Posted 11/18/2009 at 04:46:29pm

Well, we're at one already, though I don't think it's who you meant. Lol.

Posted 11/14/2009 at 12:56:13pm

"Apparently, Verizon’s moral high ground is easily eroded, when the price is right."

Wait, so shielding pirates from the RIAA/MPAA under the guise of privacy is a moral high ground?  That's a rather interesting take on things.

This decision from Verizon might be unpopular, but it's hardly immoral. 

Posted 11/12/2009 at 08:55:14pm

I saw that too and wondered wtf was going on...  Source content says "Developer portal improvements and stronger anti-piracy protection" so it's supposed to be anti-piracy rather than enhanced privacy. 

Posted 10/08/2009 at 05:51:35pm

The quote from that Peter guy is bad.  ECC is not the only way memory errors are corrected.  Desktop RAM will use parity to *detect* (not correct) errors in memory.  This raises an exception, and (in a very general sense) the operation just gets repeated until the memory gets it right.  The fact that desktop RAM does not come with built-in error-correction doesn't mean that it doesn't detect errors, nor does it mean there's no way to correct them.  It just means that they have to be taken care of by something else.

Posted 10/08/2009 at 05:39:33pm

I am confused how this is a 45% power reduction.  Unless I fail at reading, 2/3 less current means you're using 1/3 as much as before (so like 1A instead of 3A)...  That means the current term alone is contributing to a larger drop than 45%, and it just gets even larger when the reduced voltage is also accounted for.  **shrug** 

Posted 10/01/2009 at 10:39:36pm

So they're supposed to advertise spotty coverage?  C'mon, advertising always focuses exclusively on the positive - that's a given.  

It is ridiculous that 30% is apparently normal, but I don't see how Apple's response is absurd in that context.  Why would you repair a phone that is performing better than the average phone is (average as in among iPhones in NY, not phones in general)?  

Don't get me wrong - I love to hate Apple - but I just really don't see them being culpable here.  AT&T's the one dropping the ball here. 

Posted 10/01/2009 at 10:31:06pm

As Facebook is not the government, I don't see as how the First Amendment applies.

Also, the First Amendment has *never* granted protection for libel against an individual.  In other words, you can't run around saying whatever you want about people and then drop the freedom of speech card.  If you intentionally damage the reputation of someone else with false statements, they have every right to sue your ass off.

That said, this guy's just an idiot.  You can't attack something that a large of number are really attached to and then get upset when they don't like you.  That would be like Bill Maher being offended at Christians boycotting his shows.

Posted 10/01/2009 at 10:23:38pm

Why, have you said negative things about Paris Hilton? :D

Posted 10/01/2009 at 09:32:42pm

This article appears to be trying indicate Apple in something that clearly isn't their fault.  Granted, it's possible that there exists a flaw in Apple's hardware which makes it more susceptible to dropped calls (though that seems unlikely, as someone would've made a stink about it by now).  It would seem to me that this is just a case of AT&T's failure to deliver service, not a bad Apple product.  The only possible reason I can see for blaming Apple is their decision to go exclusive with AT&T.

Posted 10/01/2009 at 09:19:05pm

I absolutely love the second paragraph - great, hilarious writing there.