Yes, often times one of those 3 (fast forward, skip, home/root/menu) will work, usually JUST one. But there are screens and advertisements that disable all outs. It's very frustrating. It's entirely up to the DVD creator whether they feel like letting you skip things or not. This is well-documented.
At first I assumed the ones that DID have outs were a mistake, but I think it's actually a concession from the media companies to let you "still" fast forward through commercials (like in VHS tapes). Pretty sad to be referring to "letting consumers use brand new technology to perform basic functions from decades-old technology" as a concession...
Why would a mass market laptop need to be available ONLY with windows pre-installed? The hardware can be mass market and 99/100 can be sold with Windows.
But why should that imply whatsoever that I can't buy 1/100 of those mass-produced laptops with Linux pre-installed and a lower purchase price?
I think the difference here is that only a few nutjobs are dumb enough to claim Bush orchestrated 9/11.
Just like only a few nutjobs are stupid enough to claim Obama is somehow responsible for North Korea nuclear testing.
Or that Obama is responsible for the current economic situation, or responsible for "government spending" (including bailouts) that started before he ever entered office.
The more sane conspiracies re: Bush+9/11 are regarding how his administration used it to take political control over the country and stir up a nationalistic fervor and point it at whatever HE wanted to do (ie: attack Iraq). And of course, use it to paint anyone who disagreed with their policies as terrorists or "soft on terrorism". Which you'll notice, Cheney is continuing to do even after leaving the white house.
This is a bit of a nitpick, but evolution is much better guided than you give it credit for.
I didn't realize this until I started reading about artificial life, but "random mutation" has approximately nothing to do with evolution. It's all about sexual reproduction mixing genes around.
It IS still random, but a far stretch from the terribad "tornado through a junkyard" analogy that creationists like to cite.
It's quite an exaggeration to lump WOW and all the other MMOs together as "identical". This is true, but only in the same sense that almost every video game is identical.
Q: What's the difference between WOW and Animal Crossing? A: In WOW you earn money, in AC you pay off debt
I've played WOW off and on for some time, but never gotten beyond the demo stage of any other MMOs. I read reviews, play demos, and take a very critical eye at games. My friends and I tried Guild Wars and it was just plain bad. I've gotten vaguely excited by some general concepts in AOC and WAR, but I've never once heard a review that compared the overall experience favorably with WOW. I know a group of SA goons who are into EVE, and they even have trouble arguing that its a fun experience.
The OP's point about WOW articles decimating other games is basically moronic. Articles, websites, and other content about WOW *does* decimate all other games. I stop sometimes when googling a WOW quest or item, and realize that of all of Google, this 1 item in WOW is a popular enough search term to dominate all other google searches for that word. It's startling, really.
I wouldn't say all resale markets are identical, but they all function. Just like books and cds and cassette tapes, the game market functions fine.
If anything it encourages the opposite of what you claim - "blockbusters" are games that flood the resale market, with more profits to resellers. By making smaller niche titles, it's harder to find those titles on the resale market, and the publisher can sleep at night knowing that no one else is profiting from the game after he does.
Just like I lie awake every night worrying that my previous employers continue to make money off the work I did for them without sending any of those profits my way. How dare they!
The world has lived with the doctrine of first sale for quite a while now. Video games are nothing new. The only thing that's new is publishers think that with DRM they have an avenue to increase their (already high) profits.
And don't even get me started on rentals and libraries. It's shocking the things people do with content without paying ever more money to the original creator!
Sorry, but that's silly. It IS the same thing. I do know many people who (sadly, imo) buy a new car every year and sell the old one. I also know a lot of people who refuse to ever buy new cars because of the high cost and the risk of investing in a untried technology.
The resale value of cars is higher than games because the cost of flipping an item is relatively fixed. You have to pay a kid minimum wage (or more) to spend half an hour per used game receiving and stocking it. The cost of storing it as cheap, but then not all games sell. So their price point has been the 1/3 buy 2/3 sell that the summary mentioned.
Cars have a higher storage price because they're bigger, but the price is also much bigger so you can buy a used car (say a 1-year old car) for 2/3 and sell for 4/5 and still makes a thousand or more in profits.
And as far as houses, lots of people buy houses, do some basic repairs and then flip them shortly afterwards. Others buy them, live in them for a bit, then rent them out while moving on to another house for themselves.
It's all the same market economy, and none of the original manufacturers have any right to whine about it. They should be looking to add value to original purchases rather than punish their customers.
Heh, yeah, IANAL either so this is all guesswork anyway. But saying he's "providing a place for him to distribute libel" is like suing the government because someone was shot in a public park. The government "provided a place for a guy to shoot someone". Quick, charge the government with murder!
I think there's an extent where it becomes gross negligence if the provider of the public space is knowingly allowing or encouraging the activity, but I'm not sure how far it has to go to cross that line.
Craigslist's "adult services" section and it's recent publicity is another great example of this. They're cooperating with NY (?) to change/remove that public space, but Craigslist is still adamant that they have no responsibility to do so.
And honestly, providing a forum that says "POST ILLEGAL ADULT SERVICES HERE" is a far cry more culpable than having a parking lot for your grocery store and having someone leaflet. Or offering web hosting and having someone put defamatory content on it.
I mentioned John Doe lawsuits in another thread, but in your particular scenario here is what I imagine is the correct/ideal way for it to be handled:
-You call the police
-Police arrive and make a judgement call on whether you or the leafleter is more likely correct. In this case you are Bobb Sledd and have a driver's license saying so.
-The police arrest/detain the leafleter and get more information out of him for your upcoming lawsuit (the leafleter's ID, and any information they can about his employer)
-You proceed with the lawsuit against his employer for defamation (I'm not entirely sure if this would be civil-only, or if there would be additional criminal charges involved)
Hypothetically the employer may have successfully stayed anonymous when hiring the leafleter. Eg. grab a bum or college kid and say "hand these out" and hand him $50, maybe promise him another $50 when he's done but immediately leave.
In this case you're sort of SOL as far as "justice", but you still successfully stopped the leafleter by calling the police. The store (like Yahoo) is in no position to make judgement calls on who is in the right, and is in fact likely to get themselves into more trouble by expending resources to make those judgement calls than by sticking with the "There's the phone, call the police" line.
Do you think that Kinko's reads and validates the information contained on/in every item they print? Would it be remotely reasonable to expect this?
What if a kid comes in and prints a poster that says the field mouse is an endangered species. Can I sue Kinko's for letting that kid print false information on a poster which he then used to mislead his kindergarten class? Does Kinko's have to proofread and fact-check every piece of paper that comes out of their printers?
It would certainly be nice of Kinko's employees to notice any egregiously unlawful materials being printed, but I find it hard to believe they're responsible or held accountable for doing so.
I believe in this case you file a John Doe lawsuit against the individual, to find this "John Doe" guilty of defamation (or whatever), at which point you have grounds to obtain John Doe's real identity from Yahoo for enforcement of the court's ruling.
I'm not sure if that's true. Most places don't allow leafleting, making it a moot point. If you notify them that someone is leafleting, they'll ask them to leave, and then follow up with the police if the person refuses. But the reason they do this is because it trashes up their parking lot and annoys their customers.
Can you really sue a grocery store for NOT removing a leafleter and his leaflets? Specifically based on the truthfulness of the content of those leaflets? I would be very surprised if anyone could win that lawsuit. This would hinge on an assumption that the grocery store is implicitly supporting the leafleting and its contents.
Being a (relatively) unregulated public space, I don't think the grocery store could be held responsible for the actions of private individuals on their property, whether legal or illegal. If the private individual's actions are illegal, that's for the police to decide and enforce.
Isn't that assumption specifically void for internet hosts in particular? I forget which law provides that immunity, but it sounds familiar. (IANAL)
If this guy were printing out leaflets and handing them out in a parking lot, would she sue the owner of the parking lot? The maker of the guy's printer? Maybe the car manufacturer of the vehicle he drove there in?
No. She'd sue HIM.
He is the one that needs to take it down using his account. If he's doing something illegal, that's for the courts to decide. If he's doing so anonymously, that's still for the courts to decide, before forcing Yahoo to hand over information.
The only problem with this is how poorly the courts have scaled. But that's still where the responsibility lies. People just go after Yahoo because they're easy target. It's often cheaper for them to comply than to send a lawyer to defend against a lawsuit.
Then you didn't (try to) use linux on the desktop before Ubuntu.
The author (in GP post) talks as if Ubuntu IS Linux.
Ubuntu is just the best desktop Linux so far. By a long shot And I've tried a LOT of desktop linux distributions, and been using linux on the desktop as my primary OS (outside of gaming) for 10+ years.
It's sad that such a great movement in the direction of good desktop linux is being broadly painted as a disappointment. When you hear Ubuntu talked up its because its the best linux yet, not because it's going to overnight put Microsoft out of business and convince everyone to use free software and open formats.
Just because Hulu isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't the right direction. They also offer at most 6 episodes of most shows. People still can't catch up on many tv shows that are still airing - with the result being people don't watch the show at all.
But Hulu as it is still beats the previous options of "pirate it or don't watch it".
The media companies are still being dragged kicking and screaming into these great opportunities they've absolutely refused to monotize on their own. It's sad, really.
Then yes, memcpy_s hasn't helped you, but it also hasn't hurt you at all.
But if you're doing memcpy(dest, source, SIZE) You'll now be doing: memcpy_s(dest, SIZE, source, SIZE)//ideally not or memcpy_s(dest, DESTSIZE, source, SOURCESIZE)
In the former case, again, you haven't benefited at all. But you're being encouraged to do the latter. In cases where:
DESTSIZE > SOURCESIZE//could error DESTSIZE = SOURCESIZE//could error DESTSIZE SOURCESIZE//the memcpy_s function can catch this case and not cause a buffer overrun
Since that 3rd case is where more buffer overruns come from (it's guaranteed to be wrong), isn't eliminating that whole class of buffer overruns a good idea?
It's a bit silly to claim "well anyone smart will use memcpy_s anyway if DESTSIZE can be less than SOURCESIZE". Obviously no one sits down and thinks, "I know, I'm going to write a buffer overflow!" It's an accident. Using memcpy_s prevents that accident.
I'm not sure if this would have fooled the content producers. It may even be stipulated in their contract that a hacked product (or one hacked to a certain degree of popularity) would result in fines or in content being pulled.
We saw a similar scenario with iTunes DRM. At the same time Apple was trying to get more DRM-free music on iTunes, they had to keep attacking any hackers of the iTunes DRM.
Likewise Nokia and other manufacturers who makes cell phones could care less about Verizon's obnoxious resctrictions. They want to be able to offer full cell phone functionality (like full bluetooth, custom ringtones) but Verizon says "no way". Nokia could "slip" and have a conveniently hackable Verizon phone. But it would likely be the last phone they made for Verizon, and a huge loss of revenue for Nokia.
The exception here would be DVD players. They got away with "slipping" test codes to the public for region-free playback and other features. Potentially they might have had their license to create DVD-compatible players revoked, right? I'm not certain how exactly they got away with it.
Perhaps the glut of DVD players on the market minimized the impact from a single version of a single player having a hack? Whereas iTunes and Kindle have huge market share (almost monopolies) and are under close scrutiny by their respective content industries.
1) I believe in religion 2) I don't know 3) I don't believe in religion
Atheism is lack of belief in a god, not refusal that a god could possibly exist. The existence of a God is not falsifiable. Therefore your only options are
1) Theism (belief in religion) 2) Atheism (lack of belief in religion)
It seems from googling a bit that it's become commonplace use Agnostic as a modifier for Theist and Atheist. Perhaps what you really mean is that you're an Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist? In this framework your options are:
1. Theism (belief in a specific mystical deity or dieties) 2. Agnostic Theism (belief in the general concept of mystical dieties) 3. Agnostic Atheism (lack of belief in the concept of mystical deities)
Or as Richard Dawkins put it, "I am only agnostic in the sense I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"
It's quite meaningless to go around modifying every single decision and concept with "MAYBE..."
Yeah, as another poster pointed out, and as I implied in some other post on this thread, this was almost certainly in the TOS/EULA, but obviously not exactly advertised when the Kindle was released.
I'm hoping someone sues and the courts rule in favor of requiring clearly broadcast notification if some content might have features removed (and some sort of notification WHEN its removed).
I may suck for Amazon short term, but in the end they'll get what they want (a big fat lawsuit to point to when telling publishers they won't disable TTS), consumers will get what they want (all content will allow TTS), and publishers will get what they need (a digital kick in the pants to make them stop killing off their own medium).
It's sad that publishers and content owners continue to piss and moan about vendors wanting to encourage consumers to buy and use their content.
And comparing automated TTS to audio books is a complete farce.
calling people stupid for beliving one way or another is a waste of time
Definitely.
I always state I'm agnostic instead of an athiest
This is the same sort of nonsense as prefixing every single sentence with "I think" or "Most likely". Overqualification dilutes the point.
There no reason to believe there is an omnipotent deity, let alone one specific deity (and corresponding set of rules) out of the dozens popular this particular century.
Agnosticism implies you believe in mythology and mysticism.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, often times one of those 3 (fast forward, skip, home/root/menu) will work, usually JUST one. But there are screens and advertisements that disable all outs. It's very frustrating. It's entirely up to the DVD creator whether they feel like letting you skip things or not. This is well-documented.
At first I assumed the ones that DID have outs were a mistake, but I think it's actually a concession from the media companies to let you "still" fast forward through commercials (like in VHS tapes). Pretty sad to be referring to "letting consumers use brand new technology to perform basic functions from decades-old technology" as a concession...
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_operation_prohibition
Why would a mass market laptop need to be available ONLY with windows pre-installed? The hardware can be mass market and 99/100 can be sold with Windows.
But why should that imply whatsoever that I can't buy 1/100 of those mass-produced laptops with Linux pre-installed and a lower purchase price?
I think the difference here is that only a few nutjobs are dumb enough to claim Bush orchestrated 9/11.
Just like only a few nutjobs are stupid enough to claim Obama is somehow responsible for North Korea nuclear testing.
Or that Obama is responsible for the current economic situation, or responsible for "government spending" (including bailouts) that started before he ever entered office.
The more sane conspiracies re: Bush+9/11 are regarding how his administration used it to take political control over the country and stir up a nationalistic fervor and point it at whatever HE wanted to do (ie: attack Iraq). And of course, use it to paint anyone who disagreed with their policies as terrorists or "soft on terrorism". Which you'll notice, Cheney is continuing to do even after leaving the white house.
This is a bit of a nitpick, but evolution is much better guided than you give it credit for.
I didn't realize this until I started reading about artificial life, but "random mutation" has approximately nothing to do with evolution. It's all about sexual reproduction mixing genes around.
It IS still random, but a far stretch from the terribad "tornado through a junkyard" analogy that creationists like to cite.
It's quite an exaggeration to lump WOW and all the other MMOs together as "identical". This is true, but only in the same sense that almost every video game is identical.
Q: What's the difference between WOW and Animal Crossing?
A: In WOW you earn money, in AC you pay off debt
This.
I've played WOW off and on for some time, but never gotten beyond the demo stage of any other MMOs. I read reviews, play demos, and take a very critical eye at games. My friends and I tried Guild Wars and it was just plain bad. I've gotten vaguely excited by some general concepts in AOC and WAR, but I've never once heard a review that compared the overall experience favorably with WOW. I know a group of SA goons who are into EVE, and they even have trouble arguing that its a fun experience.
The OP's point about WOW articles decimating other games is basically moronic. Articles, websites, and other content about WOW *does* decimate all other games. I stop sometimes when googling a WOW quest or item, and realize that of all of Google, this 1 item in WOW is a popular enough search term to dominate all other google searches for that word. It's startling, really.
A plus side to the death of unlimited data plans would be the ability to use your data plan for anything.
Want to use Skype? Bittorrent? Tether to your laptop? Go for it. It's your data.
There's no "abuse" when you're the one paying for it.
I wouldn't say all resale markets are identical, but they all function. Just like books and cds and cassette tapes, the game market functions fine.
If anything it encourages the opposite of what you claim - "blockbusters" are games that flood the resale market, with more profits to resellers. By making smaller niche titles, it's harder to find those titles on the resale market, and the publisher can sleep at night knowing that no one else is profiting from the game after he does.
Just like I lie awake every night worrying that my previous employers continue to make money off the work I did for them without sending any of those profits my way. How dare they!
The world has lived with the doctrine of first sale for quite a while now. Video games are nothing new. The only thing that's new is publishers think that with DRM they have an avenue to increase their (already high) profits.
And don't even get me started on rentals and libraries. It's shocking the things people do with content without paying ever more money to the original creator!
Sorry, but that's silly. It IS the same thing. I do know many people who (sadly, imo) buy a new car every year and sell the old one. I also know a lot of people who refuse to ever buy new cars because of the high cost and the risk of investing in a untried technology.
The resale value of cars is higher than games because the cost of flipping an item is relatively fixed. You have to pay a kid minimum wage (or more) to spend half an hour per used game receiving and stocking it. The cost of storing it as cheap, but then not all games sell. So their price point has been the 1/3 buy 2/3 sell that the summary mentioned.
Cars have a higher storage price because they're bigger, but the price is also much bigger so you can buy a used car (say a 1-year old car) for 2/3 and sell for 4/5 and still makes a thousand or more in profits.
And as far as houses, lots of people buy houses, do some basic repairs and then flip them shortly afterwards. Others buy them, live in them for a bit, then rent them out while moving on to another house for themselves.
It's all the same market economy, and none of the original manufacturers have any right to whine about it. They should be looking to add value to original purchases rather than punish their customers.
Heh, yeah, IANAL either so this is all guesswork anyway. But saying he's "providing a place for him to distribute libel" is like suing the government because someone was shot in a public park. The government "provided a place for a guy to shoot someone". Quick, charge the government with murder!
I think there's an extent where it becomes gross negligence if the provider of the public space is knowingly allowing or encouraging the activity, but I'm not sure how far it has to go to cross that line.
Craigslist's "adult services" section and it's recent publicity is another great example of this. They're cooperating with NY (?) to change/remove that public space, but Craigslist is still adamant that they have no responsibility to do so.
And honestly, providing a forum that says "POST ILLEGAL ADULT SERVICES HERE" is a far cry more culpable than having a parking lot for your grocery store and having someone leaflet. Or offering web hosting and having someone put defamatory content on it.
I mentioned John Doe lawsuits in another thread, but in your particular scenario here is what I imagine is the correct/ideal way for it to be handled:
-You call the police
-Police arrive and make a judgement call on whether you or the leafleter is more likely correct. In this case you are Bobb Sledd and have a driver's license saying so.
-The police arrest/detain the leafleter and get more information out of him for your upcoming lawsuit (the leafleter's ID, and any information they can about his employer)
-You proceed with the lawsuit against his employer for defamation (I'm not entirely sure if this would be civil-only, or if there would be additional criminal charges involved)
Hypothetically the employer may have successfully stayed anonymous when hiring the leafleter. Eg. grab a bum or college kid and say "hand these out" and hand him $50, maybe promise him another $50 when he's done but immediately leave.
In this case you're sort of SOL as far as "justice", but you still successfully stopped the leafleter by calling the police. The store (like Yahoo) is in no position to make judgement calls on who is in the right, and is in fact likely to get themselves into more trouble by expending resources to make those judgement calls than by sticking with the "There's the phone, call the police" line.
Do you think that Kinko's reads and validates the information contained on/in every item they print? Would it be remotely reasonable to expect this?
What if a kid comes in and prints a poster that says the field mouse is an endangered species. Can I sue Kinko's for letting that kid print false information on a poster which he then used to mislead his kindergarten class? Does Kinko's have to proofread and fact-check every piece of paper that comes out of their printers?
It would certainly be nice of Kinko's employees to notice any egregiously unlawful materials being printed, but I find it hard to believe they're responsible or held accountable for doing so.
I believe in this case you file a John Doe lawsuit against the individual, to find this "John Doe" guilty of defamation (or whatever), at which point you have grounds to obtain John Doe's real identity from Yahoo for enforcement of the court's ruling.
(IANAL though =D)
I'm not sure if that's true. Most places don't allow leafleting, making it a moot point. If you notify them that someone is leafleting, they'll ask them to leave, and then follow up with the police if the person refuses. But the reason they do this is because it trashes up their parking lot and annoys their customers.
Can you really sue a grocery store for NOT removing a leafleter and his leaflets? Specifically based on the truthfulness of the content of those leaflets? I would be very surprised if anyone could win that lawsuit. This would hinge on an assumption that the grocery store is implicitly supporting the leafleting and its contents.
Being a (relatively) unregulated public space, I don't think the grocery store could be held responsible for the actions of private individuals on their property, whether legal or illegal. If the private individual's actions are illegal, that's for the police to decide and enforce.
Isn't that assumption specifically void for internet hosts in particular? I forget which law provides that immunity, but it sounds familiar. (IANAL)
If this guy were printing out leaflets and handing them out in a parking lot, would she sue the owner of the parking lot? The maker of the guy's printer? Maybe the car manufacturer of the vehicle he drove there in?
No. She'd sue HIM.
He is the one that needs to take it down using his account. If he's doing something illegal, that's for the courts to decide. If he's doing so anonymously, that's still for the courts to decide, before forcing Yahoo to hand over information.
The only problem with this is how poorly the courts have scaled. But that's still where the responsibility lies. People just go after Yahoo because they're easy target. It's often cheaper for them to comply than to send a lawyer to defend against a lawsuit.
Then you didn't (try to) use linux on the desktop before Ubuntu.
The author (in GP post) talks as if Ubuntu IS Linux.
Ubuntu is just the best desktop Linux so far. By a long shot And I've tried a LOT of desktop linux distributions, and been using linux on the desktop as my primary OS (outside of gaming) for 10+ years.
It's sad that such a great movement in the direction of good desktop linux is being broadly painted as a disappointment. When you hear Ubuntu talked up its because its the best linux yet, not because it's going to overnight put Microsoft out of business and convince everyone to use free software and open formats.
Just because Hulu isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't the right direction. They also offer at most 6 episodes of most shows. People still can't catch up on many tv shows that are still airing - with the result being people don't watch the show at all.
But Hulu as it is still beats the previous options of "pirate it or don't watch it".
The media companies are still being dragged kicking and screaming into these great opportunities they've absolutely refused to monotize on their own. It's sad, really.
Oops, speaking of accidents, Slashdot ate my <
The third option was
DESTSIZE < SOURCESIZE
I haven't done C for a while, but it sounds like memcpy_s eliminates a whole class of buffer overrun errors.
If you're doing:
memcpy(dest, source, 10) =
memcpy_s(dest, 10, source, 10)
Then yes, memcpy_s hasn't helped you, but it also hasn't hurt you at all.
But if you're doing //ideally not
memcpy(dest, source, SIZE)
You'll now be doing:
memcpy_s(dest, SIZE, source, SIZE)
or
memcpy_s(dest, DESTSIZE, source, SOURCESIZE)
In the former case, again, you haven't benefited at all. But you're being encouraged to do the latter. In cases where:
DESTSIZE > SOURCESIZE //could error //could error //the memcpy_s function can catch this case and not cause a buffer overrun
DESTSIZE = SOURCESIZE
DESTSIZE SOURCESIZE
Since that 3rd case is where more buffer overruns come from (it's guaranteed to be wrong), isn't eliminating that whole class of buffer overruns a good idea?
It's a bit silly to claim "well anyone smart will use memcpy_s anyway if DESTSIZE can be less than SOURCESIZE". Obviously no one sits down and thinks, "I know, I'm going to write a buffer overflow!" It's an accident. Using memcpy_s prevents that accident.
A better analogy here might be:
You pay a security guard to prevent thieves from stealing your jewelry. Thieves come in and steal your jewelry.
Are you seriously saying the security guard is a "poor victim" and not responsible for doing his job?
The victim here is the data, and users who created the data. The hackers AND the admins are both responsible for the loss of that data.
I'm not sure if this would have fooled the content producers. It may even be stipulated in their contract that a hacked product (or one hacked to a certain degree of popularity) would result in fines or in content being pulled.
We saw a similar scenario with iTunes DRM. At the same time Apple was trying to get more DRM-free music on iTunes, they had to keep attacking any hackers of the iTunes DRM.
Likewise Nokia and other manufacturers who makes cell phones could care less about Verizon's obnoxious resctrictions. They want to be able to offer full cell phone functionality (like full bluetooth, custom ringtones) but Verizon says "no way". Nokia could "slip" and have a conveniently hackable Verizon phone. But it would likely be the last phone they made for Verizon, and a huge loss of revenue for Nokia.
The exception here would be DVD players. They got away with "slipping" test codes to the public for region-free playback and other features. Potentially they might have had their license to create DVD-compatible players revoked, right? I'm not certain how exactly they got away with it.
Perhaps the glut of DVD players on the market minimized the impact from a single version of a single player having a hack? Whereas iTunes and Kindle have huge market share (almost monopolies) and are under close scrutiny by their respective content industries.
This is creating a (false) triple-value option.
1) I believe in religion
2) I don't know
3) I don't believe in religion
Atheism is lack of belief in a god, not refusal that a god could possibly exist. The existence of a God is not falsifiable. Therefore your only options are
1) Theism (belief in religion)
2) Atheism (lack of belief in religion)
It seems from googling a bit that it's become commonplace use Agnostic as a modifier for Theist and Atheist. Perhaps what you really mean is that you're an Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist? In this framework your options are:
1. Theism (belief in a specific mystical deity or dieties)
2. Agnostic Theism (belief in the general concept of mystical dieties)
3. Agnostic Atheism (lack of belief in the concept of mystical deities)
Or as Richard Dawkins put it,
"I am only agnostic in the sense I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"
It's quite meaningless to go around modifying every single decision and concept with "MAYBE..."
Yeah, as another poster pointed out, and as I implied in some other post on this thread, this was almost certainly in the TOS/EULA, but obviously not exactly advertised when the Kindle was released.
I'm hoping someone sues and the courts rule in favor of requiring clearly broadcast notification if some content might have features removed (and some sort of notification WHEN its removed).
I may suck for Amazon short term, but in the end they'll get what they want (a big fat lawsuit to point to when telling publishers they won't disable TTS), consumers will get what they want (all content will allow TTS), and publishers will get what they need (a digital kick in the pants to make them stop killing off their own medium).
It's sad that publishers and content owners continue to piss and moan about vendors wanting to encourage consumers to buy and use their content.
And comparing automated TTS to audio books is a complete farce.
calling people stupid for beliving one way or another is a waste of time
Definitely.
I always state I'm agnostic instead of an athiest
This is the same sort of nonsense as prefixing every single sentence with "I think" or "Most likely". Overqualification dilutes the point.
There no reason to believe there is an omnipotent deity, let alone one specific deity (and corresponding set of rules) out of the dozens popular this particular century.
Agnosticism implies you believe in mythology and mysticism.
Becoming immune to the poison is certainly a possibility. But as Carewolf suggests, there are ample alternative food sources.
It's likely that the quicker "solution" is that mosquitos who find humans unappetizing will become the bulk of the population.