Video Of Stupid “I Am Rich” Application

Some idiot genius came up with the most expensive app for the iphone called “I Am Rich”, to take advantage of the stupid. This $1000.00 app does nothing other than having a glowing gem like light that tells you that you’re rich. Now I try not to make fun of rich people mainly because you never know if you’ll end up working for them, and I certainly would like to be one.

But if you bought this app…….. You’re a moron!!!

There’s just no other way to describe it. Take a look at the complexity of this app in the video above.

[Crunchgear]

Star Wars Nerds

I'm sorry, I just couldn't stop laughing!!!

People just love Star Wars.

[via Crunchgear]

AT&T Pulls Data-Only Plan From Hearing Impaired

In another installment of AT&T are jags, this one comes from a AT&T store in Colorado. Seems like this store was providing hearing impaired iphone owners a data-plan only for $27.99 a month, since they don't get much use out of the voice plan.

Sounds cool right?

Well I guess some insensitive hearing assholes were complaining about it to AT&T Corporate Marketing, and they shut it down. So no more data-plan only for the hearing impaired. Once again AT&T has dropped the ball, forcing people to pay for a plan that they simply cannot use. Why can't they keep in the higher ups who have common sense?

AT&T puts the kibosh on voice-free iPhone plans for the deaf [TUAW via Crunchgear]

Comcast: Competition Will Bring Higher Rates, What?!

As you know I don't like long posts, but I'm in rant mode over this one, so please bare with me.

If you've ever lived in an apartment or condo complex, you might have run into the situation of the association only giving you the option of one cable company to go with. I've always though that is was a little unfair, and didn't give people the chance to choose which cable company they would like to go with. Well the FCC finally thought the same thing, and overturned the "exclusive contracts" that cable companies have enjoyed for decades.

FCC Chairman Kevin J Martin said “Exclusive contracts have been one of the most significant barriers to competition,” he also stated that cable rates have risen over 93% in the last decade. I'm not even sure if gas prices have risen that much in the last decade. So how does Comcast respond to the ruling? By stating that they may have to raise rates because it'll cost money to compete with other companies, and it will cost more to fight this ruling in court.

What?!

So they're going to raise rates because they can't continue to get over on people by locking them into using their company. They're going to raise rates because they will have to ADVERTISE more? That is the one of the dumbest things I've ever heard!!! Check this out from Techdirt:

“The following statement may be attributed to Sena Fitzmaurice, [Comcast] Senior Director of Corporate Communications and Government Relations: ‘Consumers in apartment buildings and condos across the nation received a blow today from the action taken by the FCC. The result of this decision is likely to be higher prices for services and years of litigation and uncertainty for consumers. The significant concessions building owners have been able to bargain for on behalf of their residents will be lost.’”

Hey Moron, for once the FCC did something that actually benefited the customer. Stop trying to make it sound like you're on our side. Oh and the FCC didn't deal us a blow, they freed us from having to deal with your continuous price raises. And if there is "likely to be higher prices for services and years of litigation" guess what, people finally have the choice to go to your competitor. Ya see, that's how it's supposed to work in this country.

Raise all the prices you want, people have a choice now!!!

Corporate Doublespeak: By Forcing Competition On The Market, We Will Need To Raise Prices [Techdirt via Crunchgear]

AT&T: Wildfire Victims Must Pay Us $300

Man I just love AT&T!!!

On top of them threating to turn your Internet off if you say any bad things about them, they've managed a way to look even more like an ass. Case in point a California couple lost their home in the wild fires that have plagued the area, while they were on a cruise. Well AT&T was nice enough to charge them $300 for the loss of equipment-non-negotiable!!!

AT&T wouldn't even postpone the bill until the couples insurance kicked in. That's so cool AT&T, this couples lives have burned to the ground, but to hell with them, where's our DRV right? So if you have any AT&T gear, your ass better run back into that burning home and get it. Forget your photos and stuff you can't replace, AT&T wants their receiver.

AT&T: Your World, Burned to the Ground (but get my dvr first)
What a joke!

[DSLReports via Crunchgear]

Update: AT&T has responded to the situation. It was actually a Dish Network employee that they were transferred to and that person did not follow the disaster policy that they have in effect. So this wasn't really a case of AT&T being insensitive, just a moronic employee at Dish Network.

Thanks DSLReports

Mother Told To Pay RIAA $220,000: WTF?

Jammie Thomas, the woman who lost her case against the RIAA was ordered to pay $220,000 for downloading 24 songs. The Minnesota woman said that the U.S. copyright laws are unjust and that the cost of proving her innocence was almost impossible. Check the quote:

"It says in the Constitution that there should be no undue fines, I was just fined (9,000 percent more) than the value of these songs." She goes on to say "I was basically forced into a situation where I had to prove a negative. How do you prove that your IP address was spoofed or hacked. If I could afford an FBI analyst I'm sure it could have been proven. But I don't have the money."

Thomas rejected the typical settlement of few thousand dollars and chose to defend herself, and she strongly denies sharing music files. But 12 jurors felt differently and ordered her to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she's accused of downloading.

She is still deciding whether to file an appeal. I would think yes!!!

Does the punishment of $220,000 fit the crime of donwloading 24 songs? I think not!!! Regardless if she's guilty of file sharing, I don't believe that a mother of two should be brought to financial ruin over 24 songs. How the 12 morons on this case came to this conclusion is beyond me, but I hope that somewhere in their lives, they are judged just as harshly.

[Crave]

Sony-BMG: You're A Thief

Wow is all I can say about this one!!!

During the first trial between the RIAA and a person who they claim illegally downloaded music, Jennifer Pariser, who is litigator for the Sony-BMG Music Group is calling damn near everyone a thief. During her testimony she was asked if she thought a consumer should be allowed to copy a song off a CD that they already owned.

Under oath she stated that “when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.”

So there you have it!!!

Most people have to copy music from their CD collection to get it to there ipods or Zunes, so now they are thief's? Not to even speak about all the old school people back in the day who made tapes from records, just to play in their car. I don't think I know one person who has never made a copy of music that they owned, for another media. So if you already own the CD, Sony-BMG says you should have to re-purchase it again to put it on your MP3 player, to be considered not a thief.

So everyone, according to Sony-BMG you are all thief's!!!

Sony BMG’s chief anti-piracy lawyer: “Copying” music you own is “stealing” [Ars via Crunchgear]