One report I read made it sound like they were aware of the bug for a while. It's possible that they had to launch with an old version of the software because the patch wasn't ready yet, and being a secondary payload on a launch you have no say whatsoever as to the launch date. They probably expected to be able to upload the patch after launch, but the log filled up faster than expected.

That being said, it is shoddy programming to blindly write to a log on a resource-constrained embedded platform (or any platform, really. Just especially so on something like this), so somebody definitely goofed. All I am saying is that it probably was caught by testing, but couldn't be fixed in time due to various constraints. It was a dumb move on the developer's part to not do enough diligence and to rely too heavily on QA in the first place.

That's a good thing. He's a creative genius, but probably sucks as a manager. And it sucks that in the corporate business world, often the only way to advance in your career is to manage people who now do for you what you used to love doing yourself but can't because now you're too busy managing. It looks like Apple recognized all of that, and so to keep their most valuable employee happy and of most use to the company they created a position to promote him to that would allow him to just be the head creative director of design and let the people-managing responsibilities fall to someone else who actually wanted that role.

When Apple decided to be benevolent and allowed iOS 4 to run on the iPhone 3G, the result was honestly the most painful technology experience of my life. But if they had cut it off and only let iOS 4 be installed on the 3GS or newer, there would have been the same conspiracy theory crap of supposed forced obsolescence. Having lived through that hell, I am much more likely to give Apple the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what devices they support with which OS versions.

In your case, it is likely that those 3rd party shims helped somewhat beyond just cracking the restrictions, or you lucked out with a specific hardware combination that just happened to work. They may have decided to make the cutoff at some major hardware feature because some instances below that cutoff would be dogs with the new OS and it's not worth their time to figure out exactly which combinations of hardware would work and which wouldn't.

Ok, copyright is by definition a right. Hence the name clearly meaning "the right to copy". And I will buy your argument that piracy is taking away somebody's right in that sense. However, taking away somebody's right to something is not theft. If it was, copyright violations could be prosecuted under larceny laws. If Slashdot turned off your account, preventing you from soapboxing about piracy, they would be taking away your free speech right. Likewise, they can't be prosecuted for larceny in that case. In fact, in the general sense there is no prohibition whatsoever for private entities to infringe on other private entities' rights. That is why it is perfectly legal for businesses to ban guns on their premises, despite the second amendment, and internet forums can ban members for saying stuff they don't like, despite the first amendment.

Since piracy is not theft, an entirely separate section of laws have been written to address it. If it was theft, those laws would be unnecessary. Let's all stop calling it theft now, alright?

Ben Franklin, Liberty, Security, etc. etc. If you don't know and understand the quote, shame on you.

To be fair, Apple supported XP longer than Microsoft did. Microsoft has already stated that if you choose to continue using XP, you do so at your own risk. That not only means potential exposure to malware, but also the distinct possibility that third party stuff may at any time stop working. I don't see this a fault of Apple in any way whatsoever.

Also, this is still relevant. If you are going to punish sites for not having mobile versions, are they also going to punish sites for forcing visitors onto worthless mobile versions? I appreciate added readability if the content is all still the same, but with the resolution on today's smartphones, I can view a desktop site just fine.

He may be the biggest Apple fanboy in existence, but he's definitely not a shill. He has always called Apple out on dumb ideas. I think the words he used to describe Apple's plan for webapps as 3rd party apps on the original iPhone was "shit sandwich".

Felony burglary, no, as re-arranging potted plants is not itself a crime. It would be perfectly reasonable to charge that person with criminal trespass, however. Knowledge that the key is hidden under the doormat does not mean that you have the right to enter. In fact, the fact that it was hidden, even if weakly so, would imply that the intent is the opposite.

Thunderbolt is PCIe and DisplayPort superimposed over the same cable, using mini-DisplayPort plugs.

Yes, but "smoke and fumes reaching the airplane's cockpit" is not the same as "blow up". It is possible that fumes from overheating batteries incapacitated the flight crew resulting in the plane flying on autopilot until it ran out of fuel.

If you come up with a different theory that can explain doppler shift and the cosmic microwave background, as well as all other phenomena predicted by the big bang theory, while simultaneously correctly predicting observations that the big bang theory fails to predict, then yes, it is possible.

Even when following a coding style guide 100%, there is still generally enough leeway to allow for plenty of personal style. There's the words you use to name things, use of whitespace and grouping of statements, basically everything about a piece of source code that's lost if you compile and then decompile a program. Just like the prose from two different authors are distinct from one other, even if they go through the same copy editor to fit a publisher's style guide. And if your corporate style guide requires your code to be indistinguishable from decompiled code, you need to find a new job.

Yes, not enough people understand net neutrality. No, what he is saying is completely illogical and is in fact 180 degrees backwards. His argument isn't wrong due to any libertarian idea about government interference. To understand why his argument is wrong requires understanding a distinction between platforms vs users of said platform.

Net neutrality is about classifying ISPs as common carriers. Common carrier laws state that the providers of certain platforms (e.g. shipping companies, ISPs) must treat all users of that platform (e.g. customers who want to ship a product, websites serving content) equally. The law says nothing about the opposite, and a user of a platform is perfectly within their rights to give preferential treatment to a particular provider over another. If you buy something and have it shipped to you, that retailer will usually either have FedEx or UPS as options, but rarely both.

The Blackberry CEO is arguing two things. First, he is arguing that app platforms should be treated as common carriers. That is a fair argument. I could get behind mandating that app platforms should treat all apps equally (e.g. not give some apps access to certain APIs while restricting access to those APIs for other apps. Such a classification might be necessary if for example Apple started giving access to GPU acceleration only to big game studios that could afford to pay a fee, while small indie game studios that couldn't afford the fee would be forced to use a slower GPU mode). But where he is being completely batshit illogical is where he argues that once app platforms are common carriers, the users must give equal treatment to the platforms rather than the other way around. To use the previous example, it would be as if the government mandated that if you offered to ship something via UPS, you must also offer to ship it via FedEx. Such a mandate has never happened, and probably never will. And arguing that there should be such a mandate for app platforms shows either a complete misunderstanding of common carriers and net neutrality on the part of the Blackberry CEO, or a deliberate obfuscation and intentional confusion of net neutrality in an attempt to gain sympathy.

First off, the Declaration of Independence was a call to arms, not a legally binding precedent. Only the Constitution can be used as the source of what is considered legal. Second, Using the second amendment to rationalize treason is absurd. The second amendment and the treason clauses are both within the framework of the US government. If you are planning on using the Declaration of Independence as precedent, you are talking about overthrowing the US government, which means throwing out the Constitution and starting over. So if you consider what the Constitution has to say about treason to be moot, you likewise must consider what the Constitution has to say about bearing arms to be moot as well, as you are declaring the Declaration of Independence to supersede the Constitution in its entirety.