Hmmm. I must have a reading disorder then. Can you tell me what his point was? 'cause there are plenty of black people in the various Apple stores I've been so far.
"Blame it on the patent system, but not on apple for playing by the rules of the system"
That's answering someone that said that Apple was gaming the system. So I agree with MichaelKristopeitBro. Apple is not gaming the system. They may do all other evils combined, but they don't game the system. They play by the rules.
"Apple is not gaming the system"
Again, reread Lorien_the_first_one post. The answer of MichaelKristopeitBro makes absolute sense in this context. Lorien_the_first_one is not claimint Apple is doing something bad, (s)he is claiming that Apple is not playing by the rules.
Apple is not gaming the system. Apple is playing by the rules, and the rules are utterly stupid.
So if you were running a concentration camp and the rules said you could kill innocent women and children, that would make it OK to do it?
Did you ever learn how to read? Who said it was ok?
Apple has this tendency to bring out the worst out of cretins like you. You jump at everyone that write a a positive word and "Apple" in the same sentence without trying to understand what the sentence is actually trying to say.
Let's rehash this for you:
Someone: Apple is gaming the system! Some other dude: No, they play by the rules! The rules are stupid! You: Why do you agree wholeheartedly with everything Steve Jobs has ever said and done in this life and the 27 that will follow?
Do you see how stupid you look from outside? You didn't even try to understand any of these people. How do you pretend to be answering any of them?
Your hate of Apple is blinding you even more than Apple zealots.
Just because someone is playing by the rules doesn't mean that you should absolve them of all responsibility.
You know, it's all about context. The thread is about whether or not Apple is abusing the patent system. Nobody is absolving them.
The companies that try to be as douchy as they can within the rules, are more likely to just go and outright break the rules when they think they can get away with it. So far Apple don't appear to have done anything completely illegal, so they haven't quite reached the MS and Intel charged criminal levels yet, but I don't think it will be long. Well, maybe now that Steve's gone again they won't be so bad, who knows.
There are companies that have the same rules to play by, but don't try to do things like patent a rectangle with rounded corners. Ask your brother, I'm sure he'll tell you how pathetic that is.
Well, I'll say that if you worked at Apple after sales service, of course you've seen many iPhones fail. That's where they all regroup. And I never pretended that *NO* iPhone was ever defective. Heck, the battery of my 3GS just died on me a week ago. I have only 15 minutes autonomy now. But my original iPhone wtill work great. So you were even more biaised than me. I've never heard of anyone having to reboot his iPhone every other day, and like many, I know a whole bunch of people with iPhones. Of course, this is now true with many phones such as Android.
Not that your comment is very clear on where you worked and what you saw there.
You may not troll, but you are quick to call trolls the posts you disagree with.
You completely and utterly misunderstood me. There is no regime currently on earth that prevents anyone from stepping into their neighbor's home and share information. The so called laws you're talking about are for public statements, they do no prevent anyone from sharing an encrypted ZIP file to anyone by email.
So no, everyone is in the 100% I'm talking about, free to share information with everyone they see fit.
Public statements is another matter. And if you think change can be stopped, you've learned very little from history. Oh, sure, locally and temporarily, it can be stopped. But it will go ahead at some point. It is just slowing it down a little.
I had a windows mobile phone once. Just to get to the calculator, it would take 7 tap on the 4-way dial. That is just insane.
It also didn't close apps on its own. Every app you launched you had to close manually from the "task manager" or else nothing would run anymore (not even the phone app). And no matter how many times you did it, after a week, you were due for a reboot. Plain and simple.
I've had iPhones for a while now. Outside of any jailbreaking, you don't have to reboot your phone every other month.
Jailbroken iPhones are crap.
But your sentence "neither needed to be rebooted more than once a week" says it all. I had to reboot my Win95 once a week. That's what your phones can be compared to. Crap.
Well, I'd call you a troll then. I've had an iPhone 1st Gen for two years, then a 3GS for 2.5 years. Never had to reboot more than twice a year. Yes, it happens.
One question though: Did you jailbreak your phone? Because I did mine a few times. THEN, I had to reboot twice a week. I didn't count this in the count in the above paragraph, because as soon as I stopped jailbreaking, it was back to normal.
Actually, If you look at those studies closely, most of them say that there is no link, just a slight correlation.
Those studies are usually mis quoted, or taken out of context. Assuming they are not bias.
I have no doubt that cell phone usage has little correlation (at best) with cancer.
But think about someone living under the roof in an apartment below a cell tower. This is something I'd like to see a study about. Because the cell tower emits orders of magnitudes higher than a cellphone, and it emits 24/7. IMO, the real issue with cellphones is this, not the cellphones themselves.
I didn't say that copyright wasn't broken. I said that piracy is not the solution.
Nobody says piracy is the solution. People says that piracy is INEVITABLE. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent people from sharing information, save a completely totalitarian regime. In all other regimes, people will be able to freely communicate. Hence, they will be able to pirate digital media, which is nothing more than a collection of bits.
No, you didn't. It was paid for by the outrageous markup you turned your head and coughed up for having PHB decide what you can and cannot run on hardware for which you were way overcharged.
Apple is no competitor to anyone really - on the long term. They were there first 4 years ahead of everyone, which pretty much explains their dominant position today. But this is fading and pretty fast. In 10 years they'll probably hold 10-20 % of the market and nothing more. This is mostly due to their closed platform and their "one phone to fit them all" policy.
So, they're not a long-term competitor.
Today, however, they control roughly one smartphone out of two. Allowing them to do the new ActiveSync would mean that the new ActiveSync has a fair chance of catching up. Because if no phone whatsoever (no Android and no iPhone = no phone) can sync with the new ActiveSync, it is DOA.
BTW, is there a chrome and FF extension that basically prevents EVERYTHING on a webpage that is not from the same domain than said webpage?
I have the "Block third-party cookies from being set" ticked on Chrome, but that doesn't work for other resources - any resource. I want to block scripts, images, CSS, everything. I want the browser to make requests only to the domain name I see on the address bar.
That's actually basically all I need. Of course, there should be a white listing capabilities.
Ok, I won't answer to both threads, so I'll keep only that one alive. And let's put emotions aside. I think our misunderstanding is simple really:
I was comparing being in an abusive relationship with a spouse to being in an abusive contract with a phone
It is just in the definition of good and bad. You talked about philosophy, so let's dive in. There are no absolutes when it comes to good and bad, it is all dependent on your point of view. However, a battered wife *is* a bad thing, and by this I mean that it is universally recognized as being a bad thing.
Now, before going any further, I'll put some context onto that sentence. I am talking about western culture (say, north america and western Europe) which is the only culture I really know. We could go into other stuff, but I'm not interested really, nor am I competent. So by universally, I mean universally in western culture.
So, a battered wife could be made to believe she deserves what she gets. This is for me nothing else than a form of indoctrination, much like you can make people believe it's a good idea to hijack a plane and crash it into a tower. I don't know how it works, but it is obviously possible since it does exist.
The point being that an overwhelming majority of people consider battling your wife a bad thing. There are even laws for this.
Buying a phone with a walled-garden type app store *is not* considered to be a bad thing by most people. By most, it is considered a choice that may or may not fit one's needs. There is a minority of people that consider it a bad thing, much like everything else really, and this community is over-represented on Slashdot. But it is not the norm.
And even by explaining to people what exactly happens into the App Store (namely the approval process and the mandatory status of said process in order to get into the store), you'll realize that many people find that as being an *interesting* thing. Something of value.
Indeed, I consider the walled-garden app store a service with added value over the Google app store where anyone with a PC and 30 minutes to waste can write a piece of crap and get it into the store. The most ridiculously pathetic and useless apps on the Apple app store are nothing compare to the pile of shit you can find in the bottom of the Google Android app store. This is just one example of how I consider the Apple app store superior to Google's, for my specific needs. As I said, yes, there are drawbacks. So it is all a matter of setting your priorities straight and realizing what has the most value. Once that's done, you can weight the good and bad of each store *as applied to your situation* and then decide which best fit your needs.
So in my view, this is why you fail in your analogy, because you're trying to generalize the fact that Apple's walled garden is a bad thing - by comparing it to something universally bad -, when it is not. And it's not that it is not in my view. It is not by any stretch of the imagination. So no, it is not a matter of degree, it is a matter of those two thing being almost opposite things.
And to go back to your quote:
I was comparing being in an abusive relationship with a spouse to being in an abusive contract with a phone
The problem is that the relation to your phone is not abusive. At least, it's not perceived to be an abusive relationship by an overwhelming majority of the people out there.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had mod points. This is so true.
Point taken.
Hmmm. I must have a reading disorder then. Can you tell me what his point was? 'cause there are plenty of black people in the various Apple stores I've been so far.
"Blame it on the patent system, but not on apple for playing by the rules of the system"
That's answering someone that said that Apple was gaming the system. So I agree with MichaelKristopeitBro. Apple is not gaming the system. They may do all other evils combined, but they don't game the system. They play by the rules.
"Apple is not gaming the system"
Again, reread Lorien_the_first_one post. The answer of MichaelKristopeitBro makes absolute sense in this context. Lorien_the_first_one is not claimint Apple is doing something bad, (s)he is claiming that Apple is not playing by the rules.
Apple is not gaming the system. Apple is playing by the rules, and the rules are utterly stupid.
So if you were running a concentration camp and the rules said you could kill innocent women and children, that would make it OK to do it?
Did you ever learn how to read? Who said it was ok?
Apple has this tendency to bring out the worst out of cretins like you. You jump at everyone that write a a positive word and "Apple" in the same sentence without trying to understand what the sentence is actually trying to say.
Let's rehash this for you:
Someone: Apple is gaming the system!
Some other dude: No, they play by the rules! The rules are stupid!
You: Why do you agree wholeheartedly with everything Steve Jobs has ever said and done in this life and the 27 that will follow?
Do you see how stupid you look from outside? You didn't even try to understand any of these people. How do you pretend to be answering any of them?
Your hate of Apple is blinding you even more than Apple zealots.
When's the last time you saw a black person in an Apple store?
Last week end.
If you want to troll, fine, but check your goddam facts first.
Just because someone is playing by the rules doesn't mean that you should absolve them of all responsibility.
You know, it's all about context. The thread is about whether or not Apple is abusing the patent system. Nobody is absolving them.
The companies that try to be as douchy as they can within the rules, are more likely to just go and outright break the rules when they think they can get away with it. So far Apple don't appear to have done anything completely illegal, so they haven't quite reached the MS and Intel charged criminal levels yet, but I don't think it will be long. Well, maybe now that Steve's gone again they won't be so bad, who knows.
There are companies that have the same rules to play by, but don't try to do things like patent a rectangle with rounded corners. Ask your brother, I'm sure he'll tell you how pathetic that is.
Agreed.
Well, I'll say that if you worked at Apple after sales service, of course you've seen many iPhones fail. That's where they all regroup. And I never pretended that *NO* iPhone was ever defective. Heck, the battery of my 3GS just died on me a week ago. I have only 15 minutes autonomy now. But my original iPhone wtill work great. So you were even more biaised than me. I've never heard of anyone having to reboot his iPhone every other day, and like many, I know a whole bunch of people with iPhones. Of course, this is now true with many phones such as Android.
Not that your comment is very clear on where you worked and what you saw there.
You may not troll, but you are quick to call trolls the posts you disagree with.
You completely and utterly misunderstood me. There is no regime currently on earth that prevents anyone from stepping into their neighbor's home and share information. The so called laws you're talking about are for public statements, they do no prevent anyone from sharing an encrypted ZIP file to anyone by email.
So no, everyone is in the 100% I'm talking about, free to share information with everyone they see fit.
Public statements is another matter. And if you think change can be stopped, you've learned very little from history. Oh, sure, locally and temporarily, it can be stopped. But it will go ahead at some point. It is just slowing it down a little.
I had a windows mobile phone once. Just to get to the calculator, it would take 7 tap on the 4-way dial. That is just insane.
It also didn't close apps on its own. Every app you launched you had to close manually from the "task manager" or else nothing would run anymore (not even the phone app). And no matter how many times you did it, after a week, you were due for a reboot. Plain and simple.
I've had iPhones for a while now. Outside of any jailbreaking, you don't have to reboot your phone every other month.
Jailbroken iPhones are crap.
But your sentence "neither needed to be rebooted more than once a week" says it all. I had to reboot my Win95 once a week. That's what your phones can be compared to. Crap.
Well, I'd call you a troll then. I've had an iPhone 1st Gen for two years, then a 3GS for 2.5 years. Never had to reboot more than twice a year. Yes, it happens.
One question though: Did you jailbreak your phone? Because I did mine a few times. THEN, I had to reboot twice a week. I didn't count this in the count in the above paragraph, because as soon as I stopped jailbreaking, it was back to normal.
Actually, If you look at those studies closely, most of them say that there is no link, just a slight correlation.
Those studies are usually mis quoted, or taken out of context. Assuming they are not bias.
I have no doubt that cell phone usage has little correlation (at best) with cancer.
But think about someone living under the roof in an apartment below a cell tower. This is something I'd like to see a study about. Because the cell tower emits orders of magnitudes higher than a cellphone, and it emits 24/7. IMO, the real issue with cellphones is this, not the cellphones themselves.
maybe we can find some common ground in the browser wars?
IE sucks? Can we universally agree on that one then?
I didn't say that copyright wasn't broken. I said that piracy is not the solution.
Nobody says piracy is the solution. People says that piracy is INEVITABLE. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent people from sharing information, save a completely totalitarian regime. In all other regimes, people will be able to freely communicate. Hence, they will be able to pirate digital media, which is nothing more than a collection of bits.
I got it for free on my ipad
No, you didn't. It was paid for by the outrageous markup you turned your head and coughed up for having PHB decide what you can and cannot run on hardware for which you were way overcharged.
Why all the hate?
Apple is no competitor to anyone really - on the long term. They were there first 4 years ahead of everyone, which pretty much explains their dominant position today. But this is fading and pretty fast. In 10 years they'll probably hold 10-20 % of the market and nothing more. This is mostly due to their closed platform and their "one phone to fit them all" policy.
So, they're not a long-term competitor.
Today, however, they control roughly one smartphone out of two. Allowing them to do the new ActiveSync would mean that the new ActiveSync has a fair chance of catching up. Because if no phone whatsoever (no Android and no iPhone = no phone) can sync with the new ActiveSync, it is DOA.
So Apple is needed to cooperate in this scheme.
They seem to still exist
first post?
No.
BTW, is there a chrome and FF extension that basically prevents EVERYTHING on a webpage that is not from the same domain than said webpage?
I have the "Block third-party cookies from being set" ticked on Chrome, but that doesn't work for other resources - any resource. I want to block scripts, images, CSS, everything. I want the browser to make requests only to the domain name I see on the address bar.
That's actually basically all I need. Of course, there should be a white listing capabilities.
Ok, I won't answer to both threads, so I'll keep only that one alive. And let's put emotions aside. I think our misunderstanding is simple really:
I was comparing being in an abusive relationship with a spouse to being in an abusive contract with a phone
It is just in the definition of good and bad. You talked about philosophy, so let's dive in. There are no absolutes when it comes to good and bad, it is all dependent on your point of view. However, a battered wife *is* a bad thing, and by this I mean that it is universally recognized as being a bad thing.
Now, before going any further, I'll put some context onto that sentence. I am talking about western culture (say, north america and western Europe) which is the only culture I really know. We could go into other stuff, but I'm not interested really, nor am I competent. So by universally, I mean universally in western culture.
So, a battered wife could be made to believe she deserves what she gets. This is for me nothing else than a form of indoctrination, much like you can make people believe it's a good idea to hijack a plane and crash it into a tower. I don't know how it works, but it is obviously possible since it does exist.
The point being that an overwhelming majority of people consider battling your wife a bad thing. There are even laws for this.
Buying a phone with a walled-garden type app store *is not* considered to be a bad thing by most people. By most, it is considered a choice that may or may not fit one's needs. There is a minority of people that consider it a bad thing, much like everything else really, and this community is over-represented on Slashdot. But it is not the norm.
And even by explaining to people what exactly happens into the App Store (namely the approval process and the mandatory status of said process in order to get into the store), you'll realize that many people find that as being an *interesting* thing. Something of value.
Indeed, I consider the walled-garden app store a service with added value over the Google app store where anyone with a PC and 30 minutes to waste can write a piece of crap and get it into the store. The most ridiculously pathetic and useless apps on the Apple app store are nothing compare to the pile of shit you can find in the bottom of the Google Android app store. This is just one example of how I consider the Apple app store superior to Google's, for my specific needs. As I said, yes, there are drawbacks. So it is all a matter of setting your priorities straight and realizing what has the most value. Once that's done, you can weight the good and bad of each store *as applied to your situation* and then decide which best fit your needs.
So in my view, this is why you fail in your analogy, because you're trying to generalize the fact that Apple's walled garden is a bad thing - by comparing it to something universally bad -, when it is not. And it's not that it is not in my view. It is not by any stretch of the imagination. So no, it is not a matter of degree, it is a matter of those two thing being almost opposite things.
And to go back to your quote:
I was comparing being in an abusive relationship with a spouse to being in an abusive contract with a phone
The problem is that the relation to your phone is not abusive. At least, it's not perceived to be an abusive relationship by an overwhelming majority of the people out there.
Clearly you do not understanding how floating-point and decimal representation works in digital systems.
And you clearly need some fine tuning to your humor detector.
I'm confused now. Should i or shouldn't I?
Ok, I will then.
ok, then I will not.
Ok , I will