released?!? link plz!
This wasn't my idea... but the anonymous coward that responded to the other response. So I give him credit for the idea. Google is enlightening.
accidental gun deaths: 11,800,000 results
gun twarts crime | gun stops crime: 1,050,000 results
Interesting, isn't it? I suppose you'll say that not all crime twarted is reported, but you know that's bull... if anything, the accidental gun deaths are boring news... stop a crime with your gun? that's almost national news material.
I don't have a citation for you. But I've seen the numbers not even the NRA can deny: accidental gun deaths are pretty damn popular, and exponentially (yup... that's a factor of 10, baby) more popular than that 1 in a million shot to actually get to protect yourself with your gun (where you actually discharge your weapon, not wave it around as a deterrent).
I will say this, however. If I had a daughter, and she worked late in a sketchy part of town, say, a waitress at the local strip of bars, and would always leave work with cash, I'd like her to be proficient with and carry a gun. So, if there is a rational reason to carry, then do so. BUT, if you just LIKE GUNS for the sake of guns, or if you are severly paranoid, and have NO RATIONAL REASON for carrying, meaning, in your mundane life, you just never enter into sketchy situations (like me! For whatever reason, I'm always pretty safe), then carrying or owning a gun will only hasten your mortality. Statistically speaking.
how the loyalists try to spin this one as a good thing.
Thanks! I'll give it a shot. Apple has been applying for software (and hardware) patents for the last 8-10 years or so that they have no intention of actually creating and bringing to market. All one needs to do to verify this is to take a look at some of their patent submissions, then be honest with yourself about what Apple sells, and the quality of product Apple sells. Getting it? Apple is seeking patents on things that they DON'T want brought to market. Once they have the patent, they are assured that it will never get anywhere. Why would they do this? Look to their explanations about Flash on iOS and Adobe's third party dev tools. Same thing. That's why.
Seriously, there are more "guns" solutions than there are high-tech solutions. Where are the geeks?
The gun owning ones? Dead. or maimed. Self-inflicted, accidental. or in jail for involuntary manslaughter for killing their child or loved one, unintentionally, of course. And statistically speaking, that is. Numbers don't lie, you insecure freaks. Oh... there was that one... that one in 250,000 incidents that actually did get to use his gun effectively and stopped the crime. Good for him. The other 249,999 just weren't quick enough, or got nervous, or something... forgot to point in the corner while cleaning, or incompetantly left a round chambered when unwisely letting their child see with their hands. Yes, tragic (as in ironically caused their own downfall).
It doesn't matter that they are targeted, even if there are billions of devices to target, the target is still smaller than a less secure OS, and the OS of choice for virus authors. They are not pioneers. They don't climb mountains just because they're there. They climb the easiest mountain, not the most numerous.
Again, there are unix viruses... like that famous worm in 1988. But, geez, why hasn't it been all downhill for UNIX since? Because UNIX doesn't suck.
I am a small part of that crowd. Some other crowd released the web exploit,
Can't happen. Display-PDF is an integral part of the system. They'd have to dump the GUI, but the benefits far outweigh the deficits. The could go back to Display-PostScript, but then they'd be filling Adobe's coffers again. (PDF is open source, PostScript is not).
And iPhones are a GREAT target for virus writers. Mobility, Bluetooth, WiFi, what's not to like?
UNIX. For whatever reason, historically, the only virus authors for UNIX-type systems seem to do it for the sake of research and not destruction. Also, it's a very small target compared to the bullseye on other, non-UNIX-like systems. Do you often reach over the dollar to pick up the dime? Why should virus authors be any different?
Macs (and the iPhone) do not yet have any active viruses in the wild.
And it may never happen. UNIX has been around for a while, much longer than, say, Windows. The attack vector in Windows is far wider and far more inviting. There are UNIX virii, and have been for decades, but mostly they are proof of concept for research. Those that say it's only a matter of time before Apple and OS X are hopelessly infected as most networked Winboxes are fail to see that it's very difficult for viruses on UNIX and UNIX-like systems to gain a foothold... and it's not going to get any easier for them to do so.
originally, it stood for "Printer Direct File," but as it was discovered that it might be useful to more than commercial printers, they changed it to "Portable Document Format." And PDF is PostScript, more or less. At any rate, I can't help but wonder if this jailbreak team is a beard for Adobe retaliating against Apple for the extremely humanitarian decision to ban Flash from iOS.