I'll take something useful over something pretty anyday. Useful AND pretty is a bonus. However, like the iPad, pretty and not useful is an epic fail.
For the average person, why get excited about plugging in SD cards? That then require your slick looking device having a permanent gash...
See, in the real world, there are people who have these things called "files". A great way to transfer these "files" from one device to another is either a USB drive or a SD card. It's infinitely better than having to take your iPad, plug it in, load iTunes, and then go through it's horrific sync system that only syncs files for programs Apple chooses to let you sync from (I have an iPod and an iPhone, I'm well aware of the horrible flaws in iTunes sync). It's much easier if you can keep extra songs / pictures / movies / books / whatever on an SD card and just pop it in and read it off the card - that way if you go on a trip, you don't have to lug a laptop with you just to get more files over to the tablet.
iPads sold, 2 million plus, a MILLION a month
Yes, but they have something that no one else has! A bright shiny apple on the back! That means that the average moron MUST have it or be a social outcast, despite the fact that there are other options (well, in the case of the iPad, there soon will be) that cost less and do more - but they don't have the shiny apple on the back, so they're inferior products.
You seem to be confusing "I must have it because the TV tells me I have to have it in order to get attention and popularity" with "I really like device X and it does everything I want".
That's why I'm trading in my iPhone 3GS for an Evo - not only will I save $23 / month with Sprint vs. AT&T, but I'll have better hardware, better software, and the ability to customize my phone however I want. I'll laugh at all the trendy idiots buying the iPhone 4 that isn't even as good as an Evo, despite coming out a month later. I'll especially laugh in 3 months when the next Awesome Android Phone comes out and really embarrasses the Apple fanboys.
So you buy products because they look pretty, not because they actually do anything worthwhile? That seems to be the gist of what you wrote there, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
That was a worst case for choosing who to vote for. It's significantly better than having no choice at all.
Except, in the US, you don't really have much choice - it's typically two virtually identical candidates running against eachother. I realize that it's different in other countries who have more parties, but there are still a lot of parties that are very similar.
It's a comedy show, and Top Gear fabricate plenty of stuff (e.g. I doubt they were really chased by Americans with guns for writing gay slogans on their cars).
Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that the hillbillies attacking them was real. Sadly, that is what hillbillies in the south are like.
(Tuition fees + living costs) * number of children might be significant
Well there are dorms or if you live close to the school, you can live at home. Kids? Well, actions have consequences. If you don't want the hassles and expenses of having kids, then don't have kids and think before you screw.
University courses are usually entirely focussed on a single subject -- e.g. I did computer science, and did one non-CS course in total.
That's not how universities are in most countries - you have to take english classes and humanities classes and all sorts of other stuff that's unrelated to your major.
That's a good way of measuring it. I don't have time to investigate though.
The only statistic I was able to find was doctors, which are virtually identical in both countries. I doubt they really track the other professions in internationl rankings.
Companies aren't allowed to require their staff to work more than 48 hours in a week, why should students work more than that?
Because you have two jobs - the job of being a student and, if you aren't rich and living off a trust fund, the job where you make money. I find it amusing that people try to label Americans as "lazy", yet the countries who criticize the US get things like 2 months of vacation a year, work 3/4 as many hours in the weeks that they do work, think it's a crime to have a part time job while you're a student, etc.
While the economy and personal income are important, there's more to life than making money.
Yes, there is, such as having the right to not have your property stolen from you! =) Also, harming the economy and lowering the average income harms people in many ways - it causes more stress, is more likely to result in alcoholism / drug use, it raises the likelyhood of a parent becoming abusive, it lowers the overall quality of life, etc. Money isn't everything - but it's typically those who've never been poor who try to brush it off as unimportant.
I don't believe any of that, where did you get it from?
It's been shown by Economists, Psychologists, and Sociologists plenty of times. However, I think that the nature of talk shows (such as Dr. Phil) in the US expose us to seeing the results of studies like that more often than other countries.
That's crap. In what way does the government interfere in my life that it wouldn't in the USA?
You missed the point of what I said - I said that the people are willing to accept government control over their lives due to their history of Kings and other tyrants. Americans in general are much more resistant to government control. If you don't remember, we kind of fought a war to get away from an oppressive government about 240 years ago. =)
If you don't want to be free, that's your own choice - but you don't have the right to vote that someone else loses their freedom. You don't have the right to vote away someone else's rights.
So where do you suggest living? Somalia? The USA isn't free by those criteria.
Well first I'd suggest attempting to change laws and elect politicians to make the US free again. Tho
Not wanting to be stuck with a single app store is not stupid, but choosing an inferior product for the primary reason that it has the option for additional sources of apps tends towards the irrational. I.e., fanboyism.
Android is far from inferior to the iPhone. I'm actually getting rid of my iPhone to change to an Android phone. Especially once the 2.2 update comes out in a month, Android will be significantly superior to the iPhone OS. Also, since there are multiple manufacturers making handsets, I can choose between a touch screen or a touch screen with a slideout keyboard, a big screen, iPhone size screen, and all sorts of different hardware. With the iPhone, you're limited to what Lord Jobs gives you and nothing else.
There's no reason whatsoever to believe that third party Android app stores is going to result in more apps than the iPhone.
Yes, there is a reason to believe that. Haven't you seen all the good apps that have been denied from the App Store because Lord Jobs whim of the day was to deny that particular app? There is no limit to what an app can do on Android. You can't even come close to saying that about the iPhone. Hell, you can't even just change your color scheme on an iPhone because Lord Jobs demands that all users have exactly the same colors and it would be an affront to him if you changed your battery charge screen to show a blue battery instead of a green battery.
Or put differently, if there was a third-party app store for iOS, how many more quality apps would there be?
There are third party app stores for the iPhone - Cydia being the most well known. I've had a jailbroken iPhone and most of the apps I downloaded were through Cydia since most of the apps in the App Store are, to be kind, utter garbage. It's being very optimistic to say that 1% of the apps in the iPhone App Store are actually worthwhile.
You repeat the "there's only one app store" thing over and over, but you completely fail to demonstrate how that's a problem. It's just ideology. It's fanboyism.
It's been demonstrated that it's a problem by Lord Jobs refusing to allow people to make a large variety of apps. The fact that you defend his "rule with an iron fist" approach to software is pure fanboyism.
I have to ask - have you ever actually used an Android phone or looked at the apps available for it?
The last thing I need is a bunch of morons driving on I-5 trying to chat and look at who they are chatting with, simultaneously. It's bad enough already with just voice.
Exactly! It pisses me off when I see some S.O.B. driving with another person in the car and they're talking to each other - that is like, way dangerous man! And I can't believe that the government hasn't banned stereos in cars as well - that's just an unnecessary distraction that kills people man! Damn stereo corporations buying off the government at the expense of human life!
Disclaimer: Given the fact that some people don't have a sense a humor, it should be noted that the above is not said in a serious tone
So once -Apple- starts doing videoconferencing, even just the two-way that's been shown in TV commercials since the day phones with two cameras (or just the 'front' camera) were launched, you'll suddenly see a lot of (renewed) interest in supporting it; including carriers.
Except you're forgetting that the Evo already has this and it was announced that the Evo would have this capability months ago. It's great to see how Apple's policy of making minor changes and calling it a brand new device is causing them to already lag behind when their latest and greatest phone isn't even out yet. The only thing the iPhone 4 has over other phones is the screen resolution and possibly battery life. Maybe Apple will finally start putting out some effort to compete in the next couple of years?
Oh yea, and was anyone else surprised that Apple didn't do the usual bump in storage capacity?
No, the issue is that I have morality as opposed to your view where you think that you should be all powerful and control everyone's actions. A for empathy? Empathy plays no part in right or wrong and has no place in a serious discussion. It is a means of conning people into making the wrong decisions because "you're a bad person if you don't cry at this sob story that has no facts to support why you should do this". Using sob stories is the means of a person who has no ground to stand on.
I also find it amusing that, because I'm not a socialist moron, you try to claim I'm a "troll". Who's the one here who's had excellent karma for years? Right, that would be me - obviously not a troll. You on the other hand have an older account than mine, yet you still don't even rank a "good" karma - meaning that you have few, if any, posts that people have found worthwhile. The fact that I've had enough indisputably good points to earn excellent karma while refusing to submit to the socialist / communist hive-mind that is slashdot speaks volumes for the points I've made.
And it's the trolls with mod-points like you who have taken slashdot from a place where intelligent people could have discussions to a site that's not much better than/b/.
If you take something that doesn't belong to you then you have committed a crime.
Taking from someone is entirely different from picking something up that is sitting there without an owner. If I leave a bottle of Coke on your door are you seriously going to claim it's theft if you drink it? Of course not. This is nothing but Apple fanboys who are pissed that the Lord Jobs isn't as good at keeping things secret as you want to believe he is.
If someone breaks into your house and steals all your property, we aren't going to blame you for having inadequate security. That includes if "breaking in" means "walking in the front door that you left unlocked."
Actually the overwhelming majority of people WOULD blame you for being a moron and leaving the door unlocked. As another person stated, there's no guarantee that your insurance company will cover it if you leave the door unlocked. However, someone walking in to your house (even if the door is unlocked) isn't even close to picking up something that's left on a table or on the ground. You claiming that taking a phone left in a bar is theft is like the morons who try to claim downloading an mp3 is theft.
On one hand, he apparently believes in personal responsibility and economic liberty, yet believes that Steve Jobs and Apple may not have the right to prosecute Gawker/Chan?
Apple's behavior has nothing to do with their business or the future of their business and everything to do with Steve Jobs being childish and prone to severe anger issues. Trying to sue someone who finds a phone is bullshit - take it out on the idiot employee who lost the damn phone.
Jason Chen and Gawker Media acquiring stolen property
Lost != stolen. When you lose a book because you forgot about it and left it on a plane, do you call the police and report is stolen? No. If you leave your cell phone on a plane, do you call the cops and report it stolen? No. You might call the airline and see if they can find it, but you sure as hell don't report it as a theft because there was no theft, only you not keeping track of your belongings.
How is it that Gawker/Chen are being personally responsible.
How is it that they were being irresponsible? I've yet to see anything to show that they were in any way acting irresponsibly. If this had been a major news source (say the NY Times) who'd obtained this or if it was Apple somehow getting a MS prototype, they wouldn't be criticized in any way for this. The only reason that this guy is getting all this shit is because Apple is the "perfect" company and can't be criticized in any way.
Cars have locks on them for a reason - to keep people from taking them. That's also why houses and bank deposit boxes have locks on them - to keep people from taking what's inside them. If you don't want someone to take your phone / book / any other possession, don't leave it sitting in a public place.
I've left things at restaurants or in a classroom when I was in college - sometimes I came back later and they were there (which is great), other times they weren't. Who did I blame when they were gone? Myself, because I was the one who left it there.
Take some goddamn responsibility for your actions and, more importantly, your mistakes. Don't try to make it a crime and ruin someone else's life because you messed up and left your phone laying in a cafe.
An unjust law is an unjust law. It doesn't matter if it's about slavery or if it's about creating a false "crime" simply because one person is irresponsible with their own property.
If a person, who you have no way of knowing who they are, leaves an object in a public place, then it is not a crime for you to take that item as long as you are willing to give it back to them if they ask for it and can reasonably prove that it is theirs. That is in no way comparable to theft, which is intentionally taking something from it's rightful owner.
Or do you try to claim that picking up a $5 bill from the sidewalk is "theft" too?
More rational people, even those who may not completely agree with Apple's decision, will at least understand where it's coming from.
Yes, we do know where it's coming from - the almighty Lord Jobs is pissy that someone found out about his closely guarded "secret" (really, is he dumb enough to think we don't know a new update to every iDevice is coming each year with minor improvements?). Jobs has proven time and again that he's an arrogant prick who wants to force everyone to do as he says. This is nothing more than a childish temper tantrum from a childish CEO who has a fixation on making sure everyone knows how powerful he is.
IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property.
Actually, they frequently do. Also, the iPhone was found not stolen. If I leave my phone at a bar and you take it, it's my own goddamn fault for being irresponsible and leaving it there.
And, yes, according to California law, the iPhone prototype was stolen.
As any rational person knows, the law is not the same as justice. There have been plenty of examples of unjust laws all over the world, and especially in the US (Jim Crow laws, slavery, laws requiring escaped slaves to be taken back to their owners, the DMCA, etc).
I'm not even going to entertain any debate about that.
Ah, so you're one of those people who blindly follows the law as opposed to using your brain? Wake up and think a little, you'd be amazed at how many unjust laws exist to cause certain people to profit at others expense.
Actually, I can already tell you of one company in the US that does this. Cincinnati Bell offers home phone, DSL internet, and wireless phone services. They have a deal called "Why pay for two?" where if you purchase your home DSL internet through them (two speeds, 768Kb for dirt cheap and 5Mb for only $15 more) and have your cell phone through them, you pay $0 for unlimited texting and unlimited internet on your phone because you're already paying them once for your internet.
In any case, you can vote for the "least bad" candidate, which isn't an option in a dictatorship.
Again, you're using the "we're marginally better off, so this is a good way to do it!" train of thought. Voting for the lesser of two evils mean that you're still losing. You also ignored when I said " Ever notice how, regardless of which candidate gets elected, pretty much the same policies get put in place?", which I'm assuming is because you realize that it's true. Hell, the same BS about amnesty for illegal invaders in the US today was used by their opponents 30 years ago. To use a quote from James Bond (referring to the fall of the Soviet Union) "Governments change - the lies stay the same".
Unfortunately, there isn't a massive public outcry.
Perhaps not in the UK, but there have been in the US and other countries, yet the policies are forced into place anyways. Any time this comes up, I remember Brian Cox on Top Gear when Jeremy criticized the US and made a comment about the US losing freedoms - Brian pointed out that, having moved to the US a few years earlier that, despite Americans having fewer freedoms now than we used to, we still have infinitely more freedoms than those in the UK.
There is a huge difference between people being "disappeared", or "re-educated", or whole populations having their movement restricted, and installing speed cameras or whatever.
When did I ever mention traffic cameras? Never. You used a ridiculous example to try to mock the legitmate argument that a corrupt government is a corrupt government and that the difference between a "democracy" and a "dictatorship" is essentially just the illusion of citizens having control.
University costs about £3000 a year.
And yet you think that's expensive?! Jesus Christ, that's a measley $4,500 a year. You can make twice that working an average of 23 hours per week at minimum wage in the US. Hell, you work 40 hours a week minimum wage just over the summer between semesters and you'll make $4,672. That's so low it's a joke to claim that someone can't reasonably afford that without any help from their parents or a loan.
It's a massive benefit to society if everyone is educated.
It's a "benefit" with diminishing returns. A mechanic knowing a little more about Shakespeare, which has no impact on his career nor on the culture around him, is NOT worth the cost that the rest of society had to pay to put him through college. If you can prove that certain important jobs, such as doctors, had more people going in to the field due to everyone else being forced to pay for someone's education, then you might have a point. However, the number of doctors per 1,000 people is essentially the same in the US as it is in the UK (2.3 in the US, 2.2 in the UK) - so obviously the $40,000 per year of med school doesn't scare off qualified people from becoming doctors or other important jobs.
At what age do you think "free" education should stop?
At 18 or whenever they graduate from high school. You know, the time that they're now legally considered an adult and therefore 100% responsible for themselves.
Getting a job isn't realistic for everyone.
Bullshit
I worked about three hours a week for two years, but didn't have time for more.
Sorry, but again, bullshit. You had time for more, but it would've cut into your social life. Yea, I get it, no one wants to work when they could be hanging out with friends. However, trying to claim that you "didn't have time for more" is just plain BS.
The university reckoned working more than six hours a week was detrimental to a student's education
Yea, I had the most hardass professor in my major as an undergrad (he was head of the grad program as well) and he s
My phone in 2000 was smaller than my Droid. The droid is far better in every way.
Exactly. If it's just a flip phone, then yes, smaller is better. However, now that we have smartphones (which are really just pocket computers that also are capable of making phone calls) with touch screens, it's necessary and desirable to have a larger phone so that you have a larger screen to make it easier to select what you want through the touch interface and to make it easier to read on without excessive scrolling.
The modem also doesn't support frequencies for 3G other than AT&T, so you'd be stuck at EDGE speeds. So you're locked into AT&T, but on paper you're not.
Yea, I had one of Sprint's PR guys (I talked to him directly) complain of people emailing Sprint's CEO over the $10 Evo charge for users in a 3G only area and he said that "it doesn't help anything"..........yes, it does - CEO's are the idiots who make the decisions to do things like this and therefore they are the very ones to harass to get them undone.
As I said, I was just going by what friends I have in the UK have told me and if they told me wrong, I'm eager to be educated as to what the situation is.
As much as i hate to say this, perhaps congress needs to get involved. That is what our government is for, to protect is from garbage like this.
That's what government is supposed to be for. =) Those of us over the age of 5 are aware that the reality of government is very, very different.
And in response to your sig, yes, Booth was a patriot and Lincoln was a power hungry bastard (by his own admission in personal letters to Confederate leaders).
Slashdot Mirror
I'll take something useful over something pretty anyday. Useful AND pretty is a bonus. However, like the iPad, pretty and not useful is an epic fail.
For the average person, why get excited about plugging in SD cards? That then require your slick looking device having a permanent gash...
See, in the real world, there are people who have these things called "files". A great way to transfer these "files" from one device to another is either a USB drive or a SD card. It's infinitely better than having to take your iPad, plug it in, load iTunes, and then go through it's horrific sync system that only syncs files for programs Apple chooses to let you sync from (I have an iPod and an iPhone, I'm well aware of the horrible flaws in iTunes sync). It's much easier if you can keep extra songs / pictures / movies / books / whatever on an SD card and just pop it in and read it off the card - that way if you go on a trip, you don't have to lug a laptop with you just to get more files over to the tablet.
iPads sold, 2 million plus, a MILLION a month
Yes, but they have something that no one else has! A bright shiny apple on the back! That means that the average moron MUST have it or be a social outcast, despite the fact that there are other options (well, in the case of the iPad, there soon will be) that cost less and do more - but they don't have the shiny apple on the back, so they're inferior products.
You seem to be confusing "I must have it because the TV tells me I have to have it in order to get attention and popularity" with "I really like device X and it does everything I want".
That's why I'm trading in my iPhone 3GS for an Evo - not only will I save $23 / month with Sprint vs. AT&T, but I'll have better hardware, better software, and the ability to customize my phone however I want. I'll laugh at all the trendy idiots buying the iPhone 4 that isn't even as good as an Evo, despite coming out a month later. I'll especially laugh in 3 months when the next Awesome Android Phone comes out and really embarrasses the Apple fanboys.
So you buy products because they look pretty, not because they actually do anything worthwhile? That seems to be the gist of what you wrote there, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
That was a worst case for choosing who to vote for. It's significantly better than having no choice at all.
Except, in the US, you don't really have much choice - it's typically two virtually identical candidates running against eachother. I realize that it's different in other countries who have more parties, but there are still a lot of parties that are very similar.
It's a comedy show, and Top Gear fabricate plenty of stuff (e.g. I doubt they were really chased by Americans with guns for writing gay slogans on their cars).
Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that the hillbillies attacking them was real. Sadly, that is what hillbillies in the south are like.
(Tuition fees + living costs) * number of children might be significant
Well there are dorms or if you live close to the school, you can live at home. Kids? Well, actions have consequences. If you don't want the hassles and expenses of having kids, then don't have kids and think before you screw.
University courses are usually entirely focussed on a single subject -- e.g. I did computer science, and did one non-CS course in total.
That's not how universities are in most countries - you have to take english classes and humanities classes and all sorts of other stuff that's unrelated to your major.
That's a good way of measuring it. I don't have time to investigate though.
The only statistic I was able to find was doctors, which are virtually identical in both countries. I doubt they really track the other professions in internationl rankings.
Companies aren't allowed to require their staff to work more than 48 hours in a week, why should students work more than that?
Because you have two jobs - the job of being a student and, if you aren't rich and living off a trust fund, the job where you make money. I find it amusing that people try to label Americans as "lazy", yet the countries who criticize the US get things like 2 months of vacation a year, work 3/4 as many hours in the weeks that they do work, think it's a crime to have a part time job while you're a student, etc.
While the economy and personal income are important, there's more to life than making money. Yes, there is, such as having the right to not have your property stolen from you! =) Also, harming the economy and lowering the average income harms people in many ways - it causes more stress, is more likely to result in alcoholism / drug use, it raises the likelyhood of a parent becoming abusive, it lowers the overall quality of life, etc. Money isn't everything - but it's typically those who've never been poor who try to brush it off as unimportant. I don't believe any of that, where did you get it from?
It's been shown by Economists, Psychologists, and Sociologists plenty of times. However, I think that the nature of talk shows (such as Dr. Phil) in the US expose us to seeing the results of studies like that more often than other countries.
That's crap. In what way does the government interfere in my life that it wouldn't in the USA?
You missed the point of what I said - I said that the people are willing to accept government control over their lives due to their history of Kings and other tyrants. Americans in general are much more resistant to government control. If you don't remember, we kind of fought a war to get away from an oppressive government about 240 years ago. =)
If you don't want to be free, that's your own choice - but you don't have the right to vote that someone else loses their freedom. You don't have the right to vote away someone else's rights. So where do you suggest living? Somalia? The USA isn't free by those criteria.
Well first I'd suggest attempting to change laws and elect politicians to make the US free again. Tho
Not wanting to be stuck with a single app store is not stupid, but choosing an inferior product for the primary reason that it has the option for additional sources of apps tends towards the irrational. I.e., fanboyism.
Android is far from inferior to the iPhone. I'm actually getting rid of my iPhone to change to an Android phone. Especially once the 2.2 update comes out in a month, Android will be significantly superior to the iPhone OS. Also, since there are multiple manufacturers making handsets, I can choose between a touch screen or a touch screen with a slideout keyboard, a big screen, iPhone size screen, and all sorts of different hardware. With the iPhone, you're limited to what Lord Jobs gives you and nothing else.
There's no reason whatsoever to believe that third party Android app stores is going to result in more apps than the iPhone.
Yes, there is a reason to believe that. Haven't you seen all the good apps that have been denied from the App Store because Lord Jobs whim of the day was to deny that particular app? There is no limit to what an app can do on Android. You can't even come close to saying that about the iPhone. Hell, you can't even just change your color scheme on an iPhone because Lord Jobs demands that all users have exactly the same colors and it would be an affront to him if you changed your battery charge screen to show a blue battery instead of a green battery.
Or put differently, if there was a third-party app store for iOS, how many more quality apps would there be?
There are third party app stores for the iPhone - Cydia being the most well known. I've had a jailbroken iPhone and most of the apps I downloaded were through Cydia since most of the apps in the App Store are, to be kind, utter garbage. It's being very optimistic to say that 1% of the apps in the iPhone App Store are actually worthwhile.
You repeat the "there's only one app store" thing over and over, but you completely fail to demonstrate how that's a problem. It's just ideology. It's fanboyism.
It's been demonstrated that it's a problem by Lord Jobs refusing to allow people to make a large variety of apps. The fact that you defend his "rule with an iron fist" approach to software is pure fanboyism.
I have to ask - have you ever actually used an Android phone or looked at the apps available for it?
So you'd have your cornea removed and a new one put in? As someone who's had many eye injuries in my life, let me be the first to say "ouch".
The last thing I need is a bunch of morons driving on I-5 trying to chat and look at who they are chatting with, simultaneously. It's bad enough already with just voice.
Exactly! It pisses me off when I see some S.O.B. driving with another person in the car and they're talking to each other - that is like, way dangerous man! And I can't believe that the government hasn't banned stereos in cars as well - that's just an unnecessary distraction that kills people man! Damn stereo corporations buying off the government at the expense of human life!
Disclaimer: Given the fact that some people don't have a sense a humor, it should be noted that the above is not said in a serious tone
SSSH! You can't say that! How dare you point out that the Prophet Steve Jobs' latest iDevice from heaven isn't as good as devices currently on sale!
So once -Apple- starts doing videoconferencing, even just the two-way that's been shown in TV commercials since the day phones with two cameras (or just the 'front' camera) were launched, you'll suddenly see a lot of (renewed) interest in supporting it; including carriers.
Except you're forgetting that the Evo already has this and it was announced that the Evo would have this capability months ago. It's great to see how Apple's policy of making minor changes and calling it a brand new device is causing them to already lag behind when their latest and greatest phone isn't even out yet. The only thing the iPhone 4 has over other phones is the screen resolution and possibly battery life. Maybe Apple will finally start putting out some effort to compete in the next couple of years?
Oh yea, and was anyone else surprised that Apple didn't do the usual bump in storage capacity?
No, the issue is that I have morality as opposed to your view where you think that you should be all powerful and control everyone's actions. A for empathy? Empathy plays no part in right or wrong and has no place in a serious discussion. It is a means of conning people into making the wrong decisions because "you're a bad person if you don't cry at this sob story that has no facts to support why you should do this". Using sob stories is the means of a person who has no ground to stand on.
I also find it amusing that, because I'm not a socialist moron, you try to claim I'm a "troll". Who's the one here who's had excellent karma for years? Right, that would be me - obviously not a troll. You on the other hand have an older account than mine, yet you still don't even rank a "good" karma - meaning that you have few, if any, posts that people have found worthwhile. The fact that I've had enough indisputably good points to earn excellent karma while refusing to submit to the socialist / communist hive-mind that is slashdot speaks volumes for the points I've made.
And it's the trolls with mod-points like you who have taken slashdot from a place where intelligent people could have discussions to a site that's not much better than /b/.
If you take something that doesn't belong to you then you have committed a crime.
Taking from someone is entirely different from picking something up that is sitting there without an owner. If I leave a bottle of Coke on your door are you seriously going to claim it's theft if you drink it? Of course not. This is nothing but Apple fanboys who are pissed that the Lord Jobs isn't as good at keeping things secret as you want to believe he is.
If someone breaks into your house and steals all your property, we aren't going to blame you for having inadequate security. That includes if "breaking in" means "walking in the front door that you left unlocked."
Actually the overwhelming majority of people WOULD blame you for being a moron and leaving the door unlocked. As another person stated, there's no guarantee that your insurance company will cover it if you leave the door unlocked. However, someone walking in to your house (even if the door is unlocked) isn't even close to picking up something that's left on a table or on the ground. You claiming that taking a phone left in a bar is theft is like the morons who try to claim downloading an mp3 is theft.
And what do you think happens to things in the lost and found if no one claims them after a few days? Oh, that's right, the employees take them.
And
The wallet has been mislaid rather than lost
is the most bullshit excuse ever to try to blame someone when someone else is irresponsible with their property.
Since I refuse to be treated like a criminal just because I'm going from point A to point B, I simply refuse to fly.
On one hand, he apparently believes in personal responsibility and economic liberty, yet believes that Steve Jobs and Apple may not have the right to prosecute Gawker/Chan?
Apple's behavior has nothing to do with their business or the future of their business and everything to do with Steve Jobs being childish and prone to severe anger issues. Trying to sue someone who finds a phone is bullshit - take it out on the idiot employee who lost the damn phone.
Jason Chen and Gawker Media acquiring stolen property
Lost != stolen. When you lose a book because you forgot about it and left it on a plane, do you call the police and report is stolen? No. If you leave your cell phone on a plane, do you call the cops and report it stolen? No. You might call the airline and see if they can find it, but you sure as hell don't report it as a theft because there was no theft, only you not keeping track of your belongings.
How is it that Gawker/Chen are being personally responsible.
How is it that they were being irresponsible? I've yet to see anything to show that they were in any way acting irresponsibly. If this had been a major news source (say the NY Times) who'd obtained this or if it was Apple somehow getting a MS prototype, they wouldn't be criticized in any way for this. The only reason that this guy is getting all this shit is because Apple is the "perfect" company and can't be criticized in any way.
Cars have locks on them for a reason - to keep people from taking them. That's also why houses and bank deposit boxes have locks on them - to keep people from taking what's inside them. If you don't want someone to take your phone / book / any other possession, don't leave it sitting in a public place.
I've left things at restaurants or in a classroom when I was in college - sometimes I came back later and they were there (which is great), other times they weren't. Who did I blame when they were gone? Myself, because I was the one who left it there.
Take some goddamn responsibility for your actions and, more importantly, your mistakes. Don't try to make it a crime and ruin someone else's life because you messed up and left your phone laying in a cafe.
An unjust law is an unjust law. It doesn't matter if it's about slavery or if it's about creating a false "crime" simply because one person is irresponsible with their own property.
If a person, who you have no way of knowing who they are, leaves an object in a public place, then it is not a crime for you to take that item as long as you are willing to give it back to them if they ask for it and can reasonably prove that it is theirs. That is in no way comparable to theft, which is intentionally taking something from it's rightful owner.
Or do you try to claim that picking up a $5 bill from the sidewalk is "theft" too?
More rational people, even those who may not completely agree with Apple's decision, will at least understand where it's coming from.
Yes, we do know where it's coming from - the almighty Lord Jobs is pissy that someone found out about his closely guarded "secret" (really, is he dumb enough to think we don't know a new update to every iDevice is coming each year with minor improvements?). Jobs has proven time and again that he's an arrogant prick who wants to force everyone to do as he says. This is nothing more than a childish temper tantrum from a childish CEO who has a fixation on making sure everyone knows how powerful he is.
IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property.
Actually, they frequently do. Also, the iPhone was found not stolen. If I leave my phone at a bar and you take it, it's my own goddamn fault for being irresponsible and leaving it there.
And, yes, according to California law, the iPhone prototype was stolen.
As any rational person knows, the law is not the same as justice. There have been plenty of examples of unjust laws all over the world, and especially in the US (Jim Crow laws, slavery, laws requiring escaped slaves to be taken back to their owners, the DMCA, etc).
I'm not even going to entertain any debate about that.
Ah, so you're one of those people who blindly follows the law as opposed to using your brain? Wake up and think a little, you'd be amazed at how many unjust laws exist to cause certain people to profit at others expense.
As soon as HTC brings out a proper iPhone competitor
Nexus One? Droid Incredible? Evo?
He said comptetitor. Those are all phones that make an iPhone look like crap.
Actually, I can already tell you of one company in the US that does this. Cincinnati Bell offers home phone, DSL internet, and wireless phone services. They have a deal called "Why pay for two?" where if you purchase your home DSL internet through them (two speeds, 768Kb for dirt cheap and 5Mb for only $15 more) and have your cell phone through them, you pay $0 for unlimited texting and unlimited internet on your phone because you're already paying them once for your internet.
In any case, you can vote for the "least bad" candidate, which isn't an option in a dictatorship.
Again, you're using the "we're marginally better off, so this is a good way to do it!" train of thought. Voting for the lesser of two evils mean that you're still losing. You also ignored when I said " Ever notice how, regardless of which candidate gets elected, pretty much the same policies get put in place?", which I'm assuming is because you realize that it's true. Hell, the same BS about amnesty for illegal invaders in the US today was used by their opponents 30 years ago. To use a quote from James Bond (referring to the fall of the Soviet Union) "Governments change - the lies stay the same".
Unfortunately, there isn't a massive public outcry.
Perhaps not in the UK, but there have been in the US and other countries, yet the policies are forced into place anyways. Any time this comes up, I remember Brian Cox on Top Gear when Jeremy criticized the US and made a comment about the US losing freedoms - Brian pointed out that, having moved to the US a few years earlier that, despite Americans having fewer freedoms now than we used to, we still have infinitely more freedoms than those in the UK.
There is a huge difference between people being "disappeared", or "re-educated", or whole populations having their movement restricted, and installing speed cameras or whatever.
When did I ever mention traffic cameras? Never. You used a ridiculous example to try to mock the legitmate argument that a corrupt government is a corrupt government and that the difference between a "democracy" and a "dictatorship" is essentially just the illusion of citizens having control.
University costs about £3000 a year.
And yet you think that's expensive?! Jesus Christ, that's a measley $4,500 a year. You can make twice that working an average of 23 hours per week at minimum wage in the US. Hell, you work 40 hours a week minimum wage just over the summer between semesters and you'll make $4,672. That's so low it's a joke to claim that someone can't reasonably afford that without any help from their parents or a loan.
It's a massive benefit to society if everyone is educated.
It's a "benefit" with diminishing returns. A mechanic knowing a little more about Shakespeare, which has no impact on his career nor on the culture around him, is NOT worth the cost that the rest of society had to pay to put him through college. If you can prove that certain important jobs, such as doctors, had more people going in to the field due to everyone else being forced to pay for someone's education, then you might have a point. However, the number of doctors per 1,000 people is essentially the same in the US as it is in the UK (2.3 in the US, 2.2 in the UK) - so obviously the $40,000 per year of med school doesn't scare off qualified people from becoming doctors or other important jobs.
At what age do you think "free" education should stop?
At 18 or whenever they graduate from high school. You know, the time that they're now legally considered an adult and therefore 100% responsible for themselves.
Getting a job isn't realistic for everyone.
Bullshit
I worked about three hours a week for two years, but didn't have time for more.
Sorry, but again, bullshit. You had time for more, but it would've cut into your social life. Yea, I get it, no one wants to work when they could be hanging out with friends. However, trying to claim that you "didn't have time for more" is just plain BS.
The university reckoned working more than six hours a week was detrimental to a student's education
Yea, I had the most hardass professor in my major as an undergrad (he was head of the grad program as well) and he s
My phone in 2000 was smaller than my Droid. The droid is far better in every way.
Exactly. If it's just a flip phone, then yes, smaller is better. However, now that we have smartphones (which are really just pocket computers that also are capable of making phone calls) with touch screens, it's necessary and desirable to have a larger phone so that you have a larger screen to make it easier to select what you want through the touch interface and to make it easier to read on without excessive scrolling.
The modem also doesn't support frequencies for 3G other than AT&T, so you'd be stuck at EDGE speeds. So you're locked into AT&T, but on paper you're not.
Yea, I had one of Sprint's PR guys (I talked to him directly) complain of people emailing Sprint's CEO over the $10 Evo charge for users in a 3G only area and he said that "it doesn't help anything"..........yes, it does - CEO's are the idiots who make the decisions to do things like this and therefore they are the very ones to harass to get them undone.
As I said, I was just going by what friends I have in the UK have told me and if they told me wrong, I'm eager to be educated as to what the situation is.
As much as i hate to say this, perhaps congress needs to get involved. That is what our government is for, to protect is from garbage like this.
That's what government is supposed to be for. =) Those of us over the age of 5 are aware that the reality of government is very, very different.
And in response to your sig, yes, Booth was a patriot and Lincoln was a power hungry bastard (by his own admission in personal letters to Confederate leaders).