The computer illiterate have been using full computers for decades. They have been doing just fine with their real computers. The iPad is a secondary short use device.
People will revolt rather than concede to Apple's walled garden for long. Expect to see greater negative outcry in the near future as people begin to unravel themselves from the reality distortion field.
And again the total sold isn't even 1/10th of 1% of the computing market. Microsoft has sold considerably more copies of Win7 in a very short period of time.
That is not a pertinent question. People that bought those were predisposed to, such as those already an Apple loyalist. They also bought those on advertising alone.
You should well expect sales to slow considerably.
Total bullshit response. REACT is a major crimes task force. This investigation was pursued for the purposes of fucking Gizmodo. They had the fucking phone back. They had the phone returned, period. They are trying to end run around the first amendment.
No way in your world nor mine is the Mac a BMW or Mercedes class. Where on earth did you come up with that? The Mac's internals are the freaking same as a PC. You strip that fucker down and one would question much of the design. The software core is open source. The GUI is custom design by Apple. Please, stop making it out like a BMW or Mercedes. I have seen far more powerful and advanced computers that are custom built that blow the pants off the quality and capabilities offered by Apple.
Grandma doesn't use an iPad. It hurts her hand to hold it and type. Grandma also isn't playing duke nukem on it. Grandmas need multitasking and want to view videos. This device isn't for her. She's always questioning why she can't have it her way. She keeps asking "where's the beef?"
Steve has gone Howard Hughes on us. He has gone recursive on his own reality distortion field. I'd always thought he didn't believe half the shit he spews. Now I see he actually believes in it and feeds on himself, his own reality distortion field.
He has Apple's internal gestapo police force mixed up with REACT which is a high tech major crimes force run by the District Attorney. What he does have right is that Steve Jobs pushed them to act on this even though the phone had been already returned. Steve Jobs got a major crimes high tech force involved to persecute the journalist because of a cell phone that he already had back in his possession.
Your facts and sequence of events are wrong. Attempts by both Gizmodo and the finder were made to return it to Apple. All contact resulted in them denying it was theirs until it was disassembled and put on expose on the web. At this point Apple asked for it back. They were asked to make a public acknowledgement. The phone was returned. Then a warrant was issued in an effort by Apple to do an end run around the first amendment because Steve Jobs had very recently been on the loosing end of the same type of issue where the journalist's sources were ruled protected--the journalist was a web blogger. I'm sure Steve's well known history of extreme behavior bled through on this one.
You are acting judge, jury and executioner. There has been no crime committed at any point. Nothing has been proven in a court of law. You do not have the facts. What you think you know you have wrong.
The phone was returned once it was identified and confirmed by Apple.
You can't deny the issues by denying the issues. No crime was committed, before or after the phone was returned. When a jury says one was then after all the appeals there still probably won't have been a crime committed.
And fyi shield laws protect the journalist. Come on you would clearly be seen as yanking the child's chain.
The specifics of the case seems beyond your ability to even understand the weight of the issues.
The easy response to that is that the phone had been returned prior to the issuance of the warrant. They didn't withhold it from the owner once Apple officially claimed it. The detective even officially stated it.
And if the alleged loss of profit is an indication of Apple's business plan I'd say consumer beware. There are lots of companies that pre-release information about products that don't suffer this detriment--Microsoft and Google being two of them.
This isn't about children's level of interpretation on the matter. It's about the complexity of assessing the issues as an adult.
You probably would prefer not having it disclosed to the child that the phone had already been returned prior to the warrant being issued. You probably would let lay the fact that multiple contact had been made with Apple before the publication. You would fail to disclose to the child that the person who did the review was a journalist and how the first amendment comes into play. You would also fail to explain that Chen was an agent of Gawker Media and that his home and privacy have been violated even though the phone had already been returned, that Gawker Media gave him the money, that no less than 2 other individuals had their privacy now violated with the publication of their addresses and birth dates. You probably would also fail to make it clear why we have the State and Federal laws protecting journalists, as well as the most basic premise of our justice system which is predicated on the covenant that we are innocent until proven guilty by a judge and/or a jury of our peers.
No felony occurred until a jury says one has. Reading the affidavit gave me pause in how the detective intentionally exaggerated the circumstances to make it look as if a conspiracy took place.
Birth dates, residences, and drivers licenses were disclosed making at least 3 people susceptible to identity theft.
How could you draw that inference? Is there something more that you know about that we don't?
A company indicates that they are unhappy with the state of affairs of HTML5 as it is currently implemented, because it doesn't do what they need, nor as easily as they can get it done with another development tool, and you indicate that you feel there's a conspiracy?
They weren't searching his house to recover the phone you know. They already had it back. The article had been online for weeks. Apple had been contacted even before that, and they claimed it wasn't theirs. They broke down his door and took his equipment likely without telling the judge he was a journalist. They also likely did it in an effort to make a point to anyone who might out their products before the official launch. I think most of us are smart enough to know this wasn't because they were seeking an investigation into some crime especially since the phone was returned already. Apple had been on the loosing end of a battle with a journalist in the recent past. This was simply their end run around the laws that protect journalist.
One of the other employees had taken Woz aside after the demonstration by Steve Jobs. He showed the iPad? to Woz and to another guy. For breaking protocol he was fired.
Gray lost the phone and in order to save his face he is claiming it was stolen. They can't fire him for keeping with protocol, even if the phone was stolen.
Slashdot Mirror
The computer illiterate have been using full computers for decades. They have been doing just fine with their real computers. The iPad is a secondary short use device.
People will revolt rather than concede to Apple's walled garden for long. Expect to see greater negative outcry in the near future as people begin to unravel themselves from the reality distortion field.
And again the total sold isn't even 1/10th of 1% of the computing market. Microsoft has sold considerably more copies of Win7 in a very short period of time.
That is not a pertinent question. People that bought those were predisposed to, such as those already an Apple loyalist. They also bought those on advertising alone.
You should well expect sales to slow considerably.
They gave the phone back to Apple.
The easy answer is that he, and Gizmodo, contacted Apple. In all cases Apple refused to acknowledge it was theirs.
You haven't a clue as to the laws broken. In America we don't even leave that up to the judge. There are plenty of people found not guilty.
Hell, that bears repeating. In America we don't even leave that up to the judge.
Dude, you sound lost. I guess we'll have to wait till you are in a similar situation, God forbid.
It was a fucking phone. Damn.
Total bullshit response. REACT is a major crimes task force. This investigation was pursued for the purposes of fucking Gizmodo. They had the fucking phone back. They had the phone returned, period. They are trying to end run around the first amendment.
No way in your world nor mine is the Mac a BMW or Mercedes class. Where on earth did you come up with that? The Mac's internals are the freaking same as a PC. You strip that fucker down and one would question much of the design. The software core is open source. The GUI is custom design by Apple. Please, stop making it out like a BMW or Mercedes. I have seen far more powerful and advanced computers that are custom built that blow the pants off the quality and capabilities offered by Apple.
1 million iPads isn't even 1/10th of one percent of the computer market.
Grandma doesn't use an iPad. It hurts her hand to hold it and type. Grandma also isn't playing duke nukem on it. Grandmas need multitasking and want to view videos. This device isn't for her. She's always questioning why she can't have it her way. She keeps asking "where's the beef?"
Steve has gone Howard Hughes on us. He has gone recursive on his own reality distortion field. I'd always thought he didn't believe half the shit he spews. Now I see he actually believes in it and feeds on himself, his own reality distortion field.
This did not happen. No violations have been proven. The phone was returned within a reasonable amount of time.
He has Apple's internal gestapo police force mixed up with REACT which is a high tech major crimes force run by the District Attorney. What he does have right is that Steve Jobs pushed them to act on this even though the phone had been already returned. Steve Jobs got a major crimes high tech force involved to persecute the journalist because of a cell phone that he already had back in his possession.
Your facts and sequence of events are wrong. Attempts by both Gizmodo and the finder were made to return it to Apple. All contact resulted in them denying it was theirs until it was disassembled and put on expose on the web. At this point Apple asked for it back. They were asked to make a public acknowledgement. The phone was returned. Then a warrant was issued in an effort by Apple to do an end run around the first amendment because Steve Jobs had very recently been on the loosing end of the same type of issue where the journalist's sources were ruled protected--the journalist was a web blogger. I'm sure Steve's well known history of extreme behavior bled through on this one.
You are acting judge, jury and executioner. There has been no crime committed at any point. Nothing has been proven in a court of law. You do not have the facts. What you think you know you have wrong.
The phone was returned once it was identified and confirmed by Apple.
You can't deny the issues by denying the issues. No crime was committed, before or after the phone was returned. When a jury says one was then after all the appeals there still probably won't have been a crime committed.
And fyi shield laws protect the journalist. Come on you would clearly be seen as yanking the child's chain.
The specifics of the case seems beyond your ability to even understand the weight of the issues.
The easy response to that is that the phone had been returned prior to the issuance of the warrant. They didn't withhold it from the owner once Apple officially claimed it. The detective even officially stated it.
And if the alleged loss of profit is an indication of Apple's business plan I'd say consumer beware. There are lots of companies that pre-release information about products that don't suffer this detriment--Microsoft and Google being two of them.
This isn't about children's level of interpretation on the matter. It's about the complexity of assessing the issues as an adult.
You probably would prefer not having it disclosed to the child that the phone had already been returned prior to the warrant being issued. You probably would let lay the fact that multiple contact had been made with Apple before the publication. You would fail to disclose to the child that the person who did the review was a journalist and how the first amendment comes into play. You would also fail to explain that Chen was an agent of Gawker Media and that his home and privacy have been violated even though the phone had already been returned, that Gawker Media gave him the money, that no less than 2 other individuals had their privacy now violated with the publication of their addresses and birth dates. You probably would also fail to make it clear why we have the State and Federal laws protecting journalists, as well as the most basic premise of our justice system which is predicated on the covenant that we are innocent until proven guilty by a judge and/or a jury of our peers.
I agree with the GP. You, sir, need counseling.
No felony occurred until a jury says one has. Reading the affidavit gave me pause in how the detective intentionally exaggerated the circumstances to make it look as if a conspiracy took place.
Birth dates, residences, and drivers licenses were disclosed making at least 3 people susceptible to identity theft.
How could you draw that inference? Is there something more that you know about that we don't?
A company indicates that they are unhappy with the state of affairs of HTML5 as it is currently implemented, because it doesn't do what they need, nor as easily as they can get it done with another development tool, and you indicate that you feel there's a conspiracy?
The engineer that lost the iPhone at the bar wasn't fired, not as far as the public knows.
That's bullshit. It wasn't stolen. It was lost. He's now trying to cover it up by claiming theft.
They weren't searching his house to recover the phone you know. They already had it back. The article had been online for weeks. Apple had been contacted even before that, and they claimed it wasn't theirs. They broke down his door and took his equipment likely without telling the judge he was a journalist. They also likely did it in an effort to make a point to anyone who might out their products before the official launch. I think most of us are smart enough to know this wasn't because they were seeking an investigation into some crime especially since the phone was returned already. Apple had been on the loosing end of a battle with a journalist in the recent past. This was simply their end run around the laws that protect journalist.
One of the other employees had taken Woz aside after the demonstration by Steve Jobs. He showed the iPad? to Woz and to another guy. For breaking protocol he was fired.
Gray lost the phone and in order to save his face he is claiming it was stolen. They can't fire him for keeping with protocol, even if the phone was stolen.
This is going to be an unpopular question, but is Steve a Scientologist, heh?