wiggin

About

Username
wiggin
Joined
Visits
32
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
258
Badges
0
Posts
2,265
  • Class-action suit demands Apple add lock-out system to iPhone to prevent texting while dri...

    nomadmac said:
    How about police doing their job and ticketing people?
    My wife was sent to the hospital and our VW totaled when she was rear ended by a distracted driver. No ticket was issued.

    There is no way an iPhone can determine whether someone is a driver or a passenger or a rider on a bus.
    The problem is even when a ticket is issued, it's almost always only AFTER an accident has taken place. Imagine if they only ticketed drunk drivers if they caused an accident. I know police forced are already heavily strained as it is, which lets these "minor offense" go under the radar. The more people get away with it the more they do it. How often have you seen people in their cars talking on the phone without a hand-free device in broad daylight? Clearly current enforcement efforts have not been a deterrent to this behavior, and after an accident is too late.
    baconstangnoahbdavid
  • Consumer Reports now recommends MacBook Pro after Apple software fix

    nht said:
    gatorguy said:
    nht said:

    lkrupp said:
    The kerfuffle uncovered a bug. Apple admits a bug caused the issue for CR’s testing. The bug was squashed. The new tests caused CR to change its recommendation. We should be happy.
    Exactly right. All the bile being vented over CR is really misplaced.  CR used the same testing parameters on multiple brands, and Apple alone failed. That's good science.  Apple found that the failure was due to "an obscure bug", and they fixed it.  Now CR is being responsible and cooperative by re-testing the Apple product(s) and giving a passing score.  Bravo!  Rather than pretend the bug didn't exist and point fingers, let's be happy that everything has worked out.

    Just because the average user might not have encountered the bug doesn't mean it didn't exist.  And CR found it.  GREAT!  Apple should have found it first.
    FALSE.  CR did NOT use the same testing parameters as on other brands.  Had they kept to their standard testing procedure they would have ended up with a 10.4 hour batter life.  Instead they changed their standard testing method to only using the lowest battery life score instead of an average artificially scoring the MBP low even through they KNEW the test was flawed given that Chome produced the correct run times.

    You are mistaken sir. Chrome is not a browser that the MacBook would have come with. That's why they used Safari which would be the more typical one that Apple buyers would work with and the one pre-installed as the default. AFAIK they used the same test procedures with all other laptops including previous Apple models without major issue, and using whatever the default browser was. This was an odd man out, thus CU/CR reaching out to Apple for assistance is discovering the problem, which Apple identified and apparently now fixed. That's a good thing isn't it? 
    I am not mistaken at all.  They admitted they deviated from their standard procedures in their article. Their standard procedure is to average the results of the tests.  They choose not to do so but to use the lowest time instead.  Had they kept to their standard procedure they would have gotten a score that may have been lower than other MBPs but likely above their recommendation threshold. 

    Perhaps true, but I'd bet that those other results that were averaged probably were all within the same ballpark, so taking the average as a single, representative number is valid. But if you have hugely varying numbers as in the first set of tests on the MBP, for a test that should produce fairly consistent, repeatable results, then presenting only a single number (the average) would border on testing malpractice. In the world of statics it would be an average with a very low confidence level.

    And you seem to be confusing testing procedure with reporting. The report is the interpretation of the testing results, and that includes pointing out any anomalies. You don't just publish a low confidence average without discussing the outliers. The fact that they told you they normally present the average and then explained to you why they didn't in this case is a level of transparency we should beg for more of in all of our new sources!

    Now, if you can show us were they tested other computers and got similarly wild results but then only presented the average, then we can talk about conspiracy, bias, unfairness to Apple. But until then, these are just the facts.
    williamlondongatorguy
  • Consumer Reports now recommends MacBook Pro after Apple software fix

    No. Not after "software fix", after their FRAUD was exposed to everyone.

    Running the machine with a hidden developer setting that is DESIGNED to reduce performance, and then not disclosing that fact, and then claiming an independant test shows the machine under-performs the manufacturers claims is FRAUD.  Possibly Libel/Slander as well.

    CU is not a credible organization.
    And yet the new tests were run with the cache still disabled, and they got over 15 hours of run time on every MBP they tested. So clearly disabling the cache was not the cause of the battery issue. Apple's bug was the cause. Would this still be considered a "non-standard" configuration, sure. But it was not the cause of the erratic battery performance.

    In fact, now we could argue that CRs testing methodology is flawed because it is wildly over-estimating battery life. 18+ hours in one test?!?! That's absurd! But I don't see many people complaining about that result.
    gatorguywilliamlondon
  • Verizon plans purge of 200GB+ bandwidth hogging unlimited data users

    linkman said:
    I have no problem with a company putting reasonable caps on data usage. They just need to stop calling it unlimited if it has these restrictions. If they want to call it unlimited then they must own up to the definition:

    unlimited
    [uhn-lim-i-tid] 

    adjective
    1.not limited; unrestricted; unconfined:
    2.boundless; infinite; vast:
    3.without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

    Perhaps someone from Australia can comment on how their truth in advertising laws affect this. I'll bet carriers are more honest there.
    Excellent...now show us in the contract where it said "perpetual" or "lifetime". They aren't placing a cap on those with unlimited plans, they are kicking them off the plan. After the initial term of the contract, usually 12 or 24 months, the contract probably stipulates that the agreement continues until terminated by either party. You can drop Verizon whenever you want without penalty after that initial contract period has expired...and they can drop you. You are being dropped off the unlimited plan. It's your choice whether you agree to a different plan or switch carriers.
    radarthekat
  • Apple says hidden Safari setting led to flawed Consumer Reports MacBook Pro battery tests

    Typical Consumer Reports.  They're not much different than other publications that benefit from click-bait headlines.  I would love to see the average age of their readers, because I'm guessing they're in the 55+ age bracket.  These are people who haven't figured out how to Google for product reviews.
    "click-bait"? Um, you do realize that CR doesn't sell advertising either in their magazine or their website, right? Perhaps it might get a small number of people to subscribe if they visit their web site, but I'd hardly call it click-bait.
    dysamorianocreatorblue