apple whore...how much are you being payed to praise their latest godsend.
Nothing, and I also don't work for Apple (or AT&T), never have, never have any desire to, and don't even own any Apple (or AT&T) stock.
Why don't you show a little more concern for some idiot filing a lawsuit about a freaking cell phone battery instead of someone posting factually accurate information in response to the story on slashdot?
Oh, I forgot: because you're a hapless troll.
btw, the apple warranty people suck. It took me four hours on the phone and five escalations (can I talk to your manager...can I please talk to someone in the United Dtates...) to get my battery replaced in my ipod. I was even nice for the first two hours. Plus two weeks with no ipod. All that crap i had to go through after paying for a $70 warranty? You gotta be kidding me.
Now everyone knows you're lying.:-) All of Apple's telephone support operations are in the United States, in Austin, TX. Developer relations folks (which you wouldn't have spoken with) are also English-speaking, and are in Cork, Ireland.
Dave, the iPhone isn't an iPod. Yes, it has iPod functions. But first and foremost -- it's a phone. And people are expecting these things to be able to be used a productive business tool. Instead, they are multimedia toys. Great for consumers, bad for people who need a real tool.
Which is why the iPhone is a consumer-targeted device. It hasn't been marketed to business or enterprise, isn't sold via Apple's federal, education, or developer stores, and isn't offered via AT&T on anything but personal accounts with individual responsibility - no corporate or business accounts.
If people find ways to still get an iPhone and shoehorn it in as a direct Blackberry or Treo replacement, that's their choice. Neither Apple nor AT&T are marketing or targeting it as such in any way, shape, or form.
No planned obsolescence? Dave, what you just said is the definition of planned obsolescence!
No. I noted that, for most people, "before they'd even care or consider replacing it even if it was user-replaceable, they'll be on their next phone".
The reverse of that - people buying a new phone because their old phone needs a new battery - would be planned obsolescence. What I said is the opposite of that. If people already have a new phone before they even needed a new battery, that's not "planned obsolescence".
And it's one of reasons behind my decision to choose not to buy one for myself.
Wonderful simplicity, is it not? Not buying things that don't serve your needs or meet your liking?
Next time a product isn't exactly what I want it to be, maybe I'll file a lawsuit.
So you ranted on and on (forever actually) about how the info was known in advance and can be found on the site.
No. I devoted two lines to that, in addition to the URLs where the information is located.
Yeah, that's "forever".
...
Let me ask you: how does the fact that you KNOW the battery is soldered, is making it any better for you, as an iPhone owner, when you'll have to ship it to Apple for a $100 replacement?
It doesn't make it any better or worse. If I ever do feel I need to replace the battery and don't have another phone already by that point, I'll pay to get it replaced. I fail to see what the big deal is.
Is it? Does disclosing of intentionally crippled architecture of the device mean we can't be dissatisfied with the serviceability of the phone? Does it mean people are happy with their crippled iPod batteries (judging by the web, no, they aren't).
It's not intentionally crippled. I know it's fashionable to think that it was done to fleece customers or force people into buying new iPods, when in reality it was done to decrease the size and weight of the phone for a given battery capacity, and give the iPod a sleek, unblemished enclosure, both of which are things that are huge factors in the iPod's success.
You need you to grow some balls and face the reality: Apple has intentionally crippled these products for no better reason than remain in tight control of the battery replacement procedure and get some cash from there too.
Let's re-read the actual truth of the matter:
I'm convinced the answer is that the chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, and Apple's design chief, Jonathan Ive, are design snobs, who care more about form than function. Larry Keeley, the president of the design firm Doblin Inc., wrote me an e-mail message after he'd seen the innards of the iPhone, which several Web sites have now published. The battery, he told me, lacks the normal metal jacket, making it ''thinner and lighter, while also making it more difficult for consumers to handle or dispose of.'' He added: ''This is clear evidence that they are optimizing the INSIDES of the phone to the OUTSIDE form factor that they have designed. It is far more common and much cheaper to design the other way: pile up all the components you have to stuff inside, then figure out the sexiest box that can contain them.''
This makes them somewhat sad, but the fact that you as a customer (I suppose you don't work at Apple) defend them, is even sadder.
Yeah, it's "sad" that I post the facts of the situation as a comment to slashdot, but somehow not sad that a guy finds a lawyer who can't spell and files a lawsuit against Apple about a fucking battery in a cell phone?
But let's not even talk about that. Let's not even talk about the horrid spelling, grammar, and general rambling idiocy of the lawsuit. Let's not even consider that these questions have been asked and answered[1] for years with the iPod. Let's actually focus on the actual issues at hand.
The iPhone doesn't have a user-replaceable battery, but it is replaceable. This is the same as all iPods for the last several years. And no, the iPhone isn't the first of these devices to have a battery that is soldered. Various iPod models have already had soldered batteries. Also, the battery replacement information was available the day the iPhone shipped. So, nothing new here.
As to the "difficulty" of finding the information on Apple's site:
Additionally, asking any Apple retail store, customer service representative, dealer, authorized service provider, etc., will yield a direct and immediate answer about battery replacement.
It's also utterly and ridiculously false to say that a new battery is required every year. All lithium ion batteries have about the same lifetime. The iPhone's lithium ion battery is no different. Most people will not need, or feel they need, to replace the battery in the lifetime of the phone (i.e., while they own and are using it). The "400 charges" thing isn't any 400 charges; partial charges are just that: partial. This lithium ion battery is no different from any other.
Also, the battery is covered by the warranty, and if you choose to extend the warranty to two years with the $69 AppleCare Protection Plan for iPhone, the battery is covered under that as well. There are even already third party replacement options. As with iPod, more are sure to come.
The customer also doesn't have to be without a phone for several days, and claiming that they do because there is a fee for a loaner is ridiculous. Just pretend that the battery replacement costs $29 more, then. You are not without a phone at all: you swap SIMs, sync once with iTunes, and it will literally look, act, feel, and behave like your phone, with your phone number and all of your data. Seeing how Apple has done such programs in the past, the loaner phone will probably be a new service phone or a factory-refurbished phone in a brand new enclosure (so it looks physically brand new). The total price is almost the same as the official iPod battery replacement plan was for years. If you choose to not have a phone in the meantime, that's your choice.
I'm convinced the answer is that the chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, and Apple's design chief, Jonathan Ive, are design snobs, who care more about form than function. Larry Keeley, the president of the design firm Doblin Inc., wrote me an e-mail message after he'd seen the innards of the iPhone, which several Web sites have now published. The battery, he told me, lacks the normal metal jacket, making it ''thinner and lighter, while also making it more difficult for consumers to handle or dispose of.'' He added: ''This is clear evidence that they are optimizing the INSIDES of the phone to the OUTSIDE form factor that they have designed. It is far more common and much cheaper to design the oth
As I said, "Sure, you can argue that as such bandwidth penetration becomes commonplace, services will be built to support it - like HD movie downloads or live HD IPTV.
But in the meantime, "this is nothing more than a technology demonstration."
Try reading my post next time. I understand the points they're making, but that doesn't change the fact this is an experimental demonstration and a publicity stunt for Cisco.
I understand they point they were trying to make: that using such a high speed connection, when commoditized someday, isn't "hard" or "complicated". A good point to want to make, considering it was a PR stunt.
The truth of the matter is that since this is an experimental connection using experimental equipment, it was probably set up by Cisco network engineers, was in fact extremely expensive and "hard" to set up, and required fibre routing through specialized facilities and equipment.
Sure, the point is that such a connection could be just as "easy" to set up and use as a cable modem or DSL in the future. But it isn't now, and to go out of their way to say "the hardest part was installing Windows" (when I'm guessing they didn't have to "install" Windows at all) is a little transparent. This is a technology demonstration and a PR stunt, plain and simple.
What made you think a standard machine could handle this type of network throughput? Of course it's hard to install Windows on such a specialised beast! (A *nix would have been the logic choice.)
Without more information, I highly, highly doubt that her computer itself is equipped to handle 40Gbps of sustained traffic throughput...
Even IF Windows needed to be installed on a machine, it's false to say that was the "hardest part" of enabling an experimental 40Gbps connection to a residence.
And why are you claiming this does not cure the Last Mile problem when this is story is all about fibre straight in the home?
Um, are you serious?
The fibre still needs to get to the home. That's the critical piece of the puzzle, not what you can do with it once it's there.
Heh. I include a disclaimer saying just that, and someone still responds:
[1] For the real contrarians among us, yes, I'm well aware that systems can be built and purchased without Windows. But if the goal was to get a computer that will ultimately be running Windows, and a corporate giant like Cisco is buying it, it would have been purchased without Windows why, again? Exactly.
And no, since I'm sitting on a gigabit network on a 10Gbps backbone connected to Internet2/Abilene and BOREASNet, I don't have "network envy". This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple.
Even 10Gbps PCIe NICs for computers only push about 6-7Gbps...to claim that a 40Gbps connection to an old lady's house is anything BUT a publicity stunt is laughable. Doesn't quite have the same ring as doing the same test between laboratory or corporate facilities, does it?
Sigbritt will now be able to enjoy 1,500 high definition HDTV channels simultaneously. Or, if there is nothing worth watching there, she will be able to download a full high definition DVD in just two seconds.
Oh, she will, will she? And this content comes from where, exactly?
That's what I thought.
She is able to "enjoy" nothing on her connection except the same internet to which we all have access. Sure, you can argue that as such bandwidth penetration becomes commonplace, services will be built to support it - like HD movie downloads or live HD IPTV. But as of now, this is nothing more than a technology demonstration, even though the article lamely begs to differ ("This is more than just a demonstration," said network boss Hafsteinn Jonsson.")
"The most difficult part of the whole project was installing Windows on Sigbritt's PC," said Jonsson.
Doubtful. (Why even say this? To impress upon people that a high bandwidth connection isn't "hard" to use? Wouldn't the new computer she ostensibly got, since, as the article notes, she's never owned a computer in her life, have come with Windows installed?[1])
The secret behind Sigbritt's ultra-fast connection is a new modulation technique which allows data to be transferred directly between two routers up to 2,000 kilometres apart, with no intermediary transponders.
Great, now all we need is fibre going to every home on earth, and the problem is solved!! Why look at wireless when we've got fibre?
...
I understand the point they're trying to make: that a high speed connection that enables the kinds of things such bandwidth allows is technically feasible to a home. But the problem is the same one we've always had - namely, the "last mile" - and this does nothing to solve that in the least.
"I want to show that there are other methods than the old fashioned ways such as copper wires and radio, which lack the possibilities that fibre has," said Peter Löthberg, who now works at Cisco.
Is it any surprise that Cisco is dismissing "radio" as "old fashioned" (nice choice of calling it "radio" instead of "wireless"), when high-bandwidth wireless technologies like WiMAX and UMTS Rev 8 are at least an option worth considering as a solution to the "last mile" problem?
Overall, a great PR stunt.
4.5/5 (points deducted for lying about needing to install Windows on a newly purchased PC[1])
[1] For the real contrarians among us, yes, I'm well aware that systems can be built and purchased without Windows. But if the goal was to get a computer that will ultimately be running Windows, and a corporate giant like Cisco is buying it, it would have been purchased without Windows why, again? Exactly.
What a horrible, and sadly, typical, oversimplification of the problem.
Ironically, it's very similar to the sentiments behind the oft-misquoted statement attributed to Benjamin Franklin[1]:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Notice the word "essential" in front of "liberty" and "temporary" in front of "safety".
Interesting how two little words can completely change what people think this quotation means. And it's telling.
People seem think it means, essentially, that those who would give up any liberty for any level of safety deserve neither. But Franklin, in his wisdom recognized that it is sometimes appropriate - and, indeed, necessary in a civilized society based on the rule of law - to sacrifice liberty for safety, just not essential liberty for a little tempoary safety. In other words, the balance should be worthwhile. It doesn't mean that any sacrifice of liberty for any level of safety, real or perceived, is automatically suspect.
Also, the extremely vague things you noted (situations that allow warrantless searches, pen register provisions which allow warrantless call logging, and large volumes of security cameras) were around long before 9/11 and long before Bush. Yet another example of indicting technology for the sake of doing so, assuming the worst motivations on the part of people charged with the protection of the country and its people, and woefully - willfully? - misunderstanding and misconstruing the intentions of a statement by one of our founding fathers.
[1] It's not clear that it was Franklin who said this; but it is most often attributed to him.
Technology will always make abuse easier, just as it makes so many other aspects of life easier.
Technology will always make jobs of law enforcement easier, just as it makes our lives easier.
Technology will always act as a force multiplier for government, just as it magnifies the capabilities of the individual user.
Just to take one example: if a system of license plate readers can detect a plate that has been flagged by some agency and prevents one, e.g., car bombing, why is that not a valid mechanism to use?
Just because it can be abused?
Or because it could be abused "more easily" than individual humans reading license plates in public?
Or because someday, someone could "come to power" who would use it against [insert ostensibly oppressed population here]?
All technology - computers, databases, telephones, cameras, the internet, vehicles, helicopters, robots, radios, video cameras, heat sensors, weapons, tear gas, rubber bullets, office buildings, body armor, remote controlled aircraft, tape recorders, wireless transmitters, you name it - can and will be able to be, and in fact will be, "abused".
But it's not the technology that's being abused; it's power.
So instead of being luddites-by-proxy, why not recognize the issue for what it is, instead of pretending that government should not be able to leverage technology to solve problems?
There is no reason surveillance cameras in public places or license plate readers in stationary locations or on aircraft should be vilified any more than any other piece of technology. Whether the cost/benefit ratio is reasonable is another argument entirely.
But I cannot and will not fault the government or law enforcement for using technology such as this, whose costs it can ultimately justify to the public's satisfaction, in public places to attempt to fulfill their charge to society.
Whether or not such systems actually do deter crime or terrorist activity, or whether they are worth the money, is really what is at issue. Not kneejerk reactions about 1984 likely to dominate some (most?) debates on this issue.
This isn't some plot to turn America into a police state. It's an effort being undertaken by local, state, and federal law enforcement and security professionals to attempt to protect the public. That is the first and primary goal. There are no ulterior motives that rise to any meaningful level. Let's keep things in some sort of perspective.
If it was your job to protect the people and property of New York City, what kinds of initiatives would you be undertaking? Hint: if your answer is along the lines that it's much better to stomach the errant terrorist attack every now and then rather than take proactive action to attempt to prevent them using whatever means you have at your disposal, you probably won't be in that job for long.
So think about this, and try to put yourself in the place of an urban security expert or a law enforcement official or a city mayor. There are valid points to be made on both sides of that debate, about costs, effectiveness, balances with privacy, and so on.
But none of them involve rants about police states or governments secretly wanting to monitor and control innocent citizens. Technology is technology. Implying that government and law enforcement shouldn't be able to use technology to the extent that it is legally allowable and its costs are justifiable is absurd.
One other point is that while things like cameras and checking ID may not always deter or prevent a crime or an attack, it often greatly assists in the investigation after the fact. We need only look as far as the London car bomb plot to know that cameras in public spaces (among a great many other tools) can be an aid. Cameras have been a valuable aid in such instances as long as they have been used. The real issue is cost effectiveness.
Could the $90M be spent a different or more effective way in a city like New York? Befo
I do have little regard for remote exploits that haven't occurred.
I have a very high regard, on the other hand, for remote exploits that have occurred or are shown to be possible.
You're making a string of assumptions - that the password is even usable (which it may not be), that a remote exploit via the browser is possible, and that even if both happen, that this enables some higher level of access.
Are all of those things possible? Perhaps. But all of those have to be provably true before it justifies knee jerks that the iPhone is somehow "insecure", which are already happening around the blogs.
Also, I didn't say it was nothing. I said this story will probably get mangled to imply that - right now - it's somehow possible or very likely possible to "break into" iPhones remotely. And that's patently incorrect.
Assuming the iPhone is hacked to the point where it's easily modifiable, yes, it will have the opposite effect in the extremely small niche market.
In the mainstream, this can easily get spun as the iPhone is extremely insecure, and has been "broken into", causing normal people to steer very clear.
This will get picked up by blogs, news sites - and, if we're lucky, given a good mangling by sloppy journalists in the mainstream press - as somehow meaning that any iPhone can be "broken into" by a malicious third party, and/or that all iPhones are now "insecure", and/or that iPhones - and all the personal data on them - are now, because of this, vulnerable to remote attack, when none of those things are true.
Also, from TFA and the summary:
"Having the passwords will not do anybody any good for the moment. The iPhone has no console or terminal access, so there is no way to log in as either account. In fact, nobody even seems certain that the accounts access the machine at all, some Internet commentators suggesting that the password file was left over from early development work, or was intentionally included to throw hackers off the scent."
These kind of idiotic replies to the blog post are telling:
Poetic Justice - 04/07/07 So much for Apple being the most secure OS in the world. Welcome to Microsoft's world, Jobs.
Wow, cracking a local password on a file that belongs to a device to which you have physical access?
Stop the presses!
Since iPhones don't have any kind of access that makes this "discovery" meaningful, I'm sure that people will just misunderstand the implications of this, and because of the iPhones popularity - and a lot of peoples' desire to tear it down or create any FUD they can to dissuade interested people from possibly buying an iPhone - I'm sure this and related stories will be big news.
5 reasons to erase private information from my legally acquired iTunes Plus library:
Yeah. A name and email address. On an electronic file that you purchased. In name and email address fields in the clear. How...wrong.
1. Am I still a child who needs his pencilcase and schoolbag tagged with my name?
Utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
2. I bought the damn tune, but someday I may want to sell it (hey, how is it more stupid that selling old CDs ?).
It's not "more stupid" than anything. And since Apple is the first entity that's even allowing this possibility at all with mainstream music from mainstream labels on any meaningful scale, I guess I must not recognize your gratitude.
3. I just have a thing for privacy. Is it dirty?
No, but it's dirty when you think everything is automatically an "invasion of privacy".
4. How the heck do I know it's not gonna be shared on P2P networks by my 6 year old step sister???
How do you know the reason the name and email address is there is for tracking file sharers? How do you even know that would stand up in court? Why does everyone assume that's the reason it's there? Has it occurred to you that this might have been a concession to the labels to make them "feel good", or any number of other reasons? Has it occurred to you that since name and email address have always been included in all purchases from the iTunes store that, uh, maybe nothing has changed?
What if the EU mandates a system for returns and refunds someday from the iTunes store? Wouldn't your account name and email be an easy way for normal individuals to return songs? And before anyone says, "Well, it should be encrypted, then," can you honestly look at me with a straight face and tell me you wouldn't be even more upset that Apple was including unknown personal information, encrypted, in each song bought from iTunes? If it's there at all, it's actually preferable that it's plaintext, because then there are simple ways to remove it without anyone being able to claim that you're breaking some law for removing encrypted information or some other ridiculous thing.
"But it shouldn't be there in the first place."
I know, this is the part is a difficult situation since it is mandatory for all persons on earth to purchase from only the iTunes store. If only Apple didn't force you to buy no-DRM songs from iTunes.
Oh, wait...
5. I thought good customer-seller relationship ment something like... how do they say, "trust' ?
Why do you assume that an electronic item you purchased yourself from the iTunes store having your name and email address embedded in internationally standardized MPEG-4 atoms intended exactly for that purpose somehow equates to lack of "trust"? "Trust" to do what?
I thought the main argument against DRM was so that we could use our files anywhere we wished, on any device we wished. Now we can. Sure, it has your name and email address in it. It's not hidden. It's not a secret. It doesn't matter if most normal users don't realize this. It's still not hidden, nor is it a secret. Most "normal users" don't "realize" a lot of things.
And from the summary:
However, the claim that this software is perfectly legal will surely be tested.
Tested by whom or what? For what purpose?
The software is perfectly legal. Why is this even in doubt? It's a file with no DRM, and you're removing text that is IN THE CLEAR, IN PLAINTEXT in the file that YOU BOUGHT. Removing it by ANY MECHANISM is perfectly legal in any jurisdiction I can think of.
No DRM means just that: no DRM. No encryption. No reverse engineering. No DMCA provisions. Etc.
If you want to make an anonomyzing tool, great. But don't puff it up to be more than it is.
Again, my favorite quote that sums up the stupidity of the outrage over a name and email address being in a file you purchased, from a Gartner analyst:
YouTube is reencoding their entire video library to H.264 in addition to Flash (and 3GP). Currently, over 10000 videos are in H.264 format, and over the next couple of months, the entire library will be available in H.264. From then on, all videos uploaded to YouTube will be available as Flash, H.264, and 3GP.
As the other person who responded to you noted - and which you would have immediately seen had you bothered to follow the link right in my post - those are from four reviews, not one, and they're from the likes of the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Times. Also, since today brings the first actual hand-on reviews ever, and these are them, I'm not quite sure where you're getting your "mix" of information.
"After walking around with the iPhone unprotected for 2 weeks, no marks on it. Glass smudges are easily wiped off."
"I've been jamming it in my pocket with keyrings, coins and pens, and so far it's nearly as good as new."
"I expected to miss the tactile feel that a physical keyboard provides. I didn't."
"Typing was OK. Difficult at first, but learned to "trust" the keyboard."
"After five days of use, Walt -- who did most of the testing for this review -- was able to type on it as quickly and accurately as he could on the Palm Treo he has used for years."
"bottom line is that the iPhone is a significant leap"
"The iPhone is the rare convergence device where things actually converge."
"Multitouch: 'effective, practical and fun'"
"Feels solid"
"Apple's iPhone isn't perfect, but it's worthy of the hype"
"The revelation is that it's also comfortable to hold and touch."
"Our verdict is that, despite some flaws and feature omissions, the iPhone is, on balance, a beautiful and breakthrough handheld computer."
- "so sleek and thin, it makes Treos and BlackBerrys look obese." - After walking around with the iPhone unprotected for 2 weeks, no marks on it. Glass smudges are easily wiped off. - 700 megabytes is occupied by the phone's software - Making calls can be a 6 step process if phone is off. - Web, Email is superior - Battery Life Test: 5 hours video, 23 hours audio. Note: did not turn off Wi-Fi and other features as Apple suggests. - Typing was OK. Difficult at first, but learned to "trust" the keyboard. "The BlackBerry won't be going away anytime soon." - Cites AT&T network as iPhone's biggest downfall. Cites Consumer Reports survey which ranks AT&T network as last or second to last in 19 out of 20 major US cities. - AT&T's EDGE cellular network: "excruciatingly slow" - Slideshow of photos taken with iPhone - Video Review
- bottom line is that the iPhone is a significant leap - The iPhone is the rare convergence device where things actually converge. - e-mail looks more like you're working on a computer than a clunky phone - YouTube videos work great on Wi-Fi, but can display in a lower quality when you're not at a hotspot and are using AT&T's EDGE network - unless I did a lot of video watching or Web browsing, [the battery] could generally last the day - I've been jamming it in my pocket with keyrings, coins and pens, and so far it's nearly as good as new.
- Apple's iPhone isn't perfect, but it's worthy of the hype - The revelation is that it's also comfortable to hold and touch. - I expected to miss the tactile feel that a physical keyboard provides. I didn't. - You can hold a conference call with up to five people. - No voice recognition or voice dialing - halfway decent internal speakers for listening if you set the thing down - iPod games are not compatible with iPhone - our company tech department raised questions about the security settings Apple required with our Microsoft Exchange servers. - Battery life didn't prove to be a big problem in my unscientific tests
- Our verdict is that, despite some flaws and feature omissions, the iPhone is, on balance, a beautiful and breakthrough handheld computer. Its software, especially, sets a new bar for the smart-phone industry, and its clever finger-touch interface, which dispenses with a stylus and most buttons, works well, though it sometimes adds steps to common functions. - largest, highest resolution screen of any smart phone they've seen, most internal memory - Impressive battery life and thin - Feels solid - Regarding the touch keyboard: "After five days of use, Walt -- who did most of the testing for this review -- was able to type on it as quickly and accurately as he could on the Palm Treo he has used for years." - Can't use T-Mobile SIM cards - Wi-Fi capability doesn't fully make up for the lack of a fast cellular data capability - Multitouch: "effective, practical and fun" - No way to copy/paste text - Microsoft's Exchange system support - Voice call quality was good, but not great - Can't record video - No Adobe Flash support - Songs can't be set as ringtones - Apple says it plans to add fea
Yes, I know the University pays for the volume licensing agreement. Jeez.
What I mean in this context is that the users/departments get it for essentially free (to them), and doesn't impact their budget in the same way other software does when they get thirty licenses of Windows Vista Enterprise for the cost of one set of media. In other words, the cost does NOT impact them when the make decisions. They see Windows and Office as basically being "free", and therefore wouldn't consider the potential cost implications of running Windows on Macs.
I am well aware of the fact that Microsoft is paid. But the reality is that for many organizations, like academic institutions, with volume licensing agreements, the users see it as "free", because the cost is NOT passed to them the same way as it is for other software or purchases they might make (or sometimes at all).
So what? I don't care what you claim to believe. It doesn't matter what motivates you to make posts like you did. It could be for karma. It could be to see yourself get modded up early. It could be to get your name out there and get your beloved geek cred. I don't know what motivates you to karma whore (or more specifically, make posts that get modded up regardless of net karma contribution), and I don't really care which motive you chose. You deliberately withheld information so that could be ride in and be "informative".
No. I "withheld" (poor choice of word, on your part) the additional minutiae for exactly the reasons I explained. Namely, to keep the submission concise and on-topic, with a greater chance of being accepted for reasons of both timeliness and accuracy.
Ah, nothing like seeing the condescending invocation of a logical fallacy unravel!
Wrong. That that was the implication of the statement you made. Which is why I had the word "implied" in bold.
That wasn't the argument. As others and I have pointed out to you, it wasn't the "posting informatively" that makes you a karma whore; it was degrading the content of your submission so you could include it in a later karma-allowable post. And it was based on logical probability, not logical necessity.
No. No one has pointed that aspect of it ("degrading" the content of the submission) but you. And I already said I wasn't posting for karma. And it wasn't degrading anything, as I've already explained several times now why I submitted what I did, and why I posted additional miscellanea as a comment. And it wasn't for karma, no matter what you think. Sorry.
And if I cared about karma, would I keep responding to you, and getting my posts modded down as offtopic, especially since downmods seem to count more against karma than upmods count for it? (This is anecdotal, but over the years has seemed to be true.)
No, I can't. If you had enough attention span to read things in context, you'd see my complaint (from the beginning) was about/. being used to advertise a product.
Sorry, you're wrong. Your were DIRECTLY responding to me saying that iPhone plan pricing is one of the most anticipated items, and you said "it's anticipated because [...]"
I believe you "meant" iPhone, but in context, it is absolutely reasonable to think that you were also referring to iPhone plan pricing being anticipated, considering I had just said exactly that, and that's the sentence to which you responded.
You're digging yourself in.
Yeah -- if your attention span doesn't reach back to my initial post, part of which complained about/. turning into advertisements.
No. That's a whole other argument than karma whoring. Notice that's what I'm taking issue with, and not the slashvertisement thing so much?
Each tiny detail is "notable" because people like you feed the hype and make it news. Again, why apply the advertising outrage selectively? Wouldn't it be just as bad to report "special discounts" coming up on Dell systems?
From the 50,000 foot view, yes.
In reality, no, because far more people currently care about iPhone plan pricing than special discounts on Dell systems. Again, slashdot didn't have to accept my submission.
Projection, much? I respond because I don't like to see idiots get away with ridiculous arguments that appeal to the biases of the readers. Less obviously-flawed arguments? Fine. Flawed arguments that don't appeal to pre-existing biases? Fine. Obviously-flawed arguments that appeal to pre-existing biases? Not so fine.
Just because you assert that I'm using flawed arguments doesn't make it so. I told you EXACTLY why I submitted what I did and posted what I did. You don't believe that it wasn't for karma. Fine, I get it.
Of course -- just not in the original submission where more people would see it and you couldn't get modded up.
Asked and answered.
And in case you didn't get it yet: I didn't post, or separate information out of the submission, for karma.
IF a) I believe your karma index has maxed out and IF b) Slashcode is transparent enough that it does what they claim it does (!), and IF c) you have control over when a topic comes up where you're going to say something unpopular, THEN you have nothing to gain from karma whoring.
However, a) I don't, b) it isn't, and c) you don't.
Ok, so, out of all this, you still think I posted to karma whore. It is my firm belief that my karma was already maxed out when I posted that. It is irrelevant whether I can "prove" to you that it was maxed out, or whether slashdot's code is transparent enough for me to tell that (interesting you you also imply slashdot may be lying about how karma works, but only because it helps your point). Whether or not stories may come up where I want to say something "unpopular" is irrelevant. If my karma is already at or near max - or even if I simply believe it to be - there is no reason karma whore.
Right -- in other words, you didn't want to. I know you didn't want to. That was the whole point! You didn't want to include that information upfront, so you could karma whore. I get that.
See above.
No, it's not based on any one reason for karma whoring.
Well, that's the example you used. But for ANY reason, karma whoring is still not necessary if you have no reason to believe you need any karma, which is my case.
Of course, you can claim I'm lying, and secretly trying to hide the fact that I am karma whoring.
Or you could say that even the satisfaction of posting information that others may find useful, and having that information modded up, could also be "karma whoring".
In fact, at this point, it's clear you believe that my only or primary purpose was to karma whore, when in reality, it was to post the information I posted, and have people see it, irrespective of my slashdot karma. Most of the information in that post is utterly irrelevant to the release of plan information, which was specifically why I didn't include it. I also didn't want to waste a bunch of time with the submission, as slashdot's first come, first served submission policy often results in total garbage being published first, and more comprehensive submissions being rejected. So, if you really want to know the exact reasoning, that's one of my purposes for keeping the submission concise and on-topic. Did I want to say more about a couple of other related topics? Absolutely. Which is why I did. But, unfortunately, it wasn't for slashdot karma.
Sure -- just the people who deliberately degrade the usefulness of their posts so that they can spread the information across several and get more karma.
No. I said I didn't include information that wasn't appropriate for the submission. I didn't say that I deliberately degraded the usefulness of the post, either, nor do I believe I did. I kept it exactly on topic for what the submission was. Posting a comment in the article doesn't have to be for karma. Your premise is flawed.
Which [logical fallacy] did I make?
[Y]yours is one of, "All A are in B. Therefore, all B must be in A."
Cool, thanks for the clarification. Now, for the hard part: define A and B, and say where I made such a statement.
That's the easy part: it's the part where you implied that because karma whores post to get modded up, that any post (especially posted by the submitter) that gets modded up must be made by a karma whore.
A = karma whores B = posts that get modded up
Since (I believe) my karma was maxed out, why, again, would I need to karma whore? If the answer is just because you think I must be karma whoring, save it. I'm telling you the reasons why I didn't include the other miscellaneous stuff in the submission, and that I didn't post for karma. You obviously don't believe that. The discussion is then likely over.
I was claiming the(!) iPhone was anticipated, not the submission.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice troll. I just have to bite. :-)
:-) All of Apple's telephone support operations are in the United States, in Austin, TX. Developer relations folks (which you wouldn't have spoken with) are also English-speaking, and are in Cork, Ireland.
apple whore...how much are you being payed to praise their latest godsend.
Nothing, and I also don't work for Apple (or AT&T), never have, never have any desire to, and don't even own any Apple (or AT&T) stock.
Why don't you show a little more concern for some idiot filing a lawsuit about a freaking cell phone battery instead of someone posting factually accurate information in response to the story on slashdot?
Oh, I forgot: because you're a hapless troll.
btw, the apple warranty people suck. It took me four hours on the phone and five escalations (can I talk to your manager...can I please talk to someone in the United Dtates...) to get my battery replaced in my ipod. I was even nice for the first two hours. Plus two weeks with no ipod. All that crap i had to go through after paying for a $70 warranty? You gotta be kidding me.
Now everyone knows you're lying.
The battery replacement process is simple. There is one online form you fill out here. That's it, whether you're in or out of warranty or AppleCare.
Nice try, liar, but I just had to make sure no one believed your bullshit.
Dave, the iPhone isn't an iPod. Yes, it has iPod functions. But first and foremost -- it's a phone. And people are expecting these things to be able to be used a productive business tool. Instead, they are multimedia toys. Great for consumers, bad for people who need a real tool.
Which is why the iPhone is a consumer-targeted device. It hasn't been marketed to business or enterprise, isn't sold via Apple's federal, education, or developer stores, and isn't offered via AT&T on anything but personal accounts with individual responsibility - no corporate or business accounts.
If people find ways to still get an iPhone and shoehorn it in as a direct Blackberry or Treo replacement, that's their choice. Neither Apple nor AT&T are marketing or targeting it as such in any way, shape, or form.
No planned obsolescence? Dave, what you just said is the definition of planned obsolescence!
No. I noted that, for most people, "before they'd even care or consider replacing it even if it was user-replaceable, they'll be on their next phone".
The reverse of that - people buying a new phone because their old phone needs a new battery - would be planned obsolescence. What I said is the opposite of that. If people already have a new phone before they even needed a new battery, that's not "planned obsolescence".
And it's one of reasons behind my decision to choose not to buy one for myself.
Wonderful simplicity, is it not? Not buying things that don't serve your needs or meet your liking?
Next time a product isn't exactly what I want it to be, maybe I'll file a lawsuit.
No. I devoted two lines to that, in addition to the URLs where the information is located.
Yeah, that's "forever".
...
Let me ask you: how does the fact that you KNOW the battery is soldered, is making it any better for you, as an iPhone owner, when you'll have to ship it to Apple for a $100 replacement?
It doesn't make it any better or worse. If I ever do feel I need to replace the battery and don't have another phone already by that point, I'll pay to get it replaced. I fail to see what the big deal is.
Is it? Does disclosing of intentionally crippled architecture of the device mean we can't be dissatisfied with the serviceability of the phone? Does it mean people are happy with their crippled iPod batteries (judging by the web, no, they aren't).
It's not intentionally crippled. I know it's fashionable to think that it was done to fleece customers or force people into buying new iPods, when in reality it was done to decrease the size and weight of the phone for a given battery capacity, and give the iPod a sleek, unblemished enclosure, both of which are things that are huge factors in the iPod's success.
You need you to grow some balls and face the reality: Apple has intentionally crippled these products for no better reason than remain in tight control of the battery replacement procedure and get some cash from there too.
Let's re-read the actual truth of the matter:
I'm convinced the answer is that the chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, and Apple's design chief, Jonathan Ive, are design snobs, who care more about form than function. Larry Keeley, the president of the design firm Doblin Inc., wrote me an e-mail message after he'd seen the innards of the iPhone, which several Web sites have now published. The battery, he told me, lacks the normal metal jacket, making it ''thinner and lighter, while also making it more difficult for consumers to handle or dispose of.'' He added: ''This is clear evidence that they are optimizing the INSIDES of the phone to the OUTSIDE form factor that they have designed. It is far more common and much cheaper to design the other way: pile up all the components you have to stuff inside, then figure out the sexiest box that can contain them.''
This makes them somewhat sad, but the fact that you as a customer (I suppose you don't work at Apple) defend them, is even sadder.
Yeah, it's "sad" that I post the facts of the situation as a comment to slashdot, but somehow not sad that a guy finds a lawyer who can't spell and files a lawsuit against Apple about a fucking battery in a cell phone?
Whatever.
But let's not even talk about that. Let's not even talk about the horrid spelling, grammar, and general rambling idiocy of the lawsuit. Let's not even consider that these questions have been asked and answered[1] for years with the iPod. Let's actually focus on the actual issues at hand.
The iPhone doesn't have a user-replaceable battery, but it is replaceable. This is the same as all iPods for the last several years. And no, the iPhone isn't the first of these devices to have a battery that is soldered. Various iPod models have already had soldered batteries. Also, the battery replacement information was available the day the iPhone shipped. So, nothing new here.
As to the "difficulty" of finding the information on Apple's site:
Main iPhone support page -> Battery Service: FAQ and iPhone Service: FAQ
and
Apple Batteries -> Apple iPhone Batteries
Wow. Difficult.
Additionally, asking any Apple retail store, customer service representative, dealer, authorized service provider, etc., will yield a direct and immediate answer about battery replacement.
It's also utterly and ridiculously false to say that a new battery is required every year. All lithium ion batteries have about the same lifetime. The iPhone's lithium ion battery is no different. Most people will not need, or feel they need, to replace the battery in the lifetime of the phone (i.e., while they own and are using it). The "400 charges" thing isn't any 400 charges; partial charges are just that: partial. This lithium ion battery is no different from any other.
Also, the battery is covered by the warranty, and if you choose to extend the warranty to two years with the $69 AppleCare Protection Plan for iPhone, the battery is covered under that as well. There are even already third party replacement options. As with iPod, more are sure to come.
The customer also doesn't have to be without a phone for several days, and claiming that they do because there is a fee for a loaner is ridiculous. Just pretend that the battery replacement costs $29 more, then. You are not without a phone at all: you swap SIMs, sync once with iTunes, and it will literally look, act, feel, and behave like your phone, with your phone number and all of your data. Seeing how Apple has done such programs in the past, the loaner phone will probably be a new service phone or a factory-refurbished phone in a brand new enclosure (so it looks physically brand new). The total price is almost the same as the official iPod battery replacement plan was for years. If you choose to not have a phone in the meantime, that's your choice.
A recent New York Times article by Joe Nocera sums it up best:
I'm convinced the answer is that the chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, and Apple's design chief, Jonathan Ive, are design snobs, who care more about form than function. Larry Keeley, the president of the design firm Doblin Inc., wrote me an e-mail message after he'd seen the innards of the iPhone, which several Web sites have now published. The battery, he told me, lacks the normal metal jacket, making it ''thinner and lighter, while also making it more difficult for consumers to handle or dispose of.'' He added: ''This is clear evidence that they are optimizing the INSIDES of the phone to the OUTSIDE form factor that they have designed. It is far more common and much cheaper to design the oth
As I said, "Sure, you can argue that as such bandwidth penetration becomes commonplace, services will be built to support it - like HD movie downloads or live HD IPTV.
But in the meantime, "this is nothing more than a technology demonstration."
Try reading my post next time. I understand the points they're making, but that doesn't change the fact this is an experimental demonstration and a publicity stunt for Cisco.
Hey dumbass,
I understand they point they were trying to make: that using such a high speed connection, when commoditized someday, isn't "hard" or "complicated". A good point to want to make, considering it was a PR stunt.
The truth of the matter is that since this is an experimental connection using experimental equipment, it was probably set up by Cisco network engineers, was in fact extremely expensive and "hard" to set up, and required fibre routing through specialized facilities and equipment.
Sure, the point is that such a connection could be just as "easy" to set up and use as a cable modem or DSL in the future. But it isn't now, and to go out of their way to say "the hardest part was installing Windows" (when I'm guessing they didn't have to "install" Windows at all) is a little transparent. This is a technology demonstration and a PR stunt, plain and simple.
Cisco is "writing him a check" every two weeks, considering he works for them. ;-)
What made you think a standard machine could handle this type of network throughput?
Of course it's hard to install Windows on such a specialised beast! (A *nix would have been the logic choice.)
Without more information, I highly, highly doubt that her computer itself is equipped to handle 40Gbps of sustained traffic throughput...
Even IF Windows needed to be installed on a machine, it's false to say that was the "hardest part" of enabling an experimental 40Gbps connection to a residence.
And why are you claiming this does not cure the Last Mile problem when this is story is all about fibre straight in the home?
Um, are you serious?
The fibre still needs to get to the home. That's the critical piece of the puzzle, not what you can do with it once it's there.
Heh. I include a disclaimer saying just that, and someone still responds:
[1] For the real contrarians among us, yes, I'm well aware that systems can be built and purchased without Windows. But if the goal was to get a computer that will ultimately be running Windows, and a corporate giant like Cisco is buying it, it would have been purchased without Windows why, again? Exactly.
And no, since I'm sitting on a gigabit network on a 10Gbps backbone connected to Internet2/Abilene and BOREASNet, I don't have "network envy". This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple.
Even 10Gbps PCIe NICs for computers only push about 6-7Gbps...to claim that a 40Gbps connection to an old lady's house is anything BUT a publicity stunt is laughable. Doesn't quite have the same ring as doing the same test between laboratory or corporate facilities, does it?
Oh, she will, will she? And this content comes from where, exactly?
That's what I thought.
She is able to "enjoy" nothing on her connection except the same internet to which we all have access. Sure, you can argue that as such bandwidth penetration becomes commonplace, services will be built to support it - like HD movie downloads or live HD IPTV. But as of now, this is nothing more than a technology demonstration, even though the article lamely begs to differ ("This is more than just a demonstration," said network boss Hafsteinn Jonsson.")
"The most difficult part of the whole project was installing Windows on Sigbritt's PC," said Jonsson.
Doubtful. (Why even say this? To impress upon people that a high bandwidth connection isn't "hard" to use? Wouldn't the new computer she ostensibly got, since, as the article notes, she's never owned a computer in her life, have come with Windows installed?[1])
The secret behind Sigbritt's ultra-fast connection is a new modulation technique which allows data to be transferred directly between two routers up to 2,000 kilometres apart, with no intermediary transponders.
Great, now all we need is fibre going to every home on earth, and the problem is solved!! Why look at wireless when we've got fibre?
...
I understand the point they're trying to make: that a high speed connection that enables the kinds of things such bandwidth allows is technically feasible to a home. But the problem is the same one we've always had - namely, the "last mile" - and this does nothing to solve that in the least.
"I want to show that there are other methods than the old fashioned ways such as copper wires and radio, which lack the possibilities that fibre has," said Peter Löthberg, who now works at Cisco.
Is it any surprise that Cisco is dismissing "radio" as "old fashioned" (nice choice of calling it "radio" instead of "wireless"), when high-bandwidth wireless technologies like WiMAX and UMTS Rev 8 are at least an option worth considering as a solution to the "last mile" problem?
Overall, a great PR stunt.
4.5/5 (points deducted for lying about needing to install Windows on a newly purchased PC[1])
[1] For the real contrarians among us, yes, I'm well aware that systems can be built and purchased without Windows. But if the goal was to get a computer that will ultimately be running Windows, and a corporate giant like Cisco is buying it, it would have been purchased without Windows why, again? Exactly.
What a horrible, and sadly, typical, oversimplification of the problem.
Ironically, it's very similar to the sentiments behind the oft-misquoted statement attributed to Benjamin Franklin[1]:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Notice the word "essential" in front of "liberty" and "temporary" in front of "safety".
Interesting how two little words can completely change what people think this quotation means. And it's telling.
People seem think it means, essentially, that those who would give up any liberty for any level of safety deserve neither. But Franklin, in his wisdom recognized that it is sometimes appropriate - and, indeed, necessary in a civilized society based on the rule of law - to sacrifice liberty for safety, just not essential liberty for a little tempoary safety. In other words, the balance should be worthwhile. It doesn't mean that any sacrifice of liberty for any level of safety, real or perceived, is automatically suspect.
Also, the extremely vague things you noted (situations that allow warrantless searches, pen register provisions which allow warrantless call logging, and large volumes of security cameras) were around long before 9/11 and long before Bush. Yet another example of indicting technology for the sake of doing so, assuming the worst motivations on the part of people charged with the protection of the country and its people, and woefully - willfully? - misunderstanding and misconstruing the intentions of a statement by one of our founding fathers.
[1] It's not clear that it was Franklin who said this; but it is most often attributed to him.
Technology will always make abuse easier, just as it makes so many other aspects of life easier.
Technology will always make jobs of law enforcement easier, just as it makes our lives easier.
Technology will always act as a force multiplier for government, just as it magnifies the capabilities of the individual user.
Just to take one example: if a system of license plate readers can detect a plate that has been flagged by some agency and prevents one, e.g., car bombing, why is that not a valid mechanism to use?
Just because it can be abused?
Or because it could be abused "more easily" than individual humans reading license plates in public?
Or because someday, someone could "come to power" who would use it against [insert ostensibly oppressed population here]?
All technology - computers, databases, telephones, cameras, the internet, vehicles, helicopters, robots, radios, video cameras, heat sensors, weapons, tear gas, rubber bullets, office buildings, body armor, remote controlled aircraft, tape recorders, wireless transmitters, you name it - can and will be able to be, and in fact will be, "abused".
But it's not the technology that's being abused; it's power.
So instead of being luddites-by-proxy, why not recognize the issue for what it is, instead of pretending that government should not be able to leverage technology to solve problems?
There is no reason surveillance cameras in public places or license plate readers in stationary locations or on aircraft should be vilified any more than any other piece of technology. Whether the cost/benefit ratio is reasonable is another argument entirely.
But I cannot and will not fault the government or law enforcement for using technology such as this, whose costs it can ultimately justify to the public's satisfaction, in public places to attempt to fulfill their charge to society.
Whether or not such systems actually do deter crime or terrorist activity, or whether they are worth the money, is really what is at issue. Not kneejerk reactions about 1984 likely to dominate some (most?) debates on this issue.
This isn't some plot to turn America into a police state. It's an effort being undertaken by local, state, and federal law enforcement and security professionals to attempt to protect the public. That is the first and primary goal. There are no ulterior motives that rise to any meaningful level. Let's keep things in some sort of perspective.
If it was your job to protect the people and property of New York City, what kinds of initiatives would you be undertaking? Hint: if your answer is along the lines that it's much better to stomach the errant terrorist attack every now and then rather than take proactive action to attempt to prevent them using whatever means you have at your disposal, you probably won't be in that job for long.
So think about this, and try to put yourself in the place of an urban security expert or a law enforcement official or a city mayor. There are valid points to be made on both sides of that debate, about costs, effectiveness, balances with privacy, and so on.
But none of them involve rants about police states or governments secretly wanting to monitor and control innocent citizens. Technology is technology. Implying that government and law enforcement shouldn't be able to use technology to the extent that it is legally allowable and its costs are justifiable is absurd.
One other point is that while things like cameras and checking ID may not always deter or prevent a crime or an attack, it often greatly assists in the investigation after the fact. We need only look as far as the London car bomb plot to know that cameras in public spaces (among a great many other tools) can be an aid. Cameras have been a valuable aid in such instances as long as they have been used. The real issue is cost effectiveness.
Could the $90M be spent a different or more effective way in a city like New York? Befo
Apple does not use TPM in any way on Mac OS X (either at present, or at any time in the past):
U TIVE_SUMMARY
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/#EXEC
I do have little regard for remote exploits that haven't occurred.
I have a very high regard, on the other hand, for remote exploits that have occurred or are shown to be possible.
You're making a string of assumptions - that the password is even usable (which it may not be), that a remote exploit via the browser is possible, and that even if both happen, that this enables some higher level of access.
Are all of those things possible? Perhaps. But all of those have to be provably true before it justifies knee jerks that the iPhone is somehow "insecure", which are already happening around the blogs.
Also, I didn't say it was nothing. I said this story will probably get mangled to imply that - right now - it's somehow possible or very likely possible to "break into" iPhones remotely. And that's patently incorrect.
Assuming the iPhone is hacked to the point where it's easily modifiable, yes, it will have the opposite effect in the extremely small niche market.
In the mainstream, this can easily get spun as the iPhone is extremely insecure, and has been "broken into", causing normal people to steer very clear.
This will get picked up by blogs, news sites - and, if we're lucky, given a good mangling by sloppy journalists in the mainstream press - as somehow meaning that any iPhone can be "broken into" by a malicious third party, and/or that all iPhones are now "insecure", and/or that iPhones - and all the personal data on them - are now, because of this, vulnerable to remote attack, when none of those things are true.
Also, from TFA and the summary:
"Having the passwords will not do anybody any good for the moment. The iPhone has no console or terminal access, so there is no way to log in as either account. In fact, nobody even seems certain that the accounts access the machine at all, some Internet commentators suggesting that the password file was left over from early development work, or was intentionally included to throw hackers off the scent."
These kind of idiotic replies to the blog post are telling:
Poetic Justice - 04/07/07
So much for Apple being the most secure OS in the world. Welcome to Microsoft's world, Jobs.
Wow, cracking a local password on a file that belongs to a device to which you have physical access?
Stop the presses!
Since iPhones don't have any kind of access that makes this "discovery" meaningful, I'm sure that people will just misunderstand the implications of this, and because of the iPhones popularity - and a lot of peoples' desire to tear it down or create any FUD they can to dissuade interested people from possibly buying an iPhone - I'm sure this and related stories will be big news.
From their site:
5 reasons to erase private information from my legally acquired iTunes Plus library:
Yeah. A name and email address. On an electronic file that you purchased. In name and email address fields in the clear. How...wrong.
1. Am I still a child who needs his pencilcase and schoolbag tagged with my name?
Utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
2. I bought the damn tune, but someday I may want to sell it (hey, how is it more stupid that selling old CDs ?).
It's not "more stupid" than anything. And since Apple is the first entity that's even allowing this possibility at all with mainstream music from mainstream labels on any meaningful scale, I guess I must not recognize your gratitude.
3. I just have a thing for privacy. Is it dirty?
No, but it's dirty when you think everything is automatically an "invasion of privacy".
4. How the heck do I know it's not gonna be shared on P2P networks by my 6 year old step sister???
How do you know the reason the name and email address is there is for tracking file sharers? How do you even know that would stand up in court? Why does everyone assume that's the reason it's there? Has it occurred to you that this might have been a concession to the labels to make them "feel good", or any number of other reasons? Has it occurred to you that since name and email address have always been included in all purchases from the iTunes store that, uh, maybe nothing has changed?
What if the EU mandates a system for returns and refunds someday from the iTunes store? Wouldn't your account name and email be an easy way for normal individuals to return songs? And before anyone says, "Well, it should be encrypted, then," can you honestly look at me with a straight face and tell me you wouldn't be even more upset that Apple was including unknown personal information, encrypted, in each song bought from iTunes? If it's there at all, it's actually preferable that it's plaintext, because then there are simple ways to remove it without anyone being able to claim that you're breaking some law for removing encrypted information or some other ridiculous thing.
"But it shouldn't be there in the first place."
I know, this is the part is a difficult situation since it is mandatory for all persons on earth to purchase from only the iTunes store. If only Apple didn't force you to buy no-DRM songs from iTunes.
Oh, wait...
5. I thought good customer-seller relationship ment something like... how do they say, "trust' ?
Why do you assume that an electronic item you purchased yourself from the iTunes store having your name and email address embedded in internationally standardized MPEG-4 atoms intended exactly for that purpose somehow equates to lack of "trust"? "Trust" to do what?
I thought the main argument against DRM was so that we could use our files anywhere we wished, on any device we wished. Now we can. Sure, it has your name and email address in it. It's not hidden. It's not a secret. It doesn't matter if most normal users don't realize this. It's still not hidden, nor is it a secret. Most "normal users" don't "realize" a lot of things.
And from the summary:
However, the claim that this software is perfectly legal will surely be tested.
Tested by whom or what? For what purpose?
The software is perfectly legal. Why is this even in doubt? It's a file with no DRM, and you're removing text that is IN THE CLEAR, IN PLAINTEXT in the file that YOU BOUGHT. Removing it by ANY MECHANISM is perfectly legal in any jurisdiction I can think of.
No DRM means just that: no DRM. No encryption. No reverse engineering. No DMCA provisions. Etc.
If you want to make an anonomyzing tool, great. But don't puff it up to be more than it is.
Again, my favorite quote that sums up the stupidity of the outrage over a name and email address being in a file you purchased, from a Gartner analyst:
YouTube is reencoding their entire video library to H.264 in addition to Flash (and 3GP). Currently, over 10000 videos are in H.264 format, and over the next couple of months, the entire library will be available in H.264. From then on, all videos uploaded to YouTube will be available as Flash, H.264, and 3GP.
As the other person who responded to you noted - and which you would have immediately seen had you bothered to follow the link right in my post - those are from four reviews, not one, and they're from the likes of the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Times. Also, since today brings the first actual hand-on reviews ever, and these are them, I'm not quite sure where you're getting your "mix" of information.
"After walking around with the iPhone unprotected for 2 weeks, no marks on it. Glass smudges are easily wiped off." [...] "The glass gets smudgy -- a sleeve wipes it clean"
Doesn't quite seem to match...
"After walking around with the iPhone unprotected for 2 weeks, no marks on it. Glass smudges are easily wiped off."
"I've been jamming it in my pocket with keyrings, coins and pens, and so far it's nearly as good as new."
"I expected to miss the tactile feel that a physical keyboard provides. I didn't."
"Typing was OK. Difficult at first, but learned to "trust" the keyboard."
"After five days of use, Walt -- who did most of the testing for this review -- was able to type on it as quickly and accurately as he could on the Palm Treo he has used for years."
"bottom line is that the iPhone is a significant leap"
"The iPhone is the rare convergence device where things actually converge."
"Multitouch: 'effective, practical and fun'"
"Feels solid"
"Apple's iPhone isn't perfect, but it's worthy of the hype"
"The revelation is that it's also comfortable to hold and touch."
"Our verdict is that, despite some flaws and feature omissions, the iPhone is, on balance, a beautiful and breakthrough handheld computer."
David Pogue, New York Times
- "so sleek and thin, it makes Treos and BlackBerrys look obese."
- After walking around with the iPhone unprotected for 2 weeks, no marks on it. Glass smudges are easily wiped off.
- 700 megabytes is occupied by the phone's software
- Making calls can be a 6 step process if phone is off.
- Web, Email is superior
- Battery Life Test: 5 hours video, 23 hours audio. Note: did not turn off Wi-Fi and other features as Apple suggests.
- Typing was OK. Difficult at first, but learned to "trust" the keyboard. "The BlackBerry won't be going away anytime soon."
- Cites AT&T network as iPhone's biggest downfall. Cites Consumer Reports survey which ranks AT&T network as last or second to last in 19 out of 20 major US cities.
- AT&T's EDGE cellular network: "excruciatingly slow"
- Slideshow of photos taken with iPhone
- Video Review
Steven Levy, Newsweek
- bottom line is that the iPhone is a significant leap
- The iPhone is the rare convergence device where things actually converge.
- e-mail looks more like you're working on a computer than a clunky phone
- YouTube videos work great on Wi-Fi, but can display in a lower quality when you're not at a hotspot and are using AT&T's EDGE network
- unless I did a lot of video watching or Web browsing, [the battery] could generally last the day
- I've been jamming it in my pocket with keyrings, coins and pens, and so far it's nearly as good as new.
Edward Baig, USA Today
- Apple's iPhone isn't perfect, but it's worthy of the hype
- The revelation is that it's also comfortable to hold and touch.
- I expected to miss the tactile feel that a physical keyboard provides. I didn't.
- You can hold a conference call with up to five people.
- No voice recognition or voice dialing
- halfway decent internal speakers for listening if you set the thing down
- iPod games are not compatible with iPhone
- our company tech department raised questions about the security settings Apple required with our Microsoft Exchange servers.
- Battery life didn't prove to be a big problem in my unscientific tests
Walt Mossberg, Wall Street Journal (the submitted article's highlights):
- Our verdict is that, despite some flaws and feature omissions, the iPhone is, on balance, a beautiful and breakthrough handheld computer. Its software, especially, sets a new bar for the smart-phone industry, and its clever finger-touch interface, which dispenses with a stylus and most buttons, works well, though it sometimes adds steps to common functions.
- largest, highest resolution screen of any smart phone they've seen, most internal memory
- Impressive battery life and thin
- Feels solid
- Regarding the touch keyboard: "After five days of use, Walt -- who did most of the testing for this review -- was able to type on it as quickly and accurately as he could on the Palm Treo he has used for years."
- Can't use T-Mobile SIM cards
- Wi-Fi capability doesn't fully make up for the lack of a fast cellular data capability
- Multitouch: "effective, practical and fun"
- No way to copy/paste text
- Microsoft's Exchange system support
- Voice call quality was good, but not great
- Can't record video
- No Adobe Flash support
- Songs can't be set as ringtones
- Apple says it plans to add fea
Ugh.
Yes, I know the University pays for the volume licensing agreement. Jeez.
What I mean in this context is that the users/departments get it for essentially free (to them), and doesn't impact their budget in the same way other software does when they get thirty licenses of Windows Vista Enterprise for the cost of one set of media. In other words, the cost does NOT impact them when the make decisions. They see Windows and Office as basically being "free", and therefore wouldn't consider the potential cost implications of running Windows on Macs.
I am well aware of the fact that Microsoft is paid. But the reality is that for many organizations, like academic institutions, with volume licensing agreements, the users see it as "free", because the cost is NOT passed to them the same way as it is for other software or purchases they might make (or sometimes at all).
So what? I don't care what you claim to believe. It doesn't matter what motivates you to make posts like you did. It could be for karma. It could be to see yourself get modded up early. It could be to get your name out there and get your beloved geek cred. I don't know what motivates you to karma whore (or more specifically, make posts that get modded up regardless of net karma contribution), and I don't really care which motive you chose. You deliberately withheld information so that could be ride in and be "informative".
/. being used to advertise a product.
/. turning into advertisements.
No. I "withheld" (poor choice of word, on your part) the additional minutiae for exactly the reasons I explained. Namely, to keep the submission concise and on-topic, with a greater chance of being accepted for reasons of both timeliness and accuracy.
Ah, nothing like seeing the condescending invocation of a logical fallacy unravel!
Wrong. That that was the implication of the statement you made. Which is why I had the word "implied" in bold.
That wasn't the argument. As others and I have pointed out to you, it wasn't the "posting informatively" that makes you a karma whore; it was degrading the content of your submission so you could include it in a later karma-allowable post. And it was based on logical probability, not logical necessity.
No. No one has pointed that aspect of it ("degrading" the content of the submission) but you. And I already said I wasn't posting for karma. And it wasn't degrading anything, as I've already explained several times now why I submitted what I did, and why I posted additional miscellanea as a comment. And it wasn't for karma, no matter what you think. Sorry.
And if I cared about karma, would I keep responding to you, and getting my posts modded down as offtopic, especially since downmods seem to count more against karma than upmods count for it? (This is anecdotal, but over the years has seemed to be true.)
No, I can't. If you had enough attention span to read things in context, you'd see my complaint (from the beginning) was about
Sorry, you're wrong. Your were DIRECTLY responding to me saying that iPhone plan pricing is one of the most anticipated items, and you said "it's anticipated because [...]"
I believe you "meant" iPhone, but in context, it is absolutely reasonable to think that you were also referring to iPhone plan pricing being anticipated, considering I had just said exactly that, and that's the sentence to which you responded.
You're digging yourself in.
Yeah -- if your attention span doesn't reach back to my initial post, part of which complained about
No. That's a whole other argument than karma whoring. Notice that's what I'm taking issue with, and not the slashvertisement thing so much?
Each tiny detail is "notable" because people like you feed the hype and make it news. Again, why apply the advertising outrage selectively? Wouldn't it be just as bad to report "special discounts" coming up on Dell systems?
From the 50,000 foot view, yes.
In reality, no, because far more people currently care about iPhone plan pricing than special discounts on Dell systems. Again, slashdot didn't have to accept my submission.
Projection, much? I respond because I don't like to see idiots get away with ridiculous arguments that appeal to the biases of the readers. Less obviously-flawed arguments? Fine. Flawed arguments that don't appeal to pre-existing biases? Fine. Obviously-flawed arguments that appeal to pre-existing biases? Not so fine.
Just because you assert that I'm using flawed arguments doesn't make it so. I told you EXACTLY why I submitted what I did and posted what I did. You don't believe that it wasn't for karma. Fine, I get it.
Of course -- just not in the original submission where more people would see it and you couldn't get modded up.
Asked and answered.
And in case you didn't get it yet: I didn't post, or separate information out of the submission, for karma.
IF a) I believe your karma index has maxed out and IF b) Slashcode is transparent enough that it does what they claim it does (!), and IF c) you have control over when a topic comes up where you're going to say something unpopular, THEN you have nothing to gain from karma whoring.
However, a) I don't, b) it isn't, and c) you don't.
Ok, so, out of all this, you still think I posted to karma whore. It is my firm belief that my karma was already maxed out when I posted that. It is irrelevant whether I can "prove" to you that it was maxed out, or whether slashdot's code is transparent enough for me to tell that (interesting you you also imply slashdot may be lying about how karma works, but only because it helps your point). Whether or not stories may come up where I want to say something "unpopular" is irrelevant. If my karma is already at or near max - or even if I simply believe it to be - there is no reason karma whore.
Right -- in other words, you didn't want to. I know you didn't want to. That was the whole point! You didn't want to include that information upfront, so you could karma whore. I get that.
See above.
No, it's not based on any one reason for karma whoring.
Well, that's the example you used. But for ANY reason, karma whoring is still not necessary if you have no reason to believe you need any karma, which is my case.
Of course, you can claim I'm lying, and secretly trying to hide the fact that I am karma whoring.
Or you could say that even the satisfaction of posting information that others may find useful, and having that information modded up, could also be "karma whoring".
In fact, at this point, it's clear you believe that my only or primary purpose was to karma whore, when in reality, it was to post the information I posted, and have people see it, irrespective of my slashdot karma. Most of the information in that post is utterly irrelevant to the release of plan information, which was specifically why I didn't include it. I also didn't want to waste a bunch of time with the submission, as slashdot's first come, first served submission policy often results in total garbage being published first, and more comprehensive submissions being rejected. So, if you really want to know the exact reasoning, that's one of my purposes for keeping the submission concise and on-topic. Did I want to say more about a couple of other related topics? Absolutely. Which is why I did. But, unfortunately, it wasn't for slashdot karma.
Sure -- just the people who deliberately degrade the usefulness of their posts so that they can spread the information across several and get more karma.
No. I said I didn't include information that wasn't appropriate for the submission. I didn't say that I deliberately degraded the usefulness of the post, either, nor do I believe I did. I kept it exactly on topic for what the submission was. Posting a comment in the article doesn't have to be for karma. Your premise is flawed.
Which [logical fallacy] did I make?
[Y]yours is one of, "All A are in B. Therefore, all B must be in A."
Cool, thanks for the clarification. Now, for the hard part: define A and B, and say where I made such a statement.
That's the easy part: it's the part where you implied that because karma whores post to get modded up, that any post (especially posted by the submitter) that gets modded up must be made by a karma whore.
A = karma whores
B = posts that get modded up
Since (I believe) my karma was maxed out, why, again, would I need to karma whore? If the answer is just because you think I must be karma whoring, save it. I'm telling you the reasons why I didn't include the other miscellaneous stuff in the submission, and that I didn't post for karma. You obviously don't believe that. The discussion is then likely over.
I was claiming the(!) iPhone was anticipated, not the submission.
You said:
"it's anticipated becuas