Better than it was before? Better, stronger, faster, with more free pron? Did you mean something like:
"with more free pron? Better than it was before? Better, stronger, faster, "
The more I hear about stock trading, the more I wonder if it should be outlawed. Why shouldn't I be able to invest in a company (And I don't mean buying some of its shares from someone else.) and expect to make a return based on dividends, not based on selling my investment to someone else? Would not that be at the bottom line trading based on the products rather than companies?
Well, this is all theory, but...
1) pick it up
2) look at it
3) observe the battery cover or lack thereof
Of course, it's only a theory, and not a complete one. If, for instance, you lacked hands, you would have to perform step 1 with nubs, which is a less-than-ideal system. If you were blind, then perhaps you would have to feel it in step 2 rather than looking at it. And god help you if you're blind and nubby. Really, the last step is the all-important one. If it has a battery cover, then it likely contains a user-replaceable battery. [emphasize mine]
Yes, "it's only a theory, and not a complete one." you said that right.
Complete or not, the one thing in your theory is obviously the most important: "the last step is the all-important one".
No wonder that the guys who did not know this got surprised!
Tell me how your life has been different since the launch of the iPhone. Strangely enough, you don't hear much about it these days outside of Slashdot. If it was really making a huge difference in the world, by your logic, wouldn't we be hearing about it more? No, I don't think that it's making a huge difference in the world, and in that respect I agree with most of the stuff that you wrote in your post.
I was referring only to responses to the slashdot story: I was bored out of my skull reading responses to recent stories and then this one came along and I felt that the board suddenly lit up, as though people cared a bit more than usual; at any rate, posts were interesting to me, so that's about the biggest effect that iPhone made on my life.
so apple has to advertise that the battery is not user replaceable. How about you and I just think for a few seconds about what you just wrote?
If Apple thought that this is some cool feature they would have advertised it. It seems they didn't. So: it is either not a cool feature, or it is something in the grey zone, neither exactly cool nor exactly uncool.
How does a customer think about grey zone feature? Well, guess what, there is no way of telling: some will think "yeah, that's cool, the phone is smaller!", or, "I don't know what you're talking about, my phone is cool!", or, "WTF? where is the battery cover?" or even, "WTF? what is iTune? oh, but I want to talk, not to listen to music" (it's getting a shade greyer already).
Why doesn't blackberry packaging have to inform you that its web browser isn't fully compatible with modern web applications? I mean, I expect the web to work the way it does in firefox. Now here you can apply exactly the same logic: if you think that you will surf the net with blackberry exactly the same way as with firefox, you are up for the uncool surprise. Some with similar expectation may say "ok, it's not too bad", some however might feel cheated, disappointed, angry, whatever...
Some may just ask: "how could I think that this little thing will give me the same surfing experience/compatibility as my notebook browser?"
[...]arguing that because one product doesn't have easily replaceable batteries another product wouldn't have them either is not entirely logical. well said; yet, just check out how many posts made exactly that claim.
You need you to grow some balls and face the reality: Apple has intentionally crippled these products for no better reason than remain in tight control of the battery replacement procedure and get some cash from there too. This angry conjecture does not bear up to scrutiny. An internal, soldered, non-user-replaceable battery confers some serious benefits:
* no contact connection problems, even in the presence of moisture and vibration
* savings of precious internal volume by omitting the battery compartment and battery sheathing
* elimination of an entry point for dust and water
* elimination of spurious warranty claims stemming from subpar or incorrect third-party batteries, and from user fiddling
Each of these is a serious engineering concern, and each has the potential to significantly impact the user's ownership experience. Your conjecture, therefore, cannot possibly be true, and is also needlessly mean-spirited. Well, it seems to me that there is some of, so to say, internal, soldered, non-user-replaceable spirit there in your post as well. For, for the sake of scrutiny and possible truth, the non-user-replaceable battery is such a thing that it is not replaceable by user, no? I mean, if you were ever to construct such an object, by your own definition and construction, you would have to forbid users from replacing the battery, therefore, who knows, maybe even annoy, possibly make angry, some of your customers. Does that stand to reason?
It deserves every bit of anti-hype it gets: it was the Paris Hilton of the tech world. For a short period in late June it was nothing but rampant ogling and wild speculation about a freaking cellular phone. How is it NOT absurd that people camped out for days to be the first person to get a cell phone? Now, I don't call people nerds much (mostly because I am one, or, used to be, at the current rate the industry is going), but I'm at a loss to describe it any other way.
The whole thing is a barometer that indicates how materialistic we are. We get so worked up over a cell phone with a slightly different design, and the media labels the launch of it as equally newsworthy as actual events that impact human existence. Fuck that. Sure, fine, all right. But still, check out the number of posts about this, well, lawsuit, and what's written... it definitely seems like the event that impacts human existence.
Every Engineering Department I've worked with would have designed a user-replaceable battery and called it a "common sense" feature. It's a good thing you don't design pacemakers. It would really suck to fall over and break off the little plastic battery cover. I have a good news for you: that little door on the top of your head is your brain battery cover. Now: open it slowly and exchange each battery in a row with a fresh one, and, most important: exchange only one battery at the time!
A user replaceable battery is not a 'common sense feature' it's a tradeoff. In a mobile phone?
User replaceable batteries need to be physically bigger (since they need to be safe outside the confines of the device) and need more space beyond this to allow insertion and removal. You can easily add 10-20% to the amount of space needed for the battery by making it user replaceable.
In something like an iPod, where the battery accounts for over half of the total volume, this is significant. Yes, I for one, not unlike yourself, am really wondering what you are talking about. I thought that it was about iPhone, not iPod.
You have a choice. But so fair you said nothing at all about iPhone, I want that.
Do your customers value a small device, or a device with a replaceable battery more? Apple believe the former, you believe the latter. How about small device with a replaceable battery, like... a mobile phone?
I see, I do not have that choice in your example.
Does that means that the customer and the producer will not sell nor buy from one another?
Only the market can tell which of you is correct. and if they don't buy/sell from one another, where is the market?
On the second though, I think you're right: only market and court can tell who is right.
PS: But tell me how is this possible: you are right even though you did not type all the characters? I really wonder why.
Every single cell phone I've owned, from super cheap to super expenssive, for the last 10 years, had a user-replacable battery. Heck, every phone I've even lightly considered owning has had a 'high-capacity' upgrade available for it. It'd be surprising to find a phone that has a soldered-in battery, even if one owned a logitech cordless mouse or a PocketPC. I think the funniest part about this whole thread is that most of the people are in some kind of denial about this fact... very strange but I'll figure it out!
How about a Pocket PC? A Palm? Many of the Palms and Pocket PCs didn't/don't have user replaceable batteries.
How about my logitech cordless mouse here? It doesn't.
Lots of devices don't have replaceable batteries for lots of reasons. How about your mobile phone, does it have a replaceable battery or not?
The choice to make a part non user serviceable is never going to cost anyone their PE. For fucks sake what the hell is wrong with you people. Are you so excited to shit on some new gadget that you have to make shit up like this? What are you so excited about?
The thing that is supposed to hold you responsible is the free market. Not some fucking lawsuit. Who holds whom responsible for what? I gather that in all this excitement you kinda forgot to change the noun or something.
Or, for instance, do you mean something like free market == no lawsuits?
Apple has made no attempt to hide the fact that the battery is not user serviceable. If apple had somehow hidden that fact they would be guilty of false advertising but its seems pretty clear from the grandparent post that they did not make any attempt to hide this fact. You mean more like: they hid the battery replacement cover so well that the guy did not see it at all until he needed to replace the battery, when he realized that the reason that he did not see the cover was not because he did not need to replace the battery, but because he had no... battery replacement cover at all!
If a non user servicable battery makes the iPhone useless to you, DON'T BUY IT. (at then he followed your advise and did not buy this phone)
If most people agree with you then the product will be a failure and maybe the next iPhone will have a user serviceable battery. but since he and others just like him already bought this phone, they sued.
To their dismay they got you for the judge! Venerable Judge Altus, what's the verdict?
I dont see any evidence here that apple has marketed this phone falsely or claimed it can do something it cant. and then the whole legal system crashed:
Unless they have then a lawsuit is totally out of line.
Let's not even talk about the horrid spelling, grammar, and general rambling idiocy of the lawsuit. Ok, then I'm not gonna ask: what a hell are you talking about? and what that that you are not talking about has to do with anything?
The iPhone doesn't have a user-replaceable battery, but it is replaceable. You mean like in: look, I've got my cool new mobile phone, it's replacable!
And no, the iPhone isn't the first of these devices to have a battery that is soldered. Various iPod models have already had soldered batteries. First of which devices? You mean iPhone is not the first iPod with soldered battery or what?
Additionally, asking any Apple retail store, customer service representative, dealer, authorized service provider, etc., will yield a direct and immediate answer about battery replacement. What would one exactly ask: does this iPhone have a replacable battery? is this mobile phone replacable?
[NYT article] Exactly. Exactly/. This wasn't done for "planned obsolescence". This wasn't done to force people into buying new phones. This was an engineering decision, plain and simple, just as it was with the iPod. It allows a much higher capacity battery in a much smaller, sleeker, and lighter enclosure, unscathed by battery doors, screws, clips, or any other mechanism required. I see NYT article hit the spot, no? So, if I read this correctly, non-replacable battery was not done in order to force people into buying new phone, nor was it "planned obsolescence", and then, I assume somebody was claiming otherwise or something?
this enlightening remark about how this is "an engineering decision, plain and simple"... well, isn't that plain and simple?
The customer also doesn't have to be without a phone for several days, and claiming that they do because there is a fee for a loaner is ridiculous. Just pretend that the battery replacement costs $29 more, then.
I can see you are already pretending that the battery replacement costs $29 more in order to pretend that you have your new phone on you all the time, loaned to you from the store.
Now, let's try to see what we can do about this problem of thinnnesss: so here is this nifty super kool new iPhone, no? It's small and sweet and thin and just, well, cool.
But because it is that way, well, it could not have been that way if it had replaceable battery, that is just an engineering fact of, well, life I suppose, and therefore absolutely plain and simple, as plain and simple as that. So now some Mr. X indeed buys this phone and then, to his
displease, realizes that it has no replaceable battery... uf, what a drag, thinks Mr. X indeed... then he finds a few other thingies... let's sue!... etc...
and look what happened--here is your whole post with all the links and quotes and stuff written, and I just somehow think you were pissed about something while doing all that work...
If by "statistical knowledge" you mean taking into account the likely hands your opponent may have based on their behavior, then yes I agree. But that seems to be a pretty broad definition of the term. indeed, as broad as to say that that is the first thing one learns when one learns to play poker...
but again this is because of statistical knowledge. [...] If you are making any move in poker without first making a educated guess as to the odds, and determining that those Odds are in your favor, then you are leaving your odds up to chance and this is not how to be a successful player. Except when you play against successful poker players, when such a play from time to time would be called a bluff I suppose. Ok, I think I get your point, there is always some statistical estimate calculations going on, no? If a human can do it then computer can do it too, that is if it can be calculated...
i put it this way: human nature is both altruistic and selfish. any political
philosophy you present to the world has to address both sides of this coin, or
you have built a political philosophy which is a nonstarter in the real world,
because it doesn't jive with the nature of the humans you are attempting to
impose it on[.]
Things are a bit more complicated than this--if indeed the human nature is both
altruistic and selfish, then any political philosophy need not begin with the
opposition selfish/altruistic. It can, as it in most of the cases does, begin
with anything else that it finds more important. The case in point:
we all understand why communism doesn't work: it depends upon altruism, and
doesn't address human selfishness. in a communist system, selfishness still
exists, in the human beings in the system, but unaddressed by the system
imposed upon them, and so selfishness eats communism apart from the inside
If there is any simply reason why communism broke down, it is certainly not
because communism did not address the issue of human selfishness. Doubtlessly
oppressive and non-democratic, communist regimes were first and foremost
governed by ideology that was based on a certain political-as-such,
which in terms of the economy was, if we simplify a bit, that the means of
production should be owned by workers, instead of having the division of the
society between those who own and those who are owned because they have to
work. In more general terms: as a political philosophy, communism is
(de)centered around the question of the transformation of the society, by the
society.
The logic is simple:
A: Big fish eats little fish!
B: Who says that?
A: But that's the fact!
B: It's the fact that the big fish would put forward, not the small one; and
anyhow, fact or not, there is no reason that the society be that way, and we
can change it, and if big fish don't like it, they're going either with us or down.
A: But if the big fish does not eat the small fish, there will be no food for
fish anymore, fish will not survive!
B: But the human society is not the fish-tank, all fish can be free from fear
of being eaten, because they can produce the food for the whole, well, society.
[as this conversation about the analogy
progresses, it also breaks down by the force of demasking of some of its
ideological presupositions, or perhaps more likely: by the force of the
infusion of the ideological into the analogy.]
In reality, commies didn't have the freedom of speech, freedom of policital
organisation, lived in fear, people did have considerably lower standard of
living than in the western countries. But, "according to which standards one
can measure this?" was also the main counter-argument of the commies, and,
indeed, those were western standards after all. Certainly not bad standards if
you ask me, but from the view-point of the standard communist ideology, all
that democracy jazz was part of the political ideology of the capitalist
society, employed in order to keep the society from changing, because
adherents to the communist ideology also believed that they were those who were
free, free from exploitation, even if their cars (that is of those who had any
at all) and houses are not as big as in the West.
(Btw, I would second the way you describe in your other posts how the
democratic system works: if you want to change things, then: vote; write to
the congres(wo)men; join a party, work on the party politics; start a party;
and, I would add, there are many movements and groups around that are perfectly
legal and do address all kinds of issues that are left aside by the major
parties.)
I can imagine that all the talk about selfishness is becoming more important
now that the globalization is underway, since after all there is still some
need felt for the political and ideological, no matter how successful the
one and the only system is.
I haven't looked at an EB article in the paper edition in many years, but at one time the EB article about Barbara McClintock was short, maybe 600 words, and gave no idea of the fact that her scientific papers are so extensive they require 40 feet or more of shelf space.
The EB article about Barbara McClintock was subtly misleading in other ways, also. yo, what's up with feet?
I'd be far more inclined to believe EB in this case - they say that such things exist.. they've clearly taken the time to research and find them. but why? and, why "clearly"?
opinion or not, it does make sense when one reads it:
[...]but EB thinks there is hip hop music (which they problematically call rap) that is either not rhythmic or non-rhyming. I suppose there may be hip hop with no rhymes at all (I've never heard of it), but it's certainly always rhythmic. check.
Also, hip hop as the backing music for rap, the musical style incorporating rhythmic and/or rhyming speech that became the movement's most lasting and influential art form is a bit odd, I think. They apparently use "hip hop" to refer to the beat/instrumentation behind the rapping, which is not normal, at least -- if "rap" is the "musical style", then the "backing music" is an integral part of it, and "rap" doesn't "incorporate" a kind of speech... it is a kind of speech, and is only a "musical style" when combined with "hip hop". check.
Slashdot Mirror
"with more free pron? Better than it was before? Better, stronger, faster, "
In Soviet Russia they called your proposal interniet 2.0 (still a huge improvement over interniet)
Complete or not, the one thing in your theory is obviously the most important: "the last step is the all-important one".
No wonder that the guys who did not know this got surprised!
If Apple thought that this is some cool feature they would have advertised it. It seems they didn't.
So: it is either not a cool feature, or it is something in the grey zone, neither exactly cool nor exactly uncool.
How does a customer think about grey zone feature? Well, guess what, there is no way of telling: some will think "yeah, that's cool, the phone is smaller!", or, "I don't know what you're talking about, my phone is cool!", or, "WTF? where is the battery cover?" or even, "WTF? what is iTune? oh, but I want to talk, not to listen to music" (it's getting a shade greyer already). Why doesn't blackberry packaging have to inform you that its web browser isn't fully compatible with modern web applications? I mean, I expect the web to work the way it does in firefox. Now here you can apply exactly the same logic: if you think that you will surf the net with blackberry exactly the same way as with firefox, you are up for the uncool surprise. Some with similar expectation may say "ok, it's not too bad", some however might feel cheated, disappointed, angry, whatever...
Some may just ask: "how could I think that this little thing will give me the same surfing experience/compatibility as my notebook browser?"
* no contact connection problems, even in the presence of moisture and vibration
* savings of precious internal volume by omitting the battery compartment and battery sheathing
* elimination of an entry point for dust and water
* elimination of spurious warranty claims stemming from subpar or incorrect third-party batteries, and from user fiddling
Each of these is a serious engineering concern, and each has the potential to significantly impact the user's ownership experience. Your conjecture, therefore, cannot possibly be true, and is also needlessly mean-spirited. Well, it seems to me that there is some of, so to say, internal, soldered, non-user-replaceable spirit there in your post as well. For, for the sake of scrutiny and possible truth, the non-user-replaceable battery is such a thing that it is not replaceable by user, no? I mean, if you were ever to construct such an object, by your own definition and construction, you would have to forbid users from replacing the battery, therefore, who knows, maybe even annoy, possibly make angry, some of your customers. Does that stand to reason?
I see, I do not have that choice in your example.
Does that means that the customer and the producer will not sell nor buy from one another? Only the market can tell which of you is correct. and if they don't buy/sell from one another, where is the market?
On the second though, I think you're right: only market and court can tell who is right.
PS: But tell me how is this possible: you are right even though you did not type all the characters? I really wonder why.
Before I forget your theory, let me run the checklist one more time:
1) when I see some cool phone in the store I pick it up and look at it
2) and see if it has a battery cover.
Hm, I think I got it all wrong, let me try again:
1) I pick it up and look at it and see if it has a battery cover.
So, I have one theoretical question for you:
"look at the mobile and see if it has a battery cover",
Is that one operation or two?
Or, for instance, do you mean something like free market == no lawsuits? Apple has made no attempt to hide the fact that the battery is not user serviceable. If apple had somehow hidden that fact they would be guilty of false advertising but its seems pretty clear from the grandparent post that they did not make any attempt to hide this fact. You mean more like: they hid the battery replacement cover so well that the guy did not see it at all until he needed to replace the battery, when he realized that the reason that he did not see the cover was not because he did not need to replace the battery, but because he had no... battery replacement cover at all!
If a non user servicable battery makes the iPhone useless to you, DON'T BUY IT. (at then he followed your advise and did not buy this phone) If most people agree with you then the product will be a failure and maybe the next iPhone will have a user serviceable battery. but since he and others just like him already bought this phone, they sued.
To their dismay they got you for the judge!
Venerable Judge Altus, what's the verdict? I dont see any evidence here that apple has marketed this phone falsely or claimed it can do something it cant. and then the whole legal system crashed: Unless they have then a lawsuit is totally out of line.
Additionally, asking any Apple retail store, customer service representative, dealer, authorized service provider, etc., will yield a direct and immediate answer about battery replacement. What would one exactly ask: does this iPhone have a replacable battery? is this mobile phone replacable?
[NYT article] Exactly. Exactly/. This wasn't done for "planned obsolescence". This wasn't done to force people into buying new phones. This was an engineering decision, plain and simple, just as it was with the iPod. It allows a much higher capacity battery in a much smaller, sleeker, and lighter enclosure, unscathed by battery doors, screws, clips, or any other mechanism required. I see NYT article hit the spot, no? So, if I read this correctly, non-replacable battery was not done in order to force people into buying new phone, nor was it "planned obsolescence", and then, I assume somebody was claiming otherwise or something?
this enlightening remark about how this is "an engineering decision, plain and simple"... well, isn't that plain and simple?
The customer also doesn't have to be without a phone for several days, and claiming that they do because there is a fee for a loaner is ridiculous. Just pretend that the battery replacement costs $29 more, then.
I can see you are already pretending that the battery replacement costs $29 more in order to pretend that you have your new phone on you all the time, loaned to you from the store.
Now, let's try to see what we can do about this problem of thinnnesss: so here is this nifty super kool new iPhone, no? It's small and sweet and thin and just, well, cool. But because it is that way, well, it could not have been that way if it had replaceable battery, that is just an engineering fact of, well, life I suppose, and therefore absolutely plain and simple, as plain and simple as that. So now some Mr. X indeed buys this phone and then, to his displease, realizes that it has no replaceable battery... uf, what a drag, thinks Mr. X indeed... then he finds a few other thingies... let's sue!... etc... and look what happened--here is your whole post with all the links and quotes and stuff written, and I just somehow think you were pissed about something while doing all that work...
i put it this way: human nature is both altruistic and selfish. any political philosophy you present to the world has to address both sides of this coin, or you have built a political philosophy which is a nonstarter in the real world, because it doesn't jive with the nature of the humans you are attempting to impose it on[.]
Things are a bit more complicated than this--if indeed the human nature is both altruistic and selfish, then any political philosophy need not begin with the opposition selfish/altruistic. It can, as it in most of the cases does, begin with anything else that it finds more important. The case in point:
we all understand why communism doesn't work: it depends upon altruism, and doesn't address human selfishness. in a communist system, selfishness still exists, in the human beings in the system, but unaddressed by the system imposed upon them, and so selfishness eats communism apart from the inside
If there is any simply reason why communism broke down, it is certainly not because communism did not address the issue of human selfishness. Doubtlessly oppressive and non-democratic, communist regimes were first and foremost governed by ideology that was based on a certain political-as-such, which in terms of the economy was, if we simplify a bit, that the means of production should be owned by workers, instead of having the division of the society between those who own and those who are owned because they have to work. In more general terms: as a political philosophy, communism is (de)centered around the question of the transformation of the society, by the society.
The logic is simple:
A: Big fish eats little fish!
B: Who says that?
A: But that's the fact!
B: It's the fact that the big fish would put forward, not the small one; and anyhow, fact or not, there is no reason that the society be that way, and we can change it, and if big fish don't like it, they're going either with us or down.
A: But if the big fish does not eat the small fish, there will be no food for fish anymore, fish will not survive!
B: But the human society is not the fish-tank, all fish can be free from fear of being eaten, because they can produce the food for the whole, well, society.
[as this conversation about the analogy progresses, it also breaks down by the force of demasking of some of its ideological presupositions, or perhaps more likely: by the force of the infusion of the ideological into the analogy.]
In reality, commies didn't have the freedom of speech, freedom of policital organisation, lived in fear, people did have considerably lower standard of living than in the western countries. But, "according to which standards one can measure this?" was also the main counter-argument of the commies, and, indeed, those were western standards after all. Certainly not bad standards if you ask me, but from the view-point of the standard communist ideology, all that democracy jazz was part of the political ideology of the capitalist society, employed in order to keep the society from changing, because adherents to the communist ideology also believed that they were those who were free, free from exploitation, even if their cars (that is of those who had any at all) and houses are not as big as in the West.
(Btw, I would second the way you describe in your other posts how the democratic system works: if you want to change things, then: vote; write to the congres(wo)men; join a party, work on the party politics; start a party; and, I would add, there are many movements and groups around that are perfectly legal and do address all kinds of issues that are left aside by the major parties.)
I can imagine that all the talk about selfishness is becoming more important now that the globalization is underway, since after all there is still some need felt for the political and ideological, no matter how successful the one and the only system is.
As an example of a perfectly happy coexistence of
The EB article about Barbara McClintock was subtly misleading in other ways, also. yo, what's up with feet?