YES! Someone with common sense! I'm sick and tired of hearing people whine and bitch about how evil Apple is for doing this, when Apple made no frigging secret about the fact that the update would brick modded phones. People are like "yeah but it's mine and I'll do what I want with it", well sure, but also realize that you're taking the risk. Apple is in no way obligated to support hacked phones any more than Adobe or Microsoft are obligated to support that version of CS3 or Windows you cracked. Until I hear reports of people being forced to buy iPhones at gunpoint, you are voluntarily putting yourself under certain restrictions when buying an iPhone. If you don't like the T&Cs, DON'T BUY THE DAMNED THING.
Ascribing moral equality between the governments of China and the USA is an insult to the innocent people executed and imprisoned by the vile, corrupt government of China.
Because the US would never consider executing innocent people now, would they?
BTW, I understand your point, just playing devil's advocate.
Well, yes and no I suppose. Yes, since they are preventing users from using their phones on other networks, but no because it's not really Apple that gains from this. After all, if you've bought the iPhone, Apple already has your money. OK, I guess they lose the potential revenue from the loss of the contract, but I would have thought AT&T would be the big loser there. But then again, doesn't the purchase of an iPhone also require a minimum contract (genuine question...I don't know)? If it does, then even unlocking your phone is a hollow victory - since you're still lining the pockets of the AT&T and Apple execs by either continuing to pay for a service you're not using, or having to pay a fee to break the contract early. Either way, AT&T are the winners.
Sure, it's obvious that this update is aimed at breaking unlocked phones. But that's unfortunately the risk you take by unlocking your phone. Yes, it sucks, majorly, but it's not like Apple have made any secret of the fact that they don't want you unlocking your phone.
What, releasing a firmware update? Or do you mean because it renders unlocked phones useless? I highly doubt it. I am sure the fine-print means you would forfeit your right to warranty and fitness for purpose if you go modifying your phone at such a basic level, so no, I am doubtful you could argue this is illegal. So long as you have the right not to accept the update, I guess. But even if the update were forced upon it, I'm sure you'd still have a hard time convincing a judge that it was an illegal act on Apple's part.
I've used each of those Linux distros (obviously not counting the BSDs) on various hardware configurations, and I've experienced KDE crashes at least once every single one - be it compiled by hand, or pre-packaged. With that said, GNOME wasn't exactly better in that department, either. That's not to say that KDE frequently crashes, but if you've used KDE for years and not once experienced a crash, then I'd say you're either mistaken, or bending the truth somewhat. Just playing devil's advocate here:)
So now it's possible to disable Windows machines remotely, how long will it be before someone writes a worm exploiting this? How long will it be before people start getting ransom notes in their inbox demanding cash "or the PC gets it"? And imagine the resulting chaos...MS would have to re-activate hundreds, probably thousands of computers that were maliciously disabled, presuming they can do that remotely too. The irony of course being that any affected machine would be incapable of updating itself with a patch to fix it. Machine gets infected, goes into reduced functionality mode...MS releases patch, but reduced functionality mode means that computer won't get said patch. Marvelous idea!
Seriously though, I could never use an operating system that not only could at any time be remotely triggered to lock me out, but that actually has that functionality deliberately built into it.
If I am "stealing" their revenue by not downloading their ads, are they not "stealing" my bandwidth by forcing me to download them, i.e. can I start charging these ad providers for the bandwidth they are consuming that I am leasing from my ISP?
Besides which, content providers don't own my eyes. If I don't want to see something, I am perfectly within my rights to block it. Can porn sites bitch because some people have parental controls that block their sites? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. What about services/products like Websense...aren't they "stealing" thousands of websites' revenue too?
Sorry, but no content provider has any right to clutter up my computer with all that bullshit. I can't count the number of times my browser has crashed or come to a screeching halt because some asshat advertisement decided it wanted to display some shitty flash movie. Sorry, no sympathy here. If your business model is so flaky that you depend entirely on advertising to support your site, well, you almost deserve to go under.
Of course the irony is that one should proof-read their own comments before criticizing someone else. Getting the slash and the dot around the right way would be a good start!
I've never been so disgusted as to be motivated to post a comment slagging off an article on./ before as I have now. This article is so poorly written by an author who so obviously hasn't the fainted clue what they are talking about, I didn't know whether to laugh, or just cringe when I read it. Honestly, I think I lost a few IQ points just from reading this trash.
Now I know./ posts some shaky articles, but this has to be the worst I've ever seen. Bad form, editors, bad form!
Which, of course, means he spends half of his time masturbating to strange pornography, the other half attacking easily-angered idiots for his personal amusement, and the other other half debating Bush, pedophilia, and quantum mechanics.
Otherwise should your charger break, you're screwed. There has to be some sort of unlock mechanism available for legitimate times when using another charger/computer is needed ("oops, I dropped my charger/laptop in the bath"). Of course that means there'd be a way around the lock mechanism. Which means it will be cracked. Which essentially renders it pointless to all but the Google-impaired.
According to the statement, Microsoft used sales conditions and offered software distributors incentives - described as loyalty discounts - so they wouldn't offer clients anything but Microsoft Office products.
That doesn't sound anything like the Microsoft I know.
Ubuntu gets quite a bit of publicity these days. I was just thinking - if all the major vendors start offering only Ubuntu as an alternative to Windows, doesn't that kind of conflict with the whole "Linux being about freedom to choose" idea? I mean, if Ubuntu becomes the ubiquitous Linux distribution bundled with new PCs, then it would, in some sense, become a monopolistic Linux distro. Yes, you can simply replace it with your flavor of choice, but half the argument for getting vendors to ship Linux-based PCs in the first place was that the majority of users just stick with whatever came installed with their computer. So couldn't the same be said of their Linux distribution?
I don't necessarily believe it myself, but possibly something at least worth considering a possibility?
I don't agree. There are plenty of people out there who may be interested, but just never really got around to actually looking it up. I was like that for a long time - I used Linux way before I knew anything about its beginnings. So I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would find this interesting. And trust me, there are plenty of people out there who don't know squat about the Great War either.
Your attempt at defending Vista is admirable, but I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you. I've been using Vista for a few months now, and I can say for sure, certainly from my perspective, it most certainly is not an improvement over XP. Unfortunately, since my "upgrade" to Vista, the pace at which I get that stuff done is noticeably slower. Perhaps it's due to me just getting used to it, or perhaps it really isn't a productivity booster. My feelings lean towards the latter. I've already disabled UAC, don't use Aero, turned off the sidebar, and tried as much as possible to trim it down to the point that it now just looks like XP with a new start menu. As far as I'm concerned the "improvements" Vista have brought are completely superfluous to the computing experience - there is no "must have" feature in Vista for me, and I'm sure many others. That and the fact that it runs like a dog even on the hardware I'm using which is little over a year old convince me that Vista is a major flop, despite what sales numbers might say.
I can't see why they don't offer a "No Operating System" option for their business machines, much like they do on their servers, and then just state that they won't support the software on any of these systems.
...and only one is currently in use. The one I am using right now. This is how enthusiastically we are embracing Vista.
Trust me, it's not worth the bother. It is slow, clunky, and cluttered. I've already disabled window transparency because it was too distracting, UAC because it was annoying the hell out of me, and my productivity has actually decreased, not because I'm just getting used to the new stuff, but because I'm having to wait around for the OS to catch up with what I'm doing - and this is on a PC a little over a year old. Now I know XP was a dog when it first came out (I worked on first line support at the time, and our call volume literally doubled), but I never remember it being this bad. If this is the best MS can come up with after six years, then they really have a lot to worry about. I'm not saying they're doomed or anything, but considering the R&D budget they have, and the huge pool of talent they can draw from, saying Vista is a disappointment is like saying it's a little chilly in Siberia.
Slashdot Mirror
YES! Someone with common sense! I'm sick and tired of hearing people whine and bitch about how evil Apple is for doing this, when Apple made no frigging secret about the fact that the update would brick modded phones. People are like "yeah but it's mine and I'll do what I want with it", well sure, but also realize that you're taking the risk. Apple is in no way obligated to support hacked phones any more than Adobe or Microsoft are obligated to support that version of CS3 or Windows you cracked. Until I hear reports of people being forced to buy iPhones at gunpoint, you are voluntarily putting yourself under certain restrictions when buying an iPhone. If you don't like the T&Cs, DON'T BUY THE DAMNED THING.
Because the US would never consider executing innocent people now, would they?
BTW, I understand your point, just playing devil's advocate.
Well, yes and no I suppose. Yes, since they are preventing users from using their phones on other networks, but no because it's not really Apple that gains from this. After all, if you've bought the iPhone, Apple already has your money. OK, I guess they lose the potential revenue from the loss of the contract, but I would have thought AT&T would be the big loser there. But then again, doesn't the purchase of an iPhone also require a minimum contract (genuine question...I don't know)? If it does, then even unlocking your phone is a hollow victory - since you're still lining the pockets of the AT&T and Apple execs by either continuing to pay for a service you're not using, or having to pay a fee to break the contract early. Either way, AT&T are the winners.
Sure, it's obvious that this update is aimed at breaking unlocked phones. But that's unfortunately the risk you take by unlocking your phone. Yes, it sucks, majorly, but it's not like Apple have made any secret of the fact that they don't want you unlocking your phone.
What, releasing a firmware update? Or do you mean because it renders unlocked phones useless? I highly doubt it. I am sure the fine-print means you would forfeit your right to warranty and fitness for purpose if you go modifying your phone at such a basic level, so no, I am doubtful you could argue this is illegal. So long as you have the right not to accept the update, I guess. But even if the update were forced upon it, I'm sure you'd still have a hard time convincing a judge that it was an illegal act on Apple's part.
I've used each of those Linux distros (obviously not counting the BSDs) on various hardware configurations, and I've experienced KDE crashes at least once every single one - be it compiled by hand, or pre-packaged. With that said, GNOME wasn't exactly better in that department, either. That's not to say that KDE frequently crashes, but if you've used KDE for years and not once experienced a crash, then I'd say you're either mistaken, or bending the truth somewhat. Just playing devil's advocate here :)
Your irony detector must be at the dry cleaners.
You must be new here ;)
So now it's possible to disable Windows machines remotely, how long will it be before someone writes a worm exploiting this? How long will it be before people start getting ransom notes in their inbox demanding cash "or the PC gets it"? And imagine the resulting chaos...MS would have to re-activate hundreds, probably thousands of computers that were maliciously disabled, presuming they can do that remotely too. The irony of course being that any affected machine would be incapable of updating itself with a patch to fix it. Machine gets infected, goes into reduced functionality mode...MS releases patch, but reduced functionality mode means that computer won't get said patch. Marvelous idea!
Seriously though, I could never use an operating system that not only could at any time be remotely triggered to lock me out, but that actually has that functionality deliberately built into it.
If I am "stealing" their revenue by not downloading their ads, are they not "stealing" my bandwidth by forcing me to download them, i.e. can I start charging these ad providers for the bandwidth they are consuming that I am leasing from my ISP? Besides which, content providers don't own my eyes. If I don't want to see something, I am perfectly within my rights to block it. Can porn sites bitch because some people have parental controls that block their sites? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. What about services/products like Websense...aren't they "stealing" thousands of websites' revenue too? Sorry, but no content provider has any right to clutter up my computer with all that bullshit. I can't count the number of times my browser has crashed or come to a screeching halt because some asshat advertisement decided it wanted to display some shitty flash movie. Sorry, no sympathy here. If your business model is so flaky that you depend entirely on advertising to support your site, well, you almost deserve to go under.
...they should standardize the way they standardize the standardization process. Just in case.
Of course the irony is that one should proof-read their own comments before criticizing someone else. Getting the slash and the dot around the right way would be a good start!
I've never been so disgusted as to be motivated to post a comment slagging off an article on ./ before as I have now. This article is so poorly written by an author who so obviously hasn't the fainted clue what they are talking about, I didn't know whether to laugh, or just cringe when I read it. Honestly, I think I lost a few IQ points just from reading this trash.
Now I know ./ posts some shaky articles, but this has to be the worst I've ever seen. Bad form, editors, bad form!
And our guys train on America's Army. And this is news...why exactly?
Sen. Ted Stevens addresses the Congress about the dangers of homeless people sleeping in the internet tubes.
Otherwise should your charger break, you're screwed. There has to be some sort of unlock mechanism available for legitimate times when using another charger/computer is needed ("oops, I dropped my charger/laptop in the bath"). Of course that means there'd be a way around the lock mechanism. Which means it will be cracked. Which essentially renders it pointless to all but the Google-impaired.
A Microsoft billion. They use a similar system to calculate the amount of time remaining when installing a .msi.
No chairs were harmed in the making of this press release.
"Now, if you'll just follow me, we have one more test to administer, an eye exam."
Ubuntu gets quite a bit of publicity these days. I was just thinking - if all the major vendors start offering only Ubuntu as an alternative to Windows, doesn't that kind of conflict with the whole "Linux being about freedom to choose" idea? I mean, if Ubuntu becomes the ubiquitous Linux distribution bundled with new PCs, then it would, in some sense, become a monopolistic Linux distro. Yes, you can simply replace it with your flavor of choice, but half the argument for getting vendors to ship Linux-based PCs in the first place was that the majority of users just stick with whatever came installed with their computer. So couldn't the same be said of their Linux distribution? I don't necessarily believe it myself, but possibly something at least worth considering a possibility?
I don't agree. There are plenty of people out there who may be interested, but just never really got around to actually looking it up. I was like that for a long time - I used Linux way before I knew anything about its beginnings. So I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would find this interesting. And trust me, there are plenty of people out there who don't know squat about the Great War either.
Your attempt at defending Vista is admirable, but I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you. I've been using Vista for a few months now, and I can say for sure, certainly from my perspective, it most certainly is not an improvement over XP. Unfortunately, since my "upgrade" to Vista, the pace at which I get that stuff done is noticeably slower. Perhaps it's due to me just getting used to it, or perhaps it really isn't a productivity booster. My feelings lean towards the latter. I've already disabled UAC, don't use Aero, turned off the sidebar, and tried as much as possible to trim it down to the point that it now just looks like XP with a new start menu. As far as I'm concerned the "improvements" Vista have brought are completely superfluous to the computing experience - there is no "must have" feature in Vista for me, and I'm sure many others. That and the fact that it runs like a dog even on the hardware I'm using which is little over a year old convince me that Vista is a major flop, despite what sales numbers might say.
I can't see why they don't offer a "No Operating System" option for their business machines, much like they do on their servers, and then just state that they won't support the software on any of these systems.
...and only one is currently in use. The one I am using right now. This is how enthusiastically we are embracing Vista. Trust me, it's not worth the bother. It is slow, clunky, and cluttered. I've already disabled window transparency because it was too distracting, UAC because it was annoying the hell out of me, and my productivity has actually decreased, not because I'm just getting used to the new stuff, but because I'm having to wait around for the OS to catch up with what I'm doing - and this is on a PC a little over a year old. Now I know XP was a dog when it first came out (I worked on first line support at the time, and our call volume literally doubled), but I never remember it being this bad. If this is the best MS can come up with after six years, then they really have a lot to worry about. I'm not saying they're doomed or anything, but considering the R&D budget they have, and the huge pool of talent they can draw from, saying Vista is a disappointment is like saying it's a little chilly in Siberia.