According to Gizmodo, it seems like if you want an iPhone with the antenna fixed, you can't go in complaining about the antenna. Complain about the proximity sensor however, and you get a shiny new iPhone with the proximity sensor (and *ahem* antenna problem) resolved.
I've already found a way to get around this. I'll never buy one.
Just add Motorola (and/or Verizon) to the list of companies that don't understand open platforms or respect end user rights. There are other pricey toys out there to choose from.
He was making the point that all of society should do their part to end illegal filesharing. I was making the point that lots of trivial illegal things happen daily, and none of them warrant the excessive response he is advocating. Including jaywalking and filesharing.
people dont pay for music when THAT SAME MUSIC is available for free.
Wrong. Sure they do. In fact, figures show the exact opposite: iTunes still sells lots of music, despite songs being readily available for download.
There are plenty of online services where people can buy music RIGHT NOW, but sales are still massively down every year
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. I prefer not to drink RIAA kool-aid.
In 2006 there was a rumor that iTunes sales were way off, but that was debunked.
There is increased competition in the online music market, with Amazon and others fighting for a piece of the pie. This is a good thing - it means that artists get more exposure, and consumers get a better deal. It also means that a lot of people who are smart about legal commercial digital distribution see lots of customers - and therefore money - there.
The market continues to evolve, and distributors are still learning through trial and error. iTunes learned an interesting lesson a year ago when they introduced tiered pricing. They discovered - surprise, surprise - that buyers avoided the higher-priced popular tracks, and bought less expensive music, and ended up moving cheaper music up the charts. The lesson: Pricing has an immediate and tangible effect on sales, and consumers still consume, they just choose to consume differently. Duh.
If you can download and own it for free, what incentive would you have to pay for it?
What incentive? Paying the artist. Owning a legit copy. Not everyone wants to rip something off. As a matter of fact, go back and look at the iTunes sales chart I referenced earlier. Look at those billions of songs sold, and tell me that's not a media executive's wet dream.
They knew perfectly well the ability to reform government as needed, and by whatever means necessary, should always be preserved. The genius in creating the Constitution the way they did was that it provided the best resistance to tyranny they could conceive of. Not just for the benefit if individuals and our rights, but so that the government itself could be reformed through peaceable and lawful means, rather than revolution.
However, ISPs that have knowledge or notice of infringement should be on the hook as well.
No. The telephone company isn't on the hook if you use their lines for illegal speech, are they? Say for example that hate speech is illegal where I am, and I call someone up and make a racist, profanity-laced tirade against them. Does the telephone company have the duty (or the right) to monitor that call? Do they have any grounds to terminate my call, or summon the police? Should they share the burden of any penalty I might face for what I said? No. So why now should the ISP be placed in a position of enforcement?
Copyright infringement is a federal offense
In American perhaps. This is UK law.
and as a criminal act
In the UK it is subject to civil actions, unless it is commercial infringement.
it is a common enemy of society
Get off your high horse. So is speeding. So is jaywalking. So what?
that all entities share a responsibility in mitigating.
Should we take up arms or something? Or should we just pass a law that makes us all responsible for enforcing all laws? Give everyone a badge? No, as a matter of fact we shouldn't. It is fundamentally wrong to force a communications channel to police the content its users send and receive.
They obviously are not thinking clearly. If they manage to succeed with some kind of 3-strikes law, and they depend on piracy for revenue, they're fucked.
Well, if they don't like it, they can always try to fight for independence or something.;)
(Smiley emoticon included to warn the humor-deficient among us that I'm just joking. Apologies to all non-humor-deprived slashdotters for having to read this disclaimer.)
That assumes people will do without - which they absolutely don't
Really? I do all the time. I haven't purchased a CD for my own use in years, (gifts for the kids every now and then maybe, but these days they prefer iTunes gift cards), and I don't download either. I'd rather listen to the radio, whether via internet radio or over the air. Am I somehow depriving the artist of a paycheck?
And frankly, I'm sick of the whining about lost sales. The labels themselves are thieves. The old saying goes that a man might rob a train with a gun, but an educated man might steal the whole railroad with a fountain pen. Same goes for the labels and their exploitative contracts. They plead for us to think of the poor starving artists, but to they?
the lost sales don't come from Indie music, it comes from when you hear a song and instead of buying the CD, you go and torrent it.
I don't buy that. It's a lost sale only if the sharing of the song prevents a sale - and that could be argued both ways. A lot of so-called "lost sales" are people who wouldn't have bought it anyway, ergo, no sale was really lost, regardless of the right or wrong of downloading. Indie bands cost the major labels money by competing for consumer's ears as much as their wallets.
The way I've seen things, downloading music to try it for free is like hearing music on the radio to try it for free. It creates exposure for the artist, and generates interest (hopefully) in the music, which then drives sales for albums and concert tickets. That's why record companies focused so much time and energy (oh, and *cough* MONEY *cough*) on getting as much radio play for their artists as possible.
Your tirade is an interesting one. Allow me to start by clarifying what I stated earlier; I was referring to the politicians as "nanny-state prudes", not necessarily the people who vote them in.
Beyond that, I think we actually agree on some things, although I disagree with your characterization of Finneran, Bulger, and other Democrats as "right-wing". I agree they were corrupt as hell, but that doesn't automatically enroll them as conservatives. Their actions ballooned state government size and cost, which is by-the-book liberalism.
Finnerans ideology ran counter clockwise to most of his words making him more of a mealy mouthed red neck conservative in "Liberal" skins.
I like to call them "Republicrats"; it works the same way with liberal tax-n-spenders and civil-right grabbers in "Conservative" skins. Let's vote 'em all out.
sadly , suffocating the will of his community is legendary.
Amen. Through his ruthless control of the House, he repressed more than just his own community - he was effectively dictator over all other communities as well.
Massachusetts is a middle of the road place where wackoes from the right sneak their poisonous nostrums with all the guile of a con man selling perpetual motion machines
Dude, dial the rhetoric back a bit. We're one of the more liberal areas in the country by our overall voting record, and specifically by whom we send to Congress, and by who gets our electoral votes for President every year.
That being said, the MA voters are closer to center than our overall record, as the election of Scott Brown indicates.
Your attacks on those on the right (or those you think are on the right) indicate that you aren't as close to the middle of the road as you would think.
The only thing being shepherded in Massachusetts , or nannied , is right wing shinola
Wrong. The nanny state of Massachusetts is dead set against 2nd amendment rights, which is a modern liberal position. I could also go on about the liberal expansion of government and taxes.
The last real election challenge Ted Kennedy had was Mitt Romney back in the 90's, before Mitt set his sights on being governor. In the debates, Ted had a hard time forming a coherent sentence, let alone actually *debating*. Mitt still lost the election, based partly on Kennedy's attack ads, and partly on Kennedy's huge liberal base and massive political machine.
Amazingly, here in the state that is home to the "shot heard 'round the world", some people still feel the need for some kind of substitute royalty 200 years later, and as the press loves to point out, the Kennedys are as close to American royalty as we get.
If you believe that royalty started as clan leaders who were as ruthless in politics as they were at being robber barons, before being elevated to "respectability" on the shoulders of their sycophants, then yes, I guess that the Kennedy clan is a form of American royalty.
As a native, let me say that "massachusetts liberal" is just a polite euphemism for "nanny-state prude". Don't forget our Puritan roots.
Plus, they need a pre-election distraction to get people's minds off the deficit spending and tax raising going on in the halls of power in Boston. Because some of those dictators-for-life might get voted out if any focus falls on the real issues...
Are you kidding me? Carrying a laptop is a daily event for lots of people. There are zillions of handy bags to keep & carry it in, and damn few excuses for leaving it in a vulnerable location.
one would think that people wouldn't break into a car simply to get a $600 piece of technology...
I guess you've never had your car broken into so the thief could swipe your cheap-ass $100 car stereo and a fistful of loose change. One idiot actually stole my prescription sunglasses from my car. He probably didn't know I was nearsighted in one eye and farsighted in the other. I hope the little bastard is stumbling around, unable to see the shit he stumbles into because of his cool new sunglasses.
I don't approve of anyone leaving holes unpatched, troll, so don't go putting words in my mouth. What I pointed out is a single instance of what has become a pattern of behavior from MS which contradicts his statement.
I wondered why they bothered with Windows at all, given their previous movement towards Red Flag Linux. I wonder if they did so just to find the vulnerabilities...
Slashdot Mirror
According to Gizmodo, it seems like if you want an iPhone with the antenna fixed, you can't go in complaining about the antenna. Complain about the proximity sensor however, and you get a shiny new iPhone with the proximity sensor (and *ahem* antenna problem) resolved.
Correction: Here in the US it is against the law in most places AFAIK.
Well, I might be mixing up my US and UK law here. IANAL. Here in the US it is against the law in most places.
I've already found a way to get around this. I'll never buy one.
Just add Motorola (and/or Verizon) to the list of companies that don't understand open platforms or respect end user rights. There are other pricey toys out there to choose from.
He was making the point that all of society should do their part to end illegal filesharing. I was making the point that lots of trivial illegal things happen daily, and none of them warrant the excessive response he is advocating. Including jaywalking and filesharing.
people dont pay for music when THAT SAME MUSIC is available for free.
Wrong. Sure they do. In fact, figures show the exact opposite: iTunes still sells lots of music, despite songs being readily available for download.
There are plenty of online services where people can buy music RIGHT NOW, but sales are still massively down every year
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. I prefer not to drink RIAA kool-aid.
In 2006 there was a rumor that iTunes sales were way off, but that was debunked.
There is increased competition in the online music market, with Amazon and others fighting for a piece of the pie. This is a good thing - it means that artists get more exposure, and consumers get a better deal. It also means that a lot of people who are smart about legal commercial digital distribution see lots of customers - and therefore money - there.
The market continues to evolve, and distributors are still learning through trial and error. iTunes learned an interesting lesson a year ago when they introduced tiered pricing. They discovered - surprise, surprise - that buyers avoided the higher-priced popular tracks, and bought less expensive music, and ended up moving cheaper music up the charts. The lesson: Pricing has an immediate and tangible effect on sales, and consumers still consume, they just choose to consume differently. Duh.
If you can download and own it for free, what incentive would you have to pay for it?
What incentive? Paying the artist. Owning a legit copy. Not everyone wants to rip something off. As a matter of fact, go back and look at the iTunes sales chart I referenced earlier. Look at those billions of songs sold, and tell me that's not a media executive's wet dream.
They knew perfectly well the ability to reform government as needed, and by whatever means necessary, should always be preserved. The genius in creating the Constitution the way they did was that it provided the best resistance to tyranny they could conceive of. Not just for the benefit if individuals and our rights, but so that the government itself could be reformed through peaceable and lawful means, rather than revolution.
Or install Bittorrent on his PC and start seeding a boatload of content. Muhahahahha ...
Do deaf people still have to pay the tax on blank CDs?
However, ISPs that have knowledge or notice of infringement should be on the hook as well.
No. The telephone company isn't on the hook if you use their lines for illegal speech, are they? Say for example that hate speech is illegal where I am, and I call someone up and make a racist, profanity-laced tirade against them. Does the telephone company have the duty (or the right) to monitor that call? Do they have any grounds to terminate my call, or summon the police? Should they share the burden of any penalty I might face for what I said? No. So why now should the ISP be placed in a position of enforcement?
Copyright infringement is a federal offense
In American perhaps. This is UK law.
and as a criminal act
In the UK it is subject to civil actions, unless it is commercial infringement.
it is a common enemy of society
Get off your high horse. So is speeding. So is jaywalking. So what?
that all entities share a responsibility in mitigating.
Should we take up arms or something? Or should we just pass a law that makes us all responsible for enforcing all laws? Give everyone a badge? No, as a matter of fact we shouldn't. It is fundamentally wrong to force a communications channel to police the content its users send and receive.
They obviously are not thinking clearly. If they manage to succeed with some kind of 3-strikes law, and they depend on piracy for revenue, they're fucked.
Well, if they don't like it, they can always try to fight for independence or something. ;)
(Smiley emoticon included to warn the humor-deficient among us that I'm just joking. Apologies to all non-humor-deprived slashdotters for having to read this disclaimer.)
The cool thing is, I still own half a dozen tape cassettes that I made when I was a kid and do you know what? When I was older, I *bought* Dr. Demento CD's and several CD's of Tom Lehrer's music even though I could have easily torrented them.
Ask this guy.
That assumes people will do without - which they absolutely don't
Really? I do all the time. I haven't purchased a CD for my own use in years, (gifts for the kids every now and then maybe, but these days they prefer iTunes gift cards), and I don't download either. I'd rather listen to the radio, whether via internet radio or over the air. Am I somehow depriving the artist of a paycheck?
And frankly, I'm sick of the whining about lost sales. The labels themselves are thieves. The old saying goes that a man might rob a train with a gun, but an educated man might steal the whole railroad with a fountain pen. Same goes for the labels and their exploitative contracts. They plead for us to think of the poor starving artists, but to they?
the lost sales don't come from Indie music, it comes from when you hear a song and instead of buying the CD, you go and torrent it.
I don't buy that. It's a lost sale only if the sharing of the song prevents a sale - and that could be argued both ways. A lot of so-called "lost sales" are people who wouldn't have bought it anyway, ergo, no sale was really lost, regardless of the right or wrong of downloading. Indie bands cost the major labels money by competing for consumer's ears as much as their wallets.
The way I've seen things, downloading music to try it for free is like hearing music on the radio to try it for free. It creates exposure for the artist, and generates interest (hopefully) in the music, which then drives sales for albums and concert tickets. That's why record companies focused so much time and energy (oh, and *cough* MONEY *cough*) on getting as much radio play for their artists as possible.
Beyond that, I think we actually agree on some things, although I disagree with your characterization of Finneran, Bulger, and other Democrats as "right-wing". I agree they were corrupt as hell, but that doesn't automatically enroll them as conservatives. Their actions ballooned state government size and cost, which is by-the-book liberalism.
Finnerans ideology ran counter clockwise to most of his words making him more of a mealy mouthed red neck conservative in "Liberal" skins .
I like to call them "Republicrats"; it works the same way with liberal tax-n-spenders and civil-right grabbers in "Conservative" skins. Let's vote 'em all out.
sadly , suffocating the will of his community is legendary .
Amen. Through his ruthless control of the House, he repressed more than just his own community - he was effectively dictator over all other communities as well.
Massachusetts is a middle of the road place where wackoes from the right sneak their poisonous nostrums with all the guile of a con man selling perpetual motion machines
Dude, dial the rhetoric back a bit. We're one of the more liberal areas in the country by our overall voting record, and specifically by whom we send to Congress, and by who gets our electoral votes for President every year.
That being said, the MA voters are closer to center than our overall record, as the election of Scott Brown indicates.
Your attacks on those on the right (or those you think are on the right) indicate that you aren't as close to the middle of the road as you would think.
The only thing being shepherded in Massachusetts , or nannied , is right wing shinola
Wrong. The nanny state of Massachusetts is dead set against 2nd amendment rights, which is a modern liberal position. I could also go on about the liberal expansion of government and taxes.
The last real election challenge Ted Kennedy had was Mitt Romney back in the 90's, before Mitt set his sights on being governor. In the debates, Ted had a hard time forming a coherent sentence, let alone actually *debating*. Mitt still lost the election, based partly on Kennedy's attack ads, and partly on Kennedy's huge liberal base and massive political machine.
Amazingly, here in the state that is home to the "shot heard 'round the world", some people still feel the need for some kind of substitute royalty 200 years later, and as the press loves to point out, the Kennedys are as close to American royalty as we get.
If you believe that royalty started as clan leaders who were as ruthless in politics as they were at being robber barons, before being elevated to "respectability" on the shoulders of their sycophants, then yes, I guess that the Kennedy clan is a form of American royalty.
As a native, let me say that "massachusetts liberal" is just a polite euphemism for "nanny-state prude". Don't forget our Puritan roots.
...
Plus, they need a pre-election distraction to get people's minds off the deficit spending and tax raising going on in the halls of power in Boston. Because some of those dictators-for-life might get voted out if any focus falls on the real issues
one would think that people wouldn't break into a car simply to get a $600 piece of technology...
I guess you've never had your car broken into so the thief could swipe your cheap-ass $100 car stereo and a fistful of loose change. One idiot actually stole my prescription sunglasses from my car. He probably didn't know I was nearsighted in one eye and farsighted in the other. I hope the little bastard is stumbling around, unable to see the shit he stumbles into because of his cool new sunglasses.
I guess that explains why the EULA is so long and why no one bothers to read it.
I don't approve of anyone leaving holes unpatched, troll, so don't go putting words in my mouth. What I pointed out is a single instance of what has become a pattern of behavior from MS which contradicts his statement.
Yes, I understand MS's motivation ... just wondering about China's.
Huh? No, definitely not.
I wondered why they bothered with Windows at all, given their previous movement towards Red Flag Linux. I wonder if they did so just to find the vulnerabilities ...
And I assume Microsoft would want to fix things if people reported them in.
And you would be wrong a lot. (One of many; Google is your friend, finding others is an exercise left to the reader.)