Planetfurry BBS Forum Index Planetfurry BBS
Forums for Planetfurry Site Members and more
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   DonateDonate   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

HAAAA!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Planetfurry BBS Forum Index -> Everyday blither-blather
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anthony
Site Owner
Site Owner


Joined: 12 Nov 2001
Posts: 1304
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They went after the third party because they were the ones sitting on the information on who broke the NDA.
(In other words, they wanted to find out who the real criminals were)

Maybe a bit heavy-handed, but Apple is known to vigorously protect their secrets until a time they feel it's ready to be disclosed.

They can't really enforce the terms of the NDA against third parties.
They CAN issue DMCA takedown requests to any site that do publish the stuff.(Legally, it's Apple's data, and they have the right to decide whether or not it is to be published) And they can start investigations to find the source.

As said, Free Speech is a good thing, and a reporter should usually be able to protect his sources, but in the case where that source has clearly broken a contract, to bring out documentation that has NO PUBLIC IMPORTANCE(ie: whistleblowing), I can't see a reason why he should be protected.
(This is my opinion. Any lawyers will of course debate this hotly, for a rather hight hourly fee, but that's another matter)

And no, Mike can't force me to paint his house...
I might do it for free, though, if he pays for the air fare...
(I'll have an early vacation this year, probably mid-june to mid-july. House-painting is on the 'first order, first serve' basis)

BTW: And I don't like using paint. He'll have to either get oil-based stains, or a wood-oil and tar mix.

_________________
"My name's Lion, Anthony Lion"
A fur with a license to purr...
---
Like my Avatar?
Why not surf over to www.micecomics.com and tell Mary what a stellar job she did...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Syrius
Registered User


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1463
Location: The S.S. ScurvyDog, Arizona! YARR!

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yup. That was my point, they can't enforce the NDA against a third party who didn't sign it. If they had gone the DMCA route, there may have been a case. I'd fully agree on that.
_________________
Hey, Sony... IT'S PAYBACK TIME!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name
Xaqtly
Registered User


Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 442
Location: Las Vegas

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Syrius wrote:
Guilty until proven innocent? Very good, and valid argument. You realize that it could be applied to your judgement of the Cracked article as well, right?


Not even close. You are making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. Cracked is presenting information as fact when it is easily proven wrong. I'm not assuming they're guilty of being wrong, they ARE guilty of being wrong. That's the difference.

Syrius wrote:
When it's the truth: Iphones and Ipods play music from the Itunes store. Statement=true. It's not their responsibility to advertise each and every feature of the hardware. It's Apple's.


Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that Cracked is intentionally leaving out information for the specific purpose of misleading you? I pointed that out in my last post and you haven't addressed it. Half truths and misdirection != truth. You need to acknowledge this point before moving on. The statement was designed to make Apple look bad, and they accomplished that by leaving out the basic truths of that scenario.

Let's put it another way since you don't seem to be getting it. Let's say I gave a statement to the police that simply consisted of "Syrius murdered a man". However, the truth is that the gun in your hand went off accidentally as you were fighting off the burglar who set your house on fire and was stealing your kids, and it was not only an accident but it was self defense anyway, and you were just trying to get out of the house.

None of that makes the first statement untrue, does it? Do you see how only using the first statement applies an unfair bias to the story? The entire Cracked article works like that. Everything they say is slanted by using half truths and omitting relevant information to make Apple look bad. You're going to need to put aside your own bias against Apple and look at it objectively to understand this. Until you do, I'm not sure there's much point in discussing this with you, because you're an Apple hater looking for validation in an article that tries as hard as it can to make Apple look bad. Even though I've already proven a number of times over that they're not giving you the full story, you don't seem to care.

You want an example? This is from one of the first lines of the article.

"Even if the iPad turns out to be the disaster that many are anticipating"

Many? Who are these "many" people they're referencing? Almost everybody thinks that iPad is going to be a huge success. Apple stock has gone higher because of it. Every major tech magazine is expecting the iPad to do well. Every major news outlet that has commented so far is expecting the iPad to do well.

Strawman arguments don't fly. They should be listing sources when they say something like that. But they're not listing sources. You know why? Because they're just trying to make Apple look bad, and they know they can't do that if they provide sources for some of the ridiculous statement they're making. And you are not seeing those things for what they are. You don't see it as a strawman argument, even though that's exactly what it is. You see it as Cracked finally speaking the truth about Apple for all the world to see.

Don't buy into that crap. Do a better job of looking at it intelligently and objectively.

As far as outright lies, the article is full of them. Here's one:

"Jailbreaking is just a term for modifying your iPhone in order to make it do what every other gadget on the market does: Whatever you tell it to."

Every other gadget? EVERY OTHER GADGET?

If that isn't setting off alarm bells, it should be. Do I need to point out how wrong that statement is, or can you see it for yourself? Every other gadget - in the entire world - does whatever you tell it to? The sheer idiocy of that statement boggles the mind, but it's also pretty shocking that anybody with any reasonable level of intelligence would buy into it.

Syrius wrote:
Also, I never said that it would always break.


No, and I didn't say you did. But you are agreeing with Cracked, and they DID say that.

"They will actively break your shit for disobeying their arbitrary rules."

"Apple has sent out updates specifically designed to disable phones that have been modified to work with carriers other than AT&T"

Notice there is no flexibility in those statements. They WILL break it. That is 100%, provably wrong. You even admitted that. Do I really need to keep going with these examples? I can, if you want. I can take that entire article apart line by line. Is it necessary for me to do that?

Where is Cracked's source for this? They don't have one. Doesn't that tell you anything?

Syrius wrote:
Apple does not own the hardware once I pay for it. Otherwise, they could demand its return at any moment. Your own point of me being "on my own" once I jailbreak it, confirms that I am entitled to own that hardware.


Er... yeah, I said that already. Multiple times, in fact. That was always understood. Your complaint was "why can't I put whatever I want on it?" My response is that you can... on your own. You won't get any support from Apple, and if you download an update that breaks your jailbreak and you have to restore it... too bad. You are not allowed to hold Apple responsible for that.

Syrius wrote:
Yes. Gateway does not own Linux. But they cannot prevent me from installing Linux.


Obviously. Because they don't own Windows. That scenario is entirely different than Apple's, because they DO own the hardware AND the software.

Syrius wrote:
Google voice. What other application does Google voice duplicate the functionality of? "How it would lose them money" was exactly my point. If they don't outdo Apple's products, then explain that to me. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.


Okay, you appear to be missing some information regarding Apple's relationship with AT&T. You're right, Google Voice wouldn't affect Apple at all. So who would it affect? AT&T. AT&T and Apple have a contract in which AT&T has the right to deny apps on the app store if they do things that AT&T doesn't want them to do, such as using excessive 3G bandwidth.

Think about it. Why would Apple allow Skype on the app store... but only over wifi? How would including 3G access hurt Apple at all? It wouldn't, obviously. In fact it would be much better for Apple if 3G access were enabled. So how did that happen?

AT&T vetoed it. And that is why Google Voice isn't available. So if you're looking for a scapegoat for that, point your angry little pitchforks over at AT&T.

Syrius wrote:
Please notice I never said I should expect Apple to support me when I install whatever I want on their hardware. Just that I can, and there's nothing they can do to prevent me from doing so. I really don't get how that equals me expecting support from Apple. Which I never said. Again. (I did say it would be very hypocritical, greedy and stupid of me to jail break a phone and expect full support from Apple.)


The reason this came up is because you were agreeing with Cracked. But unlike you, Cracked is saying something entirely different:

"Even after you spend your hard earned money on fancy Jobsian wonder-toys, you still don't really own them."

You yourself just disagreed with that. So you still think Cracked got it right?

Syrius wrote:
The O'Grady case and others weren't settled. A legal precedent and their constitutional rights actually prevented Apple from getting what they wanted (Info on who let the cat out of the bag).


Or to put it another way, the guy who broke the NDA hid behind the first amendment in order to avoid being rightfully destroyed by Apple. I have to ask, where's the justice for Apple in that situation? It's not like Apple asks you nicely not to talk about it, when you sign an NDA, you are swearing yourself to secrecy. It's not optional. But breaking it anyway and then hiding behind a reporter is fine?

Obviously freedom of speech is important. But this isn't information that was going to bring down a corrupt government, or save lives, or do anything that you would use the anonymity the first amendment provides. This was purely for personal gain, at the expense of Apple who did NOTHING WRONG. Unless you think making somebody sign an NDA is "wrong".

Syrius wrote:
I've also called other products "Winblows" and "Loonix", because I also dislike their bad points.


Yeah, namecalling really isn't a good idea. However I did say that if you weren't doing it on purpose, that was fine. There was no personal attack. And on the subject, you need to drop the whole "ad hominem attack" thing. I have not once ever attacked you personally. Everything I write is in direct response to something you wrote. You need to stop using that as a defense when I respond to your points. [/b]

_________________
Changed my name to Kantaro.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
anthony
Site Owner
Site Owner


Joined: 12 Nov 2001
Posts: 1304
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One quick note about Windows and namecalling...

As I support Windows in a large organisation, and have done so since 1993, I feel I have the right to call it whatever I like.
Those that only use it in a personal capacity, though, haven't suffered enough to deserve that privilege...

Which is why I like Apple...

Back in 2005, I bougth an iBookI had just killed a Packard Bell laptop because the 'el cheapo' crap didn't have reverse polarity protection on the DC In connector, even if that would have only added $0.1 to the total cost) Back then I had no real experience with OS X. I had a few older Macs in my collection nothing newer than OS 9, and none I had used for more than a couple of minutes), so...
Inless than 5 minutes from I started unpacking it, I was up and surfing the net on my landlord's WiFi network.
(I was searching for printer drivers for my Konica Minolta PagePro 1300W laser printer. Never found any that worked, though. )

When I moved my stuff(iTunes Library, registered programs and data) from my PowerMacG4/400MHz) and iBook(G4/1.33GHz) ovr to my Mac Mini (Intel based), it was just a straight over copy(well a bit of tinkering with the iTunes library, typing in the email used to buy audiobooks, account at Zinio, stuff like that)
All the registered applications(HTML Editor, FTP client, and a few others) ran as if nothing had happened.

Gotta love a company that makes the transition from one HW platform to a completely different one so painless...

The iPad...
I haven't decided whether or not I'm going to buy it, yet.
Maybe, if it handles .PDFs properly.
(My Sony PRS500 eBook reader is completely pants.)

A lot of people give Apple grief about not supporting multitasking on the iPhone/iPod Touch...
The same people never noticed that their old Palm Pilots also never supported it.

_________________
"My name's Lion, Anthony Lion"
A fur with a license to purr...
---
Like my Avatar?
Why not surf over to www.micecomics.com and tell Mary what a stellar job she did...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Syrius
Registered User


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1463
Location: The S.S. ScurvyDog, Arizona! YARR!

PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anthony wrote:
One quick note about Windows and namecalling...

As I support Windows in a large organisation, and have done so since 1993, I feel I have the right to call it whatever I like.
Those that only use it in a personal capacity, though, haven't suffered enough to deserve that privilege...


Does it count if I told you I went "Office Space" on a (recalcitrant) Microsoft-branded wireless adapter? Or that I used a military-grade HDD wiper to get rid of a Vista installation? I also have saved that presentation in which Bill Gates gets a BSOD after connecting a printer (I think). By triplicate. Though I may not feel it, I understand your pain.

(Lost a lengthy reply and clarification to network timeout, drat. So here it is:)

All right. Here we go. I'll try to avoid being verbose:

The statement of "Apple devices play music from the Apple store" is not false. Cannot accuse them of misleading or being wrong on a true statement. Especially when it's common knowledge to most Apple product users that another sources of music can be played. I don't need them to clarify what I already know. Ergo, I at least cannot be misled.

The fact they are leaving it information, without spreading actually misleading information (such as saying there is no other alternative) is not enough to accuse them of misleading. Again, especially when it's common knowledge to most Apple product users that another sources of music can be played. Misdirection, okay. I'll give you that. But not based on that true statement. A true statement cannot equal a lie, either.

I don't have to specify that a potato is also not a carrot for me to accurately say "this is a potato".

To address your scenario: The statement "Syrius murdered a man" can be proven false, even more in light of the conditions specified. While "Syrius killed a man" is a true statement, it doesn't add validity to the previous one, or "Syrius is innocent of murdering a man" either. Likewise, we cannot call Cracked's opening statement misleading, because it doesn't do more than state the obvious, and cannot be proven false.

Ipad: I can't comment on it, because it's been just released. Their lack of sources is something I can't answer for, either. If it's sources what you'd like to see, here's Gizmodo's take on the good and the bad: http://gizmodo.com/5492054/the-litanies-of-ipad-resistance-or-submission?skyline=true&s=i

Strawman arguments. I've retracted on what hasn't been proven. Please check my previous posts. What would they gain from making Apple look bad?

Of course it's not logical to accept the "Whatever you want it to do" and "any gadget" as valid. I can't expect the PS3 to "just do everything" when I know it's a games multimedia machine, and a slogan by Sony. However, I can reasonably expect my PSP to boot up, fire up my Amiga games I've copied and dumped to play on an emulator, let me read PDFs, play my MP3s, and all the other neat things that I've gotten it to do, because the hardware is capable of it, and I've enabled it to do so. Note that statement is not mine.

I've already retracted the point of the firmware-coded-to-break-phones because there is no evidence that would support that claim. (Even though I posted links that hinted at jailbroken phones as a rebuttal, bricks have happened on regular phones and other phones for that matter. So it's an unsustainable claim.) Spare me the flogging.

See above. Claim retracted.

Google voice and apps: Good. I'll reserve judgement on that. If the FCC finds they were wrong or not in implementing their policy regarding programs, it's their call.

If your statement of "Apple owns the hardware AND the software" is true, then "Your devices don't belong to you after you paid for them" is also true. So yes. Cracked has it right. That's why myself (and other people around the world) get around having to run their software on the hardware we purchased (not only Apple's, any other company falls within this scope). They own the hardware design (so nobody else can profit from their work and investments), not every single physical music player or phone, as Styx explained.

Now, I think I've stated it so already. Jason O'Grady did not sign any NDA, to Apple, or anyone else. He was not responsible for keeping anything quiet. He and others, could not have gotten off so easily if they had done so. Here's the official ruling: http://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does

Yet they get prosecuted as a third party who had nothing to do with the breach of an agreement between a first and second party. That is wrong. His constitutional rights trump an NDA that he did not sign.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=170 (That's Jason's own response)

http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case430.cfm

Nowhere does it state that at least O'Grady was signed, required, or even implied to keep confidential the information he came across. If somebody can furnish me proof that he *did* sign an NDA (which is somehow believed he did, without evidence.), please point me in that direction.

Finally, statements like "I guarantee you it comes down to you just not liking how they operate", "you have a false sense of entitlement" and "If you're doing it intentionally, it's childish and petty" have a clear character-based tinge to them. That's why my request.

_________________
Hey, Sony... IT'S PAYBACK TIME!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name
Xaqtly
Registered User


Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 442
Location: Las Vegas

PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Syrius wrote:
The statement of "Apple devices play music from the Apple store" is not false. Cannot accuse them of misleading or being wrong on a true statement.


Wrong. It is entirely possible to be misleading with a statement that is factually correct. As I've said what, 5 times now? It is OMITTING INFORMATION. That is what makes it misleading. Your excuse about it being common knowledge is a horrible excuse, because the whole reason saying something like that works in the first place is because it is NOT common knowledge.

I'm not sure why you still aren't getting this. It should be beyond crystal clear by now. Half truths do not equal truth.

Syrius wrote:
The fact they are leaving it information, without spreading actually misleading information (such as saying there is no other alternative) is not enough to accuse them of misleading.


...what? How does that work? Of course it's misleading, it was designed to be misleading. You can't use the "common knowledge" excuse because it's obviously not common knowledge if people believe what Cracked is saying.

Do you just not think the intentional omission of information counts or something? It's like you think what they're saying is ok because nobody is asking them the right questions. If you asked them "ONLY the iTunes store?" they would have to say "well, no". And that's the point. They aren't telling the whole truth, which is misleading.

Syrius wrote:
I don't have to specify that a potato is also not a carrot for me to accurately say "this is a potato".


Really bad example, which sort of proves that you really don't get it. It's not about omitting information that is NOT relevant, it's about omitting information that IS relevant.

Syrius wrote:
we cannot call Cracked's opening statement misleading, because it doesn't do more than state the obvious, and cannot be proven false.


Oy. It's like talking to a brick wall. What it states is not the whole truth. What it states is a partial truth intended to make Apple look worse than it is. However if you ask them if that iTunes store is the only place to get music, they would be forced to answer "no". They get around having to admit that by LEAVING IT OUT.

Do you really believe it's ok to leave out relevant information like that? In an article that they want people to take seriously? Do you think that sort of thing would fly at any reputable newspaper or magazine?

Syrius wrote:
Ipad: I can't comment on it, because it's been just released.


And that's fine, but we're talking about what Cracked said here. Who are these "many" people who think it's going to fail? Can you tell me who they are, because apparently Cracked can't. Which means that they pulled that statement directly out of their butts, much like the rest of the article.

Syrius wrote:
Strawman arguments. I've retracted on what hasn't been proven. Please check my previous posts. What would they gain from making Apple look bad?


Is that a serious question? First of all, the strawman arguments thing wasn't directed at you. Cracked is the one making the strawman arguments. You're just agreeing with them. As to what they would gain, isn't it obvious? Site hits. That's why they do this, because people love to hate Apple. Even you should be admitting by this point that the majority of that article was flat out wrong, and the rest is hating for hating's sake. There's no substance to it, and certainly nothing to base any of your beliefs on.

And by asking what they have to gain by making Apple look bad, that makes me think you don't think they're doing it on purpose. Please don't tell me you're that naive, as if Cracked simply listed a bunch of non-partial facts about Apple. You know, like Apple kills people who leak their secrets.

Come on. If they put THAT in their article, what does that tell you about the nature of the article? The whole thing should be one giant red flag for anybody who claims to be objective or intelligent.

Syrius wrote:
Of course it's not logical to accept the "Whatever you want it to do" and "any gadget" as valid.


You say that now, but you've been quarterbacking pretty hard for this article in this discussion. Now on nearly every point you've admitted that it's not logical to accept what it says, but you're still going for some reason. Why? Who knows.

Syrius wrote:
I've already retracted the point of the firmware-coded-to-break-phones because there is no evidence that would support that claim. (Even though I posted links that hinted at jailbroken phones as a rebuttal, bricks have happened on regular phones and other phones for that matter. So it's an unsustainable claim.) Spare me the flogging.


Yes, but you have not admitted that Cracked was wrong in saying it. I know that YOU know better, but my point is that you can't rely on that article for any objective information.

If your statement of "Apple owns the hardware AND the software" is true, then "Your devices don't belong to you after you paid for them" is also true.

No it isn't. That statement was to point out that Apple has the right to determine where their OS runs, and restrict it from running on any platforms they choose. Obviously Apple can't physically do anything with an iPhone that you bought and are holding in your hand.

Syrius wrote:
Now, I think I've stated it so already. Jason O'Grady did not sign any NDA, to Apple, or anyone else.


You didn't answer my question. I asked where the justice is for Apple in this case. Why is Apple not being allowed to go after the guy who DID break the NDA? Because he's hiding behind a journalist? You understand that the only reason Apple went after O'Grady in the first place was to get the name, right?

Nobody is claiming O'Grady broke an NDA, you're barking up the wrong tree with that defense. I'm asking you where the justice is for Apple who did nothing wrong, yet they are being blocked from discovering who broke an NDA the offending party agreed to sign.

You think O'Grady's rights are being stepped on, and I'm pointing out that Apple's rights have also been stepped on. There was a signed NDA involved, Apple should have every single right in the entire world to go after whoever it was that broke it. That's what they were doing by going after O'Grady. They were getting the name of his source.

Syrius wrote:
Finally, statements like "I guarantee you it comes down to you just not liking how they operate", "you have a false sense of entitlement" and "If you're doing it intentionally, it's childish and petty" have a clear character-based tinge to them. That's why my request.


"If" is an important word in that statement. Right? I specifically said if you weren't doing it on purpose, it was fine. So if you weren't doing it on purpose, you have nothing to worry about. As to the other statements, they're just statements. It's not an attack if I point out that you have a false sense of entitlement... when you DO have a false sense of entitlement. It's like saying you have a nose. It's a basic fact, not an attack.

_________________
Changed my name to Kantaro.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
ScottyDM
Registered User


Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 1142
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ryan Fox wrote:
Hawke wrote:
Anything in particular wrong with Java?


No.. but being suddenly forced to purchase an expensive SUN care plan for just a few updates on a 'free' OS is mind-numbingly ludicrous, especially after you purchased a SPARK based machine with a legit software library and suddenly need to download OS patches.. now they're owned by Oracle... bye bye SUN workstations.. uh oh's for MySQL...

Yea, $340 per year per machine for the minimum support necessary to download security patches for a "free" OS. Dumb *** twizots! Convinced me to go OpenBSD.

As a user of MySQL, I'm worried.


Rifts980 wrote:
Ryan Fox wrote:
Rifts980 wrote:
Apple is for people who cannot compute.


<gave an intelligent reply


OSX Is like catching aids.

ALSO

Steve Jobs Owns A PC.

What an ignorant and inflammatory reply.

Are you a troll?


anthony wrote:
... (I was searching for printer drivers for my Konica Minolta PagePro 1300W laser printer. Never found any that worked, though. ) ...

A 1300 watt laser printer? Whoa! What do you print on, stone?

At work we have a 25 watt "laser printer" and we can burn wood and the paint off of shiny metal, but that's about it. Wink



Sheesh, too many people bein' too dang serious.

S~

_________________
Kantaro wrote:
Almost real enough to be considered non-fiction, if it weren't made up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rifts980
Registered User


Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 200
Location: Orbiting around a point just to left of four seconds in the future

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

admford wrote:
Rifts980 wrote:
OSX Is like catching aids.

The usual mentality of someone who's used only one type of OS in their lives.

I've gone through Windows 2.0, 3.11, 95a, 95b, 95c, 98, 98se, XP, Vista. Not to mention a few of the later iterations of DOS. Amiga OS 3.0, 3.1 (don't have the hardware for 4.0 though). Mac OS 6-9, Mac OS X preview to 10.5. I've lately started messing around in Linux and Solaris. And I should have a copy of SCO's UnixWare somewhere among my collection.

I have tried OSX ALL windows Linux and many others. OSX is STILL AIDS

admford wrote:
Rifts980 wrote:
Steve Jobs Owns A PC.

Well duh! He's been known for never using his own company's products. While at NeXT he used a standard PC, instead of NeXT Station, though he did have NeXT Step for x86 on it. Forgive a guy's mentality on his own private choice of products that he uses.

Heck, Steve Ballmer has banned all Apple products at his home. There goes freedom of choice for his kids, or anyone that's invited over.


Because he know his product has Hebrews in its ancestry

_________________
The Banana is in the Package. Irish need not apply for winter solstice, we are full. I'm in your operations, changing your views.

CW4adfrw A+ C- D+ H+++ M--- P+++ R++ T+++ W Sm- RLLW a- cn++ e+ f h* iw+++ p+++ sm-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Syrius
Registered User


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1463
Location: The S.S. ScurvyDog, Arizona! YARR!

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^^^ Ah, Rifts, you may want to consider your statements. We don't want to throw gas over some cinders, do we?


Xaqtly wrote:
Half truths do not equal truth.


They don't equal lies either. It's not their job to point out every single detail. Nor mine. (Though I did.)


Xaqtly wrote:
...what? How does that work? Of course it's misleading, it was designed to be misleading. You can't use the "common knowledge" excuse because it's obviously not common knowledge if people believe what Cracked is saying.


Common knowledge to Apple product users. Stated before. You know the truth, I know the truth, you and I at least can't be misled, even if the opening statement didn't give out every single little detail.

Xaqtly wrote:
Do you just not think the intentional omission of information counts or something? It's like you think what they're saying is ok because nobody is asking them the right questions. If you asked them "ONLY the iTunes store?" they would have to say "well, no". And that's the point. They aren't telling the whole truth, which is misleading.


It's their site. Not mine. I cannot be held responsible for what they entered there. They don't have to do Apple's work of informing their users of every little thing their products do (But I did clarify it, to be fair.). Can't mislead those who already know the whole story. (IE mostly everyone who owns an Apple music player.)


Xaqtly wrote:
Really bad example, which sort of proves that you really don't get it. It's not about omitting information that is NOT relevant, it's about omitting information that IS relevant.


To satisfy that point, I'd also need to point out that a potato is also not a zucchini, nor an orange, banana, atom collider, you, me, this computer and every single other object in the universe that is not a potato. There is only so many hair-splitting to be done before a statement is clear. Or are we to assume that Ipod owners can be misled by a partial (though accurate) statement, versus all the publicity, manuals, and advertised ease of use of Itunes and Ipod/phone?


Xaqtly wrote:
Oy. It's like talking to a brick wall. What it states is not the whole truth. What it states is a partial truth intended to make Apple look worse than it is. However if you ask them if that iTunes store is the only place to get music, they would be forced to answer "no". They get around having to admit that by LEAVING IT OUT.


Don't mean to sound belligerant, but, you know they have a contact email, right? Shouldn't be too much of a problem for them to clarify that errata (as I have, for the sake of fairness), if it's such a pivotal point in their article. If they appended it, I don't see the rest of the article crumbling to dust, points as refutable (SP?) as they may be, IMHO. Heck, I'll do it myself later, for the sake of fairness.

Xaqtly wrote:
Do you really believe it's ok to leave out relevant information like that? In an article that they want people to take seriously? Do you think that sort of thing would fly at any reputable newspaper or magazine?


Newspapers can report the facts without having to clarify every single point. It's not necessary to clarify in a police article that guns are capable of expelling projectiles at potentially lethal velocities by a reaction caused by the inflammation of gunpowder to explain that a person died in a shoot-out, or that according to article such and such of such and such state constituition, stealing is wrong, in order to report a robbery, assault, or theft. If that statement alone can mislead people, then Apple has made a poor job of informing their customers of what their hardware can do. And we know it they have made that info available, one way or another.


Xaqtly wrote:
And that's fine, but we're talking about what Cracked said here. Who are these "many" people who think it's going to fail? Can you tell me who they are, because apparently Cracked can't. Which means that they pulled that statement directly out of their butts, much like the rest of the article.


I already posted a link to Gizmodo. A neutral party, giving points in favor and against the Ipad. You can also look for "Ipad criticism" on Google, if the veracity of Cracked is in question.


Xaqtly wrote:
Is that a serious question? First of all, the strawman arguments thing wasn't directed at you. Cracked is the one making the strawman arguments. You're just agreeing with them. As to what they would gain, isn't it obvious? Site hits. That's why they do this, because people love to hate Apple. Even you should be admitting by this point that the majority of that article was flat out wrong, and the rest is hating for hating's sake. There's no substance to it, and certainly nothing to base any of your beliefs on.


Rhetorical question. I could also ask you to please prove this "hatred" people have for Apple (with links and sources). But you don't have to. That would prolong this discussion even further. And I did retract several of my own points.

Xaqtly wrote:
And by asking what they have to gain by making Apple look bad, that makes me think you don't think they're doing it on purpose. Please don't tell me you're that naive, as if Cracked simply listed a bunch of non-partial facts about Apple. You know, like Apple kills people who leak their secrets.

Come on. If they put THAT in their article, what does that tell you about the nature of the article? The whole thing should be one giant red flag for anybody who claims to be objective or intelligent.


All right, slow down for a second. There is no "conspiracy" against Apple here. They are calling them out on things. You have evidence to the contrary? Good. You should be able to quote and prove that evidence. (Please forgive the personal tone of this.) And how do *I* know for sure whether they are doing it on purpose or not? Can't peg me on that.


Xaqtly wrote:
You say that now, but you've been quarterbacking pretty hard for this article in this discussion. Now on nearly every point you've admitted that it's not logical to accept what it says, but you're still going for some reason. Why? Who knows.


Okay, dude. This is seriously bordering on fanboyism. I just stated that I don't agree with that point in the literal sense of the word, and recanted some of my other points. Yet, it's not enough that I also express that it's possible to install other software that doesn't use any of Apple's code, and now I am part of the Apple hataz in your eyes, until I admit everything I, other sources, and Cracked have said, is 100% wrong? At least that's the way it seems. (See next)


Xaqtly wrote:
Yes, but you have not admitted that Cracked was wrong in saying it. I know that YOU know better, but my point is that you can't rely on that article for any objective information.

If your statement of "Apple owns the hardware AND the software" is true, then "Your devices don't belong to you after you paid for them" is also true.

No it isn't. That statement was to point out that Apple has the right to determine where their OS runs, and restrict it from running on any platforms they choose. Obviously Apple can't physically do anything with an iPhone that you bought and are holding in your hand.


Then let's drop that specific issue, because that is exactly what I have been saying (or trying to say, by walking around having to use Apple's software, the physical impossibility of them doing something to the hardware in other people's hands.) to this point. It's shades of gray, not black and white only.


Xaqtly wrote:
You didn't answer my question. I asked where the justice is for Apple in this case. Why is Apple not being allowed to go after the guy who DID break the NDA? Because he's hiding behind a journalist? You understand that the only reason Apple went after O'Grady in the first place was to get the name, right?

Nobody is claiming O'Grady broke an NDA, you're barking up the wrong tree with that defense. I'm asking you where the justice is for Apple who did nothing wrong, yet they are being blocked from discovering who broke an NDA the offending party agreed to sign.

You think O'Grady's rights are being stepped on, and I'm pointing out that Apple's rights have also been stepped on. There was a signed NDA involved, Apple should have every single right in the entire world to go after whoever it was that broke it. That's what they were doing by going after O'Grady. They were getting the name of his source.


You just gave out the answer. If O'Grady didn't sign the NDA, then by sheer logic, justice for Apple will come the moment they go after the sources who actually signed and broke the NDA. That's what they sign them for, in the first place. They have their names, signatures, and at least an idea of who it was, if they don't outright know who the potential leaks are, already. Shouldn't be much harder to subpoena those parties than the way they tried to do to those bloggers. It's not Apple is not allowed to go after the disclosing party. They just directly haven't. (Why they went after the disclosee, I don't know.)


Xaqtly wrote:
"If" is an important word in that statement. Right? I specifically said if you weren't doing it on purpose, it was fine. So if you weren't doing it on purpose, you have nothing to worry about. As to the other statements, they're just statements. It's not an attack if I point out that you have a false sense of entitlement... when you DO have a false sense of entitlement. It's like saying you have a nose. It's a basic fact, not an attack.


Very good. In that case, we can agree to disagree before the mods have to intervene.

_________________
Hey, Sony... IT'S PAYBACK TIME!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name
anthony
Site Owner
Site Owner


Joined: 12 Nov 2001
Posts: 1304
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ScottyDM wrote:
anthony wrote:
... (I was searching for printer drivers for my Konica Minolta PagePro 1300W laser printer. Never found any that worked, though. ) ...

A 1300 watt laser printer? Whoa! What do you print on, stone?

At work we have a 25 watt "laser printer" and we can burn wood and the paint off of shiny metal, but that's about it. Wink


Actually, 1300W is the bl**dy thing's model number...

Not that it's used much these days.
(It's a USB-connected GDI-based printer, which pretty much ties it directly to a Windows PC)

I mostly use a HP LJ2100 I liberated from a dusty shelf at the office.
and thanks to a HP Jetdirect adapter I also liberated, it prints from Windows, OS X, whatever Linux my Asus Eee 900 is using, and hopefully, soon, from eCS v2.0...
Haven't tried IR-printing from any of my PDAs, but the printer should be supported.

It's nice, when I wake up on Saturday morning, to print out the latest Gone Wylde, then get out of bed and pick up the papers on my way to the kitchen...
Toasty papers and a cup of tea, can life get much better?


As for the iTunes debacle; I know there are people out there who actually believe that itunes can only play music from the iTMS, and that music bought from the iTMS can only be played by iTunes, EVER!
The same people also believe that only Windows Media Player can play WMA files.

_________________
"My name's Lion, Anthony Lion"
A fur with a license to purr...
---
Like my Avatar?
Why not surf over to www.micecomics.com and tell Mary what a stellar job she did...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
[Crash]
Registered User


Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 96
Location: Cloud 9

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have an iPod Photo and have been fairly happy with it. Excluding a few occasional battery issues, it's performed well over the past 5 years. I've been thinking about putting RockBox on it after all these years to get some more life out of it (or perhaps kill it, depending on how it goes).
I've got my eyes set on the Zune HD after this one buys the farm.

As far as Apple's behavior goes, while despicable and innovation-inhibiting, it's common of a multi-competitor market like the smartphone industry, as opposed to something like the Graphics chip industry or the consumer processor industry. Apple doesn't have very much going for it so it has to stick to its strengths and make sure no one else has them.
While perfectly legal, I'm going to go with the "don't sue people just because you can" moral and say that originally written software developed on a from-scratch developed hardware is hardly "stolen technology". I'm going to go so far as to say that putting already existing technology in the right comibination to emulate what Apple is doing is hardly a "technology" by itself at all.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Planetfurry BBS Forum Index -> Everyday blither-blather All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group