Of course you're "allowed" to question manmade climate change.
Just don't expect any scientist to take you seriously if the reason you're questioning it is that "your results are politically inconvenient" rather than having any actual understanding of the underlying principles.
What, you think the story is telling the truth? Come on! It's a classic Apple bash story from a site looking for page hits and the slashdot trolls will fall for it hook, line and sinker and report this as "fact" from now on.
That must really chafe your neckbeard. That Apple was the one to sweep in, in the wake of Microsoft's steady decline. That they have been the ones to really bring open source to the mainstream with a mixture of OSS and closed source code rather than this finally being the "year of Linux on the desktop".
They went and did what Linux was trying to do all along, and like a hipster standing at the side of the stage trying desperately not to look like you like anything mainstream, or proclaiming to anyone who you can grab onto to as they pass to get to the bar "I liked this before it was cool!" you're struggling to define yourself by what other people like.
I think you were attempting to make a sly point that it only works with Apple stuff, but the only external hard drives Apple sells are the Time Capsules, which are not USB hard drives (and by all accounts, are *not* the devices to use if you want reliable backups due to overheating issues since they are passively cooled).
FWIW I have about 10 or so Macs under my care (my own, and family and friends' machines) with an assortment of Time Machine solutions: my own via FireWire, and then assorted USB drives and network volumes, some on an Airport Extreme, some on non-Apple SANs, and have never had a problem.
I've had to fully restore from backup on two separate occasions (on two different machines). Once for a drive failure in my 2006 iMac. I dropped a new HD in there and installed OS X and Time Machine picked ip up right away and had me back to pre-crash desktop with two or three clicks, and once due to a drive upgrade in a Macbook Pro, this time over USB (using a WD branded drive).
Maybe you just had bad luck?
Disclaimer: like any computer system, it is not perfect and will be subject to issues from time to time. On the whole it has been extremely good in my experience, but YMMV. Void where prohibited.
Oh I got it, but I was merely following on with the logical train of thought - the bartender in the joke is blaming charlie for his customers going to jail.
I think the following line is "we'll I'd be lying if I said my customers didn't commit crimes...."
Perhaps the judges & prosecutors should stop selectively enforcing laws for the benefit of giant corporations that make more money per minute than this 'criminal' will in his lifetime.
...in a story about how a guy just got convicted of a crime for stealing and reselling an iPhone prototype...
If you're unsure where I got your spin from, maybe you should re-read your comment. You used air quotes around "criminal" to indicate that you disagreed with the court's decision that he had, in fact, broken the law. Then you said that it's selective enforcement, because it happened to be a case involving
[a] giant corporation[s] that make more money per minute [...]
and that this conferred special treatment over
Joe Schmoe
and then threw in a non-sequitur about a "police taskforce" (that would be the police, investigating crime) as if they were on some sort of Batphone link to Apple's HQ.
If you weren't taking a stab at the police being the personal private security of a large fruit-logo-themed company than what exactly *was* your point, because it got missed in your post.
You say they had "dozens" of ways to get the phone back, and then effectively suggest vigilantism - ie, taking the law into their own hands. If the phone is stolen, they did what anyone else would do - they reported it to the police.
Or are you suggesting that if Joe Schmoe loses his phone and finds where it is by GPS that he go over to the thief's house with his lawyer and cuts the guy a cheque?
Talk about selective enforcement! Is Apple not allowed to use the same route that any other person or business can pursue?
Well, maybe he shouldn't have made such a prize fool of himself. He effectively stood in front of a cop and said "I'm going to break the law, do you have a camera on hand to record the evidence".
He self-incrimintaed, and as a bonus had Gizmodo back it up with printed information. The PD and court never had it so easy to get a "case solved" marker for their stats.
It's amusing how it's "selective enforcement" when it's a company you dislike, but it's "justice!" when it's against that same corporation....
There's a word for that. Starts with H. Help me out here?
That's pretty much it. He also claimed he "tried to return it to Apple, but the tech support line thought he was a prank caller", and seemingly didn't think to call the press/PR number on Apple's website instead of the AppleCare tech support line.
If he finds it or steals it, he must turn it into the police if he doesn't know who it belongs to (let's assume the phone was locked and they didn;t have all of the guy's personal details for a moment), and then after a set amount of time you can claim it as your own if the real owner doesn't claim it first. Then you're free to do what you want with it.
He didn't do that, so he broke those "rules that courts have too" that is very specific in CA.
Apple has nothing to do with this, the guy was a prize idiot for breaking the law in a very public way that made it extremely easy to get a conviction (he incriminated himself, and then had it solidified by gizmodo's printed evidence), regardless of how he came by the phone in the first place.
I know you want to somehow spin this in as anti-Apple way as possible, but scrunching up your face and wishing *really hard* won't make it so.
If he had handed the phone in to the police he wouldn't be in the mess he's in (wrt a conviction). He didn't do that - he sold the phone on to a third party very publicly.
People finding lost phones are in no more danger than they were before, assuming they actually return it or hand it in to the police in the absence of any information on who the thing belongs to.
Well, he clearly did - since he sold it for $5000.
It doesn't matter though, even if he found it rather than stole it, the law in CA is clear about what you must do. He did none of the things specified, and instead sold it on to a third party by his own admission. Law broken, regardless of how he came by the phone in the first place.
He sold a phone that was not his. Even if he "found" it in the bar instead of actively stealing it from its owner (say, by pick pocketing or grabbing it from the table while the guy was looking the other way), the law in CA is very specific on what you can do with that item once you have it - if you found it you must inform the police, and then a period of time then passes after which you can claim it as your own if the rightful owner does not come forward. This supposes that you do not know who the owner is, but given that they clearly did (all his personal details *were on the phone*), as well as realising enough that it was an Apple prototype (hence selling it for $5000 to gizmodo)...
Yeah, pretty cut and dried case for the PD there.
So, even if he found it abandoned (and let's face it, we're being generous on this point, but so be it - we don;t know for sure one way or the other), the published facts of what he (and gizmodo) did next once he was in possession of the phone by their own admission are contrary to the law in California.
The truth is somewhere off to the side of everything you just posted.
Just for example, "failed to contribute patches back to the community" is a total fabrication. They didn't release their source until they shipped something based on it, which as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong here), is perfectly ok by the terms of the GPL. They released a big chunk of code back initially (to be in compliance) and then set about making it much more streamlined and easier for other people to work with, such that Webkit now is a shining example of an open source project that works well with a proprietary vendor supporting it - it's a success story for OSS.
And as far as being "sincere" about OSS, how do you explain the release of totally new projects under OSS licences from Apple (ie, not code that they are "legally forced" to release, but new, written-by-Apple code that they have contributed back to the BSD community. Things like libdespatch, or the calendar server, and countless other examples. You can't simply call that "open washing" to suit your argument. I might as well call your post "paid anti-Apple shilling" - I have no basis to do so, but hey, if the shoe fits!
They are sticking to the licence, and using the code as intended by the people who chose to release it under said licence.
Furthermore, they are contributing new open source code back to the community at large (and not just by being "forced" to by things like the GPL licence on KHTML/Webkit).
I'm not sure what your point is. That it's "shameless" to participate in open source projects?
I don't expect anyone involved to go to jail because there are no specific laws covering what they did. That doesn't mean we can't point it out though, and point out the disparity in legislation that covers "the common man" and Wall Street, or even "a normal business" from Wall Street.
The lack of regulation is what caused this mess - it created a system that ran rampant and out of control, and when it finally crashed was simply too large of mess in terms of financial impact on the global economy to simply leave to the free market (ie, let them die). In other words, they got away with it because we had no choice than to let them. The consequences for not cleaning up their mess were too great, so they shamelessly walked off with billions in taxpayer cash after fucking everyone royally. The fact that there are no legal means to make them answer for it is just the icing on the cake for them.
You're seriously running on the platform that Fox News and right wing talk radio reports facts?
My goodness. I'm not sure I can even take an opposing position to that, it's just so laughable.
Then you jump to to a single jumped up news story not being reported by a single news channel as proof that Fox and right wing radio report the truth?
I have a non sequitur machine to sell you, but it seems you have no need for it.
Your post doesn't refute my point at all, but don't you worry about that, I'm sure I'll survive.
I'm sorry, I just have to laugh again. I'm still trying to work out if you're being serious. Part of me wants to think you're trolling because no one could be that blind, surely? I don't know though, maybe I'm overestimating your intelligence.
Misrepresenting the borrower's ability to repay is certainly covered under the definition of predatory lending.
It's also interesting that there are very few specific laws that you can nail these people for. Funny that, in the wake of huge deregulation that was ostensibly suggested would be good for the economy.
Realistically there was never any chance of prosecuting anyone responsible for the nasty shit they did, but that's part of the reason the protest exists - it's certainly not "rabble rousing" to call for regulation on the institutions who, by the standards of the government bailing them out to the tune of billions, are "too big to fail". For something with such a large effect on the economy and the lives of everyone under it, you think there would be some accountability.
If pointing that out is "rabble rousing" then so be it.
I thought using an iPhone was just a status symbol used by clueless sheep with no ability to think for themselves? What would they be doing posting on slashdot?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you're "allowed" to question manmade climate change.
Just don't expect any scientist to take you seriously if the reason you're questioning it is that "your results are politically inconvenient" rather than having any actual understanding of the underlying principles.
Not only does it have no point, it's factually incorrect. You can back up PDFs to iCloud till the cows come home.
Of course it backs up PDF files.
What, you think the story is telling the truth? Come on! It's a classic Apple bash story from a site looking for page hits and the slashdot trolls will fall for it hook, line and sinker and report this as "fact" from now on.
Yes, but you said 3G, not 3GS.
The 3GS supports iOS5 just fine - it's running beautifully on mine with no sluggishness (like the iOS4 debacle).
With your finger. You could also ask someone else to hold it down I guess, if it was too difficult.
The official way to restart a crashed iDevice is to hold the home and lock buttons down.
That must really chafe your neckbeard. That Apple was the one to sweep in, in the wake of Microsoft's steady decline. That they have been the ones to really bring open source to the mainstream with a mixture of OSS and closed source code rather than this finally being the "year of Linux on the desktop".
They went and did what Linux was trying to do all along, and like a hipster standing at the side of the stage trying desperately not to look like you like anything mainstream, or proclaiming to anyone who you can grab onto to as they pass to get to the bar "I liked this before it was cool!" you're struggling to define yourself by what other people like.
Your mom says your Eggo is ready. ;p
Apple don't make a branded USB drive.
I think you were attempting to make a sly point that it only works with Apple stuff, but the only external hard drives Apple sells are the Time Capsules, which are not USB hard drives (and by all accounts, are *not* the devices to use if you want reliable backups due to overheating issues since they are passively cooled).
FWIW I have about 10 or so Macs under my care (my own, and family and friends' machines) with an assortment of Time Machine solutions: my own via FireWire, and then assorted USB drives and network volumes, some on an Airport Extreme, some on non-Apple SANs, and have never had a problem.
I've had to fully restore from backup on two separate occasions (on two different machines). Once for a drive failure in my 2006 iMac. I dropped a new HD in there and installed OS X and Time Machine picked ip up right away and had me back to pre-crash desktop with two or three clicks, and once due to a drive upgrade in a Macbook Pro, this time over USB (using a WD branded drive).
Maybe you just had bad luck?
Disclaimer: like any computer system, it is not perfect and will be subject to issues from time to time. On the whole it has been extremely good in my experience, but YMMV. Void where prohibited.
Oh I got it, but I was merely following on with the logical train of thought - the bartender in the joke is blaming charlie for his customers going to jail.
I think the following line is "we'll I'd be lying if I said my customers didn't commit crimes...."
Seems to be an ok metric to use when pointing out that Android is "beating iPhone" due to marketshare figures.
What's good for the goose...
Perhaps the judges & prosecutors should stop selectively enforcing laws for the benefit of giant corporations that make more money per minute than this 'criminal' will in his lifetime.
...in a story about how a guy just got convicted of a crime for stealing and reselling an iPhone prototype...
If you're unsure where I got your spin from, maybe you should re-read your comment. You used air quotes around "criminal" to indicate that you disagreed with the court's decision that he had, in fact, broken the law. Then you said that it's selective enforcement, because it happened to be a case involving
[a] giant corporation[s] that make more money per minute [...]
and that this conferred special treatment over
Joe Schmoe
and then threw in a non-sequitur about a "police taskforce" (that would be the police, investigating crime) as if they were on some sort of Batphone link to Apple's HQ.
If you weren't taking a stab at the police being the personal private security of a large fruit-logo-themed company than what exactly *was* your point, because it got missed in your post.
You say they had "dozens" of ways to get the phone back, and then effectively suggest vigilantism - ie, taking the law into their own hands. If the phone is stolen, they did what anyone else would do - they reported it to the police.
Or are you suggesting that if Joe Schmoe loses his phone and finds where it is by GPS that he go over to the thief's house with his lawyer and cuts the guy a cheque?
Talk about selective enforcement! Is Apple not allowed to use the same route that any other person or business can pursue?
Well, maybe he shouldn't have made such a prize fool of himself. He effectively stood in front of a cop and said "I'm going to break the law, do you have a camera on hand to record the evidence".
He self-incrimintaed, and as a bonus had Gizmodo back it up with printed information. The PD and court never had it so easy to get a "case solved" marker for their stats.
It's amusing how it's "selective enforcement" when it's a company you dislike, but it's "justice!" when it's against that same corporation....
There's a word for that. Starts with H. Help me out here?
That's pretty much it. He also claimed he "tried to return it to Apple, but the tech support line thought he was a prank caller", and seemingly didn't think to call the press/PR number on Apple's website instead of the AppleCare tech support line.
If he finds it or steals it, he must turn it into the police if he doesn't know who it belongs to (let's assume the phone was locked and they didn;t have all of the guy's personal details for a moment), and then after a set amount of time you can claim it as your own if the real owner doesn't claim it first. Then you're free to do what you want with it.
He didn't do that, so he broke those "rules that courts have too" that is very specific in CA.
Apple has nothing to do with this, the guy was a prize idiot for breaking the law in a very public way that made it extremely easy to get a conviction (he incriminated himself, and then had it solidified by gizmodo's printed evidence), regardless of how he came by the phone in the first place.
I know you want to somehow spin this in as anti-Apple way as possible, but scrunching up your face and wishing *really hard* won't make it so.
If he had handed the phone in to the police he wouldn't be in the mess he's in (wrt a conviction). He didn't do that - he sold the phone on to a third party very publicly.
People finding lost phones are in no more danger than they were before, assuming they actually return it or hand it in to the police in the absence of any information on who the thing belongs to.
Well, he clearly did - since he sold it for $5000.
It doesn't matter though, even if he found it rather than stole it, the law in CA is clear about what you must do. He did none of the things specified, and instead sold it on to a third party by his own admission. Law broken, regardless of how he came by the phone in the first place.
He sold a phone that was not his. Even if he "found" it in the bar instead of actively stealing it from its owner (say, by pick pocketing or grabbing it from the table while the guy was looking the other way), the law in CA is very specific on what you can do with that item once you have it - if you found it you must inform the police, and then a period of time then passes after which you can claim it as your own if the rightful owner does not come forward. This supposes that you do not know who the owner is, but given that they clearly did (all his personal details *were on the phone*), as well as realising enough that it was an Apple prototype (hence selling it for $5000 to gizmodo)...
Yeah, pretty cut and dried case for the PD there.
So, even if he found it abandoned (and let's face it, we're being generous on this point, but so be it - we don;t know for sure one way or the other), the published facts of what he (and gizmodo) did next once he was in possession of the phone by their own admission are contrary to the law in California.
Customer: "well, perhaps your customers should stop breaking the law."
Nice anti-Apple spin on that bro.
The truth is somewhere off to the side of everything you just posted.
Just for example, "failed to contribute patches back to the community" is a total fabrication. They didn't release their source until they shipped something based on it, which as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong here), is perfectly ok by the terms of the GPL. They released a big chunk of code back initially (to be in compliance) and then set about making it much more streamlined and easier for other people to work with, such that Webkit now is a shining example of an open source project that works well with a proprietary vendor supporting it - it's a success story for OSS.
And as far as being "sincere" about OSS, how do you explain the release of totally new projects under OSS licences from Apple (ie, not code that they are "legally forced" to release, but new, written-by-Apple code that they have contributed back to the BSD community. Things like libdespatch, or the calendar server, and countless other examples. You can't simply call that "open washing" to suit your argument. I might as well call your post "paid anti-Apple shilling" - I have no basis to do so, but hey, if the shoe fits!
And this is wrong in what way?
They are sticking to the licence, and using the code as intended by the people who chose to release it under said licence.
Furthermore, they are contributing new open source code back to the community at large (and not just by being "forced" to by things like the GPL licence on KHTML/Webkit).
I'm not sure what your point is. That it's "shameless" to participate in open source projects?
You're just restating my point.
I don't expect anyone involved to go to jail because there are no specific laws covering what they did. That doesn't mean we can't point it out though, and point out the disparity in legislation that covers "the common man" and Wall Street, or even "a normal business" from Wall Street.
The lack of regulation is what caused this mess - it created a system that ran rampant and out of control, and when it finally crashed was simply too large of mess in terms of financial impact on the global economy to simply leave to the free market (ie, let them die). In other words, they got away with it because we had no choice than to let them. The consequences for not cleaning up their mess were too great, so they shamelessly walked off with billions in taxpayer cash after fucking everyone royally. The fact that there are no legal means to make them answer for it is just the icing on the cake for them.
You're seriously running on the platform that Fox News and right wing talk radio reports facts?
My goodness. I'm not sure I can even take an opposing position to that, it's just so laughable.
Then you jump to to a single jumped up news story not being reported by a single news channel as proof that Fox and right wing radio report the truth?
I have a non sequitur machine to sell you, but it seems you have no need for it.
Your post doesn't refute my point at all, but don't you worry about that, I'm sure I'll survive.
I'm sorry, I just have to laugh again. I'm still trying to work out if you're being serious. Part of me wants to think you're trolling because no one could be that blind, surely? I don't know though, maybe I'm overestimating your intelligence.
Misrepresenting the borrower's ability to repay is certainly covered under the definition of predatory lending.
It's also interesting that there are very few specific laws that you can nail these people for. Funny that, in the wake of huge deregulation that was ostensibly suggested would be good for the economy.
Realistically there was never any chance of prosecuting anyone responsible for the nasty shit they did, but that's part of the reason the protest exists - it's certainly not "rabble rousing" to call for regulation on the institutions who, by the standards of the government bailing them out to the tune of billions, are "too big to fail". For something with such a large effect on the economy and the lives of everyone under it, you think there would be some accountability.
If pointing that out is "rabble rousing" then so be it.
That's what I thought.
I think this one went past with some polite coughing thought.
I thought using an iPhone was just a status symbol used by clueless sheep with no ability to think for themselves? What would they be doing posting on slashdot?
Oh, I see.