I think the contention of the parent was that "evil" was not the correct word to use. Is it your contention that not allowing flash is *evil*?

At the very worst, not allowing flash is neutral. Apple made a product. The decided what it would and would not do (BTW, it also does not "allow" windows 2000) and then they put it on the market, where people could or could not choose to buy it. It is not forced on anyone. It is not killing people because of the lack of flash. Indeed, not having flash on the iphone doesn't even deny anyone any basic freedoms. It is a total non-issue. Portraying it as anything else is just dishonest and dilutes the meaning of the word "evil."

Wow, this has to be one of the most inane replies I have read in a while. Just wanted to comment on that.

Regarding the debate (can we even call it that?) I am afraid that BasilBrush is doing much better than you, pandrijeczko. Or are you honestly claiming that you hear enough people say "Bing it" on a daily basis that this would not stick out as an odd turn of phrase?

And therein lies the problem with the referenced clip. Hawaii 5-0 is attempting to tell stories set in our modern world. As such, anything that does *not* accurately reflect the current world draws the audience out of the story. This is storytelling 101. This scene would have run much more smoothly if the phrase was "google it," which is actually a common phrase.

So, substituting "bing it" actually does compromise the story from a purely mechanical standpoint. It is poor writing and would never have been written, unless someone is being paid to put it in (and worsen the story).

At any rate, the point here is that the story is compromised by the ad. Pure and simple. It is hard to argue otherwise.

Also, please *please* don't point out that I mentioned "stories" and you were discussing "plot." I am making the leap of faith that you are able to grasp the similarities of these two points.

It gets even better.

There is a lot of knowledge that is not stored on any physical media (besides our brains). For instance, I "know" that I went to the grocery store yesterday and spend three minutes looking at candy without buying any. This is something that very few people have knowledge of and I guarantee it was not stored anywhere (until now). However, it does remain knowledge.

There is also a lot of unrecorded meta data associated with stored data. Consider this post. It records the words I type, who I am, and what time it is. However, it does not record that I am in a black swivel chair, that there is a stapler and pencil sharpener to my left, or that the current temperature in my house is 60 degrees F. But *I* have this knowledge.

The point is that counting stored data as the sum total of knowledge is ridiculous. Not only does it allow in inane chatter, but it disregards all sorts of contextual knowledge that people use every day, but rarely deem to write down. Though Facebook and Twitter seem to be trying to close this gap...

This has already been circled around by the other replies, but let me say is explicitly: being good at sales, schmoozing, etc requires a certain type of intelligence. Just because someone is not good at coding does NOT mean they are unintelligent. It means they are bad a coding. Point being that there are multiple types of skill sets and intelligence and one can be good in one and poor in another and still be intelligent/useful.

In fact, I would argue (as others have here) that it is the management/schmoozing that is the most important skill to have. Not only for businesses either. I am in the sciences in academics, so this is my natural perspective. And the truth is this: you can make the greatest discovery of the year in your field, but if you cannot communicate this well, you might as well not have made it -- because it will have little impact. On the other hand, you can make a fairly mediocre discovery, but communicate it well and you will impact the field significantly. Thus, the real significance of a discovery rests largely on how well it is communicated. This is just the way the world works. Again, there are multiple types of intelligence at work here.

Trying to judge intelligence is a loosing game -- even more so when intelligence is defined narrowly as proficiency in the maths and sciences.

I don't think that word (capitalism) means what you think it means.

Capitalism simply means that the providers of goods and services are privately held and controlled (as opposed to held by the government). It does not have any significance as to the manner in which the goods are sold, the rights that come with the sale, or condition of products sale and use.

Your entire argument is ridiculous anyway. You are not just buying 2 GB a month, you are buying the "right" to use the provider as well. Or do you think you own some physical 2 GB that you can use on your own, without AT&T? Since they are providing a service, they *should* have the ability to determine how they will provide this service. This is not a perfect analogy (what analogy is, but it is better than yours) but imagine you built a restaurant and you had a deal that customers could eat all the food you wanted in one hour for $10, but they had to use chopsticks. If they want to use a fork, it will cost you an additional $2. What is wrong with that? -- other than it is a dick move.

And that is the point about all of this. Charging more for tethering or not allowing is a dick move. But it is by no means outside of the rights of the company or capitalism or anything else. If you don't like it, buy another plan, go with another carrier, or write directly to AT&T. THAT is how capitalism works. It certainly does not work by granting you instant omnipotent rights to anything that you fork over money for. In the future, it is best to understand what you are talking about, before you speak...

For instance...

Not even close...

Where have I heard about that before?

The future is now :)

and according to the Slashdot comment principle it is impossible to post an insightful comment while simultaneously getting the joke that one is replying to