You are talking about Disney's movies like they are a natural resource or required for life. How about this: you don't like their business model? Go away, and do something else with your time. Like I said above, content is a right. You're acting like these movies are a loaf of bread and you're starving to death.
What do they expect?
I think they expect you to either buy their content or go outside and walk your dog. Your choice.
Yes, pretty much. Copyright is a government-enacted, granted, and termed restriction of people's rights to ideas.
Yes, pretty much like rape laws are government-enacted restrictions on people's rights to have sex with whoever they want, whenever they want. Good job, you just described every law on the book.
One of the subjective measure of the feasibility is precisely how willing people are to abide by it.
If you don't pay for your content, you're a leach. You are leaching off of everyone else that's paying for it. If other people didn't pay for it, then it wouldn't exist, and you wouldn't be able to leach it in the first place.
A great way to decide if an action is moral, or good for society. Imagine what it'd be like if everyone did what you are doing. I'd have to assume the OP likes the content and wants it to exist if he's taking the time to steal it.
Who knows.
I do. Common sense.
If movies couldn't be made without copyright, fine. I guess movies wouldn't be business model. There is no inherent right for government or society to protect a business model. When it *is* done, it's entirely up for debate how and why it's done. The default state is no idea ownership.
If you don't think or care that content exists, then why are you even participating in this thread? You don't have a dog in this fight.
Dongles increase the amount of torque applied to the headphone jack. This will eventually cause the jack to delaminate from the phone's PCB. Very bad.
Yes, let's get upset about problems that might exist some day. You know what else? The screen on the iPhone 10 might crack when they get too cold. Can you believe that? Apple is really circling the drain these days.
This is why headphone cables have a 90degree bend on the plug.
That's just the first three representive links I found on Amazon searching for "wired headphone". I'm sure there are 90 angled jacks, but clear it's not universally implemented.
Unless the failure is on the dongle itself, which is more likely.
Yes, let's get riled up about problems that don't exist. You know what really grinds my gears? How the screens on the new iPhone 10s might crack when the temperature gets too cold. Can you believe that? Apple is really circling the drain these days.
Of course they can, but that isn't the point. Their objection is not that it is difficult, but that it is wrong.
You are confused.
The 1st Amendment applies between the government and it's citizens, not between Facebook and their ad-purchasing clients. It says "Congress shall make no law". What does Facebook requiring disclosure of / showing the source of an ad to users got to do with congress making a law? Facebook can require their clients submit a GIF of them dancing around in a dress if they want.
Is it that Google doesn't like money? So they decided knowingly to build a a product without necessary features that no one will buy? It's a huge mistake to assume that corporations do anything for any reason other than money. That's their only motivation.
They removed the jack because it saves some cash amount >0, and the negative press around the removal has already been absorbed by Apple. And make no mistake. The target consumer is an Apple user. That's the pie they want a piece of. They couldn't care less about the low-end device market. They are not interested in competing with a bunch of Chinese phones that cost $200.
Do I watch the shitty movies and commercials on the flight? Nope. That's why I bring my phone. I can load it with the movies I want and without commercials.
you don't want your phones go dead 5 hours into a 10 or 14 hour flight
You're seriously arguing that a $1 headphone jack adds cost to a $600 phone?
$1 is relatively a lot for any single hardware component. But I get your point. Anyway, here's where a little thing I like to call common sense comes in.
If you were producing a mobile device, and a majority of your consumers wanted a headphone jack and wouldn't buy your product without it... would you remove it from your product? Would you remove it if the jack's cost was "insignificant" (whatever that means), and had no other effect to the overall product architecture?
Of course the answer is no, you wouldn't remove it. But they did. It tells you that they did product research and found that most people don't give a crap about the jack, AND it tells you that including the jack probably had other tradeoffs you probably don't understand... for example, like making it easier to be water resistant, or more durable in dirty conditions, or allowing for front facing speakers, or something neither of us can know unless we talk to the hardware engineers at HTC.
I mean, what's your theory? Google doesn't like money so they decided knowingly to build a shitty product that no one will buy?
It's not just headphones. I have at least 3 audio systems which I regularly plug my phone into using the 3.5mm jack. And, three pair of 'phones, for different situations (over-the-ear, on-the-ear, in-the ear).
Solved that for you. And if your response is something "But I shouldn't have to buy extras!" consider that your use case is atypical, and it's in everyone's interest if phones don't include niche features because it keeps the cost down. If you have niche needs, then spend the $12 (see above) to get what you need. Don't make everyone else that buys the phone pay for your use case.
And yeah I haven't used a wired headphone in 5 years. You guys are nuts to deal with cords flapping around and getting hung up on everything.
Did anyone else notice the microphone is always on and listening? On a phone. Without a disable switch.
It's off by default and can be turned on, same as on the Pixel 1s. The statement means they have a feature that can be enabled to have it always listen to music.
Crisis averted.
Or maybe just go ahead and charge you anyway if you don't a have sufficient license to the song.
You know what else it might do? It just MIGHT send links to any pr0n you view to your wife! Really, I guarantee it might do that.
You want to know how I know that'll never happen? Because if it did no one would use the device and they'd be a total flop. You see, I used a tool called "common sense" to get to the bottom of this.
You wander through the world staring at your phones and walk right into stationary objects, how hilarious is that? If you lose your shiny toy or the battery is dead, you're like heroin addicts who didn't get their fix fast enough, actual withdrawal symptoms. Pathetic, comical, laughable. Fools.
1 and 2: Does your company pay for your phone and service? No? Then why are you giving that to them for free? Make them pay for it.
No but they do pay me a lot. Enough that it's not worth my time or theirs to figure out for what % of my $30 cell phone bill I need to be reimbursed.
Anyway, more of the same from you and not worth it to respond. On all points you've just backed out and tried to make a different argument or resorted to a feeble attempt at trolling. I recommend thinking through things before you start your rants next time and it won't be so embarrassing.
And you didn't even post as AC so your brilliance is immortalized here for all to see. Grats.
Don't be dumb. How many of your possessions earn you income directly? If you are really claiming that one should only own such things you're an alien and should avoid trying to communicate with the humans.
Does your toothbrush make you money? Does your dog make you money? Does your lawnmower make you money?
sheesh.
Name five things you use it for that aren't entertainment or something totally non-essential
I bet you can't.
Challenge accepted. Here's 12 boss.
1. Work email 2. Work instant message 3. Communication w/ my family 4. Driving navigation 5. Depositing checks 6. 2-factor auth or various accounts including work 7. Online purchases from mainly Amazon (and no they aren't entertainment products always) 8. Uber / Lyft 9. Control of my home automation (lights, thermostat, locks, etc) 10. Viewing of my security cameras 11. Workout program / fitness tracker 12. Location tracker for my son's phone
Slashdot Mirror
Why exactly do you believe this?
Common sense.
But maybe you're right. The millions of people that are downloading GoT are doing it to better society.
That's the *only* way to get corporations to do anything.
One idea would be something similar to Underwriters Labs, except would grade products, perhaps with expanded standards above the "pass/fail" mark
And let me guess, the compliance and governing bodies would be staffed by the participating corporations?
$1 per name.
...
$5 per address.
$5 per phone number.
$10 per SSN.
$20 per CC number.
Anything else is lip service. And the fines go to the offended parties.
Neither do you
Sure I do. My dog is calling out people that wrap their self-serving illegal activities in a moral argument.
You are talking about Disney's movies like they are a natural resource or required for life. How about this: you don't like their business model? Go away, and do something else with your time. Like I said above, content is a right. You're acting like these movies are a loaf of bread and you're starving to death.
What do they expect?
I think they expect you to either buy their content or go outside and walk your dog. Your choice.
Yes, pretty much. Copyright is a government-enacted, granted, and termed restriction of people's rights to ideas.
Yes, pretty much like rape laws are government-enacted restrictions on people's rights to have sex with whoever they want, whenever they want. Good job, you just described every law on the book.
One of the subjective measure of the feasibility is precisely how willing people are to abide by it.
If you don't pay for your content, you're a leach. You are leaching off of everyone else that's paying for it. If other people didn't pay for it, then it wouldn't exist, and you wouldn't be able to leach it in the first place.
A great way to decide if an action is moral, or good for society. Imagine what it'd be like if everyone did what you are doing. I'd have to assume the OP likes the content and wants it to exist if he's taking the time to steal it.
Who knows.
I do. Common sense.
If movies couldn't be made without copyright, fine. I guess movies wouldn't be business model. There is no inherent right for government or society to protect a business model. When it *is* done, it's entirely up for debate how and why it's done. The default state is no idea ownership.
If you don't think or care that content exists, then why are you even participating in this thread? You don't have a dog in this fight.
Quit artificially limiting my access to media!
So true. By god, you are owed that media. It's your right as an American. Give me my content or, or give me death! I think that's how it went right?
Some terminated employees told CNBC they were informed via email or a phone call "without warning," and told not to come into work the next day.
I'm fairly certain they didn't throw their belongings in the trash. But otherwise, yes, that's generally how it happens.
You mean an Android device version 6+?
Do you think some company, or individual, should attempt to create their own mobile operating system?
What are you asking? As you yourself commented, people have attempted to create their own mobile operating systems.
Are you asking should someone try *and succeed* to create their own *commercially successful* mobile OS?
Dongles increase the amount of torque applied to the headphone jack. This will eventually cause the jack to delaminate from the phone's PCB. Very bad.
Yes, let's get upset about problems that might exist some day. You know what else? The screen on the iPhone 10 might crack when they get too cold. Can you believe that? Apple is really circling the drain these days.
This is why headphone cables have a 90degree bend on the plug.
Oh like this one?
https://www.amazon.com/Headpho...
And this one?
https://www.amazon.com/Wotmic-...
And this one?
https://www.amazon.com/Mxstudi...
That's just the first three representive links I found on Amazon searching for "wired headphone". I'm sure there are 90 angled jacks, but clear it's not universally implemented.
Unless the failure is on the dongle itself, which is more likely.
Yes, let's get riled up about problems that don't exist. You know what really grinds my gears? How the screens on the new iPhone 10s might crack when the temperature gets too cold. Can you believe that? Apple is really circling the drain these days.
I'm glad it's fine for you. For me, it's far from fine.
I'm sorry it's not fine for me. For me, it's very fine.
Now we're adding value to the discussion!
Of course they can, but that isn't the point. Their objection is not that it is difficult, but that it is wrong.
You are confused.
The 1st Amendment applies between the government and it's citizens, not between Facebook and their ad-purchasing clients. It says "Congress shall make no law". What does Facebook requiring disclosure of / showing the source of an ad to users got to do with congress making a law? Facebook can require their clients submit a GIF of them dancing around in a dress if they want.
this is not about cost saving.
Well then what is it?
Is it that Google doesn't like money? So they decided knowingly to build a a product without necessary features that no one will buy? It's a huge mistake to assume that corporations do anything for any reason other than money. That's their only motivation.
They removed the jack because it saves some cash amount >0, and the negative press around the removal has already been absorbed by Apple. And make no mistake. The target consumer is an Apple user. That's the pie they want a piece of. They couldn't care less about the low-end device market. They are not interested in competing with a bunch of Chinese phones that cost $200.
in-flight entertainment systems
Do I watch the shitty movies and commercials on the flight? Nope. That's why I bring my phone. I can load it with the movies I want and without commercials.
you don't want your phones go dead 5 hours into a 10 or 14 hour flight
You have to keep up with the tech if you are going to rant about it. I own these:
https://www.amazon.com/LG-HBS-...
Which have a 10 hour play time. And they actually get that.
I also own these:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod...
40 hour play time. These are both low to mid range devices. Their battery life is nothing special among BT headphones.
Enjoy your low-fi.
Thank you I do.
You're seriously arguing that a $1 headphone jack adds cost to a $600 phone?
$1 is relatively a lot for any single hardware component. But I get your point. Anyway, here's where a little thing I like to call common sense comes in.
If you were producing a mobile device, and a majority of your consumers wanted a headphone jack and wouldn't buy your product without it ... would you remove it from your product? Would you remove it if the jack's cost was "insignificant" (whatever that means), and had no other effect to the overall product architecture?
Of course the answer is no, you wouldn't remove it. But they did. It tells you that they did product research and found that most people don't give a crap about the jack, AND it tells you that including the jack probably had other tradeoffs you probably don't understand ... for example, like making it easier to be water resistant, or more durable in dirty conditions, or allowing for front facing speakers, or something neither of us can know unless we talk to the hardware engineers at HTC.
I mean, what's your theory? Google doesn't like money so they decided knowingly to build a shitty product that no one will buy?
It's not just headphones. I have at least 3 audio systems which I regularly plug my phone into using the 3.5mm jack. And, three pair of 'phones, for different situations (over-the-ear, on-the-ear, in-the ear).
https://www.amazon.com/Mpow-Bl...
Solved that for you. And if your response is something "But I shouldn't have to buy extras!" consider that your use case is atypical, and it's in everyone's interest if phones don't include niche features because it keeps the cost down. If you have niche needs, then spend the $12 (see above) to get what you need. Don't make everyone else that buys the phone pay for your use case.
And yeah I haven't used a wired headphone in 5 years. You guys are nuts to deal with cords flapping around and getting hung up on everything.
That will last how long in my kid's pocket, do you think?
About as long as the $850 phone that it plugs into that's also in your kid's pocket apparently.
Can you provide a citation that there is no "disable switch"?
There absolutely is a disable switch. I'm looking at it right now on my Android 8 Pixel XL. The setting was off by default.
Did anyone else notice the microphone is always on and listening? On a phone. Without a disable switch.
It's off by default and can be turned on, same as on the Pixel 1s. The statement means they have a feature that can be enabled to have it always listen to music.
Crisis averted.
Or maybe just go ahead and charge you anyway if you don't a have sufficient license to the song.
You know what else it might do? It just MIGHT send links to any pr0n you view to your wife! Really, I guarantee it might do that.
You want to know how I know that'll never happen? Because if it did no one would use the device and they'd be a total flop. You see, I used a tool called "common sense" to get to the bottom of this.
LOL I'm a 'bitter husk of a man'?
Heh. I quote,
You wander through the world staring at your phones and walk right into stationary objects, how hilarious is that? If you lose your shiny toy or the battery is dead, you're like heroin addicts who didn't get their fix fast enough, actual withdrawal symptoms. Pathetic, comical, laughable. Fools.
Well, touche.
Yeah?
Yeah.
and you're just representative of a whole crowd of people who just like SHINY THINGS.
Maybe. But I'd rather be that than a bitter husk of a man.
I goddamned well know I'm right.
Well, that's all that matters in life now isn't it? Good for you.
1 and 2: Does your company pay for your phone and service? No? Then why are you giving that to them for free? Make them pay for it.
No but they do pay me a lot. Enough that it's not worth my time or theirs to figure out for what % of my $30 cell phone bill I need to be reimbursed.
Anyway, more of the same from you and not worth it to respond. On all points you've just backed out and tried to make a different argument or resorted to a feeble attempt at trolling. I recommend thinking through things before you start your rants next time and it won't be so embarrassing.
And you didn't even post as AC so your brilliance is immortalized here for all to see. Grats.
then the task quickly becomes impossible
For who? Us? Or the ETs that are otherwise able to simulate our entire universe?
Does your $1000 phone make you money?
Don't be dumb. How many of your possessions earn you income directly? If you are really claiming that one should only own such things you're an alien and should avoid trying to communicate with the humans.
Does your toothbrush make you money?
Does your dog make you money?
Does your lawnmower make you money?
sheesh.
Name five things you use it for that aren't entertainment or something totally non-essential
I bet you can't.
Challenge accepted. Here's 12 boss.
1. Work email
2. Work instant message
3. Communication w/ my family
4. Driving navigation
5. Depositing checks
6. 2-factor auth or various accounts including work
7. Online purchases from mainly Amazon (and no they aren't entertainment products always)
8. Uber / Lyft
9. Control of my home automation (lights, thermostat, locks, etc)
10. Viewing of my security cameras
11. Workout program / fitness tracker
12. Location tracker for my son's phone