Ballmer knows he has no chance in hell of ever getting anything from this. The whole situation has been analyzed and recently the OIN told Ballmer to put up or shut up, so Ballmer is just saying this because he seems to get of sexually over all the attention he gets every time he opens his butthole about Linux.
He knows he's just farting into the wind and he's simply doing it to stink things up and hoping that he isn't standing there when he lets one go and the wind changes.
He's a fruitcake and he has no idea how shitty it makes him look. When the shit hits the fan then we'll seem something more than Ballmer jerking off in front of the fan with his mouth open.
The issue of a how many think they have vs. how many that have is not relevant because the threat is from adware/spyware. Viruses are not that big of a threat. Adware/Spyware is a monster threat. It is the likes of ad-aware, spybot search & Destroy, AVG Antispyware, Windows Defender, etc that catch and clean the vast majority of the malware on computers. Virus scanners detect and remove the relatively minor issues that affect computers.
I'm not saying that the antivirus programs should not be used. I'm saying instead that the adware/spyware are the real threats.
You can't dishonor a warranty because you choose to. There are laws. To modify an item is not enough reason to have the warranty dishonored. The company warranteeing the item must prove the modification broke the item. As well, since the DMCA Library of Congress exemption permits modifying cell phones to remove the locks there's no action that warrants the dishonoring of the warranty.
They do have an obligation under law to ensure they don't damage the consumer's iphone since the DMCA permits that cell phones can be unlocked legally. To damage that is the violate the very law that protects the consumer's right to unlock the phone.
A Federal Act (law) called the DMCA prohibits some reverse engineering, particularly surrounding encryption, etc. The iPhone is a cell phone. An exemption to the Federal law granted by the Library of Congress and it permits *ALL* individuals to unlock their phones. Apple developed the iPhone and Apple knew about this exemption prior to releasing the iPhone and selling it. Therefore Apple knows that altering the unlock is a violation of the exemption of the DMCA and hence a violation of the DMCA.
If you own an iPhone how long are you supposed to live with it being locked?
If you do not own an iPhone are you aware that you can't use the phone for anything at all until you get it unlocked? No internet, no ipod, no calculator, no maps, no wifi, nothing!
Did you know that it can only be unlocked by signing up to AT&T? (Or by hacking.)
Therefore, did you know you can't use the phone for anything until you agree to the 2 year service plan with AT&T?
What happens after 2 years? Are you just going to throw away the phone?
If you expect to keep using that phone then when the 2 years are up would you not like to use a different service provider? If so, how can you do that?
If your service plan expires after 2 years are you aware that your phone may be relocked and you can't use it?
If this is the case then your service agreement would be longer than 2 years because it becomes a brick after the 2 year service agreement unless you choose to sign up with AT&T again.
The federal exemption was created for a reason and this is most likely that reason. It is to keep you from having to commit to one provider even beyond the initial contract. The cost of the phones are most likely a factor in the reason behind the exemption.
Also, there's a Federal Act that limits the rights of companies such as Apple from dishonoring their warranty. When they offer a warranty they have certain requirements under law. One of the notable things is that it is not legal for a company to dishonor the warranty just because the item was modified. They must show that it damaged the item. Since there is no evidence that the iPhones have been damaged there's no legal basis behind Apple dishonoring the warranty for someone that has unlocked it.
Apple is essentially being dishonorable in this matter. The laws clearly give the owner of the iPhone the right to modify it (for good reason). Apple knew about those laws before they released the phone; as did AT&T. Apple has since broken the phones of many who have unlocked their phones and they have done so intentionally. On top of that they have relocked the phones even though the federal law says that you can unlock your cell phone. Apple's action are dishonorable because they are picking and choosing when to obey the DMCA. They expect consumers to obey it and in fact, acted in a hostile way toward consumers whom they believe are in violation of the DMCA. But when they are bound by the DMCA they choose to ignore it because it benefits them.
In addition they are being dishonorable in that they have found a way to violate fair use. You have a tune you purchased that you like. You want to use it as a ringtone? You can't, unless you agree to pay for the song a second time. If your ringtone is only 15 seconds that's fair use. I'm sure it can be longer or shorter but it is fair use. Apple is effectively cheating you (hence acting dishonorably) because they want to be able to pick and choose which laws they are willing to obey.
This isn't a matter of you altering their product and reselling it such as altering the OS and renaming it and reselling it, or even selling it illegally. It is a matter of them choosing to not obey the rules of law. They know these laws exist and the exemption.
No one can say you don't have the right to unlock your cell phone. If not then you can't tell anyone that they are breaking the law by doing so. Since the law permits this action explicitly it protects cons
The firmware modification is the unlock. The unlock is protected by law. You are entitled to unlock the iphone due to a Library of Congress exemption to the DMCA. Apple can not claim that they don't like this or that type of unlock. If they were smart they would have simply allowed us to unlock the phone.
Listen, you can't split hairs here. To break the phone due to an unlock when you know you will be breaking it and didn't make an attempt to accommodate the unlock (due to the unlock being legal as granted by the Library of Congress) then you are negligent to say the least and you are probably in violation of the DMCA if you do release the update and it breaks the iphone.
Apple should have simply created an easy switch to unlock the phone since it is ALLOWED by law. That way the consumer would not have to modify the firmware.
Many of you may not understand this yet but the phone is owned (as in controlled) by AT&T (not Apple) for the life of the iphone. Why is this? Because you can't do a single thing with the phone except make an emergency phone call until you unlock the phone through AT&T (or you hack it). Since Apple did not provide you a method of unlocking the phone you are committed to AT&T for the life of the phone (unless you hack it). So, your phone is worthless without service from AT&T unless you hack it, even after the 2 year contract is up.
I don't know if anyone has tested it yet, but what happens when your contract invalidates due to 2 years or you cancel the contract? Is your phone totally locked out again?
No matter how you look at it Apple should not, and better not (to be wise), brick anyone's phones. They know the techniques. They know the exact procedure, they know exactly how the hacks works. Obviously. By implementing a fix without accommodating the legal unlock they would be in violation of the DMCA and subject to cease and desist letters as well as lawsuits, if not class action lawsuits.
Modifying the car in your example is different than unlocking the phone. In your case you are modifying the car and then breaking it on your own. In the case of the iphone you are modifying the iphone and apple is breaking it in order to bypass the legal rights granted by the DMCA. They knew before the phone was created and sold that the DMCA allowed consumers to unlock their phones. They had, and have, a legal obligation not to make changes that purposefully deny the consumer the protection of the law granted by the DMCA exemption.
The real example would be: you buy the car from this company and the company knows you have the right to modify it. You then modify it. But they make it a requirement that you must go to their mechanic to start it and drive it. Their mechanic notices you have modified it so they devise a way to make it so the car will never work or not perform, even tho they knew you had the right to modify it.
That's really what we are talking about here. Apple knows now, in advance, what coding will brick/break/not work with the iphone and to put it in place is the same as the car mechanic intentionally disabling your car because he sees you modified it.
This is not true. They are selling a device which is a known product line. The product line, as sold by this manufacturer and other manufacturers, was granted an exemption by the Library of Congress. That means that the phone can be opened up and is no longer sealed. So it is not a closed sealed device as far as the law is concerned.
Guys, there is no two year agreement! It is an agreement for life. You own that phone and intend to use it you are stuck with AT&T, period. You think that in two years the phone will unlock itself? NO. So just how are you supposed to use other carriers when the two years are up?
I think you get the point. If you signed up with AT&T and you took the two year contract then you are obligated to that unless you find a way around it such as paying penalties. If you don't get out from under it you are still paying AT&T for those two years. You just aren't using the minutes, so that's free money to AT&T.
The point is that you are committed to AT&T for the effective life of the phone, not just two years. That's one of the reasons why there's an exemption to the DMCA. Most of you must realize the iphone will be in use much longer that 2 years.
What some of you may not understand about the iphone is that you can't use the it even as an ipod until you unlock it and you can only unlock it through AT&T (or some hack). So that means you loose full use of the device, not just the phone capabilities.
Apple did everything to screw the consumer on this one knowing the DMCA was covering our asses. They looked very seriously at this at judged how they would handle those attempting to protect their rights with the DMCA. It is obviously carefully calculated, since any company worth anything knows that the consumer has the right to unlock their cell phone.
You have the legal right to issue DMCA cease and decist letters and a legal right to sue, even in a class action, against Apple if they attempt to brick the phone or they don't carefully protect your rights as a consumer by not negligently creating software that they know could potentially brick the phone.
The way it is set up,that is an AT&T for life phone, not a AT&T for 2 years phone.
The Library of Congress issued an exemption to the DMCA that permits consumers to unlock their cell phones. That trumps all. You are not in violation of any laws. If Apple attempts to brick the phones in retaliation or even offers software knowing that it will brick the phone, puts them in violation of the DMCA and our rights as consumers.
The Library Of Congress exemption to the DMCA that permits the unlocking of a cell phone protects us against companies that intentionally lock their phones. It was set up to allow us to safely unlock our phones so we could use them on other providers. In a way it was tacitly set up to protect us from allowing companies such as Apple from breaking the phones once the unlock was done.
Expect to see Apple receive cease and desist letters telling them that it is illegal to undo the unlock or to code anything that will will harm our rights to unlock the phone.
Everyone that has an iphone can legally send the letters. DMCA letters, and other letters. Everyone should send the letter whether they unlocked it or not because it will protect your rights in the future. Even if you don't want to unlock your iphone you may want to unlock a phone in the future and supporting this now supports your efforts in the future.
I sell no computer where the consumer has no choice on what is to be installed. If they want linux they get linux. If they want windows they get windows. If they want Vista I advise against it with all my might. They 47 spying programs, the wgn/wga tools, the activation, the lack of privacy, the DRM, and more is enough to get people to wise up to the reality of what a monopoly provides to them, and to the monopoly.
But I never charge $50 for an install. I do all the drivers, the updates, give them free antivirus/adware protection, free productivity apps, etc. My cost is $85.00. I know others have higher costs and some lower. When you consider it takes at least 2 hours to just do the Microsoft updates/service packs (including the option software) -- after the OS has been installed with drivers -- before protection apps and then beautification you should be able to see why $85.00 is not out of line. It can take 4-8 hours just to complete the install with everything.
Bundling helps companies such as Dell, Sony, etc. It hurts consumer choice because they don't realize they have a choice of operating systems other than Microsoft. When people find out from me they are happy I told them and amazed they didn't know there were other choices. I've turned a lot of people onto the Macintosh and onto Linux. Almost everyone that comes into my store gets a demo of Linux with Beryl/Compiz.
Finally some intelligent opinions in favor of the obvious. The key is that we have stifled innovation due to no competition. Force the unbundling and we'll all have a choice because we can show that other OSes are there and capable of doing what 90% of the people want. With bundling we don't have that at all as most that get a computer with a bundled OS have no idea that they have a choice. This is a FACT, and you can't deny it.
The purpose of Ubuntu is for the average user. He wants advanced stuff up front well, he can go for the likes of debian or gentoo. Ubuntu is not intended to focus on advanced. It's intended to focus on the human being.
We must wonder what his real motivation is because it isn't for the good of majority (as the majority are mom and pops).
If we can get a distro that mom and pop will use (as 90% of all people can use Ubuntu effectively) then we should. His attempts to denigrate the attempts of Ubuntu seem somewhat motivated by other things.
We just have to stop giving these people a pedestal and just let the accomplishments of the product speak for itself.
Gnome, though it is my favorite desktop for linux, has always been very buggy. This release is no different. What the developers don't realize is that once they commit to fixing bugs we the end user will see those bug fixes as new features. Someone there needs to be bonked on the head so they can understand that fixing bugs can be seen as new features by users.
Users don't want buggy software even if it appears that new features have been added.
There are some real show stoppers in gnome. Interesting that for release after release they haven't fixed them. One of them clearly can be demonstrated by copying large numbers of files on a network. You'll be regularly prompted for generic errors about the copy process. You can retry and the file MAY be copied. Moving files over a network is not a safe endeavor. Yeah yeah, small groups of files are ok, but large groups can result in you thinking the process has completed when it really didn't complete the process.
So, some serious show stoppers yet we get a.12 update and we cheer.
The poor SOBs that take this music while being inundated with ads are pathetic. Serves them right to live with one song one or more ads. Anyone that goes for this crap sucks.
To charge you twice for the same song is theft. Just because the song is played upon the ring of a phone vs playing on the same device as a song should make no difference. It is pure theft to charge you two times for the same content. If it fraudulent to do this to the customers.
One of the few times you will ever here me say this: Thank God.
I am so impressed that these people know how to evaluate the situation and understand the impact of what Microsoft's abuse has been doing to the whole industry. Microsoft is the most untrustworthy of all companies in the world. I can only compare my unhappiness with them to how unhappy I am with the current Presidency. At least the EU folks have a head on their shoulders and know how to assess the real facts. Microsoft has been convicted yet again and that conviction has been upheld. Now we wait for their ultimate appeal--which we know they will appeal again.
Those criminals at Microsoft are calling everyone else criminals. It is good to see their criminal nature exposed to the world.
This is a bit off topic, but every night at 8:30pm I loose access to Google. My provider is Comcast. I've tested it on many computers. I've also used a wireless to check it out on my neighbors internet access and it is only my network at 8:30pm that is locked out. I can access every other thing without issue.
I think his write up is representative of someone who thinks computers and their operating systems should be Windows compatible instead of getting educated to learn that the choices one makes always require a learning curve. He also seems to be a OSX buff and is rather set in his ways. One would always expect with a new system and new operating system to have to jump in with both feet first. I don't think his complaints were strong enough to warrant his conclusion without him being biased before the article was even written. When you consider that gnome is very user friendly (albeit with a ton of bugs that they could easily fix--and fixing those bugs would make them feel like new features) and quite easy to use compared to any GUI based OS. He's also very much off his rocker when it comes to saying that the user has to issue commands by typing into a terminal. This is not necessary when you learn how to get things done with the GUI. Honestly though, of those few that you may issue doing so only makes it easier, not more difficult. Though I have crossed paths with some command line programs that are way out there and the authors should be shot (just joking). There are excessive command line programs but they are generally not required to work with the computer.
He also misses the boat on Open Source in that there are 10s of thousands of free software programs whereas almost everything, every thing under OS X is something that costs you money even the little utilities. So, the small complaints about the sensitive touch pad, some driver issues (which is prevalent in every OS--especially OS X--as I have used it for many years), and command line commands, are greatly outweighed by the massive benefit of the online free support, the works out of the box nature of the distros (in general), and the fact that there are huge numbers of programs ready and available for anyone to use.
If Dell is not fine tuning those systems and just dumping them on the market without the proper drivers then something is wrong at Dell and not with Linux.
Now we've read lots of reviews in the past by newbs as well as the educated (about linux and other OSes) and it is abundantly clear that this guy is very biased and centered on the "IE and Safari" against Firefox mindset. Anyone educated knows the issues with IE and knows how to write up reviews. Anyone educated knows about Safari and about Firefox and knows how to write reviews about them. This guy is not educated about Linux and he's questionable in his overall knowledge of the user demands. Essentially he's not educated and he's biased.
Someone set up a listing of those that are issuing the DMCA notices. Then begin to issue DMCA notices to them. Also it would be good to issue counter complaints against those issuing the notices. That's your right. It works too.
Do not support EMI nor iTunes. The reason is that EMI still enters contracts with artists that result in the artist getting only 4% of the total revenue for the sale of their work. You say that 4% is better than nothing but unless you look at it as 96% of revenues going to an organization that forces the artists to pay for all costs. And EMI is still a member of the RIAA which sues consumers.
So, don't support EMI as they are in support of suing consumers and they cheat the artists into only providing them 4% of the total income. Pretty sad.
If Alexander Graham Bell hadn't tried to make the telephone someone elsewhere would have--we know this through various filings and lawsuits that occurred after AGB began selling his phones and services. The argument that his cronnie at Microsoft tries to make has been debated a million times over, and over a longer period of time than even he has been alive. He's naive. He doesn't think outside the box. He will harm Microsoft, but how cares!?!
Google would have come into existence and grown no matter what. It would have become what it is no matter who created the OS. No matter who propagated the browser, etc. If Microsoft's OS hadn't taken off then IBM's would have or Apple's would have. If IBM hadn't done such a good job with mainframes from years ago someone else would have. If DEC hadn't make great minis then someone else would have. If Apple hadn't make great desktops someone else would have. If Apple hadn't implemented the GUI for the mass media someone else would have.
By this cronnie's logic Microsoft's sheer existence is due to Apple computer. What the hell is wrong with those people at Microsoft? Are they trying to play games with how history writes their footnotes? These guys are so utterly out there that we really need to continually question their motivation and in this case their competency. Microsoft was no more responsible for the creation of Google than Apple is. These companies are no more responsible for it than the anyone else.
There was a program on done by a man named James Burke. He had a very nice PBS mini series where he talked about connections and the day the universe changed. He tracks the changes that one person or entity and took from others to make something new that was then taken by others and something even newer was made, and on and on and on.
These comments by Microsoft are stupid and show their sheer jealousy and contempt for the success of Google.
Microsoft eats up a lot of space in the Redmond area yet they are not even responsible for putting in a single park or helping the community (except maybe in taxes--which they only collect for in-state sales). They have done nothing really for the community, nor have their employees. But Google is sponsoring a prize for reaching the moon by a private enterprise. Do you see Microsoft doing anything like that? NO, not even their charity to other countries is as pure as you might think. They generally only help a country who's leaders agree to buy Microsoft's products. So, charity at a price. But Google does much more.
Microsoft is no more responsible for the computer revolution than any other entity that contributed their piece that others built upon.
Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer knows he has no chance in hell of ever getting anything from this. The whole situation has been analyzed and recently the OIN told Ballmer to put up or shut up, so Ballmer is just saying this because he seems to get of sexually over all the attention he gets every time he opens his butthole about Linux.
He knows he's just farting into the wind and he's simply doing it to stink things up and hoping that he isn't standing there when he lets one go and the wind changes.
He's a fruitcake and he has no idea how shitty it makes him look. When the shit hits the fan then we'll seem something more than Ballmer jerking off in front of the fan with his mouth open.
The issue of a how many think they have vs. how many that have is not relevant because the threat is from adware/spyware. Viruses are not that big of a threat. Adware/Spyware is a monster threat. It is the likes of ad-aware, spybot search & Destroy, AVG Antispyware, Windows Defender, etc that catch and clean the vast majority of the malware on computers. Virus scanners detect and remove the relatively minor issues that affect computers.
I'm not saying that the antivirus programs should not be used. I'm saying instead that the adware/spyware are the real threats.
You can't dishonor a warranty because you choose to. There are laws. To modify an item is not enough reason to have the warranty dishonored. The company warranteeing the item must prove the modification broke the item. As well, since the DMCA Library of Congress exemption permits modifying cell phones to remove the locks there's no action that warrants the dishonoring of the warranty.
They do have an obligation under law to ensure they don't damage the consumer's iphone since the DMCA permits that cell phones can be unlocked legally. To damage that is the violate the very law that protects the consumer's right to unlock the phone.
A Federal Act (law) called the DMCA prohibits some reverse engineering, particularly surrounding encryption, etc. The iPhone is a cell phone. An exemption to the Federal law granted by the Library of Congress and it permits *ALL* individuals to unlock their phones. Apple developed the iPhone and Apple knew about this exemption prior to releasing the iPhone and selling it. Therefore Apple knows that altering the unlock is a violation of the exemption of the DMCA and hence a violation of the DMCA.
If you own an iPhone how long are you supposed to live with it being locked?
If you do not own an iPhone are you aware that you can't use the phone for anything at all until you get it unlocked? No internet, no ipod, no calculator, no maps, no wifi, nothing!
Did you know that it can only be unlocked by signing up to AT&T? (Or by hacking.)
Therefore, did you know you can't use the phone for anything until you agree to the 2 year service plan with AT&T?
What happens after 2 years? Are you just going to throw away the phone?
If you expect to keep using that phone then when the 2 years are up would you not like to use a different service provider? If so, how can you do that?
If your service plan expires after 2 years are you aware that your phone may be relocked and you can't use it?
If this is the case then your service agreement would be longer than 2 years because it becomes a brick after the 2 year service agreement unless you choose to sign up with AT&T again.
The federal exemption was created for a reason and this is most likely that reason. It is to keep you from having to commit to one provider even beyond the initial contract. The cost of the phones are most likely a factor in the reason behind the exemption.
Also, there's a Federal Act that limits the rights of companies such as Apple from dishonoring their warranty. When they offer a warranty they have certain requirements under law. One of the notable things is that it is not legal for a company to dishonor the warranty just because the item was modified. They must show that it damaged the item. Since there is no evidence that the iPhones have been damaged there's no legal basis behind Apple dishonoring the warranty for someone that has unlocked it.
Apple is essentially being dishonorable in this matter. The laws clearly give the owner of the iPhone the right to modify it (for good reason). Apple knew about those laws before they released the phone; as did AT&T. Apple has since broken the phones of many who have unlocked their phones and they have done so intentionally. On top of that they have relocked the phones even though the federal law says that you can unlock your cell phone. Apple's action are dishonorable because they are picking and choosing when to obey the DMCA. They expect consumers to obey it and in fact, acted in a hostile way toward consumers whom they believe are in violation of the DMCA. But when they are bound by the DMCA they choose to ignore it because it benefits them.
In addition they are being dishonorable in that they have found a way to violate fair use. You have a tune you purchased that you like. You want to use it as a ringtone? You can't, unless you agree to pay for the song a second time. If your ringtone is only 15 seconds that's fair use. I'm sure it can be longer or shorter but it is fair use. Apple is effectively cheating you (hence acting dishonorably) because they want to be able to pick and choose which laws they are willing to obey.
This isn't a matter of you altering their product and reselling it such as altering the OS and renaming it and reselling it, or even selling it illegally. It is a matter of them choosing to not obey the rules of law. They know these laws exist and the exemption.
No one can say you don't have the right to unlock your cell phone. If not then you can't tell anyone that they are breaking the law by doing so. Since the law permits this action explicitly it protects cons
The firmware modification is the unlock. The unlock is protected by law. You are entitled to unlock the iphone due to a Library of Congress exemption to the DMCA. Apple can not claim that they don't like this or that type of unlock. If they were smart they would have simply allowed us to unlock the phone.
Listen, you can't split hairs here. To break the phone due to an unlock when you know you will be breaking it and didn't make an attempt to accommodate the unlock (due to the unlock being legal as granted by the Library of Congress) then you are negligent to say the least and you are probably in violation of the DMCA if you do release the update and it breaks the iphone.
Apple should have simply created an easy switch to unlock the phone since it is ALLOWED by law. That way the consumer would not have to modify the firmware.
Many of you may not understand this yet but the phone is owned (as in controlled) by AT&T (not Apple) for the life of the iphone. Why is this? Because you can't do a single thing with the phone except make an emergency phone call until you unlock the phone through AT&T (or you hack it). Since Apple did not provide you a method of unlocking the phone you are committed to AT&T for the life of the phone (unless you hack it). So, your phone is worthless without service from AT&T unless you hack it, even after the 2 year contract is up.
I don't know if anyone has tested it yet, but what happens when your contract invalidates due to 2 years or you cancel the contract? Is your phone totally locked out again?
No matter how you look at it Apple should not, and better not (to be wise), brick anyone's phones. They know the techniques. They know the exact procedure, they know exactly how the hacks works. Obviously. By implementing a fix without accommodating the legal unlock they would be in violation of the DMCA and subject to cease and desist letters as well as lawsuits, if not class action lawsuits.
Modifying the car in your example is different than unlocking the phone. In your case you are modifying the car and then breaking it on your own. In the case of the iphone you are modifying the iphone and apple is breaking it in order to bypass the legal rights granted by the DMCA. They knew before the phone was created and sold that the DMCA allowed consumers to unlock their phones. They had, and have, a legal obligation not to make changes that purposefully deny the consumer the protection of the law granted by the DMCA exemption.
The real example would be: you buy the car from this company and the company knows you have the right to modify it. You then modify it. But they make it a requirement that you must go to their mechanic to start it and drive it. Their mechanic notices you have modified it so they devise a way to make it so the car will never work or not perform, even tho they knew you had the right to modify it.
That's really what we are talking about here. Apple knows now, in advance, what coding will brick/break/not work with the iphone and to put it in place is the same as the car mechanic intentionally disabling your car because he sees you modified it.
This is not true. They are selling a device which is a known product line. The product line, as sold by this manufacturer and other manufacturers, was granted an exemption by the Library of Congress. That means that the phone can be opened up and is no longer sealed. So it is not a closed sealed device as far as the law is concerned.
DMCA says you can unlock a cell phone
Cell phone manufacturers know about the DMCA exemption.
Apple is a cell phone manufacturer.
Apple knows about the exemption.
Apple is locked into legally obliging what the DMCA exemption allows.
Apple finds other ways to by pass the exemption.
Is this legal?
Apple's attempts must be such that they don't violate our right to unlock the cell phone.
If they do they will be sued and they'll receive the requisite DMCA cease and decist letters.
Guys, there is no two year agreement! It is an agreement for life. You own that phone and intend to use it you are stuck with AT&T, period. You think that in two years the phone will unlock itself? NO. So just how are you supposed to use other carriers when the two years are up?
I think you get the point. If you signed up with AT&T and you took the two year contract then you are obligated to that unless you find a way around it such as paying penalties. If you don't get out from under it you are still paying AT&T for those two years. You just aren't using the minutes, so that's free money to AT&T.
The point is that you are committed to AT&T for the effective life of the phone, not just two years. That's one of the reasons why there's an exemption to the DMCA. Most of you must realize the iphone will be in use much longer that 2 years.
What some of you may not understand about the iphone is that you can't use the it even as an ipod until you unlock it and you can only unlock it through AT&T (or some hack). So that means you loose full use of the device, not just the phone capabilities.
Apple did everything to screw the consumer on this one knowing the DMCA was covering our asses. They looked very seriously at this at judged how they would handle those attempting to protect their rights with the DMCA. It is obviously carefully calculated, since any company worth anything knows that the consumer has the right to unlock their cell phone.
You have the legal right to issue DMCA cease and decist letters and a legal right to sue, even in a class action, against Apple if they attempt to brick the phone or they don't carefully protect your rights as a consumer by not negligently creating software that they know could potentially brick the phone.
The way it is set up,that is an AT&T for life phone, not a AT&T for 2 years phone.
The Library of Congress issued an exemption to the DMCA that permits consumers to unlock their cell phones. That trumps all. You are not in violation of any laws. If Apple attempts to brick the phones in retaliation or even offers software knowing that it will brick the phone, puts them in violation of the DMCA and our rights as consumers.
The Library Of Congress exemption to the DMCA that permits the unlocking of a cell phone protects us against companies that intentionally lock their phones. It was set up to allow us to safely unlock our phones so we could use them on other providers. In a way it was tacitly set up to protect us from allowing companies such as Apple from breaking the phones once the unlock was done.
Expect to see Apple receive cease and desist letters telling them that it is illegal to undo the unlock or to code anything that will will harm our rights to unlock the phone.
Everyone that has an iphone can legally send the letters. DMCA letters, and other letters. Everyone should send the letter whether they unlocked it or not because it will protect your rights in the future. Even if you don't want to unlock your iphone you may want to unlock a phone in the future and supporting this now supports your efforts in the future.
I sell no computer where the consumer has no choice on what is to be installed. If they want linux they get linux. If they want windows they get windows. If they want Vista I advise against it with all my might. They 47 spying programs, the wgn/wga tools, the activation, the lack of privacy, the DRM, and more is enough to get people to wise up to the reality of what a monopoly provides to them, and to the monopoly.
But I never charge $50 for an install. I do all the drivers, the updates, give them free antivirus/adware protection, free productivity apps, etc. My cost is $85.00. I know others have higher costs and some lower. When you consider it takes at least 2 hours to just do the Microsoft updates/service packs (including the option software) -- after the OS has been installed with drivers -- before protection apps and then beautification you should be able to see why $85.00 is not out of line. It can take 4-8 hours just to complete the install with everything.
Bundling helps companies such as Dell, Sony, etc. It hurts consumer choice because they don't realize they have a choice of operating systems other than Microsoft. When people find out from me they are happy I told them and amazed they didn't know there were other choices. I've turned a lot of people onto the Macintosh and onto Linux. Almost everyone that comes into my store gets a demo of Linux with Beryl/Compiz.
Consumers need to know there's a choice!!!
Finally some intelligent opinions in favor of the obvious. The key is that we have stifled innovation due to no competition. Force the unbundling and we'll all have a choice because we can show that other OSes are there and capable of doing what 90% of the people want. With bundling we don't have that at all as most that get a computer with a bundled OS have no idea that they have a choice. This is a FACT, and you can't deny it.
The purpose of Ubuntu is for the average user. He wants advanced stuff up front well, he can go for the likes of debian or gentoo. Ubuntu is not intended to focus on advanced. It's intended to focus on the human being.
We must wonder what his real motivation is because it isn't for the good of majority (as the majority are mom and pops).
If we can get a distro that mom and pop will use (as 90% of all people can use Ubuntu effectively) then we should. His attempts to denigrate the attempts of Ubuntu seem somewhat motivated by other things.
We just have to stop giving these people a pedestal and just let the accomplishments of the product speak for itself.
Gnome, though it is my favorite desktop for linux, has always been very buggy. This release is no different. What the developers don't realize is that once they commit to fixing bugs we the end user will see those bug fixes as new features. Someone there needs to be bonked on the head so they can understand that fixing bugs can be seen as new features by users.
.12 update and we cheer.
Users don't want buggy software even if it appears that new features have been added.
There are some real show stoppers in gnome. Interesting that for release after release they haven't fixed them. One of them clearly can be demonstrated by copying large numbers of files on a network. You'll be regularly prompted for generic errors about the copy process. You can retry and the file MAY be copied. Moving files over a network is not a safe endeavor. Yeah yeah, small groups of files are ok, but large groups can result in you thinking the process has completed when it really didn't complete the process.
So, some serious show stoppers yet we get a
FIX THE BUGS!!
Sorry, just couldn't resist.
The poor SOBs that take this music while being inundated with ads are pathetic. Serves them right to live with one song one or more ads. Anyone that goes for this crap sucks.
To charge you twice for the same song is theft. Just because the song is played upon the ring of a phone vs playing on the same device as a song should make no difference. It is pure theft to charge you two times for the same content. If it fraudulent to do this to the customers.
One of the few times you will ever here me say this: Thank God.
I am so impressed that these people know how to evaluate the situation and understand the impact of what Microsoft's abuse has been doing to the whole industry. Microsoft is the most untrustworthy of all companies in the world. I can only compare my unhappiness with them to how unhappy I am with the current Presidency. At least the EU folks have a head on their shoulders and know how to assess the real facts. Microsoft has been convicted yet again and that conviction has been upheld. Now we wait for their ultimate appeal--which we know they will appeal again.
Those criminals at Microsoft are calling everyone else criminals. It is good to see their criminal nature exposed to the world.
This is a bit off topic, but every night at 8:30pm I loose access to Google. My provider is Comcast. I've tested it on many computers. I've also used a wireless to check it out on my neighbors internet access and it is only my network at 8:30pm that is locked out. I can access every other thing without issue.
I think his write up is representative of someone who thinks computers and their operating systems should be Windows compatible instead of getting educated to learn that the choices one makes always require a learning curve. He also seems to be a OSX buff and is rather set in his ways. One would always expect with a new system and new operating system to have to jump in with both feet first. I don't think his complaints were strong enough to warrant his conclusion without him being biased before the article was even written. When you consider that gnome is very user friendly (albeit with a ton of bugs that they could easily fix--and fixing those bugs would make them feel like new features) and quite easy to use compared to any GUI based OS. He's also very much off his rocker when it comes to saying that the user has to issue commands by typing into a terminal. This is not necessary when you learn how to get things done with the GUI. Honestly though, of those few that you may issue doing so only makes it easier, not more difficult. Though I have crossed paths with some command line programs that are way out there and the authors should be shot (just joking). There are excessive command line programs but they are generally not required to work with the computer.
He also misses the boat on Open Source in that there are 10s of thousands of free software programs whereas almost everything, every thing under OS X is something that costs you money even the little utilities. So, the small complaints about the sensitive touch pad, some driver issues (which is prevalent in every OS--especially OS X--as I have used it for many years), and command line commands, are greatly outweighed by the massive benefit of the online free support, the works out of the box nature of the distros (in general), and the fact that there are huge numbers of programs ready and available for anyone to use.
If Dell is not fine tuning those systems and just dumping them on the market without the proper drivers then something is wrong at Dell and not with Linux.
Now we've read lots of reviews in the past by newbs as well as the educated (about linux and other OSes) and it is abundantly clear that this guy is very biased and centered on the "IE and Safari" against Firefox mindset. Anyone educated knows the issues with IE and knows how to write up reviews. Anyone educated knows about Safari and about Firefox and knows how to write reviews about them. This guy is not educated about Linux and he's questionable in his overall knowledge of the user demands. Essentially he's not educated and he's biased.
Someone set up a listing of those that are issuing the DMCA notices. Then begin to issue DMCA notices to them. Also it would be good to issue counter complaints against those issuing the notices. That's your right. It works too.
Their purpose is to collect names for law suits so that they can make money.
Do not support EMI nor iTunes. The reason is that EMI still enters contracts with artists that result in the artist getting only 4% of the total revenue for the sale of their work. You say that 4% is better than nothing but unless you look at it as 96% of revenues going to an organization that forces the artists to pay for all costs. And EMI is still a member of the RIAA which sues consumers.
So, don't support EMI as they are in support of suing consumers and they cheat the artists into only providing them 4% of the total income. Pretty sad.
If Alexander Graham Bell hadn't tried to make the telephone someone elsewhere would have--we know this through various filings and lawsuits that occurred after AGB began selling his phones and services. The argument that his cronnie at Microsoft tries to make has been debated a million times over, and over a longer period of time than even he has been alive. He's naive. He doesn't think outside the box. He will harm Microsoft, but how cares!?!
Google would have come into existence and grown no matter what. It would have become what it is no matter who created the OS. No matter who propagated the browser, etc. If Microsoft's OS hadn't taken off then IBM's would have or Apple's would have. If IBM hadn't done such a good job with mainframes from years ago someone else would have. If DEC hadn't make great minis then someone else would have. If Apple hadn't make great desktops someone else would have. If Apple hadn't implemented the GUI for the mass media someone else would have.
By this cronnie's logic Microsoft's sheer existence is due to Apple computer. What the hell is wrong with those people at Microsoft? Are they trying to play games with how history writes their footnotes? These guys are so utterly out there that we really need to continually question their motivation and in this case their competency. Microsoft was no more responsible for the creation of Google than Apple is. These companies are no more responsible for it than the anyone else.
There was a program on done by a man named James Burke. He had a very nice PBS mini series where he talked about connections and the day the universe changed. He tracks the changes that one person or entity and took from others to make something new that was then taken by others and something even newer was made, and on and on and on.
These comments by Microsoft are stupid and show their sheer jealousy and contempt for the success of Google.
Microsoft eats up a lot of space in the Redmond area yet they are not even responsible for putting in a single park or helping the community (except maybe in taxes--which they only collect for in-state sales). They have done nothing really for the community, nor have their employees. But Google is sponsoring a prize for reaching the moon by a private enterprise. Do you see Microsoft doing anything like that? NO, not even their charity to other countries is as pure as you might think. They generally only help a country who's leaders agree to buy Microsoft's products. So, charity at a price. But Google does much more.
Microsoft is no more responsible for the computer revolution than any other entity that contributed their piece that others built upon.