All you did was provide YOUR definitions for the different moderations. Not everyone subscribes to those, which is what makes it more interesting.
For example, I rate something "Flamebait" if it's obviously and clearly designed just to piss people off. I would probably have also modded down the grandparent because it lacked any sort of substance, and was essentially just a lashing out. That's inflammatory to me.
That link you posted is also inflammatory, it's calling a large group of people idiots without providing any sort of substance to back it up. It's a waste of time reading, hence I'd mod it down.
But at any rate, I don't think your definitions of what to mod down are any better or valid than mine or anyone else's.
Just giving you my personal experience, I've had my iPod for about a year now and have not noticed the battery time being any less than about 5 hours. This doesn't really matter though, because it's rare that I listen to my iPod for 5 hours straight and then don't get a chance to charge it.
I can understand your concerns, but it's really not the huge issue it's made out to be unless you think you're going to use it for 4+ hours at a time without a charge.
Excellent point, but one issue with closing down BT would be that it's not centralized (in the conventional sense). They might be able to outlaw illegal torrent files, but they're not going to be able to pull a Napster and shut down a network. There's noone to point to, really.
There seem to be a few pretty big obstacles in place for the lawyers.
It's a bit tricky since the.torrent isn't actually the illegal file you're downloading, and might not necessarily lead to the downloading of the actual file.
Most of us sane Americans don't believe there are too many patriotic aspects to said act.
Sure, its to fight terrorism... but be careful not to damage your relations with your allies by doing so (if its not already done, with France and the Iraq war).
Totally agree, but you'd better not argue that with a stanuch right winger as they would probably tell you something like "Other countries have no control over us!" or similar spin, much like what we saw at the second debate over the global test comment.
Linux doesn't approach OS X's ease of use, nor does it have brand recognition as close to Apples, and those are both some pretty major factors for users.
Kerry's attitude is basically to say anything he needs to in order to get elected. He doesn't care about you or your job at all. You better pray he loses.
Even if he doesn't, he as at least aid that he does care about my job, which is much more than I can say for Bush. Ironic how Kerry gets fried for saying he's going to try for what America wants while Bush gets off the hook for fucking this country up but sticking with his flawed reasoning.
So people who want to get their own country straightened out are selfish because they don't want to dump all of their effort into third world countries? Who's being naive here?
but foolishly naïve
If would've been "foolishly naive" if the parent poster had implied that America is hard at work right now trying to solve domestic issues, which we clearly are not and even Bush has said we're not. Unfortunately, that's not what the parent poster was saying. Understand what you're reading before you decide to flip out and come out looking the fool yourself.
don't understand why this brings such horror to Americans.
Uhm, it doesn't. Your average American doesn't really give a shit about what's going on in India. Outsourcing in the tech industry has obviously brought it to some attention, but most people there are pissed off at the people outsourcing so the rich can get richer instead of the actual people in India. You obviously don't get it.
The US government will never solve its citizens' problems. The US government has failed to solve its own problems for the past 200 years. You think that John Kerry or George Bush if reelected will suddenly just solve these problems? I know American politicians have promised everything but the kitchen sink, but did it ever occur to you that they do this same thing every four years?
Of course we understand that. Now do YOU realize that most sane Americans really trust any politicians, or are you stupid enough to believe that all Americans think everything is just grand? You clearly don't understand the citizens of this nation. Please don't try to imply you do.
The least the Americans can do is allow the rest of the world to compete.
So we're competing with each other, yet you expect the US to help out India in some fashion. That's interesting.
America doesn't need to save the world, just give the rest of the world a fair chance to compete.
I'm glad that an impoverished nation is rapidly gaining the means to live a better life, but I don't believe that the US is to blame for your insecurity. If you want a strong country, maybe you should be more concerned about YOUR politics and economics instead of obviously relying on the US to aid it in some way. "Naive" and "foolish" indeed.
Pointing out the blatantly obvious is in no way insightful.
I mean if you're really only making $5.15 an hour, you need to get off your ass and get some more social skills or START looking for a job. I know the current economy isn't too great (but that's fine, as long as the rich kids get the tax cuts), but we're talking about the lowest echelon of the labor force, which is pretty much 15 year olds. If you can't break out past that, then you're lacking a simple ability. The economy is not THAT bad, and an increase in minimum wage wouldn't have the dramatic effects you're outlining.
Do you know what type of work is usually associated with minimum wage jobs? Do you think the pizza delivery guy, the cashiers, and the paperboys are going to be outsourced?
just like he really enjoys the 15% tax rate he and Tereza paid last year.
Humorous you bring that up when Kerry has said he wants to get rid of the tax cut that BUSH put in. Perhaps you missed the debates. So Kerry's guilty because he got the tax cut that Bush was all about, yet Bush's hands are in ANY fashion cleaner despite the fact that it was his presidency that saw it passed?
The original 5 GB iPod had a scroll wheel. I still have mine and use it all of the time. I'm still amazed it works after having it for almost 3 years...I haven't even changed the battery.
Sorry, I should've expanded on that, I meant the slick look (button-less) that came with the next generation iPods. That attributed a lot to it's sexiness.
The iPod's interface has stayed relatively unchanged for music access. Have you ever even used the original iPod?
Should've elaborated again, I meant the scrollwheel revisions, and yes, I have.
Sorry that you're so mired in your thinking, but you're wrong.
I'm talking about mainstream recognition, not only Mac users. I don't understand what's tough to get about that.
The comments in question have had the same tone for every model that was released. Drop your hard line, you lost.
I lost? You clearly don't even understand what I originally said, which was that during the time, it was not silly to think the iPod would be a failure given it's specs and Apple's trackrecord at the time. That's it.
Sounds like you're a hardcore Apple zealot who thinks he "won." I've got about five grand in Apple equipment, all purchased within the last two years. Don't try to imply this is an anti-Apple thing because I don't think posts that predicted the iPod's failure before it was out weren't idiotic. Given the facts and the trackrecord at the time, it made sense at the time.
Definitely agree. I'm merely saying that at the time, it wasn't stupid or idiotic to think that the iPod wouldn't be a big hitter (remember Apple's record at the time). That's it.
The iPod-mayhem took of starting with the first generation, if you fail to see that, you obviously don't want to see it because it would mean you've been wrong.
No, I don't agree. Obviously sales were picking up, but people weren't referring to mp3 players in general as "iPods" and you weren't seeing them all over the place during the first generation. There wasn't mainstream recognition anywhere near where it is now during first gen. That's sort of irrelevant to my main point anyhow (first paragraph), but if we're talking about mainstream recognition "mayhem," it sure as hell wasn't happening during first gen.
I think the point might be that, whatever you think of this 1G iPod Photo - perhaps someone out there has plans for further down the line that will shut you up.
I don't know if you meant by "you" you were referring specifically to me, but I think this announcement is great, as at this point I have full faith in Apple. All I was initially saying was that at the time of the 1st generation iPod, it wasn't an off-the-wall thing to believe that based on the specs and Apple's trackrecord at the time, it was going to be an overpriced and underpowered toy.
Slashdot Mirror
All you did was provide YOUR definitions for the different moderations. Not everyone subscribes to those, which is what makes it more interesting.
For example, I rate something "Flamebait" if it's obviously and clearly designed just to piss people off. I would probably have also modded down the grandparent because it lacked any sort of substance, and was essentially just a lashing out. That's inflammatory to me.
That link you posted is also inflammatory, it's calling a large group of people idiots without providing any sort of substance to back it up. It's a waste of time reading, hence I'd mod it down.
But at any rate, I don't think your definitions of what to mod down are any better or valid than mine or anyone else's.
Just giving you my personal experience, I've had my iPod for about a year now and have not noticed the battery time being any less than about 5 hours. This doesn't really matter though, because it's rare that I listen to my iPod for 5 hours straight and then don't get a chance to charge it.
I can understand your concerns, but it's really not the huge issue it's made out to be unless you think you're going to use it for 4+ hours at a time without a charge.
iPod owners must also just be getting into music, as that assumes that they have no music to put on it in the first place.
Excellent point, but one issue with closing down BT would be that it's not centralized (in the conventional sense). They might be able to outlaw illegal torrent files, but they're not going to be able to pull a Napster and shut down a network. There's noone to point to, really.
There seem to be a few pretty big obstacles in place for the lawyers.
It's a bit tricky since the .torrent isn't actually the illegal file you're downloading, and might not necessarily lead to the downloading of the actual file.
Most of us sane Americans don't believe there are too many patriotic aspects to said act.
Sure, its to fight terrorism... but be careful not to damage your relations with your allies by doing so (if its not already done, with France and the Iraq war).
Totally agree, but you'd better not argue that with a stanuch right winger as they would probably tell you something like "Other countries have no control over us!" or similar spin, much like what we saw at the second debate over the global test comment.
Very good, thanks!
I RTFA, but a question popped in my head. Do any of you optical gurus have any idea if this can be used with writable media?
I hate to burst your bubble, but I've got shmoes off the street asking me about that "linux thing" you've been using.
Our experience simply differs on that front, then.
Uniformity and the ability to do everything a power desktop user would need to do without using any sort of command line, I'd say.
(sorry, rogue trackpad click).
Linux doesn't approach OS X's ease of use, nor does it have brand recognition as close to Apples, and those are both some pretty major factors for users.
Linux does not approach OS X's e
I'm no doctor, but I would imagine atrophying of the muscles would be a problem as well.
Really? I thought it was an enjoyable special effects/cheese disaster movie (as long as you don't take it seriously).
No, I wasn't saying that minimum wage jobs aren't enough to support an adult, I was saying that no adult should be that lazy to actually have one.
Kerry's attitude is basically to say anything he needs to in order to get elected. He doesn't care about you or your job at all. You better pray he loses.
Even if he doesn't, he as at least aid that he does care about my job, which is much more than I can say for Bush. Ironic how Kerry gets fried for saying he's going to try for what America wants while Bush gets off the hook for fucking this country up but sticking with his flawed reasoning.
That opinion is not only disgustingly selfish
So people who want to get their own country straightened out are selfish because they don't want to dump all of their effort into third world countries? Who's being naive here?
but foolishly naïve
If would've been "foolishly naive" if the parent poster had implied that America is hard at work right now trying to solve domestic issues, which we clearly are not and even Bush has said we're not. Unfortunately, that's not what the parent poster was saying. Understand what you're reading before you decide to flip out and come out looking the fool yourself.
don't understand why this brings such horror to Americans.
Uhm, it doesn't. Your average American doesn't really give a shit about what's going on in India. Outsourcing in the tech industry has obviously brought it to some attention, but most people there are pissed off at the people outsourcing so the rich can get richer instead of the actual people in India. You obviously don't get it.
The US government will never solve its citizens' problems. The US government has failed to solve its own problems for the past 200 years. You think that John Kerry or George Bush if reelected will suddenly just solve these problems? I know American politicians have promised everything but the kitchen sink, but did it ever occur to you that they do this same thing every four years?
Of course we understand that. Now do YOU realize that most sane Americans really trust any politicians, or are you stupid enough to believe that all Americans think everything is just grand? You clearly don't understand the citizens of this nation. Please don't try to imply you do.
The least the Americans can do is allow the rest of the world to compete.
So we're competing with each other, yet you expect the US to help out India in some fashion. That's interesting.
America doesn't need to save the world, just give the rest of the world a fair chance to compete.
I'm glad that an impoverished nation is rapidly gaining the means to live a better life, but I don't believe that the US is to blame for your insecurity. If you want a strong country, maybe you should be more concerned about YOUR politics and economics instead of obviously relying on the US to aid it in some way. "Naive" and "foolish" indeed.
Pointing out the blatantly obvious is in no way insightful.
Dude, even Wal-Mart isn't a minimum wage job.
I mean if you're really only making $5.15 an hour, you need to get off your ass and get some more social skills or START looking for a job. I know the current economy isn't too great (but that's fine, as long as the rich kids get the tax cuts), but we're talking about the lowest echelon of the labor force, which is pretty much 15 year olds. If you can't break out past that, then you're lacking a simple ability. The economy is not THAT bad, and an increase in minimum wage wouldn't have the dramatic effects you're outlining.
Do you know what type of work is usually associated with minimum wage jobs? Do you think the pizza delivery guy, the cashiers, and the paperboys are going to be outsourced?
Come on.
just like he really enjoys the 15% tax rate he and Tereza paid last year.
Humorous you bring that up when Kerry has said he wants to get rid of the tax cut that BUSH put in. Perhaps you missed the debates. So Kerry's guilty because he got the tax cut that Bush was all about, yet Bush's hands are in ANY fashion cleaner despite the fact that it was his presidency that saw it passed?
Please.
The original 5 GB iPod had a scroll wheel. I still have mine and use it all of the time. I'm still amazed it works after having it for almost 3 years...I haven't even changed the battery.
Sorry, I should've expanded on that, I meant the slick look (button-less) that came with the next generation iPods. That attributed a lot to it's sexiness.
The iPod's interface has stayed relatively unchanged for music access. Have you ever even used the original iPod?
Should've elaborated again, I meant the scrollwheel revisions, and yes, I have.
no, the first iPod was a hit.
No, it wasn't, because...
you couldn't use it with Windows
Sorry that you're so mired in your thinking, but you're wrong.
I'm talking about mainstream recognition, not only Mac users. I don't understand what's tough to get about that.
The comments in question have had the same tone for every model that was released. Drop your hard line, you lost.
I lost? You clearly don't even understand what I originally said, which was that during the time, it was not silly to think the iPod would be a failure given it's specs and Apple's trackrecord at the time. That's it.
Sounds like you're a hardcore Apple zealot who thinks he "won." I've got about five grand in Apple equipment, all purchased within the last two years. Don't try to imply this is an anti-Apple thing because I don't think posts that predicted the iPod's failure before it was out weren't idiotic. Given the facts and the trackrecord at the time, it made sense at the time.
Try again.
Definitely agree. I'm merely saying that at the time, it wasn't stupid or idiotic to think that the iPod wouldn't be a big hitter (remember Apple's record at the time). That's it.
The iPod-mayhem took of starting with the first generation, if you fail to see that, you obviously don't want to see it because it would mean you've been wrong.
No, I don't agree. Obviously sales were picking up, but people weren't referring to mp3 players in general as "iPods" and you weren't seeing them all over the place during the first generation. There wasn't mainstream recognition anywhere near where it is now during first gen. That's sort of irrelevant to my main point anyhow (first paragraph), but if we're talking about mainstream recognition "mayhem," it sure as hell wasn't happening during first gen.
Absolutely agree... the first time, though, I think it was justified. I'm THRILLED Apple has turned it around.
I think the point might be that, whatever you think of this 1G iPod Photo - perhaps someone out there has plans for further down the line that will shut you up.
I don't know if you meant by "you" you were referring specifically to me, but I think this announcement is great, as at this point I have full faith in Apple. All I was initially saying was that at the time of the 1st generation iPod, it wasn't an off-the-wall thing to believe that based on the specs and Apple's trackrecord at the time, it was going to be an overpriced and underpowered toy.