atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#4395: Apple devices "just work"? Don't make me laugh.

iOS update makes some phones into hyper-expensive iPods. The 8.0.1 update apparently knocked some phones off their carriers, thus rendering them incapable of making or receiving phone calls, which is the entire reason you have a phone in the first place.

...we seem to have forgotten that the primary reason for owning a cell phone is communication, and that the HD touch screens and cameras and all the other gewgaws are conveniences--but if you render the phones incapable of communicating, people remember in a hurry.

Bloomberg (autoplay warning) has more about the bendiness of the 6+. I would argue that this isn't just a design flaw, but also due to user error: if you stick a cell phone that's mostly glass in your back pocket and sit on it you had better expect to bust the damned thing--and that goes for any phone, not just Apple's.

Apple, though, should anticipate people sticking their phones in their back pockets and sitting on them, because that is the kind of thing people do. They should design and test accordingly.

But of course that would result in a phone which was not the thinnest, and because Apple sells style over every other consideration, you're just going to have to learn not to put your 6+ into your back pocket. (Remember the iPhone which had to be held a certain way to make calls? Same phenomenon.)

* * *

Guess what, *nix and Mac people? The fact that there is less malware written for your machines is not evidence that there is no malware for them. "And the bug," Borepatch adds, "turns out to be over 20 years old."

The only system that is perfectly safe from malware is one that isn't connected to anything.

* * *

Communism isn't the answer. It never is, especially when the question is, "Is there a political system which produces less pollution and environmental damage than capitalism?"

If you look at the real serious environmental catastrophes, nearly all of them occur under communist dictatorships. This is so because the communist dictatorships don't answer to the people.

Here in America, people who thought indiscriminate pollution of the environment was bad decided to form groups and pressure the government to stop it. They were able to do this because of various laws and constitutional mandates which are built into the system of governance and which are part and parcel of a representative republic.

In communist Russia, on the other hand, people who thought indiscriminate pollution of the environment was bad had two basic choices, neither of which resulted in a cleaner environment: like it or lump it. They were unable to effect any change in their country's environmental law because any and all protest was regarded as counter-revolutionary and criminal, and questioning the authority of the State was an excellent way to earn yourself an all-expenses-paid trip to the gulag for a few years (or the rest of your life if you really pissed them off) where you would glorify the State by doing hard labor in the brisk winters of Siberia.

...which is why the Aral Sea is a toxic desert and the city of Chernobyl is an exclusion zone.

There are plenty of environmental horror stories from the USSR, things which are hair-whiteningly bad, like the radioactive river that got the effluent from the plant where they separated plutonium from reactor fuel. The one about the gas reservoir (in the article) is one I had not previously heard, but that's also pretty f-ing bad.

The article starts out with too much apology:
“Communism” is what socialists call socialism that they do not want to talk about, but in the interest of fairness I should emphasize that I do not believe that the USSR is what [the econazis] have in mind when they talk about socialism. But the USSR wasn’t what the Russian revolutionaries had in mind, either, and it probably is not really what Lenin or even Stalin desired. Almost nobody sets out to impoverish, oppress, starve, and murder millions of people, but that is what happened,...
I could write about a dozen books on why this is wrong, but I don't think I need to. Suffice it to say that the people protesting on Wall Street last weekend were 100% communists, and if you look at the Zombietime photoessay I linked to yesterday you see that the various flavors of American communists are well-represented.

But the article ends well:
If the polluters and the regulators are on the same side — in the same party — expect narrow self-interest to trump everything else. You can sue Exxon; the people behind Sinopec have nuclear weapons.

And Exxon has never operated a gulag of which I am aware.
Wall Street is getting away with a lot of crap because the regulators and bankers--ostensibly on opposite sides--are in bed with one another. Just imagine what it would be like if the oil industry was the same way.

* * *

The legalization of abortion as contraception has a fine history of eugenicist support and its modern proponents are no different. Since the poor in America are disproportionately black and latino, guess what that means? Ruth Bader Ginsburg--about as white as they get--gets away with advocating mass abortion of brown babies because she votes the right way.

* * *

It becomes increasingly apparent that Romney is going to run again.

*sigh*

I think this is probably the most-used image in my Photobucket account:



I should put a link to it in my bookmarks so I can find it more easily.

* * *

AAND Barack Hussein Obama has managed to reverse all the good that the Bush Doctrine managed which was, as stated many times previously, that the war in Iraq focused islamic terror's attention on Iraq rather than the United States.

"Meanwhile," Ace concluded (before updating the post), "the southern border is still uncontrolled."

Yeah, things are lookin' just peachy. How's bayou?

* * *

AS politically incorrect as it is, I agree 100% with Matt Walsh: "You are born a man or a woman. You don’t get to choose."

Sex is a fact of biology. If you subject your body to surgery and hormone therapy, you do not magically become the other sex; you become a medical curiosity, a freak of science. Of mis-applied science.

"Progressives," Walsh says, "will thump their chests and shout “SCIENCE!” when the subject turns to global warming or evolution, but in the next breath they spin impossible yarns about lactating men and testicular women."

If you can lactate, you're not a man. Men cannot breastfeed. Men further cannot bear children; their bodies are not equipped for gestation. If a woman has surgery to give her a penis she is still a woman, espectially if she's capable of gestating and lactation, and how she self-identifies is irrelevant. She is not a man, no matter how much she may wish otherwise.

And Walsh goes on:
We’re often told about the tragically high suicide rate among transgendered people, and the immediate (and completely baseless) assumption is that mean Christians are responsible for it because they go around bullying various sexual minority groups. Somehow, nobody ever stops to contemplate that, perhaps, progressivism is driving these people in that direction because, rather than treating the underlying disorder, it tells the ‘transgender’ biological man to put on high heels and accept the very thing causing him so much psychological and emotional distress.
Walsh begins his article with a discussion of a mixed martial arts competitor, a man who has been surgically altered to resemble a woman, who then goes into the ring with women and beats the shit out of them.

And he will win every time, because even a surgically altered man is going to be stronger and faster (and able to absorb more punishment) than a woman. Doctors may have reconfigured his genitals to resemble those of a woman, but he still has the musculature, the frame, the genetics of a man because--guess what!--he is a man, albiet one who has been artistically mutilated.

So--that football player who decked his fiancee? All he has to do is self-identify as a woman, and apparently it'll be just fine.

* * *

Yes, I know: I'm just a bigot, right?

* * *

John C. Wright begins a discussion of how he dealt with a liberal troll by referring to a comment he saw over at Vox Day's web site, one on bullying:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-ignorance-of-irreligious.html#c7569555299514107814

When I was young they told me to be reasonable and negotiate and not resort to violence. I stupidly believed them, and was instantly beset upon by bullies who would push me around and torment me. I tried reason and truth, but that doesn’t work at all.

Eventually I decided to rebel against authority and decided to lift weights, become strong and meet force with even greater force. Unsurprisingly, this worked immediately, as the beaten bullies helpless retreated bloodied and humiliated from my iron fists.

These Leftists have never had to fight. They come from soft comfortable environments run by nannies and other overprotective womenfolk, who frown on masculinity and teach their boys to be sissies who act like women.
This is completely accurate.

When I was in school, that's all the adults around me ever said to me: "Ignore them and the teasing will stop," they said, and because I was a good kid I believed them. All the adults around me convinced me that it was all my fault that I was mocked and abused by my peers, because if I would just ignore them everything would be fine. "Be the bigger person," they said. This did not take into account the fact that the torment intensifies if it fails to elicit the desired response; and when the torment got worse, and I failed to restrain my temper, I felt guilty for my failure. If I got into trouble, I was told that I was at fault. They're adults and they know best, right?

And it wasn't until years--decades--later that I realized how incredibly, tragically, fucking bullshit wrong they were.

I wasn't allowed to defend myself; I wasn't allowed to object to the emotional abuse. When I was being abused, I knew that attempting to stop the abuse would result in a fight. The blame for the fight would then be laid squarely and entirely on my shoulders and I'd get in trouble at school. (The bully would rarely garner any punishment, and when he did it was less than my own.) When my parents found out, I would be punished for getting in trouble at school. There was no way for me to win, and no one--no one, not even my parents--was on my side in the situation.

By the time I was in junior high it was obvious that talking to my parents about the situation was pointless. No one in my family understood the situation; they regarded my complaints as mere whining and dismissed my concerns. After all, I was told, my brother had been teased by people.

...sure: by a clique of girls. One. On the bus.

It wasn't wholesale, every class, all day, every day. It wasn't in gym class, at lunch, in English and German and Algebra, in the halls between, and on the way home; this group and that group and the other group, in the grades ahead and behind as well as his own, knowing that as soon as he sat down in Geometry that group would start, and once he got to History class the other group would set in, and be careful how you walk because someone's going to try tripping you in the halls, and by the way no matter how you react to it, you lose.

If, instead, I had been taught and allowed to defend myself, my school years would have been a lot better for me. Nothing shuts a bully up faster than a mouthful of his own teeth, and it usually does not take a great deal of repetition to make sure he stays shut up.

* * *

Karl Denninger explains why small business creation is at an all-time low.

People frequently ask me why I don't set up shop and fix computers (or cars) as a home-based business. Instead of letting an employer rake off all the fees, the theory goes, I could make money hand over fist!

There are four major problems with this plan.

1) What do I use for money while building a client base? Let's say I put out my shingle tomorrow: how long will it take to build a client base that will surpass my current income? A week? Or month? Or (much more likely) a year?

2) There are an inordinate number of regulations, taxes, fees, and bureaucratic hoops one must jump through in order to legally run a business.

3) When you are in business for yourself, that business must be your life. You don't get days off, you don't get time for anything other than working, not for many, many years, not if you want your business to succeed.

4) Even if you manage to get past the first three problems, better than half of all new businesses fail. Lots of time they fail because the owner zigged when he should have zagged, and my success rate for correctly zigging and zagging is pretty poor.

"One in ten" is the probability Denninger quotes for small businesses that survive as long as five years, and I am sufficiently aware of my strengths and weaknesses to understand that I would probably not do that well.

It's a nice idea, but it's not for me.

* * *

Today is a very pleasant indian summer day, but I don't think I'll get much done today.

The nicest thing about autumn is that it remains pleasantly cool in the bunker without me having to run the AC or any fans. Today is no exception; it's warm outside but the air is dry, so I am on the cool side of comfortable sitting here at the computer. The windows are open and I can hear the pleasant buzzing of cicadas, and very little else. I hear the distant hoot of a train horn (probably what used to be the Illinois Central in University Park) and otherwise, nothing but the rattling of keys and the sound of traffic from Route 1, about a third of a mile away.

With the main road closed, and no fans running in the bunker, it's quiet here.

This kind of peace is simply amazing to me. I never really noticed it before about 1990; that summer, when I worked for Sears Business Centers, I spent a weekend helping other emloyees of SBC move Deloitte and Touche (sp?) into their new corporate offices--we were setting up the computers for them--and when the job was done and I got off the train in University Park, while I was walking to my car I realized that this is so much quieter than the city is, and at that moment I knew I could never stand to live in a city.

The closest I came was when I lived in Cedar Rapids--and even then, my apartment building was off in the southeast corner of the city, and on one side there was another building (in the same complex) and the other side was forest. A two-minute walk put me in the middle of oak trees and it was as quiet as you please there.

The only time I ever appreciated the quiet before that was when I was a teenager, alone in the bunker (or at night when everything was quiet) and the furnace would kick on. The quiet whumph of the gas igniting, and then--after the manifold had heated--the hum of the motor starting; it was a comforting sound, one I loved to hear, and I liked it best at night. I could only hear it when everyone was out or asleep.

(The new furnace, of course, is much more efficient and not nearly as nice to listen to. It's quiet, but the sound isn't the same.)

As peaceful as it is here, it's still not as quiet as that late summer day six years ago, in Maine, when I heard the hummingbird and thought it was someone revving a Harley about a mile away....
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments