Apple presents itself as a "think different", hip, cool, enlightened company, much more so than any other consumer electronics brand. So this kind of thing contrasts with their public image much more strongly than any other consumer electronics company.
So it's all about branding, eh? Does this mean that Pepsi and Budweiser have committed themselves to reducing global warming because the advertize "cool and refreshing" products?
It's similar to how people have used Al Gore's over-the-top claims about hurricanes to poo-poo all global warming data.
Nevermind the increasing number and severity of hurricanes, typhoons and tornadoes, of course. Can't let reality get in the way of the denialist storyline, and all that...
So, um, okay the reason we (often) don't allow felons to vote isn't because we are trying to teach them the value of democracy or the rule of law, it's because we are trying to protect the extremely important process of voting from enemies of the public.
Isn't that a wee bit of hyperbole?
And it's not like convicts aren't already going to be screwed for life on applying for jobs with a felony conviction...now they should be denied the right to vote as well? How is that an incentive for them to keep their noses clean after they get out of their local penitentiary?
"Hey, as long as I'm being treated like a criminal........"
Anti-corporate "journalists" like Daisey and Michael Moore do irreparable damage to the causes they supposedly support by playing loose with the facts.
Slight problem with that hippie punching false equivilancy: it's usually Moore's haters that play fast and loose with the facts. Like when CNN had to issue a retraction when they fudged facts in order to accuse Moore of fact fudging.
Give me a sociopathic, walled-garden topped with razor wire, dog-wagging break.
Then don't freaking buy one. Explaining to Apple Haterz that no one is holding a gun to their heads to buy an iDevice is like having to tell fundies that their remotes come with "off" buttons and their TV's have come with parental controls for ~20 years.
If the point was to uncover the entire truth of the incident it would have been released as is without any editing.
I see you went on with the world salad without ever mentioning how, in fact the edited video in any way distorted actual events. That means you aren't making an argument based on having a 'there there', but complaining for the sake of complaining.
And again, you're continuing to harp on this point long after the full clip was released.
Your news footage analogy doesn't apply
Just because you find it inconvenient to your beef with Wikileaks doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Clips are routinely edited for length, to cut out 15 minutes of (in this case) a helicopter flying in circles with nothing happening.
The "Collateral Murder" video was edited to purposely show only those events that supported a certain viewpoint and party line. In fact the release of the all the data has been stage managed to make sure certain viewpoints are supported while any information that might contradict their position was purposely excluded or released at a later date.
Still not showing how the video was unfairly edited.
Wikileaks should have posted the information the same way they obtained it but instead they chose to politicize the release.
Political news is political: shocking news at 11.
In fact the release of the all the data has been stage managed to make sure certain viewpoints are supported while any information that might contradict their position was purposely excluded or released at a later date.
Still not showing how the data was unfairly edited. And this "viewpoint" stuff sounds like the same crap that was said about Fahrenheit 911 - as if it wasn't enough having virtually all print and broadcast media in lockstep support of the war, if you were looking for "balance". And now we're seeing the same story repeated with Iran.
I also still don't know why Wikileaks needed millions of dollars just to post the data online.
Lets see: staff costs, travel costs, legal costs, server costs, dealing with embarrassed western powers messing with your financing costs. But you knew that already.
Assange even tried to dictate conditions to the news services like he owned the data.
In return for exclusivity...um, yeah? You don't think that sources regularly make deals with media organizations on such terms? Sounds like another selective argument of convenience.
What I am arguing against is the way the information was released to the general public.
Still not showing how the video was unfairly edited.
Please remind me of the chapter in logic 101 which teaches to conclude that apple not profiting from being mean to developers implies apple is not mean to developers.
LOL. Before you start talking logic and evidence, you might want to provide a shred of either to back up your assertion that Apple is being "unfair" to developers. Because so far all you got is Haterade.
You apparently don't understand what falsifiable is.
A falsifiable test of drug dog tells would mean giving the defense hours of training footage showing how the dog in question "tells" when he smells drugs. Which could then be compared to the footage taken of the dog's actions in the defendants arrest.
The problem here isn't the dogs, it's the cops saying "oh, of course the dog smelled drugs on the suspect's car" whether or not that was actually the case.
You do realize you've been contradicting yourself, whether it be in rant-mode or sarcasm-mode, right? Either this 'rounding error' is such a trifling trivial matter of insignificance that no one should waste any time on it, or redress is onerous burden placed on the bank that will be passed on to you.
Which one is it?
And, what again is your alternative to class action lawsuits...is it:
1. You contribute towards legal fees (expensive) 2. You hire your own lawyer (more expensive) 3. Roll over and take it when a company rips you off 4. Invest government agencies with serious investigation and enforcement powers
Apple is selling based on the current impression that they are a luxury item. They sold that image heavily in the past, but now it's hard to argue that they are a specialty market tailored to those that, "Think Different." What the parent above mentioned about Apple being out of ideas is accurate. Their products have quickly become derivative instead of driving.
Word salad - look at Apple's competitors in the smartphone market and they charge the same kinds of prices that Apple does. And remember when the iPad 2 came out and was actually cheaper than the competition.
The concern is that they are so consistently half assed about it, buying companies only to lose interest in what they purchased six months later. Right now they can get away with it, but it's not a healthy habit to have. What if Google has a 'lost decade' a la Apple in the 90's?
Buying your own stock and issuing dividends is essentially admission that you don't have any idea of what to do with the money.
Hand waving. Companies buy back stock all the time - for the principal reason of consolidating control amongst the major shareholders as well as increasing the value of their own holdings. Number of ideas has nothing to do with it.
Apple is neither the most profitable or wealthiest company. They merely have the highest market capitalization. Perhaps you should learn something about economics and business.
Perhaps you should be a little less snotty. How many other companies have $100 billion in cash sitting around?
Why should you think about this for two seconds before responding? Class action lawyers get much of the money because they take all the risk. If they don't win, not only do they not get paid a dime, but they have to compensate their staff out of pocket. Whereas Joe Shmoe takes no risk if the suit is lost. But he does get some compensation if the suit is won, the offending company gets punished, and yes, lawyers get paid.
So I ask you a second time: are you going to contribute towards the substantial cost of these lawsuits (subpoenas, expert witnesses, staff to comb through years of paperwork) in order to collect more damages? Your other alternatives are:
1. Hire your own attorney to file your own suit (thousands to hundreds of thousands in fees)
2. Roll over and take it.
3. Demand government oversight with real investigative and enforcement powers.
But of course, the same sort of people that think that it's the worst thing in the world if some lawyers make some money (despite you gaining some redress with no risk yourself) tend to also be the sort of people that hate government regulation.
I don't want these minor problems litigated in the first place.
Then you're in favor of companies making millions (or even billions) by ripping people off, so long as each individual amount is small.
The costs passed onto me to pay for this unwanted lawyer far exceed the nickel or so I might have gained.
Thanks for reminding me to address the other Gaping Fallacy in your first post, as I had forgotten it. This notion that accountability is a waste of time is nonsense in two different ways. First, if you don't force a change in behavior, what do you think companies will do? They'll go right on ripping you off, of course.
Secondly, the bit about how they'll just raise prices to make up for it is a complete myth because all prices are already set to maximize revenue. It doesn't matter if the market is captive or competitive. If BP is hit with the true cost of their clusterfuck in the Gulf of Mexico, they can't simply raise the price of oil by $5 a barrel to pay for it because Exxon and Shell would eat them for lunch. If the market is held captive by a monopoly, the product is already priced at the point the market will bear.
...the Devil ever pulled wasn't in making the world think he didn't exist. It was getting regular shmoes to willingly declare war on their own best interests. Like hating on government oversight of industry, hating on unions, and...hating on class action lawsuits.
That's the real problem. The only winner in these class actions is the lawyers.
The only people taking the risk are the lawyers. They don't win, not only do they not get paid, but they have to compensate their staff out of pocket. If you don't agree with their level of compensation, then hire your own damn lawyer to file your own damn case.
But of course, that would likely cost you thousands of dollars if real money is involved, and you might have little chance of success. See: how the cigarette industry won every individual lawsuit brought against them, for decades. Compared to the possibility of you getting a check in the mail for putting in no effort on your part besides sending a letter in the mail.
You could try small claims court over a smaller sum, but would you even bother for the low amounts of money frequently featured in class action lawsuits? Say your find out your cellular carrier went on charging you $2/month in "regulatory recovery fees" six months after they were legally allowed to. Are you really going to spend $50 to file a small claim over a matter of $24? And even if you did, your carrier would simply shrug it's shoulders and pay up - while keeping their mattress of cash collected from all the other people they ripped off who aren't filing their own claims. That's why we have these class action lawsuits in the first place - because companies rip off thousands to millions of customers who can not or will not press the issue on their own.
Your only other alternative is a level of government oversight with real inspection and enforcement powers. But of course, the same people that hate class action lawsuits tend to be the same sort of people that hate government oversight.
So you said you were offended at being asked how you were going to vote, and told him anyway? You let your emotion and righteous indignation override your sensibility, and gave him exactly the info he wanted when he called you.
Yep. I saw a drug bust once...cops had a car surrounded and brought out the drug dog. Basically went like this:
Cop points to the car and claps his hands. Dog looks at the car, looks back at the cop.
Cop points to the car and claps his hands. Dog looks at the car, looks back at the cop.
Cop points to the car and claps his hands. Dog looks at the car, looks back at the cop.
After the third time, the cops go ahead and search the car, but I sure couldn't see any "tell" from the dog. Wish I'd recorded it with my cellphone and given it to the defense attorney, but 1. it was a night and 2. I had a really shitty cell phone at the time.
That, and: not paying for that copy of Star Trek that he downloaded leaves him with $20 he can spend on movies in a theater, on a Wii game, or otherwise purchase goods other than that Star Trek movie.
Hey look over there at that evil Rush Limbaugh and even more evilily evil Iran! Nevermind that the Obama administration just declared that it has the authority to be judge, jury and executioner. Nevermind that the "Grand Bargain" zombie shit sandwich is being dug out of its grave again, where the "bargain" means the working class bends over and takes it so we can keep our $1.2 trillion military budgets, our tax cuts for the rich, and bankers bailed out. And then stuff like this:
Despite that important journalism - or, more accurately, because of it - Shaye is now in prison, thanks largely to President Obama himself. For the past two years, Shaye has been arrested, beaten, and held in solitary confinement by the security forces of Saleh, America's obedient tyrant. In January, 2011, he was convicted in a Yemeni court of terrorism-related charges - alleging that he was not a reporter covering Al Qaeda but a mouthpiece for it - in a proceeding widely condemned by human rights groups around the world. âoeThere are strong indications that the charges against [Shaye] are trumped up and that he has been jailed solely for daring to speak out about US collaboration in a cluster munitions attack which took place in Yemen,â Philip Luther, Amnesty International's Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa, told Scahill. The Yemen expert, Johnsen, added: âoeThere is no publicly available evidence to suggest that Abdulelah was anything other than a journalist attempting to do his job.â
The fact that the industry is screwing themselves over by overcharging and using onerous DRM does NOT entitle you to take a copy of their work for free.
Irrelevant in the end, as there is no functional difference between someone who pirates a game and someone who refuses to buy it.
Would you also like to buy some shares in some select bridges in New York City? Trusting publishing houses not to rip you off on DLC is like trusting movie studios to pay you a cut of a movie's profits.
That's why I used the unskilled wage instead of CPI, although they came out pretty close. Was that not the right thing to do?
No, it's better than the rate of inflation. But even that picture is incomplete, because the cost of fuel, health insurance, education and housing has climbed faster than the rate of inflation. Your unskilled wage earner today might have more gross money than his 1985 counterpart, but have less spending money after his bills are paid for...
Some games are worth that much, or even more to a dedicated fan base. Your Bioware or GTA games, for example, have tons of writing and voiceover work put into them.
But most games aren't that good, or have that much replayability.
I'm pretty OK with paying that amount of money for good games - they usually last more than 4-6 movies lengths of entertainment
$60 for 8 to 12 hours of entertainment? *cough* ripoff *cough*
Slashdot Mirror
So it's all about branding, eh? Does this mean that Pepsi and Budweiser have committed themselves to reducing global warming because the advertize "cool and refreshing" products?
Nevermind the increasing number and severity of hurricanes, typhoons and tornadoes, of course. Can't let reality get in the way of the denialist storyline, and all that...
Isn't that a wee bit of hyperbole?
And it's not like convicts aren't already going to be screwed for life on applying for jobs with a felony conviction...now they should be denied the right to vote as well? How is that an incentive for them to keep their noses clean after they get out of their local penitentiary?
"Hey, as long as I'm being treated like a criminal........"
Slight problem with that hippie punching false equivilancy: it's usually Moore's haters that play fast and loose with the facts. Like when CNN had to issue a retraction when they fudged facts in order to accuse Moore of fact fudging.
Then don't freaking buy one. Explaining to Apple Haterz that no one is holding a gun to their heads to buy an iDevice is like having to tell fundies that their remotes come with "off" buttons and their TV's have come with parental controls for ~20 years.
I see you went on with the world salad without ever mentioning how, in fact the edited video in any way distorted actual events. That means you aren't making an argument based on having a 'there there', but complaining for the sake of complaining.
And again, you're continuing to harp on this point long after the full clip was released.
Just because you find it inconvenient to your beef with Wikileaks doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Clips are routinely edited for length, to cut out 15 minutes of (in this case) a helicopter flying in circles with nothing happening.
Still not showing how the video was unfairly edited.
Political news is political: shocking news at 11.
Still not showing how the data was unfairly edited. And this "viewpoint" stuff sounds like the same crap that was said about Fahrenheit 911 - as if it wasn't enough having virtually all print and broadcast media in lockstep support of the war, if you were looking for "balance". And now we're seeing the same story repeated with Iran.
Lets see: staff costs, travel costs, legal costs, server costs, dealing with embarrassed western powers messing with your financing costs. But you knew that already.
In return for exclusivity...um, yeah? You don't think that sources regularly make deals with media organizations on such terms? Sounds like another selective argument of convenience.
LOL. Before you start talking logic and evidence, you might want to provide a shred of either to back up your assertion that Apple is being "unfair" to developers. Because so far all you got is Haterade.
A falsifiable test of drug dog tells would mean giving the defense hours of training footage showing how the dog in question "tells" when he smells drugs. Which could then be compared to the footage taken of the dog's actions in the defendants arrest.
The problem here isn't the dogs, it's the cops saying "oh, of course the dog smelled drugs on the suspect's car" whether or not that was actually the case.
You do realize you've been contradicting yourself, whether it be in rant-mode or sarcasm-mode, right? Either this 'rounding error' is such a trifling trivial matter of insignificance that no one should waste any time on it, or redress is onerous burden placed on the bank that will be passed on to you.
Which one is it?
And, what again is your alternative to class action lawsuits...is it:
1. You contribute towards legal fees (expensive)
2. You hire your own lawyer (more expensive)
3. Roll over and take it when a company rips you off
4. Invest government agencies with serious investigation and enforcement powers
Word salad - look at Apple's competitors in the smartphone market and they charge the same kinds of prices that Apple does. And remember when the iPad 2 came out and was actually cheaper than the competition.
The concern is that they are so consistently half assed about it, buying companies only to lose interest in what they purchased six months later. Right now they can get away with it, but it's not a healthy habit to have. What if Google has a 'lost decade' a la Apple in the 90's?
Hand waving. Companies buy back stock all the time - for the principal reason of consolidating control amongst the major shareholders as well as increasing the value of their own holdings. Number of ideas has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps you should be a little less snotty. How many other companies have $100 billion in cash sitting around?
Why should you think about this for two seconds before responding? Class action lawyers get much of the money because they take all the risk. If they don't win, not only do they not get paid a dime, but they have to compensate their staff out of pocket. Whereas Joe Shmoe takes no risk if the suit is lost. But he does get some compensation if the suit is won, the offending company gets punished, and yes, lawyers get paid.
So I ask you a second time: are you going to contribute towards the substantial cost of these lawsuits (subpoenas, expert witnesses, staff to comb through years of paperwork) in order to collect more damages? Your other alternatives are:
1. Hire your own attorney to file your own suit (thousands to hundreds of thousands in fees)
2. Roll over and take it.
3. Demand government oversight with real investigative and enforcement powers.
But of course, the same sort of people that think that it's the worst thing in the world if some lawyers make some money (despite you gaining some redress with no risk yourself) tend to also be the sort of people that hate government regulation.
So, what's it gonna be?
Then you're in favor of companies making millions (or even billions) by ripping people off, so long as each individual amount is small.
Thanks for reminding me to address the other Gaping Fallacy in your first post, as I had forgotten it. This notion that accountability is a waste of time is nonsense in two different ways. First, if you don't force a change in behavior, what do you think companies will do? They'll go right on ripping you off, of course.
Secondly, the bit about how they'll just raise prices to make up for it is a complete myth because all prices are already set to maximize revenue. It doesn't matter if the market is captive or competitive. If BP is hit with the true cost of their clusterfuck in the Gulf of Mexico, they can't simply raise the price of oil by $5 a barrel to pay for it because Exxon and Shell would eat them for lunch. If the market is held captive by a monopoly, the product is already priced at the point the market will bear.
...the Devil ever pulled wasn't in making the world think he didn't exist. It was getting regular shmoes to willingly declare war on their own best interests. Like hating on government oversight of industry, hating on unions, and...hating on class action lawsuits.
The only people taking the risk are the lawyers. They don't win, not only do they not get paid, but they have to compensate their staff out of pocket. If you don't agree with their level of compensation, then hire your own damn lawyer to file your own damn case.
But of course, that would likely cost you thousands of dollars if real money is involved, and you might have little chance of success. See: how the cigarette industry won every individual lawsuit brought against them, for decades. Compared to the possibility of you getting a check in the mail for putting in no effort on your part besides sending a letter in the mail.
You could try small claims court over a smaller sum, but would you even bother for the low amounts of money frequently featured in class action lawsuits? Say your find out your cellular carrier went on charging you $2/month in "regulatory recovery fees" six months after they were legally allowed to. Are you really going to spend $50 to file a small claim over a matter of $24? And even if you did, your carrier would simply shrug it's shoulders and pay up - while keeping their mattress of cash collected from all the other people they ripped off who aren't filing their own claims. That's why we have these class action lawsuits in the first place - because companies rip off thousands to millions of customers who can not or will not press the issue on their own.
Your only other alternative is a level of government oversight with real inspection and enforcement powers. But of course, the same people that hate class action lawsuits tend to be the same sort of people that hate government oversight.
NYFB either.
Why. Are you going to start contributing to court fees when you sign up for a class action lawsuit, so you share in the risk?
Yep. I saw a drug bust once...cops had a car surrounded and brought out the drug dog. Basically went like this:
Cop points to the car and claps his hands.
Dog looks at the car, looks back at the cop.
Cop points to the car and claps his hands.
Dog looks at the car, looks back at the cop.
Cop points to the car and claps his hands.
Dog looks at the car, looks back at the cop.
After the third time, the cops go ahead and search the car, but I sure couldn't see any "tell" from the dog. Wish I'd recorded it with my cellphone and given it to the defense attorney, but 1. it was a night and 2. I had a really shitty cell phone at the time.
That, and: not paying for that copy of Star Trek that he downloaded leaves him with $20 he can spend on movies in a theater, on a Wii game, or otherwise purchase goods other than that Star Trek movie.
None of which chances the fact that Mz Manners here needs a hefty dose of Colon Blow. And hey, that's on Wikipedia as well.
Hey look over there at that evil Rush Limbaugh and even more evilily evil Iran! Nevermind that the Obama administration just declared that it has the authority to be judge, jury and executioner. Nevermind that the "Grand Bargain" zombie shit sandwich is being dug out of its grave again, where the "bargain" means the working class bends over and takes it so we can keep our $1.2 trillion military budgets, our tax cuts for the rich, and bankers bailed out. And then stuff like this:
Obama's personal role in a journalist's imprisonment
Irrelevant in the end, as there is no functional difference between someone who pirates a game and someone who refuses to buy it.
Would you also like to buy some shares in some select bridges in New York City? Trusting publishing houses not to rip you off on DLC is like trusting movie studios to pay you a cut of a movie's profits.
LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader that Return of the Jedi Hasn't Made a Profit!?
No, it's better than the rate of inflation. But even that picture is incomplete, because the cost of fuel, health insurance, education and housing has climbed faster than the rate of inflation. Your unskilled wage earner today might have more gross money than his 1985 counterpart, but have less spending money after his bills are paid for...
Some games are worth that much, or even more to a dedicated fan base. Your Bioware or GTA games, for example, have tons of writing and voiceover work put into them.
But most games aren't that good, or have that much replayability.
$60 for 8 to 12 hours of entertainment? *cough* ripoff *cough*