*>>**And Samsung comes out with the exact same TV with all of those functions built in but they have gimped the HD function to 720 and the HDMI outputs/inputs and disabled 3D as sold it for 1500.00 dollars and I could afford it, purchased knowing it was that way, I would be fine with it. My intent and expectation in line with what I am receiving. I would further be happy that to upgrade to HDMI and HD 1080p in a few months with the raise I could upgrade without changing out my TV and losing the money I put out for the original. *
Good example, Greg. >From my perspective, that is what this amounts to. *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker> *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:28 AM, <greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net> wrote: > I think this has some very broad reaching implications. > > > > If Intel is able to mass market and provide multiple levels of the chip at > specific prices, so that when I pay for a 350.00 chip I get a 350.00 speed, > and upgrade as I want. I don’t have a problem with that. The spirit of my > purchase is in line with what I received. If Intel starts saying, to turn > on gaming API’s it will cost x dollars, to turn on Cad functions it will > cost x dollars, I think there is a serious problem. > > To think AMD would not embrace a similar model is pretty crazy. > > > > As a whole the business model in this will continue to grow and expand into > more and more fields. Take for example TV’s. If a 50” HD Plasma TV with > Wifi, multiple HDMI, digital outputs, 3D..the works. Costs 2500.00 today. > And Samsung comes out with the exact same TV with all of those functions > built in but they have gimped the HD function to 720 and the HDMI > outputs/inputs and disabled 3D as sold it for 1500.00 dollars and I could > afford it, purchased knowing it was that way, I would be fine with it. My > intent and expectation in line with what I am receiving. I would further > be happy that to upgrade to HDMI and HD 1080p in a few months with the raise > I could upgrade without changing out my TV and losing the money I put out > for the original. Then upgrade to 3D when I purchase the new PS3 stuff.. > > > > Now if I bought the TV and all of those specs were on the box, but when I > pulled it out it came out with a TOS and then charged me an up fee to get > those features, I would be hacked… > > > > Just because something can do something, does not mean for the price I > received it for I should get everything automatically. There are a lot of > grey area areas. For example. > > Verizon and Bluetooth and GPS. If I buy a cell phone with GPS, I expect > GPS functionality to work. Verizon broke this with most apps and required > a 10.00 a month for VZ Navigator, but there was no reason why it should not > work. They didn’t lower the price, or disclose this information > beforehand. They disabled Bluetooth to prevent everything but headset > sync. No file transfer etc.. No disclosure and even no way to turn it on. > > > > If I own a satellite disk, and hack it to receive television I am not > paying for, I have an issue with this. I am receiving goods and benefits > for which I am not paying for not inherent to my satellite dish. > > > > Lets goto Droid cell phones. Verizon provides the Droid in its stock > capacity. I modify the kernel and software to do what I want. I am not > receiving services from 3rd party’s or downloading software I have not > paid for. I am good with that. Not do I expect Verizon to service that > hardware if something breaks. No absolutely not, until I return it to > factory condition. Then yes I expect it to be serviced if there is still a > problem and it was not hardware damaged due to my tinkering. This is hard > area to control, and how can Verizon be liable for a chip meltdown due to my > kernel upgrade… I can understand why they void the warranty completely. Do > I agree with it, no but I do understand the reasoning. > > > > The distinction for me is clear in most cases. > > > > Just my thoughts. You are free to disagree, that’s why they are my > thoughts and not yours. > > > > *Greg Sweers* > > CEO > > *ACTS360.com <http://www.acts360.com/>*** > > *P.O. Box 1193* > > *Brandon, FL 33509* > > *813-657-0849 Office* > > *813-758-6850 Cell* > > *813-341-1270 Fax* > > > > *From:* Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:02 AM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your > CPU > > > > True. This could make for an interesting debate. > > Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE > > Technology Coordinator > Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA > * > *jra...@eaglemds.com* > *www.eaglemds.com > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:58 AM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your > CPU > > > > Typically, that involved the single issue of illegal possession of some > physical item. > > > > There's a whole area of new law that needs to be made on this area. We're > now in the situation where I legally own something, have legal physical > possession, but you're retaining certain rights in relation to that item, > and we've signed no agreement to that effect. We have 3,400+ years of, if > it's mine, I can do what I want with it, too. We have case law to that > effect. Are we now putting EULAs on hardware? > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Raper, Jonathan - Eagle < > jra...@eaglemds.com> wrote: > > Isn't stealing illegal in most countries? IIRC, that concept goes all the > way back to the days of Moses...about 3,400 years ago, give or take a > century ;-) > > > Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE > Technology Coordinator > Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA > jra...@eaglemds.com > > www.eaglemds.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:00 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> > wrote: > > You are getting what you paid for. And if you then decide you need > something better, you can unlock those features without having to replace > your CPU. > > It wouldn't bother me so much except that you're actually getting > the hardware, and then these companies inevitably try to enforce their > business model through legislation which makes "unapproved activation" > illegal. > > -- Ben > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
