Agreed. I worked for a place that issued me a BB and I've got to say that it was a damn good phone. The call reception was very good. The ringer was good and loud. The battery lasted for DAYS...try that with your Apple or Android smartphone. The physical keyboard, once you got the hang of it, was far superior to the touch screen keyboards that are all the rage. Sure, it didn't have GasBuddy and Facebook and all those thousands of apps that people can't seem to live without. Somewhere along the way people decided that they wanted their phone to be their music player and camera and all that and BB just missed the boat. Shame really.
RIM really always was an enterprise. But they decided to give a new emerging market a shot. But they forgot you can't win at the uninformed easily seduced consumer market that apple owns. Just can't. They lost. But they can easily succeed in their niche: enterprise. Just like Apple succeeds with OSX market share at 10%. RIM will just go back to it's original success. Nothing wrong with it.
I don't think RIM is best. Actually, I think Android is best. But it's not a zero-sum game. I think BB is superb too. I think BB is superior as a smartphone, and Android as a general purpose mobile computer.
As for reminding you of a former Apple zealot, I wholeheartedly disagree. I always thought Apple products were inferior. Because they are. The reason Apple failed with Gil at the helm is because he attempted to make it a successful computer company. But that's not Apple. Apple isn't a hardware company like most on here think. It isn't a software company. It's a *marketing* company. It's a status company. It sells the image. Why do you think they always make the joke that you could put the Apple logo on a piece of shit and it would fly off the shelves? That is why Apple is successful. Enterprise and Business clients actually do their homework and research solutions. Consumer people think with their guy and will give their left nut for "image" and "status". Are Sean John Tshirts, which go down to someone's knees, worth $150? Steve knew this. He invented it!
Only reason I switched is I wanted something different. I had 2 BB's over like 3 or 4 years. Just needed a change, plain and simple. I went with the 3GS after that. iOS stunk, so I went with Android. Love android too. But my next phone will be that awesome BB Bold 9900.
And other people? Please. They just buy into the hype machine that is Apple. They see "ooh shiny" and then they get bombarded with commercials during the douchey primetime tv shows. Then they see all flakey and all-about-the-appearance people at the clubs whip it out to be seen talking on it, and then they HAVE to have one.
Ever notice that they don't look to see if X program is supported or that Y program can work with a device? No, they just go "ooh that's cute" and then buy it at the cell store.
Apple and Android has constant upgrades. The issue is moot. Messed up settings? Never had a problem with either BB. As for keyboard, I think you're smoking something.;-) The Bold was terrible--too small. But the prior one, and the new bold 9900 are bar none the best in existence. I can type as fast as a computer keyboard with those suckers.
SWB, your UID is too low to *not* know that Angry Birds are NOT useful apps. Your post makes no sense. And u also should know what the intent of my sentence was because with your UID (i'm guessing you've been compiling kernels since the 1.x days) you've been around long enough to have used a Blackberry.
So how is it not a smart phone? It has SSH clients, VoIP clients, mapping, etc. so what's your point?
That's a sweet deal. I come from the financial sector. There, you NEED a BB. You don't even get a choice, and for good reason. One breach and it's millions/billions. I see your point though.
Though if I were a CTO I wouldn't allow anything other than BB's and definitely no BYOD's. And I'd only let people remotely in via VPN's and passcode generator devices. But that's me. Trade secrets are too important.
Hah good 'ol Palm. I had one too (Treo). I see your point, but c'mon at least BB has the ability to do Apps and modern smartphone features.;-) I can't use the Treo for Pandora, Dropbox, Google Maps.:)
Latest one I used was the Bold 9700. Though I saw the new 9900 and I think ergonomically it's the best designed phone I've ever used. It feels perfect for typing, wonderful keyboard, wide enough to hold but not too big to be unwieldy.
But anyway, I seriously doubt you on the battery life. I used to get like almost a week with whatever OS was pre-BB 7. And neither iOS or Android get more than half a day either anymore. iOS was like 2 days in the 4.x days (I had a 3GS too). But with 5.1, it's gone to crap.
Apps? Has everything I need. But then again, I don't have the need to play the piano or punch the monkey on my phone. I use it for productivity. And as such, BB's market has most of what I need. Not even equivalents, but the actual apps. What exotic apps do you need? No seriously--give me specifics. Otherwise I smell BS.
As for astroturfing, miss the part where I said I own an Android phone? Besides, astroturfers sign up new fake accounts and post like crazy. Look at my UID. I've been posting since Chips and Dips.
I think you just have a case of feeling like u don't look cool with your BB and being too weak confidence-wise. So u bitch and moan at how "i hate it so much but my company gives it to me so that's why I have it." Because u need an iPhone as a status symbol to make u feel better out in public.
It'll be a sad day if RIM ever dies. But they can easily stay afloat by catering to their niche: enterprise. Because we all know Apple has never, and never will care about enterprise customers. And google's fragmentation and missing enterprise security features don't cut it.
Companies can still succeed by catering to a certain niche. You don't see people bitching that LinkedIn is dying because FB is the king. LinkedIn is doing fine. Or the perfect scenario. Apple makes a ton of money, yet OSX only has 10% market share. RIM just decided to take on Apple and the crowd that needs to play the piano on their smartphone. And the two don't mix. And they didn't understand until too late what showy snotty d-bags go with and want (read: piano apps). So they lost.
I'm in my early thirties and so are my friends. Ever attempt to get a call back within a *week* with ANYONE? Not me, and my closest friends are awesome in returning calls. And forget casual acquaintances. At least with a text, it'll at least be within 3 hours. I just gave up. I may be reliable and call back within the day, but nobody else is. Sometimes you pick your battles.
I'm not talking about meetings. That's just plain rude. I'd do the same gosh darn thing.
I can only conclude that basically companies are just planting RIM hate and RIM apocalypse stories. I see them all the time. But yet if you actually used a Blackberry, as a smartphone (and not an App machine) it's pretty damn good. But yet we see it day after day all these RIM hate stories. Besides, why would you want, as a consumer, one less competitor in the field. Because all that means is the remaining ones will compete less, charge more, and give you less features.
Don't believe the hype planted by companies and their collaboraters in the media. Forget all the rest of the crap--if it's a good phone and you like it, buy it. And even though I use an Android phone now, I absolutely LOVED my two old BB's (old BB and that BB Bold 9700).
There always is email. Everyone has email. In fact it's better for that because it's designed and has a multitude of features for message communication (read: accessable through native clients like outlook/thunderbird, can send attachments, good smartphone clients for mobile use--FB apps are atrocious). And you don't have to deal with the privacy nightmare of FB.
Also, I would argue it's better to video chat/skype/etc your friends. If you know people internationally then you should know that EVERYONE uses skype. It's MORE ubiqutious than FB. And that's way better to talk to your friends on occasion than a BS message on FB. And again, if they don't have time to video chat you once every few months and instead will only send u a message, then again it goes back to my original premise being true--that they aren't really your friends and aren't worth keeping in touch with.
As to your second point, did you miss my point about that even though there is a "share with" thing that it's trivial to get around and when employers do background checks they frequently do? So no, your solution is moot and no privacy is available even though you make things private. That's my point.
Not that I have a use for FB anyway, but if I needed social networking for some silly reason, I'd *rather* use myspace hah. At least a private profile is private! And people can't link your pictures, with or without permission. Myspace is a privacy heaven compared to FB.
Tho regardless, not that I care. I simply have no need for FB. When I'm at work, I'm working or I give a friend a few texts or a short call to talk a bit. Then I'm at the gym or go out and meet with friends. Weekend it's running errands and going out with friends on sat/fri night, all orchestrated via text. Never understood why I needed to broadcast my every fart on a "wall", or send a barrage of messages to someone I would go out for happy hour with that night and see, send messages to people who can't be bothered to hang out with me save for facebook messages, or use it to meet a girl when I had no problem getting a girl's number at a bar/club/coffee shop/social function. Granted if you didn't have access or didn't want to meet a woman that way, there are always online dating sites.
Hah I did like your post. Gave me a chuckle. I think we've both been on/. far too long.
I am biased to a degree. I think it's worthless. But frankly, I'm more apathetic to FB than biased. I could care less if other people want to use it. The information about it blatantly and consistently violating major privacy issues is common knowledge. It's like smoking. Everyone knows it's bad. But if people want to kill themselves, that's fine. I don't pay attention either way.
But-
You can't deny what ultimately all these things add up to:
- Basically screwing any chances of meaningful employment because hirers will see all your photos of drinking, falling on your face, etc. pictures and your asinine comments that you make on a daily basis. Not to mention the fact that many are harmless among friends or a casual setting, but a HR person will throw your resume right out. And no, even though you may block it, as all the news stories mention, there are so many easy ways to get it (view the profile a friend who is linked to u). Nevermind the fact that removing pics or an account, it stays around--*forever*. And you can't make the argument that this is a problem with posting anywhere online. If FB made proper online privacy controls and it's hidden profile actually worked, this whole thing would be moot. But again, they offend time and time again.
- People seeing your publicly displayed photos and comments and thinking less of u or offended or getting caught in the act. Forever.
- General creepiness. The fact that logged in or not, FB tracks everything you do and where you go. AND has the balls to broadcast that to other people (the lube drum incident, remember?).
And what do you gain from FB?
- Writing messages to people who can't be bothered to hang out with you in real life or speak to you on the phone.
- The potential of getting access to a person you think is good looking to date (see my thoughts about online dating site instead). Nevermind the fact that you can just ask a friend in real life to hook it up or get her #.
- Making comments or writing messages to people, instead of just *actually seeing in them in real life or talking to on the phone.* Even text message if it's tough to get them.
I mean, that's the reality of it. Still like your precious FB?
Amen. These psychologists fail to realize that most of the time it's not even *worth* dating. The ratio of garbage to quality is like 1:100. And I'm not exaggerating.
And for us men, it's a nightmare cost-wise. Going cheap runs about $300/mo. Going out to fancier places and a lot is minimum $600. That's rent for some people right there. I simply flat out refuse that anymore. I did that for 13 years and I'm simply disgusted with it. Consequently, I dump any person who after the first few weeks doesn't pay their way.
But also, you're right as well. I simply refuse that idea where the man is always dumb and wrong and the whole STFU yes dear whatever you say. And maybe that's why I'll never get married. I don't care. I'd rather live with backbone and date attractive women until i die than be berated and belittled until I die. Problem is, that idea is prevalent. But then again, I don't think marriage in this day and age is workable anyway. It worked backed when we only lived until 25-30. We died before divorce. Plus back then marriage was treated the way it really is: a contract for the division of property. This love stuff only entered within the past 60 years or so.
So back to my original premise, when a guy finally realizes the above situation and how disgusting and depressing it is, why would he? Psychologists fail to realize that it's not that we can't, it's that we finally don't WANT to.
I don't disagree with you on this at all. We really need to get out and connect with people. Unlike most./'ers here, I'm a very social and have very good social skills (hah had to say it). But anyway, I pay attention to this stuff very carefully.
But you know what? I don't blame them. Because having done the whole going out to get togethers, bars, lounges, dating a whole bunch, I just don't give a crap anymore. I really would rather stay at home nowadays and fire up Battlefield 3 or sit down for some survival horror.
Also, these psychologists fail to realize that most people, well, blow, and as any person knows, the ratio of genuine good people to date versus the garbage is like 1:100. Not only that, but dating is so expensive. I've calculated it over the years. If I go cheap (sometimes just hanging out at home, bowling, staying in and renting a movie with the cheap dinner 3-4x a month), it's around $300. If we go out a lot to fancy places, etc, it's about $600+. I shouldn't have to pay the amount some people pay in rent to date someone!
Amen. FB will simply not stop. Every few weeks I see some absolutely egregious and utterly jaw-dropping privacy violation. They go out of their way to NOT care about your privacy. And it's not even it's their business model which won't let them. So I have no idea why. But not only do they just don't, but they never will, and will ALWAYS make a horrific new blunder.
People: stop. Using. Facebook!
And no (this rant isn't direct at you allo), you don't need facebook. And yes, people say but but but "it's so useful for keeping in touch with friends!" Dude, if you have a friend who the only way they talk to you is with facebook, then they aren't your friend. And yes, I do realize people suck nowawayds with returning calls. But I've learned the hard way EVERYONE responds and responds quickly to texts. So if you need to talk or get in touch with someone who is busy, text them. No facebook!
And the only other reason that Facebook is good for, which is never touted for some reason, is using it for hooking up. But here is the thing. Go on some online dating site. They are run a hell of a lot better, care more about your privacy. But most importantly, they are *looking to date*. Facebook is for everyone. Online dating sites specifically go on to meet the member of the opposite sex! When you need to screw something in, you don't use a hammer.
So the only two *excuses* left for using FB are out. So stop it already.
Oh, and photo sites. Have no one every heard of those photo sharing sites that only people u want to give the URL to can view photos? and u can set password protection for privacy?
Didn't know that. Makes my original point even more valid. Yet, I'm not happy about it. Just makes it more depressing.:-(
Are jailbroken community builds putting on (and being successful) ICS on the Nexus One or S? Not that I'd use one anyway--even though it's not a panacea, not running as root is still good protection.
It just dawned on me. It's funny, but even Linux with massive fragmentation like Android, manages to get updates and decent compatibility. Then again, the myriad of flavors of ARM don't help. Linux, for the most part, is either x86 32 or 64-bit and that's it (for mainstream purposes anyway).
I really hope that Ubuntu manages to get itself on smartphones. That would be heaven. Upgrades and the freedom to run anything. That's what I've wanted since the beginning anyway, before all this walled garden scaled down App shit. I think that's what most/.'ers wanted too--just I think they forgot.
I'm curious, which BB did you have? I've had two BB's, my first was the one back in 2007 which was right before the touchpad. Can't remember exactly. But then it could play mp3's and videos. When was yours made? I know it's had mp3 and video capability since then at least. Maybe you needed to convert the format? Maybe years ago it couldn't play QT or WMV? I know it def played MPG. AVI not so sure.
The SD card, don't know much about. I always connected it to my computer to put stuff on. Though gotta give it credit tho. At least you can use a SD card. iOS, you need to use dropbox. If I have more than 2GB to transfer over, why should I pay a monthly fee just to copy a file to my phone?
Requiring the user to buy a game new AND even worse require online activation for a SINGLE player game on a CONSOLE is never acceptable. Period. Full-stop.
You're right. That's the problem. Blizzard knew we'd all complain, then take it up the ass anyway. They gambled. And I bet you then won already. If this was any other game, it would end up like Ubisoft and have sales for those games drop to almost nothing (that actually happened last quarter or year--forget when exactly).
Problem is, it ruins it for everyone. Witness the copying of the extra $50 elite for BF3. Who just promised us they would never charge for map packs or charge for a stats service.
Nixoloco, you are the only one who gets a pass on this because from your UID it doesn't seem like you're a paid astroturfer. So I'll give you your opinion. Not everyone likes the same games. For example, I loved the 2008 Alone in the Dark. Loved it. But the press gave it like a 3 or 5 IIRC.
But fact is, the average for that game was a 70-75. So I can't give you a pass. It was a mediocre game and people knew it. But you're allowed a different opinion.
And how can you argue about online passes on console SINGLE-player games? They are not acceptable--ever.
Thank you. You couldn't have illustrated my points any better. You are the entire summation of what's wrong.
So tell me, do you work for EA or 38 studios? Or did EA/38 hire an astroturfing firm to do the dirty work for them, and you are hired by them?
Your first point: protection against double dipping. Did you miss the point that gamestop's revenue for used games is only 30% of its entire revenue. That 60 some percent is NEW sales? Guess you missed that.
Point two: you said it yourself. Always online DOESN'T protect piracy. So why bring it up? And your point is even worse because it shows the truth: the only reason D3 did it was to make money off of YOUR work. YOUR grinding.
Your last point: are you serious? You must work for one of these companies if your point is: "always online--everyone is doing it so suck it up." Really? Just wow. Always online is NOT acceptable, ever, unless it's completely unavoidable. "Hey, Ponzi schemes are all in the news now! Everyone is doing it. So what if people's entire life savings are gone. They're here--suck it up and take it!"
I agree with you. Problem is, when has voting with your feet or wallet ever changed anything? CoD petition? They all bought the damn game anyway. Shitty ME3 ending? Still a record seller and people whined AFTER they bought the game knowing the shitty ending. People are whining left and right about D3, yet they knew about this atrocity a full YEAR before it was even released. Yet they bought it anyway.
It seems the only way things are changed anymore is the outcry of bad press. So yes, we need to complain, and loudly.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I worked for a place that issued me a BB and I've got to say that it was a damn good phone. The call reception was very good. The ringer was good and loud. The battery lasted for DAYS...try that with your Apple or Android smartphone. The physical keyboard, once you got the hang of it, was far superior to the touch screen keyboards that are all the rage. Sure, it didn't have GasBuddy and Facebook and all those thousands of apps that people can't seem to live without. Somewhere along the way people decided that they wanted their phone to be their music player and camera and all that and BB just missed the boat. Shame really.
You hit the nail on the head right there.
RIM really always was an enterprise. But they decided to give a new emerging market a shot. But they forgot you can't win at the uninformed easily seduced consumer market that apple owns. Just can't. They lost. But they can easily succeed in their niche: enterprise. Just like Apple succeeds with OSX market share at 10%. RIM will just go back to it's original success. Nothing wrong with it.
I don't think RIM is best. Actually, I think Android is best. But it's not a zero-sum game. I think BB is superb too. I think BB is superior as a smartphone, and Android as a general purpose mobile computer.
As for reminding you of a former Apple zealot, I wholeheartedly disagree. I always thought Apple products were inferior. Because they are. The reason Apple failed with Gil at the helm is because he attempted to make it a successful computer company. But that's not Apple. Apple isn't a hardware company like most on here think. It isn't a software company. It's a *marketing* company. It's a status company. It sells the image. Why do you think they always make the joke that you could put the Apple logo on a piece of shit and it would fly off the shelves? That is why Apple is successful. Enterprise and Business clients actually do their homework and research solutions. Consumer people think with their guy and will give their left nut for "image" and "status". Are Sean John Tshirts, which go down to someone's knees, worth $150? Steve knew this. He invented it!
Oh boy. Some fanboy didn't like me pointing out the obvious.
Only reason I switched is I wanted something different. I had 2 BB's over like 3 or 4 years. Just needed a change, plain and simple. I went with the 3GS after that. iOS stunk, so I went with Android. Love android too. But my next phone will be that awesome BB Bold 9900.
And other people? Please. They just buy into the hype machine that is Apple. They see "ooh shiny" and then they get bombarded with commercials during the douchey primetime tv shows. Then they see all flakey and all-about-the-appearance people at the clubs whip it out to be seen talking on it, and then they HAVE to have one.
Ever notice that they don't look to see if X program is supported or that Y program can work with a device? No, they just go "ooh that's cute" and then buy it at the cell store.
Apple and Android has constant upgrades. The issue is moot. Messed up settings? Never had a problem with either BB. As for keyboard, I think you're smoking something. ;-) The Bold was terrible--too small. But the prior one, and the new bold 9900 are bar none the best in existence. I can type as fast as a computer keyboard with those suckers.
SWB, your UID is too low to *not* know that Angry Birds are NOT useful apps. Your post makes no sense. And u also should know what the intent of my sentence was because with your UID (i'm guessing you've been compiling kernels since the 1.x days) you've been around long enough to have used a Blackberry.
So how is it not a smart phone? It has SSH clients, VoIP clients, mapping, etc. so what's your point?
All I can say in reply to your post is... huh?
That's a sweet deal. I come from the financial sector. There, you NEED a BB. You don't even get a choice, and for good reason. One breach and it's millions/billions. I see your point though.
Though if I were a CTO I wouldn't allow anything other than BB's and definitely no BYOD's. And I'd only let people remotely in via VPN's and passcode generator devices. But that's me. Trade secrets are too important.
Hah good 'ol Palm. I had one too (Treo). I see your point, but c'mon at least BB has the ability to do Apps and modern smartphone features. ;-) I can't use the Treo for Pandora, Dropbox, Google Maps. :)
Latest one I used was the Bold 9700. Though I saw the new 9900 and I think ergonomically it's the best designed phone I've ever used. It feels perfect for typing, wonderful keyboard, wide enough to hold but not too big to be unwieldy.
But anyway, I seriously doubt you on the battery life. I used to get like almost a week with whatever OS was pre-BB 7. And neither iOS or Android get more than half a day either anymore. iOS was like 2 days in the 4.x days (I had a 3GS too). But with 5.1, it's gone to crap.
Apps? Has everything I need. But then again, I don't have the need to play the piano or punch the monkey on my phone. I use it for productivity. And as such, BB's market has most of what I need. Not even equivalents, but the actual apps. What exotic apps do you need? No seriously--give me specifics. Otherwise I smell BS.
As for astroturfing, miss the part where I said I own an Android phone? Besides, astroturfers sign up new fake accounts and post like crazy. Look at my UID. I've been posting since Chips and Dips.
I think you just have a case of feeling like u don't look cool with your BB and being too weak confidence-wise. So u bitch and moan at how "i hate it so much but my company gives it to me so that's why I have it." Because u need an iPhone as a status symbol to make u feel better out in public.
It'll be a sad day if RIM ever dies. But they can easily stay afloat by catering to their niche: enterprise. Because we all know Apple has never, and never will care about enterprise customers. And google's fragmentation and missing enterprise security features don't cut it.
Companies can still succeed by catering to a certain niche. You don't see people bitching that LinkedIn is dying because FB is the king. LinkedIn is doing fine. Or the perfect scenario. Apple makes a ton of money, yet OSX only has 10% market share. RIM just decided to take on Apple and the crowd that needs to play the piano on their smartphone. And the two don't mix. And they didn't understand until too late what showy snotty d-bags go with and want (read: piano apps). So they lost.
I'm in my early thirties and so are my friends. Ever attempt to get a call back within a *week* with ANYONE? Not me, and my closest friends are awesome in returning calls. And forget casual acquaintances. At least with a text, it'll at least be within 3 hours. I just gave up. I may be reliable and call back within the day, but nobody else is. Sometimes you pick your battles.
I'm not talking about meetings. That's just plain rude. I'd do the same gosh darn thing.
I can only conclude that basically companies are just planting RIM hate and RIM apocalypse stories. I see them all the time. But yet if you actually used a Blackberry, as a smartphone (and not an App machine) it's pretty damn good. But yet we see it day after day all these RIM hate stories. Besides, why would you want, as a consumer, one less competitor in the field. Because all that means is the remaining ones will compete less, charge more, and give you less features.
Don't believe the hype planted by companies and their collaboraters in the media. Forget all the rest of the crap--if it's a good phone and you like it, buy it. And even though I use an Android phone now, I absolutely LOVED my two old BB's (old BB and that BB Bold 9700).
There always is email. Everyone has email. In fact it's better for that because it's designed and has a multitude of features for message communication (read: accessable through native clients like outlook/thunderbird, can send attachments, good smartphone clients for mobile use--FB apps are atrocious). And you don't have to deal with the privacy nightmare of FB.
Also, I would argue it's better to video chat/skype/etc your friends. If you know people internationally then you should know that EVERYONE uses skype. It's MORE ubiqutious than FB. And that's way better to talk to your friends on occasion than a BS message on FB. And again, if they don't have time to video chat you once every few months and instead will only send u a message, then again it goes back to my original premise being true--that they aren't really your friends and aren't worth keeping in touch with.
As to your second point, did you miss my point about that even though there is a "share with" thing that it's trivial to get around and when employers do background checks they frequently do? So no, your solution is moot and no privacy is available even though you make things private. That's my point.
Not that I have a use for FB anyway, but if I needed social networking for some silly reason, I'd *rather* use myspace hah. At least a private profile is private! And people can't link your pictures, with or without permission. Myspace is a privacy heaven compared to FB.
Tho regardless, not that I care. I simply have no need for FB. When I'm at work, I'm working or I give a friend a few texts or a short call to talk a bit. Then I'm at the gym or go out and meet with friends. Weekend it's running errands and going out with friends on sat/fri night, all orchestrated via text. Never understood why I needed to broadcast my every fart on a "wall", or send a barrage of messages to someone I would go out for happy hour with that night and see, send messages to people who can't be bothered to hang out with me save for facebook messages, or use it to meet a girl when I had no problem getting a girl's number at a bar/club/coffee shop/social function. Granted if you didn't have access or didn't want to meet a woman that way, there are always online dating sites.
I know, call me crazy right? ;-)
Hah I did like your post. Gave me a chuckle. I think we've both been on /. far too long.
I am biased to a degree. I think it's worthless. But frankly, I'm more apathetic to FB than biased. I could care less if other people want to use it. The information about it blatantly and consistently violating major privacy issues is common knowledge. It's like smoking. Everyone knows it's bad. But if people want to kill themselves, that's fine. I don't pay attention either way.
But-
You can't deny what ultimately all these things add up to:
- Basically screwing any chances of meaningful employment because hirers will see all your photos of drinking, falling on your face, etc. pictures and your asinine comments that you make on a daily basis. Not to mention the fact that many are harmless among friends or a casual setting, but a HR person will throw your resume right out. And no, even though you may block it, as all the news stories mention, there are so many easy ways to get it (view the profile a friend who is linked to u). Nevermind the fact that removing pics or an account, it stays around--*forever*. And you can't make the argument that this is a problem with posting anywhere online. If FB made proper online privacy controls and it's hidden profile actually worked, this whole thing would be moot. But again, they offend time and time again.
- People seeing your publicly displayed photos and comments and thinking less of u or offended or getting caught in the act. Forever.
- General creepiness. The fact that logged in or not, FB tracks everything you do and where you go. AND has the balls to broadcast that to other people (the lube drum incident, remember?).
And what do you gain from FB?
- Writing messages to people who can't be bothered to hang out with you in real life or speak to you on the phone.
- The potential of getting access to a person you think is good looking to date (see my thoughts about online dating site instead). Nevermind the fact that you can just ask a friend in real life to hook it up or get her #.
- Making comments or writing messages to people, instead of just *actually seeing in them in real life or talking to on the phone.* Even text message if it's tough to get them.
I mean, that's the reality of it. Still like your precious FB?
Amen. These psychologists fail to realize that most of the time it's not even *worth* dating. The ratio of garbage to quality is like 1:100. And I'm not exaggerating.
And for us men, it's a nightmare cost-wise. Going cheap runs about $300/mo. Going out to fancier places and a lot is minimum $600. That's rent for some people right there. I simply flat out refuse that anymore. I did that for 13 years and I'm simply disgusted with it. Consequently, I dump any person who after the first few weeks doesn't pay their way.
But also, you're right as well. I simply refuse that idea where the man is always dumb and wrong and the whole STFU yes dear whatever you say. And maybe that's why I'll never get married. I don't care. I'd rather live with backbone and date attractive women until i die than be berated and belittled until I die. Problem is, that idea is prevalent. But then again, I don't think marriage in this day and age is workable anyway. It worked backed when we only lived until 25-30. We died before divorce. Plus back then marriage was treated the way it really is: a contract for the division of property. This love stuff only entered within the past 60 years or so.
So back to my original premise, when a guy finally realizes the above situation and how disgusting and depressing it is, why would he? Psychologists fail to realize that it's not that we can't, it's that we finally don't WANT to.
I don't disagree with you on this at all. We really need to get out and connect with people. Unlike most ./'ers here, I'm a very social and have very good social skills (hah had to say it). But anyway, I pay attention to this stuff very carefully.
But you know what? I don't blame them. Because having done the whole going out to get togethers, bars, lounges, dating a whole bunch, I just don't give a crap anymore. I really would rather stay at home nowadays and fire up Battlefield 3 or sit down for some survival horror.
Also, these psychologists fail to realize that most people, well, blow, and as any person knows, the ratio of genuine good people to date versus the garbage is like 1:100. Not only that, but dating is so expensive. I've calculated it over the years. If I go cheap (sometimes just hanging out at home, bowling, staying in and renting a movie with the cheap dinner 3-4x a month), it's around $300. If we go out a lot to fancy places, etc, it's about $600+. I shouldn't have to pay the amount some people pay in rent to date someone!
Amen. FB will simply not stop. Every few weeks I see some absolutely egregious and utterly jaw-dropping privacy violation. They go out of their way to NOT care about your privacy. And it's not even it's their business model which won't let them. So I have no idea why. But not only do they just don't, but they never will, and will ALWAYS make a horrific new blunder.
People: stop. Using. Facebook!
And no (this rant isn't direct at you allo), you don't need facebook. And yes, people say but but but "it's so useful for keeping in touch with friends!" Dude, if you have a friend who the only way they talk to you is with facebook, then they aren't your friend. And yes, I do realize people suck nowawayds with returning calls. But I've learned the hard way EVERYONE responds and responds quickly to texts. So if you need to talk or get in touch with someone who is busy, text them. No facebook!
And the only other reason that Facebook is good for, which is never touted for some reason, is using it for hooking up. But here is the thing. Go on some online dating site. They are run a hell of a lot better, care more about your privacy. But most importantly, they are *looking to date*. Facebook is for everyone. Online dating sites specifically go on to meet the member of the opposite sex! When you need to screw something in, you don't use a hammer.
So the only two *excuses* left for using FB are out. So stop it already.
Oh, and photo sites. Have no one every heard of those photo sharing sites that only people u want to give the URL to can view photos? and u can set password protection for privacy?
Didn't know that. Makes my original point even more valid. Yet, I'm not happy about it. Just makes it more depressing. :-(
Are jailbroken community builds putting on (and being successful) ICS on the Nexus One or S? Not that I'd use one anyway--even though it's not a panacea, not running as root is still good protection.
It just dawned on me. It's funny, but even Linux with massive fragmentation like Android, manages to get updates and decent compatibility. Then again, the myriad of flavors of ARM don't help. Linux, for the most part, is either x86 32 or 64-bit and that's it (for mainstream purposes anyway).
I really hope that Ubuntu manages to get itself on smartphones. That would be heaven. Upgrades and the freedom to run anything. That's what I've wanted since the beginning anyway, before all this walled garden scaled down App shit. I think that's what most /.'ers wanted too--just I think they forgot.
I'm curious, which BB did you have? I've had two BB's, my first was the one back in 2007 which was right before the touchpad. Can't remember exactly. But then it could play mp3's and videos. When was yours made? I know it's had mp3 and video capability since then at least. Maybe you needed to convert the format? Maybe years ago it couldn't play QT or WMV? I know it def played MPG. AVI not so sure.
The SD card, don't know much about. I always connected it to my computer to put stuff on. Though gotta give it credit tho. At least you can use a SD card. iOS, you need to use dropbox. If I have more than 2GB to transfer over, why should I pay a monthly fee just to copy a file to my phone?
Requiring the user to buy a game new AND even worse require online activation for a SINGLE player game on a CONSOLE is never acceptable. Period. Full-stop.
You're right. That's the problem. Blizzard knew we'd all complain, then take it up the ass anyway. They gambled. And I bet you then won already. If this was any other game, it would end up like Ubisoft and have sales for those games drop to almost nothing (that actually happened last quarter or year--forget when exactly).
Problem is, it ruins it for everyone. Witness the copying of the extra $50 elite for BF3. Who just promised us they would never charge for map packs or charge for a stats service.
Nixoloco, you are the only one who gets a pass on this because from your UID it doesn't seem like you're a paid astroturfer. So I'll give you your opinion. Not everyone likes the same games. For example, I loved the 2008 Alone in the Dark. Loved it. But the press gave it like a 3 or 5 IIRC.
But fact is, the average for that game was a 70-75. So I can't give you a pass. It was a mediocre game and people knew it. But you're allowed a different opinion.
And how can you argue about online passes on console SINGLE-player games? They are not acceptable--ever.
Thank you. You couldn't have illustrated my points any better. You are the entire summation of what's wrong.
So tell me, do you work for EA or 38 studios? Or did EA/38 hire an astroturfing firm to do the dirty work for them, and you are hired by them?
Your first point: protection against double dipping. Did you miss the point that gamestop's revenue for used games is only 30% of its entire revenue. That 60 some percent is NEW sales? Guess you missed that.
Point two: you said it yourself. Always online DOESN'T protect piracy. So why bring it up? And your point is even worse because it shows the truth: the only reason D3 did it was to make money off of YOUR work. YOUR grinding.
Your last point: are you serious? You must work for one of these companies if your point is: "always online--everyone is doing it so suck it up." Really? Just wow. Always online is NOT acceptable, ever, unless it's completely unavoidable. "Hey, Ponzi schemes are all in the news now! Everyone is doing it. So what if people's entire life savings are gone. They're here--suck it up and take it!"
I agree with you. Problem is, when has voting with your feet or wallet ever changed anything? CoD petition? They all bought the damn game anyway. Shitty ME3 ending? Still a record seller and people whined AFTER they bought the game knowing the shitty ending. People are whining left and right about D3, yet they knew about this atrocity a full YEAR before it was even released. Yet they bought it anyway.
It seems the only way things are changed anymore is the outcry of bad press. So yes, we need to complain, and loudly.