If I only purchased products that I liked every aspect of, I would be living in a cardboard box wearing cast-off clothes and eating shelter food. There is always something wrong with any product. The question is whether the total value meets or exceeds the price. If it does, buy it. Most people couldn't give a crap about being politically correct with their purchases, and they can spend some money and get a product that's worth it, the fact that it has "DRM" or is "locked down" is irrelevant to them as long as they can bypass it.
And again, you describe plenty of reasons why you don't want to buy it, and that's fine. But you haven't described any reason why nobody should want to buy it. If it's no good for you, fine, don't buy it. But don't act like your reasons necessarily apply to the entirety of humanity.
The list of countries during the beta period is extremely easy to find using Google. For example, here.
I have no idea what countries it's available in now, because I can't find a list, but I would be shocked if it was available in every single country in the world. Apple simply does not work that way.
Also, there's no need for you to be such a god damned fucking asshole about this. You got all high and mighty about an "Apple Store" being available everywhere because it's on the web, and I corrected that. I did not actually say anything about iPhones, although this is of course implied by the wider context.
Yeah, that's not actually how things work here in the real world.
Just because you can visit store.apple.com doesn't mean that you can buy stuff from it. Apple will only sell to countries that they officially support.
You gave plenty of reasons why you do not want this phone. You gave no reasons why an arbitrary intelligent, reasonable person is obligated not to like this phone.
There is an enormous difference between "I don't like this" and "if you like this then you are stupid", and people on Slashdot simply don't grasp it.
That's fine. That's a reason why you don't like it. It is not, however, a reason why everybody with any sense at all shouldn't like it. There's a big difference, and people on this site have a very difficult time understanding that.
That's like saying if Ford pushes down an update that disables cars with aftermarket parts, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
It doesn't happen, it won't happen, and it can't happen. If you don't want Ford mucking with your parts, don't let them touch your car. Same goes for your iPhone.
Posting on Slashdot must automatically remove all of your ability to sympathize with other human beings too.
Let's go through why most people don't care about the stuff you raised.
1) Most people don't do anything that's restricted anyway. This is less true of being restricted to a single carrier, but people generally have very little loyalty toward an individual carrier.
2) People really do not feel that it's a big deal to connect their phone to their computer one time in the 2+ years that they will own it.
3) People don't have "many different types of media", they have MP3s. The iPhone plays MP3s.
4) $200 US does not seem overpriced to me. As for overhyped, most people don't have this weird reaction where they feel that they are obligated to dislike anything that's popular.
5) Most people simply don't care about replacing their battery.
6) Most people simply don't care about storage expansion.
Your complains are all legitimate and it's fine that you don't like the thing (I don't own one either), but it's silly to act as though the device has no merit whatsoever.
Phone replacement is something most people would want... we're interested in TOTAL bills here, with all the hidden costs, so it's relevant.
Only because most people are morons.
It makes no sense to purchase insurance for an item which you can easily afford to replace. I dare say that almost anyone who can afford to pay for a cell phone subscription can also pay to replace that cell phone in the event that it's lost, stolen, or broken. That makes insurance a losing proposition, pretty much by definition.
This is precisely my thought. The fact that the device wasn't returned isn't proof that it couldn't have been espionage, just that if it was espionage then they cocked up, which certainly does happen.
Damn, that is expensive. So the answer to my original question would, apparently, be "just about, yes".
Which is, of course, why I asked it. I don't know why it takes five replies and several assholes before I could get to that point. (Not that you're one of those assholes, just a bunch of these other guys.)
The part where, extrapolating from my $40 plan, I would expect to pay under $80 total for a $70 plan plus taxes and fees. $80 is nowhere near "about $100".
Driving isn't always necessary, and is by far the more dangerous of the two activities, even when one isn't inebriated while doing it.
I know we love to talk about how dangerous driving is here on Slashdot, and it is indeed a pretty dangerous activity. But please don't think it's the worst thing ever. You're simply wrong about the above. Alcohol kills far more people than cars in the US, even if you ignore the fact that approximately one half of automobile deaths are alcohol-related.
Most people are not sociopathic enough to pull a stunt like you describe. If you are truly sorry then you will act that way, and if you aren't, most people will not do a good job of faking it.
Yes, the system doesn't deal well with sociopaths who are able to maim or kill and feel nothing about it while pretending to be enormously sorry. But the system shouldn't be built around making sure that sociopaths can't possibly slip through the cracks.
Judges consider all sorts of things when sentencing. I don't know why this comes as such a shock to so many people here; it's been a feature of our justice system for hundreds of years. In general it's considered that having a judge familiar with the case decide on the punishment is better than setting a single punishment per offense in stone.
We're judging people now because of character instead of actions?
Now? What do you mean by now? Do you have any clue whatsoever about how the American justice system actually works?
Judges are given broad power over sentencing. They are permitted, nay expected, to use this power to give more punishment to the worst criminals. "Worst" being defined by things like not showing remorse, no ties to the community, prior criminal record etc. It all pretty much feeds into two questions: is this person likely to commit further crimes, and will his example serve to deter others? This information is all very relevant to those questions.
In the case at hand, if a guy who seriously hurt someone was back out partying his heart out just two weeks later, do you think he's likely to commit the same crime again? I'd say, hell yes, put that fucker away.
Sentencing is about punishment. Well guess what: if you say you're sorry and show remorse, society has decided that in general you deserve less punishment than some defiant ass monkey who doesn't change his behavior.
I'm not sure what your point is, although I don't necessarily disagree. I do think that it's not as simple as you make it out to be, as alcohol impairs judgement, not just reactions, which makes the continuing chain of screw-ups much more likely. Alcohol is also strongly enhanced by reduced oxygen supply, which you get if you fly at any kind of altitude at all.
That said, this would just seem to be yet another argument for lowering the legal limit for driving.
Slashdot Mirror
If I only purchased products that I liked every aspect of, I would be living in a cardboard box wearing cast-off clothes and eating shelter food. There is always something wrong with any product. The question is whether the total value meets or exceeds the price. If it does, buy it. Most people couldn't give a crap about being politically correct with their purchases, and they can spend some money and get a product that's worth it, the fact that it has "DRM" or is "locked down" is irrelevant to them as long as they can bypass it.
And again, you describe plenty of reasons why you don't want to buy it, and that's fine. But you haven't described any reason why nobody should want to buy it. If it's no good for you, fine, don't buy it. But don't act like your reasons necessarily apply to the entirety of humanity.
The list of countries during the beta period is extremely easy to find using Google. For example, here.
I have no idea what countries it's available in now, because I can't find a list, but I would be shocked if it was available in every single country in the world. Apple simply does not work that way.
Also, there's no need for you to be such a god damned fucking asshole about this. You got all high and mighty about an "Apple Store" being available everywhere because it's on the web, and I corrected that. I did not actually say anything about iPhones, although this is of course implied by the wider context.
If I add a touch screen and install Skype on my Mac Pro, does that make it a phone? No, I don't really think it does.
Yeah, that's not actually how things work here in the real world.
Just because you can visit store.apple.com doesn't mean that you can buy stuff from it. Apple will only sell to countries that they officially support.
Such bullshit! Anybody can install any software on a Mac or Linux machine, and look at how virus infested those are.
So is almost every other phone that people buy.
Once again, this is only a reason why you don't want it. It's not a reason why nobody should want it.
You gave plenty of reasons why you do not want this phone. You gave no reasons why an arbitrary intelligent, reasonable person is obligated not to like this phone.
There is an enormous difference between "I don't like this" and "if you like this then you are stupid", and people on Slashdot simply don't grasp it.
That's fine. That's a reason why you don't like it. It is not, however, a reason why everybody with any sense at all shouldn't like it. There's a big difference, and people on this site have a very difficult time understanding that.
That's like saying if Ford pushes down an update that disables cars with aftermarket parts, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
It doesn't happen, it won't happen, and it can't happen. If you don't want Ford mucking with your parts, don't let them touch your car. Same goes for your iPhone.
Posting on Slashdot must automatically remove all of your ability to sympathize with other human beings too.
Let's go through why most people don't care about the stuff you raised.
1) Most people don't do anything that's restricted anyway. This is less true of being restricted to a single carrier, but people generally have very little loyalty toward an individual carrier.
2) People really do not feel that it's a big deal to connect their phone to their computer one time in the 2+ years that they will own it.
3) People don't have "many different types of media", they have MP3s. The iPhone plays MP3s.
4) $200 US does not seem overpriced to me. As for overhyped, most people don't have this weird reaction where they feel that they are obligated to dislike anything that's popular.
5) Most people simply don't care about replacing their battery.
6) Most people simply don't care about storage expansion.
Your complains are all legitimate and it's fine that you don't like the thing (I don't own one either), but it's silly to act as though the device has no merit whatsoever.
The reasoning is not very difficult:
1) I like the hardware
2) I don't like the software
If the cost of fixing 2 is less than the value of 1, then you buy the device.
I don't have an iPhone either, but I don't act like people with a different opinion are drooling morons.
Phone replacement is something most people would want... we're interested in TOTAL bills here, with all the hidden costs, so it's relevant.
Only because most people are morons.
It makes no sense to purchase insurance for an item which you can easily afford to replace. I dare say that almost anyone who can afford to pay for a cell phone subscription can also pay to replace that cell phone in the event that it's lost, stolen, or broken. That makes insurance a losing proposition, pretty much by definition.
This is precisely my thought. The fact that the device wasn't returned isn't proof that it couldn't have been espionage, just that if it was espionage then they cocked up, which certainly does happen.
getting people to learn better grammar is good for everyone
How do you figure?
Damn, that is expensive. So the answer to my original question would, apparently, be "just about, yes".
Which is, of course, why I asked it. I don't know why it takes five replies and several assholes before I could get to that point. (Not that you're one of those assholes, just a bunch of these other guys.)
The part where, extrapolating from my $40 plan, I would expect to pay under $80 total for a $70 plan plus taxes and fees. $80 is nowhere near "about $100".
Driving isn't always necessary, and is by far the more dangerous of the two activities, even when one isn't inebriated while doing it.
I know we love to talk about how dangerous driving is here on Slashdot, and it is indeed a pretty dangerous activity. But please don't think it's the worst thing ever. You're simply wrong about the above. Alcohol kills far more people than cars in the US, even if you ignore the fact that approximately one half of automobile deaths are alcohol-related.
I bet you'd feel quite differently if this dumbass had put your stupid ass in the hospital.
Please don't do this. You're basically arguing that emotion should overcome reason when making decisions. It's idiotic.
I'm sure you're absolutely right that he, or I, would feel differently in that case. But that has no bearing on what's actually the right thing.
Correction: children of bigots.
Most people are not sociopathic enough to pull a stunt like you describe. If you are truly sorry then you will act that way, and if you aren't, most people will not do a good job of faking it.
Yes, the system doesn't deal well with sociopaths who are able to maim or kill and feel nothing about it while pretending to be enormously sorry. But the system shouldn't be built around making sure that sociopaths can't possibly slip through the cracks.
Judges consider all sorts of things when sentencing. I don't know why this comes as such a shock to so many people here; it's been a feature of our justice system for hundreds of years. In general it's considered that having a judge familiar with the case decide on the punishment is better than setting a single punishment per offense in stone.
We're judging people now because of character instead of actions?
Now? What do you mean by now? Do you have any clue whatsoever about how the American justice system actually works?
Judges are given broad power over sentencing. They are permitted, nay expected, to use this power to give more punishment to the worst criminals. "Worst" being defined by things like not showing remorse, no ties to the community, prior criminal record etc. It all pretty much feeds into two questions: is this person likely to commit further crimes, and will his example serve to deter others? This information is all very relevant to those questions.
In the case at hand, if a guy who seriously hurt someone was back out partying his heart out just two weeks later, do you think he's likely to commit the same crime again? I'd say, hell yes, put that fucker away.
Sentencing is about punishment. Well guess what: if you say you're sorry and show remorse, society has decided that in general you deserve less punishment than some defiant ass monkey who doesn't change his behavior.
Don't break the law and you'll be fine.
If you do break the law, don't be surprised when the judge starts looking into your life a bit to see just how bad of a person this makes you.
Are you serious? $30 in taxes and fees on the $70 plan?
I'm not sure what your point is, although I don't necessarily disagree. I do think that it's not as simple as you make it out to be, as alcohol impairs judgement, not just reactions, which makes the continuing chain of screw-ups much more likely. Alcohol is also strongly enhanced by reduced oxygen supply, which you get if you fly at any kind of altitude at all.
That said, this would just seem to be yet another argument for lowering the legal limit for driving.