RSS Sponsor: Serial Reader for iOS ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Serial Reader delivers literature to your iPhone or iPad in daily snippets you can read in 20 minutes.

It’s built with the idea that if you keep a streak going, you can read through classic novels and short stories in days. Each day, you receive a new issue from classic books. Each issue can be read in spare moments; it’s perfect for folks who feel like they don’t have time to do serious reading.

When serialized in this way, you can plow through even the most daunting piece of literature in days, right on your iPhone or iPad! It’s an easy and fun way to reread your favorite works or discover new treasures. Dozens of classic works are available now (from Pride & Prejudice to The Dunwich Horror to Moby Dick), with more added nearly every day.

Serial Reader is available for free on the App Store for iPhone and iPad.

Regarding Donald Trump’s comments on libel law ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Hadas Gold at Politico, quoting Donald Trump:

“One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

While shield laws are designed to give reporters the right to refuse to give up their sources, journalists aren’t immune to being charged with libel.

Trump says that big newspapers are allowed to do what they want because they are “completely protected,” but that’s just not true. Proving libel, however, is difficult. According to the Associated Press Stylebook, a plaintiff must be able to prove these five things:

  • A defamatory statement was made.
  • The defamatory statement is a matter of fact, not opinion.
  • The defamatory statement is false.
  • The defamatory statement is about (“of and concerning”) the plaintiff.
  • The defamatory statement was published with the requisite degree of “fault.”

The “actual malice” clause is often cited in libel cases, but the term is a little tricky. The thought is that if a reporter or organization published something with the knowledge that it was indeed false, it was done so with “actual malice.”

Trump claims that these newspapers are publishing “false articles,” but if the articles are factual, and merely contain content that he finds displeasing, it’s not libel.

Reporters are allowed to comment with opinion. Again, from the AP Stylebook:

The right of fair comment has been summarized as follows: “Everyone has a right to comment on matters of public interest and concern, provided they do so fairly and with an honest purpose. Such comments or criticism are not libelous, however severe in their terms, unless they are written maliciously. Thus it has been held that books, prints, pictures and statuary publicly exhibited, and the architecture of public buildings, and actors and exhibitors are all the legitimate subjects of newspapers’ criticism, and such criticism fairly and honestly made is not libelous, however strong the terms of censure may be.” (Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Pr. Co., 1930.)

Accurate reporting, no matter how distasteful it may feel to certain people, is a critical part of our democracy. The fact that a leading Presidential candidate wants to upset the balance is worrisome.

However, as with a lot of his comment, Trump is speaking to something that a President can’t actually control. Not only is Congress the branch of government in charge of laws, there are no federal libel laws. Libel is defined differently, state-to-state.

Loosening these laws is a troubling thought. Donald Trump can surely outgun just about any media organization on the planet when it comes to funding legal fights. The implication that he’d try to bend legislation for personal gain shouldn’t be surprising at this point, but it is terrifying.

Slowness is killing the Apple Watch ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Dan Moren, at Six Colors:

The problem with the Apple Watch is that we’re being asked to strap something to our wrist—to attach it to our very body—without it delivering on the corresponding promise that it will be much faster to use than our phones. The stale data and the lack of speed means that either you have to stare at your Watch for several seconds and hope the data updates; or tap on the complication to load the Watch app, which as we all know takes a good long while as well; or simply give up and pull out your phone.

It’s not just that the Apple Watch is slow; it’s that it’s slow while promising to be faster.

I’ve more or less given up on this generation of Apple Watch ever being fast enough to not be frustrating at times. Native apps helped, but I really think it’s going to take a hardware revision to make this better.

Apple files motion to dismiss court order to force the unlocking of the San Bernardino iPhone ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Matthew Panzarino:

“In order to comply with the Gov’t demands, Apple would need to create a new “GovtOS” and FBI forensics lab on site that has the potential to be used on hundreds of phones now in law enforcements possession in conflict with existing law as well as the First and Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” says Apple in the act.

Apple also states that the request violates Apple’s constitutional rights. The demand violates Apple’s First Amendment rights against compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination. Apple wrote code for its operating system that reflects Apple’s strong view about consumer security and privacy. By forcing Apple to write software that would undermine those values, the government seeks to compel Apple’s speech and to force Apple to express the government’s viewpoint on security and privacy instead of its own.

The motion can be read here, and even though I’m no lawyer, I think Apple’s points are made pretty clearly here. This is how the motion is opened:

This is not a case about one isolated iPhone. Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe.

The government demands that Apple create a back door to defeat the encryption on the iPhone, making its users’ most confidential and personal information vulnerable to hackers, identity thieves, hostile foreign agents, and unwarranted government surveillance. The All Writs Act, first enacted in 1789 and on which the government bases its entire case, “does not give the district court a roving commission” to conscript and commandeer Apple in this manner.

In fact, no court has ever authorized what the government now seeks, no law supports such unlimited and sweeping use of the judicial process, and the Constitution forbids it.

Siri rumored to come to Mac in OS X 10.12 ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Mark Gurman, writing at 9to5 Mac, says Siri is coming to the next version of Mac OS X:

Siri on the Mac will have its own pane in System Preferences and users are said to also have the option to choose a keyboard shortcut for activating the service. Like with recent versions of iOS, users will be able to enable Siri at the first startup of OS X 10.12, according to sources. If the Mac running the new OS X version is plugged into power, a “Hey Siri” command will work much like with recent iPhone and iPad models.

I’m surprised it has taken this long for Siri to make the jump to OS X. Gurman’s report says:

Apple had been testing versions of OS X internally with Siri integration since at least 2012, but sources now say that Apple has a clear vision for Siri on the Mac along with a polished user-interface and is nearly ready to launch the feature publicly.

I’ve often thought about the UI Apple could use for Siri, and while I’m not thrilled about another icon in the upper-right corner of my screen, I think Siri makes more sense as a menu bar item then as part of Spotlight or Notification Center.

While I’m not sure I’ll be talking to my MacBook, I think Siri will be a nice addition to the Mac. The service has come a long way over the last couple of years, but I do think that the lack of a system for third-party apps to tie into Siri is going to become even more frustrating on the desktop. I guess we can cross our fingers that one day that’ll happen, too.

Apple’s Love of Cameras: Remembering the QuickTake and iSight

⌘ Permalink

Since 1994 with its first consumer offering, Apple has been a company that loves cameras.

Apple has been into cameras for a long time with its iOS devices, computers and even iPods.

Of course, today, we use FaceTime video without a second thought, but a decade ago, video chatting seemed like magic. In 2003, Apple brought it to the masses with iChat AV and the iSight camera.

The small aluminum-clad camera captured 640×480 video along with audio. All of this ran to the Mac over a FireWire cable. The unique design allowed the camera to be attached to any Mac, right above the screen for optimal placement. It’d set you back $149.

If you were a Mac user in 2004 and were serious about video conferencing, you probably had an iSight in your bag.

But the company’s quest to make cameras is older than the iSight.

Way back in January 1994, Apple released the QuickTake 100. Powered by Kodak technology and in a form factor that seems downright strange today, it could shoot at 640×480 photos captured with 24-bit color.

The QuickTake 100 was one of the first digital cameras marketed to consumers, but the camera cost $749 and it didn’t sell very well.

But 90s Apple was nothing if not relentless in the pursuit of products that didn’t always make sense for their time. It released the QuickTake 200 in 1996.

For sale less than a year, this camera was built by Fujifilm and looks a lot more modern than the 100 does. It has an LCD on the back as a viewfinder and a removable media card. It shot in the same .3 megapixels as the previous QuickTake cameras, but supported three, user-selectable focal points: close up, standard and portrait.

This QuickTake didn’t do very well either, and was killed when a certain someone (Steve Jobs) came back to the company. While most of the weird stuff Apple did in the 90s is gone, its love of cameras continues today.

On upgrading older Mac minis ⇢

⌘ Permalink

Brian Stucki at Macminicolo:

Since we buy so many Mac mini parts, I’ve noticed some real trends over the years. When it comes to upgrading Mac minis, I think we’re in a pretty nice sweet spot right now. I think that most people don’t know the current opportunity so I thought I’d do some digging and get some of that data out.

Brian is right; upgrading an old Mac mini is cheaper than ever before, and these machines are definitely worth the investment.

I currently have three Mac minis in use. One is at home, hooked up to our TV. It serves a couple of big file volumes to the home network and runs iTunes 24/7 to feed the Apple TV. It’s a Mid 2011 machine with a 2.3 GHz Core i5, 8 GB of RAM and a 512 GB SSD. You’d never know it was five years old. I use this machine daily, and it rarely feels slow. Handbrake is the only time I wish I had more CPU at hand.

I have two machines at Macminicolo. The first is the machine that hosts the Relay FM live feed. It’s also a 2.3 GHz Mid 2011 model, but has 16 GB of RAM and a spinning hard drive. In addition to streaming audio for live podcasts to the web and our app, we use this machine to sync a ton of shared Dropbox folders back to one place for backup to Backblaze. If I interacted with it more, I’d put an SSD in it, but it feels plenty fast for the type of tasks it completes.

The most robust Mac mini in my growing army is a Late 2012 machine I just set up with Brian’s company. I’m using this machine for personal backups and a few little projects I’m tinkering with. It has the ever-coveted quad core i7 processor with a 256 GB SSD and 16 GB of RAM.

Here’s the thing: if I didn’t know which of these machines was fastest, I wouldn’t be able to tell you which was which. It’s amazing what an SSD and some RAM will do for these little computers.

While the current Mac mini retains the same form factor, it is far less upgradeable than the machines I’m using. The RAM is soldered to the board, which is ridiculous in a computer that’s form factor doesn’t justify it.