I jumped into this thread to see if something like this had been posted. Unfortunately, I--through experience--have to agree. Back in '96 I was working to gain control over a localized .us sub-domain for a pretty small town. I ended up having (what I at the time thought to be) a great telephone conversation with no less than Jon Postel himself! I was talking to an internet god. Or so I thought. Postel spent about half-an-hour discussing with me what the technical and obligatory requirements of my company would be to host DNS services for a localized sub-domain. I went back to my boss, made the pitch, got approval, and submitted the request less than an hour later. Two weeks go by, I heard nothing. Finally, I called Postel back, inquiring about the status of my request submission and he tells me that, unfortunately, another entity had submitted a request for that locality just prior to my request and that we'd lost out. (sad trombones)

Only, there was NO WAY that had happened. This area barely had any kind of broadband access beyond dial-up and we were the biggest technology company in a pretty large geographic area and the first to have a direct T-1 connection into the area (partnering with a larger ISP). It was beyond impossible. As I was on the phone with him, I started doing WHOIS searches for other tiny tiny areas around me, and sure enough all of these "villages" were being gobbled up by the same company (who was in Kansas, IIRC). The only explanation was that Postel had "tipped" this company, who was seemingly in the business of picking up localities and then charging $50/ sub-domain for registration, even though the .us rules at the time were to favor local businesses as registrars with the price only to cover costs, and our requests would have had to have been under consideration at the same time which means we should have gotten the nod due to being the local entity. This company had started gobbling up all of the locations around my town, which was the county seat and the largest town in several counties in the area, and it started--according to the IANA records I was pulling--the day I had first called. I accused him of the corruption, and he promptly hung up on me.

Even a wizard can be corrupted. And ICANN/IANA seems to have been rife with this kind of corruption from the very start.

I applaud Google in their efforts here, but as a current iPhone user, I'm saddened to see it as something I can't/won't immediately be able to take advantage of. What frustrates me--as an Apple customer, as a "fan" of Apple's Accessibility work, and as one of those 466 million hard-of-hearing folks--is the difficulty I have personally had in getting Apple to understand hearing impairment, and to take it more seriously than they do. Apple seems to be of the mind that hearing impairment can be and is resolved with hearing aids, which to those in the know is absurd. Perhaps, though, Google's initiatives will help Apple see what additional work could be done to improve their ecosystem for hard-of-hearing users, not just the specific subset of the hearing-impaired population that can benefit from hearing aids.

This is the exact FolkLore page I came back, days later, to see if it had gotten posted. The blurb "was absolutely not upgradeable" didn't sit well with me, knowing the FolkLore story. Burrell Smith was a certifiable genius, like Woz before him; and that statement just is too rigid and unfairly underplays Smith's design. I'm glad somebody posted the FolkLore page.

But to Burrell Smith and Steve Wozniak, and Brian Howard, and Bill Atkinson and Andy Hertzfeld and Bruce Horn and Steve Capps, and Bud Tribble, and Joanna Hoffman and Susan Kare, and Jef Raskin, and on and on, the early Mac team names should be household names in the US. These folks all were certifiable geniuses. Only, now everybody knows Steve Jobs. Just Steve Jobs. I hear so many wrong Steve Jobs stories it is almost incredible. From adults, from kids. It pains me that the public Oral History of computing is as screwed up as it apparently is. But, especially in this one case, the Macintosh RAM, Burrell Smith especially deserves better than "was absolutely not upgradeable", and more over he deserves that his accomplishments be better known to the technologist culture.

(As an aside, it also worries me greatly that the 'veil of secrecy' that "new" "2nd coming of Jobs" Apple has hidden itself behind has largely also served to completely destroy any chance that we, the lovers of such FolkLore, will ever find out the names and personalities behind more recent Apple successes. We've heard of a few names, like Avie Tevanian and Jon Rubenstein and Tony Fadell and Scott Forstall, but they have even mostly been papered over by a nearly cult-like projection of Jony Ive as the sole "Wizard" behind the curtain. Apple Execs like Craig Federighi and Phil Schiller instead get stage time, though Kevin Lynch has been getting some time too. Even if you read Apple's marketing, you'd think Angela Ahrends and Tim Cook are in the trenches inventing stuff which just completely belies what we know of how the process actually works from reading stories like FolkLore. We wonder why kids don't run into STEM? Maybe its because the "Rock Stars" are seemingly all people who don't actually play the instruments, they just lip sync acceptably and can line dance really good after enough practice.)

I just want to play Spaceship Warlock, with sound. That is all.

Given my experience working with Asian and Indian colleagues, I have noticed certain "differences" in language and logic/reasoning skills that I can only attribute to neuro-development (aka: how the brain develops while learning specific language mechanics and cultural normatives). So I have to ask, not knowing a Chinese-language: how does "invent" and "invention" translate between actual Western languages?
Because I've seen a lot of empirical evidence to the effect that Asian peoples (Oh, boy, here comes the stereotypes, right?? Not intended, merely trying to understand.) often don't -believe- that taking somebody else's idea and improving upon it is "wrong". (Which is rather the simplistic version of the "Western" notion we're discussing.) Sometimes, I've attributed this behavior to malice, because sometimes the "thief" "tipped their hand" and basically admitted they knew it was copyright violation and they just didn't care. But often enough the attitude has been somewhat more to the Steve Jobsian "Great Artists Steal" concept, where it was not malice but "awe, coupled with an intense passion to improve" the idea. Can we fault that? There have been many times in history where the "inventor" of a product, although genius in that incarnation, was not capable of seeing the much more profound "bigger picture" of that invention's possibilities. If, in the Chinese language/mindset "invent" infers a certain amount of implicit iteration, e.g. "there is nothing new, only the newest thing improved upon", then perhaps what is really being said is "Our 'invention' is 'perfecting' these things, like only China can." In short, they always mean "reinvention".

I'm not disputing the propaganda perspective, nor the arrogance/brashness in which the Chinese governmental regime has historically flat-out lied; but I hold out that with such drastic cultural differences there may be a bit more complexity at work here. Maybe. Enlighten me!

I think this story should serve for non-technical buyers to provide greater awareness of the amount of CONTROL that Apple wields upon their ecosystem. Many users are completely unaware that Apple effectively sets what you can, and often CANNOT, buy to interface with your iDevice. And consumers should know... because when they can't get that accessory they want, or they blame a vendor when a device uses a USB micro-B port/cable instead of Lightning, often their ire is misplaced at the vendors when 90% of the time it is Apple that has denied them the solution they desire. And considering how many vendors "take it on the chin" and never publicly inform the buyers of this, I can only assume there is a non-disparagement clause in the MFi license as well. From the amount of abuse that some vendors take and still remain silent, Apple might be the biggest "abuser" in the relationship. Certainly Apple took advantage with their passthrough Lightning port-to-Lightning plug used in the "bandaid" iPhone battery cases; they even used the fact that their case had it as a competitive finger in the eye to their partners... all without mentioning that they themselves prohibited the vendors from using such a port/plug combination. Mophie has remained silent, still can't use the part. Oddly, tech "journalists" reported the "marketing", knocking MFi partners in reviews for not having the port rather than reporting to buyers about Apple's shenanigans. I've not read a single review yet where this control over ports/options has been exposed.

This is the worst kind of "bend reality to yield to human fantasy" lawmaking. Instead of doing away with the stupid DST convention, they are ADOPTING the stupid as default. They are not FIXING the problems caused by the switching of clocks, they are embracing the flawed solution... seemingly oblivious to the yet-more unintended consequences doing so will bring.
I can't even. "Traditional Daily Routine" has now become more rigid than physics. Thank you, lawgiving morons and the morons who chose them. Dumber and dumber the rabbit hole goes.

I'm a huge Apple fan, have been all my computing life. But I think it instructional for developers (and consumers and fans!) to compare Google's communication style regarding new operating system features and Apple's, cough cough, "communication" style. Google is clear, outlines what features they've added and want to add, and their intent on development track. Apple... well...you get WWDC, and they show stuff, and they'll talk about some stuff, maybe. And maybe what they show and talk about ships, but good luck on getting more information about what is going on if it doesn't ship when planned. And even after that, don't plan on getting adequate, clear documentation; the best resource is the developer forums or Stack Exchange where you will get more (empirical) info from other developers than you do from Apple.

This is NOT how I thought things would go. [Luke was right. (Tell your sister, he was right.)]

Apple users, consumers, developers: we shouldn't stand for it. There –is– a better way. And Google shows it. Apple can pay lip service to the "evil" of Google, but at the end of the dev cycle, that's really all it is. And Apple can utter profundities about secrecy and the delight of surprise, but honestly it's all just nonsense after the "reveal". Apple...Tim Cook...up your game... it is beyond time to stop acting like it is 1997, or 2007.

Can't help but think this might have something to do with the model Apple has established with the Apple TV. Both Apple and Amazon have promised Amazon Video on Apple TV "this fall" (for the second year in a row). Apple's App Store model allows for free apps and subscription services, with a significant discount off the 30% "revenue sharing" for subs that last over a year. Producing a service like this would allow Amazon to much more easily bring in Amazon Video customers from Apple TV—they come in to ad-supported content for free—with a frictionless way to transistion to a paid subscription with a (likely) lower hit than having to revenue-share the full Prime membership. Then Amazon could advertise Prime membership via commercials, and end-run Apple's restrictions on "advertising" outside-the-App-Store purchasing avenues.

Beyond the misleading choice not to baseline the high-nicotine vapors/smokers for prior smoking levels, I also find it curious that the study didn't track the youths' opinions on e-cigs vs cigarettes in terms of health/harm. Considering that over the past 5 years the "official" US government "message" has been that vaping is as, and sometimes more, dangerous than smoking cigarettes (obvious hogwash), I have found a lot of smokers who had switched to vaping (some, entirely, completely off cigarettes) go back to smoking "because the government says there is no difference." This would have been a useful data point to track, especially in a nanny-state like California where such mixed-messaging is too-often used as a governmental propaganda tool. That the researchers decided not to track a simple question of "WHY smoke?" is, to me, quite telling as to the purpose of the study, since that basic question would have shed a lot of light on actual causation (vs mere speculation).

I have an idea for an amendment to this bill. Every politician in the US takes an "oath of office" that contains a statement to the effect that they will "faithfully execute" the office. I believe it is fairly clear to most citizens that lying is certainly NOT "faithfully" executing the role of public office. When in court, a citizen must swear or affirm to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Let's combine the two!
Any citizen who submits to running for public office must agree to abide by the oath of office at the time of application, NOT at the time of taking office (too late by then, eh?). The person standing on the podium at the end of a race with hand held high should be the formality, the pomp and circumstance, not the initiation. And it should be ensconced that taking an oath of public office should effectively put the potential office holder under the same level of "truth telling" as a citizen testifying in public court. From there, ANY public office holder that willfully and knowingly lies, or even spreads mistruths when evidence shows they had ample fore-knowledge, should be held to the penalties of perjury. In other words, every time a politician speaks, they HAVE to tell the truth. NOT just when they're "sworn in" at a Congressional hearing; NOT just when they're in front of a Grand Jury for a corruption scandal...ALWAYS.
When Hillary Clinton went on NBC's 'Meet the Press' and baldly lied about how she used her mail server, then those statements ALONE should have been enough (with the information now known) to have her busted for perjury to the American people. When Trump makes completely false statements contrary to intelligence reports it is KNOWN he received, perjury. Any US citizen should have "standing", and more than a handful should intrinsically constitute a "class action".
Yes, this in the short term may lead to some (or many) politicians NEVER giving interviews... let's see how long they last in office then. Otherwise, if a public official talks, they'd best be telling the truth, political advertising or statements to the press or campaign promises to the crowds. EVERY TIME THEY COMMUNICATE.

Damn I'm old.

I also had always inferred a similar concept with the title. It might not have been THE reason, but, to me, IMHO, it bespeaks a certain "tell" of the morality of the story. Excepting for the discussion the nonsense of Ridley Scott saying Deckard was a replicant, the role of a "blade runner" was effectively that of a stone-cold killer operating under the color of law. Even in the opening crawl that moral quandary is pretty directly alluded to: "This was not called execution. It was called retirement."

I always took "blade runner" to have a dual-meaning whereby those cops were effectively running on the fine edge of what society could accept as legal, and was legal; they're out there "retiring" replicants, with extreme prejudice, and it is "OK" only because no one really has stopped to think about why ethically it shouldn't be. And I think that is reflected in Deckard's story... he's reached the end of it, he's seen the moral failure in the act of what amounts to murdering replicants who are showing very "human" responses and emotions. Therein reveals a further hidden irony: "blade runners" aren't merely appropriately named because of the dangerousness of their actions, or the razor-thin morality of their actions, but also perhaps for how far out on the edge of human tolerance for suffering they must run. Deckard is clearly spent--physically, emotionally, morally--and by the end of the movie is clearly able to see how psychotic he had become. And breaks. Which obviously leads to the sequel.

Hmmm, I wonder... "conventional wisdom" has been that all of the paving humanity has been doing has created heat islands that are increasing localized global warming. But given this research, I am left to wonder: is there an offset? Clearly I'd think that paving or building over large plots of arid land would certainly squelch this CO2 emission. Of course, there is the carbon cost of the manufacture/construction to consider, but have we perhaps been abating something we didn't even know existed (or, at least, know was a significant CO2 source)? It would seem to me the next logical step for this group would be to pave or concrete over part of one of their experimental plots, accounting for the CO2 "cost" in doing so, and compare. I hate to see all the parking lots and acre-sized warehouses that are overtaking the lush green in my area, but...

(Also, causes me to ponder fictional planets like Coruscant or Trantor.)

This is so dumb. They needed a study for this? And then, when they do the study they target "particularly males". This is how "bad science" is done.
You know how to do GOOD f'ing science? Get your IVM meat done, do it right, and make it taste and cook like Filet Mignon. Everyone will eat it. No one will care that it is grown in a lab. All the nonsense "studies" and whatnot UNTIL then only prove your IVM meat sucks. Nobody with 23 braincells to rub together would REFUSE to eat "meat" comparable to Filet. This isn't difficult, jackasses.