You're a bit late with that troll. In fact, that troll was at least almost 12 hours ahead of/.'s editors. Proof. It's a sad day when copypasta trolls are faster than/.'s editors with the latest dinosaur news.
That's an immensely cool image of Ayn Rand's so-called 'rational self-interest'. Not the cannibalism, but the swarm. (After all, Objectivism is based on a radical failure to understand Darwin.)
That's true. For sleep/hibernation, Apple's laptops are still far ahead of Windows and Linux, both in speed and stability (but even an old Powerbook will instantly crash on sleep if you for instance use a Ralink based PCMCIA wireless card, in my experience). From what I've read, some of the stability has been lost with the MacBooks (Pro), though (random link to prove point). I guess this is because ACPI generally is a buggy piece of shit, whereas the PMU was good and consistent. But even if YMMV a bit with Apple's Intel based laptops, YMWV much more with other random laptops, that's for sure.
OS X isn't significantly more stable than Linux and the BSDs (or even Windows NT), so that argument is just another lie from the Apple fanboys. Why, oh why, do you people feel the need to spin every possible marketing decision from Apple as being somehow good for the consumer?
Not only that, but with the poor forward compatibility between OS X versions, he'll soon be forced to upgrade to use even the simplest of utilities. Yeah, I know, I'm still bitter that I couldn't run Writeroom on Panther.
The banned advertisements said, "Susan Collins is MoveOn's primary target. Learn how you can help" and "Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine." The ads linked to Collins' campaign Web site with a headline reading "MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target."
These ads use the name MoveOn, not to criticise it, but to get attention from people who already hate MoveOn. Criticism, in its etymological sense, depends on analysis. There's not such thing in these ads. In its wider sense, "criticism" means expressing disapproval, but these ads don't even do that: they take disapproval for granted. It's no more critical than an ad that says: "Does MoveOn piss you off? Relax, have a Budweiser."
The terms of the contract, according to the Mac community, is that whenever there is something annoying with the phone -- bricking, restricted access of all sorts -- it's AT&T's fault. This also goes for the ipod touch, which features the exact same restrictions.
Because unlike Klipsch, you may be aiming at low colouration instead of just high efficiency. Cable inductance has a measurable (though in most cases imperceptible) impact on high frequency signals. Also, it has the advantage of being measurable. Is it important? No. A hi-fi nut won't care about that, though, will he? I'm just pointing out that it's one of the aspects you actually can control, cheaply, if you want to look into your speaker wiring.
Or did you at all read what I wrote, in the thing you so eloquently quoted?
Actually, for a speaker cable (not so much for a sub) you may also want low inductance, since an inductor acts as a low pass filter (the coil in the speaker's crossover). It's not difficult or expensive to produce good speaker cables, though. And they certainly don't need expensive materials like silver and teflon coating.
As long as they are thick enough, the cables will have far less influence on the sound quality than the positioning of the speakers or the acoustics of the room will have, though. But those things are difficult to control well, and demand "real science" (i.e. controlled testing) instead of just buying new stuff.
Well, why would AT&T allow other platforms to run Skype, then? Sorry, but none of the "oh, it's not Apple, it's AT&T" explanations work at all. And the really funny thing is that this propaganda doesn't even come from Apple, it's all creative excuses from the fanboys. Which means it's more than likely wrong, by the way.
Maybe that "obsessive control" has something to do with the fact that they have a music store business to run, and that this gets a whole lot easier when the user can't decide to use a competing service? Years with Microsoft power abuse should have taught people to look at how their various products integrate, but some would prefer to see Apple as above that.
Look at the obvious facts: This, and the Ipod Touch, brings ITMS directly to the portable music player. These devices are powerful handheld computers, but Apple choose to put restrictions on how they are used. It's so blatantly obvious that this is about control, and there's nothing paranoid about admitting so: It's not about you as a person, it's about you as a consumer. This isn't like when Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with the OS, this is as if Microsoft constrained you from installing any other browser. It's so painfully obvious that only on Slashdot, where any negativity about Apple is silenced instantly, can people avoid seeing it.
Bullshit. You don't get exposure for that kind of art at all. If you want exposure, you take pictures of hundreds of nude people in a city centre. This kind of thing is only of interest to the avant-garde audience, which doesn't get any mainstream recognition at all.
You're just spiteful because some people do things you don't understand, and the fact that you think it should be prohibited shows that you're a reactionary cunt (which is defined: people who want to put limits on freedom of expression). People like you deserve... whatever. I just don't get why you would think that your obviously limited knowledge of art should determine the outcome of a mail fraud case.
But this is a "fraud", not unlawful use of hazardous biological materials, so the harm he could have done is fairly irrelevant. It's as if you defraud a billionaire of 200 bucks, and it was considered much graver because he was a billionaire, since the fraud easily could have been worse. Or if you need to finish the parable of speeding: This is as if he drove at 51 mph in a 50 mph zone, and and got prosecuted because he could have been driving at more than 200 mph in his fancy car.
For what the charges are about, this is completely unreasonable.
Dude. Virtually no one dies from pneumonia anymore, and no one fit to go to an art exhibition. You could just as well call a spoon a deadly weapon, and a spoon that none of the audience is invited to come in contact with at that. Whether or not Kurtz should be made an example of is a question of what kind of society you want. If you want a society where everyone toes the line, then you probably want sanctions against his kind of art anyway, and then you're down the slippery slope of limiting freedom of expression. Also note that this case isn't about the potential harmfulness of his bacteria.
No. This is a case of fraud. The way you put it is equivalent to saying defrauding a billionaire is much worse than defrauding a pauper, since he could have got so much more. But even though he defrauded a billionaire, he only took $256 of relatively harmless bacteria -- so harmless, in fact, that those charges were dropped.
A balanced source, or a balanced jury, would look at not only what sort of crime was committed, but also what harm inflicted by the crime. In this case it's absolutely none whatsoever, unless you also take into account the harm inflicted by the law enforcement itself (we can disregard here the initial investigation of the biological material itself, which was more than likely justified) -- which is a lot more substantial. Unless you think people should be held guilty for crimes committed against them, this guy hasn't done much more wrong than if he was handballing in a game of football. Hardly the kind of stuff worth 20 years in prison.
A Norwegian reviewer gave the game 4/6, and received death threats from fanboys. Probably not serious ones -- everyone knows a console controller doesn't teach you to aim the same way a PC with a mouse does -- but various people in the comment section advised the man to get a bullet proof vest.
Because of this, I won't dare publishing my review of the holy Qur'an, which I rate at 4 out of 7 (better than the New Testament, but not quite as good as Dostoevsky, Philip K. Dick and Halo 2).
OK, thanks for the answer. I still don't think it's correct, though, since it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Roughlydrafted is an Apple propaganda blog, which is fairly evident from the spin they put on everything. They use standard propaganda methods like Door-in-the-face technique, for instance when they claim NBC asked Apple "to switch to only DRM'd content so we know that every track and video file on those devices was paid for", an absurd demand that effectively would kill the iPod. It's not just that Apple can't do anything wrong, but it's even "in Apples own interests to defend the rights of consumer". Yeah, as if not selling an unsaleable product is "defence".
But I'll agree that Apple have no right to give away ringtones.
Is that so? What kind of Nazi phone providers do you have in the U.S.? If that's how a "free" market works, then perhaps it's in the consumer's best interest to have some regulation. Most modern Sony Ericssons support mp3 and midi playback by default and can use them as ring tones. Same goes for Nokia, AFAIK. I can't see how the phone carrier can cripple that, since you can transfer the tune with USB or Bluetooth, like this (note that the easiest part of this method is getting the tune to the phone and using it). But I do know that method is crippled on the iPhone. By whom? By Apple, of course.
And you base this on... exactly nothing. Oh, but maybe Apple can do no wrong? Is that what you think? Instead of being an idiot, perhaps you should ask yourself in whose interest it is that you have to buy your ringtones from ITMS instead of just putting an mp3 on your phone like you can do with almost any other modern phone. Oh yes, that must be the RIAA, not Apple, who make money from selling the ringtones. Frankly, this is absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a Beta, and as such not intended for people with no sense of humour (i.e. marketdroids and consumer lifestylists).
You're a bit late with that troll. In fact, that troll was at least almost 12 hours ahead of /.'s editors. Proof. It's a sad day when copypasta trolls are faster than /.'s editors with the latest dinosaur news.
That's an immensely cool image of Ayn Rand's so-called 'rational self-interest'. Not the cannibalism, but the swarm. (After all, Objectivism is based on a radical failure to understand Darwin.)
That's true. For sleep/hibernation, Apple's laptops are still far ahead of Windows and Linux, both in speed and stability (but even an old Powerbook will instantly crash on sleep if you for instance use a Ralink based PCMCIA wireless card, in my experience). From what I've read, some of the stability has been lost with the MacBooks (Pro), though (random link to prove point). I guess this is because ACPI generally is a buggy piece of shit, whereas the PMU was good and consistent. But even if YMMV a bit with Apple's Intel based laptops, YMWV much more with other random laptops, that's for sure.
OS X isn't significantly more stable than Linux and the BSDs (or even Windows NT), so that argument is just another lie from the Apple fanboys. Why, oh why, do you people feel the need to spin every possible marketing decision from Apple as being somehow good for the consumer?
What a funny way to make perfectly ordinary statements seem moonbat extremist.
Not only that, but with the poor forward compatibility between OS X versions, he'll soon be forced to upgrade to use even the simplest of utilities. Yeah, I know, I'm still bitter that I couldn't run Writeroom on Panther.
Have you tried Google's Gmail.app for mobile phones? I think it's quite convenient myself. It should work with most phones that support Java.
You're fairly new to sarcasm, aren't you?
The terms of the contract, according to the Mac community, is that whenever there is something annoying with the phone -- bricking, restricted access of all sorts -- it's AT&T's fault. This also goes for the ipod touch, which features the exact same restrictions.
Why on earth would anyone be interested in you? You're far too self-centred to ever become important.
Because unlike Klipsch, you may be aiming at low colouration instead of just high efficiency. Cable inductance has a measurable (though in most cases imperceptible) impact on high frequency signals. Also, it has the advantage of being measurable. Is it important? No. A hi-fi nut won't care about that, though, will he? I'm just pointing out that it's one of the aspects you actually can control, cheaply, if you want to look into your speaker wiring.
Or did you at all read what I wrote, in the thing you so eloquently quoted?
Actually, for a speaker cable (not so much for a sub) you may also want low inductance, since an inductor acts as a low pass filter (the coil in the speaker's crossover). It's not difficult or expensive to produce good speaker cables, though. And they certainly don't need expensive materials like silver and teflon coating.
As long as they are thick enough, the cables will have far less influence on the sound quality than the positioning of the speakers or the acoustics of the room will have, though. But those things are difficult to control well, and demand "real science" (i.e. controlled testing) instead of just buying new stuff.
Well, why would AT&T allow other platforms to run Skype, then? Sorry, but none of the "oh, it's not Apple, it's AT&T" explanations work at all. And the really funny thing is that this propaganda doesn't even come from Apple, it's all creative excuses from the fanboys. Which means it's more than likely wrong, by the way.
Maybe that "obsessive control" has something to do with the fact that they have a music store business to run, and that this gets a whole lot easier when the user can't decide to use a competing service? Years with Microsoft power abuse should have taught people to look at how their various products integrate, but some would prefer to see Apple as above that.
Look at the obvious facts: This, and the Ipod Touch, brings ITMS directly to the portable music player. These devices are powerful handheld computers, but Apple choose to put restrictions on how they are used. It's so blatantly obvious that this is about control, and there's nothing paranoid about admitting so: It's not about you as a person, it's about you as a consumer. This isn't like when Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with the OS, this is as if Microsoft constrained you from installing any other browser. It's so painfully obvious that only on Slashdot, where any negativity about Apple is silenced instantly, can people avoid seeing it.
Bullshit. You don't get exposure for that kind of art at all. If you want exposure, you take pictures of hundreds of nude people in a city centre. This kind of thing is only of interest to the avant-garde audience, which doesn't get any mainstream recognition at all.
... whatever. I just don't get why you would think that your obviously limited knowledge of art should determine the outcome of a mail fraud case.
You're just spiteful because some people do things you don't understand, and the fact that you think it should be prohibited shows that you're a reactionary cunt (which is defined: people who want to put limits on freedom of expression). People like you deserve
But this is a "fraud", not unlawful use of hazardous biological materials, so the harm he could have done is fairly irrelevant. It's as if you defraud a billionaire of 200 bucks, and it was considered much graver because he was a billionaire, since the fraud easily could have been worse. Or if you need to finish the parable of speeding: This is as if he drove at 51 mph in a 50 mph zone, and and got prosecuted because he could have been driving at more than 200 mph in his fancy car.
For what the charges are about, this is completely unreasonable.
Dude. Virtually no one dies from pneumonia anymore, and no one fit to go to an art exhibition. You could just as well call a spoon a deadly weapon, and a spoon that none of the audience is invited to come in contact with at that. Whether or not Kurtz should be made an example of is a question of what kind of society you want. If you want a society where everyone toes the line, then you probably want sanctions against his kind of art anyway, and then you're down the slippery slope of limiting freedom of expression. Also note that this case isn't about the potential harmfulness of his bacteria.
No. This is a case of fraud. The way you put it is equivalent to saying defrauding a billionaire is much worse than defrauding a pauper, since he could have got so much more. But even though he defrauded a billionaire, he only took $256 of relatively harmless bacteria -- so harmless, in fact, that those charges were dropped.
A balanced source, or a balanced jury, would look at not only what sort of crime was committed, but also what harm inflicted by the crime. In this case it's absolutely none whatsoever, unless you also take into account the harm inflicted by the law enforcement itself (we can disregard here the initial investigation of the biological material itself, which was more than likely justified) -- which is a lot more substantial. Unless you think people should be held guilty for crimes committed against them, this guy hasn't done much more wrong than if he was handballing in a game of football. Hardly the kind of stuff worth 20 years in prison.
A Norwegian reviewer gave the game 4/6, and received death threats from fanboys. Probably not serious ones -- everyone knows a console controller doesn't teach you to aim the same way a PC with a mouse does -- but various people in the comment section advised the man to get a bullet proof vest.
Because of this, I won't dare publishing my review of the holy Qur'an, which I rate at 4 out of 7 (better than the New Testament, but not quite as good as Dostoevsky, Philip K. Dick and Halo 2).
It's not like fans of Enderle and O'Gara frequent Slashdot, never mind reply to comments. A flame, yes, but not flamebait.
OK, thanks for the answer. I still don't think it's correct, though, since it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Roughlydrafted is an Apple propaganda blog, which is fairly evident from the spin they put on everything. They use standard propaganda methods like Door-in-the-face technique, for instance when they claim NBC asked Apple "to switch to only DRM'd content so we know that every track and video file on those devices was paid for", an absurd demand that effectively would kill the iPod. It's not just that Apple can't do anything wrong, but it's even "in Apples own interests to defend the rights of consumer". Yeah, as if not selling an unsaleable product is "defence".
But I'll agree that Apple have no right to give away ringtones.
Is that so? What kind of Nazi phone providers do you have in the U.S.? If that's how a "free" market works, then perhaps it's in the consumer's best interest to have some regulation. Most modern Sony Ericssons support mp3 and midi playback by default and can use them as ring tones. Same goes for Nokia, AFAIK. I can't see how the phone carrier can cripple that, since you can transfer the tune with USB or Bluetooth, like this (note that the easiest part of this method is getting the tune to the phone and using it). But I do know that method is crippled on the iPhone. By whom? By Apple, of course.
And you base this on ... exactly nothing. Oh, but maybe Apple can do no wrong? Is that what you think? Instead of being an idiot, perhaps you should ask yourself in whose interest it is that you have to buy your ringtones from ITMS instead of just putting an mp3 on your phone like you can do with almost any other modern phone. Oh yes, that must be the RIAA, not Apple, who make money from selling the ringtones. Frankly, this is absurd.