Thread: The new iPhone (5)

Hey Daffy, have you thought about getting one of these wonderful iPhone cases?

^ Do you believe everything you read? Apparently, you do.

Seriously, I had $10 riding on you just discarding and discounting anything I would say, and true to form, you did.... particularly being selective about what you acknowledged, and what you pretended wasn't said.

You demanded sources - I provided sources.

Subsequently, you discount those sources, and the only supporting "source" you provide is... yourself. The old "because I say so" argument.

It really grows tiring dealing with you guys, who will fabricate or lie about anything, because of that chip on your shoulders. Get over it!

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

^ Do you believe everything you read? Apparently, you do.

Seriously, I had $10 riding on you just discarding and discounting anything I would say, and true to form, you did.... particularly being selective about what you acknowledged, and what you pretended wasn't said.

You demanded sources - I provided sources.

Subsequently, you discount those sources, and the only supporting "source" you provide is... yourself. The old "because I say so" argument.

It really grows tiring dealing with you guys, who will fabricate or lie about anything, because of that chip on your shoulders. Get over it!

I'm quoting from your source, your links.
You've done an ENT. ( https://teakdoor.com/2140526-post65.html )
Yes, Foxcon raised the wages (to the legal minimum)
Everything else they do pretty much to China standards as well.
Nothing particularly great or notable about them.
They stopped the suicides (According to your links) by stringing nets around the tops of the buildings.
What's your problem?

Let's face it Foxconn and Apple have done the minimum to stop the bad press, as they usually do. Otherwise they'll squeeze those poor Chinese labourers as hard as they can and pay them as little as they can.

Originally Posted by Koojo

I'm quoting from your source, your links.
You've done an ENT. ( https://teakdoor.com/2140526-post65.html )
Yes, Foxcon raised the wages (to the legal minimum)
Everything else they do pretty much to China standards as well.
Nothing particularly great or notable about them.
They stopped the suicides (According to your links) by stringing nets around the tops of the buildings.
What's your problem?

I'm sorry that the facts don't match what you want them to be. You'll have to deal with that on your own.

I did paste the relevant quotes. You're just pulling an ENT and pretending they aren't there. Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

I did paste the relevant quotes. You're just pulling an ENT and pretending they aren't there. Have a nice day.

In what post number?

In fairness to Daffy, Foxconn provide slave labour to Microsoft as well.

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

I did paste the relevant quotes. You're just pulling an ENT and pretending they aren't there. Have a nice day.

In what post number?

https://teakdoor.com/computer-news/10...ml#post2141534

But I've pointed out the errors in that already.
The suicide one is good.
Blaming it on the death payout.
But It's most likely the net.

"Most likely?"

So, you admit you don't know?

They set up nets early on - several more suicides followed (determined people will find a way); they terminated the death benefits - no further suicides. None.

You do the math.

You also conveniently ignored:


Quote:
"As a top manufacturing company in China, the basic salary of junior workers in all of Foxconn's China factories is already far higher than the minimum wage set by all local governments," the statement said.

Furthermore, minimum wage in Shenzhen (highest in China) was raised to 1,500 yuan in 2012. Foxconn is paying 1,800 (to 2,200). Not sure about your math, but that sure looks higher by 300 to 700 yuan -- can you figure out the percentage?

http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2...standards.html

How active in auditing and forcing changes are Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, Asus, etc...

Do you know?

(Crickets, crickets)

^ Perhaps they aren't quite as bad to their employees in the first place?

You moron, their stuff is made in the same places, or places with much worse records.

You are a serious cretin.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

You moron, their stuff is made in the same places, or places with much worse records.

You are a serious cretin.

Oh dear, looks like Daffy is losing his rag, and spouting the first thing that comes to mind without any evidence.

That's not like you, Quack Quack, calm down now and refute my claims like the grown up you claim to be.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

You moron, their stuff is made in the same places, or places with much worse records.

You are a serious cretin.

Oh dear, looks like Daffy is losing his rag, and spouting the first thing that comes to mind without any evidence.

That's not like you, Quack Quack, calm down now and refute my claims like the grown up you claim to be.

Looks like he's not even reading what he replies to now.
Take cover, he's going to blow a gasket soon.

Well I looked at this year's 100 Best Corporate citizens (which includes in its ranking Employee relations, Human rights and Environment), and fuck my old boots if Apple aren't on it?

Dell are 37.
HP are 27.
Intel are 4.
Microsoft are 3.
IBM are 2.

Obviously Sony, ASUS and ACER aren't on it, they aren't American;

but the significant thing is that Apple are nowhere to be seen.

Get the point now, stoopid?

Apple's PR for its products might be shit hot, but its PR for its employee relations is just shit, what with the Foxconn nightmare and this weeks story about it putting the squeeze on its own employees by brainwashing them.

Obviously, with the shop plant they organised talking about her awesome pay rise, their PR company is now trying to do something about it.

Still have a bit of work to do, though.

Oh dear, it seems the trick of outsourcing to take the focus off FoxConn hasn't taken the heat off Apple.

Rights group says Apple suppliers in China breaking labor laws

By Lee Chyen Yee | Reuters – 2 hrs 10 mins ago


HONG KONG (Reuters) - Apple Inc's suppliers in China have violated local labor laws when they imposed excessive overtime and skimped on insurance, a New York-based labor rights group said.

Apple and its suppliers such as Taiwanese tycoon Terry Gou's Foxconn Technology Group have been the target of labor rights groups, which say the world's most valuable technology company are making iPhones and iPads in massive sweat shops.


"From our investigations we found that the labor rights violations at Foxconn also exist in virtually all other Apple supplier factories, and in many cases, are actually significantly more dire than at Foxconn," China Labor Watch said in a 133-page report released on Thursday.


A four-month investigation through April showed workers work up to 180 hours of overtime a month during peak periods, exceeding the legal limit of 36 hours per month, the group said, citing Riteng, a unit of Taiwan's Pegatron Corp, as an example.


Some factories also omit medical insurance as required by the law while workers are exposed to hazardous conditions, according to the report.
China Labor Watch interviewed 620 workers at 10 factories run by Apple suppliers, including Toyo Precision Appliance and BYD Electronic (International) Co.


The group also spoke with workers at factories run by units of Quanta Computer Inc, Wintek Corp and U.S.-listed Jabil Circuit Inc.
The companies couldn't be immediately reached for comment.


"As part of our ongoing supplier responsibility program, our team has conducted thorough audits at every facility in China Labor Watch's report," Kristin Huguet, an Apple spokeswoman based in Cupertino, California, said in an e-mail.


"In some places, our auditors found issues similar to those described by China Labor Watch, including overtime violations," she said, when asked to comment on the report.


DISMAL CONDITIONS


The report singled out Riteng for dismal work conditions, saying workers work almost 12 hours a day, longer than 10 hours a day at Foxconn, Apple's main supplier.


Half of Riteng's workers described safety conditions as "bad," more than Foxconn's 2 percent, according to the report.


The average hourly wage at Riteng is 8.2 yuan ($1.29), well below the average rate 10.2 yuan at Foxconn.


The Pegatron unit was not immediately available for comment.
Labor groups say wages have generally been on the rise, though the growth has been slower than inflation.


"Wages are certainly going up, but they are still a very long way from what you consider a decent wage because inflation in the major cities in southern China is going up all the time," said Geoffrey Crothall of China Labor Bulletin.


"It's generally better at the larger factories, but the problem with Foxconn and a lot of the other Taiwanese, Hong Kong-owned manufacturers, the management culture there is still very authoritarian, quite dictatorial. People say it's quasi-
military."


James Wu, a spokesman for Catcher Technology Co, which was also mentioned in the report, said the proportion of short-term labor it employs without having to provide severance compensation was actually lower than that described by China Labor Watch.


"Our dispatch rate is 20-30 percent, lower than the rate of around 80 percent mentioned in the report," Wu said.


Catcher also put their workers through a three-day training program to prepare them for their jobs.


"In summary, our company provides benefits for workers that exceed basic requirements," Wu said.


MAKING CHECKS


Apple said it had been making checks at its supply chain partners and regularly publishes reports on workers' situation on its website (Apple - Supplier Responsibility).


The company, which monitors worker hours of more than 700,000 workers in its supply chain, said it had been following up to make sure suppliers comply with its labor standards.


Workers typically have little legal representation in China, where labor laws are sometimes not strictly enforced. Unions are also often not effective in providing feedback to management, labor rights groups said.


Following a spate of critical reports detailing unsafe factory practices at Foxconn plants that triggered worker deaths and suicides, Apple this year allowed the U.S.-based Fair Labor Association (FLA) to conduct a high-profile probe of Foxconn's factories in China.


"The process of change in our company continues, and competitive wages, improved living conditions and the abolition of the use of dispatched workers by our company are some examples of this," Foxconn said in an e-mailed statement.


"Our considerable investment in this process will change our industry through the positive example we are setting for other companies." ($1 = 6.3554 Chinese yuan)


(Additional reporting by Clare Jim in TAIPEI, Sisi Tang in HONG KONG and Tim Kelly in TOKYO; Editing by Ryan Woo)

Hey Daffy, have you been emailing MacWorld by any chance?

Karen Haslam - Apple's grammatical mistake in product name shocker

Wed, 27 Jun 2012
Apple has made a serious gramatical error in the naming of its products [irony], as one reader has gone to great lengths to point out to us.
Who’d have thought a simple story about Apple’s MacBook Pro with Retina Display could offend a Macworld reader so greatly.
Yesterday we published this story: Apple replacing MacBook Pros with faulty Retina displays
One reader was so incensed by our use of the plural form of MacBook Pro that he took it upon himself to educate us as to the correct use of the word.
We had written MacBook Pros.
He insists the correct way to describe the plural of MacBook Pro would be MacBooks Pro.
Sit back and enjoy the email exchange…
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The original email


From: [Pedantic reader]
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 1925 +0100
To: karen haslam
Subject: Illiteracy (yours).
I realise that it may be unreasonable to expect a British journalist to have any command of literacy, these days, but if you could grasp the fact that the plural form of MacBook Pro is MacBooks Pro, not "MacBook Pros", you would make yourself look a lot less foolish and uneducated when you write.
"MacBook" is a noun; "Pro" is an adjective applied to it. When you are referring to more than one MacBook Pro, the correct grammar is to pluralise the noun, not the adjective.
(Does the Haslam household, when discussing two cars that are red in colour describe them as "reds car"?)
You need to address this perpetual sloppiness in your publication if you expect anyone to treat it with any respect.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A polite response from myself


From: Karen Haslam
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 2136 +0100
From: [Pedantic reader]
Subject: Re: Illiteracy (yours).
I'm very confused by your reasoning. Maybe you should take that issue up with Apple, since in this case the MacBook Pro is the name of a product. In plural those Macs would be known as MacBook Pros. Like a group of iMacs.
Thanks for your comments though.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Here’s his response …


From: [Pedantic reader]
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:55:30 +0100
To: Karen Haslam
Subject: Re: Illiteracy (yours).
Well, I'm surprised by your confusion and lack of education.
In the absence of the latter you need to address this from first principles.
What is actually confusing you is basic English grammar.
It is the noun (in this case MacBook) that one pluralises, not the adjective (Pro) in the title pertaining to the MacBook.
One doesn't pluralise adjectives, in English.
(The French do - in French, plurally, they're called MacBooks Pros.)
Perhaps red cars (as opposed to "reds cars") was a bad example for me to choose in trying to explain it to you because in that case the adjective precedes the noun. A better automotive one would have been the Audi quattro. A group of those cars would be Audis quattro, not "Audi quattros". It's the Audis that there are a bunch of; it isn't a pile of drive systems for an Audi.
An example easier for you to grasp, perhaps, would be court martial. The plural of court martial is courts martial, not "court martials". If you don't believe me, look it up.
The plural of Sergeant Major is Sergeants Major, not "Sergeant Majors". You can look that up, too. They're Sergeants in rank, not a variety of Major. See how confusing things can get when one is imprecise and adds the "s" to the wrong word?
It isn't just restricted to military titles and ranks. Consider judges. The plural of Lord Justice is Lords Justice, not "Lord Justices".
A group of businessmen may all be managing directors but a group of BBC chief executives are Directors General, not "Director Generals" and a bunch of Rupert's finest are Editors-in-Chief, not "Editor-in-Chiefs".
These are fundamental rules of the English language. You should have been taught them at school.
Whether or not Apple always gets its grammar correct in referring to its products is neither here nor there. Illiteracy by Apple (or anyone else) does not change the rules of grammar nor render it excusable in journalists. Grammar, not Macs, is what should be sacrosanct to a writer. It, like spelling, is a basic imperative for a journalist. And yours is deficient.
Like it or understand it you may not, but the plural of MacBook Pro is MacBooks Pro and the plural of MacBook Air is MacBooks Air.
That's just the way it is, in English.
("British English" as Apple has the outstanding arrogance and impertinence to call it.)
Apple may name its product the MacBook Pro or the MacBook Air - which is fair enough - but Apple can't then change the rules of English language when it refers to more than one of them: it has no status nor authority so to do.
You seek justification by pointing out that the plural of iMac is iMacs. Indeed it is. But consider the PowerPC variants. Would you call those, say, a G5 iMac or an iMac G5?
In plurality, a G5 iMac would become G5 iMacs but an iMac G5 would become iMacs G5, not "iMac G5s". Whichever way round you put it, the plural form becomes iMacs and the G5 - be that as an adjectival prefix or an adjectival suffix - remains singular.
These distinctions matter because, correctly applied, they prevent confusion. And one of the most important things for a journalist to do is to avoid creating ambiguity.
Consider this disambiguation: MacBooks Pro are computers for professional people; whereas MacBook Pros are people who are professional at using MacBooks.
If you were brought up by folk who said things like "It's me" instead of "It's I" or "Who do you mean?" instead of "Whom do you mean?", such grammatical errors can become deeply ingrained and hard to eradicate. But eradicated they need to be, because they betray ignorance by the perpetrator of them in understanding how a language is constructed. And, more importantly, such mistakes aren't acceptable in journalism or in any other professional writing.
The worrying thing is that you are described as an editor. It's an editor's job to instil grammar into journalists. You are teaching yours that grammar doesn't matter.
At the end of the day, you have two choices here. I've pointed out to you a persistent, published shortcoming in your grammar. Either you can sit down, work out the logic of it and then correct your terminology (even if Apple doesn't), or you can choose to ignore this, carry on regardless and continue to demonstrate to anyone with an education that you are illiterate every time you write "Macbook Pros" and "Macbook Airs" (irrespective of whatever Apple may call them).
What and who you humiliate publicly if you persist in doing this is your magazine and yourself. Your readers you merely irritate.
My own advice to you would be to think all this through carefully, instead of simply firing back inaccurately from the hip as an immediate and unconsidered reflex action.
I don't suppose you will be able to grasp this but what I'm actually trying to achieve, here, is to do you (and your publication) a favour by stopping you from repeatedly - and apparently unwittingly - making a fool of yourself to educated people with your illiteracy. Because much of your readership is educated, even if you aren't.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
By this point a colleague has also sent a response…


From: Mark Hattersley
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:50:30 +0100
To: [Pedantic reader]
Subject: Re: Illiteracy (yours).
MacBook Pro is a compound noun
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Which gains the following response from our reader…


From: [Pedantic reader]
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:52:23 +0100
To: Mark Hattersley
Subject: Re: Illiteracy (yours).
Indeed.
So is "court martial".
So is Sergeant Major".
So is "Lord Justice".
So is "Sergeant Major".
So is Director General".
So is "Editor-in-Chief".
They're all compound nouns and, in English. the correct plural form of all these examples adds the "s" to the first word, not to the final word.
How can anyone educated possibly think that MacBook should be pluralised to MacBooks but that MacBook Pro should be pluralised to "MacBook Pros"?
And, for your own part, those who presume to lecture me on literacy would do well to learn how to punctuate a sentence with a full stop before they try to.
Sloppiness seems to pervade your publication. Sadly, it would appear to filter down from the top.
:-)
PS. Apple's OS 10.7.4 in-built spelling-checker tried to force me to spell the word education "educatation", and kept changing it to that, when I wrote to Karen.
So, I don't think we should attach too much importance to Apple's concept of spelling, now that Steve Jobs and his zeal for perfection has passed away.
At least it taught me to switch off OS 10.7's default "automatic correction" option with this glaringly obvious misspelling before it started introducing unnoticed errors retrospectively into what I write.
Perhaps that's something to which you should alert your readers (and even, dare one suggest it, your staff) ?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lucky for us, we know a investigative journalist who put her exploratory skills to use to uncover the following from Apple’s website


Exhibit 1: MacBook Pros returns 6 results on Apple’s website

Exhibit 2: MacBooks Pro returns 0 results on Apple’s website

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A further response from our very own Mark Hattersley pointed to the Smart Car


From: Mark Hattersley
Subject: Re: Illiteracy (yours).
Date: 27 June 2012 1440 GMT+01:00
To: [Pedantic reader]
Well language is mutable so you're welcome to your own opinion. But...

What it generally isn't referred to is two 'Smarts Car'.
(Editor's note: ok, this isn't a great example because Smart is an adjective, but it's funny!)
You're welcome to write your own rules at any time though. That's the joy of life.
But you will have to put up with people mocking you in the Apple Store. Or at least glancing weirdly behind your back. You don't hear children asking for two Cocas Cola because their friends will laugh at them. But you know... Free country and all that.
If you're a stickler for explanation it's to do with base words and objects (trademarks) - but am sure you already know all that. You could argue (not that many people do) that trademarks should never be pluralized. We think it's perfectly fine to pluralize objects.
If it's all the same to you we'll stick with what we've got. But we're totally fine for you to keep on referring to them as MacBooks Pro and we'll stick with MacBook Pros if you don't mind.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Tune in for the response we are bound to get soon...


*No readers were harmed in the posting of this blog
(We've been directed to this post that demonstrates that Apple would side with us on this subject.)

Posted by: Karen Haslam

Originally Posted by Koojo

Looks like he's not even reading what he replies to now.

That would be something you are quite familiar with, n'est ce pas?

I's nots be getting one of them Macsbooks Pro that's for sure.