Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:How about freedom for all? (Score 1) 936

by jo_ham (#49374519) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

Since everybody is required to do business to survive, you're effectively saying that nobody has rights. Where in the Constitution does it say that we lose them when engaging in business? I can accept that for corporations, who are making a bargain in exchange for limited liability, but not for partnerships and proprietorships.

Well Citizens United says that corporations are people, so really there's no distinction.

Either you agree with the civil rights act or you don't, but the fact remains that it is in place to ensure that the "every man is equal" part of the constitution is upheld, hence the inability of a business to turn away black people. What this bill seeks to do is ensure that if homosexuality becomes a protected class that business owners who are bigoted won't be sued.

Also, your first sentence is a huge, huge non-sequitur. There is no "requirement to do business" to survive - you can work for someone else if you want to, and even have your religious beliefs upheld (for example, if you work in a store you can ask to not handle pork as a Jew or a Muslim). The fact that you think that if a bill specifically designed to protect religious people's ability to discriminate is removed means that "none of us have freedom" is just laughable.

Comment: Re:Meh (Score 1) 188

by jo_ham (#49372939) Attached to: If You Want To Buy an Apple Watch In-Store, You'll Need a Reservation

Look, consumer electronics these days are for everyone (they're not like the Casio calculator watch from back in the day), so they need to look sexy and even a little bit "exclusive". Apple hasn't been "exclusive" for years now, and I suspect they want to take the idea back a little: being fashion-forward AND having something that not everyone else has yet.

Except...I've had a smart-watch for months. People notice and ask questions, but I've observed that the questions I get aren't from people who WANT one of their own, even the iPhone users (people still have phones that are glued to them anyway), they're just wondering why I have it in the first place. So Apple is probably limiting supply to increase perception of demand.

Or they're limiting supply because supply is limited, which has been known for some time.

Of course, the click bait summary doesn't think that's a sexy enough headline, so they're going with the "exclusivity" angle.

If you walk into the Apple store and want one, an employee will walk you through buying one online fem inside the store, because they won't have the stock on hand to just be able to give you one right there due to a) the tight supply of the watch itself (mainly down to the screen) and b) the large number of combinations of strap.

Until the demand settles out, you'll have to order one online, which is exactly what Apple are setting up for. Either ahead of time and then pick up in store, or if you just walk in, they'll do it for you right there.

However "Apple employees will order a watch for you online if you go to the store because they won't have lots of stock on hand" just doesn't get those ad impressions roiling.

Comment: Re:worried about no lines (Score 1) 188

by jo_ham (#49372857) Attached to: If You Want To Buy an Apple Watch In-Store, You'll Need a Reservation

Apple is worried that there will be no lines and that this will make the news, sending their stock price down.

So, they've created a highly-publicised reservation system to prevent any such news from being relevant.

Or the reverse - they don't have enough.

Their supply is constrained, which has been known for a long time.

I doubt it will sell as well as the iPhone (what could really?), but I am certain that demand will heavily outstrip supply, at least for the first couple of months.

Comment: Re:Desperate, not exclusive (Score 1) 188

by jo_ham (#49372837) Attached to: If You Want To Buy an Apple Watch In-Store, You'll Need a Reservation

Exclusive is a salesperson spending an hour just with you, patiently helping you to choose just the right style. Like... Macy's, when buying a watch of comparable price! Apple can not sell jewelry for nuts, they should have partnered with stores that have experience with making customers feel exclusive.

What makes you think they haven't done that?

(hint: they have, but they're also selling them in Apple stores too).

Comment: Re:Way to piss off customers, Apple. (Score 2) 188

by jo_ham (#49372795) Attached to: If You Want To Buy an Apple Watch In-Store, You'll Need a Reservation

They don't have enough of them, simple as that.

Until their supply chain levels out, they're constrained.

You don't think they really want to do it this way in an ideal situation right?

They want to do whatever will make them the most money, but they have to contend with the fact that they simply will not have enough supply for the first few months of sales.

Comment: Re:This is the wrong battle (Score 1) 936

by jo_ham (#49372717) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

The thing is, the law as signed by Clinton was also wrong, and he was wrong for signing it.

This Indiana law, which goes further than the Clinton law by some margin, is designed precisely to discriminate against gay people. The primary author of the bill has said so on the record.

Comment: Re:How about freedom for all? (Score 1) 936

by jo_ham (#49372667) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

That's all very well until you open a business.

Privately you can believe what you want, but if you run a business you have to follow various rules - for example, signs saying "no blacks" are typically frowned upon. As it happens, currently "no gays" is actually not illegal (making the indiana bigotry law unnecessary anyway).

You're not required to think the same way, you're just required to follow a certain set of minimum criteria when running a business that interacts with the public.

Comment: Re:a question - Right now (Score 1) 936

by jo_ham (#49372595) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

You can afford to pay any amount of medical expenses (for example, major heart surgery, serious trauma surgery etc) with cash on hand?

It's wager that you're something of an edge case.

Otherwise, I call bullshit on insurance "not providing anything [you] can't provide on your own".

Or do you mean your parents will pay?

Or are you just monumentally stupid enough to simply roll the dice daily by not having insurance and thinking you couldn't possibly get sick or be injured? and consider that a better position than actually having insurance (or access to universal healthcare if you live in any of the other developed nations on earth)?

Comment: Re:A laptop with almost no ports?! (Score 1) 529

by jo_ham (#49236239) Attached to: Apple's "Spring Forward" Event Debuts Apple Watch and More

A touchscreen is capable of displaying a keyboard, so yes, it can be a keyboard.

And thanks for answering my question, idiot.

Ah, so no argument then. I thought so.

Or, if we're going by your logic, the iPhone wins because it's the lightest. I mean, it can display a keyboard on the screen too so it counts.

Comment: Re:The right place to air her rationalizations... (Score 1) 609

by jo_ham (#49233325) Attached to: Clinton Regrets, But Defends, Use of Family Email Server

How is it a clear criminal offence?

The law that the original article tried to "gotcha" her with went into effect years after she left office.

As far as can be determined there's no "clear" criminal offence here, unless the law is applied retroactively, in which case she's not the only secretary of state who is apparently subject to a law that wasn't in effect at the time of their "crime".

Comment: Re:Is the new MacBook for you? (Score 1) 450

by jo_ham (#49232263) Attached to: Reactions to the New MacBook and Apple Watch

Think you got your logic flipped there, mate. /.'s been iTard heavy for a while now.

Leaving aside the playground-quality insult skills (given the low UID did you borrow your dad's /. account to post?), the claim that slashdot is "heavily" pro-Apple is laughable.

It's one of the funniest things I've read all week.

Comment: Re:Apple pay at Coke machines and apps for diabete (Score 1) 529

by jo_ham (#49231849) Attached to: Apple's "Spring Forward" Event Debuts Apple Watch and More

I see you didn't actually address the point. Consumer Electronics are a different market segment from luxury jewellery for the reasons I implied. Apple is about to learn this the hard way.

I find that when certain keywords like "iToy", "fanbois", "sheeple", "Crapple" and so on are in the post, addressing the point with factual rebuttals tends to be futile.

That train has already sailed.

For the record on this one, the idea that there will be a thriving industry for the repair of niche mechanical timepieces in 100 years but not one for niche electronics is not a point that can be easily answered, but a decade from now? Are you kidding?

Comment: Re:A laptop with almost no ports?! (Score 1) 529

by jo_ham (#49227381) Attached to: Apple's "Spring Forward" Event Debuts Apple Watch and More

1.76 lbs. The touchscreen is part of the computer, hence it is already attached.

Are you trying to move goalposts or are you just an idiot?

How am I moving the goalposts by asking about the keyboard?

A touchscreen is not a keyboard.

A keyboard is a device with physical keys that you press. A touchscreen is a touch-sensitive layer over the top of a physical screen.

How does this make me an idiot? I'm struggling here. Please help me out "n00b".

Also, you forgot to log in again.

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

Working...