If you don't know the facts of the situation, how can you claim any legitimacy for your opinion? Why do you automatically conclude that, in any situation involving the TSA, the TSA agent is automatically guilty?
Your simple-minded insistence that "It's the TSA, of course they're abusing people!" is exactly the sort of naive, trite bullshit that undermines any serious attempt to engage the TSA in a meanginful effort to change their policies and practices. It's "crying wolf" of the first order, and - given that this is Slashdot - as somebody who no doubt considers himself logical and rational, you are displaying precious little of that sensibility right now.
Here's the problem with this argument: Google has never gone on the offensive with its patents because it *hasn't owned patents that it could go on the offensive with.*
Who were they going to sue with their search-related patents?
What's happening is, Google is trying to extend into other markets with Android. And they are not *innovators* in this space: they bought Android. They are not designing the hardware (which often tends to look like iPhone knockoffs). They are simply taking their software, dumping it into the market for free, and using that software to make sure that their services (and thus, advertising) are available on a broad array of mobile devices. In so doing, they are treading on the software patents other companies own, and catching a lot of heat for doing so.
Would it be great if all these companies sang Kumbaya and got along? Sure. But this insistence that somehow Google is the poor put-upon underdog because they have a hip logo on their web site is just stupid. Google is trying to expand into a new market where there are many established players already. They are appropriating ideas liberally from their competitors - and in at least some cases, appear to be doing so willfully - and now are catching heat for that. There is no "good guy" in this fight, and Google is not the scrappy underdog you're trying to hero-worship them into.
You know, you could have just said that from the start, and saved me the bother of trying to reason with you.
I'll give you a point for (belated) honesty, at least - you're really just interested in mouthing some self-righteous screed about "thuggery" and "fundamental rights," regardless of the minor details of what actually happened, or whether the facts support your predetermined notions.
We have been offered no proof that this "violation of her body" occurred as she says it, other than her own blog post. It is a case of "he said, she said,"
Ms. Alkon claims she was violated. Ms. Magee claims she followed standard TSA protocol, and that no such assault took place. I don't think you'll find anybody in the TSA who would agree that jamming fingers into someone's vagina is a "standard TSA security protocol." For those of you who are going to smugly reply "LOL THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK," please provide some written proof to justify your belief that standard TSA screening protocol involves the screener sticking fingers inside the anus or vagina of passengers.
If there IS no support for the claim that this is standard protocol, AND Ms. Magee behaved as she is described to have behaved, then Ms. Magee violated protocol, and should then be subject to disciplinary (and perhaps legal) action; If there is support for the claim that this is standard protocol, then it should be a very open and shut case in front of a judge to demonstrate that the TSA screening protocol constitutes government-sanctioned rape and sexual assault.
But again, all we've got to go on is a blog post and some legalese mail that's gone back and forth between the attorneys. I know it's a foregone conclusion in every loyal Slashdotter's mind that the person on the TSA side of the case is in the wrong, because - duh - she's a TSA agent. But nobody has offered anything other than this blog post (accepted as gospel truth) as facts in the case, and they're more than happy & willing to crucify the woman based on a sole data point: she works for the TSA.
So, it's unconstitutional, and it should be complained about every time in every forum possible... except the singular forum where she is most likely to effect a change to a policy which abridges her constitutional rights - namely, a courtroom?
Once again, I bet the ACLU would love to sink their teeth into this sort of a case. Why not call them up and see if they can run with it? She clearly has no qualms about relating her story publicly, she has done so on her blog. Why not get on the stand and deliver compelling testimony showing the impact of the TSA policies on real people, and demonstrate how monstrously invasive it is, with the goal of getting a judge to order the TSA to revise its policies?
I'm sorry, but this is "Protest Lite" that she's engaging in. "I'm so furious about this mistreatment that I'm going to... blog about it."
Ms. Alkon's attorney advised her it would be a non-starter - but they don't explain why they advised her of that. Is it because of the shield laws you're referring to? Lack of evidence? They don't say.
If you don't have a case, and you still walk around calling someone a "rapist," it's not surprising that the person you're calling a rapist would be legitimately upset by that, and make a demand that you stop calling them a rapist and pay them damages, on grounds of defamation & libel. However, if she can't go after the TSA agent directly for assault, she could still certainly sue the agency that put in place the rules that allowed her to be patted down and violated in such a manner.
Honestly, this sort of scenario sounds to me like something the ACLU would love to sink their teeth into as a lever to get the TSA to revise & relax their policies. And - presuming your goal is to make sure this treatment of passengers stops - I'd think that going to court with the TSA to force them to change their policies would constitute: 1) more bad press that the TSA really doesn't need; 2) an actual change to the policies and procedures that allow this sort of invasive fingering of airline passengers.
But all we've got is a blog post, and now a defamation suit in response.
Doesn't sound like there's a disagreement over what occurred?!
Ms Aklon: "This woman raped me. She is a rapist." Ms. Magee: "No I didn't, and no I'm not, and now you need to pay me money for defaming me and take down that published accusation."
Why hasn't Ms. Alkon filed rape charges in an appropriate venue? If she feels she was raped - and she OBVIOUSLY has no qualms about profiting from and generating page views for her web site by describing the experience - shouldn't she be filing charges, rather than just writing about it?
What's more likely to generate an actual beneficial change in TSA policies - "writing an accusatory blog post", or "filing a lawsuit and having a judge order the TSA to review its policies and procedures, retrain its employees, and pay some amount of money in reparation to the woman who was violated?"
If you're going to call somebody a rapist, you should probably make sure that they have a conviction for rape on their record. Otherwise, they're an "alleged rapist," and as we know very well here on Slashdot, everybody who commits a crime is *innocent until proven guilty,* even if they happen to be employed by the government. Right, Julian Assange? Right, Terry Childs? Right, Hans Reiser?
Even the most open society and government needs secrets. No secrets means no back channels and informal communications; lack of those means that violence over disputes will only become MORE likely, not less. You know the saying, "you don't want to see how they make the sausage?" Well, you don't want to see how they keep peace, either: it involves a lot of backchannel communications, informal chats, and politicking. When those means fail, we end up with war. If we remove those means, you've simply made it easier to go from "we disagree at the UN," to "we're dropping bombs over our disagreement."
How about changing the password on the file, from "THESAMEONEIUSEDEVERYWHERE" to "UniquePasswordforAGuardianJournalistWhoIThinkIsABumblingBoob-111222333444555666###!!!&&&$$$"?
Wouldn't stop people from getting the data if they got ahold of the Guardian's copy of the file, and the Guardian's password... but the GUARDIAN would be to blame for the leak in its entirety, as they would have to allow others to get their copy of the data, AND the password - not just "somebody let a password slip, and the file that it secures is freely available on the internet to anybody who cares to look."
If it's only marketing that's driving the success, then why aren't Samsung, Motorola, and HP - all companies with enormous revenues who could easily afford some expensive and far-reaching marketing campaigns - fighting fire with fire?
After all, if marketing is the only thing that causes people to buy... just outspend the competition, and steal their market. Why aren't they doing that?
It's absolutely apparent to me that you don't need to be an expert to "use" a computer. It seems less so to you, because you seem to think replacing operating systems, changing boot loaders, and repairing your own computer hardware are routine parts of using a computer. By this argument, changing your oil, repairing your radiator, and rebuilding a carburetor are part of "using a car."
Most people "could learn to repair their computer" if they had anything to gain by doing so. But they don't want to, and don't need to, because reliable devices exist for them to purchase. The very things you are arguing for would make these devices more confusing and difficult to work with, adding a huge amount of "noise" to the chatter about a device.
The problem with your point is that you assume that anybody who doesn't care to spend the time becoming an expert on computers and hacking at them is an idiot who has no applicable skills other than using a wallet.
Do you perform all your own auto maintenance yourself? Do you grow your own vegetables and raise your own livestock? Do you avoid doctors and treat all of your own illnesses yourself?
You *could* if you cared to learn how to be a mechanic, or a farmer, or a doctor. But I bet you don't. Any one of those professions can look at you, shake their head, and say "shit, these kids today are so braindead, they don't know how to grow corn, repair an alternator, or treat appendicitis."
You see, most people don't care to dick around with every gadget, machine, and appliance they own. They buy that machine for the purpose it's intended for, and use it for that purpose, and are happy when the machine does what it's supposed to with a minimum of fuss and maintenance. Could you imagine how frustrating it would be if every time a light came on in your car, you had to figure out not only all the mechanical parts, but also had to know exactly what software was running on all of the computers, in order to make sure that you diagnosed and solved the problem properly the first time, and didn't waste hours trying solutions that weren't appropriate?
It's not a matter of "overwhelming minds" or "declining intellect," it's a case of not everybody in the world shares your fetishistic pursuit of tinkering with every fucking toy, appliance, device, gadget, gizmo and machine they own. Lack of experience in your area of expertise/interest does not make someone an idiot. And generally, it's only the most shallowly "expert" people who make this mistake and confuse "disinterest" with "idiocy."
Then there are some of us who realized that a 10" screen with a fully functional webkit browser on the device was preferable for browsing Facepla...er...book to using a native phone app designed for small screen sizes.
And for those of us who like large print, it's trivially easy to load the iPhone version of Facepla...er....book app on an iPad, and pixel double to fill the screen.
TBH, not sure the Facebook app should be your go-to example of how Android gives you more control and ability vs. the iPad.
Except some users might actually be googling the phrase "iPad button doesn't wake up device" -- which could, if arbitrary software was installed, mislead and confuse users who don't realize that the page they've clicked on is a description of an Android (or some other OS) issue on the iPad hardware. Confused users who can't solve their problem will simply return the device and ask for a refund, and never buy that product again.
Not too many people will be googling, "Software Freedom and the iPad, Richard Stallman's comments on..." or "Similarities between Apple's app store policies and George Orwell's 1984."
The people who *care* about software freedom already know what the story is with the iPad. Most people in the mass market don't care about software freedom - they can open and view and edit word documents, emails, pdfs, etc. on their iPad, so as far as they're concerned... it's open enough. People with immediate support needs don't want to wade through a dozen sites searching for solutions to their problem. If that's the customer support experience, they won't be repeat customers.
There are already such devices, produced by Asus and some other Android manufacturers. They have not sold. It's not because they don't exist, it's because people are willing to spend the extra couple hundred getting the "premium" brand which has the higher spec parts, 3g, the "well known" brand and nice industrial design.
Most of us have other toys we could spend that money on.
People with disposable income will always have "another toy" they could buy. And they will buy it, sooner or later. You're missing the point: If you have the money to buy a tablet, you are not buying a laptop replacement, and you already have a computer. You have disposable income, and are not so much interested in cheapest bargain-basement price as you are in getting something that has good performance, is well known & well supported. The difference between "bargain" and "premium" in this space is, at most, a couple hundred dollars. That's a very easy gap to bridge when you're talking about a purchase of a *luxury.*
The cheap tablets will not cut into the iPad's sales, they will simply expand the tablet market down into lower cost, lower-margin models, and most of the people buying one of those will say, "Gee, I hope someday I can afford an iPad."
Understanding the psychology of luxury consumption is important when looking at this market. The item itself is a luxury, not a necessity. When the difference between "premium" and "budget" is so small, people will generally find a way to save up for the "premium" version of that product. Nobody *aspires* to own a 10 year old, used Geo Metro - but some people still buy Geo Metros, because it's what they can afford, and transportation is sort of a necessity in many places. You can't just "save up" for an Audi A4 when you need a car today to get to work. You *can* just "save up" for an iPad, because it doesn't do anything your existing computer can't also do - you can get by without it, and delay your purchase a couple months to save an extra couple hundred dollars.
Why do you think you see so many brand name clothes on poor inner city kids? They may not be able to afford a mansion, or an Audi, or a 10k diamond ring, but they surely can find an extra 50 bucks for the designer jeans instead of the generic Target brand.
Yeah, not-evil Foxconn is amazing. I heard they get free shiatsu massages for up to 3 hours a day - WHILE you're on the clock!
Well, "on the clock" is misleading - they don't make employees even punch in or out on a timecard, their work hours are "whenever you feel like showing up, if you feel like showing up, until whenever you feel like leaving."
Apple is currently fed by conspicous consumers constantly buying the current season's product.
Really. If that's the case, then their year-over-year sales should be flat, shouldn't they? They should be selling *exactly* the same number of laptops this year as they sold last year, since it's just an army of braindead drones repurchasing the same device with slightly bumped specs each year?
Except that's not what's happening at all. Apple is increasing units sold & profits month-over-month, quarter-over-quarter, and year-over-year, and has been doing so for approximately the last 5 years. Now, is there a point where they may reach a saturation point, and won't attract new customers? Certainly - not everybody wants, needs, or would use a Mac, iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, etc.
But your blind assertion that it's just the same people standing in line time and again, purchasing minor revisions of the same products simply aren't supported by even the most CASUAL inspection of the facts of Apple's sales figures or financial results.
Problem with that notion is this: people want the M5, rather than the $15k car, but it's kind of hard to go from a $15k car to a $100+k car. However, in tablets, the difference between a $250 tablet and $500 tablet is a lot easier to close, and so many people will buy the "luxury" brand that they've seen advertised and heard about from friends that has more ether-giga-pixel-usbs than the no-name cheap brand that works "about half as good." Especially if all the apps you have for your little iPhone or iPod touch will automagically work with the new tablet, saving you the hassle & expense of repurchase.
Except for the fact that at least one study has shown users actually spend more time using their tablet the longer they have it.
I own one; I use it as: an e-reader (kindle, ibooks, and unsecured epubs downloaded from third parties), general web browser, occasional netflix device when traveling & wifi supports it, email (reading, and sending for "lightweight" personal emails), portable "stereo" when traveling - with a small set of external speakers, does quite well at playing some music to listen to while I work; instapaper is a killer application - save stuff I see and want to look at later during the day at work, pull up Instapaper and review my stuff that night; RSS reader; Sirius device (with portable speakers & wifi, works great); occasional skype; news; great when covered by a ziploc bag for working with recipes in the kitchen, a little dicking around with some various musical apps (virtual piano works surprisingly well & guitar chord reference are nice); and yes, the occasional games - crosswords, plants vs. zombies, tetris, words with friends - casual stuff with family and friends.
I've owned it for a good 8 months now... novelty hasn't worn off quite yet, and I'd honestly say my experience mirrors the findings of the study linked above: I've found MORE, not less, to do with it over time. It gets an hour of two of casual usage every day, more when I'm traveling - I still find it quite useful, even with having a laptop to take with me when I travel.
1) If somebody is specifically targeting you - finding you on facebook, tracking your movements - they can easily & trivially know whether you're in or out by simply watching your house. When they see you leave, they know you're no longer at your house.
2) If the burglary is one of random opportunity, they're not monitoring your facebook account to see if you're home. They're looking for a house with lights off, no evident activity.
3) Your location info need not be shared with anybody else, unless you're a moron and don't know how to restrict access.
4) There has been, what, one verifiable incident of people "targeting" homes by using Facebook's checkin feature? And even that, dubious cause & effect?
Given all that, I'd say your odds of being assassinated are just about even with your likelihood of being struck by a meteorite, OR having your home burglarized *by someone tracking you on Facebook* while you're out.
Relax. You're not that important, and random burglaries are random.
I bet he rides a fixie to all the indie shows he goes to. And I bet he'd love to tell us all about those bands, but it would be pointless - we've never heard of any of them, and probably wouldn't get their clever references to David Foster Wallace and Nick Hornby at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Safari on Windows uses the Windows store, and so as soon as you've applied the MSFT patch, Safari on Windows is no longer vulnerable.
Stop procrastinating on installing windows updates.
If you don't know the facts of the situation, how can you claim any legitimacy for your opinion? Why do you automatically conclude that, in any situation involving the TSA, the TSA agent is automatically guilty?
Your simple-minded insistence that "It's the TSA, of course they're abusing people!" is exactly the sort of naive, trite bullshit that undermines any serious attempt to engage the TSA in a meanginful effort to change their policies and practices. It's "crying wolf" of the first order, and - given that this is Slashdot - as somebody who no doubt considers himself logical and rational, you are displaying precious little of that sensibility right now.
Here's the problem with this argument: Google has never gone on the offensive with its patents because it *hasn't owned patents that it could go on the offensive with.*
Who were they going to sue with their search-related patents?
What's happening is, Google is trying to extend into other markets with Android. And they are not *innovators* in this space: they bought Android. They are not designing the hardware (which often tends to look like iPhone knockoffs). They are simply taking their software, dumping it into the market for free, and using that software to make sure that their services (and thus, advertising) are available on a broad array of mobile devices. In so doing, they are treading on the software patents other companies own, and catching a lot of heat for doing so.
Would it be great if all these companies sang Kumbaya and got along? Sure. But this insistence that somehow Google is the poor put-upon underdog because they have a hip logo on their web site is just stupid. Google is trying to expand into a new market where there are many established players already. They are appropriating ideas liberally from their competitors - and in at least some cases, appear to be doing so willfully - and now are catching heat for that. There is no "good guy" in this fight, and Google is not the scrappy underdog you're trying to hero-worship them into.
You know, you could have just said that from the start, and saved me the bother of trying to reason with you.
I'll give you a point for (belated) honesty, at least - you're really just interested in mouthing some self-righteous screed about "thuggery" and "fundamental rights," regardless of the minor details of what actually happened, or whether the facts support your predetermined notions.
We have been offered no proof that this "violation of her body" occurred as she says it, other than her own blog post. It is a case of "he said, she said,"
Ms. Alkon claims she was violated. Ms. Magee claims she followed standard TSA protocol, and that no such assault took place. I don't think you'll find anybody in the TSA who would agree that jamming fingers into someone's vagina is a "standard TSA security protocol." For those of you who are going to smugly reply "LOL THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK," please provide some written proof to justify your belief that standard TSA screening protocol involves the screener sticking fingers inside the anus or vagina of passengers.
If there IS no support for the claim that this is standard protocol, AND Ms. Magee behaved as she is described to have behaved, then Ms. Magee violated protocol, and should then be subject to disciplinary (and perhaps legal) action; If there is support for the claim that this is standard protocol, then it should be a very open and shut case in front of a judge to demonstrate that the TSA screening protocol constitutes government-sanctioned rape and sexual assault.
But again, all we've got to go on is a blog post and some legalese mail that's gone back and forth between the attorneys. I know it's a foregone conclusion in every loyal Slashdotter's mind that the person on the TSA side of the case is in the wrong, because - duh - she's a TSA agent. But nobody has offered anything other than this blog post (accepted as gospel truth) as facts in the case, and they're more than happy & willing to crucify the woman based on a sole data point: she works for the TSA.
So, it's unconstitutional, and it should be complained about every time in every forum possible... except the singular forum where she is most likely to effect a change to a policy which abridges her constitutional rights - namely, a courtroom?
Once again, I bet the ACLU would love to sink their teeth into this sort of a case. Why not call them up and see if they can run with it? She clearly has no qualms about relating her story publicly, she has done so on her blog. Why not get on the stand and deliver compelling testimony showing the impact of the TSA policies on real people, and demonstrate how monstrously invasive it is, with the goal of getting a judge to order the TSA to revise its policies?
I'm sorry, but this is "Protest Lite" that she's engaging in. "I'm so furious about this mistreatment that I'm going to... blog about it."
Ms. Alkon's attorney advised her it would be a non-starter - but they don't explain why they advised her of that. Is it because of the shield laws you're referring to? Lack of evidence? They don't say.
If you don't have a case, and you still walk around calling someone a "rapist," it's not surprising that the person you're calling a rapist would be legitimately upset by that, and make a demand that you stop calling them a rapist and pay them damages, on grounds of defamation & libel. However, if she can't go after the TSA agent directly for assault, she could still certainly sue the agency that put in place the rules that allowed her to be patted down and violated in such a manner.
Honestly, this sort of scenario sounds to me like something the ACLU would love to sink their teeth into as a lever to get the TSA to revise & relax their policies. And - presuming your goal is to make sure this treatment of passengers stops - I'd think that going to court with the TSA to force them to change their policies would constitute: 1) more bad press that the TSA really doesn't need; 2) an actual change to the policies and procedures that allow this sort of invasive fingering of airline passengers.
But all we've got is a blog post, and now a defamation suit in response.
Doesn't sound like there's a disagreement over what occurred?!
Ms Aklon: "This woman raped me. She is a rapist."
Ms. Magee: "No I didn't, and no I'm not, and now you need to pay me money for defaming me and take down that published accusation."
Why hasn't Ms. Alkon filed rape charges in an appropriate venue? If she feels she was raped - and she OBVIOUSLY has no qualms about profiting from and generating page views for her web site by describing the experience - shouldn't she be filing charges, rather than just writing about it?
What's more likely to generate an actual beneficial change in TSA policies - "writing an accusatory blog post", or "filing a lawsuit and having a judge order the TSA to review its policies and procedures, retrain its employees, and pay some amount of money in reparation to the woman who was violated?"
If you're going to call somebody a rapist, you should probably make sure that they have a conviction for rape on their record. Otherwise, they're an "alleged rapist," and as we know very well here on Slashdot, everybody who commits a crime is *innocent until proven guilty,* even if they happen to be employed by the government. Right, Julian Assange? Right, Terry Childs? Right, Hans Reiser?
Even the most open society and government needs secrets. No secrets means no back channels and informal communications; lack of those means that violence over disputes will only become MORE likely, not less. You know the saying, "you don't want to see how they make the sausage?" Well, you don't want to see how they keep peace, either: it involves a lot of backchannel communications, informal chats, and politicking. When those means fail, we end up with war. If we remove those means, you've simply made it easier to go from "we disagree at the UN," to "we're dropping bombs over our disagreement."
How about changing the password on the file, from "THESAMEONEIUSEDEVERYWHERE" to "UniquePasswordforAGuardianJournalistWhoIThinkIsABumblingBoob-111222333444555666###!!!&&&$$$"?
Wouldn't stop people from getting the data if they got ahold of the Guardian's copy of the file, and the Guardian's password... but the GUARDIAN would be to blame for the leak in its entirety, as they would have to allow others to get their copy of the data, AND the password - not just "somebody let a password slip, and the file that it secures is freely available on the internet to anybody who cares to look."
If it's only marketing that's driving the success, then why aren't Samsung, Motorola, and HP - all companies with enormous revenues who could easily afford some expensive and far-reaching marketing campaigns - fighting fire with fire?
After all, if marketing is the only thing that causes people to buy... just outspend the competition, and steal their market. Why aren't they doing that?
It's absolutely apparent to me that you don't need to be an expert to "use" a computer. It seems less so to you, because you seem to think replacing operating systems, changing boot loaders, and repairing your own computer hardware are routine parts of using a computer. By this argument, changing your oil, repairing your radiator, and rebuilding a carburetor are part of "using a car."
Most people "could learn to repair their computer" if they had anything to gain by doing so. But they don't want to, and don't need to, because reliable devices exist for them to purchase. The very things you are arguing for would make these devices more confusing and difficult to work with, adding a huge amount of "noise" to the chatter about a device.
The problem with your point is that you assume that anybody who doesn't care to spend the time becoming an expert on computers and hacking at them is an idiot who has no applicable skills other than using a wallet.
Do you perform all your own auto maintenance yourself? Do you grow your own vegetables and raise your own livestock? Do you avoid doctors and treat all of your own illnesses yourself?
You *could* if you cared to learn how to be a mechanic, or a farmer, or a doctor. But I bet you don't. Any one of those professions can look at you, shake their head, and say "shit, these kids today are so braindead, they don't know how to grow corn, repair an alternator, or treat appendicitis."
You see, most people don't care to dick around with every gadget, machine, and appliance they own. They buy that machine for the purpose it's intended for, and use it for that purpose, and are happy when the machine does what it's supposed to with a minimum of fuss and maintenance. Could you imagine how frustrating it would be if every time a light came on in your car, you had to figure out not only all the mechanical parts, but also had to know exactly what software was running on all of the computers, in order to make sure that you diagnosed and solved the problem properly the first time, and didn't waste hours trying solutions that weren't appropriate?
It's not a matter of "overwhelming minds" or "declining intellect," it's a case of not everybody in the world shares your fetishistic pursuit of tinkering with every fucking toy, appliance, device, gadget, gizmo and machine they own. Lack of experience in your area of expertise/interest does not make someone an idiot. And generally, it's only the most shallowly "expert" people who make this mistake and confuse "disinterest" with "idiocy."
Then there are some of us who realized that a 10" screen with a fully functional webkit browser on the device was preferable for browsing Facepla...er...book to using a native phone app designed for small screen sizes.
And for those of us who like large print, it's trivially easy to load the iPhone version of Facepla...er....book app on an iPad, and pixel double to fill the screen.
TBH, not sure the Facebook app should be your go-to example of how Android gives you more control and ability vs. the iPad.
Except some users might actually be googling the phrase "iPad button doesn't wake up device" -- which could, if arbitrary software was installed, mislead and confuse users who don't realize that the page they've clicked on is a description of an Android (or some other OS) issue on the iPad hardware. Confused users who can't solve their problem will simply return the device and ask for a refund, and never buy that product again.
Not too many people will be googling, "Software Freedom and the iPad, Richard Stallman's comments on..." or "Similarities between Apple's app store policies and George Orwell's 1984."
The people who *care* about software freedom already know what the story is with the iPad. Most people in the mass market don't care about software freedom - they can open and view and edit word documents, emails, pdfs, etc. on their iPad, so as far as they're concerned... it's open enough. People with immediate support needs don't want to wade through a dozen sites searching for solutions to their problem. If that's the customer support experience, they won't be repeat customers.
There are already such devices, produced by Asus and some other Android manufacturers. They have not sold. It's not because they don't exist, it's because people are willing to spend the extra couple hundred getting the "premium" brand which has the higher spec parts, 3g, the "well known" brand and nice industrial design.
People with disposable income will always have "another toy" they could buy. And they will buy it, sooner or later. You're missing the point: If you have the money to buy a tablet, you are not buying a laptop replacement, and you already have a computer. You have disposable income, and are not so much interested in cheapest bargain-basement price as you are in getting something that has good performance, is well known & well supported. The difference between "bargain" and "premium" in this space is, at most, a couple hundred dollars. That's a very easy gap to bridge when you're talking about a purchase of a *luxury.*
The cheap tablets will not cut into the iPad's sales, they will simply expand the tablet market down into lower cost, lower-margin models, and most of the people buying one of those will say, "Gee, I hope someday I can afford an iPad."
Understanding the psychology of luxury consumption is important when looking at this market. The item itself is a luxury, not a necessity. When the difference between "premium" and "budget" is so small, people will generally find a way to save up for the "premium" version of that product. Nobody *aspires* to own a 10 year old, used Geo Metro - but some people still buy Geo Metros, because it's what they can afford, and transportation is sort of a necessity in many places. You can't just "save up" for an Audi A4 when you need a car today to get to work. You *can* just "save up" for an iPad, because it doesn't do anything your existing computer can't also do - you can get by without it, and delay your purchase a couple months to save an extra couple hundred dollars.
Why do you think you see so many brand name clothes on poor inner city kids? They may not be able to afford a mansion, or an Audi, or a 10k diamond ring, but they surely can find an extra 50 bucks for the designer jeans instead of the generic Target brand.
Yeah, not-evil Foxconn is amazing. I heard they get free shiatsu massages for up to 3 hours a day - WHILE you're on the clock!
Well, "on the clock" is misleading - they don't make employees even punch in or out on a timecard, their work hours are "whenever you feel like showing up, if you feel like showing up, until whenever you feel like leaving."
Really. If that's the case, then their year-over-year sales should be flat, shouldn't they? They should be selling *exactly* the same number of laptops this year as they sold last year, since it's just an army of braindead drones repurchasing the same device with slightly bumped specs each year?
Except that's not what's happening at all. Apple is increasing units sold & profits month-over-month, quarter-over-quarter, and year-over-year, and has been doing so for approximately the last 5 years. Now, is there a point where they may reach a saturation point, and won't attract new customers? Certainly - not everybody wants, needs, or would use a Mac, iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, etc.
But your blind assertion that it's just the same people standing in line time and again, purchasing minor revisions of the same products simply aren't supported by even the most CASUAL inspection of the facts of Apple's sales figures or financial results.
Problem with that notion is this: people want the M5, rather than the $15k car, but it's kind of hard to go from a $15k car to a $100+k car. However, in tablets, the difference between a $250 tablet and $500 tablet is a lot easier to close, and so many people will buy the "luxury" brand that they've seen advertised and heard about from friends that has more ether-giga-pixel-usbs than the no-name cheap brand that works "about half as good." Especially if all the apps you have for your little iPhone or iPod touch will automagically work with the new tablet, saving you the hassle & expense of repurchase.
"What we lose on an individual unit, we'll make up in volume."
Except for the fact that at least one study has shown users actually spend more time using their tablet the longer they have it.
I own one; I use it as: an e-reader (kindle, ibooks, and unsecured epubs downloaded from third parties), general web browser, occasional netflix device when traveling & wifi supports it, email (reading, and sending for "lightweight" personal emails), portable "stereo" when traveling - with a small set of external speakers, does quite well at playing some music to listen to while I work; instapaper is a killer application - save stuff I see and want to look at later during the day at work, pull up Instapaper and review my stuff that night; RSS reader; Sirius device (with portable speakers & wifi, works great); occasional skype; news; great when covered by a ziploc bag for working with recipes in the kitchen, a little dicking around with some various musical apps (virtual piano works surprisingly well & guitar chord reference are nice); and yes, the occasional games - crosswords, plants vs. zombies, tetris, words with friends - casual stuff with family and friends.
I've owned it for a good 8 months now... novelty hasn't worn off quite yet, and I'd honestly say my experience mirrors the findings of the study linked above: I've found MORE, not less, to do with it over time. It gets an hour of two of casual usage every day, more when I'm traveling - I still find it quite useful, even with having a laptop to take with me when I travel.
True - Facebook doesn't allow fake names.
1) If somebody is specifically targeting you - finding you on facebook, tracking your movements - they can easily & trivially know whether you're in or out by simply watching your house. When they see you leave, they know you're no longer at your house.
2) If the burglary is one of random opportunity, they're not monitoring your facebook account to see if you're home. They're looking for a house with lights off, no evident activity.
3) Your location info need not be shared with anybody else, unless you're a moron and don't know how to restrict access.
4) There has been, what, one verifiable incident of people "targeting" homes by using Facebook's checkin feature? And even that, dubious cause & effect?
Given all that, I'd say your odds of being assassinated are just about even with your likelihood of being struck by a meteorite, OR having your home burglarized *by someone tracking you on Facebook* while you're out.
Relax. You're not that important, and random burglaries are random.
Copilot, take the controls, I need to get a little... 'stick time'.
I bet he rides a fixie to all the indie shows he goes to. And I bet he'd love to tell us all about those bands, but it would be pointless - we've never heard of any of them, and probably wouldn't get their clever references to David Foster Wallace and Nick Hornby at all.