I don't think it's so much that. I am glad they "investigated" him to make sure he did or did NOT have WMDs or chemical warfare ingredients. However, the argument is, now that they learned that what he had was harmless, they are continuing to try to pin something on him in order to not look "stupid" or to lose face. That is the real problem here.
Actually, Jose Padilla was a Brooklyn-born citizen of the US and was held in Gitmo for three years before being tried and convicted of aiding terrorism.
Fatherland == Homeland. That's what we like to call it here, and so did the Nazis in Germany. Scary similarity I think, but most Americans aren't even aware of it I believe.
Myanmar is another name for Burma, a country in Asia. We still call it Burma here in the US because our government refuses to recognize them as Myanmar.
But does that justify them bricking the phone? Noone is asking Apple to support a phone that has been unlocked, but one would expect a reasonable company to not break the phone just because you used it beyond it's "advertised functionality". It's one thing when the consumer breaks a device when modifying it beyond its intended use, it's another thing entirely when the manufacturer intentionally breaks a device that was modified but functioning perfectly, especially if the consumer with the modified device has not asked Apple for ANYTHING regarding use of the warranty.
One more point. I don't believe it was a promise that the phone would only work on ATT. Just about every GSM phone sold in the US is usually locked for one specific provider, but the ability to unlock the phone simply is builtin. When you sign a contract with a provider, and they give you a discount on the equipment, they are subsidizing the cost of the phone with the contract. According to the provider, you technically do not own the equipment until the contract is completed. However, consumers paid full retail price for the iPhone. So legally speaking, they own the phone, and until they sign up with AT&T, they are not in a contract. Stands to reason they should be able to do whatever they want with the device.
Just to clarify one thing, until you actually sign up for ATT service, you are not in a contract. And since you paid full price for the device, you own it. You should be legally allowed to do anything you want to it. Above someone made a reference to modding an XBox. Yes, if you do that you void your warranty. And the same goes for the warranty on the iPhone. But Apple takes it one step further by disseminating software that actually will break the device. The consumer doesn't do that themselves; the vendor does. That's just rude! Microsoft never released (AFAIK) an update that would brick a modded XBox console.
Actually, Mother Theresa wrote in her diaries that she had lost her way for almost the entire time she spent with impoverished peoples. She was unable to see God's hand in anything. The smile she wears in all the pics is fake and put on so that noone would know her "inner struggle". She was of the mind that a God that would allow people to suffer the way she saw was not fair, compassionate or just. She called it a 40 year crisis of faith. So I don't believe that her work brought her closer to God, not the way she saw it anyways.
Who says the government needs guns to control the population? They seem to be doing just fine with the fear-mongering machine that is the mass media to keep us complacent and controlled.
BTW, "We" of the United States are the "government". We have the true power, but I think many of us have forgotten that. We are so afraid all the time, false fears mind you; terrorists are NOT lurking around every corner. So when we talk about the government of the US, we are talking about "We the people" because we put them in power, we elected them to office, and if enough of us did so, we could take them out.
Just before your post, the only other post on the page tells us that ex parte is when only one side is in court. So the answer was given up before you even asked the question. Nice
It was just an assumption that the ones who won't show me an ID are the frauded cards. Probably a poor assumption, but 90% of my customers do not mind showing me an ID to validate their credit card. Just like ones who are writing a check don't mind either. But, you would actually avoid a merchant who is only looking out for their best interest (as well as yours, in effect to prevent someone from fraudulently using your card) by asking for an ID when using a credit card? A little inconvenience can go a long way in avoiding time wasted and lost money in dealing with fraudulent purchases, both for the merchant and the consumer. IMO, using cash is better all around. You avoid interest rates, you get what you want, and the person selling you the item makes all of the money spent for it.
Be aware that it is not force they use. They don't call the merchant and say "return the money or else." What a CC company does is automatically reverse the charge against the merchant. They take all the money back even though some of the money made by the merchant goes to the merchant operations (the company who provides the ability to accept credit cards from customers in the first place). Then on top of that, they also charge the merchant a fee for the return (anywhere between $12 and $35 depending on the merchant operations contract). And on top of ALL that, the merchant is out the money and the product the thief bought in the first place.
I tell ya, I run a retail shop and we have set policies in place to prevent fraud, but it can still happen. If a customer does not sign the card, and the thief does, then the signature would be "authentic". Is that the customer's fault for not fulfilling their obligation for their own credit card security? No, the merchant absorbs that too. In all cases, we ask for an ID to prove the card belongs to them. Most customers do not mind this, and some are actually glad we do it. The ones who get angry and walk out are usually using a frauded card.
One more thing, the credit card companies are making it easier for people to use a stolen credit card. Been to a fast food restaurant or a Starbucks lately? If you spend under a certain amount (like $20) they don't even ask for a signature. And now Visa has the PassPlus system where you wave your card in front of a machine and the store rep doesn't even LOOK at the card. But if that is fraud, does the credit card company absorb that cost. No, the merchant does and all the same rules apply.
I believe that this country is going to hell in a handbasket, and the credit card companies have ALOT to do with it.
There's a logical explaination why they look humanoid. They are our alien ancestors that created us from chimps from their adapted gene pool. And we are their little experiment on us to see what our species becomes. That's why there always abductin' people snd giving them the alien probe. To see the results. Think about it.
Just to clear up a point, AT&T will only give you the unlock code after one year of continued service, and in some cases, the rep will not have any idea what you are talking about or refuse to give you the code. In other cases, AT&T will email you the code, but this has taken up to a week to receive. They will in no way give you the code over the phone. ALWAYS ask for a supervisor when you call for unlock codes from AT&T. BTW, T-Mobile will give you the unlock code via email within 48 hours after 90 days of service.
And to qualify, I sell phone services and equipment for all the major providers for the last three years. One of the issues I am having as an indirect retailer of AT&T is that I get paid an activation commission, but I have to do the activation. If I were able to sell this phone, I would have to sell it a non-subsidized price, in order to make anything on it, since the activation is done through iTunes. Just one more way for AT&T to squeeze out the little guy, which has been their MO since August 2005.
Lets not forget that if you buy a non-OEM ink cartridge too, you run the risk of voiding your warranty with the printer manufacturer. So, you save some money, but get screwed out of any repairs to a non-functioning printer that your normal warranty should cover. Boy, that sure sounds fair to me!
Actually, Apple is branding and locking the phone for use with Cingular/AT&T which means the phone will be SIM locked for said phone company in the US. There will not be an unlocked version available for at least the first year, because that is the deal that Apple made. It is theoretically possible to unlock a locked phone, but Cingular demands subscriber status be at least a year on the device before they will give you the unlock code. Third parties might be able to unlock it, but that won't be available right away, at least for a few months.
So your statement that the iPhone will work with any GSM carrier is not entirely accurate, not out of the box anyways. The basic GSM service will work for any GSM carrier, but only after the SIM lock is removed.
This is not an option for the US market because several providers do not use Sim cards, and because operators use different network standards that prevent the iPhone working on some networks. Both Cingular/AT&T and T-Mobile use SIM cards on GSM technology. Nextel uses them too but for iDEN. Only Sprint/Verizon of the big 5 carriers use CDMA which is SIMless.
The gift is that Microsoft can now "blame" the user for their weakly written OS. By making it the user's responsibility to approve/disapprove just about every freakin' thing that runs on the Vista box, they can then go back and say "Gee, too bad you got that virus/spyware/malware infection, but it's not our fault, you clicked Allow".
Instead of making a better, more secure OS, they just shifted the culpability for weak security to the user.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's so much that. I am glad they "investigated" him to make sure he did or did NOT have WMDs or chemical warfare ingredients. However, the argument is, now that they learned that what he had was harmless, they are continuing to try to pin something on him in order to not look "stupid" or to lose face. That is the real problem here.
Actually, Jose Padilla was a Brooklyn-born citizen of the US and was held in Gitmo for three years before being tried and convicted of aiding terrorism.
Fatherland == Homeland. That's what we like to call it here, and so did the Nazis in Germany. Scary similarity I think, but most Americans aren't even aware of it I believe.
Myanmar is another name for Burma, a country in Asia. We still call it Burma here in the US because our government refuses to recognize them as Myanmar.
One more point. I don't believe it was a promise that the phone would only work on ATT. Just about every GSM phone sold in the US is usually locked for one specific provider, but the ability to unlock the phone simply is builtin. When you sign a contract with a provider, and they give you a discount on the equipment, they are subsidizing the cost of the phone with the contract. According to the provider, you technically do not own the equipment until the contract is completed. However, consumers paid full retail price for the iPhone. So legally speaking, they own the phone, and until they sign up with AT&T, they are not in a contract. Stands to reason they should be able to do whatever they want with the device.
Just to clarify one thing, until you actually sign up for ATT service, you are not in a contract. And since you paid full price for the device, you own it. You should be legally allowed to do anything you want to it. Above someone made a reference to modding an XBox. Yes, if you do that you void your warranty. And the same goes for the warranty on the iPhone. But Apple takes it one step further by disseminating software that actually will break the device. The consumer doesn't do that themselves; the vendor does. That's just rude! Microsoft never released (AFAIK) an update that would brick a modded XBox console.
Actually, Mother Theresa wrote in her diaries that she had lost her way for almost the entire time she spent with impoverished peoples. She was unable to see God's hand in anything. The smile she wears in all the pics is fake and put on so that noone would know her "inner struggle". She was of the mind that a God that would allow people to suffer the way she saw was not fair, compassionate or just. She called it a 40 year crisis of faith. So I don't believe that her work brought her closer to God, not the way she saw it anyways.
It wasn't AT&T that said they monitored less than 100 people in the US, it was the NID McConnell that stated that.
Who says the government needs guns to control the population? They seem to be doing just fine with the fear-mongering machine that is the mass media to keep us complacent and controlled. BTW, "We" of the United States are the "government". We have the true power, but I think many of us have forgotten that. We are so afraid all the time, false fears mind you; terrorists are NOT lurking around every corner. So when we talk about the government of the US, we are talking about "We the people" because we put them in power, we elected them to office, and if enough of us did so, we could take them out.
Just before your post, the only other post on the page tells us that ex parte is when only one side is in court. So the answer was given up before you even asked the question. Nice
It was just an assumption that the ones who won't show me an ID are the frauded cards. Probably a poor assumption, but 90% of my customers do not mind showing me an ID to validate their credit card. Just like ones who are writing a check don't mind either. But, you would actually avoid a merchant who is only looking out for their best interest (as well as yours, in effect to prevent someone from fraudulently using your card) by asking for an ID when using a credit card? A little inconvenience can go a long way in avoiding time wasted and lost money in dealing with fraudulent purchases, both for the merchant and the consumer. IMO, using cash is better all around. You avoid interest rates, you get what you want, and the person selling you the item makes all of the money spent for it.
Be aware that it is not force they use. They don't call the merchant and say "return the money or else." What a CC company does is automatically reverse the charge against the merchant. They take all the money back even though some of the money made by the merchant goes to the merchant operations (the company who provides the ability to accept credit cards from customers in the first place). Then on top of that, they also charge the merchant a fee for the return (anywhere between $12 and $35 depending on the merchant operations contract). And on top of ALL that, the merchant is out the money and the product the thief bought in the first place.
I tell ya, I run a retail shop and we have set policies in place to prevent fraud, but it can still happen. If a customer does not sign the card, and the thief does, then the signature would be "authentic". Is that the customer's fault for not fulfilling their obligation for their own credit card security? No, the merchant absorbs that too. In all cases, we ask for an ID to prove the card belongs to them. Most customers do not mind this, and some are actually glad we do it. The ones who get angry and walk out are usually using a frauded card.
One more thing, the credit card companies are making it easier for people to use a stolen credit card. Been to a fast food restaurant or a Starbucks lately? If you spend under a certain amount (like $20) they don't even ask for a signature. And now Visa has the PassPlus system where you wave your card in front of a machine and the store rep doesn't even LOOK at the card. But if that is fraud, does the credit card company absorb that cost. No, the merchant does and all the same rules apply.
I believe that this country is going to hell in a handbasket, and the credit card companies have ALOT to do with it.
There's a logical explaination why they look humanoid. They are our alien ancestors that created us from chimps from their adapted gene pool. And we are their little experiment on us to see what our species becomes. That's why there always abductin' people snd giving them the alien probe. To see the results. Think about it.
Just to clear up a point, AT&T will only give you the unlock code after one year of continued service, and in some cases, the rep will not have any idea what you are talking about or refuse to give you the code. In other cases, AT&T will email you the code, but this has taken up to a week to receive. They will in no way give you the code over the phone. ALWAYS ask for a supervisor when you call for unlock codes from AT&T. BTW, T-Mobile will give you the unlock code via email within 48 hours after 90 days of service. And to qualify, I sell phone services and equipment for all the major providers for the last three years. One of the issues I am having as an indirect retailer of AT&T is that I get paid an activation commission, but I have to do the activation. If I were able to sell this phone, I would have to sell it a non-subsidized price, in order to make anything on it, since the activation is done through iTunes. Just one more way for AT&T to squeeze out the little guy, which has been their MO since August 2005.
Lets not forget that if you buy a non-OEM ink cartridge too, you run the risk of voiding your warranty with the printer manufacturer. So, you save some money, but get screwed out of any repairs to a non-functioning printer that your normal warranty should cover. Boy, that sure sounds fair to me!
Actually, Apple is branding and locking the phone for use with Cingular/AT&T which means the phone will be SIM locked for said phone company in the US. There will not be an unlocked version available for at least the first year, because that is the deal that Apple made. It is theoretically possible to unlock a locked phone, but Cingular demands subscriber status be at least a year on the device before they will give you the unlock code. Third parties might be able to unlock it, but that won't be available right away, at least for a few months. So your statement that the iPhone will work with any GSM carrier is not entirely accurate, not out of the box anyways. The basic GSM service will work for any GSM carrier, but only after the SIM lock is removed.
The gift is that Microsoft can now "blame" the user for their weakly written OS. By making it the user's responsibility to approve/disapprove just about every freakin' thing that runs on the Vista box, they can then go back and say "Gee, too bad you got that virus/spyware/malware infection, but it's not our fault, you clicked Allow".
Instead of making a better, more secure OS, they just shifted the culpability for weak security to the user.