No, it is not. Normal holding of the phone does not really affect the signal. You have to squeeze much harder than normal and kind of wrap the phone, to really have an effect. Although partially it's probably a function of how sweaty your hands are.
That's simply not true. Signal degradation occurs with a single finger covering the correct location. Here's a video that clearly shows a single finger causing degradation with no twisting or warping of the phone.
Is said friend trying to walk into a store and get one? They're spewing massive amounts of bullshit. Said coworker simply ordered it from the webpage, they said 5-7 days, it was there on the second.
Kind of like people complaining about the iPhone 4 signal issues without owning one.
You won't hear me complain. I will never own one due to the fatal signal issues. The "death grip", I see what you did there Steve, is my normal method of holding a phone. It seems to be a fairly normal grip. Really curious how this made it through testing.
I will however complain about Apple's bold face lie that the signal doesn't actually go down. That it's a display issue. Don't lie about things that can be proven wrong. Makes you look bad and insults your customers.
This is why you never buy the first revision of tech.
I don't think it is. The fact that you are familiar with the pickle illustrates my point.
Record labels provide publicity and distribution in exchange for the creator turning over the copyright. This used to be a hard problem. That is no longer the case. Now through completely free means people have access to literally millions of people.
The channels used on the pickle are specific to the pickle. They can be and currently are used for anything.
People can get their music to millions at almost no cost these days. Is getting people to buy an album harder than getting people to click I like on a pickle. Hell yes. Is it harder to get the information out about a band. Hell no. It's the exact same process.
The hard part is that most bands aren't good enough to "make it." Your anecdote is fairly pointless. Everyone has bands they like that no one else does.
Its a transition phase. We're moving from where what you say is true to where what I say is true. Trent's past is in the old model and he's a pioneer in the new model.
The labels had control of distribution and publicity. They no longer have that. For fucks sake a pickle can get millions of friends on facebook. If you can't get people to notice you with today's tools then frankly you're not worth noticing.
I can't accept your premise. My life experience speaks otherwise. You can't defend it. I can't refute it.
My point is, there is no different field for equal or better pay. Only manager/senior positions, financial industry, or process managers actually make good money and don't produce ideas.
This isn't even a coherent sentence. There is always a different job with better pay.
Ideas are the closest you can get to nothing without actually being nothing. I have an idea, let's cure cancer. I have an idea, let's make the internet faster. I have an idea, everything should be recyclable. I have an idea, we should all be rich and never have to work. You don't reward people for thinking up things you reward them for doing things. Just to avoid confusion: I don't mean that in a theoretical does nothing while experimental/engineering does something. Theory based fields are still equally able to do things.
Also, you still didn't get the analogy.
It is not an analogy. It's just a hypothetical situation custom tailored with only one answer to promote your position. It's a gambit. It can't be an analogy as it lacks relation.
Thank you for you time but this is no longer rational.
Because it is either train for a job that is mentally engaging, although evil, and maybe someday do something with my life, or live in poverty, possibly unable to find a job.
That is your choice. You have non work for hire options that are mentally engaging. You chose to train for the soul crushing, dream stealing, bullshit job. If you don't like it don't do it. You have complete control here. It's not your only option.
In that example, beef was the only food source.
Then that example is completely pointless as it bears no relation to reality or the discussion at hand.
So 95% of people should just stop working until companies bow to their demands?
What is this 95% number? Where did it come from? Do you think 95% of people fall under work for hire?
My point is, there aren't other options, you can either be more poor, or take a shit job, or work in another field for less pay.
Or a different field for equal or better pay. Why do you ignore this option?
You really haven't been in the job market before, have you? Lemme guess, 13 years old, and think you are so cool, right?
Again attacking me since you can't attack my position.
You can't even follow simple analogies.
It's not an analogy. It's a contrived statement that reduces to if all beef is poisoned then you must eat poisoned beef. If conveys the same information as 1=1. You're example has no choice. The real world has choice.
I know I sound like a broken record here but you have choice. You chose to train for that job. It is not the only job you are capable of doing.
Or sell the music directly to the consumer at a lower price than in the days of yore. Please see Trent Reznor for an example of this. He claims to be making more money per album, with the albums selling at a lower price point, now than he ever did with a label.
Why are you going into debt to train for a "soul crushing, dream stealing, bullshit job?" That's all on you. You don't see the circular logic here?
Your argument is like saying that if all beef products had poison in them, except for one that cost $100 per pound, that the people that slowly poison themselves to eat beef are stupid for not just buying the stuff without it. For most people, that option simply doesn't exist.
I'm saying if all the beef is poison then don't eat the fucking beef. Why would you eat poison beef? You don't need beef to live. Why would you reward the people who are poisoning it?
Much like your job example this is completely nonsensical. If the beef is poison eat something else. If the job is in your words, soul crushing, dream stealing, bullshit then don't take the job. Work somewhere else. Do something else.
If your job requires training then there are other jobs you are qualified for.
If the system is so bad people need to stop using it. Anything else is positive feedback the reinforces the system. There is no one, not a single person, that has to be work for hire or they will die.
The man has simply lost touch with reality. Not surprising considering how rich and famous he is. It's great to have a specific instance to point to.
To misquote Kevin Smith talking about his experience with Prince, "Price lives in Prince world. Sometimes we have trouble explaining why we can't get him a camel at 2 in the morning in Minneapolis in the middle of winter."
Go watch An Evening with Kevin Smith for the full story.
It appears your mind is empty, and devoid of ideas.
Nice. Attack the poster rather than the post. You smell funny, look like shit, and my ass hair is a more worthy addition to society than you are. Don't really see what the point of that was or how that was productive.
I was pointing out the problem with having the copyright rest with the employee. For some reason that generated a person attack. WTF?
Instead, when ownership sticks with the company, it becomes: You have idea, you pay me to do all the work. You own it, and I get absolutely nothing from it while you get filthy rich. Why would anyone want to work in a profession like that? Its fucking share-cropping of the 21st century.
I have no clue. It's completely nonsensical. Why do people do it? There are whole industries build on this practice. Why don't the people doing the work just stop?
Why a small royalty? Why not they both have copyright?
You posted a summary. The summary clearly states that the argument is about ownership of the work. This is distinctly different than ownership of the copyright of the work.
It's a web forum. I'm not going to read a whole case. Especially not for a purely semantic argument.
"Neither party raised the issue of copyright, nor did the parties put anything about it in writing. Later, the plaintiff claimed to ‘own’ the work, and sought to claim possession of it from the defendant."
Your link clearly says the case is about the ownership of the work. Is your link wrong?
"Neither party raised the issue of copyright, nor did the parties put anything about it in writing. Later, the plaintiff claimed to ‘own’ the work, and sought to claim possession of it from the defendant."
The point is that they are considered the author. Even though in reality, they aren't.
Yes that's exactly what the law says. Going back to the original point. The law offers no provision for people randomly claiming copyright on something they are not the creator of.
No, it's not. Go look at USC 17 Sec. 106 and read the list of exclusive rights. There is no exclusive right to control whether someone "uses" a single instance of your work. You have the exclusive right to distribute, make derivative works, etc.
But if I never provide them the right to make a copy then Sec 106 is irrelevant as they have nothing to use.
No, there were two issues: ownership of the object, and ownership of the copyright. Those are very different issues. All of this confusion arises from a fundamental misunderstanding about the rights conferred by copyright, which are separate from the actual work or object in question.
That's exactly my point. I'm talking about ownership of copyright. The case was about who owned the physical object. Thus it doesn't apply.
They're not expressing dominance over their own property, they're doing it over other peoples property.
Completely false. This position ignores the whole concept of right of first sale.
IP rights are fundamentally taxation and control rights on copying.
What the fuck? You're going to have to explain your position on taxation. Making someone pay for a copy is not taxation. As for the second part. Yes that's the definition of copyright. Do you have a point?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a problem with ads. I have a problem with scripts. So I run a script blocker.
It just happens to have the the side effect of blocking many ads.
Claims that apple was aware of the problem during the design phase.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-15/apple-engineer-said-to-have-told-jobs-last-year-about-iphone-antenna-flaw.html
No, it is not. Normal holding of the phone does not really affect the signal. You have to squeeze much harder than normal and kind of wrap the phone, to really have an effect. Although partially it's probably a function of how sweaty your hands are.
That's simply not true. Signal degradation occurs with a single finger covering the correct location. Here's a video that clearly shows a single finger causing degradation with no twisting or warping of the phone.
http://consumerist.com/2010/07/consumer-reports-wont-recommend-iphone-4-until-apple-fixes-death-grip-design-flaw.html
Thanks for you time but all the info you're giving out is directly contradicted by numerous sources.
Is said friend trying to walk into a store and get one? They're spewing massive amounts of bullshit. Said coworker simply ordered it from the webpage, they said 5-7 days, it was there on the second.
Kind of like people complaining about the iPhone 4 signal issues without owning one.
You won't hear me complain. I will never own one due to the fatal signal issues. The "death grip", I see what you did there Steve, is my normal method of holding a phone. It seems to be a fairly normal grip. Really curious how this made it through testing.
I will however complain about Apple's bold face lie that the signal doesn't actually go down. That it's a display issue. Don't lie about things that can be proven wrong. Makes you look bad and insults your customers.
This is why you never buy the first revision of tech.
If the iPhone 4 is seeing such huge problems why is there a 3-week backlog for new orders?
I call bullshit. One of my coworkers just bought one with a mere 36 hour lag from time of order to having it in his hand.
There is no backlog.
I don't think it is. The fact that you are familiar with the pickle illustrates my point.
Record labels provide publicity and distribution in exchange for the creator turning over the copyright. This used to be a hard problem. That is no longer the case. Now through completely free means people have access to literally millions of people.
The channels used on the pickle are specific to the pickle. They can be and currently are used for anything.
People can get their music to millions at almost no cost these days. Is getting people to buy an album harder than getting people to click I like on a pickle. Hell yes. Is it harder to get the information out about a band. Hell no. It's the exact same process.
The hard part is that most bands aren't good enough to "make it." Your anecdote is fairly pointless. Everyone has bands they like that no one else does.
Its a transition phase. We're moving from where what you say is true to where what I say is true. Trent's past is in the old model and he's a pioneer in the new model.
The labels had control of distribution and publicity. They no longer have that. For fucks sake a pickle can get millions of friends on facebook. If you can't get people to notice you with today's tools then frankly you're not worth noticing.
Miscellaneous cynicism
I can't accept your premise. My life experience speaks otherwise. You can't defend it. I can't refute it.
My point is, there is no different field for equal or better pay. Only manager/senior positions, financial industry, or process managers actually make good money and don't produce ideas.
This isn't even a coherent sentence. There is always a different job with better pay.
Ideas are the closest you can get to nothing without actually being nothing. I have an idea, let's cure cancer. I have an idea, let's make the internet faster. I have an idea, everything should be recyclable. I have an idea, we should all be rich and never have to work. You don't reward people for thinking up things you reward them for doing things. Just to avoid confusion: I don't mean that in a theoretical does nothing while experimental/engineering does something. Theory based fields are still equally able to do things.
Also, you still didn't get the analogy.
It is not an analogy. It's just a hypothetical situation custom tailored with only one answer to promote your position. It's a gambit. It can't be an analogy as it lacks relation.
Thank you for you time but this is no longer rational.
Because it is either train for a job that is mentally engaging, although evil, and maybe someday do something with my life, or live in poverty, possibly unable to find a job.
That is your choice. You have non work for hire options that are mentally engaging. You chose to train for the soul crushing, dream stealing, bullshit job. If you don't like it don't do it. You have complete control here. It's not your only option.
In that example, beef was the only food source.
Then that example is completely pointless as it bears no relation to reality or the discussion at hand.
So 95% of people should just stop working until companies bow to their demands?
What is this 95% number? Where did it come from? Do you think 95% of people fall under work for hire?
My point is, there aren't other options, you can either be more poor, or take a shit job, or work in another field for less pay.
Or a different field for equal or better pay. Why do you ignore this option?
You really haven't been in the job market before, have you? Lemme guess, 13 years old, and think you are so cool, right?
Again attacking me since you can't attack my position.
You can't even follow simple analogies.
It's not an analogy. It's a contrived statement that reduces to if all beef is poisoned then you must eat poisoned beef. If conveys the same information as 1=1. You're example has no choice. The real world has choice.
I know I sound like a broken record here but you have choice. You chose to train for that job. It is not the only job you are capable of doing.
If record labels were required then he would be unable to continue at the same or better level without them.
That would be not performing.
Or sell the music directly to the consumer at a lower price than in the days of yore. Please see Trent Reznor for an example of this. He claims to be making more money per album, with the albums selling at a lower price point, now than he ever did with a label.
Why are you going into debt to train for a "soul crushing, dream stealing, bullshit job?" That's all on you. You don't see the circular logic here?
Your argument is like saying that if all beef products had poison in them, except for one that cost $100 per pound, that the people that slowly poison themselves to eat beef are stupid for not just buying the stuff without it. For most people, that option simply doesn't exist.
I'm saying if all the beef is poison then don't eat the fucking beef. Why would you eat poison beef? You don't need beef to live. Why would you reward the people who are poisoning it?
Much like your job example this is completely nonsensical. If the beef is poison eat something else. If the job is in your words, soul crushing, dream stealing, bullshit then don't take the job. Work somewhere else. Do something else.
If your job requires training then there are other jobs you are qualified for.
If the system is so bad people need to stop using it. Anything else is positive feedback the reinforces the system. There is no one, not a single person, that has to be work for hire or they will die.
The man has simply lost touch with reality. Not surprising considering how rich and famous he is. It's great to have a specific instance to point to.
To misquote Kevin Smith talking about his experience with Prince, "Price lives in Prince world. Sometimes we have trouble explaining why we can't get him a camel at 2 in the morning in Minneapolis in the middle of winter."
Go watch An Evening with Kevin Smith for the full story.
But that's not true. They're not the only jobs those people can get.
For obvious reasons bald is the next rebellious hair style.
Stowing your cord correctly solves all of these.
It appears your mind is empty, and devoid of ideas.
Nice. Attack the poster rather than the post. You smell funny, look like shit, and my ass hair is a more worthy addition to society than you are. Don't really see what the point of that was or how that was productive.
I was pointing out the problem with having the copyright rest with the employee. For some reason that generated a person attack. WTF?
Instead, when ownership sticks with the company, it becomes: You have idea, you pay me to do all the work. You own it, and I get absolutely nothing from it while you get filthy rich. Why would anyone want to work in a profession like that? Its fucking share-cropping of the 21st century.
I have no clue. It's completely nonsensical. Why do people do it? There are whole industries build on this practice. Why don't the people doing the work just stop?
Why a small royalty? Why not they both have copyright?
You posted a summary. The summary clearly states that the argument is about ownership of the work. This is distinctly different than ownership of the copyright of the work.
It's a web forum. I'm not going to read a whole case. Especially not for a purely semantic argument.
Next time post a brief not a fucking wikipedia.
"Neither party raised the issue of copyright, nor did the parties put anything about it in writing. Later, the plaintiff claimed to ‘own’ the work, and sought to claim possession of it from the defendant."
Your link clearly says the case is about the ownership of the work. Is your link wrong?
"Neither party raised the issue of copyright, nor did the parties put anything about it in writing. Later, the plaintiff claimed to ‘own’ the work, and sought to claim possession of it from the defendant."
The point is that they are considered the author. Even though in reality, they aren't.
Yes that's exactly what the law says. Going back to the original point. The law offers no provision for people randomly claiming copyright on something they are not the creator of.
No, it's not. Go look at USC 17 Sec. 106 and read the list of exclusive rights. There is no exclusive right to control whether someone "uses" a single instance of your work. You have the exclusive right to distribute, make derivative works, etc.
But if I never provide them the right to make a copy then Sec 106 is irrelevant as they have nothing to use.
No, there were two issues: ownership of the object, and ownership of the copyright. Those are very different issues. All of this confusion arises from a fundamental misunderstanding about the rights conferred by copyright, which are separate from the actual work or object in question.
That's exactly my point. I'm talking about ownership of copyright. The case was about who owned the physical object. Thus it doesn't apply.
1) Exception case.
2) Exception case.
3) Exception case.
Set up your cord correctly next time.
They're not expressing dominance over their own property, they're doing it over other peoples property.
Completely false. This position ignores the whole concept of right of first sale.
IP rights are fundamentally taxation and control rights on copying.
What the fuck? You're going to have to explain your position on taxation. Making someone pay for a copy is not taxation. As for the second part. Yes that's the definition of copyright. Do you have a point?