Yeah, now you've got... this thing: http://www.apple.com/magicmouse/. No humor to be found there. That said, get your timeline straight: the one button mouse was discontinued as Apple's official mouse in 2007. Not 20 years ago.
I think you'll find most people who do not think highly of Apple here think just as little of Microsoft. I know it can be hard to get out of the mentality that it is Apple vs. Microsoft and you have to pick one, but there are, in fact, people who have legitimate reasons to dislike both the company you love and the company you hate.
It deflects all attacks of Logic and Fact type targeted at Apple while in use. Probably the most effective resistive spell in all of computing, even better than RMS' "shroud of bizarre."
Even that isn't true. Certain classes of viruses (program-specific usually, like office macro viruses) can infect any system running the vulnerable program. These I would call these "windows viruses" considering they still largely infect windows, to which Apple OSes have always been susceptible. Even Linux is, to some extent.
Even ignoring the above, it is still pretty scummy to imply your system is secure against viruses when it isn't. Tricky wording doesn't make it any better. Indeed, it makes it worse, since they knew what they were doing.
First rule of trolling is to not tell them you are. Unless it's some kind of ploy. Then tell them it enough times they're no longer sure if you are. Drives them insane. Anyway, I prefer my jokes to be factual. Usually I prefer to laugh at the stupid people who don't get it. Hence I sometimes correct obvious jokes that include factual inaccuracies, just because that seems like a worthwhile thing to do in my goal of making all humor factually-based. Like the electron joke. Also that AC wasn't me.
('Two atoms were walking across a road when one of them said, "I think I lost an electron!" "Really!" the other replied, "Are you sure?" "Yes, I'm positive."')
"Sort of. Since Apple, the original article, and nearly everyone who has commented says it's against the law, the burden of proving otherwise is actually on the person claiming otherwise. You're espousing an unsupported theory, and it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. When you're arguing against consensus, the burden becomes yours, perhaps not from a legal viewpoint, but it does shift."
That's not how it works. People making positive claims bear the burden of proof, ALWAYS. "The law required this" is a positive claim. It needs to be supported. Further, the number of people making a claim does not, in the absence of other proof, make that claim true. If it did, Vishnu must exist. In fact, from a purely epistemological point of view, consensus has zero meaning. Thanks for giving an example of why people think slashdot is full of groupthink, though.
Because you did not bother citing any relevant portion, expecting everyone else to make your argument:
'Any item that is sent from the United States to a foreign destination is an export. “Items” include commodities, software or technology, such as clothing, building materials, circuit boards, automotive parts, blue prints, design plans, retail software packages and technical information.
How an item is transported outside of the United States does not matter in determining export license requirements. For example, an item can be sent by regular mail or hand-carried on an airplane. A set of schematics can be sent via facsimile to a foreign destination, software can be uploaded to or downloaded from an Internet site, or technology can be transmitted via e-mail or during a telephone conversation. Regardless of the method used for the transfer, the transaction is considered an export. An item is also considered an export even if it is leaving the United States temporarily, if it is leaving the United States but is not for sale (e.g., a gift), or if it is going to a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary in a foreign country. Even a foreign-origin item exported from the United States, transmitted or transshipped through the United States, or being returned from the United States to its foreign country of origin is considered an export. Finally, release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national in the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the home country of the foreign national under the EAR.'
Again, like everyone else who has "cited" something in this discussion, the requirements are not met. Apple was not directly exporting, as those paragraphs make clear the page only applies to.
'Your argument that "no one else is doing it" is a straw man [nizkor.org].'
That is not my argument. My argument is that, if it is required by law, it is not possible this is unique to Apple stores, and must have occurred at other stores. If it is unique to Apple stores, then something is going on here beyond legal restrictions. That is not a straw man, that is inductive reasoning. I know the difference might be subtle, especially when the conclusion doesn't agree with your world view, but it is there.
Also, if you want to accuse me of logical fallacies without actually saying anything to disprove my point, allow me to point you to the argument from fallacy. Just to list others you have committed, of less magnitude: argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof, false attribution, appeal to authority, a few others I can't be bother to look up, which of course leads to kettle logic. I don't like to list these because it doesn't add anything to discussion, but it is always worth pointing out when someone uses "straw man" as an ad hominem.
Um... alright. Where did I even mention Arabs? The word "Arab" is not even present in my post. Please at least learn to read before insulting people for no good reason.
I just love that demanding evidence for why this is not just a racistine policy is hating Apple irrationally. Hating Apple is what I usually do - usually for less good reason (although good enough, in my book). This is not that. The simple fact is, if this is demanded by law, it must happen elsewhere. It isn't possible that it has not occurred elsewhere. No one, not one person, has shown it to have occurred in a single store at a single point in time. Yet we have two cases of it happening at Apple stores. No one with any legal background has stated this case is indeed required by law, although quite a few who think themselves to be have spouted off to the effect.
Bottom line: this has only happened at Apple stores, this has happened twice at Apple stores, it has been caught on video, and it has happened in no other store. You might not draw any conclusions from that, but I do.
"There's no obligation, legal or otherwise, for Apple to publicly comment on this."
No, but you can't complain that your side isn't being heard if you don't talk. Simple as that.
It's nice of you to Apple to give them the benefit of the doubt... despite this being repeated on two separate occasions, despite the manager being involved, despite the news being involved. You can call it "grossly biased" but that just sounds like crying that the story doesn't suit your image of the company. It doesn't mean this is necessarily respective of Apple worldwide, but it is an issue, and their silence, in my eyes, makes it that much worse. I suspect their silence has a lot more to do with having to rally their lawyers for a probably discrimination lawsuit rather than worrying about giving a "grossly biased" news story credibility, but hey, I am just an Apple hater, right?
Also, whoever is modding me down - I have more karma than you, I can guarantee you. Metamod will bite you harder than any downmodding will me.
So now you just want to pedantically quote a dictionary, since I have proven your claims are false and shown that you are unable to provide any evidence that this is not a totally Apple-invented policy by showing me cases of other stores doing it? Great. Well I have better things to do anyway, and anyone who read this far out already knows you have nothing of value to say. You just proved that.
Which part of your cited document requires this action on the part of Apple? It makes the girl in violation of the law - it does not justify nor compel Apple's activities.
Spewing things which you are not qualified to interpret on message boards and insulting people who point out that they do not say what you claim and that even if they did, you are not qualified to assert that they are the only relevant information is childish.
Hint: in your zeal, you completely ignored the "third country" requirement of the relevant portion. This is why lawyers make more money than you.
None of that unambiguously required Apple's actions in either case. Unless you are a lawyer qualified in US export law, please cease portraying yourself as one.
Well, thank you for your insightful and informative reply. Actually, probability does suggest that. If the law indeed requires this happen, then I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect it happened elsewhere. In fact I consider it stupidly obvious that saying this had to have happened elsewhere if it is required by law is in fact the only logical conclusion. Given it happened twice with Apple, you ought to be able to show it happening in the same way somewhere else. But you can't. Which means you are lying or misled. Which means your opinion on the matter is not based in fact and irrelevant to rational discourse. Have a good day.
Which applies to this situation how? Apple was not exporting to Iran. They might have been selling to someone who intended to do so; they might have known this was possibly the case only because they asked questions based on racial profiling. That is not justifiable in my mind unless someone can show me it happening elsewhere (really, is this so hard?) or someone with actual knowledge of export laws (not Apple fans quoting what they heard on slashdot) tells me that this was legally required.
I don't want to know. I want people who are claiming that the law is why a company had to do something I consider to be immoral to prove that the law actually requires that. The burden of proof is current on those claiming that export laws somehow required this from Apple, which I take to the logical conclusion: this must have happened somewhere else, since obviously, no one wants to violate export laws. Yet no one has been able to show me a case of it. That, to me, says a lot about the people defending these activities.
"Usually the customers don't admit to the person they are buying from "I am going to break the law"... not to mention most $8/hr employees don't speak too many languages or otherwise care about US law or company policies."
This happened twice at Apple stores over a short period of time. Probability demands this happened AT LEAST ONCE somewhere else, even if it is in fact a racist policy on the part of Apple. That people do not usually set up this situation to occur does not change that it must happen with at least some periodicity in other stores. The only possible outcomes are: 1. we do not hear about it, 2. other stores do not behave in this manner. #2 suggests that all the hand wringing about this being OMG LAW is, in fact, hyperbole. So please, prove me wrong. No one else has tried.
"Apple has an unusual employment base (fanatics), that read all the policies and rules to avoid losing their dream jobs... He happened to note that apple policy and enforced it when the customer informed them they were going to break the law...."
"Racism? They sell computers to Arabs everyday. Iran is a rogue state led by a megalomaniacle tyrant who backs many terrorist organizations."
Which is relevant how? Hell, I think you just proved my point. The girl is an Iranian, so obviously, she must be evil! It must be some big plot to secretly send an iPad back to Ahmadinejad so that he can use it to... uhh, well, something! How about the racism in hearing someone speak a language and demanding to know where they are from? Would this be alright if it was a Korean being asked what side of the line they came from? I doubt it. Would this be ok if it was Walmart? No, I suspect your tune would be totally different were THAT the case!
"I'm sure people like HP find ways to sell to them through work arounds but you show me any tech company OPENLY selling to them."
Again, how is this relevant? This is a case of an AMERICAN buying a product who may or may not have said (before or after being asked where they are from) that they might have sent it to Iran. That is totally different than a company openly selling to Iran. Are you capable of seeing that difference? Are you? I hope so. I really do.
Still not ONE example of ANY other American store refusing to sell in a similar manner has been posted to this story. Until someone can bring at least one, I'll just consider everyone defending Apple to be ignorant and passively bigoted fanboys. Sorry if you consider that not thinking; I consider it basing opinions on factual evidence or lack there of.
"Raytheon got hit by this law selling radar systems through Canada."
Does not sound like a comparable situation; it sounds like a shell company selling to the embargoed country directly, which is not the comparable situation I asked for. Citation needed if you want to be taken seriously.
The real reason it is a sad day is this discussion. I am appalled that slashdot can harbor this much racism and ignorance simply because Apple is involved. No one has yet provided any proof of this being legally required by anything, just empty claims that that is the case. Yet there has been a lot of censoring of people who say this is wrong and upmodding of ones making false claims in defense of Apple, and it doesn't take long to figure out who has been doing that.
It really disappoints me. I knew there was a large contingent of people on here who defend all of Apple's sneaky and monopolistic activities, but this is a new and sickening low for them. I don't consider myself that much concerned with "racism" but this story bothers me, and the people defending these actions without any real reason bother me a lot more.
Wait, really? Bigot for saying if you buy an Apple product you weren't thinking, while in the SAME POST you defend a company that refused to sell to an AMERICAN CITIZEN for speaking the wrong language? You have some SERIOUS issues.
So anyone who looks Asian and speaks Korean should be refused service, just for good measure? Wow, this is some SERIOUS bullshit. I am literally shocked that slashdot contains this level of arrogance and bigotry, and is willing to spout it off just because Apple is the one perpetrating it.
I am not convinced this is actually the law. You can parrot that it is, but it does not seem relevant at all to the embargo laws. An American buying a product in an American store has nothing to do with an embargo as far as I can tell. If it does, please show me proof of this sort of thing happening elsewhere. It shouldn't be hard. We have two cases of Apple doing it - surely it must be easy to find some from somebody else.
Similarly, you can claim anyone who says something bad about Apple (even when they're doing obviously bad things) is only doing it because they hate Apple, but that doesn't make them wrong. It makes you look like an idiot.
Again, I will ask what I asked twice in this story already and have yet to receive: show me another company doing this in a comparable way (ie, people in an American store being denied a sale because they might send the item to Iran), and I'll maybe buy it. Quoting laws you do not understand, which do not seem applicable, does not convince me of anything other than that you are seeking to excuse racism because you can't believe your favorite company is capable of it.
No, I am asking for proof that the reason given for why this is acceptable is actually factual. If it is indeed a law, then alright, we have two cases here of Apple doing this. There should be at least 2 of Best Buy doing it, given there are substantially more Best Buy stores, which sell substantially more, than Apple stores. Can't give me even one? Then shut the fuck up with the fake excuses.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, now you've got... this thing: http://www.apple.com/magicmouse/. No humor to be found there. That said, get your timeline straight: the one button mouse was discontinued as Apple's official mouse in 2007. Not 20 years ago.
I think you'll find most people who do not think highly of Apple here think just as little of Microsoft. I know it can be hard to get out of the mentality that it is Apple vs. Microsoft and you have to pick one, but there are, in fact, people who have legitimate reasons to dislike both the company you love and the company you hate.
It deflects all attacks of Logic and Fact type targeted at Apple while in use. Probably the most effective resistive spell in all of computing, even better than RMS' "shroud of bizarre."
Even that isn't true. Certain classes of viruses (program-specific usually, like office macro viruses) can infect any system running the vulnerable program. These I would call these "windows viruses" considering they still largely infect windows, to which Apple OSes have always been susceptible. Even Linux is, to some extent.
Even ignoring the above, it is still pretty scummy to imply your system is secure against viruses when it isn't. Tricky wording doesn't make it any better. Indeed, it makes it worse, since they knew what they were doing.
First rule of trolling is to not tell them you are. Unless it's some kind of ploy. Then tell them it enough times they're no longer sure if you are. Drives them insane. Anyway, I prefer my jokes to be factual. Usually I prefer to laugh at the stupid people who don't get it. Hence I sometimes correct obvious jokes that include factual inaccuracies, just because that seems like a worthwhile thing to do in my goal of making all humor factually-based. Like the electron joke. Also that AC wasn't me.
('Two atoms were walking across a road when one of them said, "I think I lost an electron!" "Really!" the other replied, "Are you sure?" "Yes, I'm positive."')
"Sort of. Since Apple, the original article, and nearly everyone who has commented says it's against the law, the burden of proving otherwise is actually on the person claiming otherwise. You're espousing an unsupported theory, and it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. When you're arguing against consensus, the burden becomes yours, perhaps not from a legal viewpoint, but it does shift."
That's not how it works. People making positive claims bear the burden of proof, ALWAYS. "The law required this" is a positive claim. It needs to be supported. Further, the number of people making a claim does not, in the absence of other proof, make that claim true. If it did, Vishnu must exist. In fact, from a purely epistemological point of view, consensus has zero meaning. Thanks for giving an example of why people think slashdot is full of groupthink, though.
"Regardless, you are incorrect.."
Because you did not bother citing any relevant portion, expecting everyone else to make your argument:
'Any item that is sent from the United States to a foreign destination is an export. “Items” include commodities, software or technology, such as clothing, building materials, circuit boards, automotive parts, blue prints, design plans, retail software packages and technical information.
How an item is transported outside of the United States does not matter in determining export license requirements. For example, an item can be sent by regular mail or hand-carried on an airplane. A set of schematics can be sent via facsimile to a foreign destination, software can be uploaded to or downloaded from an Internet site, or technology can be transmitted via e-mail or during a telephone conversation. Regardless of the method used for the transfer, the transaction is considered an export. An item is also considered an export even if it is leaving the United States temporarily, if it is leaving the United States but is not for sale (e.g., a gift), or if it is going to a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary in a foreign country. Even a foreign-origin item exported from the United States, transmitted or transshipped through the United States, or being returned from the United States to its foreign country of origin is considered an export. Finally, release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national in the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the home country of the foreign national under the EAR.'
Again, like everyone else who has "cited" something in this discussion, the requirements are not met. Apple was not directly exporting, as those paragraphs make clear the page only applies to.
'Your argument that "no one else is doing it" is a straw man [nizkor.org].'
That is not my argument. My argument is that, if it is required by law, it is not possible this is unique to Apple stores, and must have occurred at other stores. If it is unique to Apple stores, then something is going on here beyond legal restrictions. That is not a straw man, that is inductive reasoning. I know the difference might be subtle, especially when the conclusion doesn't agree with your world view, but it is there.
Also, if you want to accuse me of logical fallacies without actually saying anything to disprove my point, allow me to point you to the argument from fallacy. Just to list others you have committed, of less magnitude: argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof, false attribution, appeal to authority, a few others I can't be bother to look up, which of course leads to kettle logic. I don't like to list these because it doesn't add anything to discussion, but it is always worth pointing out when someone uses "straw man" as an ad hominem.
Um... alright. Where did I even mention Arabs? The word "Arab" is not even present in my post. Please at least learn to read before insulting people for no good reason.
"If you enjoy hating Apple go ahead."
I just love that demanding evidence for why this is not just a racistine policy is hating Apple irrationally. Hating Apple is what I usually do - usually for less good reason (although good enough, in my book). This is not that. The simple fact is, if this is demanded by law, it must happen elsewhere. It isn't possible that it has not occurred elsewhere. No one, not one person, has shown it to have occurred in a single store at a single point in time. Yet we have two cases of it happening at Apple stores. No one with any legal background has stated this case is indeed required by law, although quite a few who think themselves to be have spouted off to the effect.
Bottom line: this has only happened at Apple stores, this has happened twice at Apple stores, it has been caught on video, and it has happened in no other store. You might not draw any conclusions from that, but I do.
"There's no obligation, legal or otherwise, for Apple to publicly comment on this."
No, but you can't complain that your side isn't being heard if you don't talk. Simple as that.
It's nice of you to Apple to give them the benefit of the doubt... despite this being repeated on two separate occasions, despite the manager being involved, despite the news being involved. You can call it "grossly biased" but that just sounds like crying that the story doesn't suit your image of the company. It doesn't mean this is necessarily respective of Apple worldwide, but it is an issue, and their silence, in my eyes, makes it that much worse. I suspect their silence has a lot more to do with having to rally their lawyers for a probably discrimination lawsuit rather than worrying about giving a "grossly biased" news story credibility, but hey, I am just an Apple hater, right?
Also, whoever is modding me down - I have more karma than you, I can guarantee you. Metamod will bite you harder than any downmodding will me.
So now you just want to pedantically quote a dictionary, since I have proven your claims are false and shown that you are unable to provide any evidence that this is not a totally Apple-invented policy by showing me cases of other stores doing it? Great. Well I have better things to do anyway, and anyone who read this far out already knows you have nothing of value to say. You just proved that.
Which part of your cited document requires this action on the part of Apple? It makes the girl in violation of the law - it does not justify nor compel Apple's activities.
Spewing things which you are not qualified to interpret on message boards and insulting people who point out that they do not say what you claim and that even if they did, you are not qualified to assert that they are the only relevant information is childish.
Hint: in your zeal, you completely ignored the "third country" requirement of the relevant portion. This is why lawyers make more money than you.
"What's bullshit to me is that everyone is raising such a fuss based on ONE side of this story"
Apple refused to comment, according to TFA. And more claims the law required this. No one has yet supported that with factual evidence.
None of that unambiguously required Apple's actions in either case. Unless you are a lawyer qualified in US export law, please cease portraying yourself as one.
Well, thank you for your insightful and informative reply. Actually, probability does suggest that. If the law indeed requires this happen, then I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect it happened elsewhere. In fact I consider it stupidly obvious that saying this had to have happened elsewhere if it is required by law is in fact the only logical conclusion. Given it happened twice with Apple, you ought to be able to show it happening in the same way somewhere else. But you can't. Which means you are lying or misled. Which means your opinion on the matter is not based in fact and irrelevant to rational discourse. Have a good day.
Which applies to this situation how? Apple was not exporting to Iran. They might have been selling to someone who intended to do so; they might have known this was possibly the case only because they asked questions based on racial profiling. That is not justifiable in my mind unless someone can show me it happening elsewhere (really, is this so hard?) or someone with actual knowledge of export laws (not Apple fans quoting what they heard on slashdot) tells me that this was legally required.
I don't want to know. I want people who are claiming that the law is why a company had to do something I consider to be immoral to prove that the law actually requires that. The burden of proof is current on those claiming that export laws somehow required this from Apple, which I take to the logical conclusion: this must have happened somewhere else, since obviously, no one wants to violate export laws. Yet no one has been able to show me a case of it. That, to me, says a lot about the people defending these activities.
"Usually the customers don't admit to the person they are buying from "I am going to break the law"... not to mention most $8/hr employees don't speak too many languages or otherwise care about US law or company policies."
This happened twice at Apple stores over a short period of time. Probability demands this happened AT LEAST ONCE somewhere else, even if it is in fact a racist policy on the part of Apple. That people do not usually set up this situation to occur does not change that it must happen with at least some periodicity in other stores. The only possible outcomes are: 1. we do not hear about it, 2. other stores do not behave in this manner. #2 suggests that all the hand wringing about this being OMG LAW is, in fact, hyperbole. So please, prove me wrong. No one else has tried.
"Apple has an unusual employment base (fanatics), that read all the policies and rules to avoid losing their dream jobs... He happened to note that apple policy and enforced it when the customer informed them they were going to break the law...."
If racism is company policy, we have an issue.
"Racism? They sell computers to Arabs everyday. Iran is a rogue state led by a megalomaniacle tyrant who backs many terrorist organizations."
Which is relevant how? Hell, I think you just proved my point. The girl is an Iranian, so obviously, she must be evil! It must be some big plot to secretly send an iPad back to Ahmadinejad so that he can use it to... uhh, well, something! How about the racism in hearing someone speak a language and demanding to know where they are from? Would this be alright if it was a Korean being asked what side of the line they came from? I doubt it. Would this be ok if it was Walmart? No, I suspect your tune would be totally different were THAT the case!
"I'm sure people like HP find ways to sell to them through work arounds but you show me any tech company OPENLY selling to them."
Again, how is this relevant? This is a case of an AMERICAN buying a product who may or may not have said (before or after being asked where they are from) that they might have sent it to Iran. That is totally different than a company openly selling to Iran. Are you capable of seeing that difference? Are you? I hope so. I really do.
Still not ONE example of ANY other American store refusing to sell in a similar manner has been posted to this story. Until someone can bring at least one, I'll just consider everyone defending Apple to be ignorant and passively bigoted fanboys. Sorry if you consider that not thinking; I consider it basing opinions on factual evidence or lack there of.
"Raytheon got hit by this law selling radar systems through Canada."
Does not sound like a comparable situation; it sounds like a shell company selling to the embargoed country directly, which is not the comparable situation I asked for. Citation needed if you want to be taken seriously.
The real reason it is a sad day is this discussion. I am appalled that slashdot can harbor this much racism and ignorance simply because Apple is involved. No one has yet provided any proof of this being legally required by anything, just empty claims that that is the case. Yet there has been a lot of censoring of people who say this is wrong and upmodding of ones making false claims in defense of Apple, and it doesn't take long to figure out who has been doing that.
It really disappoints me. I knew there was a large contingent of people on here who defend all of Apple's sneaky and monopolistic activities, but this is a new and sickening low for them. I don't consider myself that much concerned with "racism" but this story bothers me, and the people defending these actions without any real reason bother me a lot more.
"Bigot."
Wait, really? Bigot for saying if you buy an Apple product you weren't thinking, while in the SAME POST you defend a company that refused to sell to an AMERICAN CITIZEN for speaking the wrong language? You have some SERIOUS issues.
So anyone who looks Asian and speaks Korean should be refused service, just for good measure? Wow, this is some SERIOUS bullshit. I am literally shocked that slashdot contains this level of arrogance and bigotry, and is willing to spout it off just because Apple is the one perpetrating it.
Because they have something to hide.
I am not convinced this is actually the law. You can parrot that it is, but it does not seem relevant at all to the embargo laws. An American buying a product in an American store has nothing to do with an embargo as far as I can tell. If it does, please show me proof of this sort of thing happening elsewhere. It shouldn't be hard. We have two cases of Apple doing it - surely it must be easy to find some from somebody else.
Similarly, you can claim anyone who says something bad about Apple (even when they're doing obviously bad things) is only doing it because they hate Apple, but that doesn't make them wrong. It makes you look like an idiot.
Again, I will ask what I asked twice in this story already and have yet to receive: show me another company doing this in a comparable way (ie, people in an American store being denied a sale because they might send the item to Iran), and I'll maybe buy it. Quoting laws you do not understand, which do not seem applicable, does not convince me of anything other than that you are seeking to excuse racism because you can't believe your favorite company is capable of it.
No, I am asking for proof that the reason given for why this is acceptable is actually factual. If it is indeed a law, then alright, we have two cases here of Apple doing this. There should be at least 2 of Best Buy doing it, given there are substantially more Best Buy stores, which sell substantially more, than Apple stores. Can't give me even one? Then shut the fuck up with the fake excuses.