LOL as someone using a Lenovo, right now, let me just say this:
If you buy it over an Apple, you get what you deserve. The quality from Lenovo has been declining since they bought the brand from IBM. Thinkpad's are a SHADOW of their former glory, sadly.
Here's something people don't factor in when buying laptops: Your expensive MacBook Pro is having issues? Well, visit an Apple store and get it fixed!
Your expensive Lenovo is having issues? Well... mail it back...
But you still didn't make the comparison, you told other people to do it. Until you make the comparison, I'm still betting that the Lenovo cuts corners in a variety of ways to make the product cheaper, and as a consumer you have to accept those cost-cutting trade offs.
I think if you read my comment carefully you'll discover that I didn't say "child pornography" or "sexually suggestive content featuring minors".
Are you suggesting that "child pornography" and "sexually suggestive content featuring minors" is the bright line, and that anything on the privacy spectrum that doesn't cross that line should be defended? That's the implication I get from your comment, but I'm happy to be corrected.
That's not a real argument. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no line to be drawn about what people can and can't post to Reddit? My guess is you don't support the posting of child pornography and snuff films.
No, I surmise that you think I'm attacking a straw man because you saw the words "child pornography" and assumed (incorrectly but reasonably, given the hyperbole in this particular controversy) that I was equating creepshots and jailbait with child pornography.
I was in fact not doing that. I was suggesting that the principle on which your argument rested --- that we should tolerate all content in order to defend free expression --- was probably counterfeit. I was saying that you did have a problem with child pornography, not that you accept it and were thus a suspect participant in this conversation.
If you say "reddit can run itself any way it wants," that's true, but it doesn't lend itself to useful conversation. 'tptacek is also free to comment on what he sees as inconsistent moderation rules on HN (as long as HN tolerates it, etc etc turtles all the way).
The rules appear to be "free expression above all else until someone makes an argument against some particular form of free speech that a small group of Reddit moderators find compelling". I do not think that is a clear standard.
Alright, then, let's rephrase that a bit: "Distasteful" subreddits that consist of compromising photos of PEOPLE taken without their knowledge are to be tolerated." I'm not sure why a rule against minors suddenly makes this okay.
What BS. Why on Earth should games be sterilized down to ensure that all players receive an equal treatment? That's not how it works, not at all, because primarily: You can't control players, and players affect each other's experience.
But even past that, you seem to be saying that all MMO's should be designed for the lowest common denominator.
Why make guild raids when casual players can't get into top tier guilds?
Why make 40 man dungeon raids when casual players can't find groups larger than 5?
Why make the game have 80 levels when casual players, on average, will only reach 60 of them?
My real question is: Why punish avid gamers by condescendingly referring to their passion as unhealthy?
It seems to me that attempting to force every player into one paradigm is a great way to alienate everyone except players who that paradigm was designed for.
If you make a game that appeals to casual gamers -- do not be surprised when hardcore gamers skip it!
This is the beauty of the MMO: content for everyone and theoretically, the hardcore gamer's contribution to the game world will ripple out and affect other gamers, not only psychologically (I want to be that good) but materially, as they affect economies and other systems...
After listening to this kind of argument from World of Warcraft players for ages, I have a serious problem with equating time investment with being more deserving of having fun. It's about taking pride in the ability to put up with arbitrary timesinks that serve the game in no way but to prolong it, and that rhetoric is ultimately justifying game design that is designed to waste the player's time as much as they will put up with.
Somehow Blizzard managed to brainwash people into rationalizing their sunk time, and now they really believe that having to spend hours not having fun before you can have fun is necessary to make a game rewarding, because there's no other element of the game that is rewarding to them anymore.
Your reply once again proves that you're incapable of understanding the players, and instead of attempting to understand, you're judging and insulting them and how they freely choose to spend their time.
Seriously just because you don't like something doesn't mean people who do are brainwashed. That's extremely pretentious and offensive and I really have nothing more to say to you.
The big issue is: The new iPod Touch 5th gen is $300. For a 4" screen. How can they sell the new iPad at even $300? It would have to be $350, minimum. The iPad 2 is still $400, why buy a 7" for $400 when a 10" is $400??
I don't see how Apple is going to price this effectively without cannibalizing their own markets. I guess they could switch up the 5th gen pricing but they JUST announced it, and it would come across as a cheap trick to move the rest of the 4th gens at full price.
You do not know how much (if anything) Google was charging Apple for API access or if it increased when they generally increased the pricing. They almost certainly got a better deal than general users of the API because they are Apple and have a massive user base. We do know that Apple and Google had a contract in place but beyond that we don't know anything.
Furthermore, Apple does not get their data from "Apple Maps". They pay to license it from TomTom and other companies (though they do, of course, also produce data of their own that gets combined with the third-party sources to produce the aggregation that is Apple Maps).
I don't know how much you meant by "millions of dollars" but it was probably substantially less than the $267 million Apple paid to acquire C3 Technologies to add 3D maps to their offering.
Apple's decision was a great long term decision for them but it did hurt users in the short term (hence Cook's apology).
Do you actually know anything at all about the terms of agreement between the 2 companies regarding maps or are you just guessing here? Because as far as I know, the terms of agreement between them are not public.
Paying millions of dollars for maps is a tiny drop in the bucket for Apple and a tiny drop in the bucket for Google. Whatever disagreement they had over maps it almost certainly was not because Google charged too much. Providing additional ads/services to iOS users is significantly more valuable to Google than whatever paltry millions they could have made by licensing their maps.
The PC as a platform for running your applications and holding your data is on its way out, being replaced by the web. The PC, the box you run your browser on, will remain, but the applications you run will only see the browser on one side and their Unix-like OS on the other.