To be fair, there wasn't much substance coming from anyone in the most recent election. Username is all we had to go on.
Saying that in this instance is like handing someone a pile of dust covers and telling them to look through them and pick the next book they want to read; the whole while shouting "don't judge a book by its cover!"
Awareness, however, is not being raised by this. Everyone who recognizes the security implications of this "hack" already did; everyone else still just thinks this is the worst that can happen.
Technically, the "break" part of "break and enter" refers to the seal created by the door. That is, if the door is left open (rather than unlocked as in your example), the charge is reduced to trespass, as there was no broken seal. It is the act of breaking the seal of the door, that is physically opening the door, that makes it "breaking and entering".
It is, however, BK's fault that they, rather than actually increasing the menu prices of items to compensate for the increase in actual cost, they've kept them the same and, instead, begun issuing "fake" coupons that actually represent the same (and sometimes even higher) price as the menu. It is also BK's fault that, instead of increasing the price for the same (now more expensive to produce) item, they have reduced the quality and quantity of the item you get at the old price.
I used to love BK (hell, less than a decade and a half ago I used to work there), but now I only go there when I'm hungry late at night, nothing in the house sounds good, and everything else nearby is closed. Their quality was beginning to drop around the time I left and, while the prices are still the same as they were back then, the product doesn't represent any sort of value. Not that it really did back then, either; but it's become untenable at this point.
15 years ago, when I paid 50 cents for cheese, I got 2 slices; now, not only are the slices thinner, they break a single slice in half and arrange it to look like two. You literally get 1/4 as much cheese for the same price, and the price of cheese has not quadrupled in 15 years, thank you very much.
The Whopper Jr. comes on the same bun it did 15 years ago, as well. Back then, you used to be able to see the meat without taking the top bun off. Not anymore.
You know what? I'd be fine with paying $2.00 for the sandwich I used to pay $1.49 for over a decade ago. You're right, things cost more now due to inflation. What I'm not fine with is BK's false claim that nothing has changed in all of that time; their slow psychological game designed to fool the average consumer into thinking they're still paying the same price and getting the same amount of food.
My wife had to completely disable Siri on her iPhone because, for whatever reason, turning off the voice activation option only actually turned it off when on battery power. Siri, being the egotistical bitch she is, had the habit of interpreting my wife saying "seriously" as her call to action.
You didn't bring up a single fact at all. It's your speculation; it's your guess. These are not facts.
The issue here is that you're conflating a guess with an opinion. Again, an opinion, by definition, cannot be correct or incorrect. The relevant definition of "opinion", for reference:
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
We're not discussing my view or judgment but, rather, my assessment based on simple economic reasoning and what I, through my own experience, happen to know certain things cost (those would be facts), which would be exceedingly difficult to relay to you in any meaningful manner.
This brings my position well out of the realm of opinion. Once again, an opinion can not be right or wrong; if it can be right or wrong, it is something other than an opinion. In this case, it's an assessment based on prior experience; that prior experience being a strong base of facts; which may itself be correct or incorrect. We aren't going to determine the correctness of my assessment here on Slashdot, but we will learn how accurate or inaccurate it is during the trial.
Rather than argue here, to no end, why don't we just wait for that?
And in this thread, please point out a single insult that I levied.
It's not about this thread, it's about every other thread; please point out one thread where I backed you into a corner with facts and you did not insult me as a result. You can't, because you do id consistently; it's just what you do, rather than learn from the experience people try to give you. I, on the other hand, have learned this about you and will no longer spend hours of my time putting together comprehensive posts explaining my positions to you, only to be insulted when you run out of counterpoints or I tear down your weak arguments.
This is what you said: "In the mean time, your username remains as apt as ever." Do you stand by your words?
I most certainly do. I'll also remind you that, as you quoted, you chose that name. If you find it insulting, you only have yourself to blame for that.
if your opinion is that the Earth is flat
Then you don't have an opinion, but an assessment. Those can be wrong.
If your opinion is that the Earth is a sphere
Then you don't have an opinion, but an assessment. Those can be wrong.
If your opinion is that the Earth is an oblate spheroid
Then you don't have an opinion, but an assessment. Those can be wrong.
"Assessment" defined, for reference:
the evaluation or estimation of the nature, quality, or ability of someone or something
That sure matches what I've done here much better than any definition of "opinion" I've ever read; and I did just review several of them to find the one that came closest to applying here.
Aww, shit, I've gone and backed you into a corner with facts again. Here we go...
(a search engine which by default doesn't do file searches anyway)
It does, however, search the torrent description which, quite often (e.g. every torrent I have ever downloaded), lists the contents. That's, sort of, how that works.
So really, by downloading big label movies, you are sort of like a freedom fighter. Fighting for the poor helpless indie labels.
The stench of sarcasm is heavy, here. But no, I don't typically torrent big label movies; I simply don't watch them. There are a few exceptions to the "do not watch" rule, but they are VERY few and far between -- if I can't get a friend to see it with me in a theater, I skip it; if I can, I see it; if it doesn't suck, I buy the Blu-Ray.
There is a LOT of indie music out there that ends up in compilations of music from several bands, across several indie labels. These torrent compilations quite often exist with the blessing of the labels and artists involved, but are not created by them. You may search for one song from one artist you know of and find it in a compilation that introduces you to a dozen you haven't.
I've only gotten a few responses thus far, one of which really had nothing to do with the question being asked. The other two, however, are precisely what I was expecting and align with what myself and my friends and family do, as well. If there are any RIAA or MPAA execs (or execs of their member companies) here, take note.
Piracy can either equal sales or no sales, entirely on the quality of the content. Piracy does not, de-facto, equal lost sales (in fact, it never truly equals lost sales, though it may mean no sales); for quality content, however, it does equal more sales, form people who would otherwise not have purchased.
For shit-tier content, though... Yes, piracy = no sales, and rightly fucking so! The whole reason I started pre-pirating my purchases is because the quality of content dropped dramatically over a very short period, right around the time the industry stopped allowing returns and I got burned one too many times.
As someone who does the same thing, I truly feel bad for the smaller labels who promote via torrent sites, every time such a site gets shut down. Major label stuff can be discovered through almost any music streaming service, but most indie stuff either doesn't exist on a given service or is never played in "radio" mode, so you'll never hear it if you don't already know about it.
Here's the hard truth about the music industry's "war on piracy". It's not about piracy, it's about killing the indie scene so the incumbent labels are the only source for music. It's purely anti-competitive, full-stop.
The need for top-end hardware and the need for Adobe are, actually, unrelated. Most Adobe stuff does alright on an m5, in my experience. If I didn't need the Adobe stuff, I'd be happily running Ubuntu on this machine, but I'd have still built it just the same.
I don't waste my time digging up facts for you anymore; when I do, you break out the insults. Me? I simply referenced your username. You want facts? You picked the name and that's a fact. Beyond that, an opinion can neither be lroven nor disproven and we will see what you call my "opinions" either proven or disproven during the trial. That makes them facts; I may have my facts wrong, but they're certainly not opinions.
Right? I think the real news here is that Edge ran for 12 hours without crashing. I'm forced to restart it nearly hourly; not because I have to close it, but because it has crashed or closed itself. As a result, I neither use it, nor believe that it ran for over 12 hours in this test.
- All the CDMA networks, such as Verizon, NTT DoCoMo, et al, would be Qualcomm only. Intel wouldn't even be an option
If, as you say (and I'm quoting here), Apple loses an order from T-Mobile for some 3 million iPhones, of which, say, 2 million are based on Intel's, and Sprint gives them an order of 3 million... Well, it would seem that incorporating Intel's chip into their product introduced yet another negative I hadn't considered; Apple now has phones they can't sell to all carriers and might get stuck with inventory as a result.
Again, your assertion is that Apple restricted the performance "on a whim". Unless you happen to work inside Apple you can't claim that.
Call it an educated guess.
The assertion being made by Qualcomm... you know... in the lawsuit TFS mentioned... is that they did exactly that. I guess we'll find out soon enough as the trial plays out. In the mean time, your username remains as apt as ever.
Unless you work in an industry where Adobe products are expected. Other than that, I'm right there with ya and that's exactly what I would be doing if I didn't work in such an industry. MacOS would be an option if Apple sold current-gen top-end hardware, or if I could run it on my own hardware; in fact, it would be a preference in my situation.
then call up microsoft to get upgraded to windows 10
Well... that would be interesting, considering that the user would have been, according to you, "[one of] those running Windows 10 [who] had mandatory upgrades that [...] bricked their [computers]."
and then eventually end up at Best Buy
And Best Buy would do what? Oh...
pop in install media and reinstall the OS
Also, about that hyperbole:
Not much difference between returning a device to where you bought it from to get it fixed versus sending back to the manufacturer.
There's plenty, actually. Out of warranty, you get no support for a bricked device and a repair shop tells you all they can do is sell you a new one. A computer that just needs the OS reinstalled, however...
I'm sure you see where I'm going with this, but I've been wrong in assuming the double-digit-or-higher IQ of a Slashdot poster in the past, so I'll spell it out for you. Even paying Geek Squad to re-install Windows is cheaper than buying a new computer in most cases.
And that's before Windows boots into recovery mode automatically after 3 failed boot attempts and automatically restores the system to its pre-update state. Which, by the way, is free and requires the user to literally do nothing but sit there and let the machine fix itself.
And most people have a family geek they can call who will tell them to do just that. I can see how that might not work for your family but, then, most people aren't related to you.
Right. Apple didn't know about the performance difference between the two radio chips, they jsut restricted the performance of the Qualcomm part on a whim. I'll buy that for a dollar (before $1 instant rebate).
Let's be generous and say they pay 5 cents less for the Intel chip vs the Qualcomm chip; we know they've sold roughly 80 million iPhone 7s to date. Assuming roughly half of those had the Intel chip in them, which we know to be more or less accurate, they've saved roughly $2 million in parts.
Designing and testing a single board at the scale we're talking about here costs about that, and they had to design two more, plus the various certifications that were needed, plus recertification for every firmware they release going forward, until they stop releasing firmware updates for the iPhone 7. Yes, this will cost them more than $2 million. Even if they sell another 20 million iPhone 7s, the overall cost to them will still exceed the $2.5 million they'll have "saved". In fact, if they double their sales, they'll still left have money on the table for this.
Yes, it's $2.5 million saved on parts; however, parts are not the only cost here.
The real story, here, is that the iPhone could have faster connectivity. That it doesn't isn't even a financial decision, as Apple has opted to use the better part in some production runs and the inferior part in others, and hinder the performance of the superior part to negate any possible advantage it may bring. If it were a financial decision, they'd have used only the cheaper Intel chips.
In short, they had a better part available from a supplier with whom they already have a relationship (and who, in fact, is already supplying that part); they designed the device around the use of that part, and they actually produce the device with that part. They, then, re-designed the device around an inferior part and reduced the quality of the user experience of the device in order to optionally use that part.
I'm willing to bet the R&D cost of designing and testing four versions of the board (Qualcom and Intel; standard and plus), the development cost of integrating yet another chipset driver into the OS image, the cost of having a 3rd and 4th hardware revision certified by the relevant government agencies (worldwide), and the ongoing cost of developing and testing against two additional models of iPhone (standard and plus) far exceeds the couple pennies they may have saved on each unit containing an Intel chip.
Over all, this was a net expense for Apple and a net negative to the user experience of the iPhone7. That's the real story, here.
Slashdot Mirror
Well fuck, send some of them onions my way.
To be fair, there wasn't much substance coming from anyone in the most recent election. Username is all we had to go on.
Saying that in this instance is like handing someone a pile of dust covers and telling them to look through them and pick the next book they want to read; the whole while shouting "don't judge a book by its cover!"
Awareness, however, is not being raised by this. Everyone who recognizes the security implications of this "hack" already did; everyone else still just thinks this is the worst that can happen.
Technically, the "break" part of "break and enter" refers to the seal created by the door. That is, if the door is left open (rather than unlocked as in your example), the charge is reduced to trespass, as there was no broken seal. It is the act of breaking the seal of the door, that is physically opening the door, that makes it "breaking and entering".
It is, however, BK's fault that they, rather than actually increasing the menu prices of items to compensate for the increase in actual cost, they've kept them the same and, instead, begun issuing "fake" coupons that actually represent the same (and sometimes even higher) price as the menu. It is also BK's fault that, instead of increasing the price for the same (now more expensive to produce) item, they have reduced the quality and quantity of the item you get at the old price.
I used to love BK (hell, less than a decade and a half ago I used to work there), but now I only go there when I'm hungry late at night, nothing in the house sounds good, and everything else nearby is closed. Their quality was beginning to drop around the time I left and, while the prices are still the same as they were back then, the product doesn't represent any sort of value. Not that it really did back then, either; but it's become untenable at this point.
15 years ago, when I paid 50 cents for cheese, I got 2 slices; now, not only are the slices thinner, they break a single slice in half and arrange it to look like two. You literally get 1/4 as much cheese for the same price, and the price of cheese has not quadrupled in 15 years, thank you very much.
The Whopper Jr. comes on the same bun it did 15 years ago, as well. Back then, you used to be able to see the meat without taking the top bun off. Not anymore.
You know what? I'd be fine with paying $2.00 for the sandwich I used to pay $1.49 for over a decade ago. You're right, things cost more now due to inflation. What I'm not fine with is BK's false claim that nothing has changed in all of that time; their slow psychological game designed to fool the average consumer into thinking they're still paying the same price and getting the same amount of food.
It's bullshit and you know it.
My wife had to completely disable Siri on her iPhone because, for whatever reason, turning off the voice activation option only actually turned it off when on battery power. Siri, being the egotistical bitch she is, had the habit of interpreting my wife saying "seriously" as her call to action.
You didn't bring up a single fact at all. It's your speculation; it's your guess. These are not facts.
The issue here is that you're conflating a guess with an opinion. Again, an opinion, by definition, cannot be correct or incorrect. The relevant definition of "opinion", for reference:
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
We're not discussing my view or judgment but, rather, my assessment based on simple economic reasoning and what I, through my own experience, happen to know certain things cost (those would be facts), which would be exceedingly difficult to relay to you in any meaningful manner.
This brings my position well out of the realm of opinion. Once again, an opinion can not be right or wrong; if it can be right or wrong, it is something other than an opinion. In this case, it's an assessment based on prior experience; that prior experience being a strong base of facts; which may itself be correct or incorrect. We aren't going to determine the correctness of my assessment here on Slashdot, but we will learn how accurate or inaccurate it is during the trial.
Rather than argue here, to no end, why don't we just wait for that?
And in this thread, please point out a single insult that I levied.
It's not about this thread, it's about every other thread; please point out one thread where I backed you into a corner with facts and you did not insult me as a result. You can't, because you do id consistently; it's just what you do, rather than learn from the experience people try to give you. I, on the other hand, have learned this about you and will no longer spend hours of my time putting together comprehensive posts explaining my positions to you, only to be insulted when you run out of counterpoints or I tear down your weak arguments.
This is what you said: "In the mean time, your username remains as apt as ever." Do you stand by your words?
I most certainly do. I'll also remind you that, as you quoted, you chose that name. If you find it insulting, you only have yourself to blame for that.
if your opinion is that the Earth is flat
Then you don't have an opinion, but an assessment. Those can be wrong.
If your opinion is that the Earth is a sphere
Then you don't have an opinion, but an assessment. Those can be wrong.
If your opinion is that the Earth is an oblate spheroid
Then you don't have an opinion, but an assessment. Those can be wrong.
"Assessment" defined, for reference:
the evaluation or estimation of the nature, quality, or ability of someone or something
That sure matches what I've done here much better than any definition of "opinion" I've ever read; and I did just review several of them to find the one that came closest to applying here.
Aww, shit, I've gone and backed you into a corner with facts again. Here we go...
(a search engine which by default doesn't do file searches anyway)
It does, however, search the torrent description which, quite often (e.g. every torrent I have ever downloaded), lists the contents. That's, sort of, how that works.
So really, by downloading big label movies, you are sort of like a freedom fighter. Fighting for the poor helpless indie labels.
The stench of sarcasm is heavy, here. But no, I don't typically torrent big label movies; I simply don't watch them. There are a few exceptions to the "do not watch" rule, but they are VERY few and far between -- if I can't get a friend to see it with me in a theater, I skip it; if I can, I see it; if it doesn't suck, I buy the Blu-Ray.
There is a LOT of indie music out there that ends up in compilations of music from several bands, across several indie labels. These torrent compilations quite often exist with the blessing of the labels and artists involved, but are not created by them. You may search for one song from one artist you know of and find it in a compilation that introduces you to a dozen you haven't.
That's why.
I've only gotten a few responses thus far, one of which really had nothing to do with the question being asked. The other two, however, are precisely what I was expecting and align with what myself and my friends and family do, as well. If there are any RIAA or MPAA execs (or execs of their member companies) here, take note.
Piracy can either equal sales or no sales, entirely on the quality of the content. Piracy does not, de-facto, equal lost sales (in fact, it never truly equals lost sales, though it may mean no sales); for quality content, however, it does equal more sales, form people who would otherwise not have purchased.
For shit-tier content, though... Yes, piracy = no sales, and rightly fucking so! The whole reason I started pre-pirating my purchases is because the quality of content dropped dramatically over a very short period, right around the time the industry stopped allowing returns and I got burned one too many times.
Stop making shit content and it will sell!
Quick question, and please answer honestly as you're not being judged or "rated" on your answer. It's "for science", shall we say.
How many of those would you have bought if you had not torrented them first?
This.
As someone who does the same thing, I truly feel bad for the smaller labels who promote via torrent sites, every time such a site gets shut down. Major label stuff can be discovered through almost any music streaming service, but most indie stuff either doesn't exist on a given service or is never played in "radio" mode, so you'll never hear it if you don't already know about it.
Here's the hard truth about the music industry's "war on piracy". It's not about piracy, it's about killing the indie scene so the incumbent labels are the only source for music. It's purely anti-competitive, full-stop.
The need for top-end hardware and the need for Adobe are, actually, unrelated. Most Adobe stuff does alright on an m5, in my experience. If I didn't need the Adobe stuff, I'd be happily running Ubuntu on this machine, but I'd have still built it just the same.
I don't waste my time digging up facts for you anymore; when I do, you break out the insults. Me? I simply referenced your username. You want facts? You picked the name and that's a fact. Beyond that, an opinion can neither be lroven nor disproven and we will see what you call my "opinions" either proven or disproven during the trial. That makes them facts; I may have my facts wrong, but they're certainly not opinions.
Right? I think the real news here is that Edge ran for 12 hours without crashing. I'm forced to restart it nearly hourly; not because I have to close it, but because it has crashed or closed itself. As a result, I neither use it, nor believe that it ran for over 12 hours in this test.
- All the CDMA networks, such as Verizon, NTT DoCoMo, et al, would be Qualcomm only. Intel wouldn't even be an option
If, as you say (and I'm quoting here), Apple loses an order from T-Mobile for some 3 million iPhones, of which, say, 2 million are based on Intel's, and Sprint gives them an order of 3 million... Well, it would seem that incorporating Intel's chip into their product introduced yet another negative I hadn't considered; Apple now has phones they can't sell to all carriers and might get stuck with inventory as a result.
Thank you for the insight.
And that would be why the numbers only add up to 96.4% ;)
Again, your assertion is that Apple restricted the performance "on a whim". Unless you happen to work inside Apple you can't claim that.
Call it an educated guess.
The assertion being made by Qualcomm... you know... in the lawsuit TFS mentioned... is that they did exactly that. I guess we'll find out soon enough as the trial plays out. In the mean time, your username remains as apt as ever.
Running a linux desktop is easier.
Unless you work in an industry where Adobe products are expected. Other than that, I'm right there with ya and that's exactly what I would be doing if I didn't work in such an industry. MacOS would be an option if Apple sold current-gen top-end hardware, or if I could run it on my own hardware; in fact, it would be a preference in my situation.
then call up microsoft to get upgraded to windows 10
Well... that would be interesting, considering that the user would have been, according to you, "[one of] those running Windows 10 [who] had mandatory upgrades that [...] bricked their [computers]."
and then eventually end up at Best Buy
And Best Buy would do what? Oh...
pop in install media and reinstall the OS
Also, about that hyperbole:
Not much difference between returning a device to where you bought it from to get it fixed versus sending back to the manufacturer.
There's plenty, actually. Out of warranty, you get no support for a bricked device and a repair shop tells you all they can do is sell you a new one. A computer that just needs the OS reinstalled, however...
I'm sure you see where I'm going with this, but I've been wrong in assuming the double-digit-or-higher IQ of a Slashdot poster in the past, so I'll spell it out for you. Even paying Geek Squad to re-install Windows is cheaper than buying a new computer in most cases.
And that's before Windows boots into recovery mode automatically after 3 failed boot attempts and automatically restores the system to its pre-update state. Which, by the way, is free and requires the user to literally do nothing but sit there and let the machine fix itself.
And most people have a family geek they can call who will tell them to do just that. I can see how that might not work for your family but, then, most people aren't related to you.
Right. Apple didn't know about the performance difference between the two radio chips, they jsut restricted the performance of the Qualcomm part on a whim. I'll buy that for a dollar (before $1 instant rebate).
To increase their bottom line it's in their best interest to push back against Qualcomm.
And when their pushback costs more than it saves? I think that's what you missed... which was... you know... my point and all...
Let's be generous and say they pay 5 cents less for the Intel chip vs the Qualcomm chip; we know they've sold roughly 80 million iPhone 7s to date. Assuming roughly half of those had the Intel chip in them, which we know to be more or less accurate, they've saved roughly $2 million in parts.
Designing and testing a single board at the scale we're talking about here costs about that, and they had to design two more, plus the various certifications that were needed, plus recertification for every firmware they release going forward, until they stop releasing firmware updates for the iPhone 7. Yes, this will cost them more than $2 million. Even if they sell another 20 million iPhone 7s, the overall cost to them will still exceed the $2.5 million they'll have "saved". In fact, if they double their sales, they'll still left have money on the table for this.
Yes, it's $2.5 million saved on parts; however, parts are not the only cost here.
The real story, here, is that the iPhone could have faster connectivity. That it doesn't isn't even a financial decision, as Apple has opted to use the better part in some production runs and the inferior part in others, and hinder the performance of the superior part to negate any possible advantage it may bring. If it were a financial decision, they'd have used only the cheaper Intel chips.
In short, they had a better part available from a supplier with whom they already have a relationship (and who, in fact, is already supplying that part); they designed the device around the use of that part, and they actually produce the device with that part. They, then, re-designed the device around an inferior part and reduced the quality of the user experience of the device in order to optionally use that part.
I'm willing to bet the R&D cost of designing and testing four versions of the board (Qualcom and Intel; standard and plus), the development cost of integrating yet another chipset driver into the OS image, the cost of having a 3rd and 4th hardware revision certified by the relevant government agencies (worldwide), and the ongoing cost of developing and testing against two additional models of iPhone (standard and plus) far exceeds the couple pennies they may have saved on each unit containing an Intel chip.
Over all, this was a net expense for Apple and a net negative to the user experience of the iPhone7. That's the real story, here.