http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ste...ry?id=14383813
Wow...
Printable View
It's a sad day. He will be missed. He really did both innovate and lead a lot of innovation in the tech industry.
RIP Steve Jobs, Thank you
-- typed on a Mac.
RIP Steve Jobs. Some of us in the PC world may not have always agreed with you but no one in the world can deny your sheer genius, brilliance, and innovation. We truly have lost one of the greatest technical leaders of our time.
Definitely a man who has permanently etched his name into computer history... whether you agreed with his principles or not, his influence has brought a number of important technologies to the mainstream better than anyone else could. It is a sad thing to see someone like this go because he was in no way over the hill in talent and potential and seemly had so much more to offer had his physical health allowed it. We can only hope that he has had the opportunity to build the infrastructure at Apple to allow them to continue to fulfill the dream he had for the company.
I'm in shock. I didn't expect it this soon. RIP Steve Jobs.
No, definitely not. I think we all expected this to happen when he resigned as CEO, but I really didn't think he was pushing his resignation this close to the end. You know how they say that people who work late into their life keep themselves alive through their labor... this almost seems to be the perfect example. Perhaps we will never know how much time the doctors gave Steve Jobs around the time he chose to resign; maybe he really was cutting it as close as he could to the end, but it almost gives me an eerie feeling that perhaps putting down his work might have had a strong effect on the body's will to keep fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Apple.com homepage really a sight to see. A very sad sight.
RIP Steve. Will really miss you and all your contributions to humanity.
Every death comes too fast, but 56, that is so sad.
Everywhere I go, I'm witnessing a genuine sense of loss from everyone commenting. I'm truly glad this is happening in serene manner. And it speaks wonders for the achievements of this man that in this moment we all end up acknowledging our respect for him.
Even though this may bring down eyes upon me, I will say it. Everyone has a right to an opinion, after all.
Good riddance, the world is finally rid of that idiot.
Though he may have invented the touch interface as we know today, he's also the source of all the Evil™ of the dreaded Apple ecosystem, which others seek to duplicate. The world would have been better off without him.
You're all heart!Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
The gadgets are great, but I think what would have made Jobs a more interesting figure to me would be if he'd jumped in with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in that whole "giving back billions" thing. Or at least shown some interest in humanity at large, instead of just being another rich guy people like to worship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Yes, You Can Think Less of Steve Jobs for Not Being a Philanthropist - Technology - The Atlantic Wire
Rest In Peace, Steve Jobs...
I wonder, since he was a business-man, why didn't he realise that public donations would have an enormous positive impact to his reputation, extending to the corporation with much more clients!...
Not sure what your problem is. I like that there are other companies who will make everything Apple does, and it doesn't come crippled in some retarded way and it isn't ridiculously overpriced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Like building a closed platform and demanding that we follow their rules?
Name one Apple competitor that uses a closed platform.
Microsoft. Windows Phone (AFAIK) + Metro apps.
But that is a great business model. It means you can sell milk bottles and milk, and put a label on the bottle: if you buy milk from someone else and put it in this bottle, it will turn sour (but the trick is, you have to have the expertise to make it true). Pretty soon people won't want to risk buying bottles and milk separately, they will become wary of bottles that don't sour enemy milk (how good can that be?) and then you can become a leader in the industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Now you and your shareholders can get rich together and common people everywhere will regail you as a technological visionary.
Yes, it is a great business model and a horrible customer/developer model.
And that, good folks, is exactly what I hold a grudge against Steve Jobs, and why the world is better off without him.
The only rule I ever hear anyone caring about is how there aren't going to be porn apps in the store.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Get an android for that.
Not that I am particularly interested in porn apps, but who gives them the right to take away choice from people?
And with Apple, they are known to actually block applications from rivals. Is that fair when the store is your only way to get applications on the phone?
Point is, we leave by their rules, and not our own. We are not longer free to choose as we wish. Apple was the first to implement this model, and now others are realizing they can do this, too. We have Steve Jobs to thank for that.
And encouraging complete disposability by coupling (monoblock) software and hardware so tightly that you do not just need an upgrade to your browser -- you need a brand new operating system and a piece of heavily packaged plastic too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
This is also a good business plan everyone can appreciate. The more material we dig up, form into devices and wrapping paper, then throw away and repeat, the more we are helping our economy prosper.
Other people. I'm thinking the real reason is that they don't want someone to sue them for enabling indecent exposure after downloading a porn app and not being able to exercise self control; basically the same line of reasoning that people used to sue McDonald's for making them fat. That's probably not as satisfying for you, I can't come up with a "right" for them to limit their apps, but Americans have conditioned our culture to be socially conservative. Sorry. And since Apple is based here, it happens that Apple makes the rule and then enforces it everywhere. Maybe if Apple were somewhere else, it wouldn't be an issue because the rules would be different but possibly equally dumb. See Fordy's thread about Germans finally being able to buy Doom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
My memory on this is a little hazy. If they violated Apple's IP or something I'm not about to cry. But I don't remember hearing anyone else blocking anything. I'm OK with Apple making all the PR blunders. I'm also OK with Apple being completely wrong on everything, because it let's their competition do it right.Quote:
And with Apple, they are known to actually block applications from rivals. Is that fair when the store is your only way to get applications on the phone?
Well to be more accurate, you're no longer free to choose as much as you like. I'm not really sure a platform is still closed if the only rules are don't do anything that might get you arrested and don't try to write phone viruses. And this really does happen because of other people. So you can thank them for that.Quote:
Point is, we leave by their rules, and not our own. We are not longer free to choose as we wish. Apple was the first to implement this model, and now others are realizing they can do this, too. We have Steve Jobs to thank for that.
Sure, but there is no end of such lawsuits they would be susceptible to anyway ("I crashed my car because texting was so tempting", "I wasted years on convenient content I didn't need", "Vital information was stolen from me because I put it on my device", etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
The reason Apple does this is because they want to present a wholesome, responsible image, showing they have put some thought into the kinds of services they support and provide. The right kind of thought. The kind of thought you and your family can identify with as customers. It's PR/marketing. Playing "Angry Birds" is the kind of thing everyone can agree about -- a respectable pastime for decent, "moral majority" people with money and spare minutes -- but there is no excuse for indulging in pornography.
Also, the porn industry is a notorious source of malware et. al. (although I would think Apple capable of dealing with that).
This implies that giving people pocket money and lining a street with different fast food franchises is a fine way to help them shape civilization "correctly".Quote:
I'm also OK with Apple being completely wrong on everything, because it let's their competition do it right.
I know "voting with dollars" might seem like a form of democracy, but in fact it is not that at all, nb.
Well texting can get you a ticket now. But yeah I wasn't really serious about that. I'll concede that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
I'm glad we agree here. There you have described our socially conservative culture. If we didn't have a moral majority it wouldn't be a problem and porn would be fine on mobile phones.Quote:
The reason Apple does this is because they want to present a wholesome, responsible image, showing they have put some thought into the kinds of services they support and provide. The right kind of thought. The kind of thought you and your family can identify with as customers. It's PR/marketing. Playing "Angry Birds" is the kind of thing everyone can agree about -- a respectable pastime for decent, "moral majority" people with money and spare minutes -- but there is no excuse for indulging in pornography.
So it implies something. But I definitely don't think that "voting with dollars" is democracy. If we really did vote with political dollars, we would be propping up companies who support the candidates we want elected, so that the candidates have enough money to campaign and win. "Voting with dollars" means rejecting a product or brand, nothing more. I'm pretty sure that this effects supply and demand on the demand side. Although, depending on how cynical you are, the first part of the paragraph might sound like everyday American politics.Quote:
This implies that giving people pocket money and lining a street with different fast food franchises is a fine way to help them shape civilization "correctly".
I know "voting with dollars" might seem like a form of democracy, but in fact it is not that at all, nb.
Were exactly is this choice you are talking about? You surely don't mean taking away Apple right to choose their business model so you can choose it yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
And since we are on the subject of choice, didn't you have the choice of not buying products from Apple or develop products for Apple? Exactly when, in your life, did you become so dense, you are willing to remove any shred of decency from your own person just so you push an agenda you didn't even cared to actually make reasonable?
How come there are only Like and Share links on this board? Downvote/Hate/Bury link would come quite handy for the two messages by Elysia.
Just because you do not buy someone's products does not mean what they do is no concern of yours, or that criticizing them is inappropriate. If that were the case, we would have no environmental regulations at all, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Analyzing consumer behavior and the consequences of such is a very valid thing to do -- how are you going to understand Modern Western Civilization otherwise? The snowballing impact of SUVs is a good example of this, not just because they are wasteful, but because of the situation it creates for everyone on or near a roadway. To say company X spearheaded the advertising campaigns that brought us to this (which is what I think Elysia is doing) is often just a statement of fact; the debate is about the significance of the consequences.
We're civilised people! We don't "Downvote/Hate/Bury" others!... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by idelovski
You said it. Analyzing. Liking, disliking. Opinion. Not the type of verbal diarrhea I've witnessed here on a condolences thread.
>> Good riddance, the world is finally rid of that idiot.
>> he's also the source of all the Evil™
>> The world would have been better off without him
For a moment there I thought we were talking about Omar Al-Bashir. But I was wrong.
Quite right. Apple has set a "standard" in the industry. The whole closed market thing was really set into stone with Apple's doing, and now competitors feel they need to do something similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
I don't buy Apple products, and I don't develop for Apple devices, but that doesn't change the fact that what Apple is doing is negatively effecting my surroundings, and I have every right to complain about that.
Could you please stop it?! This is a "Steve Jobs dead at age 56" thread, not a "Apple's Evil Ways" one!
Have some respect, will you!?
That analogy doesn't really hold water. People who drive SUVs and add extra pollution to the areas surround the roadways negatively affect people who live/work/whatever near there. People who use an iPhone, with it's restricted/closed platform don't negatively affect those around them. If all those other people want to jump on the bandwagon of an overpriced toy with significantly less flexibility than the competition, the that's their problem, or maybe it's not their problem because they don't care about openness like some people do. They may like pretty, simple, restricted and highly controlled so they don't have to worry about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
My contention with Elysia, and the reason I "liked" Mario's post is the whole "lack of choice" thing, or as Elysia put it, Apple being given "the right to take away choice from people". Having an iPhone gives you more choices in apps to download, etc, than not having one (note, I didn't say more than having a different smart phone). It's not like people were forced into using iPhones, then Apple said "if you own an iPhone, you no longer get to decide if you want fries with that, Apple will order your food for you" and everybody had to comply under penalty of death. An iPhone with an open platform where I don't have to live by Apple's rules is not some fundamental human right that Steve Jobs single-handedly stripped the world of. It's a commercial product and services (what is called a luxury item -- not necessary for basic life), so Apple has a great deal of flexibility with how they make it work or not work. You only have to live by their restrictive rules in their closed world if you choose to buy an iPhone. You always have been, are now, and will continue to be free to not buy an iPhone. Even Apple and the almighty Steve Jobs can't take that away from you.
What better way to honor the man in question, by discussing his legacy, be it good or bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by GReaper
His business model is disgusting, he sold his products through hype and aesthetics, and then strived for monopoly on every market he entered with incompatibility and proprietarity.
By "disgusting", you mean brilliant, self-centered and profitable? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Neo1
Well that depends, are you a stock-holder, or a customer?Quote:
Originally Posted by GReaper
Indeed he was. But I think hardly calls for "disgusting".Quote:
Originally Posted by GReaper
This shouldn't matter by much. The stocks are effected by what the customers do. If everyone loves the products, they'll buy and stocks will go up. If everyone feels the way we do (that being, on the quality of their products), then the stocks would fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1
How is the physical qualities of their product (Materials, finish, internals), related to the way they treat their customers, the people who develop apps for their platform, the people who work for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarin
They can make good products that sell well, and at the same time have a disgusting way of running their business, the two are not mutually exclusive in any way.
It's all related, because if their customers actually did have a problem with the way they get treated, then people would steer away. Keep in mind that even though Apple _is_ very monopolistic, MS still has it. Unhappy customers = Less customers = Less income = Lower stocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1
You assume that the products sell well because people are happy about the products, at the same time you state that Apple is very monopolistic, this is a contradiction. You think that iTunes would have been anywhere near as big a success as it was without the iPod? It's a perfect example of how Apple does, they take over the mp3-player market while it is still in its infancy, by releasing a great product that is light-years ahead of the competition (Which it no doubt was), then they force people to use the iTunes software if they want to transfer music to their iPod, and suddenly they're sitting on the music-software market as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarin
A good product, but disgusting business practices. Again, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Actually, I think he assumes that they're happy about their products because they are happy about their products... Apple consistently has lower return rates and produces the highest customer satisfaction scores of any major tech company. Not to mention the fact that he, like I and I'm sure everyone else in the world, probably knows dozens of iPhone, iPad, or iPod owners... none of which have a major complaint about any of their products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1
By the way... that "horrible business practice" is what allows them to produce the more streamlined (albiet technically limited) product on the market which in turn allows them to produce the high satisfaction ratings. It's because they know exactly what their product can and will interact with. If you start allowing your device to interact with third-party software, you put yourself at the mercy of their quality control... next thing you know people are complaining that they're having trouble uploading music to their iPod from XYZ software, so they begin to dislike their iPod when it's really XYZ's fault. It is, of course, easier for Apple to maintain how iTunes works with the operating systems it's written for than to maintain how their device software interacts with any software that chooses to interact with it.
You're right that this business model limits the user and the developer... but the fact is that it offers all of the functionality that most of the public needs and that's what the sales have shown. You could whine all day that people just don't know any better, but the fact is that most of them don't care or don't have the capacity to know any better... Apple is just catering to that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
It is sad that only those who respect and enforce this(&& also happen to have a crufty business policy) are hailed as visionaries!Code:while(true)
[whine] assert((Most)Users are idiots and are confused by functionality); [/whine]
Not that HE wasn't a great man, but the reputation is somewhat over-hyped because of those presentation/lectures. )
Don't you think that's a bit reductive?
I don't think what makes Steve a visionary is the way he treats his customers like dumb people. That was really down to either aesthetics or wanting to deliver a streamlined product (basically what Sly said). He just knew what to sell people, and often got to it before the rest of the market.
Being the face of a company has nothing to do with being a visionary but that never precluded Jobs from being both.
Sometimes having a vision is just achieving a goal, too, like how Bill Gates wanted a windows machine in every home.
So Apple is exploiting the fact that most people have no idea that what they're doing is limiting to both customers and developers, yet their sales are through the roof. Hence, shady business model AND high profits, which is the very thing that Yarin argued wasn't possible, since, as we all know, <sarcasm> capitalism is fool proof and any company with an immoral business model will decay and eventually perish because their customers will find a moral alternative. </sarcasm>Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
Define shady and immoral business practice. I really want to know. Those words carry a weight and define more than what you may seem to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1
I honestly think you folks are behaving in the exact same way, but on opposite ends, of the very Apple users you claim to be dumb, by simply rejecting any form of deliberate thinking in the name of an irrational passion (them) or hate (you).
Boy, will you hear me complain about Apple products and Steve's business practices! Make no mistake. But where you see shadiness and immorality, I see a valid, legal and successful business. Albeit one that is too strung up on a single market that is still too embryonic (and not much competitive yet) to give Apple any security for the future as the time approaches where feature full and highly competitive devices start to appear by other manufacturers.
My dislike for Apple products and services is not much different from yours. My biggest complain is the price, my second biggest complain is the closed platform that has been stifling innovation and competitiveness (see Apple lawsuits). So I don't buy Apple. Nothing, nada, zilch. Not even an iPod I ever owned from Apple. The last thing I ever touched that had Steve Jobs hand in it was three NeXT computers at university back in the late 80s. But I don't claim that my dislike for Apple business choices immediately translate into them being a shady and immoral business practice. I just don't try to justify my dislike behind a false veil of moral concerns I've never give much of a though about, but still spout like some indisputable truth. I reserve passionate and irrational prejudice for the things that really matter in my life. Not some faceless corporation and its hipster products. Who's being dumb?
.......
Meanwhile, about how close Apple platform is. It is very close. And very controlled. It's the antithesis of all that I defend on the computing business world. But that doesn't for one moment make me forget why it is so. In a mass market, highly commoditized (sp?), as is that of smart phones and is becoming that of tabled devices, if suppliers don't control distribution they risk a market crash like that which nearly destroyed the video gaming industry in the USA in the 80s and forever reshaped the business landscape over there. The truth is that the biggest enemy of companies like Apple, Google or Microsoft in these type of markets are people like you, me, and millions of other developers out there, possibly eager to take a piece of the pie and develop for the platform, selling crappy, useless, applications for 1 USD. Make no mistake, we'd saturate the market in no time, eclipsing from view high production levels and quality products, like a cancer.
Many lessons were learned from that incident 30 years ago. Want to complain about these business practices? Look no further than modern console manufacturers like Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft with their perfect gatekeeping approach to their markets. But if they don't do it, you and I will put them out of business in no time. Because the truth is this: put it in the end of The People and we'll make sure we screw it up faster than you can say "shady and immoral business practices".
I think that is very simplistic.* The behavior of people around you is not only relevant in so far as it threatens your life. If we all believed that, I could buy crack in bulk at Walmart, because no matter how much I smoked, it would certainly not be a threat to anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by anduril462
Of course, maybe it would be better if we did think that way. OTOH, what I said originally,
was where I was coming from and I honestly don't see how that is contentious at all. At the very least, it is not a bad plan to keep your eye on the pack before they become a threat to you personally. I think it's part of what's called "sociology". Another analogy: one day I'd like to re-read this book:Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Which is not to say that I consider the iphone a harbringer of apocalypse, but sometimes strong analogies are the clearest. So the perspective is not about technical achievement (between the wars, there were two centers of high budget, high tech movie making in the world, and many of the techniques now associated with Hollywood, such long rolling shots using a camera dolly on rails, were actually pioneered in Germany) but about analyzing content, as per whiteflags point about no porn allowed on the iphone:Quote:
the book is known for making a link between the apolitical and escapist orientation of German expressionism and the totalitarianism which followed in German society
Why do people want a smartphone? What do they do with it? How much are they willing to pay for it? I think it is interesting that the majority of westerners are probably now paying double or triple what they paid for phone service 15 years ago, but will foam at the mouth when some city council proposes a $50/month increase in property taxes in order to cover basic services and/or control a deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
Products are a sort of battleground about values. One of the things I think the ipod + itunes encouraged was the music industry pushing an inferior product (the mp3) at the same price as a CD, then turning around and whining about the consequences.
Does that mean I think we should all burn our mobile devices? No, I own an iphone and it's packed with mp3s. But I think lauding them as miracles is a little excessive too.
To be honest, I'm not that interested in Apple or Steve Jobs, I'm just baffled that some CEO dies and suddenly there's clips of air-headed pop culture figures on the evening news talking about what a genius he was. What kind of "culture" is this? Did the dark minds behind the HDMI cable get Gweneth Paltrow and Kevin Bacon (nb, it wasn't actually them) on the horn and say, quick, give the media a quote, we want this guy to be remembered as a hero? Last time I checked, Apple did not even claim to be socially or environmentally conscious.
The Big Mac has made way, way, way more money than the iphone. Is that evidence that it is tasty and nutritious? The fact that a product makes money is only that. Apple is a successful capitalist enterprise. Beyond this, I really do not see how they have done much good for the world, or why anyone would believe that they have. As for all those (essentially nihilistic) young people lining up overnight at the store twice a year and now lamenting the CEO's death -- I'll bite my tongue but the phrase consumer psychosis comes to mind. Something out of some dystopian "fantasy" -- a bad joke that is real...
* also, it's worth considering the significance of the $2 billion tantalum capacitor industry, what tantalum is, what products tantalum is in, where it comes from, and what the consequences of mindless consumerism are again (Because consumerism can't be bad, right? I don't have to participate, right? We are all free to choose, right?)
Smartphones: Blood stains at our fingertips - The Globe and Mail
Not to further disrespect the man further than we already have, but I saw this and got a laugh out of it. This is a Twitter quote from Serena Williams (USA tennis player) regarding Steve Job's death.
Now, I'm sure she meant this as a positive simply because she didn't know any better, but those who have beef with Steve Job's business practices and actually know a thing or two about Thomas Edison should get a kick out of that quote and how accurate it actually is. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena Williams
I like your post very much. Especially the whole later part. But here, not so much. If you are putting these questions inside a single parenthesis and separating them by commas to try and establish a relationship between them, I object.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
I'm uanware about any issues with Tantalum production and use in electronics. But I'm not responsible simply because I am a consumer. In opposition I could argue that as a consumer I give jobs, contribute to the wealth of my country (and world in general) and as a consequence help the needy. But I don't do any of those things. If there is something wrong with tantalum, the blame is on the ones doing it. Much like no one will thank me for having given them a job when I go to the local mall.
I just don't buy the "We all are responsible" mindset that became institutionalized after a certain left felt it would be easier to just blame everyone, to hide the fact there's always been a huge divide between what it say it defends and what it actually ends up doing when it gets to power. It's not our responsibility. It's everyone's responsibility!
I've been 42 years on the planet. Not long, but enough to learn that I'm not responsible for the deaths on Somalia, the near extinction of whales, or poverty in Africa. I was not responsible for the invasion of Iraq or for the downfall of my European economy. I'm not responsible for Apple's business practices, were I a consumer of their products. By choosing to buy from this or that one, I'm simply exercising my right to choose what's best for me and what better fits or supports my lifestyle and my way of thinking. And the only ones I have to answer to in this life is me and those I care for or that depend on me.
Though many of you may religiously hate RMS ;
Just found his view on this topic.
I really did not see this coming. Some of you have absolutely no respect and no manners to talk ill of the dead. There will be plenty more threads where we can discuss issues about APPLE but c'mon man the guy just passed away. Show a little heart.
To people I absolutely detest, I deem no respect is necessary. Flame me for that one if you will, but Jobs is one of them. The man deserves no respect, neither in life nor death.
Were it someone else, matters might have been different.
Respect for the dead isn't literally about respecting the bit of meat before or after; I rather doubt he'd care one way or the other.Quote:
To people I absolutely detest, I deem no respect is necessary. Flame me for that one if you will, but Jobs is one of them. The man deserves no respect, neither in life nor death.
You're actually supposed to respect the memory because of those left alive. I doubt anyone here had close connections with the man, but still waiting a bit to express your opinions on the off chance that a family member is around couldn't hurt could it?
Soma
I am not going to offer condolences or anything of the like to any family member that Jobs passed away. Granted it might mean a lot to them, I don't care. Jobs was an evil man and left a taint in the world. Such a man does not need to be honored in any way or form. Perhaps I should say "they should be happy he passed away."
But do not let this think I would say such to anyone. Someone dying is a sad thing, just not for this man. Were it someone else, the story would be entirely different.
He wasn't Hitler, you know....
I like my Mac and my iPod...
Steve had much better facial hair...Quote:
He wasn't Hitler, you know....
Soma
To me, he was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fordy
Can't tell if trolling or idiot.Quote:
To me, he was.
Soma
Is it truly unbelievable for someone to hold Jobs in such disregard? I seriously hated the guy and all that he made, so I am fine with comparing him to a "mini-Hitler."
I'm seriously about to put you on ignore. This has to be the worst example of intelligence and respect I have ever witnessed here. We get it...you didn't like the guy. Move on.Quote:
I seriously hated the guy and all that he made, so I am fine with comparing him to a "mini-Hitler."
Welcome to Planet Crazy...population: you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Haha :D Nice. And you know I'm not going to put you on ignore Elysia. That might have been a bit much but I am just surprised at your reaction in this thread. I apologize for even suggesting it as it may have been a bit harsh.Quote:
Welcome to Planet Crazy...population: you.
It's alright. I knew from the start that writing such comments might just bring everyone down upon me. We may have different views, but that doesn't stop us from being a community.
Are you sure that person exists? If so, s/he is probably more historically significant than Steve Jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
But I don't think this idea of responsibility is anything beyond common sense -- the question is just how seriously you want to take it. If you buy a powdered organ from an endangered animal, I think it is fair to say you are directly involved in the crime. I eat meat, so I consider myself responsible for the slaughter of the animals I eat, since if I did not eat them, not as many would be slaughtered. However, I don't consider raising animals for food a bad thing.
The tantalum issue is somewhat different, since it is hard to say what measure of real harm a single iphone represents. It is sort of like a can of tuna: abstractly, you could say one can of dolphin-unfriendly tuna might, statistically, represent 0.001 dead dolphins. But since you are not actually paying for dead dolphins (or for people to be raped in the Congo), your involvement is far less direct. But you are still involved, this is why you have the "blood diamond" issue and, thankfully, dolphin-friendly tuna. It's also why people are interested in things like electric cars and solar power.
Of course, it is fair to say, "I don't care about dead dolphins," or "the issue of rape in the Congo is irrelevant to me", or "it does not matter whether or not global warming is real", etc. If that's how you feel :(
What you should have known from the start is that there is a time and a place for everything. Your disgusting attitude only revealed the person YOU are. Not the person you are are talking about. And since you revealed yourself to be a complete .............., your opinion of said person just doesn't carry any weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
You'll be happy to join Richard Stallman on this one and be best buddies.
I was aware of that and made the comment on purpose.
It doesn't matter if my opinion on the matter weighs any weight. My words carrying less weight (or more for that matter) won't change a thing.
Thus the argument of efficient or deficient cause. I would say you are not the efficient cause of the animal dying and therefore have perpetrated no crime.Quote:
If you buy a powdered organ from an endangered animal, I think it is fair to say you are directly involved in the crime. I eat meat, so I consider myself responsible for the slaughter of the animals I eat, since if I did not eat them, not as many would be slaughtered. However, I don't consider raising animals for food a bad thing.
You can say I pick my causes. What I try to avoid is preaching a cause but then take a part on perpetuating it. Like... saying Steve Jobs is evil and then buying an iPhone, or complaining about global warming but buying plastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
1) The logic is not so black-white binary, 2) That can only lead to endless semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by VirtualAce
Eg, if I leave my baby alone in the house and she falls to her death, I am not really guilty of murder, but I am certainly guilty of criminal negligence causing death.
Similarly, if I own a crane and the crane collapses because I did not maintain it properly, I am not the efficient cause of the crane's collapse, but I still bare most of the responsibility for the accident.
To take get more absurd: if I drop a burning rag into a pile of leaves by the side of your house, I could not be the efficient cause of your house burning down, even if I am completely aware of how likely it is to happen. If it does, are you going to say, "No problem. You are not to blame at all"?
People risk their lives poaching endangered animals because other people pay them to do so (in advance or after the fact is irrelevant). You may not be the efficient cause of the animal's death, but you are the efficient cause of poaching.
This is why possessing child porn is illegal in most Western countries. You do not have to produce it yourself.
It's the fact you have to get into such convoluted and extreme analogies that should give you cause to reconsider whether all that you are saying makes any sense or applies to the discussion at hand. That's the trouble with analogies. Before you know it, they went too far and no longer represent what is actually being discussed. Answering them directly only serves the purpose of removing us even further from whatever we were talking about.
So excuse me while I steer us back on track...
Your level of responsibility on these matters we are talking about, is your to decide. Not anyone else's.
I cannot consider myself responsible for Global Warming when I don't even believe in the thing, for instance. Likewise, I cannot consider myself responsible for Apple's "evil ways" if I don't buy their products. But should I be responsible, if I do? That only I should answer. Not you. If I take it inside me that "Apple is evil", then surely I am responsible if I buy any product from them. But if I don't believe in any of that talk, I'm only responsible in your head. And that is not enough to make me responsible.
Those latest convolutions were only to demonstrate how ridiculous (and potentially convoluted) VirtualAce's point was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
I agree that analogy can be a tricky beast, but I also promise you will not have much to do with your brain without it.Quote:
That's the trouble with analogies.
I would say this is symptomatic of your own propensity for radical abstraction* (which, nb, depends upon the same principles as analogy, namely, that you can categorically abstract or extract a generalization from some specific events). When I abstract or generalize, I almost always do so by analogy.Quote:
Before you know it, they went too far and no longer represent what is actually being discussed. Answering them directly only serves the purpose of removing us even further from whatever we were talking about.
That'll be the day, lol. No offense, Mario -- I just could not resist :PQuote:
So excuse me while I steer us back on track...
Absolutely. I was just raising the tantalum issue because it is information some people may be unaware of, but that they might consider of interest.Quote:
Your level of responsibility on these matters we are talking about, is your to decide. Not anyone else's.
I cannot consider myself responsible for Global Warming when I don't even believe in the thing, for instance.
I also think it is evidence of the fact that Apple officially, and completely, disregards issues such as environmental or social responsibility. AFAICT, no one would bother to contest that, a fact I find slightly alarming considering what a "hip and cool" thing Apple products are considered to be, and what a great guy people think Jobs was. So I can infer that many many people's idea of greatness is to not give a ........, and cater exclusively to a moneyed elite. Like being a nihilist fashion designer, if you get my point.
I believe you should be concerned, if you do (and perhaps, you should be concerned anyway). That this bleeds into a feeling of responsibility or guilt -- well, that's a matter for your conscience to decide.Quote:
Likewise, I cannot consider myself responsible for Apple's "evil ways" if I don't buy their products. But should I be responsible, if I do?
I think the conscience is a very cultivated thing. Some people might say it equates to a form of masochism; IMO it is the price you pay for empathy, which I consider to enrich my life.
I cannot claim to never feeling guilty about the consequences of the things that I do, or that my feelings of guilt always lead me to modify my behavior. However, I'm not going to disown them either. A social existence entails responsibility. Responsibility is not always easy to deal with.
* sometimes bordering on obfuscation. It's like three card monty, or watching a political debate aimed at idiots ;)
Mario, stop attacking Elysia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
That's what you always descend to - attacking the person. I have never seen Elysia attack you, or anybody else. That says a lot about the type of person Elysia is, and the type of person you are. You don't need to attack people just because their opinion is not the same as yours.
RIP Mr Jobs.
:D It was intended to be. :DQuote:
Those latest convolutions were only to demonstrate how ridiculous (and potentially convoluted) VirtualAce's point was.
Isn't that how this whole thing got started?Quote:
Originally Posted by happyclown
What on earth!?Quote:
Originally Posted by happyclown
Lost your mind or something? Just read the thread, will you...
EDIT: You know what, don't even bother. It's my fault. I allowed myself to drag into the crap this thread has become right in post 11. I should have just shut up and let Elysia and Elysia alone to... how do you put it?... say her opinion of Steve Jobs on a condolences thread on the next day after his death. And God forbid I do the same thing about Elysia.
I don't think so many people think he's a great guy. In fact, if ever there was some way of making a pool, I'd put my money that it's a minority. Controversial people tend to draw vocal supporting minorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Otherwise you are right. Many many people don't give a damn. I don't on many issues, let me say that upfront. Like how environmental conscious Apple is, for instance. I never felt the allure for those causes. But if Apple was on the business of killing animals (like McDonalds or Genus) or destroying good arable land I probably would give a damn. That said, the conditions of work at Foxconn greatly troubled me and that's one of my primary causes. And the fact I never bought as much as a paper clip from Apple, gives me no comfort on this matter.
So, the question I put you is this: You own an iPhone. How do you justify this? Ignoring for one moment that we are having this conversation, what would be there stopping me from thinking you are one of "many many people's idea of greatness is to not give a ........, and cater exclusively to a moneyed elite"? Answer that, and you will probably have answered it for everyone else. And in the end of the day you will come out with just a small minority of people who in fact don't give a damn about anything.
I don't buy apple products, mainly because I'm dirt poor. However, I don't hate the man, sure he did not "invent" anything "new" he just added things together, but when it comes down to it, that’s what most inventions now days are. Putting something made before with something else.
As for him making you have to use apple only, its no deferent then any company that has a contract for anything that says only use us, he was not the first one to do it and he wont be the last. It is a business deal, you can call him evil but then most business men are evil by that logic.
I don't hate the man, and I could care less that he made it where I can’t download something form some one else because he wants you to use his things so he can make money .
Hell, it’s a smart move on his part and its not like he was the ONLY one to do it, it was a standard long before he came around in other things.