News Stories

[Joojoobees]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The thing is that when near a civil enforcer, don't :

1. Act suspiciously
2. Commit a crime

More like get the hell away. Making it impossible to prosecute police for abuse of authority invites more such abuse. If you can avoid the cops, do it.

[killer3000ad]

New iPhone 4 loses reception if held 'wrongly'

Hours after its iPhone 4 went on sale to excited crowds Thursday, Apple found itself responding to complaints that holding the phone by its metal edge causes mobile reception to suffer.

The company's response, in a nutshell? You're holding it wrong.

"Just avoid holding it in that way," Apple CEO Steve Jobs wrote in an e-mail that was making the rounds on the Web on Friday morning.

[Vexx]

And that, of course, is why I always find it tough to take Apple seriously over the years.... "you're holding it wrong" .... sheesh, Quality Testing by snotty nimrods. I'd be firing someone on the antenna/design team.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Jinto

[Sarcasm]
I pressume SaintessHeart rather likes to live in a dictatorship than in an democracy. In that case a military lower ranked profession might suit him too... since he only needs to obey orders, doesn't need to deicde things for his own, and accepts everything without questioning.
[/Sarcasm]

If a dictatorship (or autocracy as our government brands itself to be) guarantees a job, three meals a day, with all the basic necessities covered, there isn't anything wrong as compared to a democracy that's repressed by consumerism right?

It all depends actually on the economic outlook for me. If all ahead is a recession, I don't mind if the government takes away a few civil rights temporarily so everyone pulls through. One has to stand on the line between pragmatism and idealism depending on outlook - though I do admit that censorship is a major problem here - reading the same things on the same newspaper all the time with no criticality is bloody damn boring, and fine arts is almost non-existent.

That is possibly the most moronic thing I ever read from you. Taxes are not for a country, a ruling elite or whatever... it is collected for the benefit of all citizens of a country (the people are the focus, not the system). This might be different in certain countries, but ideally in a democracy taxes are collected for the benefit of society as a whole (which includes oneself).

You said it. All the money collected at a certain rate probably won't cover everything everyone wants, however it can be adjusted with some economic management to barely meet what everyone needs. Not an easy thing to do.

It is supposed to be treated as a two way mutual treaty to benefit both the government and the people. As I have written,

Although the contract between you and your country is defined as mutual loyalty, you always have the choice to go elsewhere you feel the grass is greener : this is called emigration. Look everywhere else in the world : each place you live in have their pros and cons.

It would certainly sound a lot less moronic if you read everything instead of just nitpicking at the line. It is a two-way interaction and constant negotiation so everyone benefits, taking into account the economic and political climate at that time as well as the necessary needs and wants.

Honestly speaking, it is personal preference really for what you like and where you like to live. If you live in places like N.K or certain parts of M.E (where you shouldn't be even on this forum due to lack of internet access), you can have my sympathy because these are places where the government is FUBAR. However most of us here are in second or first world countries (obviously seen from our access to the internet), so why don't we compare ourselves to the lower end and feel better off for those who have none of such riches?

P.S Before anyone else thinks I am brainwashed, here is something I always tell others : I am NOT PROUD of being a Singaporean due to things like the government handling of the education system and lack of work opportunities in the creative media and arts as well as aerospace industry, but I am GLAD I am one due to the political and economic stability.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

You've got duties (including paying taxes) and you've got rights. In modern democracies, it means, among others, the rule of law and that thugs, in or out of uniform, don't have the right to beat you up for no reason. I'm not trying to imply all policemen are thugs. But seriously, if they're doing their jobs correctly, they have little to fear from cameras. No more than the common citizen, anyway.

Finally a non-personal attack! *kowtows*

I think you put forward the point better than what I want to mean from the proposition side. I wanted to say "If you have done nothing wrong, what are you scared of?", but that would invite lashing and lambasting.

However, that line is supposed to work for both sides. There is a Chinese saying that "If you didn't do anything contrary to your conscience, at night you wouldn't fear anyone knocking on your door". If the police and the ordinary civilian have nothing to fear from each other, they can carry on with their duties as per normal each day without any clash.

You obviously missed the point of that video. If you're ever arrested in the US, you will no doubt wind up found guilty.

This means that the police SOP needs reworking. I hypothesise that the "disproportionate" amount of force available to be used by officers in general and the civilian paranoia stemmed originally from the fear of "concealed carries" and ranged weapon crimes. This is fear and distrust at work.

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

He's been brainwashed! But seriously, all students in Singapore must take this subject called "Social Studies", where they use case studies from parts of the world savory and less so, like China, Austria, Canada, etc, all to "prove" that whateer the government is doing, it is always right, never wrong. There used to be two examples on Germany and Switzerland that talked about a consitutional court and Swiss democracy respectively, but after the latest change of education ministers, the examples disappeared...!

One thing : I failed Social Studies with an F along with Geography. Second thing : a few of my detention and suspension cases in school are a result of either sleeping or questioning the teachers in SS class. The best one I have done to get into trouble is to quote that "teaching us students SS is no different from the way the SS in Nazi Germany teach the Jungvolk".

Seriously. Northern Ireland is a stupid topic to put into the syllabus, China topic is heavily diluted, and from what browsing I have seen in the syllabus, it is decadent. Germany and Swiss topics are fine, though it would be better if they focused the transition from the Weimar Republic to Nazism, then to East-West politics, then to post-unification Germany.

This is the reason I don't like to take part in political arguments and always argue on the basics of "quality of life" should it be unavoidable, like in this case. Freedom of speech and rights are subjective issues which almost everyone has a different opinion of.

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

More like get the hell away. Making it impossible to prosecute police for abuse of authority invites more such abuse. If you can avoid the cops, do it.

That is one way of thinking. As long as you don't fear them, it would be less likely to get into trouble. People tend to act suspiciously out of fear, thus culminating in their "arrests".

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think you put forward the point better than what I want to mean from the proposition side. I wanted to say "If you have done nothing wrong, what are you scared of?", but that would invite lashing and lambasting.

From the cops, you mean? Well, just because you've done nothing wrong doesn't mean you can't be a convenient suspect. Or that they don't have some aggression to work off. Why would you want to put yourself in a situation where it's your word against theirs? And, more worrying, why would they?

This means that the police SOP needs reworking. I hypothesise that the "disproportionate" amount of force available to be used by officers in general and the civilian paranoia stemmed originally from the fear of "concealed carries" and ranged weapon crimes. This is fear and distrust at work.

I meant the "Don't talk to cops" video. You said to answer their questions. If you do that, even if you keep to the questions they ask and nothing more, you'll incriminate yourself sooner or later.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

From the cops, you mean? Well, just because you've done nothing wrong doesn't mean you can't be a convenient suspect. Or that they don't have some aggression to work off. Why would you want to put yourself in a situation where it's your word against theirs? And, more worrying, why would they?

I am not sure if we are agreeing on the same point here, but that is what I am trying to put forward in the first place. Probably elaborated too much because I don't want to fall victim to the "negrep/report first then analyse the reply" mentality.

I meant the "Don't talk to cops" video. You said to answer their questions. If you do that, even if you keep to the questions they ask and nothing more, you'll incriminate yourself sooner or later.

I am not sure how it works in the US for the questioning part, but I do know over here there are certain questions which the police cannot ask, such as misleading ones or excessively personal questions under the constitution of legal defense.

The police here (or in most countries with established judicial and legal systems) HAVE to, by law and standard accountable SOPs, to provide a FULL report to the court of all the questions asked. The last I heard, the defense counsel will be given a piece of this, or can acquire one no-holds barred (serious Internal Security cases will require him/her to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement). I am not sure how is it after the MSK or 9/11 case.

Since my legal system is an amalgamation of the British one with a few others, which the US also originate its from, such similarities should have been in place. Not sure if it did.

[Vexx]

Cops are usually overworked and looking to charge *somebody* for a crime to get it off their inbox -- not to catch the *right* guy. Often they'll catch someone who's guilty of *something* and they figure "got a bad guy one way or another". This sometimes catches someone who actually hasn't done anything wrong at all (although the US system is so screwed up that the average American may commit 3 felonies a day without realizing it).

The Supreme Court in the US recently ruled that citizens who haven't been read their Miranda rights may have anything they say be used against them up to that point. The potential for abuse just screams out and warrants even law-abiding citizens to keep their mouths shut unless to say "not without a lawyer present". The ruling has actually made it tougher for cops to get cooperation from the citizens they should be working together with.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Cops are usually overworked and looking to charge *somebody* for a crime to get it off their inbox -- not to catch the *right* guy. Often they'll catch someone who's guilty of *something* and they figure "got a bad guy one way or another". This sometimes catches someone who actually hasn't done anything wrong at all (although the US system is so screwed up that the average American may commit 3 felonies a day without realizing it).

You mean they have a quota of arrests to meet per unit time? Or they cannot drop cases due to insufficient evidence?

If I am not wrong in my interpretation, our "indefinite detention without trial" applies to high-probability suspects, but in the case of insufficient evidence, the suspect may be released with the passport impounded and regular reporting to a police station. On the other hand, if suspects cannot be traced, potential or not, the case will be dropped and shelved due to insufficient evidence.

Originally Posted by Vexx

The Supreme Court in the US recently ruled that citizens who haven't been read their Miranda rights may have anything they say be used against them up to that point. The potential for abuse just screams out and warrants even law-abiding citizens to keep their mouths shut unless to say "not without a lawyer present". The ruling has actually made it tougher for cops to get cooperation from the citizens they should be working together with.

How the heck can the system determine if the person read their Miranda Rights or not? It is no different to letting someone go free in the pre/early-Victorian Britain on the "transgression of sins" recitation of the Bible!

[Arbitres]

So sorry Saint, but that is how America works. Ideology doesn't matter much here due to the consumerism and the industrialism taking over nearly everything.

Spoiler for Small tl;dr:

The more 'justly' law enforcers allow people legal defense, the more professional actually read Miranda Laws and the such. I live in Ritchie County West Virginia, where if you have enough money; you can buy the police. People have been given court dates and haven't shown up and have gotten away with their harassments.

I speak on a pessimistic view though, I can't assume every County or State is like that. I just don't expect much.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Arbitres

So sorry Saint, but that is how America works. Ideology doesn't matter much here due to the consumerism and the industrialism taking over nearly everything.

Spoiler for Small tl;dr:

The more 'justly' law enforcers allow people legal defense, the more professional actually read Miranda Laws and the such. I live in Ritchie County West Virginia, where if you have enough money; you can buy the police. People have been given court dates and haven't shown up and have gotten away with their harassments.

I speak on a pessimistic view though, I can't assume every County or State is like that. I just don't expect much.

One thing : legal systems are always built to work both ways by having certain loopholes. The biggest loophole is something called "interpretation".

There should be something to counter the Miranda rights hole. It is common knowledge to people in the legal entity that whatever you make to use against others, can be used against you, thus the presence of loopholes to ensure that you come up at the top.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vexx

And that, of course, is why I always find it tough to take Apple seriously over the years.... "you're holding it wrong" .... sheesh, Quality Testing by snotty nimrods. I'd be firing someone on the antenna/design team.

I've had phones where you could cover an element and cause the phone to completely lose its signal. To say "avoid touching the phone there" is acceptable to me, because I accept that there may be things that we have to work around in order for a product to function properly. The thing is, on those phones the "off-limits" buts were usually at the top of the phone, where you wouldn't normally be touching anyway. I'd say that this was an extremely poor design choice on Apple's part, but I'd stop short of calling it a flaw (which is what some people rant, along with a demand that Apple fix it and get them the newly redesigned, "fixed" phone for free and ASAP).

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It is supposed to be treated as a two way mutual treaty to benefit both the government and the people. As I have written,

No, you simply didn't get it. What words do I have to use ...I don't know... it is not for the government, its for the PEOPLE.

If you want to see the guy who benefits from your taxes look in a mirror (that applies only for half way decent democracies though).

Now you could say: But the government is funded with tax payer money. Then I would answer: You rather want to be ruled by people who have to earn their money from lobyists? (If the politicians get decent money they are less vulnerable (not immune) to lobbyism/bribes... which certainly is to the greater benefit of the people in general, because lobbyism/bribes usually benefits only a selected few).

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Jinto

No, you simply didn't get it. What words do I have to use ...I don't know... it is not for the government, its for the PEOPLE.

If you want to see the guy who benefits from your taxes look in a mirror (that applies only for half way decent democracies though).

Now you could say: But the government is funded with tax payer money. Then I would answer: You rather want to be ruled by people who have to earn their money from lobbyists? (If the politicians get decent money they are less vulnerable (not immune) to lobbyism... which certainly is to the greater benefit of the people in general, because lobbyism usually benefits only a selected few).

Then that would yield a different answer because tax is entirely different from lobbying money, the latter which is a "legalised" form of "coffee money".

What I presented is a case where lobbying isn't taken into account. I guess you had presented the clearer but uglier picture where lobbying trumps the benefits the taxpayers should be getting. Otherwise, in a largely taxpayer funded government, things shouldn't work that way.

Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I've had phones where you could cover an element and cause the phone to completely lose its signal. To say "avoid touching the phone there" is acceptable to me, because I accept that there may be things that we have to work around in order for a product to function properly. The thing is, on those phones the "off-limits" buts were usually at the top of the phone, where you wouldn't normally be touching anyway. I'd say that this was an extremely poor design choice on Apple's part, but I'd stop short of calling it a flaw (which is what some people rant, along with a demand that Apple fix it and get them the newly redesigned, "fixed" phone for free and ASAP).

Reuters-CNN had this Iphone 4 video demo of how that thing can lose reception.

Apple on iPhone complaints: You're holding it wrong

It isn't as big as the issue of the tinted yellow screen - like they have add some sort of chlorine compound during its treating process and it got stuck and yellowed.

[Vexx]

The thing that gets me is that where one would naturally hold the phone is where the signal loss happens...

[Arbitres]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The thing that gets me is that where one would naturally hold the phone is where the signal loss happens...

It's too impractical in my view.

If you hold it the way you are meant to, you lose all signal.

If you hold it in an eccentric manner, you keep the signal.

It personally sounds discomforting. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost sales because of this tidbit.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I am not sure if we are agreeing on the same point here, but that is what I am trying to put forward in the first place. Probably elaborated too much because I don't want to fall victim to the "negrep/report first then analyse the reply" mentality.

Since you were trying to argue it was wrong to film cops and that they were right to come down on anyone who tried, I'm pretty sure we're in disagreement.

I am not sure how it works in the US for the questioning part, but I do know over here there are certain questions which the police cannot ask, such as misleading ones or excessively personal questions under the constitution of legal defense.

The police here (or in most countries with established judicial and legal systems) HAVE to, by law and standard accountable SOPs, to provide a FULL report to the court of all the questions asked. The last I heard, the defense counsel will be given a piece of this, or can acquire one no-holds barred (serious Internal Security cases will require him/her to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement). I am not sure how is it after the MSK or 9/11 case.

Since my legal system is an amalgamation of the British one with a few others, which the US also originate its from, such similarities should have been in place. Not sure if it did.

I'm not sure how it works either, but from that video (and its sequel), it looks like it doesn't matter. If a cop asks you for the time, you wait for your lawyer to field that question. Better yet, you answer it in court, in front of a jury. Even better, you hope your lawyer can get you out before it even comes to that. What you don't do is answer it and run the risk of your answer being used against you.

[Xion Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Arbitres

It's too impractical in my view.

If you hold it the way you are meant to, you lose all signal.

If you hold it in an eccentric manner, you keep the signal.

It personally sounds discomforting. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost sales because of this tidbit.

Come on, we're talking about Apple fans here.

[Arbitres]

Come on, we're talking about Apple fans here.

Then they need to seriously switch to grape instead of Apple. *lame pun*

Though some people do have common sense, albeit a select few. It won't matter though, since this has already caused problems for each party in the long run.

[Joojoobees]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Reuters-CNN had this Iphone 4 video demo of how that thing can lose reception.

Apple on iPhone complaints: You're holding it wrong

I finally had a chance to look at the linked video. He tries to recreate the problem unsuccessfully for several minutes. No wonder the problem didn't show up until it was in use by millions of people.

I wonder, as we continue to manufacture smaller and smaller items if problems like this will become more frequent. Basically the amount of material in this product was reduced to the point that human contact generates interference with the antenna. We keep reducing the size of electronic components to the point that it is almost impossible to shield them from interference by adjacent components, or in this case nearby humans. Pretty soon we'll be making components that only work in environmentally controlled chambers.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Since you were trying to argue it was wrong to film cops and that they were right to come down on anyone who tried, I'm pretty sure we're in disagreement.


I'm not sure how it works either, but from that video (and its sequel), it looks like it doesn't matter. If a cop asks you for the time, you wait for your lawyer to field that question. Better yet, you answer it in court, in front of a jury. Even better, you hope your lawyer can get you out before it even comes to that. What you don't do is answer it and run the risk of your answer being used against you.

In principle, I believe that cops can be filmed. Why not, if you're not doing anything underhanded. It's not like it's a situation where ol' Winston would say "The truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." (He meant that for times of war.)

Cuts both ways. If you know your stuff, why be afraid of answering questions? Of course, I'm presuming the system itself is fair. Judging from some comments I've read, the amount of injustice in some systems is interestingly high.

Bottom line: Know your local system well, and play according to it. As long as you're ok, it works.