are you all forgetting that MS will send you a new XBOX if yours breaks?
If it's still under warranty.
They came clean (after a while) with the ring of death, and said that they would replace XBOX's within warranty that had the issues.
As long as your XBOX is within warranty, you can just ship it to MS and get a new one without buying a new one.
The warranty is only one year. Do you really think it is unreasonable to want your gaming console to last more than a year? Especially since the hardware cycle is probably going to be about five years?
Maybe that 3.8% is of the group that had it long enough to be out of warranty and thus had to buy a new one when it failed.
Yes, perhaps so. And if a year is all you should expect a $400 device to last, then there is something extremely wrong with our expectations as consumers.
Except the nature of the products is drastically different, which alters the consumer reaction. When I purchase my car, it isn't relevant what car all my friends and acquaintances have or what kind of places I'm going to go in my car.
With a console, the content absolutely matters and there is more of it on the 360. More importantly, if the 360 sucks and you buy a PS3 -- but all your friends have a 360, you're now playing by yourself.
It's a mix of those two situations -- and the existing investment you've already made in your software -- that gives them the power to screw you over and get out of this whole thing without a scratch... as absurd as it is.
As a software developer, I can release a patch or an upgrade to address the bug you're encountering. That is significantly different than the case with the XBOX 360 where Microsoft's shoddy hardware has a 50% failure rate and the solution is to send you back to the store to give the more money.
Good point. I have about 100 games for the 360. Dropping $300-$400 to replace it so I can use them is not an outlandish idea, when the games themselves cost ten to fifteen times that much.
Of course, that doesn't make it right. That just means that consumers can be strongarmed into replacing a defective piece of hardware so that they can use the content they've already invested in. It isn't like a CD or DVD player where you can just buy a different brand.
How Microsoft can avoid a class-action lawsuit with a 50% failure rate is beyond me.
Are you serious? You don't see the difference between "she's a skanky ho" and "she is a prostitute"?
One is an accusation while the other is an opinion. Sort of how when you say "that band sucks ass" you don't literally mean that they sit around back stage giving rim jobs.
They should have a service like this for religious people. Religious nutcase addicts are far more dangerous than some dude that plays warcraft all day or something.
The failure rate shouldn't change from more use. Office chairs may be rated for "12 hours per day average use" but you don't hear of a laptop being sold with a three year warranty "under six hours per day use" and neither are consoles.
Not only is 54% failure rate absolutely abysmal (must be some sort of record for any product that has ever existed, short of the Ford Pinto), but an 11% rate for PS3 is awful, too. I can't believe nobody has stepped in on either account.
As for buying them again? Well, of course. People want to play videogames and the place you want to be if you want a larger choice of games and a much more active online component is the 360 (I say this as someone who owns and plays all platforms).
As for usage? Well, I own about 100+ XBOX 360 games, 12 Wii games, and 8 PS3 games. I play the 360 several times per week. The PS3 a couple times per month. And the Wii... erm... I think the last time it was turned on was almost 18 months ago.
This whole topic doesn't make much sense to me. A word is spelled the same way, whether you're writing it or typing it; a properly phrases sentence doesn't change based on the medium in which it is written.
* A third of Americans are obese. (*1) * Two thirds of Americans are overweight. (*1) * Ten percent of Americans are on anti-depressants. (*2)
Therefore, chances are that almost every demographic of people short of mountain climbers and marathon runners has a significant portion of their numbers that are obese and/or depressed (not to mention the number of people who are depressed in the general population but are not on medication or have not even been diagnosed because they have no medical coverage or are perhaps embarrassed).
I also suspect that people who are obese and/or depressed tend to watch television. Or listen to a lot of music. Or commit suicide more often. Or spend more time at home. Or any other number of things. Big deal. What is the point for this study even existing, anyway? What is it they're trying to prove? Fat and depressed people are less likely to spend their time running marathons? No fucking shit, geniuses! So what?
Or just have every email and online post you ever make tagged with a line in your signature that your "above comment is a personal statement of my opinion and nothing more"... or something.
I don't think the medium has anything to do with it. Slander and Libel do not change because it's done via print versus television or radio. This is either opinion or it is libel. Period.
Calling someone names may be a dick move, but it's a dick move you should be completely free to make. Whether it's on the internet, facebook, myspace, IRC, Slashdot, the telephone, a tabloid, the school yard, a fanzine, the radio, a news paper op-ed piece or anything else.
Of course, there IS a slight difference that makes these things very difficult in as much as someone who dislikes you personally saying something about you to a few mutual friends along the lines of "that person is a stinky fuckface" is one thing and saying it to a potential audience of billions is another. It is the same act and I personally don't think one should be actionable but the other shouldn't. But at the same time, knowing that there is someone with a grudge against you splattering it all over a resource that every person you may ever know could see it -- including potential employers -- is messed up. Imagine if every time you googled your mom's name on the internet, the first page of results included things about "Joan Smith blah blah is a dirty slut and probably loves to gobble cock!". It may be protected opinion... and yet... it just isn't right.
I think that's why so many people are conflicted. It's like the case with the mom who pretended to be a teenage boy to engage in sexual discussions with a little girl and then drive her to suicide. It was entirely reasonable to wish the woman spent life in rape-your-ass-prison *AND* that she not be found guilty. Because while she was entirely wrong and evil, a judgment against her sets a very risky precedent for all of society.
I'm sorry, but that's not correct. I can call anyone names that I like. Whether they're "public figures" is not relevant. Are you seriously suggesting that every child on a playground or everyone who has had an unflattering opinion about someone that they've shared is looking at a potential valid lawsuit? I can say that I think Tiger Woods is a slut, but not your mom, because you'll sue? That's ridiculous.
More frightening than violations of free speech are willful misunderstandings about free speech.
Now, harassment is a different issue. But calling someone names or otherwise giving your impression and opinion of them alone is absolutely justified and acceptable. Combine that with other elements of harassment, and it may be a completely different beast. I'm completely willing to concede that calling me names and saying you think I'm a fuckwad asshole is fine while if you're posting that online *and* you're spending your weekends staring at me through my living room window as you stand just off of my driveway with binoculars while sniffing my used underwear and rummaging through my garbage can may be a major legal problem.
And that is what we're missing here. It's bullshit to say there's anything legally wrong with saying ANYONE is a skanky ho - public figure or not. But if there are other compelling elements that the Judge and her legal representation have that the rest of us do not, it is just possible this whole thing could be justified.
Congratulations on reaching epic proportions of stupidity.
It's okay to have an opinion about some people and not others. RobotRunAmok will determine when it is and isn't appropriate.
I have a better idea. Rather than social engineering everyone into being "nice" according to your particular judgement of "nice", let's stick with our current precedents which dictate that you are free to state opinion all day long, until you reach the point where your statements are no longer opinion but are libel/slander?
Since "skanky ho" is a statement of opinion, there is no "false statement" to consider here. If the statement was that she was a skanky ho "because she cheated on her husband", then that might definitely qualify since it is an absolute defamation of character (if it is a lie, of course).
Of course, whether or not it's socially redeeming isn't really even relevant. There are a lot of things that are not socially redeeming that are just fine. I don't have to validate the social value of reading comic books.
The question absolutely is whether the person's statements warrant legal concern for "defamation". The fact that it has made it this far indicates that either the judge is a fucking moron or that they possess very weighty facts that the rest of us are not aware of which make this an issue far beyond "that person called me a skank and I'm all bent out of shape and demand that you stop them from having an opinion!".
Nobody is arguing that one has an absolute right to privacy if they are making libelous claims, but nobody has the right to call you into account for stating opinions. There's no law against stating opinion and therefore no violation that qualifies for release of someone's private information.
If the guy was posting someone's social security number online or claiming that the person molested them or committed some horrible act, they would have a point. But there is no legal recourse for being called a skank.
Yes, news anchor is a public figure. A CEO of a large company is a public figure. A journalist is a public figure. A radio DJ or talk show host is a public figure. A model is a public figure pretty much by definition. Of... you know.. modeling stuff... to the public... to get attention... for a company or product.
She may not be Elle McPhereson, but she's still a model. The same way a radio host is a public figure, even if they're not Howard Stern.
Public figures do not have any exception to being defamed; in fact, perhaps just the opposite. If you make slanderous assertions about someone that everyone in the country knows versus making those claims about someone down the street, the impact is different.
But either way, it's very clear when something is merely opinion. "X is a skank" versus "X is a skank... because I witnessed her do a full on anonymous gang-bang in the Winterhawk's locker room" and if you're a public figure, being criticized and called names is just a part of the business. Do we really want to open every person who has ever voiced negative opinions about Britney Spears to a lawsuit?
I understand the desire to protect individuals from slander and libel on the net. It's unfortunate that a potential audience of six billion people can see some horrendous things asserted about you no matter who you are, by anybody with a grudge or any nutjob who just doesn't like you because you turned them down or... any other reason imaginable.
In this instance, not only is calling someone a "skank" an opinion, but the person - as a model - is essentially a public figure. There is a big difference if I call your sister a slutty skank (by name, no less) on the internet versus calling Kate Moss a slutty skank.
Clearly this is an unfair action/ruling, but at the same time, I understand that it's a complex situation because when you're the one being ripped apart for no reason on the internet (especially if you're a nobody) where it will be indexed by search engines and archived forever by services and viewable by every potential friend, date, employer, and so on for eternity... it must completely suck.
The problem is two ideals here that seemingly can not exist and be re-enforced together. Presumably, one must win-out in the long run.
Of course, Drupal is free, open source, and takes a couple hours to fully deploy. And they're building a website that presents already existing open public data in neat little charts and graphs -- not building Amazon or Amazon S3 or Google Voice or Youtube.
The amount of money companies -- even startups with just a couple guys -- spend on their websites is stupidly out of hand. Meanwhile, Slashdot was started with some spare time and Digg was started for $900 worth of coding contracted to a college kid.
Also, what exactly are Vivek Kundra's qualifications for his position that place him above everyone else in the country? As best I could unearth, he apparently was the CEO of a tech company. That had one employee. And that employee was himself. And it didn't make a profit.
Also, have you heard his idiotic quote from a few days ago where he was blabbering on and on about all the "amazing" stuff he's done, like turn a bunch of already-available data into nifty little graphs? And he stated the following quote which, as far as I can tell, MEANS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING:
"[Applications will] change to rich interactions away from binary or COBOL ways of interaction." - Vivek Kundra
I'm a little confused about what is special enough about this to be posted to Slashdot. These services have been around for a good decade and I'm sure there are plenty of them featured in Slashdot articles. What's next? "New service that lets you send text messages to your phone from the interwebs!"?
Slashdot Mirror
are you all forgetting that MS will send you a new XBOX if yours breaks?
If it's still under warranty.
They came clean (after a while) with the ring of death, and said that they would replace XBOX's within warranty that had the issues.
As long as your XBOX is within warranty, you can just ship it to MS and get a new one without buying a new one.
The warranty is only one year. Do you really think it is unreasonable to want your gaming console to last more than a year? Especially since the hardware cycle is probably going to be about five years?
Maybe that 3.8% is of the group that had it long enough to be out of warranty and thus had to buy a new one when it failed.
Yes, perhaps so. And if a year is all you should expect a $400 device to last, then there is something extremely wrong with our expectations as consumers.
Except the nature of the products is drastically different, which alters the consumer reaction. When I purchase my car, it isn't relevant what car all my friends and acquaintances have or what kind of places I'm going to go in my car.
With a console, the content absolutely matters and there is more of it on the 360. More importantly, if the 360 sucks and you buy a PS3 -- but all your friends have a 360, you're now playing by yourself.
It's a mix of those two situations -- and the existing investment you've already made in your software -- that gives them the power to screw you over and get out of this whole thing without a scratch... as absurd as it is.
As a software developer, I can release a patch or an upgrade to address the bug you're encountering. That is significantly different than the case with the XBOX 360 where Microsoft's shoddy hardware has a 50% failure rate and the solution is to send you back to the store to give the more money.
Good point. I have about 100 games for the 360. Dropping $300-$400 to replace it so I can use them is not an outlandish idea, when the games themselves cost ten to fifteen times that much.
Of course, that doesn't make it right. That just means that consumers can be strongarmed into replacing a defective piece of hardware so that they can use the content they've already invested in. It isn't like a CD or DVD player where you can just buy a different brand.
How Microsoft can avoid a class-action lawsuit with a 50% failure rate is beyond me.
Are you serious? You don't see the difference between "she's a skanky ho" and "she is a prostitute"?
One is an accusation while the other is an opinion. Sort of how when you say "that band sucks ass" you don't literally mean that they sit around back stage giving rim jobs.
They should have a service like this for religious people. Religious nutcase addicts are far more dangerous than some dude that plays warcraft all day or something.
The failure rate shouldn't change from more use. Office chairs may be rated for "12 hours per day average use" but you don't hear of a laptop being sold with a three year warranty "under six hours per day use" and neither are consoles.
Not only is 54% failure rate absolutely abysmal (must be some sort of record for any product that has ever existed, short of the Ford Pinto), but an 11% rate for PS3 is awful, too. I can't believe nobody has stepped in on either account.
As for buying them again? Well, of course. People want to play videogames and the place you want to be if you want a larger choice of games and a much more active online component is the 360 (I say this as someone who owns and plays all platforms).
As for usage? Well, I own about 100+ XBOX 360 games, 12 Wii games, and 8 PS3 games. I play the 360 several times per week. The PS3 a couple times per month. And the Wii... erm... I think the last time it was turned on was almost 18 months ago.
This whole topic doesn't make much sense to me. A word is spelled the same way, whether you're writing it or typing it; a properly phrases sentence doesn't change based on the medium in which it is written.
What a bunch of sensationalist bullshit.
* A third of Americans are obese. (*1)
* Two thirds of Americans are overweight. (*1)
* Ten percent of Americans are on anti-depressants. (*2)
Therefore, chances are that almost every demographic of people short of mountain climbers and marathon runners has a significant portion of their numbers that are obese and/or depressed (not to mention the number of people who are depressed in the general population but are not on medication or have not even been diagnosed because they have no medical coverage or are perhaps embarrassed).
I also suspect that people who are obese and/or depressed tend to watch television. Or listen to a lot of music. Or commit suicide more often. Or spend more time at home. Or any other number of things. Big deal. What is the point for this study even existing, anyway? What is it they're trying to prove? Fat and depressed people are less likely to spend their time running marathons? No fucking shit, geniuses! So what?
(*1) http://www.americansportsdata.com/obesitystats.asp
(*2) http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03411375.htm?whichcatatetheprozac
Maybe, but psychotic is a medical term.
So he should be sued for practicing medicine without a license?
If only you could sue for having your feelings hurt.
Or just have every email and online post you ever make tagged with a line in your signature that your "above comment is a personal statement of my opinion and nothing more"... or something.
I don't think the medium has anything to do with it. Slander and Libel do not change because it's done via print versus television or radio. This is either opinion or it is libel. Period.
Calling someone names may be a dick move, but it's a dick move you should be completely free to make. Whether it's on the internet, facebook, myspace, IRC, Slashdot, the telephone, a tabloid, the school yard, a fanzine, the radio, a news paper op-ed piece or anything else.
Of course, there IS a slight difference that makes these things very difficult in as much as someone who dislikes you personally saying something about you to a few mutual friends along the lines of "that person is a stinky fuckface" is one thing and saying it to a potential audience of billions is another. It is the same act and I personally don't think one should be actionable but the other shouldn't. But at the same time, knowing that there is someone with a grudge against you splattering it all over a resource that every person you may ever know could see it -- including potential employers -- is messed up. Imagine if every time you googled your mom's name on the internet, the first page of results included things about "Joan Smith blah blah is a dirty slut and probably loves to gobble cock!". It may be protected opinion... and yet... it just isn't right.
I think that's why so many people are conflicted. It's like the case with the mom who pretended to be a teenage boy to engage in sexual discussions with a little girl and then drive her to suicide. It was entirely reasonable to wish the woman spent life in rape-your-ass-prison *AND* that she not be found guilty. Because while she was entirely wrong and evil, a judgment against her sets a very risky precedent for all of society.
Grey areas are kind of not at all fun.
I'm sorry, but that's not correct. I can call anyone names that I like. Whether they're "public figures" is not relevant. Are you seriously suggesting that every child on a playground or everyone who has had an unflattering opinion about someone that they've shared is looking at a potential valid lawsuit? I can say that I think Tiger Woods is a slut, but not your mom, because you'll sue? That's ridiculous.
More frightening than violations of free speech are willful misunderstandings about free speech.
Now, harassment is a different issue. But calling someone names or otherwise giving your impression and opinion of them alone is absolutely justified and acceptable. Combine that with other elements of harassment, and it may be a completely different beast. I'm completely willing to concede that calling me names and saying you think I'm a fuckwad asshole is fine while if you're posting that online *and* you're spending your weekends staring at me through my living room window as you stand just off of my driveway with binoculars while sniffing my used underwear and rummaging through my garbage can may be a major legal problem.
And that is what we're missing here. It's bullshit to say there's anything legally wrong with saying ANYONE is a skanky ho - public figure or not. But if there are other compelling elements that the Judge and her legal representation have that the rest of us do not, it is just possible this whole thing could be justified.
Congratulations on reaching epic proportions of stupidity.
It's okay to have an opinion about some people and not others. RobotRunAmok will determine when it is and isn't appropriate.
I have a better idea. Rather than social engineering everyone into being "nice" according to your particular judgement of "nice", let's stick with our current precedents which dictate that you are free to state opinion all day long, until you reach the point where your statements are no longer opinion but are libel/slander?
Since "skanky ho" is a statement of opinion, there is no "false statement" to consider here. If the statement was that she was a skanky ho "because she cheated on her husband", then that might definitely qualify since it is an absolute defamation of character (if it is a lie, of course).
Of course, whether or not it's socially redeeming isn't really even relevant. There are a lot of things that are not socially redeeming that are just fine. I don't have to validate the social value of reading comic books.
The question absolutely is whether the person's statements warrant legal concern for "defamation". The fact that it has made it this far indicates that either the judge is a fucking moron or that they possess very weighty facts that the rest of us are not aware of which make this an issue far beyond "that person called me a skank and I'm all bent out of shape and demand that you stop them from having an opinion!".
You're an idiot.
Nobody is arguing that one has an absolute right to privacy if they are making libelous claims, but nobody has the right to call you into account for stating opinions. There's no law against stating opinion and therefore no violation that qualifies for release of someone's private information.
If the guy was posting someone's social security number online or claiming that the person molested them or committed some horrible act, they would have a point. But there is no legal recourse for being called a skank.
Yes, news anchor is a public figure. A CEO of a large company is a public figure. A journalist is a public figure. A radio DJ or talk show host is a public figure. A model is a public figure pretty much by definition. Of... you know.. modeling stuff... to the public... to get attention... for a company or product.
She may not be Elle McPhereson, but she's still a model. The same way a radio host is a public figure, even if they're not Howard Stern.
Public figures do not have any exception to being defamed; in fact, perhaps just the opposite. If you make slanderous assertions about someone that everyone in the country knows versus making those claims about someone down the street, the impact is different.
But either way, it's very clear when something is merely opinion. "X is a skank" versus "X is a skank... because I witnessed her do a full on anonymous gang-bang in the Winterhawk's locker room" and if you're a public figure, being criticized and called names is just a part of the business. Do we really want to open every person who has ever voiced negative opinions about Britney Spears to a lawsuit?
I understand the desire to protect individuals from slander and libel on the net. It's unfortunate that a potential audience of six billion people can see some horrendous things asserted about you no matter who you are, by anybody with a grudge or any nutjob who just doesn't like you because you turned them down or... any other reason imaginable.
In this instance, not only is calling someone a "skank" an opinion, but the person - as a model - is essentially a public figure. There is a big difference if I call your sister a slutty skank (by name, no less) on the internet versus calling Kate Moss a slutty skank.
Clearly this is an unfair action/ruling, but at the same time, I understand that it's a complex situation because when you're the one being ripped apart for no reason on the internet (especially if you're a nobody) where it will be indexed by search engines and archived forever by services and viewable by every potential friend, date, employer, and so on for eternity... it must completely suck.
The problem is two ideals here that seemingly can not exist and be re-enforced together. Presumably, one must win-out in the long run.
Of course, Drupal is free, open source, and takes a couple hours to fully deploy. And they're building a website that presents already existing open public data in neat little charts and graphs -- not building Amazon or Amazon S3 or Google Voice or Youtube.
The amount of money companies -- even startups with just a couple guys -- spend on their websites is stupidly out of hand. Meanwhile, Slashdot was started with some spare time and Digg was started for $900 worth of coding contracted to a college kid.
There is absolutely no justification for $18mm.
Especially when they're paying $18,000,000 to just install Drupal. (source: http://drupal.org/node/376036)
Also, what exactly are Vivek Kundra's qualifications for his position that place him above everyone else in the country? As best I could unearth, he apparently was the CEO of a tech company. That had one employee. And that employee was himself. And it didn't make a profit.
Also, have you heard his idiotic quote from a few days ago where he was blabbering on and on about all the "amazing" stuff he's done, like turn a bunch of already-available data into nifty little graphs? And he stated the following quote which, as far as I can tell, MEANS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING:
"[Applications will] change to rich interactions away from binary or COBOL ways of interaction." - Vivek Kundra
Kundra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HZ-BESVVck
District 9 is the best movie in a category so small that things like "Gamer" and "2012" are considered "Science Fiction"?
I'm a little confused about what is special enough about this to be posted to Slashdot. These services have been around for a good decade and I'm sure there are plenty of them featured in Slashdot articles. What's next? "New service that lets you send text messages to your phone from the interwebs!"?