- Last Active
seanismorris said:Sounds like Apple is being set up to fail in India
I used that laptop for about 2 months. At 16lbs it was a 'luggable'. The roll-ball mouse could be moved either to the left or right of the keyboard, which was sort of cool. For it's time it was an eye-opener, but strictly a curiosity for those who had the money to throw away. It's remarkable how quickly laptop designs and specs advanced.
"Steve Jobs would have been proud..."
This sounds creepily religious.
No one has any idea what Steve Jobs would have thought.
Let's not forget that 'The Steve' thought a number of things were good, which weren't; no arrow cursor key on the keyboard, the original iMac hockey-puck mouse and the iTunes based social media thing, whatever it was called, spring quickly to mind. If you care about Apple, it's best to drop comments about Steve Jobs in reference to current technologies, movements in cultural values and global market economies and politics.After all, it is perfectly possible, if Steve were around today, he might say, "You know, 'whatever', I'm kinda bewildered about the world at the moment, so I'm just not going to comment".
nolamacguy said:apple ][ said:Person with headscarf, lol. So, misogyny, slavery and the mistreatment of females is A-OK with these lunatics, but don't you dare have a gun emoji, that is unacceptable.
What a bunch of freaks.
Whoever is behind choosing and coming up with some of these emojiis are seriously demented and screwed up people.
The headscarf (hijab) on a woman is a symbol of support for the Islamic movement. The root of the Islamic movement is the Quran. The Quran is replete with messages of animosity towards non-followers. In madrassahs all over the world Muslims are taught that those who anger Allah are Jews, and those who have gone astray are Christians.
In chapter 5, verse 51 it says this: "O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people."
The above isn't qualified, it is a blanket statement, and the Quran is promoted as a book relevant to all people for all time.
And it gets a lot worse.
The Quran is a pretty uncomfortable read for non-followers (and women) and given the Islamic movement is based on the Quran, it is certainly not benign to secular democratic liberal societies. Many Muslims fit in to these societies only be ignoring the Quranic main theme of condemning non-believers. Muslims in movements like the Islamic State don't ignore the Quranic brutality and animosity - hence heir vile disposition and behaviour.
Many liberals approach one's Muslim membership as an inherent quality - thus criticising it is deemed 'racist'. But of course there is no gene for Islam, or Christianity or Judaism, or any creed. Religion is an ideology and it's a CHOICE (once one is an adult) as to whether one wishes to be a member and promote it.
By treating the Muslim membership as an inherent quality, Liberals are undermining those people who were told they were Muslims but decided to leave once they were adults and actually considered what the creed espoused and rejected it. Many Muslim apostates are treated appallingly within Muslim communities where adopting Western dispositions and values are often deemed a betrayal and a crime - that's within the West; declaring apostasy in Muslim political jurisdictions is effectively a suicide announcement.
Liberals should be supporting apostates, not undermining them. http://www.exmna.org/
As to emojis in general, especially the recent and growing volume, in terms of communicating, they are often a time-wasting distraction.
TL;DR: ‘Freedom of Religion’ – THAT is the problem. It’s tragically vague, a crock and should be phased out.
The spirit of the phrase 'Freedom of Religion' presumes that religions in general, the tenets, values and practices apparently endorsed by the god, are benign. However, it is easily arguable, particularly with respect the texts ascribed to the Abrahamic god, that these presumptions are absolutely not the case. Some of the Abrahamic values are idiotic and illogical, some are easily arguable as being odious in relation to considerations of fairness, kindness, empathy, patience, common sense and reason.
Freedom to believe in a particular spirit, to privately pray to that spirit – to publicly announce one’s belief – that’s absolutely fine and benign. However, freedom to practice one’s religion cannot be absolute. It can be deeply problematic, as the practices may be odious and infringe on the liberties of others, particularly in public spaces. Do Jews, Christians and Muslims have the right to enslave given the tacit endorsement of the practice in their texts? Does one have the right to lob off bits of their children? We argue about the rights of the foetus, but not the rights of the infant to choose whether s/he wants their bits hacked off. Do Muslims have the right to pray in the middle of the road at rush hour under the appeal to freedom of religion? Do Pastafarians have the right to wear colanders for their Photo IDs?
Freedom of speech (that doesn't incite hatred) – yes. The spirit of ‘Freedom of Speech’ is in relation to the right, the freedom, to openly argue against the decisions of the Community’s leadership. That’s about it. We need ‘Freedom of Speech’, it’s sufficient; we need to dump ‘freedom of religion’ (to believe in whatever god one wants) as it is, for all intents and purposes, covered by ‘freedom of Speech’.
No one has the right to not feel insulted, or to not feel embarrassment. Arguing against, or ridiculing, an ideology, like a religion or political views, is not incitement to hatred. And let’s not forget, in the reference to Race, Gender, nationality and religion, ‘religion’ is the odd one out as it is a CHOICE, it’s not inherent; because it’s a choice, an ideology, one shouldn't be criminalised for belittling it. Otherwise we’re on the road to being criminalised for besmirching, say, Republicanism – are you reading this Donald Trump?
People should have the right to refrain from doing business or associating with those whose values they find odious – and, to determine a rule by which to live, what exactly is deemed odious must be determined by what the society, in general, feels to be odious. The trouble with this is the measure of society. Is the society one’s neighbourhood? Town? City? All the people of the State or its ‘representatives’, or is it the majority of the population of the USA?
Should I have the right to not serve anyone who values and promotes the Old Testament - which contains many passages reflecting the endorsement of slavery, unfairness, lack of empathy, immorality, cruelty, and idiocy - as a Guide for living? Or, as a Baker, to not serve someone who wants a cake with the words ‘Behead those who besmirch Mohamed’? I would say, yes, I have the right. What if the person who wanted that told me it was for a ruse and so therefore it would be morally ‘ok’? Would that affect the correctness of my position of refusal?
I can read some contradiction in what I've written above. I'm not sure where I'm heading with this. Sadly, it may be ‘might is right’? I would hope it to be the might of fair-play, calm reflection, common sense and logic – without an appeal to the evidently absent spirit world, it's alleged texts, and what She allegedly wants.
"Our job is to protect our customers, and our customers have incredibly detailed information on their phones. There's probably more information about you on your phone than there is in your house," Cook said in Friday's ABC interview, noting many people keep contact information, health records, private communications and more on their smartphones. "So it's not just about privacy, but it's also about public safety."
Is total privacy a human right? Is total privacy possible? Is total privacy natural? I'd say "no" to all three. Anyone living in a small community has little to no privacy, apart from what they do behind closed doors. Once they participate in a communal event (and what is the cellular network and the internet if not communal?) then an expectation of total guaranteed privacy is fanciful.
Re: "There's probably more information about you on your phone than there is in your house"
Well, perhaps THAT is the problem, People should stop holding so much key information on their phones that are made to operate across a public utility like the cellular network and the internet. If mobile phones disappeared tomorrow people would adjust and adapt and continue to function quite well.
Re: "Re: "Our job is to protect our customers"
Is it? Apple's job is to make sure that their mobile phones can connect to industry standard telecommunications protocols, otherwise no one would buy their phones. And that's about it as far as Apple's 'job' is concerned. If people want to hold all their banking info and other info they want to keep from the eyes of others on their phones that use the public utilities then that is their concern, not Apple's. You can have all the total privacy you want if you don't use a phone of any sort or send eMails across public networks.
If I manufacture a paper notepad and people write private information on it, it is not my job to guarantee that no one else can see that paper notebook, especially if it is being sent across some communal network to someone else.
Even if known 'subversives' are sending letters through the post, government authorities can request judicial authority to open that mail, in the interests of general public safety.
And of course, who decides who is a subversive? The great and the good within the judicial system. And can we guarantee that those people really ARE great and good? There will never be a unanimous agreement over who is deserving of being 'great and good', particularly relative to others.
Keeping information pursuant to community safety secret, or not a secret, is the job of the Community's security agents, not Apple's. You can have total guaranteed privacy if you live alone on an island...but "no man is an island".