You got it backwards.

On February 15 they said that Foxconn's is a "first class" factory that is much better than many others in China, in particular garment factories.

Then on February 17 (yesterday) they said that nevertheless they are finding "tons of issues" that need to be addressed.

From TFA:

Audience has worked with Apple since 2008, and there is some Audience technology in the A4 chip, but it is a less advanced version than that available with the A5 packs. In particular, Audience on the A4 needs users to hold the phone up to their mouths when speaking to it. The iPhone 4S version allows for "more consistent voice and audio quality wherever the device is held and used".

Thus the theory is that, in spite of the fact that Siri will work on the iPhone 4 as demonstrated in jailborken phones, the success of the voice recognition is lower in certain situations, like not having the microphone next to your mouth, or higher ambient noise. That would mean that the iPhone 4 users would have a crappier experience with Siri, giving the whole technology a bad name (especially since there were already tens of millions of iPhone 4 units in the market at the time the 4s was introduced).

Apple doesn't want the bad publicity (remember the handwriting recognition of the Newton?), so they decided to introduce the technology exclusively on the 4s, with the added bonus of getting some of the iPhone 4 users to upgrade just for it. Well, at least that is the theory as explained by TFAs.

Thanks, jholyhead.

And in fact, the rate of suicides in the good old US of A in 2005 was 177 per million among males and 45 per million among females. That's in the USA! .

(Do note that the WHO link shows the numbers in suicides per 100,000, not per million).

Can you be a little more specific? I looked carefully throughout all seven pages of the NYT article but I couldn't find the part where it says that "other tech companies often pay these manufacturers more money to be spent on improving work conditions". (And no, I was not expecting to find that exact wording, but the same basic concept.)

Apple's Thunderbolt Display (and the 27" Cinema Display before it) is 2560x1440.
Dell's 27" U2711 has the same resolution (I think they may be using the same panel), and the 30" U3011 is 2560x1600.

The Eizo RadiForce LS560W is 3840x2160. The RX840 is 4096x2160. And although most people would not want a monochrome monitor, you can get them all the way to at least 4096x2560, like the GX1030. And that is just sticking to Eizo monitors, I didn't check other high end brands.

I get your point, but your numbers are quite off

Except that... your are guilty (of insurance fraud), remember?

You also seem to think that taking them to small claims court will somehow prevent them from taking you to court for insurance fraud. I don't know where you got such a weird idea.

The only reference to McAfee in TFS is this: "According to McAfee, almost all new mobile malware now targets Android." It also contains the only link o a FA that mentions McAfee.

Thus I deduce that in you opinion, the fact that McAfee made such an assertion is a classless act. That means that you think that McAfee is either lying or bending the truth to suit them best. Or, in other words, you have data than contradicts the last graph of TFA (i.e., the bar plot showing the distribution of malware among mobile platforms).

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, so please feel free to link to that data. Because it's not classy at all to claim that other people are lying unless you have reason to believe that's the case.

True but it's a mistake that's not so hard to make.

Fascinating.

The androidcentral.com article talks about the "Best" Android phones according to a made-up criterion, not about how well they sell: Android Central's Top 10 Android Phones Report ranks the popularity of the best Android Phones over the past 30 days as determined by our proprietary algorithm which compiles data from across the AC community and beyond.

The other two links are indeed taken from the same list, as they coincide (as they should). But the blendblogger.com article is from September 5, and, even worse, the metacafe video was added on August 16. That's way too premature to call the list of top-whatevers of 2011, making me wonder if someone misquoted the original source (which neither link cites), and these people are just repeating the error like parrots.

Also, the lists mention the HTC EVO 3D as the top selling Android phone. But it was released on June 24, or only 53 days before the metacafe video was posted, and already jumpet to the top of the list... I guess it sold much more than the iPhone 4S!