Even this phone comes about at a time Apple realizes that they are losing on sales to combo devices from the mobile providers.
I'd argue that this is what makes it an intelligent move. They're aiming to capture ground from the mobile phone makers who are encroaching on their territory. I have a Motorola SLVR, and am quite happy with it (I just don't like flip phones, for aesthetic reasons). But I wouldn't mind having a slightly larger SLVR that also lets me browse the web with a stripped-down version of Safari, and check my e-mail. In fact, that's all I really want. I'm just not sure what people want out of third-party apps. I mean, it's nice to have the open platform so that you can find all sorts of neato little apps that meet individual needs, but that's very hard to do on a big consumer product. But, and I think this has been said elsewhere, this is going to spur other mobile device manufacturers to compete and come up with their own modifications, some of which will undoubtedly be more open than the iPhone. If that's your cup of joe, go for it. Myself, I'll probably be getting Rev. B of the iPhone. It suits my needs, and I think that my needs accurately reflect those of the average consumer.
What does the iphone bring? Widescreen. Great interface. Is that enough? *I* don't think so. It's tied to a provider. It's limited it's data (EDGE only). It's limited in its app selection (may be a good thing). Can't be upgraded (for a widescreen device, sort of small capacity).
I think that the wide screen and the interface are the hooks -- it's basically a phone/SMS/music/video device. I don't think characterizing as a smart phone/PDA was the way to go. I think it's more like a regular phone with a big screen and an interesting interface. As long as the EDGE network (which I have no experience with) allows people to check e-mail and browse most websites with ease, I think it'll be OK. Hopefully the one-provider thing will go away; I can't see Apple wanting to tie themselves so completely to Cingular. As far as the limited app selection, I think that's a good thing. It provides more stability and I think it'll address all the needs it needs to. I'm still at a loss to define exactly what specialized apps people want. Choice in web browsers? Firefox mobile? What? As far as the capacity, yeah, that sucks. I'd have thought they'd at least add on an SD card slot, and maybe they will in a later model.
Worse, it's $500 at least
*shrug* A price is a price. If you think it's too much, don't buy it, or get one second-hand. Eventually, the market will deal with that.
Why exactly do you think this will sell? The only good thing I see coming out of this is the iphone form factor might make it into a widescreen non-phone ipod device.
I think it'll sell because (1) Apple's a part of the Zeitgeist, and when they get people excited, people buy. It's marketing genius that brings most of the people. Full disclosure: I used to be a Mac genius at an Apple retail store. The Apple faithful turn out in droves to buy new products, and often made ridiculous offers to store personnel to see if we'd "hold" a product for them. The first wave of rabid Apple fanboys will be enough to buy up the original production line. Then, others who are drawn in by marketing and shrewd salesmanship of Apple employees will bring in more, and finally, I think there's enough of a market for people who want a phone with widescreen, SMS and web capabilities. They don't even know what "3G" means or why it's faster. The next two or three iterations of the phone will add more "geek stuff" for those of us who want it. I think you'll see memory expansion slots and things like that in later generations of phones.
Even the iPod marketplace is a bit of a joke, given that device does half as much as it could if given a free marketplace.
But that's just the point -- if the iPod is successful as it is now (and it is), what's the point of having it do half again as much as it already does? Don't get me wrong, I'm the kind of guy that would like a device that can play music, show video, take pictures, make julienne fries, and call my mom on her birthday, but I'm a geek.
Most consumers want something simple and easy to use -- IE, the iPod. It's not the "ideal" product, and there are some flaws with it, but it is good enough to entice LOTS of people to buy it, and lots of people to use it. I wouldn't mind having an easily-replaceable battery in my iPods, for instance, but by the time I'm to the point with my iPods that I find the battery life unacceptable, there's a newer one out with a higher capacity, more features that I want, etc. and I just upgrade. These are consumer electronics -- they're meant to be used until they've reached the end of their normal, useful life, and then disposed of. Lament this sort of consumer culture all you wish, but them's the breaks.
Sure, the iPhone doesn't look like it's shaping up to be a little mini-computer, that plays games, browses the web, does x, does y, etc. and so on. But that's OK. It's really just a video iPod that also browses the web and makes phone calls. Think of it as a beefed up Sidekick, rather than a tiny MacBook.
Only if it's credible that the armed citizenry right (1) know how to use them (2) be able to use them in a crisis situation and (3) actually use them. Even if (1) and (2) are met in a 9/11-type situation, (3) is problematic. Have you given a thought to what discharging a firearm on an airplane at 30,000 feet might do if you puncture the hull of the plain and depressurize the cabin?
I thought evidence of subsequent remedial measures was still admissible for other purposes. Tex. R. Evid. 407 indicates that it's available for proving things like feasibility of precautionary measures or for impeachment purposes, or that a written notification is available to prove the existence of a defect (to the extent that this is relevant).
OK, this requires a brief explanation of what the "products liability" area of law entails. It falls within an area known as "strict liability." This means that if you place a defectively designed, defectively manufactured, or defectively marketed product in the stream of commerce, you are liable regardless of whose "fault" it is. The reasons advanced for this are many, but mainly, it is to spread the cost of defective products on those who can bear the cost -- the manufacturers with lots of money -- rather than on those who cannot bear the cost -- the general populace. In general, you like strict liability theories for products liability. It prevents companies from knowingly or negligently putting bad products on the market and standing behind a "caveat emptor" defense.
In this case, I have to admit, I'm skeptical as to whether the straps were defectively designed. If only some were made weaker relative to others, then those might be defectively manufactured, but I think that abnormal, excessive use might be a more proximate cause than any alleged defects in design. However, Nintendo may have screwed themselves by performing the strap exchange program. I'm not sure (because I'm not a lawyer, only a student). However, it'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I'll keep it on my radar.
Sir, as a fine Southern gentleman, I take affront to your sullying the good name of Dejah Thoris and all her royal kin in such a way as to link to that. I have half a mind to draw my sword and strike you down, but my gentlemanly manners require that I at least give you a chance to defend yourself. Prepare.
This is true. I'm a law student, and I cannot watch legal TV shows. My girlfriend gets pissed off when we do because I point out all of the things that aren't real. I've been told by med student friends that they do the same thing on shows like "House."
Eh, getta load of this guy! We pays you good money so you can keep quiet, sit in your little room, and do your computer thing. But what's this? We finds you on this "internet," advertising who you work for! Hey, bambino, leave the singin' to Sinatra, capische?
Except that there are lots of legal doctrines that provide a defense to the gun manufacturer for you doing so. You're obviously cognizant of a risk of using a gun negligently, and have proceeded to use it despite an awareness of your own limitations. Sounds to me like you've assumed the risk of injury.
Really, before people start to criticize the law, litigation, and those bastard "trial attorneys," they should at least educate themselves on the law.
Baseball cards are a capital asset. The rules for computing capital gains are different than ordinary income tax. I won't pretend to be able to tell you about them, but if you're interested, they are considered capital gains. How they're taxed is going to depend on how long you hold them, if you sell them at a loss, etc. If you do a straight trade on cards, then the only question is what your basis in your new cards is when you sell them (realize the gain or loss).
Tax law is made by Satan for Satan and understood only by Satan. But don't tell me tax law professor that.
Check ouf FFXII. All of the enemies appear on the world map, eliminating the random encounter. When you attack, your character keeps attacking until you've issued a new command (or you can preprogram commands with a fairly intuitive logic system). Some enemies won't even target and attack you, so it's possible to run through a level without drawing any encounters.
The Wii doesn't have to keep going in the long term. The lifespan of a console as a platform for launching new games is under a decade. The Wii just has sell enough units itself to make it attractive for developers to keep producing titles, which it looks like it will, and the platform will live its life and then Nintendo is free to create a new platform for the "next-next-generation" of gaming consoles.
I have an Xbox 360, and will probably get a PS3 as well (Final Fantasy is too big of a draw for me to ignore it). I like my PS2, and I like my Xbox 360. They have certain games I want to play, and I enjoy playing them. That was enough to motivate me to buy the console. That's all the money that these companies are going to get from me, because from here on out, all I'm going to be buying is games. If the console is interesting enough to draw me in to buy at least one, then they've accomplished their job as a console manufacturer with regard to me. So the Wii needs to only hook people this once, and in doing so, ensures that it's profitable for developers to produce games for the next five or six years. Then, once the companies are ready to release new systems, if there are things we like and want to experience about these new systems, we'll pay out the money necessary to get them.
The solution to a misuse of the freedom of speech is not a reduction of that freedom, but rather an increase. When people use the public square to spread lies, irrationality and terror, it is the duty of free peoples to stand up and drown them in out in a clamor for truth and rationality.
Actually, punitive and exemplary damages are only recoverable in certain cases, and almost never absent actual damages. They might ask for injunctive relief, barring the man from teaching, but he's probably going to be fired anyway without the need for a judicial remedy.
It's really not any different than criminal statutes on attempted murder. Unless you think I should go scott free if I walk up to you on the street and unload my pistol in the general direction of your head but missed.
Yes, yes it is. One is a civil suit, and the other is a criminal action. The difference is massive. There are no "attempted crime" statutes. There is a definition of attempt, which applies generally to certain crimes. Hence, the rule for when an attempt has been effected is independent of the homicide or whatever statutes. But there's no attempt doctrine for torts. You can't attempt to batter someone -- you either do or you don't. Similarly, you can't attempt to intentionally inflict emotional distress, or attempt to violate the Establishment Clause. Suing before such a tort has occurred means that a suit is not timely filed, and a judge should dismiss it.
Sure, but it might be a more generalized grievance. Issues are not justiciable if the grievance is generalized. So, unless this student can allege a personal violation of rights, and show some way that the court can craft an effective judicial remedy for his injury, then he's not going to be able to get the court to hear the case.
I've read the transcript. The common-law standard for IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress) is high. It's not an easy burden to prove. Generally, you only get emotional distress damages in cases where there is some concurrent physical injury, such as from a particularly bad beating or torture. I'm not sure what the jurisdiction-specific rules for IIED are in this jurisdiction, but chances are no one is getting IIED damages from a violation of the establishment clause.
A lawsuit for what? You can't just sue someone because your feelings are hurt. You have to ask for recovery for actual injury. If someone proselytizes at school, then the separation of church and state has been violated, possibly by a breach of the establishment clause. But does it injure you? Is it your own personal right that you're asserting, or a more generalized grievance? If it's a generalized grievance, the courts can decline to hear it as a non-justiciable issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd argue that this is what makes it an intelligent move. They're aiming to capture ground from the mobile phone makers who are encroaching on their territory. I have a Motorola SLVR, and am quite happy with it (I just don't like flip phones, for aesthetic reasons). But I wouldn't mind having a slightly larger SLVR that also lets me browse the web with a stripped-down version of Safari, and check my e-mail. In fact, that's all I really want. I'm just not sure what people want out of third-party apps. I mean, it's nice to have the open platform so that you can find all sorts of neato little apps that meet individual needs, but that's very hard to do on a big consumer product. But, and I think this has been said elsewhere, this is going to spur other mobile device manufacturers to compete and come up with their own modifications, some of which will undoubtedly be more open than the iPhone. If that's your cup of joe, go for it. Myself, I'll probably be getting Rev. B of the iPhone. It suits my needs, and I think that my needs accurately reflect those of the average consumer.
What does the iphone bring? Widescreen. Great interface. Is that enough? *I* don't think so. It's tied to a provider. It's limited it's data (EDGE only). It's limited in its app selection (may be a good thing). Can't be upgraded (for a widescreen device, sort of small capacity).
I think that the wide screen and the interface are the hooks -- it's basically a phone/SMS/music/video device. I don't think characterizing as a smart phone/PDA was the way to go. I think it's more like a regular phone with a big screen and an interesting interface. As long as the EDGE network (which I have no experience with) allows people to check e-mail and browse most websites with ease, I think it'll be OK. Hopefully the one-provider thing will go away; I can't see Apple wanting to tie themselves so completely to Cingular. As far as the limited app selection, I think that's a good thing. It provides more stability and I think it'll address all the needs it needs to. I'm still at a loss to define exactly what specialized apps people want. Choice in web browsers? Firefox mobile? What? As far as the capacity, yeah, that sucks. I'd have thought they'd at least add on an SD card slot, and maybe they will in a later model.
Worse, it's $500 at least
*shrug* A price is a price. If you think it's too much, don't buy it, or get one second-hand. Eventually, the market will deal with that.
Why exactly do you think this will sell? The only good thing I see coming out of this is the iphone form factor might make it into a widescreen non-phone ipod device.
I think it'll sell because (1) Apple's a part of the Zeitgeist, and when they get people excited, people buy. It's marketing genius that brings most of the people. Full disclosure: I used to be a Mac genius at an Apple retail store. The Apple faithful turn out in droves to buy new products, and often made ridiculous offers to store personnel to see if we'd "hold" a product for them. The first wave of rabid Apple fanboys will be enough to buy up the original production line. Then, others who are drawn in by marketing and shrewd salesmanship of Apple employees will bring in more, and finally, I think there's enough of a market for people who want a phone with widescreen, SMS and web capabilities. They don't even know what "3G" means or why it's faster. The next two or three iterations of the phone will add more "geek stuff" for those of us who want it. I think you'll see memory expansion slots and things like that in later generations of phones.
But that's just the point -- if the iPod is successful as it is now (and it is), what's the point of having it do half again as much as it already does? Don't get me wrong, I'm the kind of guy that would like a device that can play music, show video, take pictures, make julienne fries, and call my mom on her birthday, but I'm a geek.
Most consumers want something simple and easy to use -- IE, the iPod. It's not the "ideal" product, and there are some flaws with it, but it is good enough to entice LOTS of people to buy it, and lots of people to use it. I wouldn't mind having an easily-replaceable battery in my iPods, for instance, but by the time I'm to the point with my iPods that I find the battery life unacceptable, there's a newer one out with a higher capacity, more features that I want, etc. and I just upgrade. These are consumer electronics -- they're meant to be used until they've reached the end of their normal, useful life, and then disposed of. Lament this sort of consumer culture all you wish, but them's the breaks.
Sure, the iPhone doesn't look like it's shaping up to be a little mini-computer, that plays games, browses the web, does x, does y, etc. and so on. But that's OK. It's really just a video iPod that also browses the web and makes phone calls. Think of it as a beefed up Sidekick, rather than a tiny MacBook.
You do realize that you just posed this question to Slashdot members, right?
Only if it's credible that the armed citizenry right (1) know how to use them (2) be able to use them in a crisis situation and (3) actually use them. Even if (1) and (2) are met in a 9/11-type situation, (3) is problematic. Have you given a thought to what discharging a firearm on an airplane at 30,000 feet might do if you puncture the hull of the plain and depressurize the cabin?
(Yes, it's in Kansas, why do you ask?)
I thought evidence of subsequent remedial measures was still admissible for other purposes. Tex. R. Evid. 407 indicates that it's available for proving things like feasibility of precautionary measures or for impeachment purposes, or that a written notification is available to prove the existence of a defect (to the extent that this is relevant).
In this case, I have to admit, I'm skeptical as to whether the straps were defectively designed. If only some were made weaker relative to others, then those might be defectively manufactured, but I think that abnormal, excessive use might be a more proximate cause than any alleged defects in design. However, Nintendo may have screwed themselves by performing the strap exchange program. I'm not sure (because I'm not a lawyer, only a student). However, it'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I'll keep it on my radar.
Hippie oasis are not, The People's Republic of Austin is still Texas.
J.C.
Mod parent up, +1 Insightful. I burned all my mod points earlier or else I would.
Keep your shoggoths away from me.
This is true. I'm a law student, and I cannot watch legal TV shows. My girlfriend gets pissed off when we do because I point out all of the things that aren't real. I've been told by med student friends that they do the same thing on shows like "House."
Whack 'em.
I think we'd be better off inventing a <sarcasm> tag.
Really, before people start to criticize the law, litigation, and those bastard "trial attorneys," they should at least educate themselves on the law.
It's a shame that your home is housing black-on-white crime. Can't you teach your electronics about tolerance?
Tax law is made by Satan for Satan and understood only by Satan. But don't tell me tax law professor that.
Check ouf FFXII. All of the enemies appear on the world map, eliminating the random encounter. When you attack, your character keeps attacking until you've issued a new command (or you can preprogram commands with a fairly intuitive logic system). Some enemies won't even target and attack you, so it's possible to run through a level without drawing any encounters.
I have an Xbox 360, and will probably get a PS3 as well (Final Fantasy is too big of a draw for me to ignore it). I like my PS2, and I like my Xbox 360. They have certain games I want to play, and I enjoy playing them. That was enough to motivate me to buy the console. That's all the money that these companies are going to get from me, because from here on out, all I'm going to be buying is games. If the console is interesting enough to draw me in to buy at least one, then they've accomplished their job as a console manufacturer with regard to me. So the Wii needs to only hook people this once, and in doing so, ensures that it's profitable for developers to produce games for the next five or six years. Then, once the companies are ready to release new systems, if there are things we like and want to experience about these new systems, we'll pay out the money necessary to get them.
Will work on moose and squirrel, yes?
The solution to a misuse of the freedom of speech is not a reduction of that freedom, but rather an increase. When people use the public square to spread lies, irrationality and terror, it is the duty of free peoples to stand up and drown them in out in a clamor for truth and rationality.
It's really not any different than criminal statutes on attempted murder. Unless you think I should go scott free if I walk up to you on the street and unload my pistol in the general direction of your head but missed. Yes, yes it is. One is a civil suit, and the other is a criminal action. The difference is massive. There are no "attempted crime" statutes. There is a definition of attempt, which applies generally to certain crimes. Hence, the rule for when an attempt has been effected is independent of the homicide or whatever statutes. But there's no attempt doctrine for torts. You can't attempt to batter someone -- you either do or you don't. Similarly, you can't attempt to intentionally inflict emotional distress, or attempt to violate the Establishment Clause. Suing before such a tort has occurred means that a suit is not timely filed, and a judge should dismiss it.
Sure, but it might be a more generalized grievance. Issues are not justiciable if the grievance is generalized. So, unless this student can allege a personal violation of rights, and show some way that the court can craft an effective judicial remedy for his injury, then he's not going to be able to get the court to hear the case.
For the record, I am not a lawyer... yet.