No, the Mac Mini used to be clearly cheaper than the iMac, if not massively so once you'd included a monitor (though this may be missing the point as the Mac Mini was marketed towards people who already had a monitor, keyboard and mouse).
Tell me, if Steve told you to jump off a bridge, would you ask which one?
Well, Steve wouldn't just tell you to jump. He would offer three height options (iBridge 50, iBridge 100, iBridge Pro250) and then sell you the privilege of jumping off one of them.
Not quite- you wouldn't be allowed to jump off yourself. You'd have to be pushed off by an officially-approved Death Merchant in order (they claim) to preserve a high-quality end-of-life experience.
Yeah- much as I think the Mac Mini is overpriced (and the lack of height not as big an improvement as the original's small footprint was)... that Zino thing is still cheap and plasticky looking.
I remember thinking that Hoojum's Nanode looked great when it was previewed months before the Mac Mini had even been announced... but it never came out and I'm currently running a PC in a pig-ugly cheap case.:'-(
Last time I checked Snow Leopard was only about $29.
Well, yeah and no.
Effectively when people pay extra for a Mac over a similarly-specced PC, part of that difference is for the ability to run OS X on otherwise pretty generic hardware.
That said, it's unlikely that you'd be able to successfully use that argument in court to get more than $29, so I agree with you that far.
The upgrades to OS X are also arguably more minor than those of MS, though at the price that's not a big deal- they still add enough new to make it worthwhile. But still, that $29 *is* effectively an upgrade cost- reasonable though it is. You couldn't pay $29 and run it on a generic PC hardware.
IIRC, the UK has stronger consumer protection laws that Apple must deal with. Things like being able to get an item replaced after then end of the warranty period if it breaks.
I've pointed this out myself a few times. The UK (AFAIK) always had quite good consumer laws, and the EU (if anything) strengthens that.
People in the UK might be surprised to know that the PS2 only had a 90 day warranty in the US. I've seen new laptops with as little as a 30 day warranty. Now, if you know that you're not going to have to cover repairs or replacements for anything more than a brief period after sale you're obviously going to save money on that, and be able to sell cheaper goods.
I can't remember what the exact law is, but my understanding is that goods are expected to last a reasonable amount of time; e.g. a laptop would be expected to last more than 30 days without needing repair, a PS2 more than 90, etc. At any rate, you don't see such "guarantees" in the UK, likely because they wouldn't stand up in court.
Bottom line though is that one could reasonably argue that this accounts for *some* of the general difference in prices (if not all), along with the omission of sales tax from most US prices.
I think there's also import tariffs that must be factored into the cost.
Unless the Mac Mini is made in the US *or* the EU- which I doubt- that would apply to both territories anyway.
Despite my increasing "feelbad" associations with Apple due to the obnoxious iPhone control freakery, part of me still liked the idea of buying a Mac. Until I saw the prices, that is.
I thought the original concept of the Mac Mini was as a relatively affordable (though not dirt cheap) low-powered Mac. Well, the new Mac Mini is far from high-powered, but at £649 I'm not even interested. The server version is £929. Whisky Tango Foxtrot?!
Thanks to government subsidy, which was a $40 prepaid debit card, the boxes only cost $0-20 out of pocket. Even without that card you can find these boxes for $40-60, so about half the price as UK converter boxes.
The "converter" we were discussing above isn't a digital TV receiver- it converts SCART and phono-based analogue video signals into RF-compatible inputs for devices that only have an aerial/antenna input, like some old TVs.
Digiboxes- as they're normally called here- for digital terrestrial start at under £18 ($27), unsubsidised, though those ones only support standard definition.
I don't know if this is still the case, but some of the older portable (<= 19") cheap LCD displays that came out a few years ago just looked "wrong" with SD material. (Actually, I don't think those were HD-compatible, but anyway...)
I'm not sure if this was down to the matte finish, the low quality of the display, contrast or what- but I'd hate to have one of them instead of my Trinitron portable.
OTOH, some of the larger (and more recent) LCDs and plasmas look great, and visible scan lines and flicker are more of an issue with larger CRTs in a way they aren't with portables.
Have you tried any of the converter solutions that seem to exist for this situation?
Bear in mind that the converter costs £30, which is probably way more than the TV's worth. Not that I'm a fan of the mentality that a working TV is worthless- and not worth using- based on its market value, but that's still quite a lot of money to get an old TV going. Particularly since those without SCART are likely to be old and cheaper sets in poorer order.
FWIW, I live in the UK, and one of the nearby charity shops which had 3 portable CRT televisions in the window at one point now has a sign saying that they are no longer accepting televisions. I don't know whether this is for legal and safety reasons related to the resale of electrical goods, or whether it's simply due to the extreme glut of such sets on the market in the face of their impending "uselessness" (yeah, *I* know) and the cheapness of new Freeview LCD sets.
Thanks to adblock, flashblock and an extensive hosts file, I now see very few ads at all, where I would have been happy to accept a limited amount to offset the costs of hosting the content in which I'm interested. The marketroids are sabotaging their own interests with their policy of saturation advertising, and they only have themselves to blame if people are physically tuning them out.
Yeah... but with respect, you're not typical.
Not saying that you're necessarily wrong- or right- just that you can't say much about the great unwashed masses' habits based on one atypical geek's behaviour.
By the same token, if I leave $0.10 on the counter and leave, I'm "paying".
Please don't give me the "they're not entitled to force bundling of the extras" [true or not] "therefore I'm entitled to brandish my gun / walk out without paying what they were asking / etc" type nonsense either.
They could, should- and probably would- be convicted of something like that in court; it doesn't mean that your manner of solving the dispute is right or legal.
You sound like the people who say they are entitled to complain about the government even if they didn't vote. It's technically true, but there is something wrong with it.
In what sense and in relation to which point I made?
Are you suggesting that criticising the iPad but not buying it is somehow analogous to complaining about the government when you didn't vote?
If you don't see that, well, I can't help you.
If you can't make your point more clearly, then please don't try to shift the responsibility for understanding it on to me.
Its not new, its certainly not new for Apple. They haven't changed. They aren't getting any worse. They aren't the only ones that do this sort of thing, its pretty common
Indeed. Apple are one of the most prominent and popular, however, and that makes it worthy of discussion. The same publicity that gets them in the papers and on television and makes articles like this on Slashdot regular news (when something from Buttfsck Electronics probably wouldn't be). That's why it's discussed.
If you don't like that, either tell Apple to shut down their PR department or head off to an Apple-lovers-only forum. It's not my problem!
even if you're too busy railing against the machine to know how often you buy into this same thing.
Nice strawman. Do you actually think everyone who says anything against Apple is a stereotypical counter-culture consumerist (dreadlocks? cannabis leaf t-shirt? expensive anti-The-Man clothing bought at a capitalist-owned chainstore etc)?
Sadly, you probably do.
As soon as you stop making retarded statements about how evil the company is
In this case, I didn't say anything about how evil Apple is. I said that they weren't entitled to immunity from criticism.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT YOU FUCKING MORON.
Well, y'know... I haven't, and I won't. Because it sucks. (^_^)
How does showing the gun holstered on my hip "threaten" anybody? It has not been aimed, or even unsheathed. It's simply there.
If you're not trying to be threatening why are you exposing your firearm to the clerk?
it's people like you that give gun owners a bad rep. Why don't you go get a penis enlargement, and put your gun away until you grow up. Dousche.
It occurs to me this is why we are losing our freedoms. Politicians know they have nothing to fear from us. [etc]
Smooth, and (ironically) just like a real politician.
Your reply doesn't actually respond to what he said (criticising your position)- probably because there *is* no response that hasn't already been panned elsewhere in the thread- and instead implies he's said something else, giving you the excuse to shift the ground of the argument and make a speech about politicians that makes you look good (rather than bad, as any continued attempt to defend the indefensible would have).
Stores that require that you buy OTHER items to get item #1, are in violation of consumer protection and pricing laws.
Quite possibly (though did you mean under Australian law or Slashdot's default of the United States?), and I don't disagree that this should be the case.
However, if you look at what my post, you'll see that wasn't the point under discussion. We were considering whether the iPhone was or wasn't a part of a free market.
It's called "bait and switch" to make the customer buy all kinds of other accessories on top of that price.
I would assume that there are two issues here, that of bundling (or whatever the legal term is) and that of "bait and switch".
In this case it probably *was* bait and switch because they apparently weren't upfront to customers until they got in the shop, then only sold them the iPhone bundle rather than the items on their own.
But I would guess that if they *had* been upfront, it wouldn't be bait and switch, even though it would be bundling (and disagreeable).
I would have laid down my $500 cash on the register, plus $30 for tax, said "I've paid", and walked out the door with the iPad. No way am I going to let some retail shit manager screw me up the ass by forcing me to buy extra junk. Baiting-and-switching is illegal. And of course no store would press charges, because the judge would end-up fining the store a few thousand dollars for violating the law.
Given that your original version of this had you thinking it was acceptable to brandish your gun over a price dispute on some consumer electronics (and not being aware that this was a crime), I'd question your judgement on what is or isn't acceptable, and what you think you could get away with.
You seem to think that just because someone does something illegal, you can get away with doing just about anything in response, including walking out the store without paying.
I suspect that in real life, it wouldn't play out like that.
(Disclaimer; this is *not* a defence or acceptance of price-fixing, bait-and-switch, dodgy retailers or whatever. Because if I don't make that clear, some idiot not paying attention to what I'm saying *will* assume that this is the case).
"Don't like it, don't buy it" IS a valid response, you just don't like it, and thus... don;t buy it.
Only if someone's acting as if they don't have a choice (for whatever reason) when they do. However, the context it was used in here- and frequently is elsewhere- made clear that it was meant as a rebuttal of criticism, the implication being "don't like it, shut up and don't criticise".
Kidding aside, the "Don't like it, don't buy it" crowd is really following the mantra of "free and open trade market", what they fail to see is that only Apple has this product, so the "free and open trade market" is no longer valid.
Well, this depends upon whether one considers they have a free choice.
If Kellogg's charge too much for their corn flakes- sure, I can only buy "Kellogg's corn flakes" from Kelloggs, but there are other makes of corn flakes, and other cereals (*) available from other manufacturers.
On the other hand, if Apple had monopolised the smartphone market and/or had the only widely-supported software ecosystem and/or for various reasons I "had" to buy an Apple iPhone- as opposed to preferring one- that's a different kettle of fish. (Not that I *am* suggesting that this is the case at present).
No I didn't. In my *imaginary* scenario I never removed or even touched my gun - it's just hanging there inside a holster.
Your implied meaning was very clear- that you would use the gun to back up your position in the dispute. If you hadn't meant that, then you wouldn't have shown them the gun in the first place.
Even if you hadn't intended using the gun- and no-one in the shop is obliged to "know" that- the implicit threat is clear.
(This is- I assume- why "brandishing", AKA "menacing" is considered a crime, as others pointed out.)
Your clearly implied argument "oh, I just *showed* them the gun, I didn't *do* anything" is patent BS, in the same way that the stereotypical mafia guy ("nice business you have here... it'd be shame if anything... happened to it") was "just" admiring someone's shop.
If you genuinely don't see that, then you're an idiot. And depending upon whether or not you would actually act like this in real life or were just hypothetically mouthing off, you're either an Internet Tough Guy or a psychopath, or both.
i like that term. none held a gun to there heads and said BUY IT.
The usual contrived argument that regularly appears in response to stories like this. I'm sure that everyone (including yourself) understands the implicit subtext that they're forced to buy the accessories *if* they want to buy the iPad.
Of course, perhaps you accepted that but meant it to tie into this...
just don't buy whine and all will be fixed
...another tedious chestnut that appears like clockwork whenever a company gets criticism for sales practices or goods people don't like.
Some people assume that the freedom of others to not buy their favourite company's latest product (i.e. "don't like it, don't buy it") somehow exempts that product/company from criticism. Well, it doesn't.
I'm perfectly entitled to voice my opinion of the iPod, Apple's selling practices, or anything else, even if I have no intention of buying it. Even those buying the iPad (to a lesser extent) have the right to criticise aspects they don't like, though they can't really complain that they didn't know what they were getting into if they did nor that they didn't accept Apple's policies.
But to get back to the point, "don't like it, don't buy it" isn't a valid response to criticism. It's a free world, and both buyers and non-buyers are free to criticise Apple or anyone else for questionable sales practices. To echo the original implication, if companies don't like that, they're free to not sell their goods.
Front facing cameras and video conferencing have been on almost every 3G capable phone since circa 2003.
Yes, but it's entirely new and worthy of discussion when the sodding iPhone adds that feature.
It has never really taken off in the UK, it is cool to show someone something, but it costs 50p per minute, so people have never bothered.
While the price is probably an issue, I think the cultural and practical reasons given in the article and elsewhere in the thread- which have been mostly known for *years*- are the primary cause.
No it isn't; the SQL is parsed before it looks at the hamburger. It doesn't blindly plug parameter values into the query string and then parse the resulting SQL.
Given that it's hypothetical syntax (or was meant to be), that does depend how it's implemented. It's quite possible that another string- rather than "hamburger" contains an embedded quote followed by some further commands.
Though it might not need to be that way, as the other reply to my original post said (and I accept that the second point I made may have been incorrect, though I still think that my main point- that requiring parameters for *all* variables would be a PITA compensation for some people's incompetence).
If some other service replaces Twitter, there's a good chance that using that service will also be referred to as "tweeting" since the term has become so well established
That depends what constitutes "replace" and whether what replaces Twitter will be an exact- or close- analogue.
It could be argued that Twitter has displaced and partially "replaced" MSN by some metric- yet no-one uses the verb/noun "MSN" in relation to Twitter even though it was a popular semi-genericised trademark.
if the databases and website frameworks forced a different query language that forced variable parametrization, there wouldn't be any injection risk.
Yes (or rather, no- see below), but it would be at the expense of making SQL a PITA for the very common cases where we're using hardcoded parameter values and there isn't a cats chance in hell of any risk; e.g. you wouldn't be able to say
SELECT * FROM Foods WHERE type = "hamburger"
It'd have to be
SELECT * FROM Foods WHERE type = "$1"
PARAM1 = "hamburger"
...or whatever syntax was used. And the reason would be that which caused SQL injection problems in the first place.
Assembling SQL statements by concatenating strings within a program and only *then* passing them to the SQL/DBMS engine means that the DBMS itself can't "know" how the statement was created. It doesn't know whether "hamburger" is actually hardwired or plastered in there by an inept PHP script.
<infomercial>But wait.... there's more!</infomercial> The above was going to be a qualified "agreement" until something rather obvious smacked me in the face. I realised that the PARAM1 = "hamburger" bit was prone to exactly the same problem!
So I'm not sure what the solution is unless the DBMS can somehow impose additional restrictions on how it's fed data. And this strikes me as a workaround for some people's lack of skill that would just make things more complicated and likely have its own (but less obvious) drawbacks.
You type in you address and if the images are there, they'll pop up. There are two things that make it not quite like Streetview. (1) The coverage is not there yet
Bingo. There doesn't exist a Google-sized set of consistently geolocated data yet. There probably will be soon, but that's a different kettle of fish.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to get you to take a clear position. Instead you hide behind vague innuendo with words like "issue"
I used the word issue once. But since you make such an issu... *deal* of it, I'll point out that the "issue" in question was whether Google doing data gathering on a large scale is a problem and worthy of consideration already being discussed, and I was countering the implication that it wasn't an issue because it was the same as something already widely done that isn't considered a big deal.
I pointed out that the two were different. Is what Google are doing a problem? Others have argued so, e.g. privacy issues with street view, their gathering of wireless data (even if unintentional). One can debate this, but IMHO the "Google are doing on a larger scale what people already do without fuss and therefore it doesn't warrant discussion" argument is flawed.
that argument is bogus: small-scale data gathering is the same as Google's large-scale system because sharing this data on the web makes the distinction irrelevant. If a billion people upload geolocated snapshots to a thousand photo sharing sites, that's Streetview, and that's what's happening.
Show me a website that makes that data accessible in a consistent and easy-to-use manner that's comparable to Streetview as of today or
stop dissembling [and] admit you're wrong
Yes- I already pointed out that this was a possibility- if not probability- in the near future, so I can only assume your remaining disagreement is that as of now there exists a service that collates such data into a Streetview-like service. Please show me it.
So, stop dissembling, admit you're wrong, and say which of those technologies you see as the culprit and which of them you want to make illegal.
You implied that I had stated there was something to be "afraid of" when I'd said no such thing. Now you're trying to make out that I want to ban or "make illegal" something when I hadn't said anything to that effect either.
The positions you take aren't themselves totalitarian, but they are a hallmark of totalitarian regimes and conducive to totalitarianism.
And you're still putting words in my mouth or drawing unwarranted assumptions from what I said.
Bottom line; I said that I considered Google's large-scale, consistent data gathering to be different- in *effect*- to disparate, uncoordinated data gathering by random people. I didn't claim that was good or bad by itself- *you* put those words in my mouth.
I found your assertion that any nation restricting telepresence for whatever reason would be "taliban, communists, or fascists" reminiscent of the stereotype labelling by many Americans (*) that anything that smacked of government control was "OMG!!!!111 You're a commie!!!". Any self-righteous indignation was yours- personally I thought it came across as being quite silly.
You can argue both those points. Anything going beyond that is putting words in my mouth and ascribing positions to me that I haven't taken.
Go back and read my original post. I was criticising the implication that small-scale data gathering is the same as Google's large-scale system, and that because the former wasn't a big deal, we should disregard the latter because it was the same.
Whether that's something to be "afraid of" (your words, not mine) is open to question.
Photosynth is an interesting piece of software, but it doesn't *in itself* gather all these things together. (The possibility- and indeed probability- is that it will be used in conjunction with other technologies to do that- however, I already acknowledged that when I said "I think it's possible that technology will make that doable sooner rather than later").
The only difference is that those they haven't shared it with you, whereas Google makes it available for free and actually removes you from pictures if you ask nicely.
The availability to every Tom, Dick and Harry *does* make a difference (whether that's good or bad).
And if anybody from halfway around the globe really wants a picture of your location and really can't find it online, they can hire someone to take it.
Except that that's expensive and inconvenient. Really, they could have done that 150 years ago. In such a case, you'd realistically have to know that a particular location was of interest beforehand.
In a few years, they can also hire a telepresence robot and drive around. Well, they will be able to other than in nations governed by the Taliban, communists, or fascists.
The taliban, communists or fascists? OH NOES!!!!!
Way to go with the kneejerk cliche "anyone who doesn't let me do what I want is a commie/fascist" (updated for the modern age with the Taliban, yay).
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the iMac was the entry point.
No, the Mac Mini used to be clearly cheaper than the iMac, if not massively so once you'd included a monitor (though this may be missing the point as the Mac Mini was marketed towards people who already had a monitor, keyboard and mouse).
Tell me, if Steve told you to jump off a bridge, would you ask which one?
Well, Steve wouldn't just tell you to jump. He would offer three height options (iBridge 50, iBridge 100, iBridge Pro250) and then sell you the privilege of jumping off one of them.
Not quite- you wouldn't be allowed to jump off yourself. You'd have to be pushed off by an officially-approved Death Merchant in order (they claim) to preserve a high-quality end-of-life experience.
Yeah- much as I think the Mac Mini is overpriced (and the lack of height not as big an improvement as the original's small footprint was)... that Zino thing is still cheap and plasticky looking.
:'-(
I remember thinking that Hoojum's Nanode looked great when it was previewed months before the Mac Mini had even been announced... but it never came out and I'm currently running a PC in a pig-ugly cheap case.
Last time I checked Snow Leopard was only about $29.
Well, yeah and no.
Effectively when people pay extra for a Mac over a similarly-specced PC, part of that difference is for the ability to run OS X on otherwise pretty generic hardware.
That said, it's unlikely that you'd be able to successfully use that argument in court to get more than $29, so I agree with you that far.
The upgrades to OS X are also arguably more minor than those of MS, though at the price that's not a big deal- they still add enough new to make it worthwhile. But still, that $29 *is* effectively an upgrade cost- reasonable though it is. You couldn't pay $29 and run it on a generic PC hardware.
IIRC, the UK has stronger consumer protection laws that Apple must deal with. Things like being able to get an item replaced after then end of the warranty period if it breaks.
I've pointed this out myself a few times. The UK (AFAIK) always had quite good consumer laws, and the EU (if anything) strengthens that.
People in the UK might be surprised to know that the PS2 only had a 90 day warranty in the US. I've seen new laptops with as little as a 30 day warranty. Now, if you know that you're not going to have to cover repairs or replacements for anything more than a brief period after sale you're obviously going to save money on that, and be able to sell cheaper goods.
I can't remember what the exact law is, but my understanding is that goods are expected to last a reasonable amount of time; e.g. a laptop would be expected to last more than 30 days without needing repair, a PS2 more than 90, etc. At any rate, you don't see such "guarantees" in the UK, likely because they wouldn't stand up in court.
Bottom line though is that one could reasonably argue that this accounts for *some* of the general difference in prices (if not all), along with the omission of sales tax from most US prices.
I think there's also import tariffs that must be factored into the cost.
Unless the Mac Mini is made in the US *or* the EU- which I doubt- that would apply to both territories anyway.
Despite my increasing "feelbad" associations with Apple due to the obnoxious iPhone control freakery, part of me still liked the idea of buying a Mac. Until I saw the prices, that is.
I thought the original concept of the Mac Mini was as a relatively affordable (though not dirt cheap) low-powered Mac. Well, the new Mac Mini is far from high-powered, but at £649 I'm not even interested. The server version is £929. Whisky Tango Foxtrot?!
Thanks to government subsidy, which was a $40 prepaid debit card, the boxes only cost $0-20 out of pocket. Even without that card you can find these boxes for $40-60, so about half the price as UK converter boxes.
The "converter" we were discussing above isn't a digital TV receiver- it converts SCART and phono-based analogue video signals into RF-compatible inputs for devices that only have an aerial/antenna input, like some old TVs.
Digiboxes- as they're normally called here- for digital terrestrial start at under £18 ($27), unsubsidised, though those ones only support standard definition.
I don't know if this is still the case, but some of the older portable (<= 19") cheap LCD displays that came out a few years ago just looked "wrong" with SD material. (Actually, I don't think those were HD-compatible, but anyway...)
I'm not sure if this was down to the matte finish, the low quality of the display, contrast or what- but I'd hate to have one of them instead of my Trinitron portable.
OTOH, some of the larger (and more recent) LCDs and plasmas look great, and visible scan lines and flicker are more of an issue with larger CRTs in a way they aren't with portables.
Have you tried any of the converter solutions that seem to exist for this situation?
Bear in mind that the converter costs £30, which is probably way more than the TV's worth. Not that I'm a fan of the mentality that a working TV is worthless- and not worth using- based on its market value, but that's still quite a lot of money to get an old TV going. Particularly since those without SCART are likely to be old and cheaper sets in poorer order.
FWIW, I live in the UK, and one of the nearby charity shops which had 3 portable CRT televisions in the window at one point now has a sign saying that they are no longer accepting televisions. I don't know whether this is for legal and safety reasons related to the resale of electrical goods, or whether it's simply due to the extreme glut of such sets on the market in the face of their impending "uselessness" (yeah, *I* know) and the cheapness of new Freeview LCD sets.
Thanks to adblock, flashblock and an extensive hosts file, I now see very few ads at all, where I would have been happy to accept a limited amount to offset the costs of hosting the content in which I'm interested. The marketroids are sabotaging their own interests with their policy of saturation advertising, and they only have themselves to blame if people are physically tuning them out.
Yeah... but with respect, you're not typical.
Not saying that you're necessarily wrong- or right- just that you can't say much about the great unwashed masses' habits based on one atypical geek's behaviour.
By the same token, if I leave $0.10 on the counter and leave, I'm "paying".
Please don't give me the "they're not entitled to force bundling of the extras" [true or not] "therefore I'm entitled to brandish my gun / walk out without paying what they were asking / etc" type nonsense either.
They could, should- and probably would- be convicted of something like that in court; it doesn't mean that your manner of solving the dispute is right or legal.
You sound like the people who say they are entitled to complain about the government even if they didn't vote. It's technically true, but there is something wrong with it.
In what sense and in relation to which point I made?
Are you suggesting that criticising the iPad but not buying it is somehow analogous to complaining about the government when you didn't vote?
If you don't see that, well, I can't help you.
If you can't make your point more clearly, then please don't try to shift the responsibility for understanding it on to me.
Its not new, its certainly not new for Apple. They haven't changed. They aren't getting any worse. They aren't the only ones that do this sort of thing, its pretty common
Indeed. Apple are one of the most prominent and popular, however, and that makes it worthy of discussion. The same publicity that gets them in the papers and on television and makes articles like this on Slashdot regular news (when something from Buttfsck Electronics probably wouldn't be). That's why it's discussed.
If you don't like that, either tell Apple to shut down their PR department or head off to an Apple-lovers-only forum. It's not my problem!
even if you're too busy railing against the machine to know how often you buy into this same thing.
Nice strawman. Do you actually think everyone who says anything against Apple is a stereotypical counter-culture consumerist (dreadlocks? cannabis leaf t-shirt? expensive anti-The-Man clothing bought at a capitalist-owned chainstore etc)?
Sadly, you probably do.
As soon as you stop making retarded statements about how evil the company is
In this case, I didn't say anything about how evil Apple is. I said that they weren't entitled to immunity from criticism.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT YOU FUCKING MORON.
Well, y'know... I haven't, and I won't. Because it sucks. (^_^)
How does showing the gun holstered on my hip "threaten" anybody? It has not been aimed, or even unsheathed. It's simply there.
If you're not trying to be threatening why are you exposing your firearm to the clerk? it's people like you that give gun owners a bad rep. Why don't you go get a penis enlargement, and put your gun away until you grow up. Dousche.
It occurs to me this is why we are losing our freedoms. Politicians know they have nothing to fear from us. [etc]
Smooth, and (ironically) just like a real politician.
Your reply doesn't actually respond to what he said (criticising your position)- probably because there *is* no response that hasn't already been panned elsewhere in the thread- and instead implies he's said something else, giving you the excuse to shift the ground of the argument and make a speech about politicians that makes you look good (rather than bad, as any continued attempt to defend the indefensible would have).
Stores that require that you buy OTHER items to get item #1, are in violation of consumer protection and pricing laws.
Quite possibly (though did you mean under Australian law or Slashdot's default of the United States?), and I don't disagree that this should be the case.
However, if you look at what my post, you'll see that wasn't the point under discussion. We were considering whether the iPhone was or wasn't a part of a free market.
It's called "bait and switch" to make the customer buy all kinds of other accessories on top of that price.
I would assume that there are two issues here, that of bundling (or whatever the legal term is) and that of "bait and switch".
In this case it probably *was* bait and switch because they apparently weren't upfront to customers until they got in the shop, then only sold them the iPhone bundle rather than the items on their own.
But I would guess that if they *had* been upfront, it wouldn't be bait and switch, even though it would be bundling (and disagreeable).
I would have laid down my $500 cash on the register, plus $30 for tax, said "I've paid", and walked out the door with the iPad. No way am I going to let some retail shit manager screw me up the ass by forcing me to buy extra junk. Baiting-and-switching is illegal. And of course no store would press charges, because the judge would end-up fining the store a few thousand dollars for violating the law.
Given that your original version of this had you thinking it was acceptable to brandish your gun over a price dispute on some consumer electronics (and not being aware that this was a crime), I'd question your judgement on what is or isn't acceptable, and what you think you could get away with.
You seem to think that just because someone does something illegal, you can get away with doing just about anything in response, including walking out the store without paying.
I suspect that in real life, it wouldn't play out like that.
(Disclaimer; this is *not* a defence or acceptance of price-fixing, bait-and-switch, dodgy retailers or whatever. Because if I don't make that clear, some idiot not paying attention to what I'm saying *will* assume that this is the case).
"Don't like it, don't buy it" IS a valid response, you just don't like it, and thus... don;t buy it.
Only if someone's acting as if they don't have a choice (for whatever reason) when they do. However, the context it was used in here- and frequently is elsewhere- made clear that it was meant as a rebuttal of criticism, the implication being "don't like it, shut up and don't criticise".
Kidding aside, the "Don't like it, don't buy it" crowd is really following the mantra of "free and open trade market", what they fail to see is that only Apple has this product, so the "free and open trade market" is no longer valid.
Well, this depends upon whether one considers they have a free choice.
If Kellogg's charge too much for their corn flakes- sure, I can only buy "Kellogg's corn flakes" from Kelloggs, but there are other makes of corn flakes, and other cereals (*) available from other manufacturers.
On the other hand, if Apple had monopolised the smartphone market and/or had the only widely-supported software ecosystem and/or for various reasons I "had" to buy an Apple iPhone- as opposed to preferring one- that's a different kettle of fish. (Not that I *am* suggesting that this is the case at present).
No I didn't. In my *imaginary* scenario I never removed or even touched my gun - it's just hanging there inside a holster.
Your implied meaning was very clear- that you would use the gun to back up your position in the dispute. If you hadn't meant that, then you wouldn't have shown them the gun in the first place.
Even if you hadn't intended using the gun- and no-one in the shop is obliged to "know" that- the implicit threat is clear.
(This is- I assume- why "brandishing", AKA "menacing" is considered a crime, as others pointed out.)
Your clearly implied argument "oh, I just *showed* them the gun, I didn't *do* anything" is patent BS, in the same way that the stereotypical mafia guy ("nice business you have here... it'd be shame if anything... happened to it") was "just" admiring someone's shop.
If you genuinely don't see that, then you're an idiot. And depending upon whether or not you would actually act like this in real life or were just hypothetically mouthing off, you're either an Internet Tough Guy or a psychopath, or both.
You know that you're full of it when other gun carriers and self-declared libertarians condemn you for your irresponsible attitude.
i like that term. none held a gun to there heads and said BUY IT.
The usual contrived argument that regularly appears in response to stories like this. I'm sure that everyone (including yourself) understands the implicit subtext that they're forced to buy the accessories *if* they want to buy the iPad.
Of course, perhaps you accepted that but meant it to tie into this...
just don't buy whine and all will be fixed
...another tedious chestnut that appears like clockwork whenever a company gets criticism for sales practices or goods people don't like.
Some people assume that the freedom of others to not buy their favourite company's latest product (i.e. "don't like it, don't buy it") somehow exempts that product/company from criticism. Well, it doesn't.
I'm perfectly entitled to voice my opinion of the iPod, Apple's selling practices, or anything else, even if I have no intention of buying it. Even those buying the iPad (to a lesser extent) have the right to criticise aspects they don't like, though they can't really complain that they didn't know what they were getting into if they did nor that they didn't accept Apple's policies.
But to get back to the point, "don't like it, don't buy it" isn't a valid response to criticism. It's a free world, and both buyers and non-buyers are free to criticise Apple or anyone else for questionable sales practices. To echo the original implication, if companies don't like that, they're free to not sell their goods.
Are you suggesting that there aren't countless places in America where you could find people just as ugly and/or overweight or whatever?
Yeah, Swedish girls are generally nice looking, but I'm willing to bet there was quite a lot of selectivity in that comparison as well
Front facing cameras and video conferencing have been on almost every 3G capable phone since circa 2003.
Yes, but it's entirely new and worthy of discussion when the sodding iPhone adds that feature.
It has never really taken off in the UK, it is cool to show someone something, but it costs 50p per minute, so people have never bothered.
While the price is probably an issue, I think the cultural and practical reasons given in the article and elsewhere in the thread- which have been mostly known for *years*- are the primary cause.
No it isn't; the SQL is parsed before it looks at the hamburger. It doesn't blindly plug parameter values into the query string and then parse the resulting SQL.
Given that it's hypothetical syntax (or was meant to be), that does depend how it's implemented. It's quite possible that another string- rather than "hamburger" contains an embedded quote followed by some further commands.
Though it might not need to be that way, as the other reply to my original post said (and I accept that the second point I made may have been incorrect, though I still think that my main point- that requiring parameters for *all* variables would be a PITA compensation for some people's incompetence).
If some other service replaces Twitter, there's a good chance that using that service will also be referred to as "tweeting" since the term has become so well established
That depends what constitutes "replace" and whether what replaces Twitter will be an exact- or close- analogue.
It could be argued that Twitter has displaced and partially "replaced" MSN by some metric- yet no-one uses the verb/noun "MSN" in relation to Twitter even though it was a popular semi-genericised trademark.
if the databases and website frameworks forced a different query language that forced variable parametrization, there wouldn't be any injection risk.
Yes (or rather, no- see below), but it would be at the expense of making SQL a PITA for the very common cases where we're using hardcoded parameter values and there isn't a cats chance in hell of any risk; e.g. you wouldn't be able to say
...or whatever syntax was used. And the reason would be that which caused SQL injection problems in the first place.
SELECT * FROM Foods WHERE type = "hamburger"
It'd have to be
SELECT * FROM Foods WHERE type = "$1"
PARAM1 = "hamburger"
Assembling SQL statements by concatenating strings within a program and only *then* passing them to the SQL/DBMS engine means that the DBMS itself can't "know" how the statement was created. It doesn't know whether "hamburger" is actually hardwired or plastered in there by an inept PHP script.
<infomercial>But wait.... there's more!</infomercial> The above was going to be a qualified "agreement" until something rather obvious smacked me in the face. I realised that the PARAM1 = "hamburger" bit was prone to exactly the same problem!
So I'm not sure what the solution is unless the DBMS can somehow impose additional restrictions on how it's fed data. And this strikes me as a workaround for some people's lack of skill that would just make things more complicated and likely have its own (but less obvious) drawbacks.
You type in you address and if the images are there, they'll pop up. There are two things that make it not quite like Streetview. (1) The coverage is not there yet
Bingo. There doesn't exist a Google-sized set of consistently geolocated data yet. There probably will be soon, but that's a different kettle of fish.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to get you to take a clear position. Instead you hide behind vague innuendo with words like "issue"
I used the word issue once. But since you make such an issu... *deal* of it, I'll point out that the "issue" in question was whether Google doing data gathering on a large scale is a problem and worthy of consideration already being discussed, and I was countering the implication that it wasn't an issue because it was the same as something already widely done that isn't considered a big deal.
I pointed out that the two were different. Is what Google are doing a problem? Others have argued so, e.g. privacy issues with street view, their gathering of wireless data (even if unintentional). One can debate this, but IMHO the "Google are doing on a larger scale what people already do without fuss and therefore it doesn't warrant discussion" argument is flawed.
We've already seen that
No, you've already claimed that, and I disagreed.
that argument is bogus: small-scale data gathering is the same as Google's large-scale system because sharing this data on the web makes the distinction irrelevant. If a billion people upload geolocated snapshots to a thousand photo sharing sites, that's Streetview, and that's what's happening.
Show me a website that makes that data accessible in a consistent and easy-to-use manner that's comparable to Streetview as of today or
stop dissembling [and] admit you're wrong
Yes- I already pointed out that this was a possibility- if not probability- in the near future, so I can only assume your remaining disagreement is that as of now there exists a service that collates such data into a Streetview-like service. Please show me it.
So, stop dissembling, admit you're wrong, and say which of those technologies you see as the culprit and which of them you want to make illegal.
You implied that I had stated there was something to be "afraid of" when I'd said no such thing. Now you're trying to make out that I want to ban or "make illegal" something when I hadn't said anything to that effect either.
The positions you take aren't themselves totalitarian, but they are a hallmark of totalitarian regimes and conducive to totalitarianism.
And you're still putting words in my mouth or drawing unwarranted assumptions from what I said.
Bottom line; I said that I considered Google's large-scale, consistent data gathering to be different- in *effect*- to disparate, uncoordinated data gathering by random people. I didn't claim that was good or bad by itself- *you* put those words in my mouth.
I found your assertion that any nation restricting telepresence for whatever reason would be "taliban, communists, or fascists" reminiscent of the stereotype labelling by many Americans (*) that anything that smacked of government control was "OMG!!!!111 You're a commie!!!". Any self-righteous indignation was yours- personally I thought it came across as being quite silly.
You can argue both those points. Anything going beyond that is putting words in my mouth and ascribing positions to me that I haven't taken.
Whether that's something to be "afraid of" (your words, not mine) is open to question.
Photosynth is an interesting piece of software, but it doesn't *in itself* gather all these things together. (The possibility- and indeed probability- is that it will be used in conjunction with other technologies to do that- however, I already acknowledged that when I said "I think it's possible that technology will make that doable sooner rather than later").
The only difference is that those they haven't shared it with you, whereas Google makes it available for free and actually removes you from pictures if you ask nicely.
The availability to every Tom, Dick and Harry *does* make a difference (whether that's good or bad).
And if anybody from halfway around the globe really wants a picture of your location and really can't find it online, they can hire someone to take it.
Except that that's expensive and inconvenient. Really, they could have done that 150 years ago. In such a case, you'd realistically have to know that a particular location was of interest beforehand.
In a few years, they can also hire a telepresence robot and drive around. Well, they will be able to other than in nations governed by the Taliban, communists, or fascists.
The taliban, communists or fascists? OH NOES!!!!!
Way to go with the kneejerk cliche "anyone who doesn't let me do what I want is a commie/fascist" (updated for the modern age with the Taliban, yay).