kibitzer

rogifan_new said:

Tim and Jony, not too shabby in tuxes.

Laurene looks pretty, classic and classy, too.

Early this year, Toyota backed out of CarPlay in favor of an open source infotainment platform called SmartDeviceLink, which supposedly can be customized to match each carmaker's in-car system characteristics and interface. I bought a 2015 Avalon and am totally disgusted with the quirkiness, operational failures and user unfriendliness of Toyota's current proprietary Entune system.

Would you believe - the damn Entune system comes with a 400-page user manual?! Drivers better be prepared to have that manual handy for several months, because it's a pain in the ass initially to puzzle out a non-obvious system without consulting it. Zero intuitiveness.

I knew at the time that the company had not incorporated CarPlay, although it indicated that it would in the future and that my next Avalon would probably offer it. Now, the path that Toyota is following destroys my confidence in them.

For a second time from Toyota, it looks like there will be zero commonality and continuing dangerous distraction for drivers from a needlessly complex, inefficient and failure-prone navigation and entertainment offering.

I'm skeptical that Toyota has any idea what it's doing, other than abandoning commonality and bullheadedly pursuing a "not invented here" posture. Keep it up, Toyota. You'll go the way of Sony and Betamax, and I'll go the way of some other brand that better fulfills my expectations. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

shanejay said:

If any 8-21 year olds complain about space or battery, take it with a pinch of salt.

Amen. Doesn't matter what device, whether Apple or Samsung, all our grandkids show up at our house with their devices' battery charges on their last legs.

"Grandpa! Help!"

Ask them when they last hooked them up to charge, they can't even remember! What works for my wife and me - we keep charging cords on our nightstands and plug our devices in before going to sleep. Nothing hard about that if people keep themselves organized, but kids are kids.

Danglanzsr said:

A Federal magistrate is the lowest ranking federal judicial officer. His ruling is not precedent and not binding outside of the specific case. Such opinions are usually not even published, except in the media.

BS. If you bother to read the 50-page opinion and somehow manage to comprehend its contents, you'll recognize that it's a highly detailed and thoroughly reasoned exposition of the many of the same fundamental issues appearing in the San Bernardino investigation. Obviously it's not precedent because it is not a trial judgement but merely a denial of an investigatory motion sought by the government.

As motion denials go, though, its conclusions represent a huge bitch slap at DOJ's and the FBI's contentions. In clear and harsh language, it vigorously rejects the government's several muddleheaded arguments contained in its motion. It suggests that the remedy in this and other cases lies with legislative action, which Congress has expressly denied in the past and which FBI Director Comey said as recently as last week that the government would not pursue (an irony which was not lost on the court).

Judge Orenstein sliced and diced the government's several arguments and left them in smaller pieces than Ron Popeil's Chop-O-Matic. Many of the judge's conclusions echo the points that Tim Cook has been making and that no doubt we'll hear again this week when Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell testifies in a congressional hearing on Wednesday. An increasingly good look at the government's entire legal strategy is revealing it to be a weak, utter fiasco.

As to the rank of a federal magistrate - magistrates are essential figures in the federal district courts and they are highly capable jurists, especially in a top urban setting like New York. Don't try to diss what you know nothing about.

weirdal said:

More than some view Ted Olson as prominent. In the law, he is about as big-time as it gets. He is also a prominent conservative. This should give pause to the Republican presidential candidates (read "all of them") demanding Apple's compliance. It won't, because it takes courage to protect liberty. But it should.

Olson truly is a respected Washington legal heavyweight. He was United States Solicitor General from 2001 to 2004, serving as chief attorney representing the federal government in cases heard by the Supreme Court. On 9/11, Olson lost his wife at the time when she was aboard the American Airlines plane that crashed into the Pentagon. His conservative credential extend back to serving as legal counsel to President Reagan during Iran-Contra. A number of the cases he has taken in private practice have involved pivotal Constitutional issues and individual rights. Apple is extremely well-served to have Olson in its corner.