×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

189 comments

Huh? (3, Interesting)

zenyu (248067) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922257)

It didn't change for me. I still need to scroll down to see it no matter the browser window size.

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

JavaBear (9872) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922333)

The removed the resizing script that forced the size of the top ad to ensure the apology would be outside the screen, regardless of the resolution and size of your screen.
Instead they just set the top ad to the maximum size the resize script had it at. Aka a "big ass ad".

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922459)

so instead of deliberately hiding the apology, it's now automatically hidden. See? Better! /facepalm

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922603)

Exactly, they just made sure you'd have to scroll even if you disable javascript. If I can't see it on a full-screened browser at 1920x1080, it's because they didn't want me to. They don't seem to have any problem making sure I can see the ad copy they WANT me to see.

No, your honor, I did not kill that man. Yes, I wired the doorbell for a million volts, replaced the welcome mat with a grounded copper plate, and then invited him over for tea, but he's the one who touched the doorbell button! It was suicide!

Re:Huh? (5, Interesting)

garyebickford (222422) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923971)

Yes, I wired the doorbell for a million volts, replaced the welcome mat with a grounded copper plate, and then invited him over for tea, but he's the one who touched the doorbell button! It was suicide!

Ah, I am reminded of the joys of youth! Of course, in my case was only a 13KV neon sign transformer, and I was the one invited in by my brother, to his bedroom door across the hall. The plate was aluminum foil, under the door mat. It arced between my foot and the mat, and between my hand and the doorknob. The muscle contractions tossed me across the hall, through the door, over my bed and I landed against the window. Big fun! :P He wanted to make sure it wasn't dangerous before he tried it on his friend...

Re:Huh? (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922919)

The removed the resizing script that forced the size of the top ad to ensure the apology would be outside the screen, regardless of the resolution and size of your screen. Instead they just set the top ad to the maximum size the resize script had it at. Aka a "big ass ad".

So, to "defiant" and "contemptuous" we can add the adjective "sneaky" to describe the spirit of Apple's compliance with the court order.

Childish. Not sneaky. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923893)

Sneaky implies some form of cunning.

They are a stunning cunt. Not the spooner version.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922351)

"While you still have to scroll down in almost cases, the company is no longer forcing it;"

Jesus Christ, people. It's in the text of the post.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922633)

They're not forcing it with Javascript anymore. Now they're forcing it by making the parts they actually want you to see bigger. I fail to see why a poor attempt at obfuscating their clear motive is an improvement.

Re:Huh? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922659)

It's still forced, just in a different way. If you explicitly block the image, (humorously named hero.jpg ) the apology immediately shows up. without resizing.

Re:Huh? (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923297)

It's visible on my 2560x1600 main monitor but off-screen on my side 1920x1080 monitors. I thought it was supposed to be prominently displayed...

Re:Huh? (1)

devleopard (317515) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923317)

I'm a bit of a hack design wise, but doesn't "hero" suggest a large block, not "hero" as in the superhero sense? ("Hiding legal notices in a single img tag!")

I say that because a giant block with padding is classed "hero-unit" in Twitter Bootstrap.

Needs scroll and is obscured by Mac Mini ad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922553)

It's worse than just needing to be scrolled down for me, on Firefox under Linux using the max window size on a 1920x1200 monitor.

A key part of the statement is obscured by an overlaid advert for the Mac Mini which covers the text, and so the paragraph makes sense at all.

It's certainly not effective as an apology.

If we assume that Apple is technically competent and so could easily make the statement visible if they wished, the fact that it is not visible means that Apple is taking the piss again.

Re:Needs scroll and is obscured by Mac Mini ad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923693)

Maybe you should assume that you or your browser is borked.

Re:Needs scroll and is obscured by Mac Mini ad (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41924059)

An effective apology should not be made browser-specific.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922585)

It just means you're an almost case.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923101)

Before, the image above the apology was set up so it auto-sized to fill up the space until the browser view was 1600 pixels tall, at which point it stopped. (Mind you that you couldn't see the apology, the image knocking it off the bottom just stopped getting larger.)

Now, in order to see the apology without scrolling, your browser window needs to be 1700 pixels tall, and the image doesn't change size depending on the browser window size.

So, yes, it's an "improvement." Now NoScript doesn't make the apology visible.

Incidentally, they're just showing both ad campaigns they're running at the same time. On the US website, you either see the iPad Mini or the iPad 4th gen ad. On the UK, you always see both, so that the apology gets knocked off the bottom in nearly all use cases.

I'm really hoping that the judge will force them to make the apology "click-through" on every page they control and show in the UK after this bullshit.

So What. (0)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923927)

More to the point We are just Mad at Apple because Samsung was Pushing Android A Linux Based OS, made by our favorite company Google.
If this was say Nokia with Windows Mobile. We probably would laugh on how Apple is sticking it to Microsoft.

Re:Huh? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#41924493)

It didn't change for me. I still need to scroll down to see it no matter the browser window size.

Same here and there's also no apology there or at the link it says I should click on. It's just legal details an nothing that could remotely be called an apology. So yep, get ready to see that apology laser etched onto the back of all iphone 6's in the near future because I don't think the UK courts have a sense of humor over this.

Still hides for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922275)

I'm viewing it from the US and it still has that JavaScript snippet.

Re:Still hides for me (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922437)

I'm viewing it with Javascript disabled and it's underneath some images of the iPad mini.

Court ordered apologies are bunk (1, Redundant)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922277)

Everybody knows they're not sorry. All court-ordered apologies do is remind us that people in authority aren't satisfied unless you agree with them. Then they can go home satisfied, knowing that their world view is intact. All they really did was use coercion to force somebody to lie. Apple is not sorry. Everybody knows it.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (5, Insightful)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922343)

I'm kind of OK with Apple being held down and fucked in the ass. The fact that they don't like anal (aren't sorry) is kind of the point; it's all the more horrible for them.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (4, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922491)

So two wrongs make a right? Apple's wrong was apparently to make some false statement about Samsung. Actually, now that I've scrolled down (Chrome, 1680 by 1050 when full screen), I see that it's more like a retraction than an apology. Retractions of false statements make good sense. I'm fine with that. Other news stories were calling it an "apology".

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922515)

It's "wrong" to force a company to post a meaningless statement on their website as part of a court judgement against them? Really?

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (3, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922637)

An apology isn't meaningless. It means you are truly sorry for what you did. If you aren't truly sorry, and an authority coerces you to make such a statement, then yes. It's wrong. It looks like that's a lot for people to wrap their heads around here, especially when they don't like the person being coerced.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (2)

kubernet3s (1954672) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923061)

The point is if they aren't sorry, they should be. The court can't order them to feel sorry, but it can order them to act like it.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (4, Funny)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922763)

You reminded me of a horrible joke, you know, the one that says that two wrongs don't make a right, but to Wrights make a plane.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923321)

So two wrongs make a right? Apple's wrong was apparently to make some false statement about Samsung. Actually, now that I've scrolled down (Chrome, 1680 by 1050 when full screen), I see that it's more like a retraction than an apology. Retractions of false statements make good sense. I'm fine with that. Other news stories were calling it an "apology".

Fines somewhere around 50% of their gross revenue would have been more appropriate, but you take what you can get.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923667)

Interesting point, retraction vs apology, So through all these shenanigans they've managed to distract the courts from the fact that they no longer display the court mandated text on the home screen? Yeah, I know there is a link to the text inside the retraction. But does the text of the retraction actually meeting the mandate of the court?

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923099)

The judge probably told their lawyer simply, stop this shit, or your European CEO gets a year jailtime for contempt. I'm reasonably certain, if they would have tried a fine, it would have taken a lot longer.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (1)

Scowler (667000) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923865)

How does this post get +5 insightful, and the GP only +2 Redundant? How is that even possible??

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (5, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922387)

Time to make them print some posters and put them on the main entrance doors of every apple store in the UK. Nothing else on the poster, just the apology. In two-inch tall Helvetica. Make them keep it there for a month. Any attempts to obscure the text or make it difficult for the public to see result in contempt of court and 30-day jail time for the head of Apple.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923151)

Time to make them print some posters and put them on the main entrance doors of every apple store in the UK. Nothing else on the poster, just the apology. In two-inch tall Helvetica. Make them keep it there for a month. Any attempts to obscure the text or make it difficult for the public to see result in contempt of court and 30-day jail time for the head of Apple.

No... to really hammer it home as part of a judgement, it should be in two-inch tall Arial Bold. Have Apple suffer having to display some competitor's ugly font. This may actually convince them not to do it again.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923697)

How about Comic Sans, wouldn't that be a more painful font?

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923923)

No... to really hammer it home as part of a judgement, it should be in two-inch tall Arial Bold. Have Apple suffer having to display some competitor's ugly font.

I take it that you felt Comic Sans would be *way* too sadistic? :-)

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923201)

Printed on an inkjet (non-Epson), posted outside on a rainy day.

WTF? (3, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922427)

Everybody knows they're not sorry.

Do you honestly believe that corporations have feelings?

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922479)

Everybody knows they're not sorry.

Do you honestly believe that corporations have feelings?

Of course! After all, they ARE people, my friend!

Re:WTF? (2, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922577)

Do you honestly believe that corporations have feelings?

No. That's why I typed they're which is a contraction of they are. "They" is a gender-neutral plural of he or she, which means that I'm referring to 2 or more people.

If I thought corporations were people, I might have said "Everybody knows he or she is not sorry", or if I were a believer in corporate personhood and a true fan boy I might have typed "Everybody knows He is not sorry".

Oh, and before anybody else points it out... (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922731)

"Apple is not sorry" shouldn't imply a belief in corporate personhood either. What's the appropriate grammar for expressing an attitude likely to be held by the members of a group, without implying corporate personhood? "Apple are not sorry"? Meh. Makes them sound like the Borg. It's my understanding that in common usage phrases like "The AARP said", or "Congress ruled" are shorthand for collective action that doesn't imply a belief in corporate personhood. OK folks, what's your suggested phrasing that wouldn't imply a belief in corporate personhood when discussing these matters?

Re:Oh, and before anybody else points it out... (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922817)

OK, I think I just answered my own question. "The people who run Apple" would work, or more specificly, "representatives of Apple"; but you know what? It's just not as pithy. This gets us back to something that I've observed over the years and may have attempted to forumulate as "laws":

1. There is no limit to what can be inferred from what you type on the Internet.

2. Any attempt to limit inference will result in lengthy, unappealing prose.

These two "laws" are one of the reasons I've participated less over the years...

Re:Oh, and before anybody else points it out... (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922869)

The English approach is somewhat helpful: "Apple are not sorry". Apple is merely the name of a group of people so the word is treated as a plural.

Corporations are People! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922743)

Here in the US Corporations are people. Just ask Mittens.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922849)

Most entities composed of people have feelings.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923629)

"Corporations are people, my friend"

Re:WTF? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923941)

"Corporations are people, my friend"

Doesn't that make Bain Capital an abortion clinic?

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922453)

It has nothing to do with what Apple does or does not think. In fact, the court wasn't even forcing them to "lie" or even apologize, properly speaking, it is forcing them to publicly set the record straight about the facts of the case, which is that Samsung was found to not be copying them after Apple claimed they were. It's a correction of the public record, not an apology.

Blame the media for this thread (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923091)

They've been calling it an apology. Now that I've dug into it a bit, it sounds more like a retraction. This might also be yet another case of Americans and British being "divided by a common tongue". Maybe a retraction is called an apology over there.

Anyway, stick a fork in me. I'm done. AFK. Lunch.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#41924467)

It has nothing to do with what Apple does or does not think. In fact, the court wasn't even forcing them to "lie" or even apologize, properly speaking, it is forcing them to publicly set the record straight about the facts of the case, which is that Samsung was found to not be copying them after Apple claimed they were. It's a correction of the public record, not an apology.

... except that they also had to remove the statement of facts that were also in the public record, namely the quotes from the judge's opinion and the statement about other cases. "Too much truth" apparently was just as bad as "too little".

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922545)

Having the apology etched into the back of every device in at least 5" size on the exterior would have made me happy. For every new product they ever design.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922583)

What the court-ordered apology does is provides consequences for their actions that go beyond just a fine that usually is less than the profits received from whatever immoral act that caused the court-ordered apology.

You know the math. If the profit of doing something illegal is less than the fine then you do the illegal thing. This type of punishment changes that equation.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923947)

You know the math. If the profit of doing something illegal is less than the fine then you do the illegal thing.

Provided of course that "you" are morally and ethically challenged, as Apple seems to be doing its level best to prove to the world.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (1)

RanCossack (1138431) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922595)

Then they can go home satisfied, knowing that their world view is intact. All they really did was use coercion to force somebody to lie.

You'd think so -- that forcing a bully to apologize was pointless as they never mean it -- but what other solutions are there? Public shame is very effective in the schoolyard. You may be right that it's just the teacher's worldview that shaking down the kid in glasses for lunch money is wrong, but that -- oh. Wait.

Yeah, I guess... um. Would a fine as a fraction of a company's profits work better? The way these companies try to "use coercion to force" the competition out of the market is pretty troubling.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923213)

Public shame is very effective in the schoolyard.

Agreed. And obviously it's actually having an impact at Apple, considering how had they've worked to avoid the spirit of the judgement. Apple is about image. If you want to set things straight, you don't fine them, you force them to publicly tarnish that image to set the record straight. Kind of hard to do the ol' "repeat it until everyone believes it" schtick when you're forced to refute it on your most visible message platform.

Re:Court ordered apologies are bunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922679)

Techinically, it's not supposed to be an apology. They aren't required to be "sorry" or "show remorse". All they are supposed to do is say that their ads were lies. And they didn't even do that.

dom

I still have to scroll... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922291)

I still have to scroll...1920x1080 monitor, using firefox.

If it's not visible without scrolling to me, who the heck is it visible to?

Re:I still have to scroll... (2)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922369)

No problem on my 1050x1680, but I can definitely see that it would be below the screen if I didn't have my monitor vertical.

Re:I still have to scroll... (1)

jittles (1613415) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922689)

Well the judge didn't specify that you should be able to view it without an Apple Cinema Display ;) They're just trying to push monitors so Samsung employees can look at their apology.

nope.avi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922309)

Still hidden via Chrome on W7

My immediate assumption: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922421)

'Oh, they've removed it entirely, have they?'

Right.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922457)

Without javascript turned on, there's an additional fifth advertisement block that is located below the first one on the left, effectively blocking a portion of the apology and rendering anything beneath as 'garbage that should not be read'.

With javascript supported Iron, I had to scroll down. Maybe I haven't zoomed back enough, or my 2560x1440 resolution is not modern enough for Slashdot's standards.

Not that I really care about the apology, but the article is bunk as seems to be the quality of increasing amount of *today's slashdot editorials.

*The last year or three.

-Second decade Slashdotter.

No references to other cases? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922499)

Did the previous iteration of the apology also lack any references to other cases?

But at least the Brits can see it... (1)

Micklaine (944721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922505)

When I read the headline, I thought it meant that Apple was only displaying the apology on its UK site and in so doing was "hiding" the apology from everyone. Gave me a good laugh to think that something posted to a UK site would be considered hidden. "Well sure the English can see it, but does that really count?" The real story was less funny and more disappointing (as far as Apple's actions go).

Judge should make Apple stop dicking around (5, Insightful)

wiegeabo (2575169) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922559)

It's sad that if the judge doesn't spell out every little detail of how the apology should appear, the company will take advantage and try to 'hide' it.

The judge needs to assign further penalties on Apple. And every time they do something like this, slap on another, larger penalty. Like the old punishment for kids that always interrupt or talk back.
"You're grounded for the weekend. And don't argue."
"That's not fair!"
"Two weekends. Don't say another word."
"But-!"
"Three. Wanna go for four?"

"You're going to post an apology."
"Fine." *hides it in the paper*
"Not good enough.$100,000, and do it again."
"Fine." *hides it on the website*
"Not good enough. $500,000. Wanna try for a million?"

Re:Judge should make Apple stop dicking around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923141)

It's sad that if the judge doesn't spell out every little detail of how the apology should appear, the company will take advantage and try to 'hide' it.

The judge needs to assign further penalties on Apple. And every time they do something like this, slap on another, larger penalty. Like the old punishment for kids that always interrupt or talk back.

If I'm not mistaken, and IANAL so I could be, contempt is punishable by prison. If Apple goes on being creative on this matter, it might happen.

Re:Judge should make Apple stop dicking around (1)

Scowler (667000) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923769)

Or maybe the judge should just stick to the usual penalties, i.e. injunctions and fines. The fact that you don't even question the wisdom of this kind of unusual, subjective judge's order is telling.

Re:Judge should make Apple stop dicking around (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923885)

At this point, they just need to make Apple put it in the centre of the entrance door of every single Apple Store in UK, with predetermined text, font and size.

Still Hidden (0)

Jagungal (36053) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922587)

Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.

Re:Still Hidden (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922711)

Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.

Just like Slashdot has hidden your comment, because I have to scroll down to see it?

Re:Still Hidden (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923207)

Yes. Studies have repeatedly shown that the more times you have to scroll or click to see something, the less likely you are. Courts have struck down this sort of game for apologies, terms of use (where there is an actual contract involved) and other gaming. Here, the apology is two actions away, a scroll down, a read through smaller print than average on the page and then a click to a new page. As for slashdot, yes, they do hide comments. They put more highly modded towards the top, and minimize comments below a threshold (not to mention hiding those at an even lower threshold). In fact, the only reason I found this comment was that I did a search for "slashdot" just to see if anyone would make this comparison.

Besides, "hidden" does not mean "unfindable," it means that some effort was done to keep you from seeing it or that you need to put forward effort to find it. Either way, this comment AND the apology on the apple website are hidden.

Re:Still Hidden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923843)

No, because Slashdot did not configure the graphics on the page to make it LOOK as if you are at the bottom of the page when you really are not. Furthermore, forcing the page to automatically resize the graphics to constantly reinforce the illusion that you are at the bottom of the page is also something that Slashdot and other websites with nothing to hide are NOT doing.

It's Apple's evil equivalent to intoning, "These are not the apologies you are looking for."
 

Re:Still Hidden (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year and a half ago | (#41924105)

Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.

Just like Slashdot has hidden your comment, because I have to scroll down to see it?

I don't think he was ordered to post his comment by a judge.

Still "buried"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41922629)

It should be displayed like a click-through spash page. In other words, top-left show Apple logo or standard menu bar, then below, show the appropriate Court judgement.

The first thing I see when going to apple.com is not the judgement, but instead an ad for the iPad Mini...hmmmm...remove the ad, and we have lots of room for the judgement text. Funny that. Even going straight to apple.com/uk/ shows a gigantic ad for the iPad Mini, with the judgement link appearing below the copyright text. Who is honestly going to read the judgement unless they are actively looking for a link to it? It's still buried.

N O B O D Y C A R E S (-1, Redundant)

kiriath (2670145) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922701)

Please, for the love of all things good and holy STOP WITH THE APPLE V SAMSUNG POSTS!

o.O

I'm grumpy now.

Re:N O B O D Y C A R E S (1)

A bsd fool (2667567) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922877)

More politics then? 2020. Your predictions??

Re:N O B O D Y C A R E S (0)

kiriath (2670145) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923233)

Not interested in politics either.

Just tired of all the drama. If I wanted to see drama I'd watch ANY tv channel. I come to slashdot for news and information that is relevant, and something I probably didn't already know, and drama is something I know exists and don't need to be reminded of daily on the site I go to 'get away' from all of the other nonsensical BS out there.

Re:N O B O D Y C A R E S (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923509)

Don't read the summary?

Re:N O B O D Y C A R E S (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923159)

Please, for the love of all things good and holy STOP WITH THE APPLE V SAMSUNG POSTS!

o.O

I'm grumpy now.

N O B O D Y C A R E S

Re:N O B O D Y C A R E S (1)

danomac (1032160) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923787)

Nobody's forcing you to read the summary, or go into the article to read comments/post...

Re:N O B O D Y C A R E S (0)

kiriath (2670145) | about a year and a half ago | (#41924513)

Sure, of course nobody is forcing me to read anything. This argument is almost as dead a horse as the article itself.

I *want* to read articles on slashdot, because I generally find them interesting. In *this* particular case I have seen enough, and I am sure that a lot of people feel the *exact* same way. Go troll someone else' posts.

Re:N O B O D Y C A R E S (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41924039)

Apple spend more on advertising than R&D and thieving other companies' designs and illegally using patented technology choosing not to pay licenses. They have control of over 90% of the media by giving them "exclusives" all the while the they don't post anything negative about them. Apple disrespecting a court decision, twice, is big news.

Apple have a large pile of cash, a fair chunk belongs to those they've been stealing from since they went into the mobile phone space. Their time is almost up, whether you like it or not. The "largest company on the planet" is in trouble.

Apology is not there (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922795)

At the bottom of the screen, had to scroll down, is a paragraph stating that they did not correctly follow the apology ruling, and a link to an "apology".
This apparently new "apology" is just a statement of what the ruling said, and in no way could be considered an apology. And let me reiterate, it is NOT on that or any Apple homepage, it has its own specific page (http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/).

Proper British apology (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923237)

Credits: "We apologize for the fault in the apology. Those responsible have been sacked."

Later: " We apologize again for the fault in the apology. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked."

Yet another Apple "litigation" story on Slashdot (-1)

Scowler (667000) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923111)

Let's see, that's at least twenty litigation posts related to Apple in the last 6 weeks.

How many posts talking about the A6 processor? Zilch. How many talking about the Nano refresh? Zilch. iPad update? Zilch. iPad Mini intro? One involving a cost comparison to Amazon, but none actually talking about a feature comparison. How about a feature comparison or technology review on any aspect of the iPhone 5? Zilch. (At least there was one post talking about the iTunes refresh. Wow, congrats guys.)

Heck, I'd be thrilled to see something as mundane as a feature-by-feature comparison of Samsung Galaxy S3 versus iPhone 5, irregardless if the conclusion shows one or the other winning, as long as it was technology focused and more or less objective.

But no, we've lost sight of technology and all we care about is this patent / litigation news, as well as wild talk of walled gardens. (I have yet to see even a single insightful post talking about what a walled garden is really about.)

Re:Yet another Apple "litigation" story on Slashdo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923351)

If you want that, fuck off to Roughly Drafted.

Re:Yet another Apple "litigation" story on Slashdo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41924293)

You dont have to read the post. It is very obvious from the title what it is about. So if you are in any way surprised it is your own fault.

I came here explicitly for all you fantards (both sides) to duke it out in your own little bubbles of ignorance.

Thank you for providing me with entertainment (i notice you are one of the more active in this story...)

Just turn your monitor the right way! (1)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923289)

Funny, I see it just fine on my portrait-mode 1080p display...

A Company Called Apple (1)

alanmeyer (174278) | about a year and a half ago | (#41923433)

"I apologize. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my remarks may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat such a slander at any time in the future."

yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923723)

main picture on www.apple.com/uk is bigger then www.apple.com - so i assume they got rid of the java script but made the picture bigger to make up for it - still forcing people to scroll down (even more) then they would normally have to?

OMG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41923825)

There's an iPad mini? Thanks for the link!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...