I am an Apple hater BUT I have to say very proud of the new Apple and actually saying they made a mistake and apologizes. This and the fight for security are both things as a self proclaimed Apple Hater applaud Apple for doing. Good job!
This is not a healthy mentality to have about anything.
Remember Google Reader? Google+? Wave? Buzz? Every company puts out shitty apps now and again.
Isn't that precisely what the OP did though? He created new opinions when the situation changed.
I used to have an iPhone, but after it got outdated, I bought an Android phone. I also find OSX difficult to use and prefer Linux and Windows. I prefer Android, Windows and Linux, and think Google has better business practices than Apple. I guess you could also call me an "Apple hater", but I really just give people a hard time for having different preferences than I do.
I 100% stand behind Apple's standing up for security. I 100% support them backing down from their original justification of the intentional Error 53. I still prefer non-Apple things, so I'll advocate for it.
There's no real hate going on here. Every time there's a new console, the "Console Wars" heat back up again, but nobody really hates each other, they're just vehemently defending their personal preferences.
Don't you consider this maybe a bit childish and petty? Having a preference is one thing, but that's no excuse for being dismissive and inflammatory.
In case you are not familiar with the culture: there is a longstanding tradition of playful insults between console and PC gamers as well as in gaming in general. There's nothing inflammatory about this, it's all in jest and the participants are aware of it.
It's childish, I suppose, but we're talking about video games after all.
Outsiders say "Man, you hate that guy! me: What? he was my best man in my wedding last week! (True Story)
The reason we can say those things is because of how close we are to that person.
Remember: we are a lot of different people here and if we should all judge each another based on our own backgrounds the noise level would likely increase to a level where most sane people left.
We all have biases I just like to think I try to make mine more vocal :)
The FBI is taking this public at a politically opportune time to try to make it so they can order this type of thing for any digital device they physically possess.
There's also a bit of me that thinks the timing is also a convenient way to influence the presidential election. Law enforcement groups are heavily Republican. Encryption has been a topic brought up in the debates. Dems usually say things like "We just need to ask nicely and they'll help us out, I know it"; to your average voter, this is proof-positive that that's not true, and it gives the law-and-order candidates remaining in the GOP field (which, I guess remaining are Cruz and Bush? This would've helped Christie and hurt Fiorina) a very powerful amplifier for their anti-crypto positions.
> " So the reason why price-fixing is illegal, and also unethical, is not that it hurts consumers. The key reason is that it violates one of the basic requirements for markets to work efficiently. In order for markets to function with anything approaching efficiency — never mind fairness — several conditions must obtain: for starters, there must be sufficient information in the hands of both buyer and seller, and the costs of transactions must be borne by the participants, rather than spilling over onto bystanders. But most important for the present case, markets can only be efficient if buyers have real options — that is, if no seller has the power to bully the market. Behavior aimed at letting one seller, or a group of sellers, bully the market is contrary to the requirements of efficient markets." http://businessethicsblog.com/2013/06/07/price-fixing-not-ju...
> to kill jailbroken phones
(Or Android hater, or any other tech "hater" for that matter. Why can't we accept that companies do different things without proclaiming ourselves as "haters"?)
“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
[2] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-...
"Tolerance," to me, has a simple definition: whoever uses force first is the one who's intolerant. I'd be curious to know how Popper avoided the same conclusion.
If you express an intolerant opinion, it's important for me to express that I think you're full of shit and why, and that I won't tolerate it, without physically lifting a finger against you, or otherwise trying to destroy your life or well being. That's how and why freedom of speech works. It doesn't indemnify you from the consequences of expressing your opinions.
I am fully justified in expressing my intolerance of your intolerance without resorting to violence. I'm not going to wait for you to go as far as to hit me in the face or spend money on a propaganda campaign that's actively trying to destroy my marriage (for example), before I verbally express my intolerance of something you said or did.
But if you donated to a political campaign that results in destroying my marriage, or if you're the executive director of an organization dedicated to that cause, and I find out that you've been having gay sex orgies on the low down, or cheating on your wife on Ashley Madison, then it's totally justified for me to publicly out you, and if your wife decides to divorce you or FRC decides to fire you upon learning that, then it's between you and them, and what I did was totally justified, no matter how much you feel like playing the victim.
Simply expressing verbal support for the candidate, on the other hand, wouldn't be an instance of the use of force.
The passage from Karl Popper you quoted contains the problematic language, "But we should claim the right to suppress (utterances of intolerance) if necessary even by force." That's where an arbitrary exercise of unequal power comes in. Unless Popper is claiming that an external source of morality exists to decide who's allowed to respond to speech with violence and who is not, he's on very shaky philosophical ground.
Oh no! Someone has an opinion you disagree with! Clearly, they're stupid.
Original Mac replaced the over $10,000 Lisa for a quarter of the price then left the color option off the market for over a year. (My dad was buying the first Mac when the color one comes out ended up with an Amiga).
Amgia: Apple lied about the capabilities of the Amiga. My Amiga 1000 at 7.16 MHz could run an emulator of the MacOS at 7.8336 MHz BOTH on the same 68000 CPU and the Amiga out preformed it in benchmarks. The Mac took many years to catch up to the Amiga. Amiga had analogue colors and Mac had a extremely limited range of colors that were digital.
You ever have to service the old Apple Printers? WOW they were HORRIBLE!
Even worse did you ever have to work with Token Rings?!?!?! I will never be able to read Lord of the Rings without going into a rage about the 1990s networking with these beauts!
The "Pro-Tools" era of Digital audio. Even after the need for proprietary hardware for I/O was over (1998 or so) they continued to sell many many thousands of dollars inputs based on false information provided by Apple.
Lies: No malware or virus. No crashes. - No OS is safe (They even use to suggest that people have an anti-virus program running on OS X on their website) Still today OS X and Apple software crashes all the time on me. Just Sunday a mission critical part of the presentation refused to work till after a hard reboot and re-install of the software.
Litigation as a tool to stop competition.
Present Day: Price Fixing which breaks down the rights of the buyer to have the power and knowledge in purchasing (This is why it is illegag.
Walled garden - I'm an old school Hacker who prefer Linux and open hardware.
Macs life span is so short presently. Apple doesn't even tell you what the life span of their OS releases will be (Unless that changed recently)
30% commission on apps, books and well everyone's work. This causes Apple (Google also guilty of this) to make more off of people's work then the creators do. This is part of the reason why we had the EBook price fixing issue.
OS X and Apple Software UI is very limiting and causes me to go mad trying to remember what the "Apple Way" is. My biggest pet peeve is Final Cut does not have a Render for the longest time. I had to always go search for the way to just pre-render and final render video projects to export. This made me look silly BUT Final Cut added render as an actual term a few years ago. Render was the technical word for all video editing EXCEPT Final Cut!
I could go on for much more and I am sure you disagree with all of it, but to say someone disagrees with something you prefer as being unintelligent just means you have your own bias that allow you to believe you are smarter due to your preferences.