Slashdot Mirror
iPod: This Season's Must-Have for Muggers
KH writes "West Midlands police have issued a stark warning to iPod users: ditch the white headphones or pay the price." Apparently, muggers recognize the headphones and target passersby for muggage.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Of all the nice design aspects of the iPod, as far as Apple are concerned those distinctive white headphones have to the best. Portable devices need to be small, discrete, and easy to slip into a pocket, so you never really see them. Is that person with the headphones on listening to a Rio player? iRiver perhaps? Maybe Neuros? Or just a discman stuck in their bag? But you know damn well when you see someone listening to an iPod.
I'm surprised the others player manufacturers never cottoned on to this one: get the customers to do your advertising for you!
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
This reminds me of what my mother used to say:
Be careful of how hard you try to get attention, you may not garner the type you intended.
As much as MP3 jukeboxes and digital cameras keep getting smaller, they keep becoming better targets for thieves. Someone walking down the street with a 20 GB iPod, a Palm Tungsten C and a Minolta dImage is carrying about $1000 (US) in potential swag. That makes a car stereo system look like chump change. Sure, the fence would have to sell the items without accessories, but you can usually get those for a fraction of the cost of the item.
It's as if they tied me up for 30 hours.
Now, now, now, you were on to making a good point, and then you had to go get hysterical. No, it is not like they "tied you up for 30 hours." Yes, it sucks, but no, it is not false imprisonment.
Plus, chances are, you didn't actually WORK those 30 hours, but merely 15, and spent the other 15 reading slashdot, which is actually theft from your employer, so maybe he should kill YOU!
On second thought, why not just get it over with, and go for the gusto. Call it 'terrorism'.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
You've obviously never been mugged. It's not something to look forward to.
God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
I'll be damned if this isn't true. Prior to Apple introducing the White in-ear headphones, iPod users were buying Japanese imported Sony MDR-EX71SL headphones at really high premiums just so they didn't have to wear the black variety which is available in the states.
White headphones are like a status symbol now. I'm not sure if it's sad or funny.
(Full Disclosure: iPod + white headphones managed to brainwash me also)
let me get this straight: you're advocating that a big company track your movements using what amounts to spyware in the product that they sold you? They told me this part of Slashdot was different, but i didn't think it was this different ;)
#!/usr/bin/english
...I carry an iPod and also an H&K USP .40, fuck with my iPod and you're going to have some extra holes in your ass. Oh, sorry, I forgot you can't own guns like that in England, my bad :-/
-- Is it a right to remain ignorant? -- Calvin
I've been mugged 3 times. At no point was my life in danger at any point. Had guns been involved, it could very easily have been different. As the old saying, the absolute surest way of getting yourself shot is to carry a gun.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Anyway, the people with IPODs are no being mugged becuase of the IPOD. They are being mugged because of what the IPOD signifies. Someone who has an IPOD probably access to disposable cash and so make a richer target then other people. Also since this person is the kind of person to get an IPOD they are also less likely to put up a fight (ok I just made that up)
Anyway, the point is that Muggers are using IPODS for selection of their targets *and* they get a cool IPOD to boot
I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks
Sigs are dangerous coy things
So radio tags are bad because they track peoples' habits. Product activation is bad because it ties a product to a specific user. Global databases are bad because it's a violation of your privacy. However, when we are talking about your $300 iPod, then it's all good? You wouldn't mind having your device registered and activated and your usage tracked because Apple is the mighty and benevolent company? Now, if this was proposed in connection with a Microsoft product, how many "Big Brother" posts would we see?
That's the sound of my karma dropping
"Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
Actually, the warning in the article sounds like common sense. We live in a culture of capital--of possessions and class with who owns what determined by disposable income.
Apple certainly understands this which is why they introduce iPod models by threes, differentiated only by the size of the harddrive. It lets you say, 'look! I spent more money. Mine is bigger!'
Like it or not, the iPod is a device which announces that its owner has spent at least U.S. $300 on something easily stolen and eminently desireable. If you want to understand what that white cord looks like to a thief, imagine going to a bank and getting three fat stacks of singles, and then taping them to your chest with a post-it attached that says, 'Hi, you don't have this!'
It just makes sense.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Heh: there's just one problem about sending such messages in a volatile society, especially when you can't hear what's going on around you. The distance from preening signifier to damn easy pickings is much shorter than many realize.
Put these ingredients together--frontin' hipsters oblivious to their environment, the anger and hunger of the street, and the value of the iPod both as tech and music motherload--and it's probably poised to replace car stereos as the quickest score a thief can make.
I'm the last person to promote use of lethal force for protection of property. However, you're not understanding the nature behind the argument I feel.
A mugging is a violent act. In normal thinking parts of this world (IMHO) it's prefectly legal to respond to a lethal threat of violence with lethal force.
If I walk up to you, 10 feet away, and demand that you tell me you like me while pulling a gun on you to insure compliance I have put your life in danger. The level of my demands does not in any way, shape, or form effect the perceived threat level to your own person. It shouldn't at least. I don't care if somebody demands a stick of gum or my car -- if they pull a weapon my life is in danger and I not only have the natural right, but often the legal right, to respond with deadly force to neutralize the threat.
The wording of your reponse, "Killing someone to protect", just screams to me that you do not have any background in such areas. You do not shoot to kill, ever, you shoot to stop. A very small caliber round will kill a human being if given enough time. That is not the goal. The goal is to deliver a massive amount of trauma to their body to immediately stop all action on their part. That does not mean that you're trying to kill them. People shoot center of mass not because it's deadly, but because it's likely to stop the person. A shot to the upper thigh (if you hit a major artery) is horribly fatal despite what you see in the movies, however it's unlikely to IMMEDIATELY stop the attacker. Stopping is the goal, not killing.
I wouldn't shoot somebody over $300 dollars. I wouldn't shoot sommebody for any sum of money. The whole situation turns though once the perp presents the threat of deadly force.