The jailbreaker mentality isn't really that peculiar. It's a combination of narcissism and sociopathy compounded by the self-esteem drivel (celebrate me even if I did nothing worth celebrating) that the US educational system has foisted on two generations of Americans.
The narcissism makes it easy for them to justify what they're doing on the grounds that either they're smarter than most folks so they have more rights and privileges, or what they're doing is so cool and ingenious so we should all let them do it and marvel in awe at their feat, and not complain about how that is inconveniencing us. "We are the cool, special people so you should be celebrating us not berating us."
The sociopathy is evident in the self-centeredness that is exhibited when they claim they can use up as much bandwidth as they can, conveniently ignoring the fact that there are resource limits to any wireless network and that everyone else is penalized when too many subscribers become bandwidth hogs. The amazing thing is that when finally AT&T has to take action to manage bandwidth congestion, these same folks will howl the loudest if bandwidth metering beyond a certain threshhold is put in. They'll still be allowed to use as much bandwidth as they want mind you, they'll just have to pay for its real cost now instead of freeloading on us poor saps.
They really are no different from the guy who installs a gazillion watt stereo in his car, turns it up to bone-rattling levels, then drives down the street 'sharing' his pacemaker-jamming bass rhythms with us regular motorists. Not giving a care at all that what he is doing is extremely rude, annoying, self-centered, and antisocial. And on top of that getting all indignant about his freedoms being curtailed when a policeman issues him a citation.
Jailbreakers like to use specious arguments like the following:
No, you gentlemen signed a license agreement when you bought the phone and the data subscription. So you cannot just use the data or device as you see fit. The agreement you signed says no tethering and no unauthorized software, if you disagree with that don't get the iPhone. If you don't like Apple's tight hand, go get a different phone. Vote with your feet and your money. Nobody put a gun to anyone's head and made him buy an iPhone.
Spare us the self-righteous pseudo-civil rights kumbaya talk. Stand in line like the rest of us.
It is all anecdotal, but just read over the posts in this thread...how many people have said the jailbreak to steal software and how many has said the do it to run alternative software?
Perhaps you could explain what it means? Perhaps you could explain property rights law that prevents you from doing what you choose with your own property....i.e. the device that you own.
In the real world I can't imagine a whole bunch of people lining up to say, "Yes, I'm a thief, so what"?
Just because I own a house doesn't give me the "right" to do anything I want with it. "Property rights" comes with responsibilities .. always have ... always will.
Who is asking for anyone to be celebrated. Strawman arguments show a weak mind.
No more right...just rights. Nothing to do with cool or special, but more to so with, hey I own it, I will use it as i see fit.
Again, you are showing your confusion with facts. I have not jailbroken and I will use as much of my data as I choose, since I paid for it. Nothing to do with jailbreaking, though jailbreaker do have more options for using data.
talk about specious
So, factual is spacious to you?
Why can't you use the device as you see fit? You own the damn thing. The data, sure, you signed an agreement, but is the agreement overly restrictive? That is exactly why net neutrality has become an issue. because not every shares your opinion that the customers should always just swallow what the carriers stick in their mouths.
...and bend over. Some of us simply prefer to think for ourselves...
I am not picking on your particular situation. I was just quoting a statement you made that is typical of the jailbreaking self-rationalization.
Still, your whole rebuttal basically reveals what I described the jailbreaking mentality to be. Narcissistic and sociopathic. Everything is me, me, me, my needs, my wants, my pleasure and satisfaction. I can do anything I want, Apple's license is too restrictive in MY exulted opinion, so my signature means nothing, unlike me you other guys are pollyanish saps so I can treat you with as much contempt as I choose, I own it so I can use it as I see fit. It's all about satisfying yourself with no regard at all for the rest of humanity.
By the way, I own a huge, theatre-grade spotlight. Can I park it in front of your house all night every night and shine it into your bedroom window? After all I own it, and that's the use that I see fit for it.
Will you also be willing to pay for metered bandwidth? Net neutrality is fine and good but I have an issue with people who pretend that bandwidth is not a scarce resource and use 'net neutrality' as a cover for freeloading on everyone else. Paying for the bandwidth that you use is not a net neutrality issue.
Which os why the comment is bullocks. I use tethering on my iPhone an rack up a solid 25GB/month without jailbreaking. I can't update to 3.1 or I lose that feature and will have to resort to jailbreaking and a complex tethering option. I'd gladly pay AT&T for the feature, but they say they can't offer it yet. Until then I'm forced to use alternative methods. I wonder how many are choosing not to update to 3.1 to retain thisbl feature.
Me too. My alternate method is to pay another $80 a month for 3G card in my MBP.
Why can't you use the device as you see fit? You own the damn thing. The data, sure, you signed an agreement, but is the agreement overly restrictive? That is exactly why net neutrality has become an issue. because not every shares your opinion that the customers should always just swallow what the carriers stick in their mouths.
To paraphrase: "Contract, sure I signed a contract, but I don't AGREE with that contract so I should be able to break the legalities of that contract in any way I like"....... I don't know, Tulkas, from where I stand, your argument doesn't hold any water.
And I see your point and could even agree with it. But, for tethering in particular, I can't bring myself to agree completely. Tethering is just passing your data through one device to another. I paid for that data. To use as I see fit. It is only theft if I am using something that i did not pay for. But I paid for the data and am simply using the data.
Sure that sounds reasonable to you but from AT&T's perspective, they structured the data plan for the iPhone based on what they thought would be typical usage patterns by a phone user. A notebook computer can consume a lot more data than someone on a phone would ever use.
I'll admit that I don't understand just why/how it is that "piracy" came up in the responses this article's coverage of Apple's latest anti-jailbreaking move.
I'm confused about that. I saw some reference to the possibility of stealing apps from the Application Store, yet beyond that I'm not sure what sort of "piracy" would be facilitated by modifying firmware on the iPhone/iPod Touch. Are most apps on the App Store really worth stealing?
The only piracy that's otherwise relevant to the iPhone (as far as I can tell) is that of music and movies. Any iPhone or iPod Touch will surely play back even pirated media as long as it's in or can be converted to a format that either device knows how to play. And I suppose that a lot of us are technically guilty of this. I've watched video ripped from a DVD on my iPod Touch because it was convenient. I have the actual DVD, didn't distribute the file any further than my iPod and deleted it when I was done watching. Under the ridiculous legislation of the DMCA, I suppose that makes me a pirate and a lawbreaker.
No, I've never jailbroken my iPod Touch, nor do I intend to do so. I'd rather not have an iBrick...I've already got that but it's called a Time Capsule.
Oops. I got a little off the topic there.
While I'm at it, I take issue with those here who equate "hacking" or "being a hacker" to doing something illegal. It's not--and to say that hacking = illegal activity is not always true. If you've ever taken something apart to see how it works, studied its design or examined the software that came with it--well, you're closer than you think to an introduction to the real meaning of hacking.
I say with a measure of pride that I've looked inside numerous devices to see how they work, studied the datasheets for components to find out how they work, done a little bit of circuit modification, have built a few devices, soldered on motherboards and other parts, read technical manuals, modified some other devices, done "interesting things" to keep older systems on the road, and thought about designing devices of my own to overcome shortcomings that I see in what's on the market now. There's nothing illegal about any of that, and most of it would qualify as "hacking" in some way. (I've never been much on programming, though.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Today's project: making a better Time Capsule from an old computer and parts:
. Now, thinking of the items in your home that you own outright, third parties are allowed to arbitrarily restrict your usage?
I'm guessing that if I use a gun, that I legally own, to shoot a neighbor that, in my mind, deserves it, some third party, might want to "arbitrarily restrict" that usage.
Perhaps you could explain what it means? Perhaps you could explain property rights law that prevents you from doing what you choose with your own property....i.e. the device that you own.
Clearly, there is a massive amateurish Misunderstanding regarding what exactly you own.
You own a black or white plastic brick with a glass screen. You don't own the software, or any aspects of it whatsoever.
In the real world I can't imagine a whole bunch of people lining up to say, "Yes, I'm a thief, so what"?
people have no problem on internet forums proclaiming just that. Look at how many people used to discussing torrents online.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee
Just because I own a house doesn't give me the "right" to do anything I want with it. "Property rights" comes with responsibilities .. always have ... always will.
Responsibilities are not the same as arbitrary restrictions put on your usage by a external, non-governmental entity....
I am not picking on your particular situation. I was just quoting a statement you made that is typical of the jailbreaking self-rationalization.
Still, your whole rebuttal basically reveals what I described the jailbreaking mentality to be. Narcissistic and sociopathic. Everything is me, me, me, my needs, my wants, my pleasure and satisfaction. I can do anything I want, Apple's license is too restrictive in MY exulted opinion, so my signature means nothing, unlike me you other guys are pollyanish saps so I can treat you with as much contempt as I choose, I own it so I can use it as I see fit. It's all about satisfying yourself with no regard at all for the rest of humanity.
When you have paid for your property, it isn't about you? It has nothing to do with disrespecting other users, as you seem to be saying. How you can read that is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
By the way, I own a huge, theatre-grade spotlight. Can I park it in front of your house all night every night and shine it into your bedroom window? After all I own it, and that's the use that I see fit for it.
Well, beyond that being a dick move, I guess if the law permits...don't expect me to me a great neighbour afterwards though. Would you like your ISP telling you what sites you are allowed to visit? Perhaps it is easier when you just let others think and decide for you. After all, to think for yourself is Narcissistic and sociopathic, right? I mean, thinking for yourself is all about you (to use your 'spacious' logic).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
Will you also be willing to pay for metered bandwidth? Net neutrality is fine and good but I have an issue with people who pretend that bandwidth is not a scarce resource and use 'net neutrality' as a cover for freeloading on everyone else. Paying for the bandwidth that you use is not a net neutrality issue.
But using the bandwidth that you paid for is. I have a problem with people think it is OK for companies to determine what is OK and what is taboo....you know, sort of the definition of netneutrality.
Clearly, there is a massive amateurish Misunderstanding regarding what exactly you own.
You own a black or white plastic brick with a glass screen. You don't own the software, or any aspects of it whatsoever.
Which is why I clearly used the word device.
Once a person can differentiate between the device and the OS the discussion changes. At that point, a rational person realizes property laws and how you may be restricted to use it,. apply. From there they can form an opinion of things like copyrights on software and the restrictions on them, if they are enforceable when overly restrictive, etc.
To paraphrase: "Contract, sure I signed a contract, but I don't AGREE with that contract so I should be able to break the legalities of that contract in any way I like"....... I don't know, Tulkas, from where I stand, your argument doesn't hold any water.
You seem very easily confused. Perhaps I should repeat what you replied to:
Quote:
The data, sure, you signed an agreement, but is the agreement overly restrictive? That is exactly why net neutrality has become an issue. because not every shares your opinion that the customers should always just swallow what the carriers stick in their mouths.
Where do I say the contract should be broken? My argument is that because the contracts are becoming so overly restrictive, this is a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You don't agree with that argument? OK, you explain why it is not a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You think it is because people are happy with the restrictions in place?
Let me know if you need me to repeat this again. I 'd like you to be able to keep up.
I'm guessing that if I use a gun, that I legally own, to shoot a neighbor that, in my mind, deserves it, some third party, might want to "arbitrarily restrict" that usage.
You really are having difficulty with simple concepts presented, aren't you?
Do I again, have to explain to you that govenment restrictions, i.e. laws are what prohibit you from shooting someone? I really hope that I don't have to explain that to you again. Please tell me you understand legislated restrictions imposed by the government and restriction put in place by an external, third party (i.e. not the government for the slow)
Comments
The jailbreaker mentality isn't really that peculiar. It's a combination of narcissism and sociopathy compounded by the self-esteem drivel (celebrate me even if I did nothing worth celebrating) that the US educational system has foisted on two generations of Americans.
The narcissism makes it easy for them to justify what they're doing on the grounds that either they're smarter than most folks so they have more rights and privileges, or what they're doing is so cool and ingenious so we should all let them do it and marvel in awe at their feat, and not complain about how that is inconveniencing us. "We are the cool, special people so you should be celebrating us not berating us."
The sociopathy is evident in the self-centeredness that is exhibited when they claim they can use up as much bandwidth as they can, conveniently ignoring the fact that there are resource limits to any wireless network and that everyone else is penalized when too many subscribers become bandwidth hogs. The amazing thing is that when finally AT&T has to take action to manage bandwidth congestion, these same folks will howl the loudest if bandwidth metering beyond a certain threshhold is put in. They'll still be allowed to use as much bandwidth as they want mind you, they'll just have to pay for its real cost now instead of freeloading on us poor saps.
They really are no different from the guy who installs a gazillion watt stereo in his car, turns it up to bone-rattling levels, then drives down the street 'sharing' his pacemaker-jamming bass rhythms with us regular motorists. Not giving a care at all that what he is doing is extremely rude, annoying, self-centered, and antisocial. And on top of that getting all indignant about his freedoms being curtailed when a policeman issues him a citation.
Jailbreakers like to use specious arguments like the following:
No, you gentlemen signed a license agreement when you bought the phone and the data subscription. So you cannot just use the data or device as you see fit. The agreement you signed says no tethering and no unauthorized software, if you disagree with that don't get the iPhone. If you don't like Apple's tight hand, go get a different phone. Vote with your feet and your money. Nobody put a gun to anyone's head and made him buy an iPhone.
Spare us the self-righteous pseudo-civil rights kumbaya talk. Stand in line like the rest of us.
Yes sir! *salute*
It is all anecdotal, but just read over the posts in this thread...how many people have said the jailbreak to steal software and how many has said the do it to run alternative software?
Perhaps you could explain what it means? Perhaps you could explain property rights law that prevents you from doing what you choose with your own property....i.e. the device that you own.
In the real world I can't imagine a whole bunch of people lining up to say, "Yes, I'm a thief, so what"?
Just because I own a house doesn't give me the "right" to do anything I want with it. "Property rights" comes with responsibilities .. always have ... always will.
Well, actually, I wouldn't be breaking any law if I did that.
Driving under the influence is legal where you live? ... Wow, must be a ball wondering if everyone speeding along might be drunk or whatnot.
Who is asking for anyone to be celebrated. Strawman arguments show a weak mind.
No more right...just rights. Nothing to do with cool or special, but more to so with, hey I own it, I will use it as i see fit.
Again, you are showing your confusion with facts. I have not jailbroken and I will use as much of my data as I choose, since I paid for it. Nothing to do with jailbreaking, though jailbreaker do have more options for using data.
talk about specious
So, factual is spacious to you?
Why can't you use the device as you see fit? You own the damn thing. The data, sure, you signed an agreement, but is the agreement overly restrictive? That is exactly why net neutrality has become an issue. because not every shares your opinion that the customers should always just swallow what the carriers stick in their mouths.
...and bend over. Some of us simply prefer to think for ourselves...
I am not picking on your particular situation. I was just quoting a statement you made that is typical of the jailbreaking self-rationalization.
Still, your whole rebuttal basically reveals what I described the jailbreaking mentality to be. Narcissistic and sociopathic. Everything is me, me, me, my needs, my wants, my pleasure and satisfaction. I can do anything I want, Apple's license is too restrictive in MY exulted opinion, so my signature means nothing, unlike me you other guys are pollyanish saps so I can treat you with as much contempt as I choose, I own it so I can use it as I see fit. It's all about satisfying yourself with no regard at all for the rest of humanity.
By the way, I own a huge, theatre-grade spotlight. Can I park it in front of your house all night every night and shine it into your bedroom window? After all I own it, and that's the use that I see fit for it.
Will you also be willing to pay for metered bandwidth? Net neutrality is fine and good but I have an issue with people who pretend that bandwidth is not a scarce resource and use 'net neutrality' as a cover for freeloading on everyone else. Paying for the bandwidth that you use is not a net neutrality issue.
Which os why the comment is bullocks. I use tethering on my iPhone an rack up a solid 25GB/month without jailbreaking. I can't update to 3.1 or I lose that feature and will have to resort to jailbreaking and a complex tethering option. I'd gladly pay AT&T for the feature, but they say they can't offer it yet. Until then I'm forced to use alternative methods. I wonder how many are choosing not to update to 3.1 to retain thisbl feature.
Me too. My alternate method is to pay another $80 a month for 3G card in my MBP.
Why can't you use the device as you see fit? You own the damn thing. The data, sure, you signed an agreement, but is the agreement overly restrictive? That is exactly why net neutrality has become an issue. because not every shares your opinion that the customers should always just swallow what the carriers stick in their mouths.
To paraphrase: "Contract, sure I signed a contract, but I don't AGREE with that contract so I should be able to break the legalities of that contract in any way I like"....... I don't know, Tulkas, from where I stand, your argument doesn't hold any water.
Some of us simply prefer to think for ourselves...
Is that anything like: interpreting the law to make it say what I want it to say?
Driving under the influence is legal where you live?
Well, not on public roads, it isn't.
And I see your point and could even agree with it. But, for tethering in particular, I can't bring myself to agree completely. Tethering is just passing your data through one device to another. I paid for that data. To use as I see fit. It is only theft if I am using something that i did not pay for. But I paid for the data and am simply using the data.
Sure that sounds reasonable to you but from AT&T's perspective, they structured the data plan for the iPhone based on what they thought would be typical usage patterns by a phone user. A notebook computer can consume a lot more data than someone on a phone would ever use.
I'm confused about that. I saw some reference to the possibility of stealing apps from the Application Store, yet beyond that I'm not sure what sort of "piracy" would be facilitated by modifying firmware on the iPhone/iPod Touch. Are most apps on the App Store really worth stealing?
The only piracy that's otherwise relevant to the iPhone (as far as I can tell) is that of music and movies. Any iPhone or iPod Touch will surely play back even pirated media as long as it's in or can be converted to a format that either device knows how to play. And I suppose that a lot of us are technically guilty of this. I've watched video ripped from a DVD on my iPod Touch because it was convenient. I have the actual DVD, didn't distribute the file any further than my iPod and deleted it when I was done watching. Under the ridiculous legislation of the DMCA, I suppose that makes me a pirate and a lawbreaker.
No, I've never jailbroken my iPod Touch, nor do I intend to do so. I'd rather not have an iBrick...I've already got that but it's called a Time Capsule.
Oops. I got a little off the topic there.
While I'm at it, I take issue with those here who equate "hacking" or "being a hacker" to doing something illegal. It's not--and to say that hacking = illegal activity is not always true. If you've ever taken something apart to see how it works, studied its design or examined the software that came with it--well, you're closer than you think to an introduction to the real meaning of hacking.
I say with a measure of pride that I've looked inside numerous devices to see how they work, studied the datasheets for components to find out how they work, done a little bit of circuit modification, have built a few devices, soldered on motherboards and other parts, read technical manuals, modified some other devices, done "interesting things" to keep older systems on the road, and thought about designing devices of my own to overcome shortcomings that I see in what's on the market now. There's nothing illegal about any of that, and most of it would qualify as "hacking" in some way. (I've never been much on programming, though.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Today's project: making a better Time Capsule from an old computer and parts:
http://greyghost.mooo.com/timecapsule-vs-freenas/ (hope nobody minds the link)
Is that anything like: interpreting the law to make it say what I want it to say?
Or, paraphrasing Tundraboy ... justifications for selfishness.
. Now, thinking of the items in your home that you own outright, third parties are allowed to arbitrarily restrict your usage?
I'm guessing that if I use a gun, that I legally own, to shoot a neighbor that, in my mind, deserves it, some third party, might want to "arbitrarily restrict" that usage.
Perhaps you could explain what it means? Perhaps you could explain property rights law that prevents you from doing what you choose with your own property....i.e. the device that you own.
Clearly, there is a massive amateurish Misunderstanding regarding what exactly you own.
You own a black or white plastic brick with a glass screen. You don't own the software, or any aspects of it whatsoever.
In the real world I can't imagine a whole bunch of people lining up to say, "Yes, I'm a thief, so what"?
people have no problem on internet forums proclaiming just that. Look at how many people used to discussing torrents online.
Just because I own a house doesn't give me the "right" to do anything I want with it. "Property rights" comes with responsibilities .. always have ... always will.
Responsibilities are not the same as arbitrary restrictions put on your usage by a external, non-governmental entity....
I am not picking on your particular situation. I was just quoting a statement you made that is typical of the jailbreaking self-rationalization.
Still, your whole rebuttal basically reveals what I described the jailbreaking mentality to be. Narcissistic and sociopathic. Everything is me, me, me, my needs, my wants, my pleasure and satisfaction. I can do anything I want, Apple's license is too restrictive in MY exulted opinion, so my signature means nothing, unlike me you other guys are pollyanish saps so I can treat you with as much contempt as I choose, I own it so I can use it as I see fit. It's all about satisfying yourself with no regard at all for the rest of humanity.
When you have paid for your property, it isn't about you? It has nothing to do with disrespecting other users, as you seem to be saying. How you can read that is beyond me.
By the way, I own a huge, theatre-grade spotlight. Can I park it in front of your house all night every night and shine it into your bedroom window? After all I own it, and that's the use that I see fit for it.
Well, beyond that being a dick move, I guess if the law permits...don't expect me to me a great neighbour afterwards though. Would you like your ISP telling you what sites you are allowed to visit? Perhaps it is easier when you just let others think and decide for you. After all, to think for yourself is Narcissistic and sociopathic, right? I mean, thinking for yourself is all about you (to use your 'spacious' logic).
Will you also be willing to pay for metered bandwidth? Net neutrality is fine and good but I have an issue with people who pretend that bandwidth is not a scarce resource and use 'net neutrality' as a cover for freeloading on everyone else. Paying for the bandwidth that you use is not a net neutrality issue.
But using the bandwidth that you paid for is. I have a problem with people think it is OK for companies to determine what is OK and what is taboo....you know, sort of the definition of netneutrality.
Is that anything like: interpreting the law to make it say what I want it to say?
No, it is like someone confusing laws the restrict usage with external, arbitrary restrictions.
But, I am not surprised some people don't understand what 'thinking for yourself' means.
Clearly, there is a massive amateurish Misunderstanding regarding what exactly you own.
You own a black or white plastic brick with a glass screen. You don't own the software, or any aspects of it whatsoever.
Which is why I clearly used the word device.
Once a person can differentiate between the device and the OS the discussion changes. At that point, a rational person realizes property laws and how you may be restricted to use it,. apply. From there they can form an opinion of things like copyrights on software and the restrictions on them, if they are enforceable when overly restrictive, etc.
To paraphrase: "Contract, sure I signed a contract, but I don't AGREE with that contract so I should be able to break the legalities of that contract in any way I like"....... I don't know, Tulkas, from where I stand, your argument doesn't hold any water.
You seem very easily confused. Perhaps I should repeat what you replied to:
The data, sure, you signed an agreement, but is the agreement overly restrictive? That is exactly why net neutrality has become an issue. because not every shares your opinion that the customers should always just swallow what the carriers stick in their mouths.
Where do I say the contract should be broken? My argument is that because the contracts are becoming so overly restrictive, this is a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You don't agree with that argument? OK, you explain why it is not a reason why net neutrality has become an issue. You think it is because people are happy with the restrictions in place?
Let me know if you need me to repeat this again. I 'd like you to be able to keep up.
I'm guessing that if I use a gun, that I legally own, to shoot a neighbor that, in my mind, deserves it, some third party, might want to "arbitrarily restrict" that usage.
You really are having difficulty with simple concepts presented, aren't you?
Do I again, have to explain to you that govenment restrictions, i.e. laws are what prohibit you from shooting someone? I really hope that I don't have to explain that to you again. Please tell me you understand legislated restrictions imposed by the government and restriction put in place by an external, third party (i.e. not the government for the slow)