Before my last post I watched the ENTIRE video again. He didn't lunge at anyone. If that's lunging, then my 4 year old is guilty of assault every time she gets out of her chair.
Do I believe Rodney King was an idiot dips*** who deserved to be tasered, clubbed a couple of times, then cuffed and restrained? Hell yes. Should he have been clubbed 56 times, tasered repeatedly, and kicked repeatedly, with other cops standing around watching him get the sh** beat out of him instead of them simply subduing him like they do at the end (and could have done 10 seconds in)? Hell no.
I have known, personally, 5 police officers in my life so far. ONE of them was a good guy, a damn good guy (ex SEAL/UDT cop in San Diego - if all cops were like him there'd be no crime;)), the other four were all assholes, and most of them racist, drive like a madman, drink and drive all the time 'pigs.' Three of those four suffered from the "nobody liked me in high school and now I'm the man" syndrome. I think that's the majority of the problem with police, that and a self serving culture that only wants cops that are going to go along to get along.
I have, I have seen the original broadcast as well.
You say he "went after those cops FIVE TIMES", well, if staggering to your feet for a half second before being clubbed to the head while being tasered means that you are going after the cops, then he went after the cops once.
If you mean that crawling up onto your knees with your head down means you are going after the cops, then he went after the cops twice.
If you mean that rolling onto your back weakly and feebly trying to protect your head means you are going after the cops, then he went after the cops three times, then a fourth time, then a fifth time, then innumerable times after that until the cops started getting tired after 56 baton strikes, several, kicks, and taserings and just walked up with five or six cops and handcuffed and cord cuffed him (guess those five/six cops couldn't have cuffed or cord cuffed him when he was struggling to roll onto his back, right?)
I'll get back to you on that right now - it was wrong and a total misuse of police authority.
While I strongly support the public right to record the public actions of public servants, I think there is a legitimate fear of such things on the part of officers. The spectrum runs from "You couldn't handle the truth," to "The enforcement of the law is like making sausage -- you wouldn't want to see how it's done."
I'm sorry, but unless you're only worried about the sensitivity of white women in their late 40's in north east Wyoming, most people in the south, California, New York/New Jersey, Maryland/DC, Florida - think things are worse than they generally are in any case. Some people keep trying to say that allowing the videotaping would be detrimental to the police. The problem with that argument is that you already can video tape them in just about every public arena, and these nightmare scenarios don't seem to be happening. They do seem to be helping people being brutalized by the police though. Hell, video has exonerated many police officers as well (the car cams have probably dropped abuse reports 10 fold since motorists can't lie about what happened at a traffic stop either.)
The latter can be entirely valid. In order to detain hostile suspects in a manner that is safe for the public, the officer, and the suspect, it can be necessary to use a degree of force which to a normal member of the public can look harsher than is necessary.
- First, who cares if the public thinks it is harsh, what matters is what a court things. Second, again, most of the populations of major metropolitan areas think the cops all act like the ones in "Do the right thing" anyhow.
Certainly I am not saying this is always the case. I lived in San Francisco for the Fruitvale BART incident and the suspect who got smashed through a BART station window. I am not saying such things do not happen. However, it is the case that even ideal police enforcement involves a degree of physical altercation that is well outside the realm of experience of most people.
Officers, with good historical records to work from, fear the media creating a spectacle of such incidents -- even when the subduing the suspect is done in the best possible way
- Tough shit. Really. You want the power of life and death over people, you'll have to live with the fear of the media.
much as we feel about the RIAA creating a public spectacle by equating downloading with lost revenue.
All that said, I believe the right solution is to be *more* open about the reality of law enforcement. For the public to see the hostility that officers face on a daily basis, so we can better understand the stress and psychological trauma these men and women must endure. With the ideal outcome being that we are both more understanding of the internal problems these people face in protecting and serving us, and so that we can more precisely identify and punish those who abuse their authority.
Personally, I think the more monitored the police are, the more you will weed out corruption (or drive it into smaller areas) and EVENTUALLY create trust between the public and its public servants; however, that'll never happen because cops cover for cops pretty much no matter what. A perfect example - an off duty cop in Charleston, SC (Mt. Pleasant to be specific) was inebriated and hauling ass down a road (Rifle range road) after a soccer game (he was on our team) and then about 12 beers in the park afterwards - he hit someone in the traffic circle on that road and then turned on his lights and hauled ass away. He called his 'buddies in blue' and (I forget exactly what they did) they set it up so that he was logged as responding to a call someplace 30 miles away in order to excuse the accident. I know this because the racist as*hole told me all about it the next week somehow proud about it.
video/audio taken out of context, could be very damaging even during a legitimate use of force
- I don't see how it could be "very damaging" during a legitimate use of force. For example, the Rodney King incident. If the video showed the officers pinning him to the ground and subduing him, even if they had to use a few nightsticks to do it, that wouldn't be very damaging even though there's no "context" for the arrest. The video doesn't show police subduing an individual using appropriate force - it shows police going way way way over the top. The only time context should be important is in cases where the question of whether a particular technique has been used or not (like that as*hat "don't tase me bro" guy - I think I would have tased that jerkoff myself...) - not how much that technique should have been used.
They don't want to waste department resources defending everything someone could be offended by that a officer does
- That is already a possibility. Video recording doesn't exacerbate this situation, it only makes it possible to prove when either party is lying.
Recon by the bad guys. Having videos of every officers actions, would allow them to be prepared to attack weaknesses in the officers daily routines.
- Ridiculous, anyone wanting to 'recon' the police will record their actions whether legal or not. You really sound like you're desperate to come up with reasons why this should be acceptable.
Official officer Radio/PC traffic often have private citizens information that should often be protected. A blanket law stating you can record all officer actions would mean that when I get placed in a police car, I could legally plant a wire/monitor and leave it behind. Thereafter if I publish that information would make it very difficult to protect victim identities, etc that officers encounter doing official work, etc that should be protected.
- Seriously? First, people don't create laws that state things are legal, they create laws to state what is illegal. Second, from what I understand, the interior of a police car is not considered a public place. Third, you are creating straw men scenarios on the premise of some blanket legislation that says you can record the police everywhere.
All that said, I think none of the issues is significant enough that it should be a cause to stop a person from recording anything, assuming the person is present in person (or a security cam that just happens to catch.) But I do think it would be endangering our police officers to have no recourse for stopping the public release of some of the above (I personally would love to have a GPS database of all polices current locations, but not so much so that I think it should be publicly available to all.)
I agree that there are potential dangers but I believe that none of them warrant the prevention of creating video evidence by any party, but perhaps in how it may be used (used for legal or non commercial use, et cetera...) Anyhow, the problem is that the police are misapplying laws with the intent to prevent recording under any circumstances.
Judgements? What judgements would those be? The judgement that the truth is important? The judgement that the police have been proven, innumerable times, to intentionally lie and distort the truth to cover up improper behavior?
What, exactly, in their jobs do you think excuses this type of behavior?
No offense, but there's no justification for cops "beating on some guy", there is justification for cops subduing a guy who is resisting arrest.
I've seen a fair number of videos of police acting properly and a fair number where they act improperly - most of them had more than enough context to make that sort of judgement.
I don't think too many people would find the "armchair quarterback" argument to be a legitimate reason, but that's just me...
Plus, I don't think police recordings would be of much interest to people unless something improper was happening. I certainly don't think people would be recording a copy an officer spending hours catching speeders for the sake of exposing "cop radars speeders" to the world.
I don't know what America you are referring to where people trusted each other more than they do now. I can't imagine that there was much trust between cops and blacks in the south before the late 80's, or between immigrant populations in the big cities circa the turn of the century, et cetera...
People are the same now as they have been for thousands of years - give people unchecked authority and corruption will reign. Recording the PUBLIC actions of police officers is a check on such abuse of authority. Imagine if you'd never seen the Rodney King beating. Would YOU have believed him?
I think it depends largely upon the influence/authority/power that position holds, and if we're discussing recording an interaction between the employee and a member of the public.
You should be able to record any interaction with a government representative that you interact with during the execution of their duties unless there is a legitimate reason to prevent it.
Personally, I've never heard a legitimate reason for why someone shouldn't be able to record police/public interactions.
...do the police have for avoiding being recorded?
The only value I can imagine in preventing their being recorded would be to cover up misdeeds.
Now, if we're talking about a police officer who is undercover, I could imagine circumstances that could preclude recording, but a uniformed or off-duty police officer? Why would someone with so much power be allowed to prevent the recording of the exercise of that authority?
Actually, it isn't a valid defense in any way. The other person is arguing weaknesses in BitCoin and you are, by your own definition, arguing the defense of BitCoins by pointing out weaknesses in Government Bonds.
You are are succeeding in drawing parallels to something that operates with some, I would argue vague, similarities but you are in no way defending the asserted weaknesses in BitCoins.
Let's make this simpler - If someone tells you that your favorite pants are not particularly safe because they're made out of gellied gasoline and you counter with "well, your shorts are unsafe because they're made of asbestos" that is in no way a defense of your pants. Abestos shorts would seem to be rather unsafe, but why would that, in any way, means that your pants were safe?
Ahhh, Counter-Strike, those were the days... I still enjoy the single player story modes (when they have them) of FPS, but no longer have the desire to 'dominate all' in multi-player. Get off my lawn.
Yeah, he's so greedy what with that $30 charge for Lion
- I don't see Microsoft charging people for service packs. 10.6-10.7 should cost somewhere $30 for new fluff features? Oh, what, it's 2011 and I can finally run my OSX application full screen? Thank you Mr. Gates, I mean Jobs, please, take my $30 - LOL. Another awesome new feature advertised by Apple as a major aspect of the release is the 'Mac App Store'? Wow, oh - wait, I've had that in 10.6 for months now... The whole litany of "new features" is ridiculous.
and that $0 charge for iCloud
- LOL, it's only free, for now, because Apple is competing against services already in this space that are already free. If Apple gets a consumer stranglehold on cloud services, every historical precedent suggests they will charge exorbitantly.
cheaper than many Android phones
- Cheaper than very few, and by cheaper you mean 'a few tens of dollars cheaper in the $500-$600 dollar range - for a phone with inferior hardware to these particular Android devices.'
Toyota is evil for not giving you the option to put a Ford engine in your car
- Toyota isn't going to come after me for putting a Ford engine in my car. Toyota doesn't care if I buy accessories from a 3rd party. Toyota doesn't forbid me from getting a new stereo from someone else. Toyota doesn't engineer recalls that break my Ford engine.
...Apple's approach thats fine, but calling it evil
- I am not calling Apple evil. I am saying Steve Jobs is everything terrible about Bill Gates in the 80's and more. He's a scumbag who is famous for parking in handicapped spaces, treating the Woz (all hail the Woz!) like sh**, treating his daughter and other women in his life like sh**, the people who work for him like sh**, for flying around the country and registering as a resident in multiple states to get on their transplant lists when he lives in the Bay Area, et cetera...
How about some more examples of greed that are Jobsian? Let's see, when I bought my 2011 Mac Desktop Pro I priced it out (as a lark) with 24GB of memory, then I priced it with 6GB of memory and 24 GB of 3rd party memory (which would actually give me 26GB in the configuration I priced.) The 3rd party memory, high quality 3rd party memory mind you, was nearly $2000 cheaper. FOR MEMORY! LOL.
Apple hardware is RIDICULOUSLY overpriced for what you get. This 12 core, 26GB machine I'm typing this on should cost about $2800 - unfortunately (even going the 3rd party memory route) it actually cost more than $5000 because the 'Apple tax.' The only reason I have this machine is because we're a company and need to be able to dev/test on OSX. Mac laptops? Hysterically overpriced. Accessories? Overpriced. Oh, and btw, Apple intentionally games 3rd party hardware accessories by authentication mechanisms in bloody connectors! LOL.
So yeah, Steve Jobs is a greedy bastard for forcing people to use Apple's App Store, for forcing people to use in app purchasing, for forcing people to use in app subscriptions, overcharging for hardware, suing people for installing OSX on non Apple hardware, sh**ing on his daughter, the Woz, the handicapped, some nameless person in Tennessee whose liver he gamed, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infinitum...
Yeah, Hitler was a genius and hero AND an evil douche-bag too. I can't think of too many non-nazis who shed a tear at his passing, and I can't think of too many non-apple zealots who will shed a tear at Jobs' passing. I don't wish him any harm, but he's a total jerkoff (and genius and hero to Apple fanbois.) BTW, I am typing this on a 2011 Mac Pro Desktop so I'm not anti-Apple (I LOVE THE WOZ!)
I didn't say greed for money, it is greed for power and influence. BTW, I wouldn't worry about him dying anytime soon given how he doesn't mind unethical and, frankly, immoral behavior in order to get himself a new liver... Plus, think of all the reduced stress on his body that comes from parking in handicapped spaces.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Before my last post I watched the ENTIRE video again. He didn't lunge at anyone. If that's lunging, then my 4 year old is guilty of assault every time she gets out of her chair.
Do I believe Rodney King was an idiot dips*** who deserved to be tasered, clubbed a couple of times, then cuffed and restrained? Hell yes. Should he have been clubbed 56 times, tasered repeatedly, and kicked repeatedly, with other cops standing around watching him get the sh** beat out of him instead of them simply subduing him like they do at the end (and could have done 10 seconds in)? Hell no.
I have known, personally, 5 police officers in my life so far. ONE of them was a good guy, a damn good guy (ex SEAL/UDT cop in San Diego - if all cops were like him there'd be no crime ;)), the other four were all assholes, and most of them racist, drive like a madman, drink and drive all the time 'pigs.' Three of those four suffered from the "nobody liked me in high school and now I'm the man" syndrome. I think that's the majority of the problem with police, that and a self serving culture that only wants cops that are going to go along to get along.
It would depend upon whether they resisted arrest or not, yes/no?
Yeah, I read that blog a while bag. Sad.
I have, I have seen the original broadcast as well.
You say he "went after those cops FIVE TIMES", well, if staggering to your feet for a half second before being clubbed to the head while being tasered means that you are going after the cops, then he went after the cops once.
If you mean that crawling up onto your knees with your head down means you are going after the cops, then he went after the cops twice.
If you mean that rolling onto your back weakly and feebly trying to protect your head means you are going after the cops, then he went after the cops three times, then a fourth time, then a fifth time, then innumerable times after that until the cops started getting tired after 56 baton strikes, several, kicks, and taserings and just walked up with five or six cops and handcuffed and cord cuffed him (guess those five/six cops couldn't have cuffed or cord cuffed him when he was struggling to roll onto his back, right?)
I'll get back to you on that right now - it was wrong and a total misuse of police authority.
While I strongly support the public right to record the public actions of public servants, I think there is a legitimate fear of such things on the part of officers. The spectrum runs from "You couldn't handle the truth," to "The enforcement of the law is like making sausage -- you wouldn't want to see how it's done."
I'm sorry, but unless you're only worried about the sensitivity of white women in their late 40's in north east Wyoming, most people in the south, California, New York/New Jersey, Maryland/DC, Florida - think things are worse than they generally are in any case. Some people keep trying to say that allowing the videotaping would be detrimental to the police. The problem with that argument is that you already can video tape them in just about every public arena, and these nightmare scenarios don't seem to be happening. They do seem to be helping people being brutalized by the police though. Hell, video has exonerated many police officers as well (the car cams have probably dropped abuse reports 10 fold since motorists can't lie about what happened at a traffic stop either.)
The latter can be entirely valid. In order to detain hostile suspects in a manner that is safe for the public, the officer, and the suspect, it can be necessary to use a degree of force which to a normal member of the public can look harsher than is necessary.
- First, who cares if the public thinks it is harsh, what matters is what a court things. Second, again, most of the populations of major metropolitan areas think the cops all act like the ones in "Do the right thing" anyhow.
Certainly I am not saying this is always the case. I lived in San Francisco for the Fruitvale BART incident and the suspect who got smashed through a BART station window. I am not saying such things do not happen. However, it is the case that even ideal police enforcement involves a degree of physical altercation that is well outside the realm of experience of most people.
Officers, with good historical records to work from, fear the media creating a spectacle of such incidents -- even when the subduing the suspect is done in the best possible way
- Tough shit. Really. You want the power of life and death over people, you'll have to live with the fear of the media.
much as we feel about the RIAA creating a public spectacle by equating downloading with lost revenue.
All that said, I believe the right solution is to be *more* open about the reality of law enforcement. For the public to see the hostility that officers face on a daily basis, so we can better understand the stress and psychological trauma these men and women must endure. With the ideal outcome being that we are both more understanding of the internal problems these people face in protecting and serving us, and so that we can more precisely identify and punish those who abuse their authority.
Personally, I think the more monitored the police are, the more you will weed out corruption (or drive it into smaller areas) and EVENTUALLY create trust between the public and its public servants; however, that'll never happen because cops cover for cops pretty much no matter what. A perfect example - an off duty cop in Charleston, SC (Mt. Pleasant to be specific) was inebriated and hauling ass down a road (Rifle range road) after a soccer game (he was on our team) and then about 12 beers in the park afterwards - he hit someone in the traffic circle on that road and then turned on his lights and hauled ass away. He called his 'buddies in blue' and (I forget exactly what they did) they set it up so that he was logged as responding to a call someplace 30 miles away in order to excuse the accident. I know this because the racist as*hole told me all about it the next week somehow proud about it.
Yes, I hear Whitey is having a hard time renewing his life insurance policy...
video/audio taken out of context, could be very damaging even during a legitimate use of force
- I don't see how it could be "very damaging" during a legitimate use of force. For example, the Rodney King incident. If the video showed the officers pinning him to the ground and subduing him, even if they had to use a few nightsticks to do it, that wouldn't be very damaging even though there's no "context" for the arrest. The video doesn't show police subduing an individual using appropriate force - it shows police going way way way over the top. The only time context should be important is in cases where the question of whether a particular technique has been used or not (like that as*hat "don't tase me bro" guy - I think I would have tased that jerkoff myself...) - not how much that technique should have been used.
They don't want to waste department resources defending everything someone could be offended by that a officer does
- That is already a possibility. Video recording doesn't exacerbate this situation, it only makes it possible to prove when either party is lying.
Recon by the bad guys. Having videos of every officers actions, would allow them to be prepared to attack weaknesses in the officers daily routines.
- Ridiculous, anyone wanting to 'recon' the police will record their actions whether legal or not. You really sound like you're desperate to come up with reasons why this should be acceptable.
Official officer Radio/PC traffic often have private citizens information that should often be protected. A blanket law stating you can record all officer actions would mean that when I get placed in a police car, I could legally plant a wire/monitor and leave it behind. Thereafter if I publish that information would make it very difficult to protect victim identities, etc that officers encounter doing official work, etc that should be protected.
- Seriously? First, people don't create laws that state things are legal, they create laws to state what is illegal. Second, from what I understand, the interior of a police car is not considered a public place. Third, you are creating straw men scenarios on the premise of some blanket legislation that says you can record the police everywhere.
All that said, I think none of the issues is significant enough that it should be a cause to stop a person from recording anything, assuming the person is present in person (or a security cam that just happens to catch.) But I do think it would be endangering our police officers to have no recourse for stopping the public release of some of the above (I personally would love to have a GPS database of all polices current locations, but not so much so that I think it should be publicly available to all.)
I agree that there are potential dangers but I believe that none of them warrant the prevention of creating video evidence by any party, but perhaps in how it may be used (used for legal or non commercial use, et cetera...) Anyhow, the problem is that the police are misapplying laws with the intent to prevent recording under any circumstances.
Judgements? What judgements would those be? The judgement that the truth is important? The judgement that the police have been proven, innumerable times, to intentionally lie and distort the truth to cover up improper behavior?
What, exactly, in their jobs do you think excuses this type of behavior?
No offense, but there's no justification for cops "beating on some guy", there is justification for cops subduing a guy who is resisting arrest.
I've seen a fair number of videos of police acting properly and a fair number where they act improperly - most of them had more than enough context to make that sort of judgement.
I don't think too many people would find the "armchair quarterback" argument to be a legitimate reason, but that's just me...
Plus, I don't think police recordings would be of much interest to people unless something improper was happening. I certainly don't think people would be recording a copy an officer spending hours catching speeders for the sake of exposing "cop radars speeders" to the world.
I don't know what America you are referring to where people trusted each other more than they do now. I can't imagine that there was much trust between cops and blacks in the south before the late 80's, or between immigrant populations in the big cities circa the turn of the century, et cetera...
People are the same now as they have been for thousands of years - give people unchecked authority and corruption will reign. Recording the PUBLIC actions of police officers is a check on such abuse of authority. Imagine if you'd never seen the Rodney King beating. Would YOU have believed him?
I think it depends largely upon the influence/authority/power that position holds, and if we're discussing recording an interaction between the employee and a member of the public.
You should be able to record any interaction with a government representative that you interact with during the execution of their duties unless there is a legitimate reason to prevent it.
Personally, I've never heard a legitimate reason for why someone shouldn't be able to record police/public interactions.
I don't see how that could be the case considering that you can get officer's names from incident reports, arrest sheets, et cetera.
...do the police have for avoiding being recorded?
The only value I can imagine in preventing their being recorded would be to cover up misdeeds.
Now, if we're talking about a police officer who is undercover, I could imagine circumstances that could preclude recording, but a uniformed or off-duty police officer? Why would someone with so much power be allowed to prevent the recording of the exercise of that authority?
Actually, it isn't a valid defense in any way. The other person is arguing weaknesses in BitCoin and you are, by your own definition, arguing the defense of BitCoins by pointing out weaknesses in Government Bonds.
You are are succeeding in drawing parallels to something that operates with some, I would argue vague, similarities but you are in no way defending the asserted weaknesses in BitCoins.
Let's make this simpler - If someone tells you that your favorite pants are not particularly safe because they're made out of gellied gasoline and you counter with "well, your shorts are unsafe because they're made of asbestos" that is in no way a defense of your pants. Abestos shorts would seem to be rather unsafe, but why would that, in any way, means that your pants were safe?
Made Michael Bay look like Shakespeare...
That is the cruelest comment in history.
Ahhh, Counter-Strike, those were the days... I still enjoy the single player story modes (when they have them) of FPS, but no longer have the desire to 'dominate all' in multi-player. Get off my lawn.
...for Slashdot users with 5, 6, and 7 digit IDs.
I used to have a 5 digit and I'm 39. I would guess that most 5 digit users are 33-40. Just a guess though.
Yeah, he's so greedy what with that $30 charge for Lion
- I don't see Microsoft charging people for service packs. 10.6-10.7 should cost somewhere $30 for new fluff features? Oh, what, it's 2011 and I can finally run my OSX application full screen? Thank you Mr. Gates, I mean Jobs, please, take my $30 - LOL. Another awesome new feature advertised by Apple as a major aspect of the release is the 'Mac App Store'? Wow, oh - wait, I've had that in 10.6 for months now... The whole litany of "new features" is ridiculous.
and that $0 charge for iCloud
- LOL, it's only free, for now, because Apple is competing against services already in this space that are already free. If Apple gets a consumer stranglehold on cloud services, every historical precedent suggests they will charge exorbitantly.
cheaper than many Android phones
- Cheaper than very few, and by cheaper you mean 'a few tens of dollars cheaper in the $500-$600 dollar range - for a phone with inferior hardware to these particular Android devices.'
Toyota is evil for not giving you the option to put a Ford engine in your car
- Toyota isn't going to come after me for putting a Ford engine in my car. Toyota doesn't care if I buy accessories from a 3rd party. Toyota doesn't forbid me from getting a new stereo from someone else. Toyota doesn't engineer recalls that break my Ford engine.
...Apple's approach thats fine, but calling it evil
- I am not calling Apple evil. I am saying Steve Jobs is everything terrible about Bill Gates in the 80's and more. He's a scumbag who is famous for parking in handicapped spaces, treating the Woz (all hail the Woz!) like sh**, treating his daughter and other women in his life like sh**, the people who work for him like sh**, for flying around the country and registering as a resident in multiple states to get on their transplant lists when he lives in the Bay Area, et cetera...
How about some more examples of greed that are Jobsian? Let's see, when I bought my 2011 Mac Desktop Pro I priced it out (as a lark) with 24GB of memory, then I priced it with 6GB of memory and 24 GB of 3rd party memory (which would actually give me 26GB in the configuration I priced.) The 3rd party memory, high quality 3rd party memory mind you, was nearly $2000 cheaper. FOR MEMORY! LOL.
Apple hardware is RIDICULOUSLY overpriced for what you get. This 12 core, 26GB machine I'm typing this on should cost about $2800 - unfortunately (even going the 3rd party memory route) it actually cost more than $5000 because the 'Apple tax.' The only reason I have this machine is because we're a company and need to be able to dev/test on OSX. Mac laptops? Hysterically overpriced. Accessories? Overpriced. Oh, and btw, Apple intentionally games 3rd party hardware accessories by authentication mechanisms in bloody connectors! LOL.
So yeah, Steve Jobs is a greedy bastard for forcing people to use Apple's App Store, for forcing people to use in app purchasing, for forcing people to use in app subscriptions, overcharging for hardware, suing people for installing OSX on non Apple hardware, sh**ing on his daughter, the Woz, the handicapped, some nameless person in Tennessee whose liver he gamed, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infinitum...
Don't you mean they're selling Service Pack 7 for OSX 10 for $29.99?
I used to be a low 5 digit user, but something happened...
Yeah, Hitler was a genius and hero AND an evil douche-bag too. I can't think of too many non-nazis who shed a tear at his passing, and I can't think of too many non-apple zealots who will shed a tear at Jobs' passing. I don't wish him any harm, but he's a total jerkoff (and genius and hero to Apple fanbois.) BTW, I am typing this on a 2011 Mac Pro Desktop so I'm not anti-Apple (I LOVE THE WOZ!)
I didn't say greed for money, it is greed for power and influence. BTW, I wouldn't worry about him dying anytime soon given how he doesn't mind unethical and, frankly, immoral behavior in order to get himself a new liver... Plus, think of all the reduced stress on his body that comes from parking in handicapped spaces. :)
Jobs comes across as the greediest villain (black turtleneck sans fluffy white cat) since the early days of Bill Gates...
Most of the corporate/government money for that is going into FPGA boxes that sit between the camera (or in the camera) and the network connection.