Disagree. I use it in referencing the Jonestown tragedy where followers of Jim Jones blindly drank the poisoned kool-aid. Also use the phrase ,"drinking the grape kool-aid," as that was supposedly the flavor that was used.
And it was actually Flavoraid that was poisoned in Jonestown, but more people recognize the KoolAid brand so that's what stuck.
The expression of being "fed Koolaid," clearly in the context of Jonestown, was originally used shortly after the atrocity as a way of saying that somebody was being deceived by a traitor with the intent of killing or harming them. It denoted victimization.
The change of using the expression to simply mean 'willfully, blindly following someone' only started in the late 90s, a gap of 20 years after the mass murder, long enough for many people to have lost any association with a real understanding of what it actually meant. The change was based on an ignorant assumption of people who guessed what a "cult" must have meant.
If you research anything about the actual event, you'll find that it wasn't a doomsday cult of people choosing to die, but rather a mass killing where many weren't even aware of any poison, while others were forced to drink it under gunpoint or were injected by force. Others who died were babies who had no ability to make a decision to follow anything. The leaders filmed the event, so you can find a documentary the presented what actually happened on video.
Many who died there were trying to escape from the compound, and it happened after the group's leaders had murdered members of an investigation team that included a US congressman. It wasn't a group wanting to go to heaven or something. It was over 900 people who were killed or lead to their deaths buy a charlatan who not only didn't want to be caught alive, but wanted to kill everyone around him.
So using the phrase to mean "foolish blind followers" is perverse and ignorant.
It also has nothing to do with dropping acid in the 60s, which occured over ten years before Jonestown. Nobody used "drinking kool-aid" an expression of "taking a blind leap of faith" during that period. You can do a lexis nexus search.
Coincidence? Perhaps. Or, perhaps, the Apple defender league got together and said, "Our careers and life savings are invested in Apple. Cupertino is not doing much to protect us. So we have to take it upon ourselves." Probably not. But it would be interesting to ponder the possibility.
So three columnists will be out of a job when Apple goes out of business next month unless they individually write up a defense of the company that saves it for perhaps another 30 days of life support? Interesting theory.
Or perhaps it's that the ridiculous propaganda being spun about the company is getting so so incredibly deep that its impossible for a reasonably intelligent person not to point out how absurd it is.
So rather than a desperate conspiracy of three people nobody knows outside of the Mac blogs, perhaps the real issue is that one company took the business away from everyone in the smartphone business and everyone in the PC business, and the only hope left for them centers around a savior company with an ideological base of free software advocates.
Not a "conspiracy" so much as a series of massive companies that have been all but wiped out, and desperately need to create the impression that up is down and black is white, starting with the idea that the best performing tech company on earth is in decline and a poorly performing malware platform mobiles is "winning."
Wow! I am just so disappointed that none of the regulars here caught, or pointed out the obvious irony of "Flawgic" at work.
Considering that this guy most likely and successfully got his Forum Moniker "Cow a Saki" using no other than Siri, when he thought that that she magically could find his missing "crotch-rocket" in the parking lot of a bike show.... 8-) The name does lend itself to a drunken purchase of a Note II and strapping it to your head though. Fitting.
I am one of those that liked the article (second time around after also reading it on RD a week ago*)... even if did, as is the style of DED... use creative embellishment to augment his case. Fact is that every point taken, at it's core, has the kernel of truth in it.
* The first time I read this opinion piece, I immediately thought of how well this would go over on AI. 276 replies is not bad... although I was seriously expecting 350+. I'm obviously trying to help with that after the thread has long dried up :smokey:
In the final analysis, everyone, absolutelyeveryone, has a bias. So to write articles that acknowledge your own bias, and put it right up front are in some ways more "honest" than to write some shit that passes for objectivity but is just as biased in the end as anything else. You only have to look at the writings of guys like Seth Weintraub on 9to5 mac, almost any writer on Engadget, to see that they also have some pretty extreme biases themselves and yet they write as if their opinion is direct from the Gods or whatever and hide behind the cloak of "objectivity."
Absolutely spot on. An ex of mine said it well with "the only place you will find 'objectivity' is in the dictionary". One of the biggest lies perpetrated by almost all the MSM is the idea that they are objective and balanced. There are always at least two sides to every story. The most honest way, as Gazoobee say, is to be upfront about your own bias. In 2013 there is an absolute overwhelming deluging of information coming at us from every direction and it's up to us and nobody else to do our best to question its veracity and do our own homework. If you want a superb example of the media repeating what they're told then have a look here.
How in the hell are we suppose to read that as not an iOS-only network if you specifically write "But what about an iOS-only network."
That's fair; I went back to read my post and realized I didn't clearly articulate what I was thinking.
I am thinking of providing iOS-only Wifi coverage at heavy traffic corridors such as airports, public transportation systems around the world. Was recently at Heathrow and was frustrated there was no free Wifi. The only option, if one wasn't a subscriber to specific European carriers, was to sign up with Boingo. This is true of many other airports. At many airports where free WiFi is available, coverage is spotty and slow. Very few undergrounds/subwaysbuses have WiFi, never mind free service.
I don't think it would be that difficult/expensive for Apple to team up with locals to provide free, iOS-only 802.11ac service at major airports (even non-major ones) and public transportation systems (undergrounds and buses). If they deploy this, I believe it will suddenly increase the appeal of iOS devices more than any feature they can add to the devices themselves. Imagine enhancing Apple Maps to provide properly validated navigational aids including public transit info (one could use Google Maps but ...). With indoor mapping emerging, this iOS network can make it easier for arriving travellers to navigate to the right exit, not to mention departing travellers to get to the right gate. Imagine the increased appeal of public transit if free WiFi was available on all major undergrounds/subways and buses. All iDevices will be connected when the owners are on the go, either locally or traveling anywhere in the world - perhaps not quite a game-changer on the scale of iCloud but close, I surmise.
Google can match this (and they have tried something like this on a limited scale before, without OS restrictions). But are they willing to do so to do this on a large scale and end up helping primarily Samsung? Furthermore, their current returns from mobile do not justify such an investment. Samsung can afford this financially but I am not convinced they have proven themselves in providing "services" yet.
That's why I was trying to say, a bit less clearly before.
I am thinking of providing iOS-only Wifi coverage at heavy traffic corridors such as airports, public transportation systems around the world. Was recently at Heathrow and was frustrated there was no free Wifi. The only option, if one wasn't a subscriber to specific European carriers, was to sign up with Boingo. This is true of many other airports. At many airports where free WiFi is available, coverage is spotty and slow. Very few undergrounds/subwaysbuses have WiFi, never mind free service.
Interesting idea. Kinda runs against net neutrality, and it would definitely be spoofable, unless it requires iTunes login or something.
Maybe Apple could provide it to everybody with an iTunes account (which would be nice considering that many of us do carry non-Apple wifi devices)?
I suspect that Boingo and the other wifi providers have exclusive contracts with the airports they serve, though.
In 2013 there is an absolute overwhelming deluging of information coming at us from every direction and it's up to us and nobody else to do our best to question its veracity and do our own homework.
Hope you won't take offense. But you have provided a really good example of mixed metaphors and run-on sentence.
I thought you had some valid points until you said you swapped your iPhone 5 for a Galaxy Note 2. Hahahahahahahah. No one will ever take you seriously again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
So a personal preference on screen size warrants complete dismissal of everything he might ever say?
Interesting perspective, sadly not atypical here....
Indeed not atypical.
But then, it is really BB84 who is not taken seriously.
This argument makes a lot of valid points - but it's *flaw* is that these are premises which point to a diagnosis of a particular issue with Google. Yes, the competition between these companies has degraded into pettiness; but the idea that this is purely Google's fault is crazy.
The most laughable statement has to be "But it also does double-duty in allowing Google%u2019s insanely priced devices, from Glass to Chromebook Pixel, to escape serious criticism of their inherently poor overall value or the likelihood of their ever selling in meaningful volumes." Escape serious criticism? Pretty much everything I read on these products (particularly the Pixel) is serious criticism on those very points. They are poor value, and are probably unlikely to sell in high volumes. But meanwhile you can pick up an unlocked Nexus 4 for under $300. I can see arguments for choosing an iPhone 5, but I can't see that they add up to a justification for paying double the price. It's one thing to criticise a company for selling not many poor-value products, but Apple get away with selling loads of poor-value products by blinding their loyal customers to the fact that whilst their products are good, they're not *that* good.
I recently took the decision to switch from iOS, and got a Nexus 4. Jelly bean actually feels like a far more polished platform, and it costs significantly less to get a good phone to run it on.
The Android platform is fragmented, and there are a lot of rubbish versions and skins; but the poor phones sell at an appropriate price bracket. Oh, and what's in the pipeline? A budget iPhone. That's rather hypocritical isn't it?
This article will seem all the more ludicrous when iOS 7 comes out and Apple drop all the skeuomorphism in favour of design principles chosen by their competitors.
Well. Just came out of a week of emergency abdominal surgery to repair previous cancer surgery. Reading this article wasn't quite as painful as all that, but at least one part does require a major correction.
The diagram being used in relation to Samsung's "SAFE" (Samsung For Enterprise) is wrong.
If "SAFE" were only only about MS Sync, encryption, VPN and MDM, then quite a few Android and iOS devices made for the past few years would be "SAFE". But it's about Samsung's particular enhancements, so it ONLY refers to devices with their specific MS and MDM features.
The article also was confused about Samsung's Knox initiative, which goes far, far deeper to ensure separation of personal / enterprise information and apps, by using the secure version Android SE (created by NSA). While Blackberry has a similar separation via their "Balance" app and latest BES versions, iOS has nothing similar yet.
If you have a touch screen that is virtually the size of a phone then how else are you going to lay it out? Apple decided on using the large screen first but as these became more available everyone was going to use them eventually anyway.
The mic and speaker have to be basically where they are, there isn't any real choice there.
The screen has to be where it is, again not much choice there.
The only thing that could be argued over is the location of the home button or even using a home button and the decision to go for the larger touch screen.
Who designed the first laptop?? All laptops have a similar layout so has everyone copied them? I'm sure it wasn't Apple so has Apple copied that company? - NO it's just logical.
CLEARLY there IS an argument over whether or not other people have copied Apple based on the number of court cases that Apple and Samsung are winning against each other in various places.
I'm not a fan boy of any marque I simple buy the best thing FOR ME at the time. At the moment almost all of my personal electronic kit is Apple, I have a top spec 15" retina MBP, a Mac Pro, a retina iPad and until 8 days ago was using an iPhone5 ! But I have a Samsung fridge, 2x TVs, 1 x DVDR and various components in other things. I use DELL monitors on the MacPro because the inputs were more flexible although if I were replacing the DELL monitors now I would buy 27" thunderbolt displays.
Everyone else at first mocked apple for not providing a physical keyboard. All the pre-iPhone android phones and prototypes had crappy little plastic keyboards. Then some started hiding the keyboards in bulky slide out panels.
Nothing looked like an iPhone until the iPhone. If the design was so obvious how do you explain this?
Before the iPhone no smartphone provided anything remotely resembling a usable web browser. Nobody had sensors to disable a touch screen when the phone was against your ear. Nobody had gyroscopes to sense rotation and automatically rotate the display...
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
Disagree. I use it in referencing the Jonestown tragedy where followers of Jim Jones blindly drank the poisoned kool-aid. Also use the phrase ,"drinking the grape kool-aid," as that was supposedly the flavor that was used.
And it was actually Flavoraid that was poisoned in Jonestown, but more people recognize the KoolAid brand so that's what stuck.
The expression of being "fed Koolaid," clearly in the context of Jonestown, was originally used shortly after the atrocity as a way of saying that somebody was being deceived by a traitor with the intent of killing or harming them. It denoted victimization.
The change of using the expression to simply mean 'willfully, blindly following someone' only started in the late 90s, a gap of 20 years after the mass murder, long enough for many people to have lost any association with a real understanding of what it actually meant. The change was based on an ignorant assumption of people who guessed what a "cult" must have meant.
If you research anything about the actual event, you'll find that it wasn't a doomsday cult of people choosing to die, but rather a mass killing where many weren't even aware of any poison, while others were forced to drink it under gunpoint or were injected by force. Others who died were babies who had no ability to make a decision to follow anything. The leaders filmed the event, so you can find a documentary the presented what actually happened on video.
Many who died there were trying to escape from the compound, and it happened after the group's leaders had murdered members of an investigation team that included a US congressman. It wasn't a group wanting to go to heaven or something. It was over 900 people who were killed or lead to their deaths buy a charlatan who not only didn't want to be caught alive, but wanted to kill everyone around him.
So using the phrase to mean "foolish blind followers" is perverse and ignorant.
It also has nothing to do with dropping acid in the 60s, which occured over ten years before Jonestown. Nobody used "drinking kool-aid" an expression of "taking a blind leap of faith" during that period. You can do a lexis nexus search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
I find it interesting that DED, Macalope and Gruber have all written long pieces to defend Apple in the month of March.
As some pointed out, DED penned the original Flawgic piece on RoughlyDrafted on March 9. Prior to that, the Macalope also wrote about Apple's reality distortion field being turned around (http://www.macworld.com/article/2029830/macalope-a-fundamental-disconnect.html). On March 1 (http://daringfireball.net/2013/03/open_and_shut) and March 15 (http://daringfireball.net/2013/03/ceding_the_crown), Gruber wrote unusually long pieces to refute the idea that Open trumped Shut and that Apple had lost the smartphone crown.
Coincidence? Perhaps. Or, perhaps, the Apple defender league got together and said, "Our careers and life savings are invested in Apple. Cupertino is not doing much to protect us. So we have to take it upon ourselves." Probably not. But it would be interesting to ponder the possibility.
So three columnists will be out of a job when Apple goes out of business next month unless they individually write up a defense of the company that saves it for perhaps another 30 days of life support? Interesting theory.
Or perhaps it's that the ridiculous propaganda being spun about the company is getting so so incredibly deep that its impossible for a reasonably intelligent person not to point out how absurd it is.
So rather than a desperate conspiracy of three people nobody knows outside of the Mac blogs, perhaps the real issue is that one company took the business away from everyone in the smartphone business and everyone in the PC business, and the only hope left for them centers around a savior company with an ideological base of free software advocates.
Not a "conspiracy" so much as a series of massive companies that have been all but wiped out, and desperately need to create the impression that up is down and black is white, starting with the idea that the best performing tech company on earth is in decline and a poorly performing malware platform mobiles is "winning."
Wow! I am just so disappointed that none of the regulars here caught, or pointed out the obvious irony of "Flawgic" at work.
Considering that this guy most likely and successfully got his Forum Moniker "Cow a Saki" using no other than Siri, when he thought that that she magically could find his missing "crotch-rocket" in the parking lot of a bike show.... 8-) The name does lend itself to a drunken purchase of a Note II and strapping it to your head though. Fitting.
I am one of those that liked the article (second time around after also reading it on RD a week ago*)... even if did, as is the style of DED... use creative embellishment to augment his case. Fact is that every point taken, at it's core, has the kernel of truth in it.
* The first time I read this opinion piece, I immediately thought of how well this would go over on AI. 276 replies is not bad... although I was seriously expecting 350+. I'm obviously trying to help with that after the thread has long dried up :smokey:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyleish
I'm not going to get emotional over a phone ...
It seems that if that's true you'll be in a minority of one in the smartphone arena.
FYI: I don't and have never had a mobile phone. Yet. And I'm 54!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
In the final analysis, everyone, absolutely everyone, has a bias. So to write articles that acknowledge your own bias, and put it right up front are in some ways more "honest" than to write some shit that passes for objectivity but is just as biased in the end as anything else. You only have to look at the writings of guys like Seth Weintraub on 9to5 mac, almost any writer on Engadget, to see that they also have some pretty extreme biases themselves and yet they write as if their opinion is direct from the Gods or whatever and hide behind the cloak of "objectivity."
Absolutely spot on. An ex of mine said it well with "the only place you will find 'objectivity' is in the dictionary". One of the biggest lies perpetrated by almost all the MSM is the idea that they are objective and balanced. There are always at least two sides to every story. The most honest way, as Gazoobee say, is to be upfront about your own bias. In 2013 there is an absolute overwhelming deluging of information coming at us from every direction and it's up to us and nobody else to do our best to question its veracity and do our own homework. If you want a superb example of the media repeating what they're told then have a look here.
That link is pathetic. With a .org TLD to boot!
@Gazoobee: excellent point there!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How in the hell are we suppose to read that as not an iOS-only network if you specifically write "But what about an iOS-only network."
That's fair; I went back to read my post and realized I didn't clearly articulate what I was thinking.
I am thinking of providing iOS-only Wifi coverage at heavy traffic corridors such as airports, public transportation systems around the world. Was recently at Heathrow and was frustrated there was no free Wifi. The only option, if one wasn't a subscriber to specific European carriers, was to sign up with Boingo. This is true of many other airports. At many airports where free WiFi is available, coverage is spotty and slow. Very few undergrounds/subwaysbuses have WiFi, never mind free service.
I don't think it would be that difficult/expensive for Apple to team up with locals to provide free, iOS-only 802.11ac service at major airports (even non-major ones) and public transportation systems (undergrounds and buses). If they deploy this, I believe it will suddenly increase the appeal of iOS devices more than any feature they can add to the devices themselves. Imagine enhancing Apple Maps to provide properly validated navigational aids including public transit info (one could use Google Maps but ...). With indoor mapping emerging, this iOS network can make it easier for arriving travellers to navigate to the right exit, not to mention departing travellers to get to the right gate. Imagine the increased appeal of public transit if free WiFi was available on all major undergrounds/subways and buses. All iDevices will be connected when the owners are on the go, either locally or traveling anywhere in the world - perhaps not quite a game-changer on the scale of iCloud but close, I surmise.
Google can match this (and they have tried something like this on a limited scale before, without OS restrictions). But are they willing to do so to do this on a large scale and end up helping primarily Samsung? Furthermore, their current returns from mobile do not justify such an investment. Samsung can afford this financially but I am not convinced they have proven themselves in providing "services" yet.
That's why I was trying to say, a bit less clearly before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
I am thinking of providing iOS-only Wifi coverage at heavy traffic corridors such as airports, public transportation systems around the world. Was recently at Heathrow and was frustrated there was no free Wifi. The only option, if one wasn't a subscriber to specific European carriers, was to sign up with Boingo. This is true of many other airports. At many airports where free WiFi is available, coverage is spotty and slow. Very few undergrounds/subwaysbuses have WiFi, never mind free service.
Interesting idea. Kinda runs against net neutrality, and it would definitely be spoofable, unless it requires iTunes login or something.
Maybe Apple could provide it to everybody with an iTunes account (which would be nice considering that many of us do carry non-Apple wifi devices)?
I suspect that Boingo and the other wifi providers have exclusive contracts with the airports they serve, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiltedGreen
In 2013 there is an absolute overwhelming deluging of information coming at us from every direction and it's up to us and nobody else to do our best to question its veracity and do our own homework.
Hope you won't take offense. But you have provided a really good example of mixed metaphors and run-on sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor
Interesting idea. Kinda runs against net neutrality, and it would definitely be spoofable, unless it requires iTunes login or something.
Maybe Apple could provide it to everybody with an iTunes account (which would be nice considering that many of us do carry non-Apple wifi devices)?
I suspect that Boingo and the other wifi providers have exclusive contracts with the airports they serve, though.
You're like right about Boingo's exclusivity. Now, how many Apple nickels would it take to buy Boingo?
I was thinking of using iTunes login. This has the advantage of encouraging more media sales at airports, where idle time leads to idle purchases.
Does it run against net neutrality? That would be interesting to see.
About 4 billion nickels. Boingo's market cap (symbol 'WIFI') is $200 M.
Originally Posted by dysamoria
Why are the article apostrophes showing as question marks?
Because Huddler's code is… simple.
Nice
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Brother 84
I thought you had some valid points until you said you swapped your iPhone 5 for a Galaxy Note 2. Hahahahahahahah. No one will ever take you seriously again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
So a personal preference on screen size warrants complete dismissal of everything he might ever say?
Interesting perspective, sadly not atypical here....
Indeed not atypical.
But then, it is really BB84 who is not taken seriously.
Very good work!
The most laughable statement has to be "But it also does double-duty in allowing Google%u2019s insanely priced devices, from Glass to Chromebook Pixel, to escape serious criticism of their inherently poor overall value or the likelihood of their ever selling in meaningful volumes." Escape serious criticism? Pretty much everything I read on these products (particularly the Pixel) is serious criticism on those very points. They are poor value, and are probably unlikely to sell in high volumes. But meanwhile you can pick up an unlocked Nexus 4 for under $300. I can see arguments for choosing an iPhone 5, but I can't see that they add up to a justification for paying double the price. It's one thing to criticise a company for selling not many poor-value products, but Apple get away with selling loads of poor-value products by blinding their loyal customers to the fact that whilst their products are good, they're not *that* good.
I recently took the decision to switch from iOS, and got a Nexus 4. Jelly bean actually feels like a far more polished platform, and it costs significantly less to get a good phone to run it on.
The Android platform is fragmented, and there are a lot of rubbish versions and skins; but the poor phones sell at an appropriate price bracket. Oh, and what's in the pipeline? A budget iPhone. That's rather hypocritical isn't it?
This article will seem all the more ludicrous when iOS 7 comes out and Apple drop all the skeuomorphism in favour of design principles chosen by their competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Indeed not atypical.
But then, it is really BB84 who is not taken seriously.
So you think a Galaxy Note 2 is a 'far better phone than the iPhone 5' too? Are you serious? Have you actually tried using one?
Well. Just came out of a week of emergency abdominal surgery to repair previous cancer surgery. Reading this article wasn't quite as painful as all that, but at least one part does require a major correction.
The diagram being used in relation to Samsung's "SAFE" (Samsung For Enterprise) is wrong.
If "SAFE" were only only about MS Sync, encryption, VPN and MDM, then quite a few Android and iOS devices made for the past few years would be "SAFE". But it's about Samsung's particular enhancements, so it ONLY refers to devices with their specific MS and MDM features.
The article also was confused about Samsung's Knox initiative, which goes far, far deeper to ensure separation of personal / enterprise information and apps, by using the secure version Android SE (created by NSA). While Blackberry has a similar separation via their "Balance" app and latest BES versions, iOS has nothing similar yet.
Everyone else at first mocked apple for not providing a physical keyboard. All the pre-iPhone android phones and prototypes had crappy little plastic keyboards. Then some started hiding the keyboards in bulky slide out panels.
Nothing looked like an iPhone until the iPhone. If the design was so obvious how do you explain this?
Before the iPhone no smartphone provided anything remotely resembling a usable web browser. Nobody had sensors to disable a touch screen when the phone was against your ear. Nobody had gyroscopes to sense rotation and automatically rotate the display...
The list goes on and on...