Well, they can't sign the form saying you can go on a school trip. They also can't make plenty of decisions that your parents are allowed to make. So no, they don't get the right to make or take any kind of action the child's parents can.
The administrator shouldn't have looked at the phone in the first place. Its not a matter of whether the admin should turn it over or not or how to deal with it, but whether it should have arisen in the first place. Did the admin have any right to look through the images?
The attachment rate is about 50% higher than the PS3's. 8.1 compared to 5.3 (as of Nov 2008). They were at 2x the PS3 attachment rate was after the PS3 was out for a year. Its now been 2 years and its no longer 2x. Please stop quoting old figures.
Your entire premise is incorrect so pretty much the rest of your post is also false. The iPod firmware is required to actually operate the hardware. Its useless and can't even run any other OS without heavy modification. The firmware is pretty much the software driver to that extent. The hardware can't function with anything else. The firmware *can't* run on other media players either do to this idea. Its meant to run specific hardware. Systems like that are tailored to the OS. Its not just a piece of DRM that keep them tied together.
You seem to have something against people who are anti-DRM. No one has ever said that all software is DRM and that all DRM is evil. It just has to be noted that DRM can never *add* value, only detract from it, therefore anything *with* DRM should be priced accordingly and DRM-free options should be available.
You also provide no evidence as to why its a steep hill. Plenty of evidence is provided that they are two separate markets (as Apple *does* have a software and hardware division, Apple sells the OS separately and no, they're not just upgrades as you can wipe the entire OS and still install from the disc, therefore its a FULL OS, the hardware can run other OSes other than the OSX, their main competitor only sells OSes, should I keep going?).
And its BS (whether the law actually backs you up or not) to assume a company should have any say about what somebody does with the product AFTER they purchase it. They may have a legal right, but its ridiculous that you can't purchase anything anymore. If you can't do what you want with it, you don't own it. If you're fine with someone else owning the stuff you pay for, be my guest and be a fan of that business method. If, on the other hand, you're an intelligent being who thinks they own what they buy, you need to look deeper into what side you really want to support.
I was unclear, thats my fault. I should have stated you can't sue and expect an actual case to proceed. Through common understanding, when I say you can't sue for something, I mean you can't sue and possibly have any chance of winning. Technically, you can sue me for not having an "x" in my slashdot login name, but for the most part, I doubt anyone would argue if I said, "You can't sue me for not having an 'x' in my login name," as its understood that there are absolutely no legal grounds for the lawsuit. That was what I had meant to convey. There are zero legal grounds for them to sue.
Be careful... you're choosing a market for Apple if you give them market share... They're not in the OS market OR the hardware market (otherwise Psystar is correct)... they're in a complete systems market.
Your last paragraph is blowing smoke out of its ass. If that were the case, every company that has ever gotten sued and won could then sue for damages at the equivalent advertising cost of every square inch of newsprint or second of airtime devoted to the case. Every discussion on the internet about it could be construed as damage, etc, etc. Apple, despite what many Apple loyalists want to think, is just a regular tech company. Just because they rely more on hype then actual product does not mean that they can sue for damages caused by the truth about Apple and their dictatorship practices and their iron fist in telling customers what they can or cannot do with their own property.
No one can say what market you are or aren't in. If that were the case, Microsoft would never have trouble with anti-trusts because they could always define their market as whatever the hell they're making. Apple doesn't get any free rides no matter how you want to cut it and no matter how pretty you think their machines are. The point of the matter is that the only thing tying the two parts together (hardware and software) is a piece of unnecessary DRM. It is *not* one complete product. The software can run on other hardware. The hardware can run other software. They sell two things together. One division does NOT make the entire Mac computer. They have a software division and a hardware division. The large part of this case revolves around whether Apple has the right to define what market it is in. And I'd say they're telling everyone they're in the same market as PCs, in which case, they should fall under the same rules.
Apple is not special. It is a tech company. They don't get to play by their own rules. Windows gets in trouble for tying a goddamn media player THATS FREE to its OS, yet Apple can tie hundreds and thousands of dollars in hardware to its OS? Bullshit.
As I said, people who disable it understand what they're doing and will apply updates manually or am I to assume that you have forgone all updates from after that point on?
I have very few fans in my computer, but I do have watercooling which is much quieter (though obviously, still has fans). However, with people who work around these computers a lot, it almost becomes background noise. I need to turn on a fan at night because its too silent when I turn off my computer.
You need to get your program Windows certified or something. Google Updater in and of itself wouldn't exist, each program in the Google pack would be individually required to get certified. I'm not surprised most programs fail to do this as they either want to have their own so they can try to sneak in toolbar add-ons or they want you to visit their webpage before downloading. I'd prefer applications use the Windows updater, but thats only useful to the user, not the application vendors.
You haven't taken into account that the users you're used to running into aren't the best users. If people kept their machines updated and running properly, you wouldn't see them. Its like a cop saying everybody is a criminal because a majority of the people he sees are criminals.
I'm not saying that the other guy is right, but when it comes down to it, neither of you really have much to go on. From my experience, if auto update is turned on to download and install automatically very rarely gets turned off completely. One, for the most part, people who turn it off understand the system and either run updates manually themselves OR have it set to download and then they just install it whenever they see the little yellow shield icon. However, this doesn't apply to people who aren't constantly connected to the internet. If they're on dial-up, they can fall out of sync. I'm not sure of the percentage of people on dial-up, but it could be a problem.
Online shopping has yet to really come up with a decent equivalent of "window browsing." Sometimes you just want to look at everything. You don't want to pick a category. You don't want to see everything related to the item you just looked at. You just want to window shop. Hell, window shopping is a past time for some people. There are entire streets filled with stores that are almost tourist attractions where the only thing you do is just walk around and look at shit. Sometimes people don't know what they want and just want to look around.
I have to admit though. I'd be creeped out if I went into a virtual Amazon.com. That place would be huuuuuuuuuge.
I'm more interested from a hobby point of view (i like to tinker and code a bit), not as a replacement phone. So, I wouldn't really need 3g support. But its interesting to know.
Can one remove their sim card from their iPhone 3g and use it in the open android phone? I know the iPhone can only use its own sim cards, but would other phones be able to use the iphone sim card? this could be a tempting offer if i don't need to buy another sim card and/or phone plan.
Let me get this straight. We can't change our climate. But we can change another planet's climate? Are you aware we haven't found a planet with a hospitable climate and terraforming is pretty much the only option? Which yes, a part of it is modifying the target planet's climate.
The planet isn't dying. Its just not going to be able to support as much life as our race will require. Plus, there's more proof pointing towards us having some impact on the environment than none at all. Whether we can stop global warming completely or if we can hold it off even for awhile is worth it. Feasibility studies for recolonizing other planets aren't even feasible right now. Because lets get realistic here, i think we have a greater chance at helping the environment than colonizing space.
If we can't stop it, I highly doubt we'll have the required technology to colonize space before global warming starts becoming increasingly destructive to the point where it can't be ignored. So, I'd rather not have us not give up. You apparently just look at the problem, think its impossible and than try to solve a problem that we have even less experience in as a species. If you want to give up, fine. I don't think others think the same way.
You took the analogy too far and missed the point. The point is that climate change is bad for us. Who cares what is the root cause, we need to find a way to stop it. No one is arguing that the climate isn't changing. The only controversial issue is whether its caused by us or not. That was the point with the analogy. Is it our fault or some external force? Your solution kinda proves the point. It doesn't matter what caused it, we need to fix it.
So, its ok for our minds to develop shelters and clothes to protect us in climates where we'd otherwise die. Yet, its not ok to use our minds to try to protect humanity from a global calamity. Our intelligence and ability to overcome problems through innovation and invention is part of evolution. They're not mutually exclusive. We didn't need to evolve and get fur coats to keep us warm in the winter. We made our own friggin' coats.
...its sinking because Sirius took control as opposed to XM. The new channels are terrible compared to what XM had. Now I hear the same music over and over. The new DJs aren't as good as the ones they replaced either. If I didn't pay a few years in advance (its built into my car, so i figured I'd keep it as long as the car), I would have canceled. I do not plan on renewing it at this point assuming they're even still in business by that time.
I wouldn't be surprised if the concept of expansion simply due to raping the current natural world of all its resources may appear barbaric to an advanced civilization. I also wouldn't be surprised if the idea of people trying to live in harmony and at peace with each other would appear nonsensical to an advanced culture. My point is, its pointless to try and apply OUR principles to an advanced civilization. They, more than likely, have different principles. They may respect life (other than their own) and the environment they live in much more than we do. Or they may have no respect for it whatsoever. Their civilization may be based on a governmental system of "might makes right," as opposed to something like democracy. Who knows? Maybe its based on some cool thing we've never even heard of.
Slashdot Mirror
http://xkcd.com/329/
Well, they can't sign the form saying you can go on a school trip. They also can't make plenty of decisions that your parents are allowed to make. So no, they don't get the right to make or take any kind of action the child's parents can.
The administrator shouldn't have looked at the phone in the first place. Its not a matter of whether the admin should turn it over or not or how to deal with it, but whether it should have arisen in the first place. Did the admin have any right to look through the images?
What if someone other than the submitter already owns the patent or copyright (assuming the idea is copyrightable or patentable)
The attachment rate is about 50% higher than the PS3's. 8.1 compared to 5.3 (as of Nov 2008). They were at 2x the PS3 attachment rate was after the PS3 was out for a year. Its now been 2 years and its no longer 2x. Please stop quoting old figures.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20988
userfriendly.org uses this model; it seems to work for them.
slashdot.org also uses this model
Your entire premise is incorrect so pretty much the rest of your post is also false. The iPod firmware is required to actually operate the hardware. Its useless and can't even run any other OS without heavy modification. The firmware is pretty much the software driver to that extent. The hardware can't function with anything else. The firmware *can't* run on other media players either do to this idea. Its meant to run specific hardware. Systems like that are tailored to the OS. Its not just a piece of DRM that keep them tied together.
You seem to have something against people who are anti-DRM. No one has ever said that all software is DRM and that all DRM is evil. It just has to be noted that DRM can never *add* value, only detract from it, therefore anything *with* DRM should be priced accordingly and DRM-free options should be available.
You also provide no evidence as to why its a steep hill. Plenty of evidence is provided that they are two separate markets (as Apple *does* have a software and hardware division, Apple sells the OS separately and no, they're not just upgrades as you can wipe the entire OS and still install from the disc, therefore its a FULL OS, the hardware can run other OSes other than the OSX, their main competitor only sells OSes, should I keep going?).
And its BS (whether the law actually backs you up or not) to assume a company should have any say about what somebody does with the product AFTER they purchase it. They may have a legal right, but its ridiculous that you can't purchase anything anymore. If you can't do what you want with it, you don't own it. If you're fine with someone else owning the stuff you pay for, be my guest and be a fan of that business method. If, on the other hand, you're an intelligent being who thinks they own what they buy, you need to look deeper into what side you really want to support.
I was unclear, thats my fault. I should have stated you can't sue and expect an actual case to proceed. Through common understanding, when I say you can't sue for something, I mean you can't sue and possibly have any chance of winning. Technically, you can sue me for not having an "x" in my slashdot login name, but for the most part, I doubt anyone would argue if I said, "You can't sue me for not having an 'x' in my login name," as its understood that there are absolutely no legal grounds for the lawsuit. That was what I had meant to convey. There are zero legal grounds for them to sue.
Be careful... you're choosing a market for Apple if you give them market share... They're not in the OS market OR the hardware market (otherwise Psystar is correct)... they're in a complete systems market.
Your last paragraph is blowing smoke out of its ass. If that were the case, every company that has ever gotten sued and won could then sue for damages at the equivalent advertising cost of every square inch of newsprint or second of airtime devoted to the case. Every discussion on the internet about it could be construed as damage, etc, etc. Apple, despite what many Apple loyalists want to think, is just a regular tech company. Just because they rely more on hype then actual product does not mean that they can sue for damages caused by the truth about Apple and their dictatorship practices and their iron fist in telling customers what they can or cannot do with their own property.
No one can say what market you are or aren't in. If that were the case, Microsoft would never have trouble with anti-trusts because they could always define their market as whatever the hell they're making. Apple doesn't get any free rides no matter how you want to cut it and no matter how pretty you think their machines are. The point of the matter is that the only thing tying the two parts together (hardware and software) is a piece of unnecessary DRM. It is *not* one complete product. The software can run on other hardware. The hardware can run other software. They sell two things together. One division does NOT make the entire Mac computer. They have a software division and a hardware division. The large part of this case revolves around whether Apple has the right to define what market it is in. And I'd say they're telling everyone they're in the same market as PCs, in which case, they should fall under the same rules.
Apple is not special. It is a tech company. They don't get to play by their own rules. Windows gets in trouble for tying a goddamn media player THATS FREE to its OS, yet Apple can tie hundreds and thousands of dollars in hardware to its OS? Bullshit.
As I said, people who disable it understand what they're doing and will apply updates manually or am I to assume that you have forgone all updates from after that point on?
I have very few fans in my computer, but I do have watercooling which is much quieter (though obviously, still has fans). However, with people who work around these computers a lot, it almost becomes background noise. I need to turn on a fan at night because its too silent when I turn off my computer.
You need to get your program Windows certified or something. Google Updater in and of itself wouldn't exist, each program in the Google pack would be individually required to get certified. I'm not surprised most programs fail to do this as they either want to have their own so they can try to sneak in toolbar add-ons or they want you to visit their webpage before downloading. I'd prefer applications use the Windows updater, but thats only useful to the user, not the application vendors.
Even though it was an IE update, I was still forced to do a reboot. I have XPsp3. Dunno if its different on Vista or whatnot.
You haven't taken into account that the users you're used to running into aren't the best users. If people kept their machines updated and running properly, you wouldn't see them. Its like a cop saying everybody is a criminal because a majority of the people he sees are criminals.
I'm not saying that the other guy is right, but when it comes down to it, neither of you really have much to go on. From my experience, if auto update is turned on to download and install automatically very rarely gets turned off completely. One, for the most part, people who turn it off understand the system and either run updates manually themselves OR have it set to download and then they just install it whenever they see the little yellow shield icon. However, this doesn't apply to people who aren't constantly connected to the internet. If they're on dial-up, they can fall out of sync. I'm not sure of the percentage of people on dial-up, but it could be a problem.
Online shopping has yet to really come up with a decent equivalent of "window browsing." Sometimes you just want to look at everything. You don't want to pick a category. You don't want to see everything related to the item you just looked at. You just want to window shop. Hell, window shopping is a past time for some people. There are entire streets filled with stores that are almost tourist attractions where the only thing you do is just walk around and look at shit. Sometimes people don't know what they want and just want to look around. I have to admit though. I'd be creeped out if I went into a virtual Amazon.com. That place would be huuuuuuuuuge.
I'm more interested from a hobby point of view (i like to tinker and code a bit), not as a replacement phone. So, I wouldn't really need 3g support. But its interesting to know.
Can one remove their sim card from their iPhone 3g and use it in the open android phone? I know the iPhone can only use its own sim cards, but would other phones be able to use the iphone sim card? this could be a tempting offer if i don't need to buy another sim card and/or phone plan.
Let me get this straight. We can't change our climate. But we can change another planet's climate? Are you aware we haven't found a planet with a hospitable climate and terraforming is pretty much the only option? Which yes, a part of it is modifying the target planet's climate.
The planet isn't dying. Its just not going to be able to support as much life as our race will require. Plus, there's more proof pointing towards us having some impact on the environment than none at all. Whether we can stop global warming completely or if we can hold it off even for awhile is worth it. Feasibility studies for recolonizing other planets aren't even feasible right now. Because lets get realistic here, i think we have a greater chance at helping the environment than colonizing space.
If we can't stop it, I highly doubt we'll have the required technology to colonize space before global warming starts becoming increasingly destructive to the point where it can't be ignored. So, I'd rather not have us not give up. You apparently just look at the problem, think its impossible and than try to solve a problem that we have even less experience in as a species. If you want to give up, fine. I don't think others think the same way.
You took the analogy too far and missed the point. The point is that climate change is bad for us. Who cares what is the root cause, we need to find a way to stop it. No one is arguing that the climate isn't changing. The only controversial issue is whether its caused by us or not. That was the point with the analogy. Is it our fault or some external force? Your solution kinda proves the point. It doesn't matter what caused it, we need to fix it.
So, its ok for our minds to develop shelters and clothes to protect us in climates where we'd otherwise die. Yet, its not ok to use our minds to try to protect humanity from a global calamity. Our intelligence and ability to overcome problems through innovation and invention is part of evolution. They're not mutually exclusive. We didn't need to evolve and get fur coats to keep us warm in the winter. We made our own friggin' coats.
...its sinking because Sirius took control as opposed to XM. The new channels are terrible compared to what XM had. Now I hear the same music over and over. The new DJs aren't as good as the ones they replaced either. If I didn't pay a few years in advance (its built into my car, so i figured I'd keep it as long as the car), I would have canceled. I do not plan on renewing it at this point assuming they're even still in business by that time.
I wouldn't be surprised if the concept of expansion simply due to raping the current natural world of all its resources may appear barbaric to an advanced civilization. I also wouldn't be surprised if the idea of people trying to live in harmony and at peace with each other would appear nonsensical to an advanced culture. My point is, its pointless to try and apply OUR principles to an advanced civilization. They, more than likely, have different principles. They may respect life (other than their own) and the environment they live in much more than we do. Or they may have no respect for it whatsoever. Their civilization may be based on a governmental system of "might makes right," as opposed to something like democracy. Who knows? Maybe its based on some cool thing we've never even heard of.
13/18. That was a typo. But I know if I don't correct it, I'll be called out on it.