... Things like "health care for all" sounds like it hurts individuals by increasing our premiums, when the truth is...
I'm not interested in getting into a great big non-sequitur debate over one sarcastic remark in my previous post -- but just to point out: It doesn't just "sound" like it hurts individuals. I don't know about you, but my premiums actually increased more than my income two years in a row, immediately after the ACA took effect.
The one thing that people need to recognize most of all, in my opinion, is that "political activism" -- or really, extremes of pretty much any type -- absolutely always end up hurting someone. (In fact, frequently the stated goal of activism is to hurt someone!) Activists on both sides of any given issue will commonly justify their actions -- whether it's merely picketing, or transferring wealth from the "privileged" to the "not-so-privileged," or firing weapons on the people who represent "the other side" -- by claiming that they are "working for the greater good," but the reality (and what I was really trying to convey in my previous post) is that the most practical solution, and the one which is actually better for the most people, will usually be found somewhere in the middle ground, rather than the extremes. Mind you, not always... but certainly more often than not. In my experience, political activists aren't generally even open to that point-of-view; the stereotypical "It's my way or the highway!" view is absolutely rampant. And our two-party system has become increasingly polarized; there are far too many activists in American politics, who are consistently trying to push one extremist agenda or another.
Simply put, that's just not healthy for our country, as a whole.
I'm a conservative, and even I believe that as things stand right now, this has the potential to be a huge mistake. However, if Pai wants to turn this into an actual good thing for consumers, he's going to need to go full-Monty on his proposals. To wit: don't just remove the restrictions, but also the protections which apply to telcos under Title II. Strip away the privileges held by telcos and cable companies alike, in the form of their protected monopolies. Maybe we could even reinstate a truly free market, by the elimination of all FCC policies, period. And then petition Congress to actually give the FCC the power to fully overrule any state or local restrictions, so that they can't blockade the free market, either.
After all, that's pretty much the party-line mantra, at this point, isn't it? Liberals legislate everything to the point where it hurts, and conservatives eliminate legislation to the point where it hurts. So then, do it, Pai. Eat your own dog food.
Of course, maybe Pai's argument would be that if he actually went too far down that path, than the telcos and cable companies would sue... but the thing is, at this point they're always suing over anything that is even remotely pro-consumer. If they're not suing the FCC after the dust clears, then clearly there's something wrong. So why the hell not?
The problem as I see it with home-based 3D technologies was quite simple: the hardware vendors attempted to implement a rather clumsy variation on the classic Razor Blade business model, by attempting to turn those required 3D glasses into a cash cow. (The clumsy bit being that their 3D TVs were by no means cheap.)
The thing is, people go to the theater and they get to use cheap passive glasses to watch a 3D movie, and after the movie they are encouraged to "recycle" the glasses... but nobody really bothers to police this because, well, they're cheap and everybody knows it. Then these same consumers go out to buy a fancy new 3D TV, only to be told that they also have to spend anywhere from $30 to $100 per pair for decent quality active glasses... which are virtually guaranteed to wind up broken in short order, resulting in unreasonably high ongoing replacement costs. Thus, many consumers never even bother to buy the glasses to go with their new 3D setup, much less the overpriced 3D versions of their favorite movies. (I certainly haven't.)
Or to put it more simply: Most people don't like to feel like they're being gouged.
The time and money wasted preparing all of this and putting it out on the web is still less than the time and money wasted responding to thousands of FOIA requests and lawsuits from those same conspiracy theorists.
In the end, they probably save a lot of money doing this just to get rid of the FIOA hassle.
That assumes that the conspiracy theorists are actually going to back off. If instead we anticipate that the conspiracy theorists might not be persuaded by this mass document release, and instead they choose to view the entire release as part of the conspiracy, (as I alluded in my addendum) then we should expect the FOIA requests and lawsuits to continue unabated.
In other words... your conclusion relies upon people to actually be reasonable. My (admittedly snarky) conclusion assumes the opposite. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
That's what this is. $58 billion a year we spend on intelligence. The vast majority of it a complete and total waste of money.
These released documents were indeed wasted time and money... which is obviously why they were releasable in the first place. We can only speculate on the value of documents which are still deemed to be classified.
An addendum: What might be more maddening to the conspiracy theorists, though, is that there are really no guarantees that the released documents are in full agreement with all of those classified and still unreleased intelligence documents... (evil grin)
These released documents were indeed wasted time and money... which is obviously why they were releasable in the first place. We can only speculate on the value of documents which are still deemed to be classified.
The test was good. It was Safari that had the flaw....
I disagree, at least in part. The setting which was modified for testing purposes was intended to disable local caching of webpages, correct? Theoretically this was done in order to simulate a more accurate representation of real world performance, by pulling static test pages across the network instead of from the local cache. I don't know about you, but my own browsing habits do not have me frequently reloading static pages; rather, I'm loading various dynamic pages throughout the day, such as Google search results, Slashdot, Ars Technica, a webmail interface... etc. Certain of these pages will sometimes -- but not every time -- require a network fetch. That is to say, now and then the browser determines that a page has not been updated since the last fetch, and so that page can reasonably be pulled from the cache instead of over the network. Very obviously, that's the whole point of the cache. Therefore, an accurate testing scenario would by necessity have to include some mixture of dynamic pages alongside the static pages within the test suite, so that toggling hidden settings not commonly used by the general public would not be required in order to facilitate a "more accurate" simulated testing environment.
That said: It's a peculiar side effect that they happened upon a bug in that hidden setting, and the existence of that bug was indeed Apple's fault. However, the fact that Consumer Reports based their recommendation on tests which have proven to be poor representations of the systems performance, and as of yet they have failed to update their review to account for that... that firmly leaves us in a mixed responsibility scenario, with Consumer Reports sharing some of the fault as well. Apple has performed their due diligence by fixing their bug and patching it for the next beta build; Consumer Reports now needs to likewise complete their due diligence, by updating the article accordingly upon receipt of that fixed build. (Or, you know... I suppose they could fix their tests in a more permanent fashion, by simply adding a few artificially generated dynamic pages to their test server, and not using hidden and/or non-default features during testing in the first place. Creating those dynamic pages wouldn't even remotely be difficult; a basic random number generator and just about any server-side scripting environment would handily do the trick.)
... As for actual user, you do know that Macs are popular among web designers?
The original poster should have said "typical user" rather than "actual user" -- but nonetheless, I would still have to call this a red herring; it's largely immaterial to the testing scenario under discussion. But if it is pertinent at all, then I would suggest that it's probably still quite common for manufacturers to (rightly) cry foul when a supposedly impartial reviewer changes the default settings of a unit under testing, generating adverse test results... just as it's common for reviewers and users alike to cry foul, when manufacturers attempt to pull the same stunt to inflate test results.
Potentially interesting context: Softbank owns Sprint. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that might well have a great deal to do with Apple's interest in Softbank...
My home theater consists of a mid-range 1080p projector giving me 110 inches and a mid-range 5.1 Bose, driven by a Mac Mini. By far and away not the most impressive home theater in the world... but certainly good enough for most viewing -- particularly when you consider that I also have seven kids, one of whom is autistic and prone to noisy behavior and to leaving his seat frequently, and on top of that, my best friend also has four kids. So even not taking into account extended family, I would absolutely go for early release to home in a heartbeat. The number of viewers in my core group alone would make such a system pay for itself after only a few kids' movies, and occasional adult movies with friends would be a not-terribly-difficult splurge, particularly considering how expensive theaters have gotten. So even with a moderate upfront cost, as some of the options have suggested, this would still be a complete no-brainer for me.
That said... I would still go to the theater with my wife, on occasional date nights. You have to get away from the kids entirely for a little while every now and then, or you'll go stir crazy!
Gee, I had no idea that Microsoft was so adamant about minimizing the market share of Edge. Because this is a sure fire way to guarantee that Windows users have no interest in ever launching their new fledgling browser. Kudos to you, Microsoft, for advocating for third party browsers! Hey, I'll be more then happy to help out, by tossing those pesky Edge shortcuts on every Windows 10 box I come across...
... "About 82% of households that use a TV currently subscribe to a pay-TV service," Bruce Leichtman of Leichtman Research said...
That statement could use some clarification; I consider myself to be a cord-cutter, with an internet-only broadband connection, (no landline and no "cable" TV subscription, premium channels or otherwise) but it would be easy to argue that I should be included in this statistic, because I subscribe to both Hulu and Netflix. Which is it? Am I really a cord-cutter, or am I simply subscribing to the next generation of "premium" services?
Anyone who's been a MacHead for more than a few years knows that you always try to avoid buying overpriced commodity add-ons from Apple; you buy them from Amazon, Newegg or the like. In this situation, for example, you might choose to just use your existing charging cable with a USB-C to USB3 adapter for $10, saving fifteen bucks over the Apple adapter cable.
"Apple is seeking for itself the exclusive use of Australia's existing NFC terminal infrastructure for the making of integrated mobile payments using iOS devices. Yet, this infrastructure was built and paid for by Australian banks and merchants for the benefit of all Australians."
Let's just parse this a bit more closely, and see what it boils down to: "Apple is seeking... exclusive use of... integrated mobile payments using iOS devices."
Whoops. What was that? Apple wants to profit from the hardware and software that they themselves developed? Huh.
Now, the banks' real point: "... this infrastructure [that is, the existing NFC terminals] was built and paid for by Australian banks and merchants for the benefit of all Australians." Oh. So the truth of the matter is, you want to retain control over your ecosystem, and Apple wants to retain control over their ecosystem. Isn't that something?
Funny thing is, the banks (worldwide) do indeed have full control over their respective ecosystems; all they have to do is ignore Apple, and implement something on Android. Unless, of course, that's too much work for them, or possibly not as profitable as Apple's iOS ecosystem, for some reason...
Bottom line: the banks are just trying to find a way to maximize their share of the profits, pure and simple. Nothing much to see, here... just your standard money grab.
This shouldn't be surprising, actually. The market for stolen iPhones has taken a serious hit, because of Apple's iTunes account locking policies. You steal my iPhone, I immediately lock you out of it. If I'm feeling particularly adventurous, I might even go to the trouble of tracking you down, maybe even with a police officer in tow. "Your" stolen device is not only now a brick... it's also a liability. Would-be thieves know this; they'll get at most a few hours of use out of any iPhone that they steal, and likely only a few minutes, if they set off alarms as they're stealing it from a store -- and worst case scenario, (for the thief, that is) they're also much more likely to get jail time for their crime.
Now, contrast that with a physical tether, which can be snipped quickly and easily with the right tool. No contest.
On the other hand, now actual potential buyers will get the sense that Apple actually wants them in the stores, wants them to feel comfortable... and of course, wants them to spend money. So for Apple, this probably all makes perfect sense.
Cord cutter, here. If you're thinking of joining me by switching down to an internet-only service, you need to know this: Your cable company is going to lie to you. They're going to tell you all kinds of stories about how they don't actually offer internet-only options, or about how it's actually less expensive to have a bundle than it is to go internet-only. Don't believe them. There is exactly one way to get the full truth out of them: Tell them you're cancelling. As soon as they transfer you to the retention department, someone who actually knows what they're talking about will happily give you that internet-only connection you're looking for, and most likely at a reasonable price, too... at least, for the first year, anyway.
Sidenote: Obviously, this only works if you have at least one other viable broadband provider in your area. If you live in one of the many broadband monopoly areas... well, in that case, you have my sympathies, because you are well and truly screwed.
There's really no mystery to this: Verizon is sticking to that unconvincing party line, because they're between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The restrictions they agreed to when they purchased their Block C spectrum license state that they're not permitted to restrict the ways in which you use your data connection on their wireless network; if you want to tether your BitTorrent PC to your Verizon Wireless cell phone and let it saturate that connection 24/7, they can't stop you -- they quite literally can't even slow you down. Thus, in order to make that kind of abuse of their network exorbitantly expensive, the only option that seems to be left to them is metering. We could probably argue ceaselessly about whether or not their current metered plans and overage fees are actually reasonable based on typical user activity -- but that's another discussion entirely. The point is, Verizon is never going to back down from those meters. Because they can't.
Mind you, I'm not making apologies for them... they made their bed, (by buying that spectrum in the first place) and now they have to sleep in it. But I don't have to sleep in it with them.
A report out today states that Facebook's usage statistics dropped precipitously over the past month, as users apparently simply stopped casually opening Facebook on their mobile phones almost entirely. One incensed user reports that his Facebook feed just suddenly started blaring an advertisement for Trojan condoms, right in the middle of his Sunday morning church service. Says the user, who prefers to remain anonymous, "I was totally shocked and embarrassed! I mean, I have never -- never, I tell ya -- shopped for condoms online! I mean, don't tell my girlfriend, but sure... I've surfed a little porn now and then -- but how the heck could Facebook know about that??"
Facebook executives cast the entire blame for this dip in usage on a software technician who had developed and deployed the new "Autoplay" feature for videos showing up in end-users news feeds, which was silently rolled out to all users and which naturally defaults to "on." The feature has now been rolled back in a panicked effort to minimize any further damage, but analysts are skeptical that the once overwhelmingly popular service will be able to reclaim its former glory. One executive was quoted as saying, "Hey, don't look at me! It's all that developer's fault -- and trust me, we've sacked him but good!" This reporter has asked Facebook for more details on what happened to the executive who authorized the new feature, but Facebook has not yet responded to queries as of press time.
This isn't any kind of a magic bullet against crime: it's just another example of people failing to follow a rational chain of events to its conclusion. If you tell an even moderately intelligent person that he will be forced to give up the password to his cell phone if he's ever arrested, then he will simply add one more layer of obfuscation between his phone and his secrets... and you still won't be able to prosecute the worst offenders. The only people who will get caught up in this new dragnet are those in the first round of arrests who don't pay attention to the latest changes in their local laws, and therefore fail to take precautions. Most others (intelligent and otherwise) will quickly learn about those prosecutions from the media frenzy that follows, and will lock down their crap soon thereafter.
Seriously... just follow the pieces around the board, and you should be able to tell who's going to ultimately win in this kind of game. (Doesn't anyone play chess, anymore?)
This article -- while an interesting opinion piece -- is clearly missing some key pieces in the argument it tries to make, which is largely why so many people are attempting to offer their own contrasting figures both here on/. and on the original article thread. So here's one more example, to add to the collection: The Bible is the best selling book in the world, at somewhere over 5 billion copies... but that's a sales figure which spans back over two centuries. So where's the time factor, in this analysis of Apple's iPhone sales? Clearly, the author needed to run this piece past a few friends at the very minimum, before running with it. (Actually, I think professional editorial staffers are what's missing from most articles, these days -- but perhaps that's a soapbox for another time.)
Full disclosure: I own multiple iPhones, multiple Macs... and multiple Bibles.
My home computers are pretty uncomplicated; an iMac at a conventional desk in the office and a Mac Mini at a standing workstation in the home theater, attached to the projector -- but my office setup is arguably where I've put the most effort and thought. I have five computers at my desk, serving various purposes. (Some are on a stand-alone development network, one is a version control server, one is my internet box... etc.) So needless to say, a KVM was one of the first necessities, there.
I also have three monitors across my desk. The KVM connects to the center 20" display, while the flanking 24" widescreen displays act as secondary displays on one or more computers. None of my computers actually support all three monitors, mind you... but most of them support at least two. Just for fun, I've also copied the same collection of panorama desktop backgrounds to each workstation, so that I can view a contiguous background image across all three displays, regardless of which machines are currently active.
Over time, I started thinking about the idea of having a standing workstation in the office, because I kind'a like the one I have at home, and because everyone has always lauded the health benefits of standing more and sitting less... but getting the Powers That Be to sign off on an expensive new adjustable height desk would be nigh impossible. So I designed my own "poor man's" standing desk. It's still the same desk I've always had, but now there are three stacks of old software engineering books (which nobody cares about) under the monitors, elevating them to standing height. I also used a bookshelf supported by some steel paper organizers (again, which nobody cares about... because who organizes hard copy papers anymore?) to elevate a keyboard and mouse appropriately. As an added element, I connected up a secondary keyboard and mouse on the desk under that bookshelf, so that I can sit down when my legs grow tired.
And they do. I don't think I'll go to all this effort again, when I finally leave this job behind me. Maybe I'll just hit the gym more often, instead...
Slashdot Mirror
Merk's reference, for the uninitiated: xkcd - "Standards"
I agree with your Occam's Razon reference: It seems pretty obvious that natural obstructions are far more likely than artificial obstructions.
... Things like "health care for all" sounds like it hurts individuals by increasing our premiums, when the truth is...
I'm not interested in getting into a great big non-sequitur debate over one sarcastic remark in my previous post -- but just to point out: It doesn't just "sound" like it hurts individuals. I don't know about you, but my premiums actually increased more than my income two years in a row, immediately after the ACA took effect.
The one thing that people need to recognize most of all, in my opinion, is that "political activism" -- or really, extremes of pretty much any type -- absolutely always end up hurting someone. (In fact, frequently the stated goal of activism is to hurt someone!) Activists on both sides of any given issue will commonly justify their actions -- whether it's merely picketing, or transferring wealth from the "privileged" to the "not-so-privileged," or firing weapons on the people who represent "the other side" -- by claiming that they are "working for the greater good," but the reality (and what I was really trying to convey in my previous post) is that the most practical solution, and the one which is actually better for the most people, will usually be found somewhere in the middle ground, rather than the extremes. Mind you, not always... but certainly more often than not. In my experience, political activists aren't generally even open to that point-of-view; the stereotypical "It's my way or the highway!" view is absolutely rampant. And our two-party system has become increasingly polarized; there are far too many activists in American politics, who are consistently trying to push one extremist agenda or another.
Simply put, that's just not healthy for our country, as a whole.
I'm a conservative, and even I believe that as things stand right now, this has the potential to be a huge mistake. However, if Pai wants to turn this into an actual good thing for consumers, he's going to need to go full-Monty on his proposals. To wit: don't just remove the restrictions, but also the protections which apply to telcos under Title II. Strip away the privileges held by telcos and cable companies alike, in the form of their protected monopolies. Maybe we could even reinstate a truly free market, by the elimination of all FCC policies, period. And then petition Congress to actually give the FCC the power to fully overrule any state or local restrictions, so that they can't blockade the free market, either.
After all, that's pretty much the party-line mantra, at this point, isn't it? Liberals legislate everything to the point where it hurts, and conservatives eliminate legislation to the point where it hurts. So then, do it, Pai. Eat your own dog food.
Of course, maybe Pai's argument would be that if he actually went too far down that path, than the telcos and cable companies would sue... but the thing is, at this point they're always suing over anything that is even remotely pro-consumer. If they're not suing the FCC after the dust clears, then clearly there's something wrong. So why the hell not?
Come on, Pai. Let's do this thing!
Somehow, I wouldn't be surprised to see Disney throw their hat in the ring. They've been buying up content properties left and right, lately.
(Not honestly sure whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing, though...)
The problem as I see it with home-based 3D technologies was quite simple: the hardware vendors attempted to implement a rather clumsy variation on the classic Razor Blade business model, by attempting to turn those required 3D glasses into a cash cow. (The clumsy bit being that their 3D TVs were by no means cheap.)
The thing is, people go to the theater and they get to use cheap passive glasses to watch a 3D movie, and after the movie they are encouraged to "recycle" the glasses... but nobody really bothers to police this because, well, they're cheap and everybody knows it. Then these same consumers go out to buy a fancy new 3D TV, only to be told that they also have to spend anywhere from $30 to $100 per pair for decent quality active glasses... which are virtually guaranteed to wind up broken in short order, resulting in unreasonably high ongoing replacement costs. Thus, many consumers never even bother to buy the glasses to go with their new 3D setup, much less the overpriced 3D versions of their favorite movies. (I certainly haven't.)
Or to put it more simply: Most people don't like to feel like they're being gouged.
The time and money wasted preparing all of this and putting it out on the web is still less than the time and money wasted responding to thousands of FOIA requests and lawsuits from those same conspiracy theorists.
In the end, they probably save a lot of money doing this just to get rid of the FIOA hassle.
That assumes that the conspiracy theorists are actually going to back off. If instead we anticipate that the conspiracy theorists might not be persuaded by this mass document release, and instead they choose to view the entire release as part of the conspiracy, (as I alluded in my addendum) then we should expect the FOIA requests and lawsuits to continue unabated.
In other words... your conclusion relies upon people to actually be reasonable. My (admittedly snarky) conclusion assumes the opposite. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
That's what this is. $58 billion a year we spend on intelligence. The vast majority of it a complete and total waste of money.
These released documents were indeed wasted time and money... which is obviously why they were releasable in the first place. We can only speculate on the value of documents which are still deemed to be classified.
An addendum: What might be more maddening to the conspiracy theorists, though, is that there are really no guarantees that the released documents are in full agreement with all of those classified and still unreleased intelligence documents... (evil grin)
The truth is out there...
These released documents were indeed wasted time and money... which is obviously why they were releasable in the first place. We can only speculate on the value of documents which are still deemed to be classified.
The test was good. It was Safari that had the flaw. ...
I disagree, at least in part. The setting which was modified for testing purposes was intended to disable local caching of webpages, correct? Theoretically this was done in order to simulate a more accurate representation of real world performance, by pulling static test pages across the network instead of from the local cache. I don't know about you, but my own browsing habits do not have me frequently reloading static pages; rather, I'm loading various dynamic pages throughout the day, such as Google search results, Slashdot, Ars Technica, a webmail interface... etc. Certain of these pages will sometimes -- but not every time -- require a network fetch. That is to say, now and then the browser determines that a page has not been updated since the last fetch, and so that page can reasonably be pulled from the cache instead of over the network. Very obviously, that's the whole point of the cache. Therefore, an accurate testing scenario would by necessity have to include some mixture of dynamic pages alongside the static pages within the test suite, so that toggling hidden settings not commonly used by the general public would not be required in order to facilitate a "more accurate" simulated testing environment.
That said: It's a peculiar side effect that they happened upon a bug in that hidden setting, and the existence of that bug was indeed Apple's fault. However, the fact that Consumer Reports based their recommendation on tests which have proven to be poor representations of the systems performance, and as of yet they have failed to update their review to account for that... that firmly leaves us in a mixed responsibility scenario, with Consumer Reports sharing some of the fault as well. Apple has performed their due diligence by fixing their bug and patching it for the next beta build; Consumer Reports now needs to likewise complete their due diligence, by updating the article accordingly upon receipt of that fixed build. (Or, you know... I suppose they could fix their tests in a more permanent fashion, by simply adding a few artificially generated dynamic pages to their test server, and not using hidden and/or non-default features during testing in the first place. Creating those dynamic pages wouldn't even remotely be difficult; a basic random number generator and just about any server-side scripting environment would handily do the trick.)
... As for actual user, you do know that Macs are popular among web designers?
The original poster should have said "typical user" rather than "actual user" -- but nonetheless, I would still have to call this a red herring; it's largely immaterial to the testing scenario under discussion. But if it is pertinent at all, then I would suggest that it's probably still quite common for manufacturers to (rightly) cry foul when a supposedly impartial reviewer changes the default settings of a unit under testing, generating adverse test results... just as it's common for reviewers and users alike to cry foul, when manufacturers attempt to pull the same stunt to inflate test results.
Potentially interesting context: Softbank owns Sprint. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that might well have a great deal to do with Apple's interest in Softbank...
My home theater consists of a mid-range 1080p projector giving me 110 inches and a mid-range 5.1 Bose, driven by a Mac Mini. By far and away not the most impressive home theater in the world... but certainly good enough for most viewing -- particularly when you consider that I also have seven kids, one of whom is autistic and prone to noisy behavior and to leaving his seat frequently, and on top of that, my best friend also has four kids. So even not taking into account extended family, I would absolutely go for early release to home in a heartbeat. The number of viewers in my core group alone would make such a system pay for itself after only a few kids' movies, and occasional adult movies with friends would be a not-terribly-difficult splurge, particularly considering how expensive theaters have gotten. So even with a moderate upfront cost, as some of the options have suggested, this would still be a complete no-brainer for me.
That said... I would still go to the theater with my wife, on occasional date nights. You have to get away from the kids entirely for a little while every now and then, or you'll go stir crazy!
So we should all stop watching funny cat videos?
Gee, I had no idea that Microsoft was so adamant about minimizing the market share of Edge. Because this is a sure fire way to guarantee that Windows users have no interest in ever launching their new fledgling browser. Kudos to you, Microsoft, for advocating for third party browsers! Hey, I'll be more then happy to help out, by tossing those pesky Edge shortcuts on every Windows 10 box I come across...
... "About 82% of households that use a TV currently subscribe to a pay-TV service," Bruce Leichtman of Leichtman Research said...
That statement could use some clarification; I consider myself to be a cord-cutter, with an internet-only broadband connection, (no landline and no "cable" TV subscription, premium channels or otherwise) but it would be easy to argue that I should be included in this statistic, because I subscribe to both Hulu and Netflix. Which is it? Am I really a cord-cutter, or am I simply subscribing to the next generation of "premium" services?
Anyone who's been a MacHead for more than a few years knows that you always try to avoid buying overpriced commodity add-ons from Apple; you buy them from Amazon, Newegg or the like. In this situation, for example, you might choose to just use your existing charging cable with a USB-C to USB3 adapter for $10, saving fifteen bucks over the Apple adapter cable.
"Apple is seeking for itself the exclusive use of Australia's existing NFC terminal infrastructure for the making of integrated mobile payments using iOS devices. Yet, this infrastructure was built and paid for by Australian banks and merchants for the benefit of all Australians."
Let's just parse this a bit more closely, and see what it boils down to: "Apple is seeking ... exclusive use of ... integrated mobile payments using iOS devices."
Whoops. What was that? Apple wants to profit from the hardware and software that they themselves developed? Huh.
Now, the banks' real point: "... this infrastructure [that is, the existing NFC terminals] was built and paid for by Australian banks and merchants for the benefit of all Australians." Oh. So the truth of the matter is, you want to retain control over your ecosystem, and Apple wants to retain control over their ecosystem. Isn't that something?
Funny thing is, the banks (worldwide) do indeed have full control over their respective ecosystems; all they have to do is ignore Apple, and implement something on Android. Unless, of course, that's too much work for them, or possibly not as profitable as Apple's iOS ecosystem, for some reason...
Bottom line: the banks are just trying to find a way to maximize their share of the profits, pure and simple. Nothing much to see, here... just your standard money grab.
This shouldn't be surprising, actually. The market for stolen iPhones has taken a serious hit, because of Apple's iTunes account locking policies. You steal my iPhone, I immediately lock you out of it. If I'm feeling particularly adventurous, I might even go to the trouble of tracking you down, maybe even with a police officer in tow. "Your" stolen device is not only now a brick... it's also a liability. Would-be thieves know this; they'll get at most a few hours of use out of any iPhone that they steal, and likely only a few minutes, if they set off alarms as they're stealing it from a store -- and worst case scenario, (for the thief, that is) they're also much more likely to get jail time for their crime.
Now, contrast that with a physical tether, which can be snipped quickly and easily with the right tool. No contest.
On the other hand, now actual potential buyers will get the sense that Apple actually wants them in the stores, wants them to feel comfortable... and of course, wants them to spend money. So for Apple, this probably all makes perfect sense.
Cord cutter, here. If you're thinking of joining me by switching down to an internet-only service, you need to know this: Your cable company is going to lie to you. They're going to tell you all kinds of stories about how they don't actually offer internet-only options, or about how it's actually less expensive to have a bundle than it is to go internet-only. Don't believe them. There is exactly one way to get the full truth out of them: Tell them you're cancelling. As soon as they transfer you to the retention department, someone who actually knows what they're talking about will happily give you that internet-only connection you're looking for, and most likely at a reasonable price, too... at least, for the first year, anyway.
Sidenote: Obviously, this only works if you have at least one other viable broadband provider in your area. If you live in one of the many broadband monopoly areas... well, in that case, you have my sympathies, because you are well and truly screwed.
There's really no mystery to this: Verizon is sticking to that unconvincing party line, because they're between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The restrictions they agreed to when they purchased their Block C spectrum license state that they're not permitted to restrict the ways in which you use your data connection on their wireless network; if you want to tether your BitTorrent PC to your Verizon Wireless cell phone and let it saturate that connection 24/7, they can't stop you -- they quite literally can't even slow you down. Thus, in order to make that kind of abuse of their network exorbitantly expensive, the only option that seems to be left to them is metering. We could probably argue ceaselessly about whether or not their current metered plans and overage fees are actually reasonable based on typical user activity -- but that's another discussion entirely. The point is, Verizon is never going to back down from those meters. Because they can't.
Mind you, I'm not making apologies for them... they made their bed, (by buying that spectrum in the first place) and now they have to sleep in it. But I don't have to sleep in it with them.
And in next month's hypothetical news...
UPDATE: Facebook Cancels Autoplay For Videos
A report out today states that Facebook's usage statistics dropped precipitously over the past month, as users apparently simply stopped casually opening Facebook on their mobile phones almost entirely. One incensed user reports that his Facebook feed just suddenly started blaring an advertisement for Trojan condoms, right in the middle of his Sunday morning church service. Says the user, who prefers to remain anonymous, "I was totally shocked and embarrassed! I mean, I have never -- never, I tell ya -- shopped for condoms online! I mean, don't tell my girlfriend, but sure... I've surfed a little porn now and then -- but how the heck could Facebook know about that??"
Facebook executives cast the entire blame for this dip in usage on a software technician who had developed and deployed the new "Autoplay" feature for videos showing up in end-users news feeds, which was silently rolled out to all users and which naturally defaults to "on." The feature has now been rolled back in a panicked effort to minimize any further damage, but analysts are skeptical that the once overwhelmingly popular service will be able to reclaim its former glory. One executive was quoted as saying, "Hey, don't look at me! It's all that developer's fault -- and trust me, we've sacked him but good!" This reporter has asked Facebook for more details on what happened to the executive who authorized the new feature, but Facebook has not yet responded to queries as of press time.
This isn't any kind of a magic bullet against crime: it's just another example of people failing to follow a rational chain of events to its conclusion. If you tell an even moderately intelligent person that he will be forced to give up the password to his cell phone if he's ever arrested, then he will simply add one more layer of obfuscation between his phone and his secrets... and you still won't be able to prosecute the worst offenders. The only people who will get caught up in this new dragnet are those in the first round of arrests who don't pay attention to the latest changes in their local laws, and therefore fail to take precautions. Most others (intelligent and otherwise) will quickly learn about those prosecutions from the media frenzy that follows, and will lock down their crap soon thereafter.
Seriously... just follow the pieces around the board, and you should be able to tell who's going to ultimately win in this kind of game. (Doesn't anyone play chess, anymore?)
This article -- while an interesting opinion piece -- is clearly missing some key pieces in the argument it tries to make, which is largely why so many people are attempting to offer their own contrasting figures both here on /. and on the original article thread. So here's one more example, to add to the collection: The Bible is the best selling book in the world, at somewhere over 5 billion copies... but that's a sales figure which spans back over two centuries. So where's the time factor, in this analysis of Apple's iPhone sales? Clearly, the author needed to run this piece past a few friends at the very minimum, before running with it. (Actually, I think professional editorial staffers are what's missing from most articles, these days -- but perhaps that's a soapbox for another time.)
Full disclosure: I own multiple iPhones, multiple Macs... and multiple Bibles.
My home computers are pretty uncomplicated; an iMac at a conventional desk in the office and a Mac Mini at a standing workstation in the home theater, attached to the projector -- but my office setup is arguably where I've put the most effort and thought. I have five computers at my desk, serving various purposes. (Some are on a stand-alone development network, one is a version control server, one is my internet box... etc.) So needless to say, a KVM was one of the first necessities, there.
I also have three monitors across my desk. The KVM connects to the center 20" display, while the flanking 24" widescreen displays act as secondary displays on one or more computers. None of my computers actually support all three monitors, mind you... but most of them support at least two. Just for fun, I've also copied the same collection of panorama desktop backgrounds to each workstation, so that I can view a contiguous background image across all three displays, regardless of which machines are currently active.
Over time, I started thinking about the idea of having a standing workstation in the office, because I kind'a like the one I have at home, and because everyone has always lauded the health benefits of standing more and sitting less... but getting the Powers That Be to sign off on an expensive new adjustable height desk would be nigh impossible. So I designed my own "poor man's" standing desk. It's still the same desk I've always had, but now there are three stacks of old software engineering books (which nobody cares about) under the monitors, elevating them to standing height. I also used a bookshelf supported by some steel paper organizers (again, which nobody cares about... because who organizes hard copy papers anymore?) to elevate a keyboard and mouse appropriately. As an added element, I connected up a secondary keyboard and mouse on the desk under that bookshelf, so that I can sit down when my legs grow tired.
And they do. I don't think I'll go to all this effort again, when I finally leave this job behind me. Maybe I'll just hit the gym more often, instead...
What, no fine Corinthian leather?