Result # 9 from the google search: "Charlie Miller Google Play Ban" from Mr. Miller's own twitter feed, in his own words. He was banned for, in his words, "being associated with Jon Oberheide" - one of the researchers who discovered a flaw in Android's Bouncer security program that he exploited by putting multiple bogus apps up on the Play Store.
So... he didn't even exploit the security hole in Google Play - he just happened to be 'working with or associated with' someone who did.
How you feeling about Google now? They're not only banning the person who found the issue, they're banning people associated with the people reporting the issue, including Miller's wife.
Yes, after using about 100 different models of consumer routers, countless switches, hubs, and so on, and all of them having port link lights somewhere you are right. I didn't check that this one didn't buck the trend.
So... why not just return it, and get a different model that DID have the feature you wanted? Seriously, we're talking about a 4-ethernet port / wireless-n router. Not exactly hard to come by these days, I'm sure somebody offers one with link lights if you care to go looking.
Because, well, it doesn't. And no amount of plugging it in or changing cables is going to change that.
You reported a *problem* to *support*, in which you complain about a "lack of link lights." I'm sure they're well aware that there are only Power & WLAN indicators on the model you purchased - and they probably assumed that that's what you were complaining about. So, they wrote back to tell you, "try plugging it in or changing cables to see if that has any effect, and if that doesn't do the trick, you should probably call our tech support line so we can walk you through it."
I know lots of people who love to try and throw around jargony computer phrases because they think it'll make them sound smarter. In fact, they often use the terms wrong. Since the support folks don't know about your vast experience with "about 100 different models of consumer routers, countless switches, hubs, and so on," they have no way of knowing that you know what a link light is, and so... they responded in a way that would tell you how to make the little blinkies that ARE on the unit light up.
The support person might not know what a "link light" is, and so assumed you meant the standard LED on the system that... indicates a "link" to the internet. When you assume they know your jargon and try to show them how much better at their job you'd be than they are, confusion naturally results.
What you did was the equivalent of calling up the guy who knows nothing about auto repair, but manages the scheduling of appointments at your local autobody shop and complaining that the power windows on your Porsche won't roll down. Expecting HIM to know whether or not a Carrera RS (964) had power windows and expecting that he'll be able to give you useful advice over the phone would be rather dumb, wouldn't it?
Again: if you want to make a REAL suggestion to the people who actually will know what you're talking about: 1) Don't come off as a crank, they'll simply press "Delete" 2) Direct your comments to the people who have some authority or interest in the suggestion; sales & marketing are good places to offer a feature suggestion, because you can be sure that feedback will find its way to engineering; 3) Don't assume you know their terminology and they know yours; be specific - "this is a suggestion for future models: your previous models used to also have link lights (LED indicators that lit up when a particular ethernet port was active); you've removed those indicators in this model of router, but you should really consider adding them back in the future - they're tremendously helpful for troubleshooting purposes."
"There are no link lights. You're dumb." Is not helpful or constructive or specific, or even routed to a team that might be in a position to do something about it. If you really care, send the feedback where it will be used. If you don't care, there was no need to piss all over someone just because you were in a bad mood.
So you made a suggestion to the people whose job it is to solve customer issues, you were obnoxious and vague... and you're upset that they didn't understand what you were getting at?
http://www.dlink.com/us/en/home-solutions/contact-d-link Fill in your name, email address, select "Marketing" or "Sales" - since you're asking for a *feature* in a future iteration of their product, and not *support* for the model you just purchased.
Type in something like: "I recently purchased a DLINK DIR-835 router. I was surprised to see that there are no link lights on the unit indicating which individual LAN connections are active. I think this is a poor design decision, because (insert a couple brief reasons / description of your rationale here). In future similar products, please consider including link lights, as they are tremendously helpful for troubleshooting purposes, as I described above. I have had generally good experience with your products, but consider this lack of link lights to be a definite negative point in my consideration of future purchases, and future recommendations of your products for friends and family."
If you have any relevant experience or credentials that might add some weight to your request, also include them.
Click "Submit".
Your suggestion will make its way to engineering, because Marketing and Sales are the people who need to entice you to buy their product. A reasonable, logical request for a missing feature (you know, one that doesn't call them idiots) that's sent to Sales & Marketing will go much farther than insults masquerading as feature requests sent to Support as a problem ticket.
Funny thing is, at about 50 seconds into the video, Charlie says, "The good thing about Apple is, it's only a 1 year ban, where I'm banned from Google for... lifetime."
Huh, imagine that. I guess Google must "corporately hate these guys" even more than Apple!
No, it's not, you dimwit. They are writing code, which will be used in production, AS PART OF A TEAM, OVERSEEN BY A LEAD ENGINEER, and that engineer has full control and final say in the "go/no go" decision to roll out any code to production.
So it would be exactly like, "Go learn how to prepare legal briefs, and then be present in court at the prosecution/defense table with the lawyer when he goes into court and uses the documents you prepared as part of his case." Or "Go learn how to perform first aid, and we will put you in the emergency room under the supervision of a nurse or doctor who will tell you what first aid to perform on patients, and also check in on you to make sure it's done right."
They are NOT installing code into production - they are writing code that, when and if the lead developer - who IS a coder, and who IS familiar with the code base - says that it's good enough to go in, will be installed to production. If the engineer says "Meh, couldn't be bothered, I let them make a hash of production," then he deserves the pink slip he's going to receive.
They are not being handed the root password on all production systems and being told "go wild." I know this probably seems amazing to you, but not everybody in the world is as fucking stupid as you like to imagine them to be.
If you read the article, you'll see that it's far more along the lines of a legal office saying, "We're going to ask everybody to take some paralegal training, and work with a lawyer once or twice a week preparing case files, doing research, or doing trial preparation." Or a medical office saying, "We're going to ask everybody to take some first aid training / emergency responder training, and work a couple hours a week in the emergency room under the supervision of a nurse or a doctor."
In other words, "we want all our employees to understand how this stuff actually works, and so we are committing to investing the time and money in making sure they receive training that helps them do so."
They're not being handed a blank check and the keys to production, they're being asked to spend some time developing a new skill, on the (rather smallish) company's dime, that is directly relevant to the work they do and the product they're selling, in a way that will actually let them contribute a little bit to the product as well.
If you read the article, what's funny is that the "quoted" sections of the summary do not seem to appear in the "actual articles" "at all."
If you read the article, there's this, which is the closest that it comes to "production code" being talked about:
FreeCause uses online training from Codecademy to teach the basic levels of coding, asking each employee to spend two hours a week with it. Those online lessons are augmented with two weekly one-hour meetings with a lead programmer, who acts as a mentor, and a team of three or four others, during which lessons are reviewed. A monthly "boot camp" is designed to impart more general programming lessons.
Each team is also responsible for development of a new coding project that it will present to the company later this year -- projects may involve creation of a new feature or improved functionality for a Web page within the FreeCause application. The company has not yet determined future activity, such as refresher courses or work on other languages.
So non-programmers are spending a couple hours a week learning about code, under the gudaince of a lead programmer, and as part of a team. And the long term goal is that they will deliver a "new feature or improved functionality for a Web page within the FreeCause application."
They're not just handing everybody the production root password and telling them, "slam whatever you want into production at any time, because that's how you learn," as the summary STRONGLY implies.
You said: "Apple products are positional goods the same way a Gucci bag is." (Scroll up - those are your words!)
I gave examples of Apple laptop & phone - both "Apple products" - and reasons - of their utility to me - to buy them. You proceeded to whine in response, while offering no substantial counter-point about competing phones or laptops that would satisfy my requirements as well, while claiming that there are "better, cheaper" alternatives and that the "only" reason anyone would buy an Apple product is because it's expensive. If you know of these better, cheaper alternatives, surely you can point to a single one? Surely?
"Aliyun runs Android applications out of the box, therefore it's part of the Android ecosystem."
"Linux runs Windows applications out of the box, therefore it's part of the Windows ecosystem."
You basically are arguing two sides of the same coin - when Aliyun does this to Android, it's evil-bad-double-plus-ungood, and Google is well within its rights to levy anticompetitive practices against Aliyun to prevent it. But if Microsoft were to do the same thing to Linux, or just the Wine project, you'd probably be one of the first ones to grab a torch and march on Redmond.
If you'd be against Microsoft making moves against Linux or Wine, then you cannot support Google's behavior either. Other OHA members manufacture phones running competing platforms. There is nothing different here, other than Google pitching a fit because somebody's used Android in a way that doesn't funnel money into Google's bank account.
Fact: The price of the iPhone is pretty much in line with any other "flagship" smart phone from other manufacturers. Go look, I can wait.
Fact: All the rest of your whining is apparently rooted in your need to demonstrate that you're "smarter," or "more discerning," or "something" than other people. I'm sorry you were bullied as a child, but I doubt that anybody at Apple was the one to do it, so, get over it, okay?
Fact: You've spent far too long out of your basement already. You should probably go back down there before you get a sunburn from those fluorescent lights.
I wish I could say I found some of your ranting interesting or insightful, but really, you're just a sad, pathetic little man who obviously has some sort of chip on his shoulder due to the fact that... what - people choose apple products willingly, and because of their features? I notice you weren't able to point out an equally well constructed, cheaper, or easier to manage Unix laptop for me. I also notice you shy away from naming a model of phone you consider a better value - care to name one that trounces the iPhone's feature list, and is not priced in the same range?
obnoxious twattery that you're trying to pretend is an actual question
My friend is upgrading because he's not happy with the slower performance of his 3GS under iOS 5 already, he expects it would be even slower under iOS 6, and he wants to take advantage of the additional features that will only be available on newer hardware in iOS 6.
Oh, yeah, I suppose you were hoping I'd say, "He just wants to be a pretty, pretty princess like all the other girls at the dance, and can't stand the social ostracism of not having an iPhone 5." Sorry, he's got a girlfriend, so I guess you're out of luck.
Well that's an awful convenient canned response. Please demonstrate that my statement is after the fact rationalization? Then proceed to show me a Unix laptop that's built to the same quality as a Macbook Pro, and runs a Unix distribution that will be reliable, stable, and won't require me to dick with settings constantly to keep it running. Every Linux system I've ever tried has failed those 3 tests - either it's cheap plasticky garbage that breaks down within a year, requires immense amounts of time dicking with settings and configuration to keep running properly, or requires me to build it all myself, thus costing me more in time than the extra monetary cost of just buying the Macbook Pro is worth to me.
Also, what people do with their money matters
By which you mean, "I'm smarter than anybody else, and should be able to to tell people what to do with their own property." You have yet to establish that the purchase of a Mac, or an iPhone, constitutes a "conspicuous good," or that it has no intrinsic value. You have furthermore neglected to even discuss the nature of the standard of value by which you're proclaiming its lack of value. I said, "For me it has value, and here's why," and your response was, "YOU'RE DUMB."
From this, we may conclude that you're a self-impressed techno hipster who simply enjoys bagging on things that other people appreciate simply because they don't like the same thing you do.
No, actually, the endgame is *profit,* and Apple is succeeding at that in stellar fashion. Market share doesn't mean dick if you can't make a profit off of it, because it's not *sustainable* if you can't.
This is the same world where the Samsung Galaxy S3 preorders reportedly topped 9 million.
Guess you should be even more scared of the Android fans going "I want, I want, I want," for a product they've never seen or touched in person, too, huh?
Actually for me, they're a computer manufacturer selling well-built, well-integrated Unix desktops and laptops, and phones and tablets that are largely zero-hassle to operate. Don't imagine that your logic applies to all, or even most, cases.
I think the sorriest traits I see in my fellow humans are: 1) their obsession with what other people do with the money they earn; 2) their lack of appreciation for tools which save time, which is often more valuable to the owner of the tool than any extra cost incurred in purchasing the tool itself;
Funny you mention that. I have two friends who both have older iPhones (a 3GS and a 4) and who preordered. One (with an iPhone 4) because he's on AT&T, and his contract recently expired, and now that he's off contract, wants to switch to Verizon. The other (with the 3GS) is simply looking for a faster-and-better model, and has been grousing for months about the slow performance of his old 3GS, but was holding out for the iPhone 5 to be released to upgrade, figuring he'd move to the "latest & greatest" when he upgraded, instead of upgrading to a 4S only to see a new model released months after he upgraded. They both preordered on the first day, and felt they "had" to because they wanted the upgrade.
Are you really so daft that you can't think of numerous reasons somebody may have delayed on buying a 4 or 4S, and then decided to upgrade to a 5 when preorders were available? Or are you just pretending to be oblivious?
Here's what you're missing: Most people don't buy a new phone every year - even Apple fanatics. Many owners are on 2-year contracts, and won't upgrade more than once every 2 years, when their carrier gives them a heavily subsidized phone for renewing their contract.
The iPhone 5 isn't targeted at people who already have 4S models - those were purchased in the last year or so. The iPhone 5 *is* a reasonably compelling upgrade for anybody still holding onto a 3+ year old iPhone 3GS/3G, and it's a fairly solid upgrade over the 2 year old iPhone 4 in terms of performance, as well. The people who are going to upgrade from a 4S to a 5 are rare, and likely either the "fashion statement" consumers you mention - who are a small portion of the market - or people who legitimately need/want the LTE features. Otherwise, most iPhone 5 upgrades will probably be from an iPhone 4 or older, when peoples' mobile contracts expire & come up for renewal.
So is Linux part of the Microsoft ecosystem on account of Wine? I'm curious how much of Linux you think Microsoft should control, since Windows apps will run on Linux - just a ballpark percentage is fine, just give us a feel for it.
Please point out the clause in the Apache Software License where it says "any fork of this software must be 100% compatible (as defined by Google) with the original."
So, Android's open, and Google apps are not, then? Fine, let's work from there.
Why is Google getting so anxious about Aliyun being "based on Android" if it (Android) is open? Is Aliyun violating the Apache license? I've seen nothing to indicate that as a reason. Is there some requirement in the licensing that says "any OS built from this code must come preinstalled with Google apps and only in a way Google approves of?" That'd be a curious definition of open. I see nothing in any of these comments about Aliyun using Android trademarks, or circumventing restrictions to get access to the Google stores, or violating an Apache license. All I see is "forking the open source software we released to the world works against our interests, so we'll threaten to destroy Acer's business to protect our own."
Please enlighten us - what's the issue, exactly, other than "Google isn't making money off this fork of the software?" And can you point us to the clause of the Apache license which says that "anything Google releases under this license is completely controlled by Google in perpetuity?" Because I looked, but I can't seem to find it.
I find it amusing that you're citing the forking of a project as a major problem, when that's always been cited as one of the key selling points for FOSS - the fact that no external vendor can force you to do something you don't want, because you can always take a copy of the source code and do it yourself.
I've seen nothing in any of this about Alibaba/Aliyun talking about expectations of using the Android trademarks, or demanding some sort of support for their fork from Google... no, this mostly seems to be about Google saying "Whoa, you can't build a system using our open source stuff that doesn't somehow funnel money into our bank accounts!"
And if you don't see the hypocrisy inherent in that - "embracing open source" while using "we own it, do what we say" as a cudgel to force people to conduct business in a certain way... you're simply not paying attention.
It would be like the Apache foundation coming after me for taking the Apache source code, building a fork of it with my own features and customization built in, and calling it "Comanche" on the market... if your source is open, the ability to do this is *EXACTLY* the intent of the writers of the FOSS licenses.
A subpoena is the appropriate legal step here. Unless you really think it's necessary for police to kick in Twitter's server room doors, unhook all of the servers that might be relevant to the investigation, and cart them off for indexing and analysis by some third party IT agency?
It's much easier for Twitter and the police to say, "Dear Twitter, provide us with this information, or be found in contempt of court. Sincerely, The Judge." Since Twitter has the expertise to provide the information without massive disruption to Twitter's services, it's preferable to do it this way.
A subpoena is a court order demanding someone provide evidence or testimony - generally used when it is expected that the receiving party can and will comply with the request. A search warrant is a court order demanding someone provide evidence, and authorizing law enforcement personnel to enter private property by force if necessary, and remove the requested evidence (or person required to give testimony), again by force if necessary. Search warrants would be issued in this case only if the person receiving the subpoena flatly refused to provide the information, or there was a legitimate concern that twitter would destroy the evidence, rather than turn it over, in which case the court would have a definite interest in securing the data before Twitter could do so.
So... since both are court orders... why would a warrant be better in this case? The subpoena is legal, and it's been upheld as valid despite the challenge to it (which is being appealed, which is why the data will be uninspected by the court until after the appeal process is complete), and it's much better for twitter and the court to not have to kick in a door and rip a bunch of servers out of a data center.
Slashdot Mirror
http://twitter.com/0xcharlie/statuses/231200006038761472
Result # 9 from the google search: "Charlie Miller Google Play Ban" from Mr. Miller's own twitter feed, in his own words. He was banned for, in his words, "being associated with Jon Oberheide" - one of the researchers who discovered a flaw in Android's Bouncer security program that he exploited by putting multiple bogus apps up on the Play Store.
So... he didn't even exploit the security hole in Google Play - he just happened to be 'working with or associated with' someone who did.
How you feeling about Google now? They're not only banning the person who found the issue, they're banning people associated with the people reporting the issue, including Miller's wife.
So... why not just return it, and get a different model that DID have the feature you wanted? Seriously, we're talking about a 4-ethernet port / wireless-n router. Not exactly hard to come by these days, I'm sure somebody offers one with link lights if you care to go looking.
You reported a *problem* to *support*, in which you complain about a "lack of link lights." I'm sure they're well aware that there are only Power & WLAN indicators on the model you purchased - and they probably assumed that that's what you were complaining about. So, they wrote back to tell you, "try plugging it in or changing cables to see if that has any effect, and if that doesn't do the trick, you should probably call our tech support line so we can walk you through it."
I know lots of people who love to try and throw around jargony computer phrases because they think it'll make them sound smarter. In fact, they often use the terms wrong. Since the support folks don't know about your vast experience with "about 100 different models of consumer routers, countless switches, hubs, and so on," they have no way of knowing that you know what a link light is, and so... they responded in a way that would tell you how to make the little blinkies that ARE on the unit light up.
The support person might not know what a "link light" is, and so assumed you meant the standard LED on the system that... indicates a "link" to the internet. When you assume they know your jargon and try to show them how much better at their job you'd be than they are, confusion naturally results.
What you did was the equivalent of calling up the guy who knows nothing about auto repair, but manages the scheduling of appointments at your local autobody shop and complaining that the power windows on your Porsche won't roll down. Expecting HIM to know whether or not a Carrera RS (964) had power windows and expecting that he'll be able to give you useful advice over the phone would be rather dumb, wouldn't it?
Again: if you want to make a REAL suggestion to the people who actually will know what you're talking about:
1) Don't come off as a crank, they'll simply press "Delete"
2) Direct your comments to the people who have some authority or interest in the suggestion; sales & marketing are good places to offer a feature suggestion, because you can be sure that feedback will find its way to engineering;
3) Don't assume you know their terminology and they know yours; be specific - "this is a suggestion for future models: your previous models used to also have link lights (LED indicators that lit up when a particular ethernet port was active); you've removed those indicators in this model of router, but you should really consider adding them back in the future - they're tremendously helpful for troubleshooting purposes."
"There are no link lights. You're dumb." Is not helpful or constructive or specific, or even routed to a team that might be in a position to do something about it. If you really care, send the feedback where it will be used. If you don't care, there was no need to piss all over someone just because you were in a bad mood.
So you made a suggestion to the people whose job it is to solve customer issues, you were obnoxious and vague... and you're upset that they didn't understand what you were getting at?
http://www.dlink.com/us/en/home-solutions/contact-d-link
Fill in your name, email address, select "Marketing" or "Sales" - since you're asking for a *feature* in a future iteration of their product, and not *support* for the model you just purchased.
Type in something like: "I recently purchased a DLINK DIR-835 router. I was surprised to see that there are no link lights on the unit indicating which individual LAN connections are active. I think this is a poor design decision, because (insert a couple brief reasons / description of your rationale here). In future similar products, please consider including link lights, as they are tremendously helpful for troubleshooting purposes, as I described above. I have had generally good experience with your products, but consider this lack of link lights to be a definite negative point in my consideration of future purchases, and future recommendations of your products for friends and family."
If you have any relevant experience or credentials that might add some weight to your request, also include them.
Click "Submit".
Your suggestion will make its way to engineering, because Marketing and Sales are the people who need to entice you to buy their product. A reasonable, logical request for a missing feature (you know, one that doesn't call them idiots) that's sent to Sales & Marketing will go much farther than insults masquerading as feature requests sent to Support as a problem ticket.
You do realize that Google banned him for life, whereas Apple only banned him for a year... right?
May we safely conclude that you hate Google and their products with the fiery intensity of a thousand supernovas, given your screed about Apple?
Funny thing is, at about 50 seconds into the video, Charlie says, "The good thing about Apple is, it's only a 1 year ban, where I'm banned from Google for... lifetime."
Huh, imagine that. I guess Google must "corporately hate these guys" even more than Apple!
No, it's not, you dimwit. They are writing code, which will be used in production, AS PART OF A TEAM, OVERSEEN BY A LEAD ENGINEER, and that engineer has full control and final say in the "go/no go" decision to roll out any code to production.
So it would be exactly like, "Go learn how to prepare legal briefs, and then be present in court at the prosecution/defense table with the lawyer when he goes into court and uses the documents you prepared as part of his case." Or "Go learn how to perform first aid, and we will put you in the emergency room under the supervision of a nurse or doctor who will tell you what first aid to perform on patients, and also check in on you to make sure it's done right."
They are NOT installing code into production - they are writing code that, when and if the lead developer - who IS a coder, and who IS familiar with the code base - says that it's good enough to go in, will be installed to production. If the engineer says "Meh, couldn't be bothered, I let them make a hash of production," then he deserves the pink slip he's going to receive.
They are not being handed the root password on all production systems and being told "go wild." I know this probably seems amazing to you, but not everybody in the world is as fucking stupid as you like to imagine them to be.
If you read the article, you'll see that it's far more along the lines of a legal office saying, "We're going to ask everybody to take some paralegal training, and work with a lawyer once or twice a week preparing case files, doing research, or doing trial preparation." Or a medical office saying, "We're going to ask everybody to take some first aid training / emergency responder training, and work a couple hours a week in the emergency room under the supervision of a nurse or a doctor."
In other words, "we want all our employees to understand how this stuff actually works, and so we are committing to investing the time and money in making sure they receive training that helps them do so."
They're not being handed a blank check and the keys to production, they're being asked to spend some time developing a new skill, on the (rather smallish) company's dime, that is directly relevant to the work they do and the product they're selling, in a way that will actually let them contribute a little bit to the product as well.
If you read the article, what's funny is that the "quoted" sections of the summary do not seem to appear in the "actual articles" "at all."
If you read the article, there's this, which is the closest that it comes to "production code" being talked about:
So non-programmers are spending a couple hours a week learning about code, under the gudaince of a lead programmer, and as part of a team. And the long term goal is that they will deliver a "new feature or improved functionality for a Web page within the FreeCause application."
They're not just handing everybody the production root password and telling them, "slam whatever you want into production at any time, because that's how you learn," as the summary STRONGLY implies.
You said: "Apple products are positional goods the same way a Gucci bag is." (Scroll up - those are your words!)
I gave examples of Apple laptop & phone - both "Apple products" - and reasons - of their utility to me - to buy them. You proceeded to whine in response, while offering no substantial counter-point about competing phones or laptops that would satisfy my requirements as well, while claiming that there are "better, cheaper" alternatives and that the "only" reason anyone would buy an Apple product is because it's expensive. If you know of these better, cheaper alternatives, surely you can point to a single one? Surely?
"Aliyun runs Android applications out of the box, therefore it's part of the Android ecosystem."
"Linux runs Windows applications out of the box, therefore it's part of the Windows ecosystem."
You basically are arguing two sides of the same coin - when Aliyun does this to Android, it's evil-bad-double-plus-ungood, and Google is well within its rights to levy anticompetitive practices against Aliyun to prevent it. But if Microsoft were to do the same thing to Linux, or just the Wine project, you'd probably be one of the first ones to grab a torch and march on Redmond.
If you'd be against Microsoft making moves against Linux or Wine, then you cannot support Google's behavior either. Other OHA members manufacture phones running competing platforms. There is nothing different here, other than Google pitching a fit because somebody's used Android in a way that doesn't funnel money into Google's bank account.
Fact: The price of the iPhone is pretty much in line with any other "flagship" smart phone from other manufacturers. Go look, I can wait.
Fact: All the rest of your whining is apparently rooted in your need to demonstrate that you're "smarter," or "more discerning," or "something" than other people. I'm sorry you were bullied as a child, but I doubt that anybody at Apple was the one to do it, so, get over it, okay?
Fact: You've spent far too long out of your basement already. You should probably go back down there before you get a sunburn from those fluorescent lights.
I wish I could say I found some of your ranting interesting or insightful, but really, you're just a sad, pathetic little man who obviously has some sort of chip on his shoulder due to the fact that... what - people choose apple products willingly, and because of their features? I notice you weren't able to point out an equally well constructed, cheaper, or easier to manage Unix laptop for me. I also notice you shy away from naming a model of phone you consider a better value - care to name one that trounces the iPhone's feature list, and is not priced in the same range?
My friend is upgrading because he's not happy with the slower performance of his 3GS under iOS 5 already, he expects it would be even slower under iOS 6, and he wants to take advantage of the additional features that will only be available on newer hardware in iOS 6.
Oh, yeah, I suppose you were hoping I'd say, "He just wants to be a pretty, pretty princess like all the other girls at the dance, and can't stand the social ostracism of not having an iPhone 5." Sorry, he's got a girlfriend, so I guess you're out of luck.
Now fuck off.
Well that's an awful convenient canned response. Please demonstrate that my statement is after the fact rationalization? Then proceed to show me a Unix laptop that's built to the same quality as a Macbook Pro, and runs a Unix distribution that will be reliable, stable, and won't require me to dick with settings constantly to keep it running. Every Linux system I've ever tried has failed those 3 tests - either it's cheap plasticky garbage that breaks down within a year, requires immense amounts of time dicking with settings and configuration to keep running properly, or requires me to build it all myself, thus costing me more in time than the extra monetary cost of just buying the Macbook Pro is worth to me.
By which you mean, "I'm smarter than anybody else, and should be able to to tell people what to do with their own property." You have yet to establish that the purchase of a Mac, or an iPhone, constitutes a "conspicuous good," or that it has no intrinsic value. You have furthermore neglected to even discuss the nature of the standard of value by which you're proclaiming its lack of value. I said, "For me it has value, and here's why," and your response was, "YOU'RE DUMB."
From this, we may conclude that you're a self-impressed techno hipster who simply enjoys bagging on things that other people appreciate simply because they don't like the same thing you do.
No, actually, the endgame is *profit,* and Apple is succeeding at that in stellar fashion. Market share doesn't mean dick if you can't make a profit off of it, because it's not *sustainable* if you can't.
This is the same world where the Samsung Galaxy S3 preorders reportedly topped 9 million.
Guess you should be even more scared of the Android fans going "I want, I want, I want," for a product they've never seen or touched in person, too, huh?
I think you've earned a "WOOSH".
Actually for me, they're a computer manufacturer selling well-built, well-integrated Unix desktops and laptops, and phones and tablets that are largely zero-hassle to operate. Don't imagine that your logic applies to all, or even most, cases.
I think the sorriest traits I see in my fellow humans are:
1) their obsession with what other people do with the money they earn;
2) their lack of appreciation for tools which save time, which is often more valuable to the owner of the tool than any extra cost incurred in purchasing the tool itself;
But you know, that's just me.
Funny you mention that. I have two friends who both have older iPhones (a 3GS and a 4) and who preordered. One (with an iPhone 4) because he's on AT&T, and his contract recently expired, and now that he's off contract, wants to switch to Verizon. The other (with the 3GS) is simply looking for a faster-and-better model, and has been grousing for months about the slow performance of his old 3GS, but was holding out for the iPhone 5 to be released to upgrade, figuring he'd move to the "latest & greatest" when he upgraded, instead of upgrading to a 4S only to see a new model released months after he upgraded. They both preordered on the first day, and felt they "had" to because they wanted the upgrade.
Are you really so daft that you can't think of numerous reasons somebody may have delayed on buying a 4 or 4S, and then decided to upgrade to a 5 when preorders were available? Or are you just pretending to be oblivious?
Here's what you're missing: Most people don't buy a new phone every year - even Apple fanatics. Many owners are on 2-year contracts, and won't upgrade more than once every 2 years, when their carrier gives them a heavily subsidized phone for renewing their contract.
The iPhone 5 isn't targeted at people who already have 4S models - those were purchased in the last year or so. The iPhone 5 *is* a reasonably compelling upgrade for anybody still holding onto a 3+ year old iPhone 3GS/3G, and it's a fairly solid upgrade over the 2 year old iPhone 4 in terms of performance, as well. The people who are going to upgrade from a 4S to a 5 are rare, and likely either the "fashion statement" consumers you mention - who are a small portion of the market - or people who legitimately need/want the LTE features. Otherwise, most iPhone 5 upgrades will probably be from an iPhone 4 or older, when peoples' mobile contracts expire & come up for renewal.
So is Linux part of the Microsoft ecosystem on account of Wine? I'm curious how much of Linux you think Microsoft should control, since Windows apps will run on Linux - just a ballpark percentage is fine, just give us a feel for it.
Uh... still Google?
Please point out the clause in the Apache Software License where it says "any fork of this software must be 100% compatible (as defined by Google) with the original."
So, Android's open, and Google apps are not, then? Fine, let's work from there.
Why is Google getting so anxious about Aliyun being "based on Android" if it (Android) is open? Is Aliyun violating the Apache license? I've seen nothing to indicate that as a reason. Is there some requirement in the licensing that says "any OS built from this code must come preinstalled with Google apps and only in a way Google approves of?" That'd be a curious definition of open. I see nothing in any of these comments about Aliyun using Android trademarks, or circumventing restrictions to get access to the Google stores, or violating an Apache license. All I see is "forking the open source software we released to the world works against our interests, so we'll threaten to destroy Acer's business to protect our own."
Please enlighten us - what's the issue, exactly, other than "Google isn't making money off this fork of the software?" And can you point us to the clause of the Apache license which says that "anything Google releases under this license is completely controlled by Google in perpetuity?" Because I looked, but I can't seem to find it.
I find it amusing that you're citing the forking of a project as a major problem, when that's always been cited as one of the key selling points for FOSS - the fact that no external vendor can force you to do something you don't want, because you can always take a copy of the source code and do it yourself.
I've seen nothing in any of this about Alibaba/Aliyun talking about expectations of using the Android trademarks, or demanding some sort of support for their fork from Google... no, this mostly seems to be about Google saying "Whoa, you can't build a system using our open source stuff that doesn't somehow funnel money into our bank accounts!"
And if you don't see the hypocrisy inherent in that - "embracing open source" while using "we own it, do what we say" as a cudgel to force people to conduct business in a certain way... you're simply not paying attention.
It would be like the Apache foundation coming after me for taking the Apache source code, building a fork of it with my own features and customization built in, and calling it "Comanche" on the market... if your source is open, the ability to do this is *EXACTLY* the intent of the writers of the FOSS licenses.
A subpoena is the appropriate legal step here. Unless you really think it's necessary for police to kick in Twitter's server room doors, unhook all of the servers that might be relevant to the investigation, and cart them off for indexing and analysis by some third party IT agency?
It's much easier for Twitter and the police to say, "Dear Twitter, provide us with this information, or be found in contempt of court. Sincerely, The Judge." Since Twitter has the expertise to provide the information without massive disruption to Twitter's services, it's preferable to do it this way.
A subpoena is a court order demanding someone provide evidence or testimony - generally used when it is expected that the receiving party can and will comply with the request. A search warrant is a court order demanding someone provide evidence, and authorizing law enforcement personnel to enter private property by force if necessary, and remove the requested evidence (or person required to give testimony), again by force if necessary. Search warrants would be issued in this case only if the person receiving the subpoena flatly refused to provide the information, or there was a legitimate concern that twitter would destroy the evidence, rather than turn it over, in which case the court would have a definite interest in securing the data before Twitter could do so.
So... since both are court orders... why would a warrant be better in this case? The subpoena is legal, and it's been upheld as valid despite the challenge to it (which is being appealed, which is why the data will be uninspected by the court until after the appeal process is complete), and it's much better for twitter and the court to not have to kick in a door and rip a bunch of servers out of a data center.