Well, yeah if, you decided it was worthwhile to buy into an ecosystem that's locked to a single platform. Personally, while I buy more than a handful of movies each year, the number I (and many others) purchased on iTunes in the two years between then iTunes started selling movies and when Amazon and Google launched their services is a big fat 0. Ripping DVDs has always been an option; and a platform-agnostic and DRM-free option, at that; if you fell into a platform-locked DRM scheme, you should go to the ER and get the gunshot wound in your foot looked at.

The text is directly from the European Court of Human Rights...not mine, not some summary article, it is directly their very first example of what is not protected speech - because he was advocating that jews are the root of evil in Russia. The thing that makes it hate speech in their eyes is that he was saying it about jews. The fact that he does so in long form is not the salient point.

There is nothing cherry picked about it. It is specifically what they are targeting. They don't mince any words, they are extremely explicit about their intentions.

On their own website they say that even the most heinous speech must be protected..... unless it incites hatred against certain groups in certain regions, or it causes some people to feel threatened, or it offends certain people,

That is the entire point of the objection. They protect offensive and heinous speech.... except if they don't want to. So you can't possibly know what speech is protected until after you are prosecuted and acquitted. Saying something perfectly true about muslims might not be protected. Saying a slanderous lie about atheists might be protected. But you don't know, because there is no standard to let you know in advance.

In other words, the protections on free speech are not really protections at all. This whole thing about hate speech is just a circular argument. All speech is protected except hate speech. Hate speech is the speech that isn't protected.

I haven't been an AT&T customer for almost 3 years at this point and my wife is the iPhone user so I can only go based on heresay at this point but I'm pretty sure the attwifi network can't be removed.

Also, I'm still on Slashdot, right? I'm asking because there hasn't been any name calling yet. :)

I've seen dongle in a dongle before. Looked painful. And yes, there's a headphone port. That and the USB-C, that's what you get. Did you read the last sentence of my first paragraph, or did you decide you needed to tear that new MacBook apart after my first 12 words? You missed a lot by not reading my whole post, my friend.

I know Why do you think I keep coming back? ;)

Hmm...

34% of users can't tell their iPhones not to connect to a hotspot named attwifi. That sounds like the ability to force connection to a WiFi network to me.

I'll grant you that, 66% is the vast majority. However ...

... 34% is not a small subset.

This I can agree with. It's what lead to the inaccuracy in the summary in the first place.

You're right, 66% does constitute "most cases"; 34% of all iPhones sold in the last 3.5 years (that is to say, realistically, damn near 34% of all iPhones currently in use) still seems like a pretty large victim pool, though.

So yes, perhaps the severity of the flaw was a bit overblown by the team that discovered it, but I think you're trying to let out a bit too much of the air.

It's my submission, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I'm probably not trolling. But, then, that's what a troll would say, isn't it? Cue the next poster who couldn't decide whether to mod me funny or troll, I suppose. :)

Like I said...

As someone who cares more about how a machine works than how it looks, this is what I have a problem with. I spend hours a day using the software, seconds a day looking at the fit and finish of the machine, and minutes, at most, over the lifetime of the machine looking at the packaging and giving a shit about the logistics of how it got to me. Jobs was focused on the whole experience; today's Apple is focused on "ooh look, shiiiiiiiiny". How can you say were not seeing the loss of Jobs' momentum?

We'll have to wait and see what happens over the next few years; no amount of argument between us will matter.

How did it take you that long to read the handful of comments that existed at the time?

That said, I've done it, too. My comment was more a remark about Slashdot's lack of editorial function.

I didn't price myself out of the argument, actually. the price was my argument. Read:

It was a misunderstanding after my first reading of the article. The actual issue is that the reboot cycle happens so rapidly that you never actually have an opportunity to interact with the phone to turn WiFi off once it starts, until you're out of range of the malicious AP.

Horrible wording in the article that made it not immediately clear, actually. I also posted a correction more than 20 minutes before your "horrible summary" judgment. Also, from the article:

In other words:

you're boned.

Indeed, I realized the error upon re-reading the article. If only I could update the summary...

Congrats, you pointed that out a full 21 minutes after the submitter. I'd change it in the summary but, well, Slashdot doesn't allow it.