I don't have to be there to know how Winer acts, I know him and have worked with him, and Winer is always an asshole. He wrote at length on this very subject, describing how he acted like an asshole to the Apple techs.
Ok, you know him then. My mistake and I apologize.
Telling that you would even consider balancing the two against each other. I guess it's because they were black.
What's this? Are you suggesting I'm prejudiced against Blacks? Though I am Caucasian I used to date a Black lady. I admit I am subconsciously biased but I try not to be and I am not prejudiced. To combat the spread of malaria and other mosquito born diseases you need to know why they have become so prevalent, and you can't say it's because DDT isn't being used. DDT is relatively new yet societies have had to live with malaria since it's beginning. Mosquitoes can also be combated using nature. For instance frogs eat them, as do bats. Inviting them to live near you can hold down the mosquito population. I grew up in Florida and we had to deal with mosquitoes a lot. We used to joke that the mosquito was so large it was the state bird, it's really the hummingbird.
Regarding your other ideas, I suggest you try powering the wind farm yourself.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I noticed you left out a lot of what else I've said. You first say "You are really long on whining about problems and short on practicle solutions", but when I point out I in fact offered solutions you give practically ignore it only offering some asinine remark. Therefore I think you must be just trolling.
There's a lot of bad logic here; primarily the assumption that you still own software you have sold to a customer. You have very little moral right to that software; that software now belongs to the customer, and it's the customers moral right to copy and sell on what he owns.
You're defending submarine patents? On Slashdot? Wow. Sir, you have balls made of brass.
Maybe you copied from the wrong post because I don't see where I said the above in italic bold. As for patents period, not just submarine patents, I don't support them. Business method and software patents I oppose but I don't know about other patents. I don't know if they are necessary. It seems today they are mostly used to prevent competition and remain on top and not for what they are meant for, to further progress in sciences.
Thanks for all the advice (everyone). I have a license for Photoshop versions 1-4, but I don't think they allow upgrades to the latest one for one cheap upgrade price. But yeah, that's always a good strategy.
You may be able to find PS 6 or 7 that is an upgrade, then use it to upgrade to CS3. You may find something you can upgrade at a computer show, you can check out Super Computer Sale for any sale events near you. I learned from another/.er months ago that you can also find old versions, full as well as upgrades, of PS on eBay.
My college has Macromedia Studio 8 (or whatever it's called) for $75. I could buy that and upgrade to CS3 I bet, for substantially less than full retail.
You've got to be careful and check the versions, both as I say about above at computer shows or on eBay as well as what the college sells. If you plan to upgrade, and I bet most will upgrade eventually, you need to make sure the version you buy is upgradeable. Educational versions are not typically upgradeable. For instance I got Macromedia Studio with Dreamweaver, Fireworks, and Freehand through college however it specifically states on the license and packaging that it's not upgradeable. If you look at what eBay has you want to make sure if you buy from eBay what you buy specifically states it is a full or upgradeable version. There are some unopened boxes listed but if it is opened then it's a good idea to make sure the seller has a License Transfer Agreement filled out from Adobe. Otherwise you may not be able to upgrade.
So, let me see if I got this right. You want to take software other people have written, that you get for free, make a couple of changes to it and sell it to other people. Then you want to make it so that they can't do to your software what you did to someone else's software?
No, I want to write as much of the software as I can myself. But what I don't write I want to be able to incorporate. I also want to create a unified front end to tie different modules together. For instance a photographer can create a database for the business, then when entering a shoot or assignment into the db the photos taken they could also call up a spread sheet to enter expenses. The billing module would then be called to send the billing to the customer via email or snail mail. If a photo needs to be edited, whether simply cropping it, to adjusting colours, something more manipulative the editor can be launched from within the db. The point being that a photographer has one interface with which they could call whatever they need to.
I wouldn't, as well as couldn't, prevent anyone else from doing the same thing as I do with I didn't write myself. Knowing what programs I use you would be able to do the same thing. You'd just have to write your own unified interface.
when George Gershwin wrote "Rhapsody In Blue" he assumed he would hold the copyright to it for 17 years. (I don't know the technical details, maybe copyright law was extendable then
In Gershwin's tyme copyright was 14 years with 1 14 year extension possible.
By patenting an invention you restrict other people not only from using your invention but also from inventing it themselves.
This is one of the problems I have with patents. If two people independently invent something at the same tyme whoever patents it first can prevent the other from benefiting from the invention.
So people who write books for a living don't deserve to make a living? It's a good thing the Constitution recognizes intellectual property rights. The founding fathers had their heads screwed on about this stuff a lot better than some of today's ideologues.
GP said "has been stretched far past it's use in recent times" which does not equate to getting rid of copyrights There's a big difference between Thomas Jefferson's, one of those Founding Fathers, 14 years with 1 14 year extension possible on the monopoly of copyrights and life +70 years. Having copyright last beyond your death does not encourage you to write more. What will encourage you to right more is a short copyright term. If you have to write more to continue to make money you will.
By that logic, it should be OK for me to buy a copy of the top selling paperback and give out photocopies to whoever wants them.
You'll be paying more to print your own copies than you would by buying copies. If the book is 200 pages it may cost $20, heck the last one I bought was less than $15 and had more than 200 pages, it could cost you $20 to print it out, at 10 cents a page.
Those who create content as an investment should no more have their content forced into the public domain than those who create and give their content freely should be forced to charge a fee.
For a limited tyme only, creators should have a monopoly, 50 years after death does nothing for creators or the consumer. You would write more if you only had a copyright term of 10 years, as you have to write more to keep the money coming in.
Or they could be like me and not find an easy install package for Gimp on OSX. Can anyone point me to a single file that I double click (or drag to apps) to install Gimp, or must I go through about 2 hours of web surfing just to figure out how to install the installer?
It's not a 1 step install but have you thought of trying Film GIMP AKA CinePaint? Here's the instructions for installing it in Panther. If you don't already have X11 installed you will need to install it first. X11 should be on your install disks, if not then you can download it from Apple. Apple also has a download page for GIMP, which also requires X11.
But I agree. People who pirate Photoshop don't have the money to buy it in the first place and that corporations more than pay their share for those of us...errr, you that have downloaded Photoshop for your home use. If they'd make a "home" edition that was around $150 or so, I'd buy it.
Though not cheap, it's still cheaper than paying the full price for Photoshop, you can buy an old version of PH, say PH6 or 7 then buy the upgrade version of CS3. I'll first try CinePaint then if it won't work for me I'll do this myself.
If a big company wants the IP of a small company, it buys the small company because it's cheaper, garners no negative press, plus they hire the talent that created the IP in the first place so now they work for them.
There are dozens of such examples of small companies bought by large companies: PayPal, Picassa, Macromedia, YouTube,... the list goes on.
And there are examples of big companies stealing from the little guy. MS has been sued a number of tymes for patent infringement. Luckily they lost, or settled, some.
The problem with this is it would invert the power structure. This would put tremendous control into the hands of the actual content creators, as well as the various talented studio people. The companies would have to woo talent as being highly rated in terms of talent would be the only metric. This would create an environment where either studios have to woo potential content creators, or allow the creators to shop around. This would also create tremendous competition, with studios with price ranges for the already successful, ones who did well in their debuts, and ones who have to apply for a loan to even consider getting into he business to begin with (read: the ones who normally would have had to swallow whatever contract terms were to be had to have a significant chance of ever existing on the world stage). Granted, wealthy artists would then have a fair bit of leverage to create a new cartel that could suck, but then there ALREADY ARE artists producing completely independently.
I don't see this as much a problem as when it's the studios who have the power. Studios don't create, the artists create so they should have the power and get the money.
So I'm rather puzzled by your statement. Of course, there could be a BSD license out there somewhere that does make such restrictions. I just haven't seen it or heard about it.
Though I don't recall which BSD license it is, or if there are more than one, but there's one that allows code to be closed. The only requirement is that for any code a programmer uses that someone else wrote using the license they have to be given credit. Here it is, the NetBSD license: "The Berkeley license is a rather liberal license. All it requires is that the author of the work be given due credit for their creation, and that their name not be used to promote products based on their work. It allows free distribution, as long as the terms are followed, and also allows people to modify the work and not distribute it, if they so choose. Some contributors also omit the third clause."
Further down it says this: "One thing that some people don't realize about Berkeley-style licenses is that they allow licensees (the users of the licensed work) to sell the code, in any form, with or without modification, and that they make no requirement that licensees give away the source code, even if they're selling binaries. This provides a striking contrast to the license terms granted by the GNU General Public License, because the GPL requires that, if you're distributing binaries, you must be willing to give away the sources to build those binaries."
Personally, I think what will happen in 10, 20, and 30 years is that these college kids will finally get real jobs and realize that when folks steal their stuff without compensation, they don't get paid. Then they'll all bemoan the next generation who will be hacking copyright protection with their newfangled brain implants.
More likely the current generation will be bemoaning the next because their tastes or manners aren't the same. This has been going on for a long tyme, as the link to the Socrates quote shows. There are a number of examples of this from the 20th century. People ragged on Ragtime music early on. Later people ragged on Swing Music. After these, Rock and Roll was called the devil's music.
I support the GPL over BSD-style licenses because I don't like the idea of Free code being used to improve proprietary software,
I prefer BSD as, as a programmer, it allows me more freedom to do what I want with the software I program. This coming year I want to start a business in photography, and to make it easier to run the business I want to create some programs. If I'm going to spend much tyme writing the programs I'd like to be able to sell it to other photographers. Using a BSD style license I could make it harder for someone else to take my work and sell it as their own, whereas with a GPL I couldn't prevent anyone from selling the software themselves.
Fair use, though, isn't to allow you to take parts of a copyrighted work and use it in another work wholesale. Fair use is all about using things for purposes of critique
Fair Use also allowed for education, teaching, and for backups. Of course making a copy of a book for backups was actually more expensive than just buying a new copy.
If a hard drive dies in your Mac, you have to ship the machine to Apple and have them replace it?
If I have any problem with my MacBook Pro I can go down to the Apple store and have someone look at it, though it's better to make an appointment first. As I've seen the guts of a Mac all lain and spread out on a counter and saw Geniuses, techs, replace bad hardware I'm pretty sure they'd have no problem replacing an hdd. I did see once a Genius tell someone who brought his Mac in that it had to be sent in as the motherboard had to be replaced. The guy said he was concerned about the data on his hdd and the tech offered to back it up for him. So he bought an external hdd then the tech took it and the old hdd into the back to transfer the data.
If Winer wasn't such an asshole, and if he didn't go out of his way to prove that to the techs, they might have found a way to return his drive. But he was an asshole that clearly couldn't be satisfied, so they didn't bother. As the saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
How do you know he was an asshole? Were you there?
Oe perhaps you know of a few consumer electronics companies that DO, as standard procedure, send back the defective parts that are replaced by their warranty/service departments. I know IBM will... if you're a big iron customer, make sure it's written into your service contract, and pay them extra for the privilege. But that's not exactly their consumer electronics division (Which I don't think they even HAVE anymore.). And other than them, I've never had it happen to *me*.
I have had it happen to me. First, the hdd in a laptop I bought from Gateway. Less than a year after I got the laptop I had trouble with it and called tech support. The tech walked me through some tests then said the hdd needed to be replaced. He arranged to have one sent and said I needed to pack the old drive and send it into them. Later I replaced it with an HP. On the HP both the hdd and the motherboard died and had to be replaced. I got neither one back.
.While I think Apple needed to make it plain to the customer he wouldn't get his old drive back, I don't think you can say that Apple should be obliged to offer a drive replacement with old drive back service. They're a private company after all.
But they didn't offer to replace the drive, as it was out of warranty he paid for it.
If there's sensitive information on the drive, you have every right to want it back
If there's sensitive information on the drive, and it's not securely encrypted, then it is vulnerable as soon as you send it in--whether or not you plan on getting it back.
Ah but he didn't send it in. He went to what Apple calls the Genius Bar in an Apple store. If I have a problem with my MacBook Pro I can go down to an Apple store and have a genius look at it, which is what TFA writer did. You can sit there while the work is being done, actually it's a good idea you stay. That way they can ask you questions, or you can ask them some yourself. Many tymes they are able makes repairs right there, only occasionally will they have to send whatever is being worked on into a repair center.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have to be there to know how Winer acts, I know him and have worked with him, and Winer is always an asshole. He wrote at length on this very subject, describing how he acted like an asshole to the Apple techs.
Ok, you know him then. My mistake and I apologize.
FalconTelling that you would even consider balancing the two against each other. I guess it's because they were black.
What's this? Are you suggesting I'm prejudiced against Blacks? Though I am Caucasian I used to date a Black lady. I admit I am subconsciously biased but I try not to be and I am not prejudiced. To combat the spread of malaria and other mosquito born diseases you need to know why they have become so prevalent, and you can't say it's because DDT isn't being used. DDT is relatively new yet societies have had to live with malaria since it's beginning. Mosquitoes can also be combated using nature. For instance frogs eat them, as do bats. Inviting them to live near you can hold down the mosquito population. I grew up in Florida and we had to deal with mosquitoes a lot. We used to joke that the mosquito was so large it was the state bird, it's really the hummingbird.
Regarding your other ideas, I suggest you try powering the wind farm yourself.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I noticed you left out a lot of what else I've said. You first say "You are really long on whining about problems and short on practicle solutions", but when I point out I in fact offered solutions you give practically ignore it only offering some asinine remark. Therefore I think you must be just trolling.
FalconThere's a lot of bad logic here; primarily the assumption that you still own software you have sold to a customer. You have very little moral right to that software; that software now belongs to the customer, and it's the customers moral right to copy and sell on what he owns.
You're defending submarine patents? On Slashdot? Wow. Sir, you have balls made of brass.
Maybe you copied from the wrong post because I don't see where I said the above in italic bold . As for patents period, not just submarine patents, I don't support them. Business method and software patents I oppose but I don't know about other patents. I don't know if they are necessary. It seems today they are mostly used to prevent competition and remain on top and not for what they are meant for, to further progress in sciences.
FalconThanks for all the advice (everyone). I have a license for Photoshop versions 1-4, but I don't think they allow upgrades to the latest one for one cheap upgrade price. But yeah, that's always a good strategy.
You may be able to find PS 6 or 7 that is an upgrade, then use it to upgrade to CS3. You may find something you can upgrade at a computer show, you can check out Super Computer Sale for any sale events near you. I learned from another /.er months ago that you can also find old versions, full as well as upgrades, of PS on eBay.
My college has Macromedia Studio 8 (or whatever it's called) for $75. I could buy that and upgrade to CS3 I bet, for substantially less than full retail.
You've got to be careful and check the versions, both as I say about above at computer shows or on eBay as well as what the college sells. If you plan to upgrade, and I bet most will upgrade eventually, you need to make sure the version you buy is upgradeable. Educational versions are not typically upgradeable. For instance I got Macromedia Studio with Dreamweaver, Fireworks, and Freehand through college however it specifically states on the license and packaging that it's not upgradeable. If you look at what eBay has you want to make sure if you buy from eBay what you buy specifically states it is a full or upgradeable version. There are some unopened boxes listed but if it is opened then it's a good idea to make sure the seller has a License Transfer Agreement filled out from Adobe. Otherwise you may not be able to upgrade.
So, let me see if I got this right. You want to take software other people have written, that you get for free, make a couple of changes to it and sell it to other people. Then you want to make it so that they can't do to your software what you did to someone else's software?
No, I want to write as much of the software as I can myself. But what I don't write I want to be able to incorporate. I also want to create a unified front end to tie different modules together. For instance a photographer can create a database for the business, then when entering a shoot or assignment into the db the photos taken they could also call up a spread sheet to enter expenses. The billing module would then be called to send the billing to the customer via email or snail mail. If a photo needs to be edited, whether simply cropping it, to adjusting colours, something more manipulative the editor can be launched from within the db. The point being that a photographer has one interface with which they could call whatever they need to.
I wouldn't, as well as couldn't, prevent anyone else from doing the same thing as I do with I didn't write myself. Knowing what programs I use you would be able to do the same thing. You'd just have to write your own unified interface.
Falconwhen George Gershwin wrote "Rhapsody In Blue" he assumed he would hold the copyright to it for 17 years. (I don't know the technical details, maybe copyright law was extendable then
In Gershwin's tyme copyright was 14 years with 1 14 year extension possible.
By patenting an invention you restrict other people not only from using your invention but also from inventing it themselves.
This is one of the problems I have with patents. If two people independently invent something at the same tyme whoever patents it first can prevent the other from benefiting from the invention.
FalconSo people who write books for a living don't deserve to make a living? It's a good thing the Constitution recognizes intellectual property rights. The founding fathers had their heads screwed on about this stuff a lot better than some of today's ideologues.
GP said "has been stretched far past it's use in recent times" which does not equate to getting rid of copyrights There's a big difference between Thomas Jefferson's, one of those Founding Fathers, 14 years with 1 14 year extension possible on the monopoly of copyrights and life +70 years. Having copyright last beyond your death does not encourage you to write more. What will encourage you to right more is a short copyright term. If you have to write more to continue to make money you will.
FalconBy that logic, it should be OK for me to buy a copy of the top selling paperback and give out photocopies to whoever wants them.
You'll be paying more to print your own copies than you would by buying copies. If the book is 200 pages it may cost $20, heck the last one I bought was less than $15 and had more than 200 pages, it could cost you $20 to print it out, at 10 cents a page.
Those who create content as an investment should no more have their content forced into the public domain than those who create and give their content freely should be forced to charge a fee.
For a limited tyme only, creators should have a monopoly, 50 years after death does nothing for creators or the consumer. You would write more if you only had a copyright term of 10 years, as you have to write more to keep the money coming in.
FalconOr they could be like me and not find an easy install package for Gimp on OSX. Can anyone point me to a single file that I double click (or drag to apps) to install Gimp, or must I go through about 2 hours of web surfing just to figure out how to install the installer?
It's not a 1 step install but have you thought of trying Film GIMP AKA CinePaint? Here's the instructions for installing it in Panther. If you don't already have X11 installed you will need to install it first. X11 should be on your install disks, if not then you can download it from Apple. Apple also has a download page for GIMP, which also requires X11.
But I agree. People who pirate Photoshop don't have the money to buy it in the first place and that corporations more than pay their share for those of us...errr, you that have downloaded Photoshop for your home use. If they'd make a "home" edition that was around $150 or so, I'd buy it.
Though not cheap, it's still cheaper than paying the full price for Photoshop, you can buy an old version of PH, say PH6 or 7 then buy the upgrade version of CS3. I'll first try CinePaint then if it won't work for me I'll do this myself.
FalconIf a big company wants the IP of a small company, it buys the small company because it's cheaper, garners no negative press, plus they hire the talent that created the IP in the first place so now they work for them.
There are dozens of such examples of small companies bought by large companies: PayPal, Picassa, Macromedia, YouTube, ... the list goes on.
And there are examples of big companies stealing from the little guy. MS has been sued a number of tymes for patent infringement. Luckily they lost, or settled, some.
FalconThe problem with this is it would invert the power structure. This would put tremendous control into the hands of the actual content creators, as well as the various talented studio people. The companies would have to woo talent as being highly rated in terms of talent would be the only metric. This would create an environment where either studios have to woo potential content creators, or allow the creators to shop around. This would also create tremendous competition, with studios with price ranges for the already successful, ones who did well in their debuts, and ones who have to apply for a loan to even consider getting into he business to begin with (read: the ones who normally would have had to swallow whatever contract terms were to be had to have a significant chance of ever existing on the world stage). Granted, wealthy artists would then have a fair bit of leverage to create a new cartel that could suck, but then there ALREADY ARE artists producing completely independently.
I don't see this as much a problem as when it's the studios who have the power. Studios don't create, the artists create so they should have the power and get the money.
FalconSo I'm rather puzzled by your statement. Of course, there could be a BSD license out there somewhere that does make such restrictions. I just haven't seen it or heard about it.
Though I don't recall which BSD license it is, or if there are more than one, but there's one that allows code to be closed. The only requirement is that for any code a programmer uses that someone else wrote using the license they have to be given credit. Here it is, the NetBSD license: "The Berkeley license is a rather liberal license. All it requires is that the author of the work be given due credit for their creation, and that their name not be used to promote products based on their work. It allows free distribution, as long as the terms are followed, and also allows people to modify the work and not distribute it, if they so choose. Some contributors also omit the third clause."
Further down it says this: "One thing that some people don't realize about Berkeley-style licenses is that they allow licensees (the users of the licensed work) to sell the code, in any form, with or without modification, and that they make no requirement that licensees give away the source code, even if they're selling binaries. This provides a striking contrast to the license terms granted by the GNU General Public License, because the GPL requires that, if you're distributing binaries, you must be willing to give away the sources to build those binaries."
FalconPersonally, I think what will happen in 10, 20, and 30 years is that these college kids will finally get real jobs and realize that when folks steal their stuff without compensation, they don't get paid. Then they'll all bemoan the next generation who will be hacking copyright protection with their newfangled brain implants.
More likely the current generation will be bemoaning the next because their tastes or manners aren't the same. This has been going on for a long tyme, as the link to the Socrates quote shows. There are a number of examples of this from the 20th century. People ragged on Ragtime music early on. Later people ragged on Swing Music. After these, Rock and Roll was called the devil's music.
FalconThe only fair use exemption for backups is for backups of software distributions -- one copy only.
Yea, I don't know if it's still in the ULA but MS used to have a clause in, at least some, agreements that the user was able to make 1 backup.
There is NOTHING in the law permitting one to make one or more backup copies of anything else as "fair use".
Maybe I remember wrong, but I vaguely remember making a backup was fair use. It doesn't surprise me, with my memory as bad as it is.
FalconI support the GPL over BSD-style licenses because I don't like the idea of Free code being used to improve proprietary software,
I prefer BSD as, as a programmer, it allows me more freedom to do what I want with the software I program. This coming year I want to start a business in photography, and to make it easier to run the business I want to create some programs. If I'm going to spend much tyme writing the programs I'd like to be able to sell it to other photographers. Using a BSD style license I could make it harder for someone else to take my work and sell it as their own, whereas with a GPL I couldn't prevent anyone from selling the software themselves.
FalconFair use, though, isn't to allow you to take parts of a copyrighted work and use it in another work wholesale. Fair use is all about using things for purposes of critique
Fair Use also allowed for education, teaching, and for backups. Of course making a copy of a book for backups was actually more expensive than just buying a new copy.
FalconIf a hard drive dies in your Mac, you have to ship the machine to Apple and have them replace it?
If I have any problem with my MacBook Pro I can go down to the Apple store and have someone look at it, though it's better to make an appointment first. As I've seen the guts of a Mac all lain and spread out on a counter and saw Geniuses, techs, replace bad hardware I'm pretty sure they'd have no problem replacing an hdd. I did see once a Genius tell someone who brought his Mac in that it had to be sent in as the motherboard had to be replaced. The guy said he was concerned about the data on his hdd and the tech offered to back it up for him. So he bought an external hdd then the tech took it and the old hdd into the back to transfer the data.
FalconIf Winer wasn't such an asshole, and if he didn't go out of his way to prove that to the techs, they might have found a way to return his drive. But he was an asshole that clearly couldn't be satisfied, so they didn't bother. As the saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
How do you know he was an asshole? Were you there?
FalconWhy in the world did he send them the drive in the first place.
He DID NOT SENT them the drive. He went there and they fixed it there.
FalconI work as a Tier 1 agent for AppleCare and I can assure you that getting your hard drive back for a mail-in repair is an option;
And what if you take it to the Genius Bar?
FalconWhy did he send them sensitive data?!
He didn't send them anything.
FalconI don't understand why this guy didn't ask up front if he can keep his old drive, especially if he knew the repairs were under warranty.
Ah but as he paid for the new drive I doubt the repair was under warranty.
FalconOe perhaps you know of a few consumer electronics companies that DO, as standard procedure, send back the defective parts that are replaced by their warranty/service departments. I know IBM will... if you're a big iron customer, make sure it's written into your service contract, and pay them extra for the privilege. But that's not exactly their consumer electronics division (Which I don't think they even HAVE anymore.). And other than them, I've never had it happen to *me*.
I have had it happen to me. First, the hdd in a laptop I bought from Gateway. Less than a year after I got the laptop I had trouble with it and called tech support. The tech walked me through some tests then said the hdd needed to be replaced. He arranged to have one sent and said I needed to pack the old drive and send it into them. Later I replaced it with an HP. On the HP both the hdd and the motherboard died and had to be replaced. I got neither one back.
FalconBut they didn't offer to replace the drive, as it was out of warranty he paid for it.
FalconIf there's sensitive information on the drive, you have every right to want it back
If there's sensitive information on the drive, and it's not securely encrypted, then it is vulnerable as soon as you send it in--whether or not you plan on getting it back.
Ah but he didn't send it in. He went to what Apple calls the Genius Bar in an Apple store. If I have a problem with my MacBook Pro I can go down to an Apple store and have a genius look at it, which is what TFA writer did. You can sit there while the work is being done, actually it's a good idea you stay. That way they can ask you questions, or you can ask them some yourself. Many tymes they are able makes repairs right there, only occasionally will they have to send whatever is being worked on into a repair center.
Falcon