If you had actually read my comment you would have seen this:
This is not a problem with Apple's products. Apple provides a device, one that is very popular as a way to signal affluence and hipness, which is why a lot of kids want an Apple device. But, they only make up 35% or so of the market. The real problem is the services and the parents.
The problem is not with the company. Apple doesn't give away iPhones. Apple doesn't own or control SnapChat, Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram, or any of the other services. Apple doesn't even make most of the apps available on it's phones, Demanding Apple do something about something it does not control is not just futile, it shows either a basic misunderstanding of the issue or, much more likely, not actually caring about the problem and just wanting attention and eyeballs.
Again, the problem is not with Apple nor it's products. Changing Apple WON'T fix the problem.
The price of gold is what people are willing to pay for it and gold has an intrinsic value due to the fact is is a relatively rare, useful metal.
The price of bitcoin is what people are willing to pay for it but bitcoin has no intrinsic value because it is nothing but electronic 1s and 0s that can't be used for anything besides being a bitcoin.
This is not a problem with Apple's products. Apple provides a device, one that is very popular as a way to signal affluence and hipness, which is why a lot of kids want an Apple device. But, they only make up 35% or so of the market. The real problem is the services and the parents. But, the groups who are doing this are taking aim at Apple instead of the services because Apple is high profile and something they have stock in right now. They would have to adjust their portfolios to include a large amount of stock in FaceBook, Twitter, etc. in order to address the actual problem and they don't.
If they actually cared about the problem, they would have researched the issue and then applied pressure where it would do the most good. Instead, they applied the pressure where it would get the most eyeballs. In all reality, they are not doing anything about the problem, they are just putting on a show to signal how deeply caring they are about children while not actually doing what it would take to fix the problem. It is like praying for the victims of a disaster and not actually sending aid.
Actually, the article is about how two groups of investors are bleating about the dangers of technology X and how kids get addicted to it and so are threatening pull their investment capital from a tech company.
In this instance, Slashdot is simply reporting on what OTHER PEOPLE are doing and saying.
"We must signal our virtue by threatening to take our money out of a business that provides a product that some teens and children use to distraction and feel addicted to even though it is the parents' and not the business's fault unless the business does something about this thing that is not their fault or even their problem because they make money for us and have deep pockets!"
That is the cause of the volatility but not the cause of the individual fluctuations. Generally, when a conventional currency's value changes, there is an identifiable cause, such as interest rate, unemployment, sanctions, trade issues, war, inflation, etc. With bitcoin, you have none of that because it is just 1s and 0s backed by nothing. There is no identifiable cause for the individual fluctuations of bitcoin value so the changes can't even be guessed. Some people decide to sell when no one is buying and the value crashes. Some people decide to buy when no one is selling and value explodes. The reasons for each transaction can be literally anything.
Actually, it is about 96% and that is over 100 years. In that same amount of time, pay and the CPI have gone up as well.
Bitcoin has gained, lost, gained, and lost again up to 30% of it's value over the last month. Did the amount you pay for gasoline, electricity, bread, etc fluctuate like that? No, they did not. If you bought a $1.00 product on December 14, on December 19, that product had cost you $1.30. If you sold a product on Dec 19 for $1.00, on December 30 you have only $0.65 for that product, but what you are paying for the material to make that product hasn't changed.
Sure. And people using it should have had an issue with using it when it kept climbing. That is why highly unstable currencies are bad. The smart people buy low and sell high, and that "people" includes businesses.
Accepting a depreciating currency is a bad business decision. If offered to pay you for a product you are selling with a 25% margin in a currency that had a 50% chance of loosing half it's value before you could trade it for the stable local currency, would you do it? If you are smart, you would tell me to pay in the stable local currency.
If you bought 1 btc for $15,000.00 c and then the price went down to $10,000, you would care about stability too. As a retailer, they would be constantly buying and selling btc and so the stability of it is important to maintain revenue.
When a currency can quickly gain or lose half it's value with no apparent reason and no apparent cause, many people won't want to take them for fear they will lose money on the deal.
The point of the analogy was that making a major and unsupported change to a product or device effectively guarantees that the manufacturer isn't going to support what one has done to the product or device.
I could have said "It's Linux. Decompile the app and write a version for Linux." instead of actually explaining why it is irrational to expect HP to support something he did to his computer that they don't support when he asked if he had to reinstall Windows to check it. The simple fact is that OPs complaint is that HP isn't supporting something he did that they never supported doing in the first place. It is quite possible that OP voided his warranty by removing Windows and installing Linux and that is why they aren't bothering with providing a list of whatever. He may very well have made his machine ineligible for the recall.
Importantly, you pointed out that this is about hardware but the utility only runs on their delivered, supported platform. Show me where it says they must support something that is not their delivered platform.
Finally, there is the fact that many of these devices are not considered user serviceable and the batteries not user replaceable. They will want the laptop to go to a service center for it to be changed.
HP is providing battery replacement services by an authorized technician at no cost.
They don't want users opening the devices to look at the batteries and possibly breaking something in the process then complaining about it and demanding a new computer. And, once it goes to the service center, it may very well come back with Windows installed on it.
The simple fact is that OPs complaint is that HP isn't supporting something he did that they never supported doing in the first place. It is quite possible that OP voided his warranty by removing Windows and installing Linux and that is why they aren't bothering with providing a list of whatever. He may very well have made his machine ineligible for the recall. And, even if he didn't void his warranty, he still has no reason to expect them to support anything other than what they delivered including providing a list of serial numbers for batteries involved in the recall.
More accurately, it would be like taking a public domain song, changing the pitch of a single note, and then claiming copyright over it and trying to sue anyone who also made a derivative work from the public domain song.
You shoot yourself in the foot with that argument. If there are an infinite number of permutations, then all versions are either independent works OR all versions are derivative works. As white noise existed as public domain for a long time before anyone got a copyright on any particular version, the burden of proof falls on the supposed copyright holder to show that the work in question violates his work and does not derive from teh public domain work.
Good luck with that.
HP doesn't support Linux, which is an unsupported edge case, so they aren't going to write an application for Linux. As AC's laptop didn't come with Linux and HP doesn't sell it with Linux and doesn't support it with Linux, explain why AC has a right to be pissed off.
It is the equivalent to buying a Jaguar, replacing the engine with a small block Chevy V8, then being upset that the Jaguar dealer has no way to tell if the engine is causing shifting problems for the transmission.
So customers (like me) who immediately removed Windows and the HP bloatware from their laptop in favor of a free operating system must reinstall Windows to find out if their battery is affected?
HP doesn't support Linux so as soon as you removed Windows, you are on your own. Linux is an edge case which most companies don't support and you know this so quit whining about it
Really? Minor children do not have any legal assets. The parent controls all the assets whether given by the parent or earned by the child. If you need $50.00 and you know you child has $50.00 in his or her piggy bank, you as the parent have an absolute right to take it and it is not theft.
You sound like so many teens who have been raised to think they actually own the things their parents let them have.
4) Man opens wife's purse (no permission) and takes $50 to buy food and does not tell her after the fact - is it theft?
4) Wrong, but not theft (what is purchased is irrelevant) - martial assets are shared assets. Unless there's an agreement otherwise, that money in the purse is just as much his as hers. And so is the purse.
I'm not sure you understand what you just did. You claimed that the money is a shared asset but it was wrong to take the shared asset to buy food. You need to rethink that. If the money is a shared asset then it both of theirs regardless of where it resides. As a shared asset, he has a right to take and spend it regardless of whether it is in the bank, his wallet, or her purse, just like she does.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a problem with Apple's products. Apple provides a device, one that is very popular as a way to signal affluence and hipness, which is why a lot of kids want an Apple device. But, they only make up 35% or so of the market. The real problem is the services and the parents.
The problem is not with the company. Apple doesn't give away iPhones. Apple doesn't own or control SnapChat, Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram, or any of the other services. Apple doesn't even make most of the apps available on it's phones, Demanding Apple do something about something it does not control is not just futile, it shows either a basic misunderstanding of the issue or, much more likely, not actually caring about the problem and just wanting attention and eyeballs.
Again, the problem is not with Apple nor it's products. Changing Apple WON'T fix the problem.
The price of gold is what people are willing to pay for it and gold has an intrinsic value due to the fact is is a relatively rare, useful metal.
The price of bitcoin is what people are willing to pay for it but bitcoin has no intrinsic value because it is nothing but electronic 1s and 0s that can't be used for anything besides being a bitcoin.
This is not a problem with Apple's products. Apple provides a device, one that is very popular as a way to signal affluence and hipness, which is why a lot of kids want an Apple device. But, they only make up 35% or so of the market. The real problem is the services and the parents. But, the groups who are doing this are taking aim at Apple instead of the services because Apple is high profile and something they have stock in right now. They would have to adjust their portfolios to include a large amount of stock in FaceBook, Twitter, etc. in order to address the actual problem and they don't.
If they actually cared about the problem, they would have researched the issue and then applied pressure where it would do the most good. Instead, they applied the pressure where it would get the most eyeballs. In all reality, they are not doing anything about the problem, they are just putting on a show to signal how deeply caring they are about children while not actually doing what it would take to fix the problem. It is like praying for the victims of a disaster and not actually sending aid.
Yes, I did read the article. It is a couple of activist investor groups virtue signalling.
Actually, the article is about how two groups of investors are bleating about the dangers of technology X and how kids get addicted to it and so are threatening pull their investment capital from a tech company. In this instance, Slashdot is simply reporting on what OTHER PEOPLE are doing and saying.
They are busy playing CandyCrush on their phones.
And why do parents need help in cutting their own childrens' phone usage?
What happened to the good old "Turn the damned phone off"....or even better..."Give me that phone".
No need for Apple to get involved there.
Because mommy and daddy want to be their kids' friends and don't want to traumatize the kids by actually parenting.
Hell, why would parents buy children (less than teens at least) a phone in the first place?
Because it is a lot easier to let the phone entertain the kids instead of actually parenting.
"We must signal our virtue by threatening to take our money out of a business that provides a product that some teens and children use to distraction and feel addicted to even though it is the parents' and not the business's fault unless the business does something about this thing that is not their fault or even their problem because they make money for us and have deep pockets!"
That is the cause of the volatility but not the cause of the individual fluctuations. Generally, when a conventional currency's value changes, there is an identifiable cause, such as interest rate, unemployment, sanctions, trade issues, war, inflation, etc. With bitcoin, you have none of that because it is just 1s and 0s backed by nothing. There is no identifiable cause for the individual fluctuations of bitcoin value so the changes can't even be guessed. Some people decide to sell when no one is buying and the value crashes. Some people decide to buy when no one is selling and value explodes. The reasons for each transaction can be literally anything.
Actually, it is about 96% and that is over 100 years. In that same amount of time, pay and the CPI have gone up as well.
Bitcoin has gained, lost, gained, and lost again up to 30% of it's value over the last month. Did the amount you pay for gasoline, electricity, bread, etc fluctuate like that? No, they did not. If you bought a $1.00 product on December 14, on December 19, that product had cost you $1.30. If you sold a product on Dec 19 for $1.00, on December 30 you have only $0.65 for that product, but what you are paying for the material to make that product hasn't changed.
Sure. And people using it should have had an issue with using it when it kept climbing. That is why highly unstable currencies are bad. The smart people buy low and sell high, and that "people" includes businesses. Accepting a depreciating currency is a bad business decision. If offered to pay you for a product you are selling with a 25% margin in a currency that had a 50% chance of loosing half it's value before you could trade it for the stable local currency, would you do it? If you are smart, you would tell me to pay in the stable local currency.
If you bought 1 btc for $15,000.00 c and then the price went down to $10,000, you would care about stability too. As a retailer, they would be constantly buying and selling btc and so the stability of it is important to maintain revenue.
When a currency can quickly gain or lose half it's value with no apparent reason and no apparent cause, many people won't want to take them for fear they will lose money on the deal.
A few offerings from ASUS: https://www.asus.com/us/2-in-1... https://www.asus.com/us/2-in-1... https://www.asus.com/us/Tablet... It is actually quite hard to make suggestions without knowledge of all your needs.
But, the solution doesn't scale.
The point of the analogy was that making a major and unsupported change to a product or device effectively guarantees that the manufacturer isn't going to support what one has done to the product or device.
I could have said "It's Linux. Decompile the app and write a version for Linux." instead of actually explaining why it is irrational to expect HP to support something he did to his computer that they don't support when he asked if he had to reinstall Windows to check it. The simple fact is that OPs complaint is that HP isn't supporting something he did that they never supported doing in the first place. It is quite possible that OP voided his warranty by removing Windows and installing Linux and that is why they aren't bothering with providing a list of whatever. He may very well have made his machine ineligible for the recall.
Importantly, you pointed out that this is about hardware but the utility only runs on their delivered, supported platform. Show me where it says they must support something that is not their delivered platform.
Finally, there is the fact that many of these devices are not considered user serviceable and the batteries not user replaceable. They will want the laptop to go to a service center for it to be changed.
HP is providing battery replacement services by an authorized technician at no cost.
They don't want users opening the devices to look at the batteries and possibly breaking something in the process then complaining about it and demanding a new computer. And, once it goes to the service center, it may very well come back with Windows installed on it.
The simple fact is that OPs complaint is that HP isn't supporting something he did that they never supported doing in the first place. It is quite possible that OP voided his warranty by removing Windows and installing Linux and that is why they aren't bothering with providing a list of whatever. He may very well have made his machine ineligible for the recall. And, even if he didn't void his warranty, he still has no reason to expect them to support anything other than what they delivered including providing a list of serial numbers for batteries involved in the recall.
More accurately, it would be like taking a public domain song, changing the pitch of a single note, and then claiming copyright over it and trying to sue anyone who also made a derivative work from the public domain song.
You shoot yourself in the foot with that argument. If there are an infinite number of permutations, then all versions are either independent works OR all versions are derivative works. As white noise existed as public domain for a long time before anyone got a copyright on any particular version, the burden of proof falls on the supposed copyright holder to show that the work in question violates his work and does not derive from teh public domain work. Good luck with that.
HP doesn't support Linux, which is an unsupported edge case, so they aren't going to write an application for Linux. As AC's laptop didn't come with Linux and HP doesn't sell it with Linux and doesn't support it with Linux, explain why AC has a right to be pissed off. It is the equivalent to buying a Jaguar, replacing the engine with a small block Chevy V8, then being upset that the Jaguar dealer has no way to tell if the engine is causing shifting problems for the transmission.
"Alexa, order same day delivery of toilet paper. Add instructions to enter the house and deliver to second bathroom on the right."
So customers (like me) who immediately removed Windows and the HP bloatware from their laptop in favor of a free operating system must reinstall Windows to find out if their battery is affected?
HP doesn't support Linux so as soon as you removed Windows, you are on your own. Linux is an edge case which most companies don't support and you know this so quit whining about it
That's not entirely correct (at least in the US). Minor children own their own money.
Assertion without evidence. I suggest you look at case law to see that you are wrong.
Really? Minor children do not have any legal assets. The parent controls all the assets whether given by the parent or earned by the child. If you need $50.00 and you know you child has $50.00 in his or her piggy bank, you as the parent have an absolute right to take it and it is not theft. You sound like so many teens who have been raised to think they actually own the things their parents let them have.
4) Man opens wife's purse (no permission) and takes $50 to buy food and does not tell her after the fact - is it theft?
4) Wrong, but not theft (what is purchased is irrelevant) - martial assets are shared assets. Unless there's an agreement otherwise, that money in the purse is just as much his as hers. And so is the purse.
I'm not sure you understand what you just did. You claimed that the money is a shared asset but it was wrong to take the shared asset to buy food. You need to rethink that. If the money is a shared asset then it both of theirs regardless of where it resides. As a shared asset, he has a right to take and spend it regardless of whether it is in the bank, his wallet, or her purse, just like she does.
By the way, my sig is from years ago when that exact behavior started here on Slashdot. Your UID is old enough you should remember when it started.