I have exactly one bug from the painless upgrade... The old Neverwinter Nights game with the linux binaries crash on exit and I have to kill the nwmain process.
What gives Apple the right to enter into contracts which restrict my behavior?
I actually didn't sign anything, as I do not own an iPhone.
How has Apple restricted your behavior then?
Nor could I actually agree to anything that I'm not a part to, even if I wanted to. I'm not allowed to view all the contracts they're signing, am I?
Of course not, yet people voluntarily enter into contracts with parties that are contracted with other parties and restrictions result. Its like buying closed source software that is tied to other closed source libraries. Why would someone think thats a good idea? I don't know, I choose to use open source.
Now Google has a solution that doesn't have those restrictions, so you can buy an Android and not have the kind of restrictions Apple has. That's how the market works. If our philosophy is truly best, Android will continue to grow in Market share just like Linux has. Maybe it will beat out the iPhone, or maybe it will die or maybe it will compete and people like you and I can use the Android and other people will use the iPhone and other people will use a Blackberry...
The government mandates the level of tint, because they determined (wisely or stupidly) that tinted windows = more time for the bad guy to get a gun and shoot the cop walking up to give him a speeding ticket. That has nothing to do with apple or its policies.
Why would the government have ANY right to demand that Apple change their business model? If Apple were a monopoly... that is if the IPhone held 92.3% of the market and they had draconian laws about who could develop apps... maybe you would get some traction... but the IPhone is one of many, many options all of which have varying levels of freedoms, restrictions, limitations and functionality.
You, the consumer are supposed to choose the product/features that you like the most and go with it. If you chose the IPhone, why is that the governments problem?
Considering the support nightmare that can result from an average PC with applications from different vendors, I would say that we might be talking about technical limitations... ie, if Apple feels that it can't SUPPORT the potential nightmare of conflicting apps from 500 different developers.
Net Neutrality and Vendor Lock-In are not the same thing.
Net Neutrality is talking about access and QoS of Internet Traffic. Vendor lock-in is a stupid practice that has been going on for ages because people don't learn from the past.
The civil war was over the issue of "Free Association" that is are States freely associated into a United States, or are states subject to The United States.
Before the war, it was assumed by most politicans, lawyers etc that the Constitution was a document of Free Association (note that the Administration before Lincoln and Lincoln's administration. Most of the Southern States believed that they had a right to say "We no longer wish to be associated with the federal government". However, Lincoln saw this as an inevitable path to destruction of the entire union. Thus we had the war, first and foremost, because of the secession (and the right or not).
We did not go to war to free the slaves, we went to war to preserve the Union. In fact, Lincoln used slavery as a bargaining chip on a number of occasions, stating that if the Southern states would return to the Union, they could keep their slaves and that cities or towns which supported the Union would not have to release their slaves.
The Secession of the southern states happened because of a number of issues, including slavery and taxes.
The War against the confederacy was about the right (or not) of States to leave the Union.
So while slavery and taxes fueled the situation, while they were causes for the tension and the secession... it was the secession itself that caused the war. Or rather, Lincoln's belief that the States did not have the right to secede.
In fact, we have letters from Lincoln where he explicitly stated that the Southern states could keep their slaves if they would return to the Union. There are examples where he told generals that if the population of a city or town supported the north, that they should not free the slaves in that area.
The Civil war is a terribly complex piece of history, any 3 or 4 bullet point explanations are going to be about as useful and accurate as "What The Bleep Do We Know?"...
It's people like you that scare the crap out of me.
Science is a means of documenting observed phenomena and making predictions of future phenomena based on observed data. IF there is not repeatable, observable phenomena... then Science is mute on the subject and Philosophy exists as one means of poking at those sorts of topics. Science doesn't tell us everything about reality, it can only tell us about observable, repeatable events within reality.
I'd suggest on the face of it that any wizard with a sword shows a busted game design
How do you figure? What would keep a wizard from using a sword? Sure it might be twink if the mage is only ever using the sword, but a wizard with a sword, to me, seems to say "Person with backup plan". Heck, wasn't the class originally called magic user or something lame like that? I see no reason not to mention Gandalf. While he may have been a 22,000 year old demigod, he was one of the major inspirations Gygax had for the class IIRC.
Heh, I only played in that system once, for a short run. However, I do remember it and I still think the post I responded to was incorrect. I'm stretching my memory to get back there but I don't think it was really "predefined archetypes". That is, I don't recall wizards being barred from swinging swords, or dwarves from using magic... which is what we were discussing I thought.
I dunno about predefined archetypes... there have always been some definitions, "Monk must be Lawful", "Paladin must always be Lawful Good", "Druid must be Neutral" and some race restrictions... but even in the early system, creating a character that followed or veered from the archetype was encouraged by the rules. With later editions, they've added more specifics for Dark Rangers, Evil Druids (blighters etc) etc.
While something may be necessary, it may also be atrocious. Just because our leaders made the decision to drop the bomb (based on what they considered best for our nation), doesn't negate the fact that we killed lots and lots of civilians and left thousands burned and dying of radiation poisoning. There's no such thing as a moral war, though there may be necessary ones.
Our company installed the PGP Universal Client and it caused a BSOD on about 40% of the systems. They all failed to recover and had to be reinstalled. This was less that 3 months ago on up to date builds of XP.
No matter what app I've installed on Linux, at worst I've only had to boot to single user mode and clean up the mess.
How many cases do we have where someone turned into a projectile and hurt someone else? This can only apply to Front Seat passengers, since (in Ohio at least) the Seat Belt laws only apply to people in the front seats.
Honestly, are people really flying through their windshield across two hoods and through another windshield... and hurting the other people? I think that if there is that much inertia, the people involved have much larger problems.
That being said, I wouldn't feel quite so bad if the law allowed everyone to go without seatbelts... with the understanding that if their lack of seat belt caused the death of another human, they would be guilty of manslaughter.
People should have free choices... and the responsibility that comes with such free choices.
I do not support laws on not smoking in public (even though I don't smoke tobacco). I do not support laws forcing people to wear seat belts (even though I wear mine every time I'm in a car). I do not support laws that outlaw recreational activities that don't impact other people's personal freedoms... this includes drugs, gambling, swingers etc.
Laws should be few as possible and focused on keeping people from infringing on the rights and freedoms of others. It should not be some tool to legislate individuals actions for "their own good".
Government is like a fire, the more feed it, the more it grows, the more dangerous it becomes.
The current conflict in Iraq actually provides a beautiful illustration of the continued balancing of the Sacred Chao. The Sacred Chao, that Wholly mating of the Hodge and the Podge must always balance, for if it didn't balance, it would tip and tipping the Sacred Chao would be wholly disasterous.
So we see the esclation of Order, and an equal and proportionate esclation of Chaos, which is responded to by Order, which is countered with Chaos... and it will continue until the humans involved decide to stop.
Eris sits on the back of Ares' chariot, looking over the battlefield and laughing at the silliness of man.
Slashdot Mirror
I have exactly one bug from the painless upgrade... The old Neverwinter Nights game with the linux binaries crash on exit and I have to kill the nwmain process.
That was it. Everything else works perfectly.
What gives Apple the right to enter into contracts which restrict my behavior?
I actually didn't sign anything, as I do not own an iPhone.
How has Apple restricted your behavior then?
Nor could I actually agree to anything that I'm not a part to, even if I wanted to. I'm not allowed to view all the contracts they're signing, am I?
Of course not, yet people voluntarily enter into contracts with parties that are contracted with other parties and restrictions result. Its like buying closed source software that is tied to other closed source libraries. Why would someone think thats a good idea? I don't know, I choose to use open source.
Now Google has a solution that doesn't have those restrictions, so you can buy an Android and not have the kind of restrictions Apple has. That's how the market works. If our philosophy is truly best, Android will continue to grow in Market share just like Linux has. Maybe it will beat out the iPhone, or maybe it will die or maybe it will compete and people like you and I can use the Android and other people will use the iPhone and other people will use a Blackberry...
and that isn't Restriction, its choice.
The government mandates the level of tint, because they determined (wisely or stupidly) that tinted windows = more time for the bad guy to get a gun and shoot the cop walking up to give him a speeding ticket. That has nothing to do with apple or its policies.
Why would the government have ANY right to demand that Apple change their business model? If Apple were a monopoly... that is if the IPhone held 92.3% of the market and they had draconian laws about who could develop apps... maybe you would get some traction... but the IPhone is one of many, many options all of which have varying levels of freedoms, restrictions, limitations and functionality.
You, the consumer are supposed to choose the product/features that you like the most and go with it. If you chose the IPhone, why is that the governments problem?
Apple entered into a contract with ATT that restricted their behavior. You entered into a contract with Apple that restricted your behavior.
Why did you do that? Should we have to live in a society that tolerates people signing contracts that they will later bitch about?
Considering the support nightmare that can result from an average PC with applications from different vendors, I would say that we might be talking about technical limitations... ie, if Apple feels that it can't SUPPORT the potential nightmare of conflicting apps from 500 different developers.
Net Neutrality and Vendor Lock-In are not the same thing.
Net Neutrality is talking about access and QoS of Internet Traffic. Vendor lock-in is a stupid practice that has been going on for ages because people don't learn from the past.
Hail! Hail!
The civil war was over the issue of "Free Association" that is are States freely associated into a United States, or are states subject to The United States.
Before the war, it was assumed by most politicans, lawyers etc that the Constitution was a document of Free Association (note that the Administration before Lincoln and Lincoln's administration. Most of the Southern States believed that they had a right to say "We no longer wish to be associated with the federal government". However, Lincoln saw this as an inevitable path to destruction of the entire union. Thus we had the war, first and foremost, because of the secession (and the right or not).
We did not go to war to free the slaves, we went to war to preserve the Union. In fact, Lincoln used slavery as a bargaining chip on a number of occasions, stating that if the Southern states would return to the Union, they could keep their slaves and that cities or towns which supported the Union would not have to release their slaves.
I think you're confusing two key things here...
The Secession of the southern states happened because of a number of issues, including slavery and taxes.
The War against the confederacy was about the right (or not) of States to leave the Union.
So while slavery and taxes fueled the situation, while they were causes for the tension and the secession... it was the secession itself that caused the war. Or rather, Lincoln's belief that the States did not have the right to secede.
In fact, we have letters from Lincoln where he explicitly stated that the Southern states could keep their slaves if they would return to the Union. There are examples where he told generals that if the population of a city or town supported the north, that they should not free the slaves in that area.
The Civil war is a terribly complex piece of history, any 3 or 4 bullet point explanations are going to be about as useful and accurate as "What The Bleep Do We Know?"...
You mean access to technology doesn't automatically turn kids into brilliant overachievers?!?!?!
I am shocked! Shocked I tell ya!
Documented? Other than the Bible can you find a single credible source that documents the existence of Jesus, Son of Joseph?
Ah, but you are incorrect. Discordians study Random Chaos, non-random chaos, chaotic randomness and randomly chaotic studies.
It's people like you that scare the crap out of me.
Science is a means of documenting observed phenomena and making predictions of future phenomena based on observed data. IF there is not repeatable, observable phenomena... then Science is mute on the subject and Philosophy exists as one means of poking at those sorts of topics. Science doesn't tell us everything about reality, it can only tell us about observable, repeatable events within reality.
I'd suggest on the face of it that any wizard with a sword shows a busted game design
How do you figure? What would keep a wizard from using a sword? Sure it might be twink if the mage is only ever using the sword, but a wizard with a sword, to me, seems to say "Person with backup plan". Heck, wasn't the class originally called magic user or something lame like that? I see no reason not to mention Gandalf. While he may have been a 22,000 year old demigod, he was one of the major inspirations Gygax had for the class IIRC.
I agree on taunt though.
Heh, I only played in that system once, for a short run. However, I do remember it and I still think the post I responded to was incorrect. I'm stretching my memory to get back there but I don't think it was really "predefined archetypes". That is, I don't recall wizards being barred from swinging swords, or dwarves from using magic... which is what we were discussing I thought.
I dunno about predefined archetypes... there have always been some definitions, "Monk must be Lawful", "Paladin must always be Lawful Good", "Druid must be Neutral" and some race restrictions... but even in the early system, creating a character that followed or veered from the archetype was encouraged by the rules. With later editions, they've added more specifics for Dark Rangers, Evil Druids (blighters etc) etc.
Yep... I had "previews" of my virtual desktops in '99, and I wasn't exactly dealing with the cutting edge.
While something may be necessary, it may also be atrocious. Just because our leaders made the decision to drop the bomb (based on what they considered best for our nation), doesn't negate the fact that we killed lots and lots of civilians and left thousands burned and dying of radiation poisoning. There's no such thing as a moral war, though there may be necessary ones.
Our company installed the PGP Universal Client and it caused a BSOD on about 40% of the systems. They all failed to recover and had to be reinstalled. This was less that 3 months ago on up to date builds of XP.
No matter what app I've installed on Linux, at worst I've only had to boot to single user mode and clean up the mess.
A little nonsense, now and then
is relished by the wisest men.
How many cases do we have where someone turned into a projectile and hurt someone else? This can only apply to Front Seat passengers, since (in Ohio at least) the Seat Belt laws only apply to people in the front seats.
Honestly, are people really flying through their windshield across two hoods and through another windshield... and hurting the other people? I think that if there is that much inertia, the people involved have much larger problems.
That being said, I wouldn't feel quite so bad if the law allowed everyone to go without seatbelts... with the understanding that if their lack of seat belt caused the death of another human, they would be guilty of manslaughter.
People should have free choices... and the responsibility that comes with such free choices.
Yes!
I do not support laws on not smoking in public (even though I don't smoke tobacco). I do not support laws forcing people to wear seat belts (even though I wear mine every time I'm in a car). I do not support laws that outlaw recreational activities that don't impact other people's personal freedoms... this includes drugs, gambling, swingers etc.
Laws should be few as possible and focused on keeping people from infringing on the rights and freedoms of others. It should not be some tool to legislate individuals actions for "their own good".
Government is like a fire, the more feed it, the more it grows, the more dangerous it becomes.
Aries and Eris are siblings... Both born of Nyx and Chaos, or Hera and Zeus or maybe some other old Greek swingers.
How dare you try to reduce the Great and Mighty Eris to some pathetic TV show hussy!
May Eris provide you with plenty of stuff to keep you busy!
Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Chatterer of the Words of Eris
Muncher of the ChaoAcorn
POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal
The current conflict in Iraq actually provides a beautiful illustration of the continued balancing of the Sacred Chao. The Sacred Chao, that Wholly mating of the Hodge and the Podge must always balance, for if it didn't balance, it would tip and tipping the Sacred Chao would be wholly disasterous.
So we see the esclation of Order, and an equal and proportionate esclation of Chaos, which is responded to by Order, which is countered with Chaos... and it will continue until the humans involved decide to stop.
Eris sits on the back of Ares' chariot, looking over the battlefield and laughing at the silliness of man.