Samsung's mobile profits plunge 64.2% after Apple's iPhone 6 devastates premium Galaxy sales:
Samsung Electronics reported overall Q4 operating profits of 5.29 trillion won ($4.9 billion)--a 36 percent year-over-year drop--but its Mobile division suffered a 64.2 percent drop in profits, falling from $5 billion in the year ago quarter to $1.8 billion in the December quarter.
Things we know for sure: The thoughts of Steve Jobs are not in this set | Macworld:
But, to be fair, Cult of Mac knows Steve Jobs would have hated these things because [clown horn] honk-honk [slide whistle] doooooooooooop [very long seltzer spray] pssssssssssssssssssssssssssssht
For future reference, here are the rules about presuming to write about what Steve Jobs would have thought of anything:
A) Unless you are Laurene Powell Jobs, do not attempt to write about what Steve Jobs would have thought of anything.
B) There is no rule B.
Is the author at Cult of Mac Laurene Powell Jobs? Alas, no.
Double dipping: When pundits recycle their Apple diatribes:
It’s one thing when pundits re-hash the same arguments year after year. It’s quite another when they write almost literally the exact same article.
Writing for MarketWatch, Quentin Fottrell re-recounts Apple’s naughty list:
“10 things Apple won’t say” (indirect link and tip o’ the antlers to Tom Swanson)
10 things Apple won’t say? Quentin Fottrell? You wrote the same article two years ago. You can’t fool this tireless mythical beast (who even works on Christmas).
A wonderful piece of work for a quiet Christmas morning.
Tech groups send Miss. AG a “friendly reminder” about how bad SOPA was | Ars Technica:
If only they cared.
When Congress tried to pass SOPA in 2011 -2012, millions of Americans signed petitions, called and e-mailed their Congressional representatives, and commented on social media platforms, all firmly opposing attempts to limit online speech by blocking websites without appropriate legal process. SOPA was a bad idea at the federal level, and any SOPA revival on a state level is an equally bad idea that, we are confident, will be equally unacceptable to the public.
Note that's a "pretty" ellipsis at the end -- one you make with
It should surprise no one that those that believe a document written two hundred years ago can solve all problems of modern life with a literal interpretation and without any change also believe that a book compiled once at 4000 years ago and then again 1600-1800 years ago can also solve all modern problems with a literal interpretation and no changes. For the central idea of modern Conservatism has less to do with doing anything right in the moment and more to do with doing what they've always done. It's a culture where a lesson learned is a moment of weakness. Anyone who dares to change their mind, especially based on facts or new information, is immediately cast out as a traitor unwilling to toe the party line. They have, in essence, become a line of ants in search of a meal that doesn't exist, blindly following each other into the wilderness, blinders intact, and having faith that those that went before knew what they were doing, but without any contingency plan for when that path fails to apply to a changing world.
This is also why climate change is so hard to admit. It's not about business or profits at the level of the individual citizen. It's the idea that what we've done has been working and everything will be all right if we keep doing what we've always done. It worked for those before us, so why change now?
The principal fallacy, therefore, is one of trust -- or, dare I say it, faith. But this isn't a faith in a higher power or a life beyond this one. This is a blind faith in fellow man who, should the facts ever be considered, will be proven to be lying for his own self-interest. It is thus in the interest of the propaganda-maker to cultivate such an environment of hatred towards the facts and a love of tradition in the same way the man at the carnival refuses to show you how his game works. He's cheating the people out of their livelihood but telling you how wonderful it is all the while.
Anti Net Neutrality Crowd Reaches Deep For The Craziest Possible Response To President Obama's Call For Real Net Neutrality Rules | Techdirt:
But the real fun is coming from the politicians and the pundits who seem to be trying to out-crazy each other in coming up with the most ridiculous analogy/description of what Title II means for the internet and the world. The one getting the most attention has to be Senator Ted Cruz who declared net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet."
After nonsensical comments on Net Neutrality, conservatives rage against Ted Cruz:
Keith French: Ted, I am as conservative as they come.... I want government out of just about everything... and I hate to say it, really hate to say it, but Obama is right on this one. I do not want my access and internet speed controlled by my ISP. It will be. The internet has been an open forum with little to no restrictions, that will change and not for the better. Bottom line, do not go against freedom of the net just because Obama is for it. Even an old blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Misunderstanding The Internet & Net Neutrality, As Republican Engineers Call Him Out For Ignorance | Techdirt:
Rather than recognize this fact, Cruz has decided to double down on it with a rambling and misguided opinion piece in the Washington Post that repeats the "Obamacare for the internet" line, and lumps in a variety of other tech issues in a confusing (and often self-contradictory) jumble. He warns against taxing internet access (good), but then joins in the total overreaction to the Commerce Department's decision to officially relinquish its (barely existent) control over ICANN, falsely claiming that this will allow the Russians, Chinese and the Iranians to control the internet. This is not true. In fact, by giving up the Commerce Department's link to ICANN, it helps cut off the path the Russians, Chinese and Iranians are trying to use to do an end run around ICANN, by giving more power to the ITU. In other words, Senator Cruz (once again) seems to not understand this policy issue at all, and is recommending a policy that is more likely to lead to the world he fears.
Then he gets back around to net neutrality, once again showing he doesn't understand it:
This is what
In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.
Not a single part of that is accurate.
you we get when people vote along extreme idealogical lines. Thanks, Teanuts.
Troy Hunt: The “Cobra Effect” that is disabling paste on password fields:
There are many, many valid reasons why people would want to paste passwords in order to increase their security profile yet the perception of those blocking this practice is that it actually decreases security. Why? Interesting you should ask…
FCC calls AT&T’s fiber bluff, demands detailed construction plans | Ars Technica:
Two days after AT&T claimed it has to "pause" a 100-city fiber build because of uncertainty over network neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission today asked the company to finally detail its vague plans for fiber construction.
Despite making all sorts of bold promises about bringing fiber to customers and claiming its fiber construction is contingent on the government giving it what it wants, AT&T has never detailed its exact fiber plans. For one thing, AT&T never promised to build in all of the 100 cities and towns it named as potential fiber spots. The company would only build in cities and towns where local leaders gave AT&T whatever it wanted. In all likelihood, only a small portion of the 100 municipalities were likely to get fiber, and nobody knows which ones.
If you ask them what their plans are in Austin for Gigapower, they dance and dance without saying anything specific. Really.
Amazon and Hachette have finally resolved their bitter dispute:
Specific terms of their new deal aren't being disclosed, but Hachette claims it's now gained full control over ebook pricing.
Amazon says the new pact contains "financial incentives" that will encourage Hachette to keep ebooks affordable for its many Kindle customers.
It took them long enough, but it's nice to hear Amazon understands how deals should work now. I suppose Disney is next?