Since T-mobile anti-iPhone ad are great, their pro-iPhone ads could be delicious

Apple’s revolutionary iPhone coming next to T-Mobile USA?

[Via MacDailyNews]

Now that AT&T’s exclusive hold on the iPhone in the U.S. is over…

[More]

T-Mobile went right after the iPhone in their ads, although they really hit at ATT and its network. Smart since they want the iPhone on their network. So they really made the iPhone a great phone with a bad carrier.

It was a nice campaign that burned no bridges with Apple. So if the get an iPhone, I expect some cute ads.

Is Google evil?

by toprankonlinemarketing

Slashdot Comment on Google Dropping H.264 in Chrome
[Via Daring Fireball]

“Znu”, on Slashdot:

This serves two strategic purposes for Google. First, it advances a codec that’s de facto controlled by Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable international standards bodies. (“Open source” != “open standard”.) And second, it will slow the transition to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which codec to use for HTML5 video, which benefits Google by hurting Apple (since Apple doesn’t want to support Flash), but also sucks for users.

Don’t be evil.

[More]

Pushing a system where they have more control than another system is good business. Being able to use their own products to push that system, even better. And, if they stop YouTube from using the other system, then they can use other areas of the corporation to help support this while shutting out competitors.

Driving business away from their competitors and towards themselves is pure capitalism. But cloaking it under a desire for open source software?

Is this really a case of ‘Do no evil’ or is that just a marketing phrase used to fool us?

It was a big frigging laser

by dcJohn

Point a laser at a police helicopter, go to prison
[Via Ars Technica]

A United States District Court in Massachusetts has sentenced a 52-year-old resident of the Boston area to three years imprisonment for pointing a laser at a police helicopter. He was found guilty of one count of “willfully interfering with an aircraft operator with reckless disregard for human life” and another of making false statements.

That brief description doesn’t do justice to the incident in question, so we obtained a copy of the court investigator’s affidavit to get more details on the case.

[More]

The title made it seem a little unfair. But reading the article, it was obvious that this was not some little keychain laser he pointed at the pilots but a laser usually used in laser light shows. It is dangerous to look directly into.

And he confessed to it just like in the TV shows. He even showed them all the other lasers he had. Luckily he appears to have been an idiot but it makes one think about what might have happened with someone smart, evil or both.

More and more iPhones for us all

Verizon to push Apple’s iPhone with major ‘marketing muscle’ – report
[Via AppleInsider]

Following this week’s announcement that the iPhone is finally coming to Verizon, a new report claims that the largest wireless provider in the U.S. plans to advertise Apple’s handset heavily over competing Android phones.

[More]

I hope that we are not inundated with so many iPhone ads as to make us sick of them. I wonder if Apple has any say in the tone of the ads?

Not only does blood libel ratchet up the explosive rhetoric, but her logic is internally inconsistent

by Jules Minus

The Caucus: Palin Calls Criticism ‘Blood Libel’
[Via NYT > NYTimes.com Home]

Sarah Palin used an emotionally laden phrase in a video denunciation of journalists and pundits who blamed political rhetoric for the shootings.

[More]

:Let’s start off with this, a comment by Palin that tries to support the proposition that there is no connection between violence and hatred and the works of pundit, journalists or politicians:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

That proposition may be true but her rhetoric is quite wrong. Of course, the vast majority of what has been written by journalists, pundits and leaders has been for leaders to tone down the rhetoric because words can have consequences. When specific people are mentioned, it has been the talk show hosts, the pundits and the political leaders who are examined. Not all the citizens of the state, the people who listen to talk radio,, not the people who vote or any of the other examples she discusses. This is a classic straw man argument. It misrepresents an opponent’s position. Classic logical fallacy.

But, here is the inconsistent part . She first states that the incident bears no connection to the heated vitriol heard daily. That its actions stand on their own and that what is talked about has no effect on creating hatred and violence. She then makes a statement that completely contradicts this proposition.

The quote that is getting all the attention, which was its purpose of course, is:

Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Now most are concentrating on the atrocious use of blood libel, a historically loaded word with explosive ramifications when a Jew was almost assassinated. She is appropriating a phrase with very specific meaning and applying it in a way that completely twists it in ways to make people angry. That is reprehensible.

But it is the second part of the sentence I want to focus on. She states that the pundits on the other side who manufactured this libel are inciting violence and hatred by what THEY write. That they are only pretending to condemn the violence while actually working to incite it.

So, conservative hate radio – just free speech. Liberal pundits commenting about hate radio – inciting hatred and violence.

My side – no connection between vitriolic speech and violence. Their side – direct connection between rhetoric and violence.

My speech – independent of violence. Criticism of my speech – incites violence.

Using the term ‘blood libel’ – civil speech. Telling politicians to be more civil in their speech – inciting hatred.

As she rails against liberals for falsely saying that political speech can cause violence, she accuses them of using political speech to cause violence. Situational ethics is not something I find appealing in a politician.

I guess her argument is smart politics but it is disturbingly dumb rhetoric. I really dislike dumb rhetoric.