We all know that people who don't understand statistics tend to spout your meme. It's easy to spot the abuse of statistics and it's equally easy to call people out when they misuse statistics to suit their arguments. People are the problem, not statistics.
Teaching methods don't fail students. Some teaching methods are less effective than others based on a student's individual learning style, but no one style will match all students and no students have just one style. Hence, the 70% solution is perfectly fine in public education.
The MBP is an easy winner in the software arena, with the capability to dual boot right out of the box. Hardware is only important if you want something "different" than the few choices you get with Apple. Lots of colors? I think you mean on the Lenovo? If that was a jab at Apple, then it was misplaced, since the MacBook Pro has only ever come in the titanium finish color.
No, what I'm asking is are these over-the-top specs actually going to persuade a current or potential MacBook Pro user to pick the Lenovo instead? My guess is no, reading the rest of this thread. Artsy types don't really care about objective laundry-lists of features. What good is a 1gig video card over the existing MBP for somebody using Illustrator all day, for example. Sure, it's probably better, but better enough to switch? Probably not. The tablet is nigh useless, according posts in this thread. Sometimes less really is more. For those of us who believe that, this is definitely not a product for us.
If your DNA compromises your ability to know right from wrong, then, where is that free will then?
Small problem. TFA states not an an inability to know right from wrong, but a retarded ability to know so. In other words, it takes more time (err, discipline) for these guys to "get it", which hardly absolves anyone from guilt.
I was thinking the Lenovo is a nice product and a good price, but is it really nice enough to cut into the 17" MacBook Pro market? In other words, I don't think Apple needs to do much stepping up.
When it's some poor old woman who has been mutilated by a doctor
or had her health trashed by shoddy construction practices, people
like you are ALL OVER restricting tort damages.
No, I'm not, and your point has nothing to do with this conversation. I spent 7 years in Personal Injury law, so for me to be in favor of tort reform would seem a bit silly. So you are pointing out that you do not like the US system of law. That doesn't make it wrong. The RIAA hasn't done anything illegal or unconstitutional is all I'm saying, because if they had, this wouldn't be the non-story that it is.
I wasn't responding solely to your response. You have actually brought up a whole slew of other points that I agree with. However, (your thoughtful responses removed) this is still simply wishful thinking on the behalf of the slashdot crowd to get something for nothing with impunity. As for a "disturbing disparity", I don't see anything wrong with it, on a legal basis. Sure, it's pretty dispicable behavior, but there's nothing illegal about it, and this is so far removed from a constitutional issue, it's not even funny. Think for one second. If this were such a travesty of justice and trouncing the constitution, why hasn't anything been done about it, especially given your contention that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this several times in other cases. That tells me one thing...this case is not applicable to the cases you cited, or it would already have been struck down on constiutional precedent.
No, I don't think being charged $749 for a $1 product is cruel and unusual. Nor does any court it seems. I agree that 1 pack of gum shouldn't be 24 charges, and I find that an interesting defense against P2P. I'd like to see the legal arguments for that. One P2P "session" of 32 downloads is one charge, but 32 sessions of 1 download would be 32 charges? But, looking at your post, it is obvious that you have problems with the charges in the first place and don't even think there is a guilty party here. "Everybody else was doing it" is about the most lame excuse you can give in a court case.
I'm not saying that $750 per song is remotely fair. I am saying that "excessive fines" from the 8th amendment doesn't apply, because something can be unfair, yet not excessive. It's mostly unfair because the RIAA doesn't need the money, and a smaller fine would have the same effect against the offender...BUT...this should be handled by a judge to say $100 per song is a fair punishment. If the judge says $750 is a fair punishment, then sucks to be the guy who got busted, because the judge is applying the maximum penalty allowed by law (and for the last time, the maximum penalty in this case hasn't been deemed unconstitutional evidently). Your only chance would be to appeal and hope some other court sees $749 markups as being excessive punitive damages, which I don't see happening any time soon (since most people don't see that as cruel, or excessive...unfair, probably, but that doesn't pass constitutional muster).
Which is ultimately why I'm right and you are just talking in circles. They didn't get away with anything. If anything they did were unconstitutional, or if the 8th amendment were even remotely in play, then something would have been done about it by now. But instead, you (and the slashdot mentality of everything-should-be-free) come along, apply some erroneous constitutional argument and then spend the rest of the week trying to justify why this is such a travesty of justice. Even if I bought your argument that the 8th amendment somehow applies (laughable, but I'll entertain the notion for a moment), then tell me (better yet show me) how this case is "cruel and unusual". It isn't even excessive punitive damages, as I can point to a myriad of punitive damages that far outpace $749 per violation, starting with simple shoplifting, running through driving over 100mph on a US highway all the way to fraud cases.
Look, you have a very overt bias against the RIAA (nothing wrong with that, btw), so your points are pretty much moot. IF (big if) 10x punitive damages are deemed so unconstitutional, then tell me, why hasn't this been ruled as such yet? That's the problem with you guys with agendas...you want to post stuff all day in your idealistic vision, when there's a completely different reality going on around you. And that's nice that you are able to twist words around and such, but the 8th amendment still only applies to criminal cases. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/
A precursory search of the Internet does not return a single civil case in which the 8th amendent was invoked. Following links to the case you provided (Austin vs. US) shows that you are just talking in circles, as there isn't a single mention of any sort of punitive or monetary judgment involved. It doesn't matter that the RIAA has lobbyists...it isn't illegal, or unconstitutional to have lobbyists. Seriously, I'm so tired of slashdotters blindly applying their own opinions and backing them up with "evidence" as they see fit. This is not unconstitutional until a court deems it as such. Given most normal people in the world would see nothing cruel about $199 fine (or even $749 fine) for a criminal offense, you are preaching to the slashdot choir (which is a very small choir in the big picture of life).
Please tell me where I made a factual mistake. The 8th ammendment applies to criminal cases, period. If the RIAA is suing, then it is a civil case. If the guy is being prosecuted, then it is a criminal case, and the RIAA has no say in what the penalties are. So yes, the 8th ammendment scrutinizes the government actions (which is exactly what I mean when I say the RIAA is not to blame here, because the RIAA is not the one "supposedly" violating the constitution). Blame the government, blame the law, don't blame the RIAA for following the laws that are in place. If you don't like it, challenge it to the Supreme Court (and good luck with the "cruel and unusua" bit, or even the "excessive fines" bit, because $199 on top of the cost of something is hardly excessive.
If you want to posit that seeking $200 in damages for a $1 song is "cruel and unusual" punishment, then we have nothing to discuss, because you are crazy. If I steal something from a grocery store (say a stick of gum) I wouldn't expect to be let of for less than THOUSANDS of dollars. The 8th ammendment also only applies criminal cases. If the RIAA is suing, then it isn't a criminal case. If it IS a criminal case, then the RIAA doesn't get to set the penalty, so stop blaming the RIAA.
As an expert in user interface designs, I will be the first one to rally against the blame-the-user first crowd that likes to hang out here. Apple's one-click isn't a bad design, given all the hoops you have to jump through to set it up. The problem in our case was my wife was logged in on my side of our MacBook and I use the trackpad click feature she's not used to. She touched the trackpad and just happened to be on the one click buy button...oops. We called to have it cancelled (long story...we were overseas, having it shipped to Oregon) but not soon enough. Apple still payed the return shipping for us though.
I bought a 24" iMac by mistake once because of the one-click purchase 'feature' of the Apple online store. Not only did they refund me the money, they paid the shipping return fees as well. All just because I'm stoopid.
Slashdot Mirror
are much more skeptical about the role of genetics role behavior.
That's because, by definition, behavior is learned?
We all know that people who don't understand statistics tend to spout your meme. It's easy to spot the abuse of statistics and it's equally easy to call people out when they misuse statistics to suit their arguments. People are the problem, not statistics.
Teaching methods don't fail students. Some teaching methods are less effective than others based on a student's individual learning style, but no one style will match all students and no students have just one style. Hence, the 70% solution is perfectly fine in public education.
"Giving up hope" is more pragmatically referred to as "being realistic". Give up hope, because reality trumps hope.
The MBP is an easy winner in the software arena, with the capability to dual boot right out of the box. Hardware is only important if you want something "different" than the few choices you get with Apple. Lots of colors? I think you mean on the Lenovo? If that was a jab at Apple, then it was misplaced, since the MacBook Pro has only ever come in the titanium finish color.
No, what I'm asking is are these over-the-top specs actually going to persuade a current or potential MacBook Pro user to pick the Lenovo instead? My guess is no, reading the rest of this thread. Artsy types don't really care about objective laundry-lists of features. What good is a 1gig video card over the existing MBP for somebody using Illustrator all day, for example. Sure, it's probably better, but better enough to switch? Probably not. The tablet is nigh useless, according posts in this thread. Sometimes less really is more. For those of us who believe that, this is definitely not a product for us.
If your DNA compromises your ability to know right from wrong, then, where is that free will then?
Small problem. TFA states not an an inability to know right from wrong, but a retarded ability to know so. In other words, it takes more time (err, discipline) for these guys to "get it", which hardly absolves anyone from guilt.
So we could test for this at birth to see who was going to be drug addicted politicians later in life?
I prefer my politicians to be adulterous philanderers (redundancy for emphasis). Is there a test for that?
As if quoting the Daily Mirror is any more intelligent than voting for George Bush?
Article Summary: 30% of teenagers are immature. Good call.
Considering "blue tooth buttplug" above is modded up "funny", I'd say "troll" for this one is a bit off.
I was thinking the Lenovo is a nice product and a good price, but is it really nice enough to cut into the 17" MacBook Pro market? In other words, I don't think Apple needs to do much stepping up.
But thanks, Slashdot - this is like the third story today that was either deliberately misleading or completely fabricated.
This never gets old...you must be new here. Just wait, by the end of the day, the number of stories should be around five or so.
Are you kidding?
When it's some poor old woman who has been mutilated by a doctor or had her health trashed by shoddy construction practices, people like you are ALL OVER restricting tort damages.
No, I'm not, and your point has nothing to do with this conversation. I spent 7 years in Personal Injury law, so for me to be in favor of tort reform would seem a bit silly. So you are pointing out that you do not like the US system of law. That doesn't make it wrong. The RIAA hasn't done anything illegal or unconstitutional is all I'm saying, because if they had, this wouldn't be the non-story that it is.
I wasn't responding solely to your response. You have actually brought up a whole slew of other points that I agree with. However, (your thoughtful responses removed) this is still simply wishful thinking on the behalf of the slashdot crowd to get something for nothing with impunity. As for a "disturbing disparity", I don't see anything wrong with it, on a legal basis. Sure, it's pretty dispicable behavior, but there's nothing illegal about it, and this is so far removed from a constitutional issue, it's not even funny. Think for one second. If this were such a travesty of justice and trouncing the constitution, why hasn't anything been done about it, especially given your contention that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this several times in other cases. That tells me one thing...this case is not applicable to the cases you cited, or it would already have been struck down on constiutional precedent.
No, I don't think being charged $749 for a $1 product is cruel and unusual. Nor does any court it seems. I agree that 1 pack of gum shouldn't be 24 charges, and I find that an interesting defense against P2P. I'd like to see the legal arguments for that. One P2P "session" of 32 downloads is one charge, but 32 sessions of 1 download would be 32 charges? But, looking at your post, it is obvious that you have problems with the charges in the first place and don't even think there is a guilty party here. "Everybody else was doing it" is about the most lame excuse you can give in a court case.
I'm not saying that $750 per song is remotely fair. I am saying that "excessive fines" from the 8th amendment doesn't apply, because something can be unfair, yet not excessive. It's mostly unfair because the RIAA doesn't need the money, and a smaller fine would have the same effect against the offender...BUT...this should be handled by a judge to say $100 per song is a fair punishment. If the judge says $750 is a fair punishment, then sucks to be the guy who got busted, because the judge is applying the maximum penalty allowed by law (and for the last time, the maximum penalty in this case hasn't been deemed unconstitutional evidently). Your only chance would be to appeal and hope some other court sees $749 markups as being excessive punitive damages, which I don't see happening any time soon (since most people don't see that as cruel, or excessive...unfair, probably, but that doesn't pass constitutional muster).
how did the RIAA get away with it?
Which is ultimately why I'm right and you are just talking in circles. They didn't get away with anything. If anything they did were unconstitutional, or if the 8th amendment were even remotely in play, then something would have been done about it by now. But instead, you (and the slashdot mentality of everything-should-be-free) come along, apply some erroneous constitutional argument and then spend the rest of the week trying to justify why this is such a travesty of justice. Even if I bought your argument that the 8th amendment somehow applies (laughable, but I'll entertain the notion for a moment), then tell me (better yet show me) how this case is "cruel and unusual". It isn't even excessive punitive damages, as I can point to a myriad of punitive damages that far outpace $749 per violation, starting with simple shoplifting, running through driving over 100mph on a US highway all the way to fraud cases.
Look, you have a very overt bias against the RIAA (nothing wrong with that, btw), so your points are pretty much moot. IF (big if) 10x punitive damages are deemed so unconstitutional, then tell me, why hasn't this been ruled as such yet? That's the problem with you guys with agendas...you want to post stuff all day in your idealistic vision, when there's a completely different reality going on around you. And that's nice that you are able to twist words around and such, but the 8th amendment still only applies to criminal cases. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/
A precursory search of the Internet does not return a single civil case in which the 8th amendent was invoked. Following links to the case you provided (Austin vs. US) shows that you are just talking in circles, as there isn't a single mention of any sort of punitive or monetary judgment involved. It doesn't matter that the RIAA has lobbyists...it isn't illegal, or unconstitutional to have lobbyists. Seriously, I'm so tired of slashdotters blindly applying their own opinions and backing them up with "evidence" as they see fit. This is not unconstitutional until a court deems it as such. Given most normal people in the world would see nothing cruel about $199 fine (or even $749 fine) for a criminal offense, you are preaching to the slashdot choir (which is a very small choir in the big picture of life).
Please tell me where I made a factual mistake. The 8th ammendment applies to criminal cases, period. If the RIAA is suing, then it is a civil case. If the guy is being prosecuted, then it is a criminal case, and the RIAA has no say in what the penalties are. So yes, the 8th ammendment scrutinizes the government actions (which is exactly what I mean when I say the RIAA is not to blame here, because the RIAA is not the one "supposedly" violating the constitution). Blame the government, blame the law, don't blame the RIAA for following the laws that are in place. If you don't like it, challenge it to the Supreme Court (and good luck with the "cruel and unusua" bit, or even the "excessive fines" bit, because $199 on top of the cost of something is hardly excessive.
If you want to posit that seeking $200 in damages for a $1 song is "cruel and unusual" punishment, then we have nothing to discuss, because you are crazy. If I steal something from a grocery store (say a stick of gum) I wouldn't expect to be let of for less than THOUSANDS of dollars. The 8th ammendment also only applies criminal cases. If the RIAA is suing, then it isn't a criminal case. If it IS a criminal case, then the RIAA doesn't get to set the penalty, so stop blaming the RIAA.
Less storage than a nomad, and all that...
something about not being able to do the time comes to mind...
Because real heroes steer planes into people's cities from inside the plane? Talk about the ultimate cowards.
As an expert in user interface designs, I will be the first one to rally against the blame-the-user first crowd that likes to hang out here. Apple's one-click isn't a bad design, given all the hoops you have to jump through to set it up. The problem in our case was my wife was logged in on my side of our MacBook and I use the trackpad click feature she's not used to. She touched the trackpad and just happened to be on the one click buy button...oops. We called to have it cancelled (long story...we were overseas, having it shipped to Oregon) but not soon enough. Apple still payed the return shipping for us though.
I bought a 24" iMac by mistake once because of the one-click purchase 'feature' of the Apple online store. Not only did they refund me the money, they paid the shipping return fees as well. All just because I'm stoopid.