...if you want, but I found Apple's notice frikkin' hilarious! You know the old saying about asking a stupid question, well this was a stupid order. Apple sarcastically followed the letter of the order to show their contempt, something I'm sure a lot of us have done in one way or another at some point. It's refreshing to see a company with a sense of humour!

I'm surprised the court has much of a leg to stand on in claiming parts of it were untrue. Most of it was direct quotes from the judges and the bit about the German ruling was true AFAIK.

Anyway none of this will have any impact, it's not like Apple will lose any sales over this, and both of the companies are getting brand exposure. Win-win.

You're comparing freedom and liberty to soda? I think one might be a bit more important.

I know you're talking about diabetes, the question is why. That isn't the topic here. I don't know too many diabetics that manage it with Big Gulps. Conversely, soda contributes plenty of calories, which can lead to weight gain, and being overweight greatly increases the risk of type 2 diabetes.

Obese people don't need soda to survive.

I'm curious as to how many of those opposed to this law are obese (weight in kg divided by square of height in meters > 30). Stats on average BMI of Big Gulp purchasers would also be interesting.

While I don't like the nanny state aspect of this law, if it mostly only applies to the obese and it sends a message that obesity is not good, I don't see the harm.

Those other things shouldn't be censored either. How does one "deal with it" exactly?

The unreasonable part isn't the watching. It's perfectly reasonable to watch something knowing it might offend you, and indeed sometimes we are exposed to offensive things without foreknowledge.

The unreasonable part is hurting someone because of an idea.

Saudi Arabia is a lot like the entertainment industry. Neat!

Even more than why anyone would pay for this I wonder why all the tech sites are running this. Slow news day I guess?

...seeds jail YOU.

Ya I've heard mixed information on whether NFC is on by default or not. Either way there's still a web exploit on both which means Android is at best no more secure, and at worse, less.

It is indeed. The difference is your average Joe is fairly likely to know now that he shouldn't click on a link from an unknown address, or his email AV will have sanitized it first. Even if he keeps NFC turned off most of the time (which is not the default) he'll still have to turn it on to, for example, pay for something, and I think that's when it will be most dangerous.

The idea being that it's ok to have an insecure wireless interface on your smartphone as long as you don't have to be *too* close to it for it to work?

NFC stations are not usually on other people, they're in stores and random other places that entice you to use it. A hacked or augmented genuine NFC reader could be made to steal your data, for example.

They both have web exploits but the Android variety can be triggered simply by being nearby an attacker. The iOS one needs a tricked user.

They're just dropdowns, works fine.