cgWerks

tallest skil said:
Nationalism isn’t supremacy. So what’s wrong with nationalism?

The problem with SPLC is that they have become fairly leftist in ideology

Become?  
...
On the diagram, you could say it fits in under “infiltration of foreign organizers and advisors and foreign propaganda.” 

My gripe with Apple in this regard, is that they aren't simply saying... we're rule followers. In places that aren't China or Saudi Arabia, etc. they seem quite happy to use their clout to push for change in law and policy, and state what they believe is right and wrong. But, when it comes to big markets where they might lose business if they don't tow the line, they back down and hide behind... we're just following the laws of the land. So, the question is... is it OK for free-speech to be trampled on in China, but not in the USA? Is it OK to throw a gay person off a roof in Saudia Arabia but not in America? If we're talking ethics, and not just law, then it's the same answer for both places. So, is Apple a company of principal, or a rule-follower? If it's the latter, maybe we shouldn't be trusting them with our privacy either.

Hear hear. The company doesn’t want to lose China as a market, and so holds a double standard. If we pretend that companies are people, this can raise some ire (because of the expectation that a sane, healthy person doesn’t have cognitive dissonance), but a company isn’t a person, and so the concept of “holding a company to an ethical and/or moral standard” isn’t an accurate portrayal of reality. It’d be great if they either shut the fuck up about domestic posturing or demanded freedom from foreign markets, but since a company isn’t a person, seeing the falsehood isn’t as big a deal as if it was an individual.

I agree nationalism isn't necessarily supremacy, though it has become so in many of the mentioned movements. For example 'white nationalists' are a bit tricky, as some are clearly supremacists (ideologically), others racists (ex: stereotype of a Jew applied as hostility, etc.), while others are fighting against Critical Theory, counter-racism, world-government movements, etc.

BTW, here's an article you might find interesting on Critical Theory in light of recent news events: http://quillette.com/2017/12/09/white-women-tears-wilfrid-laurier-critical-theory/

re: SPLC become? - I don't know their history well enough to defend that, I guess. My *impression* had been that they started as a more legitimate defense of people being subjected to racism and such.

re: diagram - I suppose that is about right on the whole, though certain aspects might move up the list some.

re: corporations and cognitive dissonance - though I guess economically they are viewed as a 'person', but I agree. That said, I'm not sure how many people fall into that sane, healthy person w/o cognitive dissonance, either.

Soli said:
Mid to late 2000s. Nothing cool from Apple until 2005, at the very minimum. Got it. :eyeroll:

No... nothing the average person or typical tech/computer person thought was cool. It was more exclusive to people paying attention to Apple, or at least open-minded enough to look into it (i.e.: maybe the person who couldn't afford one, but still agreed it was quite good/impressive).

Prior to that you weren't seen as cool if you used Apple stuff, but eccentric or your credibility was even called into question. I was one of very few IT people who came into companies or meetings with an Apple laptop, and I'm sure I lost potential clients because of it. I've had other IT people directly question my credibility that I could be competent if I used Apple stuff.

genovelle said:
The warrant makes no sense. It has been well documented and I’m sure Apple told them they can’t access the phone, so why even make such a legal request when it is moot. The only possible reason is deflection. 

My guess is that it's just a matter of procedure. What would people say if they didn't try?
I don't think there is much of a mystery around this case, or much need to discover anything, aside from providing some answers to family of the victims.

The big failures in this case were the military in how they handled it (reporting him to civilian authorities), and the failure of our health-care system and VA treatment of mental health. Also, big pharma might be involved too, if the info I've heard is correct.

The guy had a violent history... even more violent than people knew because the military failed to pass the info along. Apparently he tried to get psych counseling, but couldn't afford it (that should be a shame on our veterans care system!). He also supposedly started on some meds... and having had some mild personal experience with this in the past... that can lead to some really bad stuff. Throw in family problems and such, and this isn't exactly rocket-science.

macxpress said:

But I thought everyone hated the new MacBook Pro? Dongle hell! Nobody likes the touch bar! Its overpriced! 

We do, though maybe the coffee-shop jockeys love them enough to compensate. Much of the debate argues around whether they are truly 'pro' and/or whether they are as good as the model they replaced... not whether frustrated users are ready to stop replacing them and jump to Dell, etc. quite yet.

It is overpriced (comparatively, as they raised the prices). The dongles are a pain for some. The touch-bar was an unnecessary addition, that for some is actually unwanted (meaning we'd have to buy the lowest end model). The keyboard leaves a lot to be desired (and possibly is a failure point). The trackpad is way too darn big. They aren't awful, but they aren't as good as the model they replaced.

https://marco.org/2017/11/14/best-laptop-ever

I think a lot of confusion could be saved if we tried harder to distinguish between: Apple-haters, Apple-evangelists who want Apple to improve, the new target Apple market, and fanboys. I'm probably as guilty of assuming people who love their new products are fanboys, as people are who think my strong criticism of Apple recently means I'm an Apple-hater.

Great tip, especially about clearing out the home bar and replacing it with the virtual button. I'm safe for now (with my SE) but suppose it's inevitable that if I stick with the platform, I'll eventually have no home button.

I used to use the virtual home button on an iPod touch that had the button going bad on it. I found it got in the way a heck of a lot too, though. Not sure if it is improved for iOS 10/11.

nhughes said:
I also find myself instinctively wanting to swipe up to force close, even though that no longer works. And force closing is now done by long pressing and tapping a tiny icon, which takes longer and is less convenient.

I wonder if Apple did this to discourage people from the bad habit of needlessly and obsessively force closing all of their apps.

I'm not sure it's really bad habit though. Unless you set all the 'background' settings properly, and the apps are all written perfectly, killing them off is more simple and reliable. The whole idea that you don't have to do this, IMO, is an 'on paper' but not reality kind of thing. Plus, with more apps being given permission to use mic, camera, location, etc. in the background... having any such apps not running any more than necessary is also a privacy thing.