voodoo123

6 ms·

1.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Fair enough!
2.
by voodoo123 13y ago
This sounds like an apology. Openness is just not a high enough priority for them. It's just not their goal to release an open device otherwise they wouldn't have released this. It's their goal to do whatever it takes to co
3.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Well, I see that people have figured out why I'm quitting AOSP. There's no point being the maintainer of an Operating System that can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support, especially when
4.
by voodoo123 13y ago
This document proves that the meme is false and that Apple did not attempt to protect 'rounded corners'. Apple asserted a design patent that protects the overall appearance of the iPhone - the 'trade dress'. Rounded c
5.
by voodoo123 13y ago
I apologize if you really didn't know that Apple didn't make that accusation.
6.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Fair enough - however there is no evidence of how far up the stack that data goes - accelerometers do sudden movement sensing on-chip - not via the CPU. My other points still stand.
7.
by voodoo123 13y ago
If you are repeating that false 'rounded corners' meme then you are either paid by Samsung (who started that), or beyond reason.
8.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Siri uses the proximity sensor to implement raise to talk. The gyro for parallax is only turned on when the screen is on. The rest of your comment is pretty much tinfoil.
9.
by voodoo123 13y ago
It's not an Amazing find at all, given that apple has built a relatively sophisticated UI for it. It's public facing precisely because people are concerned about this kind of data collection. This way you can make an informed choi
10.
by voodoo123 13y ago
iOS let's you choose: - Whether this information is collected at all - which specific apps can access it - whether apple can receive an anonymized copy of it to improve their maps The data is stored securely on your device and you can
11.
by voodoo123 13y ago
If we stop doing evil, important solar processes will stop, leading to the collapse of the sun.
12.
by voodoo123 13y ago
as long as you don't step on one barefoot
13.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Is that a point?
14.
by voodoo123 13y ago
In that case Apple has still 'lobbied' far less than its US competitors by holding out against prism.
15.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Nope. I was replying to the idea that Apple is a 'lobbying juggernaut' and 'government favorite' which is demonstrably false.
16.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Utterly false. Apple is not a lobbying juggernaut at all and spends less on lobbying than any of the other major tech companies: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76073.html Apple is also taking a se
17.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Judging by the comments here, people on HN hate Apple more than they hate patents. Incidentally - for those suggesting that Apple should get a taste of its own medicine, what on earth are you talking about? Since when did Apple have compet
18.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Clearly you don't. Giving in to the demands of whoever bombs you is not the lesser of two evils.
19.
by voodoo123 13y ago
What exactly did Apple's competitors lose?
20.
by voodoo123 13y ago
If the remedies are structural ones designed to cripple Apple's ability to compete on a level playing field, they certainly is an argument for limiting them. If Apple is forced to sell Amazon's books, Amazon should be forced to se
21.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Why is this being downvoted? It's clearly true.
22.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Perhaps, but it's an insane solution in a competitive environment where the other major players have actual monopolies and are using predatory pricing to enter other markets. Apple has clearly overreached, but this kind of remedy is no
23.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Forcing Apple to change it's contracts is one thing, but forcing it to make it easier for the existing monopolist to sell their products clearly demonstrates that the justice department has been corrupted by Amazon in this case. Will t
24.
by voodoo123 13y ago
If you consider terrorism to be a valid means of advancing a political agenda, then you are justifying it. Your proposal implies that killing civilians should earn you a seat at the negotiating table.
25.
by voodoo123 13y ago
This isn't an appropriate forum for politics. There are plenty of other venues online for civic debate.
26.
by voodoo123 13y ago
The Irish terrorists didn't cease their attacks because of the British method of fighting them. They succeeded in bombing mainland Britain 14 times, and they caused more than 50,000 casualties including 3,500 deaths. London rail stati
27.
by voodoo123 13y ago
You said it in support of the UK's approach to terrorism. Which was to capitulate to the terrorists.
28.
by voodoo123 13y ago
You: "Wouldn't an outcome analogous to the modern-day UK and Ireland be great? People getting along well, no violence, reasonably stable governments? I don't see why you paint this as a bad outcome." That outcome also in
29.
by voodoo123 13y ago
Right but you are justifying the terrorist means (killing civilians randomly) based on their ends (inducing political chance).
30.
by voodoo123 13y ago
I never said anything about voting or not based on terrorist actions. mikeash said it was ok not to defend so hard against terrorism because the outcome was good. I was refuting that.

More ›