Managing email [ was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release ]

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 19:25:48 +0000
Russel Winder <russel at winder.org.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 11:42 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> […]
> > Yea, I've noticed the same thing :( People are so enamored with
> > their iDevices, that they think Apple can do no wrong. At least
> > that's the only explanation I can think of.
> 
> Perhaps Apple employees visit everyone who buys an Apple device and
> secretly implants the chip in the purchasers head?  ;-)
>  

Secretly? It's part of the eyePhone's basic user instructions! Matt
Groening even showed Fry and Leela installing theirs. ;)

> Personally I think Apple laptop hardware is great,

Is it? I wouldn't know. I know the earlier iPods had a lot of
reliability problems. The one thing about modern Apple laptops
that does get me though is that I just don't get the compulsive
obsession with thinness. Yea, thin is fine (up to the point where I
worry about accidentally snapping it), but I'd take a roomy HDD, optical
drive, lots of connection ports, and good price over "Gee whiz! Look how
thin it is!" anyway.

I could ditch the traditional HDD/optical drives for the sake of
battery life on a swivel-touchscreen netbook. But even then, I see
very minimal benefit to extra thinness.

> the software however leaves a lot to be desired.
> 

I could go on and on about apple software, but I've done so enough
already, and I'll refrain now ;)

> > Like browsers, for instance. When Microsoft had their browser merely
> > uninstallable and set as the *initial* default browser, the DOJ went
> > apeshit, nevermind the fact that MS did *nothing* to prevent people
> > from downloading and using competing browsers. Apple, OTOH, does the
> > same, except they also PROHIBIT competing browsers (only the "shell"
> > around the webview widget can be changed), and yet as long as
> > Apple's the one doing it nobody seems to mind. Apple's has been
> > known to do the same for other software besides browsers as well.
> 
> Perchance Apple have simply paid off the DOJ.  Or mayhap the Apple
> employees and their chip implantation is more successful than we know?
> 

Heh :)

> > And then Jobs's personal grudge against Android (still
> > unfortunately being carried out in full by the new regime, puppeted
> > by a ghost apparently), in particular the irrational lawsuit against
> > Samsung where Apple is abusing software/design patents to go on the
> > offensive (not just using them defensively). The judge, even as an
> > Apple user, made it clear that Apple had basically no standing, and
> > yet those goddamn jururs irrationally ruled in favor of Apple
> > anyway.
> 
> The result in the case was basically a forgone conclusion: USA company
> domiciled within a couple of miles of all the jurors vs. a South
> Korean company. No contest, whatever the actual rights and wrongs.
> Should have been a bench trial from the outset.
> 

Good points.

> Hopefully everyone is responding to the USPTO regarding software
> patents.
> 

Does the USPTO even acknowledge the _existence_ of anyone who isn't
a corporate bigwig? Let alone pay attention to anything they say? I
think "corruption", I think "USPTO". Not joking about that, either.