Even the summary makes it clear that the Kodak prototype preceded your experience by 14 years.
I wasn't contradicting the article, I'm just saying it's not a one-shot anomaly that happened in the 70's and then resurfaced years later.
I'd think you'd be able to actually read to catch that, rather than just um, accuse me of not reading. *rolls eyes*
I had a Canon Xapshot purchased in 1989 which I used combined with my Amiga to upload images to FTP sites in the early 90's. It wasn't truly "digital" although it was often referred to as such. More of a video stillshot camera, but still quite convenient for putting images into digital formats.
Not quite the same thing really, but the point is there's been an interest in digital photography for a long time.
When you say I am not in Canada, that is precisely what ad hominem argumentum is. By definition. Ad hominem does not mean "insult" it means to argue against the man, instead of the man's argument.
The position, physical or argumentative, is not the man. You keep saying No, Yes, Liar-- always talking in absolutes. That too, is a position.
So here, let me try it on. You're not just inaccurate there, no, you're a liar. Hmm, nope, I can't do it, you're just being more base than you need to be. You get the last word though, I'm done with this circular argument nonsense.
Rhetorical question to leave you with: What would a Free Market Canada do for Canada?
Position is very important within this topic.
... is a funny accusation from someone who keeps classifying disagreements as inferiority.
I have never done that, let alone done it repeatedly. Please do not lie.
I'm going to honestly believe you're just not aware of your own words at times.
Read your own comments throughout this article, to myself and others. Count how many times you told people they just didn't understand liberty or didn't understand economics. Count how many times you took a superior position and used that to degrade the insights and information of people who actually live within the country and with the phones that the article is about.
Now add to that, all of the additional derogatory remarks as SilverEyes just pointed out, where you just gave single-word dismissals or outright insults.
Then, take each time you've called me a liar for addressing what you've said, including just now. Call me out on assumptions, I don't mind, but liar? Maybe you consider that being just direct, blunt or base. Some people consider those endearing qualities. Some do not. It's normal for people to be inaccurate in their assumptions, I have been plenty of times. It's a little harder to stomach when it comes from an immovable object.
What I am criticizing you on, is a lack of nuance or moderation. And yes, a lack of position for the essential understanding of the topic at hand. You can say our disagreements are equal, but your position to me, is out-of-bounds both physically and idealistically.
There's nothing ad hominem about recognizing a position that just doesn't apply. All that's left is to address the lofty ideals and the person making them. Sorry, but it's true. If we were discussing U.S. cellular carriers and U.S. laws, I would probably defer more to your position. Mind you, I'd not have bothered to enter the debate at all.
This isn't just about the esoterics of borders, which I'm guessing (another assumption, I admit) you may feel don't apply in conversations about liberties. It's also about scope and perspective. You talk about micro and macro economies. I don't think you can do so when addressing people from a country with a greater land mass, 1/10th the population and corporations primarily owned by the neighbours.
The reason I've made these assumptions is because you're taking such a well known and predictable stance. You haven't wavered from it and you speak in absolutes. You've given little opportunity to address your opinions in turn in anything but absolutes as well. That's unfortunate.
So yeah, I've been addressing the man who appears to enjoy telling others what systems they should live by. I believe my answers to that particular situation have been quite appropriate.
Exactly.
To me, that's the difference between a religious person and someone more moderate.
The religious believe that some things have no limitations. God, Liberty, Money, Love, Free Market. Take your pick. Push something into the absolutes and the extremes and then things tend to go into crazy land. Bad crazy land usually. I don't think we need point out how, or predict where these things get dangerous, it's enough already that they do. Totalitarianism.
It's the disconnect from reality, in part, which makes it dangerous.
You can have your beliefs, I don't disagree with anyone who has some faith. It's the absolutes that are ridiculous. Moderate your beliefs, otherwise you cannot grow.
It's bizarre to me that this comes forward in the middle of a discussion about locked cell phones. Kind of makes sense though, that the absolutes come out even in the most benign topics. Interjecting beliefs without consideration or understanding of the actual situation at hand.
I'm pretty sure you believe in checks and balances for government, but you clearly do not for business.
You're lying about me. Please don't. It's unbecoming. I said absolutely nothing that you could infer that from.
I'm making an assumption. You haven't corrected it. I haven't put any words in your mouth, I'm just responding to what you've said. If you don't believe in checks and balances, then say so. Temper your ideals, because you've put them out there very boldly and directly in a topic about a country you do not reside in. There's been no moderation in your conversation at all.
Is corporate rule that appealing to you?
I do not accept the way you would dictate my liberty.
Except, I wouldn't. You cannot identify a single liberty you would lose from my views as stated or implied. You're dishonestly just making things up so you can try to weirdly score points against me.
The entire subject is a liberty I wish for. I would like to purchase a phone that carriers will guarantee unlocked. They place these locks and I don't want them, so I'd prefer that my government (which is not yours I should note!) take this action to require that they do.
This is a situation where I feel my liberty is more valuable than theirs. I feel justified in doing so, because I'm a citizen and they are (in most part American-owned I should also note) not citizens. They don't even pay the same taxes as I do, in fact as telephone companies, they've been mostly tax exempt. Nevermind the slash of corporate taxes of late (again, a Canadian and provincial issue). This is not fair representation and your insistence that they should have freedoms at the expense of my own are exactly what I'm taking issue with.
I don't know why I should even bother explaining something so obvious that you're just likely to reply with more religious zeal latitudes that have little bearing on the reality of the situation at hand.
It's a minor, relatively unimportant liberty for sure, but it's one nonetheless.
We have checks and balances: it's called a Constitution. The problem is that "ObamaCare" violates the Constitution, in many ways. The rule of law is ignored by the left controlling the U.S.
I'm wondering if you've bothered at all to pay attention to whom you're addressing or just arguing with everyone as a whole here. I haven't once mentioned health care and it's off-topic as far as I'm concerned. That's part of my point I guess, since this is about a specific anti-competitive practice by Canadian cellular carriers. It's not about you, the U.S., health care, or any of the other things which you'd like to bundle into your over-encompassing idealistic arguments. I haven't even considered your constitution on the topic, because well, it's your constitution, so how the hell does it apply?
Sure, there's a big picture here, but it's clear it's all just formula for you. You're missing all the math of this particular equation and you're unwilling to factor any of that into your one-size-fits-all free market fantasy solution.
Let's be clear here. This thing you purchased is "a locked phone." That is what you sought, purchased, and now own.
In Canada at least, we do have consumer laws that allow for a moderate amount of assumption on the part of the purchaser and the seller. I think it's reasonable that I'm actually purchasing a "cellular phone" and that it's also reasonable to expect that phone to work equally with compatible networks. If under some strange case that it went to court, adding an artificial lock would certainly be treated as a barrier, not a product description. Incidentally, that's pretty clear within Bill C-560, as a requirement that locks be better identified.
If you think it's clear as an assumption, then maybe that's the situation in the U.S., but here there are some phones that are carrier locked and some that are not. It's been consumer's best guess as to which.
I don't mean to insult you by this, but you clearly haven't factored in the differences between our countries at all. Not in the specifics of this market and not in the assumptions of liberties either.
You'd make a hell of a dictator.
You're an ignorant jackass.
Allow me to explain the nuance of that insult. You've spend this entire debate dictating to others your unwavering insistence of how you feel liberty should be. To citizens of another country! And then you claim your interpretation is based on fact and history. I don't disagree with your flag, I disagree with YOU.
Insult my intelligence, call me names, but can't take it in return. Tell everyone else they resort to ad hominem, but when you do it, it's all correct, right? You're not currently a dictator, clearly, but from your comments here, you appear to desire to the lives and laws of people who are not your countrymen.
Based on your posts here, civil rights and liberty - when taken to extreme - result in obviously untenable positions.
Explain how. I won't hold my breath, because I am quite certain you can't, but I offer you the opportunity to explain it.
However, you're the stereotypical (atypical Republican?/ typical Libertarian) who constantly needs to prove how smart you are.
You're a typical smug person who feels "above it all" who resorts to mere ad hominem when he hasn't any actual arguments.
The ad hominem part is a funny accusation from someone who keeps classifying disagreements as inferiority. I guess we must resort to addressing you rather than those lofty concepts of yours that we couldn't possibly understand. *rolls eyes*
I'll say, it's taken this long for me to catch on that you're more interested in winning at slashdot commentary than actually comprehending the position of others within the debate. All too proud of the software you wrote?
Seriously. Everything that's been said about that untenable position has already been posted above and it all just went woosh right over you. I don't think you're actually interested in any of it.
Not anti-competitive, no. Calling this anti-competitive is nonsense. It IS competition. "Anti-competitive" has a specific meaning, and it is not about engaging in competition and trying to gain a competitive advantage, but about trying to eliminate competition. That's obviously not happening here.
How so nonsense? Aside from claiming wildly, you're not applying much logic to the debate.
Um. I clearly described it. You didn't explain (at all) how it is "anti-competitive," so you didn't give me much to work with. So I simply noted the fact that it doesn't meet the definition of "anti-competitive," which is a pretty good argument on my part.
Locking a phone is specifically so customers cannot take that hardware they've purchased and use it on competiting carriers.
Yes: a phone subsidized by the carrier it is locked to. This is competition, not anti-competition. Every service provider can do this, so it does not prevent or reduce competition, unless one provider already has a massive advantage over its competitors, such that locking really does have the effect of reducing competition. But -- and I don't know about the Canada, but in the U.S. -- there's no evidence locking reduces competition: all the providers do quite well, even with their competitors locking their phones.
You are engaging in the equivocation fallacy: saying that because something in a micro sense reduces competition ("I can't use this phone with any other provider") that it is therefore anti-competitive, which is a macro claim ("competition, on a significant scale, between the various competitors is being reduced or prevented").
I think you're so blinded by your ideals
I think you're blinded by your ignorance about econommics.
Again with the arrogance. You don't have the least bit of knowledge of the Canadian cellular carriers, do you? There are three major carriers, two of which overlap networks. They are known to collude, in fact two of them were accused of such recently by nearly-equally worded policy changes on the same day.
Now you can argue all you want over how it got that way, or how it could be fixed, but the reality is you're making wide-sweeping idealistic comments with zero room for anything but 100% of your religious free-market beliefs.
Not one ounce your spouting is moderated for the market you're talking about. You're just throwing around absolutes.
And you're calling me ignorant on the issue.
your not Canadian are you? If you are, please leave, otherwise I may be inclined to infringe on your rights some more and punch you in the face.
Typical liberal. You simply do not believe in civil rights or liberty, by your own admission. You only believe in what you think people should have.
You're hypocritical about it though. You insist that we accept *your* definition of liberty. You slam someone for showing frustration with your insistences and unwillingness to accept some moderation to your ideals.
I'm pretty sure you believe in checks and balances for government, but you clearly do not for business. Is corporate rule that appealing to you?
I do not accept the way you would dictate my liberty. I don't believe you're actually interested in the rights and liberties of others at all in fact.
This is the farcical direction Libertarianism has taken. Bowing to corporate interests. I'd rather put my interests in someone who's been elected and let them manage the checks and balances for the ones who're just interested in profit margins / share.
I believe in freedom as much as it can be obtained without stepping on the freedom of others. This is one of them, where business has decided to put an extra lock on something that I would otherwise be free to use after I've purchased it. A check and balance on that is something I welcome.
Liberty is a beautiful word and a stellar ideal. Understanding the limits of that ideal, that would be moderation. Otherwise, you taint the word. And that's what you're doing, tainting liberty by measuring it with an unbalanced scale.
You'd make a hell of a dictator.
Most of us realize
You're using the wrong word. s/realize/believe, without being able to demonstrate/g
That's what happens when ideals are extremes.
Nonsense. We have extreme "free speech" and "representative democracy" and "anti-slavery" and all sorts of extremes in this country.
One person's freedom and liberty often infringes on another's.
That's demonstrably not the case here: no one's liberty is being infringed upon by locked phones, or lack of universal health care. You would have to bend "freedom and liberty" to mean something they literally cannot mean. But forcing me to pay for universal health care, or forcing me to buy or sell unlocked phones, clearly does infringe on my freedom and liberty.
Last I checked, you have an attempt at representative democracy, not an actuality. It's as tainted as ours when it comes to lobbyists, etc. This is exactly why business is in a much different category than freedom of speech or freedom from slavery.
Not anti-competitive, no. Calling this anti-competitive is nonsense. It IS competition. "Anti-competitive" has a specific meaning, and it is not about engaging in competition and trying to gain a competitive advantage, but about trying to eliminate competition. That's obviously not happening here.
How so nonsense? Aside from claiming wildly, you're not applying much logic to the debate.
Locking a phone is specifically so customers cannot take that hardware they've purchased and use it on competiting carriers. How on earth is that not anti-competitive?
I think you're so blinded by your ideals, you don't see common sense. It's become a religion to you. Zealotry.
Of course. It's because many people don't understand, or appreciate, the free market and liberty, and would rather sacrifice those things for the easy, and less-free, way out.
Most of us realize that the absolutes you're preaching are an absurd utopia that cannot exist in reality. Some of us realize that in trying to achieve that sort of libertarian ideal is much more likely to end in something totalitarian instead. That's what happens when ideals are extremes.
One person's freedom and liberty often infringes on another's.
I mean come on
Business interest is rather vague, so let's be a little more specific and call it what it is: A business interest in reducing competition. This is about phones that are bought and paid for, either via contract or outright.
You're actually arguing for free market principles in favour of an anti-competitive practice? Seriously? You don't see the paradox in that? You actually believe that this particular behaviour reduces prices to the consumer?
On the side point, have you unlocked a phone recently? I did a few days ago and all it took was a code entered via the phone's own keypad. No extra hardware, no expertise required.
Currently, Canadian carriers are seriously gouging customers. Consumer Reports and the BBB have both written reports recently regarding the high volume of complaints toward cellular services, specifically about pricing. These are the guys you think should not incur the infinitesimal costs of unlocking phones for customers-- phones they have locked themselves to begin with.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
