SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Paul Buchheit reports via Common Dreams
An emotional response to any criticism of the Apple Corporation might be anticipated from the users of the company's powerful, practical, popular, and entertaining devices. Accolades to the company and a healthy profit are certainly well-deserved. But much-despised should be the theft from taxpayers and the exploitation of workers and customers, all cloaked within the image of an organization that seems to work magic on our behalf.
1. Apple Took Years of Public Research, Integrated the Results, and Packaged it as Their Own
2. Even After Taking Our Research, Apple Does Everything in its Power to Avoid Taxes
3. Overcharging Customers
The manufacturing cost of a 16 GB iPhone 6 is about $200, and with marketing it comes to about $288. But without an expensive phone contract with Verizon, AT&T, or one of the other wireless carriers, the cost to the customer is at least $650.
4. Underpaying and Mistreating Employees
5. Apple Has Figured Out How to Spend Most of its Untaxed Money on Itself
Apple's View:
The tax-avoiding, research-appropriating, cost-escalating, wage-minimizing, self-enriching Apple Corporation has, according to CEO Tim Cook,[1] a very strong moral compass.
[1] Link in article redirects.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NoMaster on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:05AM
... it was a nice try, but I'm over it.
I realise gewg_ is supposed to be the resident demi-troll contrarian who adds a bit of colour to the site, but if I wanted rants from semi-educated fuckwits I'd be sitting in the park outside my office - the one with the earnest first-year undergrads congregating on one side, and the mentally-ill homeless guy with a grudge against the government standing yelling at everybody on the other.
At least I'd be outside enjoying the sun...
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:24AM
I realise gewg_ is supposed to be the resident demi-troll contrarian who adds a bit of colour to the site, but if I wanted rants from semi-educated fuckwits I'd be sitting in the park outside my office -
And what makes you think you are not, at this very moment, sitting in said park, only :: virtually! With Unicorns! And squidies. I have often wondered by virtual reality is so much suckier than what appears to be real reality, . . . unless . .. . OMG! This is the Matrix! But then that means . . . OMG!! gewg_ is either Agent Smith, or Morpheus!!!! I could use a good Trinity about now, because the whole thing is starting to get creepy. I mean, could a corporation like Apple actually exist in real world? So what are the possible explanations?
Oh, one more thing, if you are leaving, to where are you going? Any door leads back to the park, or, . . . sandworms.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:43AM
What we ever do without all your invaluable submissions? [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Aichon on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:29AM
You're treating this as an e-peen contest, with the result being that you're missing the point entirely. Besides, even if it were a contest, this is a community-driven site for which there are numerous ways to contribute, such as by providing highly-rated comments as he did on a semi-regular basis [soylentnews.org]. Submission count is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of metrics, but kudos to you for discovering that it's an effective tool in the shallow person's arsenal for convincing people that they're better than others.
As for what this is all about, trading blows in fanboy wars is all well and good, but that article was complete drivel, and the summary was nothing more than a highlights reel of headings from the article. If your first response to criticism is to attack the messenger, rather than to recognize that the article you linked was littered with logical self-contradictions, conspicuous omissions and convenient cherry-pickings of the facts to mislead the reader, deliberate appeals to emotion, and a one-sentence lip service to the only patently illegal issue they raised, then I'd suggest that the guy you just said "good riddance" to was entirely justified in rethinking his stay here.
Hell, I'm inclined to rethink mine too.
Do you get bonus points for driving folks away with your submissions?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:42AM
you're missing the point entirely
No, I was being silly. GMAFB.
Do you get bonus points for driving folks away with your submissions?
Absolutely! Right now, my karma is...
Oh, wait...
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Troll) by BasilBrush on Wednesday May 20 2015, @10:35AM
Presumably you have a positive Karma because you don't log in when you write trolling shit like this. And can't get modded down for the braindead submissions you post either.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:35AM
you [...] can't get modded down
You can't possibly be that stupid.
(Watch that get mod'd down, moron.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:11PM
gewg articles make it to the front page not because there's some grand editorial conspiracy to "spice it up," but because he submits articles. If people want more of different sorts of articles, they should submit them. I check the queue every morning and if there are fewer than 20 in it I make the rounds to other sites I frequent to see if there are any interesting ones to submit to SN. I wish more Soylentils did so, because honestly I get a little sick of checking my same old sources all the time and would like to learn about new, interesting sources that other Soylentils have pre-vetted.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khchung on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:15PM
Articles should not be posted just because someone submitted it.
Yeah, it sucks to have nothing new on the site for some time, and yeah, of course it would be good if more people submit quality articles. But when the only choice is between having fewer new articles, vs having more crap articles, I personally vote for having fewer.
"More" doesn't always mean "better", and "more crap" definitely means "worse". Not having the ability to filter articles by submitter, then "more crap" just means more effort for me to skip articles from certain submitters.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:55PM
Or you personally could commit to submitting 1 non-crap article per day.
I personally use this template:
Article Source [arstechnica.com]:
Conversation starter sentence in the form of a statement, quip, or question.
It takes about 5-10 minutes per submission. If you, like many people, start your day scanning headlines while having your morning coffee, it's very easy to wrap up something interesting you see and throw it into the SN submission hopper.
It seems a better path than the false dichotomy of "Many crap articles" vs. "Few non-crap articles." And it's infinitely better than the regrettably common response of, "Somebody better do the work of submitting more articles I like, or else!!!"
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Thursday May 21 2015, @12:21AM
Or you personally could commit to submitting 1 non-crap article per day.
So, rather than discuss the relative merits of the *actual choices* currently faced by the editors, you choose to, instead, basically just say "put up or shut up". Is it any wonder that some would choose to just leave? As NoMaster did?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 22 2015, @02:57PM
Take a look at the submissions using the link at the upper-right corner of the page. Those are what the editors have to choose from. If we, the SN community, make that list long and full of "better" submissions then the editors have a lot more to work with.
If NoMaster pans the submissions of others and does nothing himself to submit better articles, even going so far as spending 5 minutes to send one in on a regular basis, then speaking for myself, yes, it's "put up or shut up." I have spent a lifetime organizing, building communities, etc, and pandering to tantrums is quite counterproductive. First, it's demoralizing to the good people who volunteer their time to get no thanks, only barbs like NoMaster's hurled their way; they say to themselves, "Why should I bother?" and drop out. Result: the community dies. Second, it rewards free-riders. Third, it enables willful sabotage (I could drop a link to the NSA & GCHQ's leaked playbook on how that's done, but you can google it yourself). The person who criticizes an endeavor like Soylent from a positive place, and who wishes it to improve and thrive, will put skin in the game. Those who do not will behave as we have seen NoMaster do.
In short, don't complain about the cooking unless you're prepared to do the cooking, yourself.
Washington DC delenda est.