Example number gadzillion and three why I don’t like Apple

“Rejected by Apple, Tawkon Radiation-Tracking App Launches on Android,” is the Wired story. It explains about two Israeli programmers who created an iPhone app — it measured radiation, but that’s not really important — and had it rejected by Apple.

The reason? “No interest.”

Um, excuse me? So every app for the iPhone has to meet Apple’s requirement of “interesting”?

It’s one thing to say that by closely supervising what’s available for the iPhone, Apple is protecting customers from malware. Oh, and “offensive” stuff — you can’t get non-family-friendly fare, either. But there’s no argument for rejecting an app simply because you don’t like it.

Sorry, folks. Android all the way. Or Windows 8. Or whatever else comes along. I don’t know why people are willing to put up with this. Can you imagine the screaming fits if Microsoft wouldn’t like a program run on Windows because it simply didn’t like it?

Can you steal Fios service?

Walking along the parklandish stretch behind my house (and the houses of my neighbors), I found an odd black cable just laying on the ground. It was labeled something like “Corning Fiber Optic Whatchamacallit.”

I followed it to a Verizon box in the ground:

Then I followed it the other way, till I saw it go into a neighbor’s backyard and up to his house.

Now, if this was plain ol’ cable I can see how easy it would be to steal. But this is fiber, and I would suspect it’s Verizon’s Fios service. I don’t think you can just plug into it the way you would with copper wire. But what do I know?

No, I didn’t ask for it — and you know it

Look here, Michael Krouse, The Los Angeles Tourism & Convention Board, and others like you: Don’t embarrass yourself by telling me, “You are receiving this message because you signed up for Los Angeles emails.”

No, I did no such thing. And you know that, so don’t try to make it sound like maybe I did something accidentally.

Tell the truth: I am receiving this e-mail because you bought a list from someone who says that I’m interested in travel and tourism. And you’re enough of a sucker to actually believe it.

In reality, I attended a conference (in DC) and gave my e-mail address. Somewhere in the paperwork was a disclosure that my information might be shared with “trusted partners,” which apparently included some e-mail list company that you used.

Fine. Just don’t pretend that I actually asked for your spam. Have a little integrity.

Handicapped pig

The Boy was playing with his new stuffed pig named Hamlet. Says he, “The trouble with playing Rock-Paper-Scissors with Hamlet is that he can only do rock.”

Non-sequitors and confusing logic from SCOTUS

Even when I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decisions, I usually see the logic behind the justices’ ruling. These aren’t small-town judges making head-slapping arguments; this is the high court, and every opinion makes sense.

But now and again one of the justices will make a comment that’s so ridiculous — so disturbingly ignorant — that it throws me for a loop.

Today’s decision that jailers can require anyone arrested to be strip searched — no matter how minor the crime — falls in that category. Not the actual ruling, though. I disagree with the court (or at least its Republican members; the ruling was split on party lines), but there’s logic to the ruling: It’s difficult for jail officials to know who’s dangerous and who isn’t.

What shocked me was this logic. I’ll quote MSNBC’s story:

The court also noted that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was initially arrested for not having a license plate on his car and that one of the 9/11 terrorists was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93. “People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals,” the court said.

In other words, the Supreme Court says that the ends justifies the means. There’s no logical connection between McVeigh and the 9/11 terrorists and jail strip searches.

The ‘logic’ the Court seems to be trying to invoke is that ‘violent people can be arrested for minor crimes.’ And that would make sense if McVeigh or Mohammed Atta had attacked a guard with a smuggled weapon.

But they didn’t!

The response to the Court’s rather foolish statement is, “Are you saying that strip searching Timothy McVeigh when he was arrested for not having a license plate would have changed anything?”

Because it wouldn’t have.

Or: “Are you saying that because Mohammed Atta was caught speeding, we should assume every speeder is a terrorist?”

The answer to that, at least according to the Court, is clearly Yes.

A reasonable example for the justices to give would have been one where someone arrested for something minor had snuck a weapon into jail. That would at least have bearing on the ruling. But referencing generic violent people to justify strip searches is an odd disconnect. I can imagine the defense lawyer saying, “Huh? What do they have to do with my client?”

Heck, if anything, citing McVeigh or the 9/11 terrorists supports the defense in this case: “You didn’t strip-search Timothy McVeigh, and he didn’t attack his jailers. What makes you think my client needs to be strip searched?”

I really wish I understood what SCOTUS was thinking when it said that. Because really, does it make sense to anyone?

Is a $60 game 60x as good?

Lore Sjöberg on $60.00 games vs. 99-cent games:

Look at it this way. You can pick up a large soda at a drive-through for 99 cents. Say you also have the option of buying a $60 soda. How large would that soda have to be for you to buy it? How delicious? I’ll tell you: That soda would have to actually be enthusiastic oral sex.

Could you be buried in this in a Jewish cemetery?

Bacon, is there nothing you can’t make better? Even death?

Meet the bacon coffin:

Another reason not to bet on Facebook

It’s not a good bet, either as an investment or as a long-term platform for your online presence: http://www.centurylinkquote.com/rise-and-fall