Zarkin

StrangeDays said:

CR publishing the non-recommendation was silly because the scenario they were tested in is not an accurate representation of normal use. the bug only hit the battery in such a dramatic fashion due to the disabled cache and atypical repetition/automation. the batteries weren't defective. so because it was the test scenario, and obviously so, the responsible thing to do would have been to work with Apple first, before publishing, not after. instead, by publishing a non-recommendation, they suggested the notebooks had defective batteries. poor journalism. 

Disagree.  It is not CR's job to 'work with suppliers' for all the defects they uncover during their testing.  They simply test the products as the companies deliver them to consumers and report on that.  It would have been Apple's job to detect this bug and deliver the product without it.  In this case it all worked out well despite the ruffled feathers and misleading attempt by the author to label this 'backpedling.'    

CR did not recommend a product that wasn't performing well due to a bug.  They *still* would not recommend that product.  Apple changed the product by fixing that bug and CR now recommends it.   CR did their thing right.  Apple did their part right.  Its all good.

eye.surgeon said:

This argument is little different than the argument that the rich in general don't pay enough taxes, when in reality the richest 10% pay the majority of federal income tax...in fact the bottom 50% of earners pay almost no federal tax at all.

That is a true statement, but also quite misleading, the top 10% do pay 53% of the taxes.  More than half!!!  To really qualify that though you also have to point out that those 10% own 73.1% of the wealth- which is even crazier.

So if the people that make 73% of the income only pay 53% of the taxes, who is it that subsidizes them and picks up the rest of their share?

Well ya gotta admit they are pretty nice, until they explode.

singularity said:

yoyo2222 said:

Waiting for the inevitable DED trolls. 

For or against?

Yes.