Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
@puffnstuff: Not really. All of the systems set up are display models with price tags, so they're all treated the same way at the Fifth Avenue, SoHo, 14th Street and St. Catherine (Montreal) Apple stores that I've been to (don't know about the rest)
WiFi is wide open though, so you can surf as your heart desires, just not on their machines.
I use my iPod touch to check a lot of this stuff now, since people DO use the computers like an internet cafe in the store. On the one hand, it's not so fantastic to have more sites be banned from the network, but on the other, limiting what people can look at allows people who are actually planning to plunk down change to get a look through before handing over the dough.
This isn't unique to the Apple store. J&R has long-since limited what can be looked at on the browsers, because people ensconce themselves at the laptops, particularly the paltry handful they have laid out in the 4th floor Apple section.
I say we all start spreading the word: "Pssst. have you heard? Macs are incompatible with Facebook and Myspace. Don't believe me? Head on down to your local Apple store and see if you can make those sites come up on the computer. If you want to use either of those two sites you'd be better off buying a PC."
This is fucking Nazi bullshit. Why the fuck should they be able to say what I can and can't look at in their fucking stores. I'm not saying I should be able to look at porn and fap in the store but I should be able to use their free internet to look at Facebook.
Fuck MySpace - that's for design retards. But blocking Facebook is unconstitutional. I hope Apple gets sued for violating my First Amendment right to use Facebook. It's a public store and they can't censor the internet. It's illegal.
This is the sort of corporate fascist Nazi bullshit that corporations are able to get away with. And Obama hasn't done shit to stop it. Things are just the same as like when Bush was Prez. Companies getting payouts and running the country and telling us what we can and can't look at on the internet.
FUCK THEM ALL! FUCK APPLE FOR CENSORING AND FUCK OBAMA FOR LETTING APPLE CENSOR!
I'll do this for Giz so they don't have to go through the work on this useless post and can just copy and paste. Seriously, that was the most useless rant I have heard in a while. Apple owns their stores and censor WHATEVER they want.
Ths s fckng Nz bllsht. Why th fck shld thy b bl t sy wht cn nd cn't lk t n thr fckng strs. 'm nt syng shld b bl t lk t prn nd fp n th str bt shld b bl t s thr fr ntrnt t lk t Fcbk.
Fck MySpc - tht's fr dsgn rtrds. Bt blckng Fcbk s ncnstttnl. hp ppl gts sd fr vltng my Frst mndmnt rght t s Fcbk. t's pblc str nd thy cn't cnsr th ntrnt. t's llgl.
Ths s th srt f crprt fscst Nz bllsht tht crprtns r bl t gt wy wth. nd bm hsn't dn sht t stp t. Thngs r jst th sm s lk whn Bsh ws Prz. Cmpns gttng pyts nd rnnng th cntry nd tllng s wht w cn nd cn't lk t n th ntrnt.
@OMG! Ponies!: I hope that was some sarcastic trolling, to which I say nice job.
If you were serious then I think perhaps you have not enjoyed your mandatory daily allowance of pork fat today. If that's the case then you need a bacon infusion, stat!
If you haven't already done so please make sure you 'heart' him otherwise you risk facing the wrath of a +3 griddle of deliciousness being swung broadly at your cranium...
@OMG! Ponies!: God, that was brilliant. I loved it all even more because you let the clueless responses continue without feeling the need to reply and defend yourself. It was beautiful.
@Jrsy Devil's Advocate: In conclusion, Ponies' intention may have been the "absurd," but it was still in very poor taste IMveryHO.
I'm only upset that a normal commenter would have quickly been banned for such behavior. And while I've made some of my own comments that I've found humorous/absurd/ridiculous, however controversial, I have been banned for much less.
@admoseremic: In response to your belief that I somehow violated guidelines, I fail to see how. Here are the Lifehacker guidelines:
Stay on topic.
My comment was most assuredly on topic. It was blatantly indefensible but it was on topic
Contribute new information to the discussion.
Again, indefensible position. But it was not just "this sucks" or "what a bunch of douchebags".
Don't comment for the sake of commenting.
I comment a lot but I don't think I've EVER been guilty of this. Especially not in this post.
Know when to comment and when to e-mail.
I don't see any violation of this rule either.
Remember that nobody likes a know-it-all.
Not really applicable.
Make the tone of your message clear.
Maybe this is the one you have a problem with. "Sarcasm, in-jokes and exaggerations can easily be taken the wrong way in a public forum." Except that my comment went completely over-the-top. I blamed President Obama for not passing a law that would prevent Apple from banning Facebook on demo units in their stores. I posited that the Constitution protects my right to look at Facebook on a demo unit. I advocated suing Apple over store guidelines. Does this really sound like anything other than a joke? It doesn't.
Own your comment.
Have I ever not owned my comments?
Be succinct.
My comment wasn't long-winded either. It was a three and a half paragraph-long patently absurd diatribe.
Cite your sources with links or inline quoting.
Not applicable although you could argue that I should have had a link to the US Constitution or whatever law Apple was somehow violating.
Be courteous.
I don't think my original comment ever insulted anyone. Was it absolutely crazy? Yes. Did it insult anyone here? Not a soul.
Don't post when you're angry, upset, drunk or emotional.
Again, there wasn't any violation of this rule. I wasn't any of these. Moreover, the intent of this rule - to prevent you from saying something you'll regret - was not violated either. I have no regrets for posting an absolutely insane comment which numerous people mistook for genuine.
Do not feed or tease the trolls.
I wasn't trolling. Or being vindictive. Or disruptive. In fact, there is little difference between what I posted and some sincerely held beliefs on the legality and/or morality of file sharing. How is what I wrote more unacceptable than someone commenting "Bill Gates is such an asshole. I hope he dies!" or the standard "Windoze sucks" comment.
You called me out; you want me to defend myself. Here I am. And as you can see, there wasn't any violation of any rule. I don't sit here with the rules and fret if I'm crossing a line. I have a perfectly functional gut that does that. When I think I cross a line, I quickly and clearly say so. I fail to see what you think was so wrong about what I did.
@admoseremic: The second response immediately called it out as satire. Further, as Ho0ber best noted, "What the hell do YOU think? 'AND FUCK OBAMA FOR LETTING APPLE CENSOR!'" The satire and absurdity was not only spotted, it was publicized.
In spite of over a dozen comments by people warning that my comment was not meant sincerely, still more people thought I was serious. This has nothing to do with whether the meaning of my post was clear to the average layman; it was as numerous responses pointed out. Yet in the face of repeated warnings, people still thought I meant what I said. Is there a reason that they couldn't be bothered to read the responses? Six hours later, people still responded as if I was serious.
I offer an analogy. Let us say I set out a piece of delicious pie. In a giant steel bear trap like in cartoons. And I make no attempt to disguise the bear trap. It is very clearly a piece of pie on a plate set inside a giant bear trap. And I set it up in the middle of a driveway (where one does not often find a plate of pie). And then I put little orange flashing sirens (like little WOOT lights) around the pie. Is it my fault if a grown man is dumb enough to blithely take the pie, ignorant of the trap? I say "no".
At a certain point, we must not cater to the lowest common denominator. Half an hour later, EBone, who undoubtedly immediately knew I was not serious, came out an plainly said "This is a joke". And yet, people continued to actually try to debate what was clearly marked as a joke. I refuse to dumb things down that far.
As to my use of profanity, I believe that there's a time and a place for it. I know some people were taken a bit aback by me last year when I changed my screen name for a day to "Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits", which I did in honor of the late comedian and satirist George Carlin who had died the day before. Would I use this salty language on Lifehacker? No. It's a different audience. But Gizmodo is a forum that regularly traffics in articles on sex toys, toilet humor, ribald antics, and the defense of free speech in electronic media.
You have conjured up this straw man who somehow would be offended by what I wrote and would not be able to discern truth from fiction. I believe that in all honesty, this theoretical person is a mythical beast. Either that, or, for a moment you were duped and are deflecting blame.
"The second response immediately called it out as satire."
My answer: "It is now a little more than 7 hours after I posted the original comment." - hardly immediate.
"You have conjured up this straw man who somehow would be offended by what I wrote and would not be able to discern truth from fiction. I believe that in all honesty, this theoretical person is a mythical beast."
My answer:
pdditty, "Please tell me he's was being overly sarcastic"
TSlade, "Seriously? Or is that sarcasm?"
kd420, "You best be trollin', son!"
ripfire, "The best part is that you never know."
Chrisfu, "..."
MetallicaRat, "..."
Spero, "..."
Mobuto, "..."
e2drummer, "..."
squish123, "..."
etc, etc.
Your argument, "I was not sarcastic, I was SUPER sarcastic" is a poor one. You trolled whether you meant to or not is the point. In terms of your analogy, setting a trap is inappropriate, regardless of how obvious it may seem to the trapper.
Like I said, every comment should stand alone. I shouldn't have to rely on responses or previous posts to understand your meaning. I've seen MUCH more absurd comments from people who are being entirely serious.
Perhaps in your "elevated" commenting state, you have forgotten that there are those who are not as grand as you are.
You may consider me anal and I know you don't really care what I think, but in any case, our conversation has been fun.
"1. Dropping the f-bomb 7 times in one post is never in good taste or mature."
Ponies!'s post was parody. He's parodying people who post like that, so he uses the language. It's part of the joke. Minimizing the f-bombs would dilute the parody, make it seem less of a joke, and therefore more offensive. I'm Amish (Mennonite, actually), and I'm not offended, I'm amused.
"2. The intent of your post was obviously not entirely clear to everyone."
It never is. And any author or artist who attempts to make their intent sloppy obvious to everyone is usually a big bag of boring. There's always someone who doesn't get a joke, or doesn't get what you do. Making sure everyone understands your joke and no one is offended is a great way to suck as an artist, writer, musician, or pastry chef. After all, many believed Jonathan Swift was genuinely suggesting the Irish eat their children in "A Modest Proposal."
"3. To understand that your post was comical/absurd one had to be familiar with your previous hilarious postings (which I was, and yes I did understand)."
Not at all. The post was funny on its own, no need to know anything about who wrote it. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised people are discussing it as subtle or requiring background. It's a hilarious parody of convulsive fanboyism, the type of anti-Apple/anti-MS tirades made all the time, except made over-the-top absurd. It's obvious, and if it's not, then you got punk'd. And if there's one thing we've learned from MTV, it's to smile graciously when you discover your Lexus has been filled with cow shit. I'm also surprised that Ponies! is defending it, as if it needs a defense, except that he enjoys making a good argument. Come to think of it, why am I defending it? Didn't some smart guy once say "beware of people who analyze jokes rather than laugh at them"? Eh, fuck that smart guy. It's Saturday night, my plans fell apart, and SNL doesn't start for 10 minutes.
@SamburgerHandwich: That's faulty logic. Just because they sell it does not make it intrinsically good, they are not perfect and can have bad products. That is why they have displays at all so people CAN try it.
Unless you're just another idiot fanboy that give the possibility of fallibility in their Apple products.
@AdamHoang: Well, sure you can test drive the demo models all you want but when it comes time to purchase said computer they go and get one from the stock room. They don't unplug the demo and give it to you (unless it happens to be the very last model in the store) so just because the demo worked great doesn't say much at all.
It's when you get home and open that box you find out whether or not you've got a shiny new Apple or a damn lousy Lemon...
@Jrsy Devil's Advocate: you're right, but to say it is a product naturally just because apple is selling it does not mean it will be perfect either. I am all for testing, and yes there is always a possibility that it will be lemon.
@OGHowie: As a former Apple retail employee, I can tell you with 100% confidence that you'd be surprised how many people know how to get through those.
What they do not know, however, is how to disable remote management.
I've locked the screens and deleted the accounts of many myspacers, back in the golden days of '07.
02/06/09
02/06/09
WiFi is wide open though, so you can surf as your heart desires, just not on their machines.
02/06/09
This isn't unique to the Apple store. J&R has long-since limited what can be looked at on the browsers, because people ensconce themselves at the laptops, particularly the paltry handful they have laid out in the 4th floor Apple section.
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
Fuck MySpace - that's for design retards. But blocking Facebook is unconstitutional. I hope Apple gets sued for violating my First Amendment right to use Facebook. It's a public store and they can't censor the internet. It's illegal.
This is the sort of corporate fascist Nazi bullshit that corporations are able to get away with. And Obama hasn't done shit to stop it. Things are just the same as like when Bush was Prez. Companies getting payouts and running the country and telling us what we can and can't look at on the internet.
FUCK THEM ALL! FUCK APPLE FOR CENSORING AND FUCK OBAMA FOR LETTING APPLE CENSOR!
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
I'll do this for Giz so they don't have to go through the work on this useless post and can just copy and paste. Seriously, that was the most useless rant I have heard in a while. Apple owns their stores and censor WHATEVER they want.
Ths s fckng Nz bllsht. Why th fck shld thy b bl t sy wht cn nd cn't lk t n thr fckng strs. 'm nt syng shld b bl t lk t prn nd fp n th str bt shld b bl t s thr fr ntrnt t lk t Fcbk.
Fck MySpc - tht's fr dsgn rtrds. Bt blckng Fcbk s ncnstttnl. hp ppl gts sd fr vltng my Frst mndmnt rght t s Fcbk. t's pblc str nd thy cn't cnsr th ntrnt. t's llgl.
Ths s th srt f crprt fscst Nz bllsht tht crprtns r bl t gt wy wth. nd bm hsn't dn sht t stp t. Thngs r jst th sm s lk whn Bsh ws Prz. Cmpns gttng pyts nd rnnng th cntry nd tllng s wht w cn nd cn't lk t n th ntrnt.
FCK THM LL! FCK PPL FR CNSRNG ND FCK BM FR LTTNG PPL CNSR!
02/06/09
@TSlade:
What the hell do YOU think:
"AND FUCK OBAMA FOR LETTING APPLE CENSOR!"
02/06/09
It was a joke. That's what Ponies does.
02/06/09
You people need to chillax, Ponies is exempt from chillaxin' for obvious reasons.
02/06/09
Sometimes it's like you are virtual-fishing with a sarcasm float and a hook baited with irony.
I thought you were on top comedy form yesterday but whatever you ate for breakfast today seems to have put you in even better shape.
Anyone know the record for replies to a post?
02/06/09
Oh hell, I just added another reply.
02/06/09
02/06/09
I'm throwing away the star. Returning the spot in the HOF.
Closing down the account. It's over.
It's not just the comments, but the replies you engender.
You can have my comment allotment. I deed it to you.
*doffs hat*
*turns out light*
*closes door*
02/06/09
02/06/09
If you were serious then I think perhaps you have not enjoyed your mandatory daily allowance of pork fat today. If that's the case then you need a bacon infusion, stat!
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
Was?
Did he die and no one told me?
02/06/09
To all others.... POny was just playing...dont be skured.
When we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves.
--Cordfucious
02/06/09
02/06/09
Welcome to the Cult of OMG! Ponies!
If you haven't already done so please make sure you 'heart' him otherwise you risk facing the wrath of a +3 griddle of deliciousness being swung broadly at your cranium...
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
Ok Ponies... NOW THAT's a BACON EXPLOSION....
02/07/09
I thought it would never end..
02/07/09
I'm only upset that a normal commenter would have quickly been banned for such behavior. And while I've made some of my own comments that I've found humorous/absurd/ridiculous, however controversial, I have been banned for much less.
02/07/09
Stay on topic.
My comment was most assuredly on topic. It was blatantly indefensible but it was on topic
Contribute new information to the discussion.
Again, indefensible position. But it was not just "this sucks" or "what a bunch of douchebags".
Don't comment for the sake of commenting.
I comment a lot but I don't think I've EVER been guilty of this. Especially not in this post.
Know when to comment and when to e-mail.
I don't see any violation of this rule either.
Remember that nobody likes a know-it-all.
Not really applicable.
Make the tone of your message clear.
Maybe this is the one you have a problem with. "Sarcasm, in-jokes and exaggerations can easily be taken the wrong way in a public forum." Except that my comment went completely over-the-top. I blamed President Obama for not passing a law that would prevent Apple from banning Facebook on demo units in their stores. I posited that the Constitution protects my right to look at Facebook on a demo unit. I advocated suing Apple over store guidelines. Does this really sound like anything other than a joke? It doesn't.
Own your comment.
Have I ever not owned my comments?
Be succinct.
My comment wasn't long-winded either. It was a three and a half paragraph-long patently absurd diatribe.
Cite your sources with links or inline quoting.
Not applicable although you could argue that I should have had a link to the US Constitution or whatever law Apple was somehow violating.
Be courteous.
I don't think my original comment ever insulted anyone. Was it absolutely crazy? Yes. Did it insult anyone here? Not a soul.
Don't post when you're angry, upset, drunk or emotional.
Again, there wasn't any violation of this rule. I wasn't any of these. Moreover, the intent of this rule - to prevent you from saying something you'll regret - was not violated either. I have no regrets for posting an absolutely insane comment which numerous people mistook for genuine.
Do not feed or tease the trolls.
I wasn't trolling. Or being vindictive. Or disruptive. In fact, there is little difference between what I posted and some sincerely held beliefs on the legality and/or morality of file sharing. How is what I wrote more unacceptable than someone commenting "Bill Gates is such an asshole. I hope he dies!" or the standard "Windoze sucks" comment.
You called me out; you want me to defend myself. Here I am. And as you can see, there wasn't any violation of any rule. I don't sit here with the rules and fret if I'm crossing a line. I have a perfectly functional gut that does that. When I think I cross a line, I quickly and clearly say so. I fail to see what you think was so wrong about what I did.
02/07/09
In spite of over a dozen comments by people warning that my comment was not meant sincerely, still more people thought I was serious. This has nothing to do with whether the meaning of my post was clear to the average layman; it was as numerous responses pointed out. Yet in the face of repeated warnings, people still thought I meant what I said. Is there a reason that they couldn't be bothered to read the responses? Six hours later, people still responded as if I was serious.
I offer an analogy. Let us say I set out a piece of delicious pie. In a giant steel bear trap like in cartoons. And I make no attempt to disguise the bear trap. It is very clearly a piece of pie on a plate set inside a giant bear trap. And I set it up in the middle of a driveway (where one does not often find a plate of pie). And then I put little orange flashing sirens (like little WOOT lights) around the pie. Is it my fault if a grown man is dumb enough to blithely take the pie, ignorant of the trap? I say "no".
At a certain point, we must not cater to the lowest common denominator. Half an hour later, EBone, who undoubtedly immediately knew I was not serious, came out an plainly said "This is a joke". And yet, people continued to actually try to debate what was clearly marked as a joke. I refuse to dumb things down that far.
As to my use of profanity, I believe that there's a time and a place for it. I know some people were taken a bit aback by me last year when I changed my screen name for a day to "Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits", which I did in honor of the late comedian and satirist George Carlin who had died the day before. Would I use this salty language on Lifehacker? No. It's a different audience. But Gizmodo is a forum that regularly traffics in articles on sex toys, toilet humor, ribald antics, and the defense of free speech in electronic media.
You have conjured up this straw man who somehow would be offended by what I wrote and would not be able to discern truth from fiction. I believe that in all honesty, this theoretical person is a mythical beast. Either that, or, for a moment you were duped and are deflecting blame.
02/07/09
"The second response immediately called it out as satire."
My answer: "It is now a little more than 7 hours after I posted the original comment." - hardly immediate.
"You have conjured up this straw man who somehow would be offended by what I wrote and would not be able to discern truth from fiction. I believe that in all honesty, this theoretical person is a mythical beast."
My answer:
pdditty, "Please tell me he's was being overly sarcastic"
TSlade, "Seriously? Or is that sarcasm?"
kd420, "You best be trollin', son!"
ripfire, "The best part is that you never know."
Chrisfu, "..."
MetallicaRat, "..."
Spero, "..."
Mobuto, "..."
e2drummer, "..."
squish123, "..."
etc, etc.
Your argument, "I was not sarcastic, I was SUPER sarcastic" is a poor one. You trolled whether you meant to or not is the point. In terms of your analogy, setting a trap is inappropriate, regardless of how obvious it may seem to the trapper.
Like I said, every comment should stand alone. I shouldn't have to rely on responses or previous posts to understand your meaning. I've seen MUCH more absurd comments from people who are being entirely serious.
Perhaps in your "elevated" commenting state, you have forgotten that there are those who are not as grand as you are.
You may consider me anal and I know you don't really care what I think, but in any case, our conversation has been fun.
02/07/09
02/07/09
02/07/09
"1. Dropping the f-bomb 7 times in one post is never in good taste or mature."
Ponies!'s post was parody. He's parodying people who post like that, so he uses the language. It's part of the joke. Minimizing the f-bombs would dilute the parody, make it seem less of a joke, and therefore more offensive. I'm Amish (Mennonite, actually), and I'm not offended, I'm amused.
"2. The intent of your post was obviously not entirely clear to everyone."
It never is. And any author or artist who attempts to make their intent sloppy obvious to everyone is usually a big bag of boring. There's always someone who doesn't get a joke, or doesn't get what you do. Making sure everyone understands your joke and no one is offended is a great way to suck as an artist, writer, musician, or pastry chef. After all, many believed Jonathan Swift was genuinely suggesting the Irish eat their children in "A Modest Proposal."
"3. To understand that your post was comical/absurd one had to be familiar with your previous hilarious postings (which I was, and yes I did understand)."
Not at all. The post was funny on its own, no need to know anything about who wrote it. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised people are discussing it as subtle or requiring background. It's a hilarious parody of convulsive fanboyism, the type of anti-Apple/anti-MS tirades made all the time, except made over-the-top absurd. It's obvious, and if it's not, then you got punk'd. And if there's one thing we've learned from MTV, it's to smile graciously when you discover your Lexus has been filled with cow shit. I'm also surprised that Ponies! is defending it, as if it needs a defense, except that he enjoys making a good argument. Come to think of it, why am I defending it? Didn't some smart guy once say "beware of people who analyze jokes rather than laugh at them"? Eh, fuck that smart guy. It's Saturday night, my plans fell apart, and SNL doesn't start for 10 minutes.
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
Unless you're just another idiot fanboy that give the possibility of fallibility in their Apple products.
02/06/09
It's when you get home and open that box you find out whether or not you've got a shiny new Apple or a damn lousy Lemon...
02/06/09
sigh, its not a good day.
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
02/06/09
I doubt most of the people I see surfing the net there even know what that is.
02/06/09
What they do not know, however, is how to disable remote management.
I've locked the screens and deleted the accounts of many myspacers, back in the golden days of '07.
02/06/09
Are you saying that you're responsible for the increased suicide rate during that period?
02/06/09