If that other is the company that abuses you, yes.
Some pretty good advice that can be applied to all manner of situations: if you are in an abusive relationship then leave. If you choose to stay, that's on you.
Maybe, just maybe when TFA said "empty" it meant no merchandise inside vs. literally an empty box. Because nobody at Amazon could figure out that a completely empty box is suspicious.
Well... They are paid so little that they need food stamps, are scheduled for 1-2 hours less that full time to avoid paying for their health insurance, and are scheduled to deliver enough packages to take up all their time if they never eat or pee. What do you expect?
Lesson: if you are unhappy with your employment, you should damage others' property. Because it will help you.
well, since the cat is out of the bag, only idiots will be caught.
Not the point. Amazon doesn't care if you don't steal because you are honest or if you don't steal because you know you will get caught. They only care if you deliver your packages. It's much simpler to prevent crime than to punish it.
Plenty of people out there see any sort of strong self-confidence as "jerk behavior."
Do you see self confidence as being a jerk? If not, chances are it's pretty much the same for the majority of others. I guarantee you aren't special in your ability to understand the behavior of others.
Being arrogant makes you more likely to do something big.
Maybe you do not know what arrogant means.
Being arrogant in the workplace means you are likely to do big, STUPID things, because you think you are better than you are and you are unwilling to accept criticism.
When I was a kid there was this company that would high young people to drive around in an unmarked white van and approach strangers. In the van would be some merchandise... electronics or such, that the driver would claim was "lost" in shipment and they'd sell to you for a discount.
I called the police on them once, and I was told they knew about them and it wasn't illegal.
When you are reduced you saying "you're dumb" like an angry 7 year old and providing no facts or even an argument, the conversation's over.
You don't know software or software development, and you may not even have a grasp on technology. You might be used to terrorizing the stupid people in your life with your obvious technical prowess, but it won't work here, AC. That's why the OP here that agrees with me is mod'd insightful. A few AC trolls with zero rated posts won't change that. You don't even believe in what you say enough to post non-anonymously.
If they can change settings on your phone without your permission then you're not in control of it, plain and simple. You own it, you should have complete control over it. Clearly you don't.
I don't know if you are trolling or if you are technically illiterate. If you don't like that software has control over some aspects of a computing device, you are supremely confused about the nature of computing. I suggest you do not dig much deeper into this topic or you panties are really going to get in a bunch.
Because people care very much about the camera in their phone. I suspect the billions in R&D going into smartphone photography isn't based on a hunch.
Very few people who prefer using iOS to Android's OS would switch products to a Pixel phone just because of the slightly better camera capabilities.
You could say the same about any feature. Very few people will switch to Android if it's slightly faster. Slightly easier to use. And so on. If that's true Google should just give up.
I'm wondering why you didn't invest in an SLR to use for your photography instead?
Do you really need to ask why I don't pack around an SLR in a fanny pack with me everywhere I go? Why I don't like to spend an hour uploading the photos from my SLR to my computer, and then uploading those pictures to the cloud? I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Just because there are examples of things having a jack and being thin, waterproof, etc. isn't evidence it's not cheaper or simpler to forgo the jack.
I think after Apple made the first move, everyone followed because of a "what have I got to lose" mentality. It made their devices cheaper and simpler, and if anyone complained it was "Apple did it first".
They should not have the capability to change settings on my device without my consent. Period.
Are you complaining that the software installed on your phone for the purpose of changing settings has changed the settings? Obviously there has to be software on your phone with the capability to change the settings. That's what makes them settings.
You are acting like there's some master console at Google HQ with your name and all your device's settings. Where are you getting that info? This was a bug. Their software had a bug that incorrectly changed the setting. Software has bugs. Get used to it.
They're sneaking into your house at night when you're asleep and going through your underwear drawer
Seriously dude. A bug that changed a battery setting is same as going through your underwear drawer?
you bought and paid for a phone, but it's not YOURS, never was, never will be
The phone is yours. You choose to run Google apps on it. You are free to uninstall those apps. You may not like the experience. It's your choice though. Life rarely comes without compromises.
Orrr... slow down devices so people think they need new phones? See Apple.
Apple slowed down the phones because their aging batteries couldn't handle the power requirements of the CPU spike. Sure, point out that's a hardware design flaw but it's not some conspiracy to sell new phones.
They pushed out a change without telling users.
What are you even saying. They pushed out code with a bug (obviously) that changed a setting. Are you suggesting they should have sent a code review to all of their users before they pushed the change? Of course they have the ability to change the way the software works on the device, in the same way anyone that writes software distributed via OTA can do the same.
If you are saying they installed an OTA without user consent, no they didn't. Auto app updates are an user selected option and the default is false. System updates do not install automatically.
Software has bugs. Every software engineer knows that. When a company owns it and fixes it quickly that's just about the best possible outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
If that other is the company that abuses you, yes.
Some pretty good advice that can be applied to all manner of situations: if you are in an abusive relationship then leave. If you choose to stay, that's on you.
But of course. That is basic psychology.
Speak for yourself. It's not my psychology. I don't try to harm others when I'm unhappy.
Great. So your point is just to give up, because really there's no way to stop all theft?
Maybe, just maybe when TFA said "empty" it meant no merchandise inside vs. literally an empty box. Because nobody at Amazon could figure out that a completely empty box is suspicious.
Well... They are paid so little that they need food stamps, are scheduled for 1-2 hours less that full time to avoid paying for their health insurance, and are scheduled to deliver enough packages to take up all their time if they never eat or pee. What do you expect?
Lesson: if you are unhappy with your employment, you should damage others' property. Because it will help you.
well, since the cat is out of the bag, only idiots will be caught.
Not the point. Amazon doesn't care if you don't steal because you are honest or if you don't steal because you know you will get caught. They only care if you deliver your packages. It's much simpler to prevent crime than to punish it.
This serves to catch drivers who take an opportunity to steal something when it arises, not who are actively seeking to steal.
Seems like a pointless distinction to me. Definitely a pointless distinction legally.
Plenty of people out there see any sort of strong self-confidence as "jerk behavior."
Do you see self confidence as being a jerk? If not, chances are it's pretty much the same for the majority of others. I guarantee you aren't special in your ability to understand the behavior of others.
Being arrogant makes you more likely to do something big.
Maybe you do not know what arrogant means.
Being arrogant in the workplace means you are likely to do big, STUPID things, because you think you are better than you are and you are unwilling to accept criticism.
Why would TM do *anything* other than tricks to increase their profit? They have no competition and a captive audience.
If enough big headliners with enough clout demand all of that extra revenue, you'll see Ticketmaster drop those policies PDQ.
Good one. There are a few instances of artists challenging TM, the most visible of which was Pearl Jam. The artist always loses.
You can go ahead and quote the parts of the communist manifesto that talk about promotion of violence and monarchy.
It's the only way to be sure.
Until the start doing something like blacklisting artists that use your service, you got nothing on them legally.
They own or have exclusive deals with venues. Artists either use them or don't use the venues.
When I was a kid there was this company that would high young people to drive around in an unmarked white van and approach strangers. In the van would be some merchandise... electronics or such, that the driver would claim was "lost" in shipment and they'd sell to you for a discount.
I called the police on them once, and I was told they knew about them and it wasn't illegal.
When you are reduced you saying "you're dumb" like an angry 7 year old and providing no facts or even an argument, the conversation's over.
You don't know software or software development, and you may not even have a grasp on technology. You might be used to terrorizing the stupid people in your life with your obvious technical prowess, but it won't work here, AC. That's why the OP here that agrees with me is mod'd insightful. A few AC trolls with zero rated posts won't change that. You don't even believe in what you say enough to post non-anonymously.
Hard to take you seriously when you can't even explain yourself. Cheers.
If they can change settings on your phone without your permission then you're not in control of it, plain and simple. You own it, you should have complete control over it. Clearly you don't.
I don't know if you are trolling or if you are technically illiterate. If you don't like that software has control over some aspects of a computing device, you are supremely confused about the nature of computing. I suggest you do not dig much deeper into this topic or you panties are really going to get in a bunch.
I just fail to see how it changes anything?
Because people care very much about the camera in their phone. I suspect the billions in R&D going into smartphone photography isn't based on a hunch.
Very few people who prefer using iOS to Android's OS would switch products to a Pixel phone just because of the slightly better camera capabilities.
You could say the same about any feature. Very few people will switch to Android if it's slightly faster. Slightly easier to use. And so on. If that's true Google should just give up.
I'm wondering why you didn't invest in an SLR to use for your photography instead?
Do you really need to ask why I don't pack around an SLR in a fanny pack with me everywhere I go? Why I don't like to spend an hour uploading the photos from my SLR to my computer, and then uploading those pictures to the cloud? I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Just because there are examples of things having a jack and being thin, waterproof, etc. isn't evidence it's not cheaper or simpler to forgo the jack.
I think after Apple made the first move, everyone followed because of a "what have I got to lose" mentality. It made their devices cheaper and simpler, and if anyone complained it was "Apple did it first".
they are capable of results far better than a phone-cam
I guess you need to provide some proof of that.
Lol at your attempt at camera-shaming the OP.
They should not have the capability to change settings on my device without my consent. Period.
Are you complaining that the software installed on your phone for the purpose of changing settings has changed the settings? Obviously there has to be software on your phone with the capability to change the settings. That's what makes them settings.
You are acting like there's some master console at Google HQ with your name and all your device's settings. Where are you getting that info? This was a bug. Their software had a bug that incorrectly changed the setting. Software has bugs. Get used to it.
They're sneaking into your house at night when you're asleep and going through your underwear drawer
Seriously dude. A bug that changed a battery setting is same as going through your underwear drawer?
you bought and paid for a phone, but it's not YOURS, never was, never will be
The phone is yours. You choose to run Google apps on it. You are free to uninstall those apps. You may not like the experience. It's your choice though. Life rarely comes without compromises.
Orrr... slow down devices so people think they need new phones? See Apple.
Apple slowed down the phones because their aging batteries couldn't handle the power requirements of the CPU spike. Sure, point out that's a hardware design flaw but it's not some conspiracy to sell new phones.
They pushed out a change without telling users.
What are you even saying. They pushed out code with a bug (obviously) that changed a setting. Are you suggesting they should have sent a code review to all of their users before they pushed the change? Of course they have the ability to change the way the software works on the device, in the same way anyone that writes software distributed via OTA can do the same.
If you are saying they installed an OTA without user consent, no they didn't. Auto app updates are an user selected option and the default is false. System updates do not install automatically.
Software has bugs. Every software engineer knows that. When a company owns it and fixes it quickly that's just about the best possible outcome.