Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:We've kept our iPad 3 on iOS 5 (Score 1) 327

by immaterial (#46834115) Attached to: iPad Fever Is Officially Cooling
I'm typing this on a 3rd gen iPad right now... Neither iOS 6 nor iOS 7 have caused any trouble, performance-wise. The 3rd gen was already quite powerful compared to the first two (the first iPad, with its tiny amount of RAM, is a dog IMO) and the 4th gen didn't change much at all (one extra GPU core and that's it iirc). The current 5th gen (iPad Air) is better cpu/gpu wise but still has the same amount of RAM as the third gen. What it boils down to is the third gen, capability-wise, isn't really all that far behind the current model. It runs great, as a matter of fact. That's kind of the point of TFA - there's no reason for 3rd or 4th gen users to upgrade to the current model, because the difference is negligible (unless you're *really* concerned about weight).

Also worth noting is that Apple now allows users on older OSes to download older versions of apps, so they're not locked out anymore.

Not a huge fan of the iOS 7 look though.

Comment: Re:beta tester now? (Score 1) 195

by immaterial (#46828025) Attached to: You Can Now Run Beta Versions of OS X—For Free
As for the two MacBook Pros (I assume you meant one is running Mountain Lion, because no 2013 machine will run Lion), is your colleague accessing files over a network (seems likely)? Mavericks now defaults to SMB2 where possible instead of AFP, and in my personal experience I've found it to be a good deal slower - I make sure to connect to my NAS via AFP. Perhaps that could be the root of your colleague's issues ("slow" is vague so this is mostly a shot in the dark).

Comment: Re:Toot little too late (Score 1) 195

by immaterial (#46825909) Attached to: You Can Now Run Beta Versions of OS X—For Free
A powerful rebuttal, full of information to answer my question. I assume you're posting from 10.9 now, and one of the regressions is lack of support for the shift key. Can't imagine how terrible it must be to work in such an environment!

(Shame on me for expecting an intelligent answer from a troll.)

Comment: Re:beta tester now? (Score 2) 195

by immaterial (#46825369) Attached to: You Can Now Run Beta Versions of OS X—For Free
I disagree - memory compression has made Mavericks run much better at 4GB than either of the Lions in my anecdotal experience.

To the GP umafuckit, check the hard drive in that mini carefully; in my experience strange OS X slowness is often a sign of a dying hard drive (I've seen this probably a dozen times on various clients' computers). OS X is annoyingly sensitive to hard drive issues.

Comment: Re:So if I did this ... (Score 2) 85

It's not mimicking the protocol that seems (to me) like it should be illegal, but rather using AOL's chat servers when you explicitly do not have permission to do so. AOL pays to run and maintain those for the benefit of their customers, not for the benefit of Microsoft. To me is feels something like a crappy restaurant handing its customers a plate of food and a red suit jacket and then telling them, "our dining room kind of sucks. Go down the street, third door on your right is a restaurant with a better view and awesome service. If you wear this jacket they'll think you're part of tonight's wedding reception and you're set."

Comment: Re:And again: (Score 1) 88

by immaterial (#46804441) Attached to: General Mills Retracts "No Right to Sue" EULA Clause

And "Can not sue" clauses generally don't exist in a vast majority of jurisdictions around the world. Because firstly, they are stupid. Secondly, they are unfair. And thirdly, they are not (generally) legally enforceable anyway.

They are perfectly legal and enforceable in the United States, so long as the clause applies to both parties and specifies a neutral 3rd-party arbiter (at which point they are "fair").

Comment: Re:Part of a bigger trend, sadly (Score 1) 88

by immaterial (#46804387) Attached to: General Mills Retracts "No Right to Sue" EULA Clause
Mandatory arbitration clauses are perfectly valid and legal in the US, so long as they apply to both parties and specify a neutral 3rd-party arbiter. THIS situation was likely in enforceable for other reasons - one of those being that some text thrown up on a page on a company's website doesn't suddenly create a contract between them and everyone who buys their product or likes in in social media.

Comment: Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (Score 1) 216

by immaterial (#46789267) Attached to: Click Like? You May Have Given Up the Right To Sue

As I did say in my previous post, but you omitted when quoting it, this might stand up if all parties agreed to the arbitration.

I didn't directly quote it but I did acknowledge your "might" speculation right there in my third sentence. My point is there's no "might" about it - as long as the arbitration clause applies to both parties and the arbiter is a neutral one, it's a perfectly legal and enforceable clause... In the US, obviously. TFA was in a US paper discussing corporations operating in the US and referenced a number of relevant US court decisions, so I did not assume we were discussing elsewhere.

Comment: Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (Score 1) 216

by immaterial (#46786953) Attached to: Click Like? You May Have Given Up the Right To Sue

Indeed. Good luck arguing in court that someone gave up their right to sue. The legal profession tends to be awfully sceptical of such measures, and none more so than judges.

Umm, no. IANAL but even basic research pulls up the Federal Arbitration Act, which was passed in 1925 and allows for contractually-obligated compulsory and binding arbitration, and this has been held up in court time and again. The only way out of this is to prove the company is using a biased arbiter (they basically all use approved, neutral 3rd party arbitration services now so good luck) or (as you yourself speculated) if the clause isn't applied equally (ie. if the company still reserves the right to sue YOU - but unless they're stupid, they don't make this mistake either). TFA even points out that mandatory arbitration clauses have surged in popularity since the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that it was okay to use them to suppress class action suits.

The thing that might (I sure hope) make the "contracts" discussed in TFA unenforceable isn't the fact that they make people give up their rights to sue, but the fact that some "legal terms" page on the company website that the consumer probably isn't even aware of (much less has read) does not a binding contract make.

Comment: Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (Score 1) 267

by immaterial (#46748353) Attached to: Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Back To the Tech Industry
No reason for a power user to leave it on, IMO. Going through the trouble of overriding just three or four apps is enough to outweigh the trouble of changing the Gatekeeper setting once. It doesn't do anything useful for me - even with it off I still get the "you've never launched this app before, are you sure you want to?" warning, which is enough for me.

Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun