So today I've been trying to update my T-mobile G2 aka HTC Hero.
The phone is stuck using Android 1.5 which, when taking into consideration the phone's predecessor is using 1.6 and the rest of the Android using phones are up to 2.0 or 2.1, is unacceptable. I hadn't been too bothered by the OS version as I thought the phone had been working well and was fulfilling my needs. Apparently I was wrong.
Yesterday I found out that I hadn't been receiving all my text messages and that sometimes, even when both phones have a signal, my phone decides it doesn't fancy going through the effort of connecting.
I thought I'd try getting the phone's software upgraded to see if this fixed anything. The 2.1 upgrade is expected in a few days and to cut a long story short I have to get an upgrade to allow me to get an upgrade which will allow me to upgrade to Android 2.1. Great, fantastic, technology today should mean this is simple right?
Most stuff is plug and play or drag and drop. How hard can it be?
Here's the punchline. My laptop is apparently too up to date to allow the update to be applied properly. Windows 7 64 creates so many problems when trying to update to the ROM version that came out just after I bought my phone that it's proven nigh on impossible to sort out. I've tried the latest version of HTC sync which is meant to support Windows 7 natively. I've tried using older versions with work-arounds using Vista 64 bit drivers to allow my phone to be recognised by the software. It works right up until the moment I start the ROM update at which point the program decides to go "wait, you expect me to actually do something? lolnah. Here, have some stress."
The only other possibility I've been able to find on the net is faulty USB ports, but I've tried all 3 on my laptop and every other device I've tried is working. Another thing suggesting that this isn't the problem is the fact that it ONLY disconnects when I try to run the update.
So now I'm exactly where I started 3 hours ago except marginally more pissed off.
...apparently only some people are entitled to them.
And they'd better not stink.
This was in response to Pr0gNut in the most hated/overrated guitarists thread. I'll copy what I had written there, here and then expand so it covers opinions in general...
================================================== === you are saying though that someone needs experience/knowledge to back up their opinion and that's just not true.
you don't know anything about any of the users in this thread. for all you know any post could be sarcastic, or an in joke that you aren't privy to. yet you assume that they have no knowledge and form the opinion that they shouldn't have an opinion because they can't back it up. you're a hypocrite. you lack the knowledge yet you still form the opinion.
knowledge/experience is required in political opinions and entertainment opinions are less important? surely that would imply that it's less important to have knowledge about entertainment.
are you going to moan at any none guitarist/non musician who comes to the conclusion that the guitar player for x band sucks because he doesn't like their music?
he has no knowledge of guitar playing, therefore he has no right to that opinion. non guitarists/non musicians are not entitled to opinions about guitarists at all.
non musicians cannot have an opinion on music as they don't know what goes into it. They don't have the required knowledge of the field. also, retarded people aren't entitled to opinions, they don't have the intelligence that would entitle them to that opinion.
you come across as someone who only thinks people should have an opinion if it agrees with yours. but I don't know you so I'm not allowed to form that opinion.
One of the things that annoys me most is the "don't criticise until you've done what x has done" argument.
It is usually the last resort of the fanboy but is used by a lot of people in various situations. It's most commonly seen, in my experience, in the comments section for UG news articles. Usually it's used in response to trolls who come into an article and post something along the lines of 'x sucks, they have no talent' and so to respond to it myself would be to take the troll's side and would imply that I agreed with the troll's opinion.
The reality of it is, I just hate flawed logic.
From idiotic religious people using Pascal's wager to try to convert people to Christianity, to normally quite intelligent people who use emotion in music to qualify their tastes. (disclaimer: the 'idiotic religious people' remark was in reference to religious people who are stupid rather than implying that all religious people are stupid)
The 'emotion' one I've covered several times in various threads and the pascal's wager example, I'm sure, is dealt with on a regular basis in the religion thread.
However, I see this train of thought used quite often. But how can people realistically suggest that a detailed knowledge of the field is required to entitle someone to an opinion? If we're following this logic the average person knows enough about maybe one or 2 particular fields to entitle them to an opinion. And even then they may only be on things like "how to make baby stephanie fall asleep without crying" or "positions around my house where important documents will be safe".
The average person is just that. Average.
They don't have specialised knowledge, they don't have experience in many fields, they don't have extraordinary physical abilities.
Yet you try telling them that their opinion about Bush is irrelevant. In fact try telling yourself that. Go on... you haven't been president of one of the worlds few ever superpowers. How could you possibly form an opinion?
To be honest I can see where these people are trying to come from. Obviously, in an ideal situation a person's opinion would be based upon perfect knowledge of the area in question, but just because a person doesn't have that knowledge their opinion doesn't automatically become invalid. And it doesn't mean that they can't have an opinion until they've gone out and attempted to emulate the leaders in that field.
And that's due to the nature of opinions. They are personal beliefs about a certain thing. They are subjective and they exist in our mind.
To say that x is not allowed an opinion on y is the first step along a very bad road.
Interestingly enough, I've never seen a troll come back with "before you tell me how good they are, go and sell as many records as them and gain the respect of millions of fans around the world".
If people have to qualify negative opinions, then surely positive opinions also need qualifying.
If I've made any glaring errors it's because it's nearly 2 am and I've been up early most days this week.