The guy is just an attention whore. He'd do anything providing it got him attention.
Has anyone else noticed that we pin other criticisms (more specifically, some kind of corruption) on people we don't like? We disagree with Jack Thomson's moral crusade, so he's a political attention whore. We don't like the **AA and their tactics for stopping piracy, so we call them greedy. We don't like religion, and the ideas it asks us to believe in, so they are brainwashing. We don't like some of the decisions made by our democratic governments (often because that's simply what the people want), so they are corrupt. I could go on, but I won't. It seems just to create a lot of unbalanced zealotry.
I think the GP is telling us not to be afraid of childcare. Like he says it builds social skills, and is no more risky than giving them to relatives. He's not saying that parents should send their child away on the possibility that they themselves might be abusive.
This comes up periodically. The whiners are unlikely to do anything about the political environment. Each time a politician doesn't do exactly what they want to do, no matter the effort or cost, the whiners get to look good to their peers without actually doing anything. So social problems get extended... again... and then in N minutes, another whiny comment propagated by an irrational hatred for authority and media sites who want our unconditional patronage.
Also, I couldn't care less about your opinion, and why you have time to waste commenting on my comment of a troll mod is beyond me
I'm bored, home alone sick, no-one's listening to me peddling the same ol' crap (just check my comment history, with particular focus on the latest apple stories). Anyway, into more pointless, yet still valuable stuff:
"Obviously the kind that realises that just because they may be wrong about one thing, doesn't mean that everything else they say is wrong because of it."
Well, since I didn't make that claim, that makes you an idiot also.
What about your reply, where I seem to recall you saying "What kind of idiot are you that you ignore the part of my post that DOES prove him wrong?" The person replying to you accused you of over-generalising by calling the whole post wrong based on one part, and you responded by implying that the rest of your post proves that, i.e. that the part that you think he got wrong makes him wrong, and that the generalisation is warranted. I would be an idiot not to come to that conclusion.
Well, since I didn't do THAT either, that makes you an idiot
You said the rest of the comment was wrong, you provided little evidence. Sure you poked holes in one little statement, but that constitutes little to no evidence. It's both inflammatory and obstructive. You can't really pull to pieces an argument that doesn't show any evidence, so it obstructs the argument. It's inflammatory because it's insulting to others to harshly call them completely wrong, and then provide no details, or reasons why such a harsh judgement is warranted.
Obviously the kind that realises that just because they may be wrong about one thing, doesn't mean that everything else they say is wrong because of it.
In regard to your whinging about the troll mod, let me say that troll mods have nothing to do with truth, or logic. If you put your opinion in an inflammatory or obstructive way, no matter how logical or truthful you may think it is, you run the risk of legitimately getting a troll mod. That last "and the rest of your comment was wrong" line was especially obstructive. How are you meant to discuss the topics at hand if everyone just said "you are completely wrong" and provided little to no evidence why.
Firmware is required to make the device work, but it's provided by the manufacturer. So, can the manufacturer prevent you from using someone else's firmware by invalidating the warranty?
Put it this way: does altering the firmware affect compatibility between your device and future updates? If so, then yes they can.
The firmware update is for the iPhone and the iPhone alone. They could check the firmware and overwrite the cracks, but they don't have to. They are simply not obliged to make their software compatible with anything but an iPhone that's stock standard and covered under warranty. The onus is on you, the hacker, to make your iPhone compatible, or at least to refuse updates.
Any manufacturer who causes users 4-600$ dollars worth of hardware loss via a software update would be liable. End of story.
Don't forget that they aren't shoving this update down your throats. You are the one causing $400-600 dollars of hardware loss by modifying your phone, and then updating it like you hadn't.
Believe me, if PC manufacturers could have voided your warranty for installing a different operating system (as they would be able to according to your arguments), they would have years ago.
If you do modify (or change) your PC's OS, and then accept an update that's not compatible with your non-standard arrangement, then you alone are responsible any hardware damage by software that occurs. I mean, who else would be responsible?
It's not about the hack so much as it's about the fact that it is hacked, and no longer the standard that Apple supports. The burden lies with the hackers to make their iPhone variants compatible with standard iPhone software. The burden that Apple has to bear is to make the firmware compatible with the standard iPhone. If anything can't run it, then it isn't a compatible iPhone.
"Except your statement assumes that Apple hacked a few iPods into the exact same state as all the hacked iPhones and already ran a patch to see what would happen."
IF you think they haven't already, I'd have to say you are barking mad.
Why? Apple certainly doesn't need to spend the money on making compatible things that aren't iPhones in both specification and compatibility with software. In fact, it's in their best (legitimate) interest not to support these "iPhones", since opens the floodgates to supporting any number of stupid hacks. They tested the iPhone as it was, how they made it, and that should be it. To pander to all the hacked and broken "iPhones" would simply paralyse firmware updates, which is bad for those who actually bought an iPhone and kept it an iPhone.
What does it cost to have some junior level dev guy hack one and play around with it for a day and write up a report? Basically nothing.
That's great for finding the obvious incompatibilities. What about ones that only manifest rarely, after long series of events? And if Apple were to start supporting the hacked iPhone, what about the iPhones where something has gone wrong in the hacking process? Why, that would lead to a messy and very, very expensive situation, where apple has to ascertain for themselves that the hack has been done correctly, and that any problems with it arise from the phone itself, not a potentially bad hack.
Unofficially, they will know perfectly well what it will do. If there are two roughly equal ways to implement a desired feature and and they know one of them breaks on the hacked phone -- that is the one that will be used. Apple would reverse engineer an unrelated reason for why they picked that implementation.
How do you know? Seriously? How do you know?
Bricking hacked iPhones isn't good for them. In exchange for a small rise in AT&T's exclusivity contract, they'd lose a significant number of Apple customers. On the other hand, compromising the firmware update for hackers, as I explained earlier, would also be a bad idea. But who knows, perhaps the assumption that the GP pointed out is incorrect (as it probably is), and they simply didn't know.
What they do have is a contract with AT&T to ensure and protect their exclusive carrier rights. If they don't do everything legally possible to make sure people can't switch carriers - they will sure Apple for everything they can.
I'm absolutely positive that AT&T's lawsuit would fail if they tried to sue Apple for not bricking hacked iPhones. No judge would prosecute that. Of course, that is assuming AT&T would themselves recognise that not bricking the hacked iPhone constitutes breach of contract. It's only obvious now that the update is actually going to brick the iPhone.
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.
Bull. Firstly, the update is optional as I understand it. Apple can create and offer you whatever software they like and it can do whatever they want it to, provided they don't resort to false advertising. I could also create a live CD that would shred all the data on your disk, and it would possibly have a market. Just because my software that I've distributed to you, for use in your own time, "bricks" your computer, doesn't mean that I'm attempting to brick your computer.
Secondly, the product that gets bricked is not an iPhone. It's now a collection of similar hardware and software. It's certainly not compatible with the real iPhone (the one that apple supports) in specification or practice. If you install iPhone software on anything but an iPhone, you alone, not Apple, bear the consequences of such a decision.
Finally, Apple warned you about it in the warranty. They weren't curtailing your rights, they weren't forbidding you to do anything, they just warned you that your phone would no longer be supported or covered under warranty if you decided to modify it. Tough luck.
Unlike Sony, Apple is not a media company. They sell hardware and software. If they do brick cracked iPhones, then that is unfortunate for both Apple and their customers. Apple lose a small amount of market share to bad publicity. And considering the margins on the iPhone, that lost market share will sting. I seriously don't think it was deliberate.
On the flip side though, they didn't back down on the firmware update, removing whatever feature(s) conflicts with the cracked iPhones. They needed to set a precedent of not compromising updates for non-standard iPhones.
Not really. It's a firmware upgrade, not an attempt to brick some iPhones. Apple is not going to just freeze firmware updates because a bunch of people who broke their warranty are regretting their decision.
There's a big difference between not supporting a particular (mis)use of a device and having "complete and utter control". They aren't obliged to support every usage for their products under the sun. It was locked, you fiddled with it (despite the warnings not to), you broke compatibility with the future firmware update. Apple is not and probably should not (for fear of setting a precedent) waste its money on bailing out those who broke their iPhone.
I also don't get this "I bought it, so I get to do whatever I want with it" crap. Can't a company put restrictions on a product? It's not like you have to buy it. All it does is decrease the product's value to you, and increases the value of the sale to the company. If you don't think the entire product (restrictions and all) is worth the price, then don't buy it. All this buying and then cracking is driving up the price for others.
The point of my post is (or was) that the music industry does exactly that. That's what the free market is for. We can decide the quality of things ourselves, and ideally, we only buy if we get a good deal (i.e. if we think the album is of quality) and the companies charge what it's worth. The reason why the OP's suggestion seemed so obvious (well, it did to me, at least), is that it's exactly what's going on. The only thing he neglected to mention was that not everyone hates post 70s music.
People like Thompson and others are just using the system that is in place for their own gain. That makes them smart, not stupid.
Possibly, but more accurately/likely is that he has an agenda to push that he actually believes in. That doesn't make him not so much "smart" or "stupid", but more "different". I think it's pretty unlikely that he doesn't believe in what he's saying, and that he's just saying what he thinks people want him to say. Otherwise, he'd just be a pollster, and be a lot more moderate in his views on morality.
Hm, that's a great idea. However, when factoring in the subjectivity of musical tastes, and the inefficiency of making a separate price for each individual person (based on their opinion of the album), it would be sensible to make CDs roughly the same price, perhaps fluctuating little due to popularity. When deciding the exact price, they should probably factor in the fact that only the people who like it will buy it, and thus base the price on the quality of music to them. Perhaps the figures $10-20 per CD might be reasonable?
With respect to 486s -- I'd rather have kids with 486s, the Logo language, and a good teacher than the latest quad core processor, electronic flash cards and an apathetic teacher.
Luddite. Why can't you accept that nowadays, CPUs are faster, languages are higher level, flash cards are tiny, and teachers are apathetic?
Perhaps the OEM could offer Windows as an optional part of the package? Or to put it another way, offer an unformatted drive as an option aside from Windows?
Lottery winners receive money beyond their means. The richest they are going to get (in most cases), is directly after the win, since their original income won't match their wealth and won't be able to sustain it. The problem isn't in the lack of moderation, it's just that they can't expect that immoderate supply of money to be sustainable.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but if I don't reply, how will I stress that I'm the better man for walking away without having the last word?
I think the GP is telling us not to be afraid of childcare. Like he says it builds social skills, and is no more risky than giving them to relatives. He's not saying that parents should send their child away on the possibility that they themselves might be abusive.
Sorry to parrot the GP, but it needs clarifying.
I read it. You seem to want to end the conversation, yet the replies keep coming.
This comes up periodically. The whiners are unlikely to do anything about the political environment. Each time a politician doesn't do exactly what they want to do, no matter the effort or cost, the whiners get to look good to their peers without actually doing anything. So social problems get extended... again... and then in N minutes, another whiny comment propagated by an irrational hatred for authority and media sites who want our unconditional patronage.
Move along... nothing to really see here...
FWIW, I think Arial's a fine looking font.
Obviously the kind that realises that just because they may be wrong about one thing, doesn't mean that everything else they say is wrong because of it.
In regard to your whinging about the troll mod, let me say that troll mods have nothing to do with truth, or logic. If you put your opinion in an inflammatory or obstructive way, no matter how logical or truthful you may think it is, you run the risk of legitimately getting a troll mod. That last "and the rest of your comment was wrong" line was especially obstructive. How are you meant to discuss the topics at hand if everyone just said "you are completely wrong" and provided little to no evidence why.
It's not about the hack so much as it's about the fact that it is hacked, and no longer the standard that Apple supports. The burden lies with the hackers to make their iPhone variants compatible with standard iPhone software. The burden that Apple has to bear is to make the firmware compatible with the standard iPhone. If anything can't run it, then it isn't a compatible iPhone.
Bricking hacked iPhones isn't good for them. In exchange for a small rise in AT&T's exclusivity contract, they'd lose a significant number of Apple customers. On the other hand, compromising the firmware update for hackers, as I explained earlier, would also be a bad idea. But who knows, perhaps the assumption that the GP pointed out is incorrect (as it probably is), and they simply didn't know.I'm absolutely positive that AT&T's lawsuit would fail if they tried to sue Apple for not bricking hacked iPhones. No judge would prosecute that. Of course, that is assuming AT&T would themselves recognise that not bricking the hacked iPhone constitutes breach of contract. It's only obvious now that the update is actually going to brick the iPhone.
Secondly, the product that gets bricked is not an iPhone. It's now a collection of similar hardware and software. It's certainly not compatible with the real iPhone (the one that apple supports) in specification or practice. If you install iPhone software on anything but an iPhone, you alone, not Apple, bear the consequences of such a decision.
Finally, Apple warned you about it in the warranty. They weren't curtailing your rights, they weren't forbidding you to do anything, they just warned you that your phone would no longer be supported or covered under warranty if you decided to modify it. Tough luck.
Unlike Sony, Apple is not a media company. They sell hardware and software. If they do brick cracked iPhones, then that is unfortunate for both Apple and their customers. Apple lose a small amount of market share to bad publicity. And considering the margins on the iPhone, that lost market share will sting. I seriously don't think it was deliberate.
On the flip side though, they didn't back down on the firmware update, removing whatever feature(s) conflicts with the cracked iPhones. They needed to set a precedent of not compromising updates for non-standard iPhones.
Not really. It's a firmware upgrade, not an attempt to brick some iPhones. Apple is not going to just freeze firmware updates because a bunch of people who broke their warranty are regretting their decision.
There's a big difference between not supporting a particular (mis)use of a device and having "complete and utter control". They aren't obliged to support every usage for their products under the sun. It was locked, you fiddled with it (despite the warnings not to), you broke compatibility with the future firmware update. Apple is not and probably should not (for fear of setting a precedent) waste its money on bailing out those who broke their iPhone.
I also don't get this "I bought it, so I get to do whatever I want with it" crap. Can't a company put restrictions on a product? It's not like you have to buy it. All it does is decrease the product's value to you, and increases the value of the sale to the company. If you don't think the entire product (restrictions and all) is worth the price, then don't buy it. All this buying and then cracking is driving up the price for others.
The point of my post is (or was) that the music industry does exactly that. That's what the free market is for. We can decide the quality of things ourselves, and ideally, we only buy if we get a good deal (i.e. if we think the album is of quality) and the companies charge what it's worth. The reason why the OP's suggestion seemed so obvious (well, it did to me, at least), is that it's exactly what's going on. The only thing he neglected to mention was that not everyone hates post 70s music.
Hm, that's a great idea. However, when factoring in the subjectivity of musical tastes, and the inefficiency of making a separate price for each individual person (based on their opinion of the album), it would be sensible to make CDs roughly the same price, perhaps fluctuating little due to popularity. When deciding the exact price, they should probably factor in the fact that only the people who like it will buy it, and thus base the price on the quality of music to them. Perhaps the figures $10-20 per CD might be reasonable?
Yes. The problem is with the moderation of the output, rather than the moderation of the input.
Perhaps the OEM could offer Windows as an optional part of the package? Or to put it another way, offer an unformatted drive as an option aside from Windows?
I bet the GP's youngest (Vista) is going to be huge and FAT!
Lottery winners receive money beyond their means. The richest they are going to get (in most cases), is directly after the win, since their original income won't match their wealth and won't be able to sustain it. The problem isn't in the lack of moderation, it's just that they can't expect that immoderate supply of money to be sustainable.