because vegetables and plants have their own minds too
No they don't. Without a central nervous system, where does the "mind" come in?
some plants (especially in rain forests) defend themself when an enemy goes closer
Is it merely a reflex decision, or do they have to think about it? The concept of mind and consciousness comes in only when a decision has to be made. It'd be useless for consciousness or a mind to evolve in a plant which never needed to make a "decision". It would therefore never evolve as a feature.
But as mentioned, no Central Nervous System - ergo no mind, consciousness, thought, or pain. As far as I'm concerned, plants are biological machines
My dear chap, you really don't understand the full scope of either anti trust laws or anti competitive laws do you? In any case, most other phones in the US are also sold with a contract, so the whole "go to another carrier" is bullshit.
I think you're under the assumption that this is a free market. It's not. It's an Oligopoly and desperately needs regulation so that companies can't collude to charge higher prices without offering the customer a tangible benefit.
The intent of Anti trust laws is to prevent the collusion of companies for the sole purpose of greed. That is what's happening here. Since you don't seem to get this fundamental principle in spite of all that's been written till now, there's no further point in trying to convince you. Over and out.
All that's very well, but customers are forced to buy the locked version. They should instead let customers buy the unlocked phone without a contract for $700 (say) if they want, and then say that if they bought the subsidized version, they can't unlock it/jailbreak it. But those who paid in full can do what they want with their device that they fully paid for.
I have never read just the headlines for a news story I'm interested in. I always want more. And the synopsis that Google carries on Google news is just a couple of lines - maybe less. So putting out headlines and a line or so of synopsis makes perfect sense IMHO.
Dude, if you think that cows (or any other animals we eat) are happy before they die and are treated well, you're laboring under a heavy illusion. Their lives are pretty fucked up both before they come to die and while they die as well.
In this regard, I can confidently say that their lives are not happy.
Let's use the same logic for people to eat their parents and children too! I mean wtf - we're trying to clean the planet for the sake of those who live on it - not kill those who live on it so that we can drive more SUVs!
Yes, but it's also a one functionality device which I have to think about carrying everywhere unlike an all in one handheld. I would buy it at the current price if it was everything I needed - in essence a computer where I can download books and read them.
Till then, no go I'm afraid...
$260? I'll buy an ereader when the price drops below $100. Till then I'll read on my handheld (iPod Touch as of now) as I've been doing for the past 5 years...
I don't understand why the Firefox browser allows an external party to do stuff like this. IMHO, no third party should be allowed to add something that cannot be disabled.
I really think this whole "sex with teenagers is predatory" is nonsense. Sex isn't such a big deal - the more you think it's so important, the more protective and squeamish you'll be.
As far as nature goes, sex can take place as soon as puberty is entered. It's just a function of modern society that has kept increasing the legal age of consent. It's your imagination that makes you think it's "dangerous" or "harmful" - it aint no such thing and aint no big deal either.
It's just a biological function like eating. Our ancestors used to bear children when they were much much younger with no terrible mental scarring. It's just that it was accepted and so was harmless.
I don't see anything wrong with the intent of the question. Maybe he read it and found it too complex. Maybe he didn't understand it at all. Maybe he didn't read it and thought Slashdotters could give the best answer - in any case, no one's forcing you to answer his question.
This is probably a move to protect itself from someone else doing the same. Some time ago, a US based Yoga teacher tried to patent some yogic positions, and there was a furor in India for obvious reasons. It happened again for Basmati rice which is grown in India - someone from another country patented it. I'm guessing the Malaysians are doing this so that the same thing doesn't happen to their foods.
Does this mean that Apple can't discriminate between wifi and regular internet connection? Can they be taken to court for not allowing Skype to use regular Internet Server over EDGE? What about Google Voice? Does this sort of legislation ensure that carriers can be treated as "dumb pipes"?
It reduces billable minutes for AT&T right?
Wrong. That's Skype or Truphone. Google Voice still uses ATT minutes, dialing Google who takes it from there. So no, there's no threatened revenue loss. Loss of dignity? Maybe:)
So if you bought an "illegal" (not known at the time though) book from B&N, you could come home one day, find it gone from your table and a cheque for the amount you paid for it lying where the book should have been.
And since you locked the door when you went out, B&N picked the lock with a skeleton key. They just took an "illegal" book out of your house without your permission.
Slashdot Mirror
because vegetables and plants have their own minds too
No they don't. Without a central nervous system, where does the "mind" come in?
some plants (especially in rain forests) defend themself when an enemy goes closer
Is it merely a reflex decision, or do they have to think about it? The concept of mind and consciousness comes in only when a decision has to be made. It'd be useless for consciousness or a mind to evolve in a plant which never needed to make a "decision". It would therefore never evolve as a feature.
But as mentioned, no Central Nervous System - ergo no mind, consciousness, thought, or pain. As far as I'm concerned, plants are biological machines
BTW: If this proves viable, expect the patent to be bought by someone who will fight/bribe tooth and nail to have "Animal Slavery" outlawed
That will be a bad thing?
Since lobbying and bribery accomplish so much muck, why not let them have a beneficial effect for a change?
Just relax. That was supposed to be sarcastic.
My dear chap, you really don't understand the full scope of either anti trust laws or anti competitive laws do you? In any case, most other phones in the US are also sold with a contract, so the whole "go to another carrier" is bullshit.
I think you're under the assumption that this is a free market. It's not. It's an Oligopoly and desperately needs regulation so that companies can't collude to charge higher prices without offering the customer a tangible benefit.
The intent of Anti trust laws is to prevent the collusion of companies for the sole purpose of greed. That is what's happening here. Since you don't seem to get this fundamental principle in spite of all that's been written till now, there's no further point in trying to convince you. Over and out.
That's all going to change. AT&T's behavior is anti competitive and monopolistic and will be brought to book.
The FCC and other Senators are already putting the gears in motion.
Ok, I'm going to repeat this once more - listen carefully.
"Their behavior is monopolistic and anti competitive"
Reason enough to force them to do the right thing.
That's the problem. They will not do it therefore they must be forced to.
Their behavior is monopolistic and anti competitive and is only meant to squeeze the customer without offering a concrete benefit.
Apparently this doesn't apply to the iPhone
Unfortunately your logic can also be applied to justify any number of anti competitive and monopolistic behavior.
Perhaps you believe that there should be no anti trust cases. Perhaps you believe that AT&T in its early years was doing nothing wrong.
Perhaps you believe that the "free market" is actually free.
Oh wait....
Why should they, besides the fact that you want them to do so?
a) They can change carriers at will - maybe get a pre paid plan on their phone
b) They can just stop using the phone if they don't want to keep paying for two years
c) When they move to another country they can just pull out the SIM and dump in another local one
d) They can buy another phone after just a few months if they want and throw the last one into the dustbin.
Seriously dude, there are soooo many benefits to having a non contractual fully unlocked phone. I'm surprised I have to point them out to you.
All that's very well, but customers are forced to buy the locked version. They should instead let customers buy the unlocked phone without a contract for $700 (say) if they want, and then say that if they bought the subsidized version, they can't unlock it/jailbreak it. But those who paid in full can do what they want with their device that they fully paid for.
If you're one of the top 1000 sites, you don't need the 1 Mill that bad in return for a poor rep.
I have never read just the headlines for a news story I'm interested in. I always want more. And the synopsis that Google carries on Google news is just a couple of lines - maybe less. So putting out headlines and a line or so of synopsis makes perfect sense IMHO.
Dude, if you think that cows (or any other animals we eat) are happy before they die and are treated well, you're laboring under a heavy illusion. Their lives are pretty fucked up both before they come to die and while they die as well.
In this regard, I can confidently say that their lives are not happy.
Let's use the same logic for people to eat their parents and children too! I mean wtf - we're trying to clean the planet for the sake of those who live on it - not kill those who live on it so that we can drive more SUVs!
Yes, but it's also a one functionality device which I have to think about carrying everywhere unlike an all in one handheld. I would buy it at the current price if it was everything I needed - in essence a computer where I can download books and read them.
Till then, no go I'm afraid...
$260? I'll buy an ereader when the price drops below $100. Till then I'll read on my handheld (iPod Touch as of now) as I've been doing for the past 5 years...
I don't understand why the Firefox browser allows an external party to do stuff like this. IMHO, no third party should be allowed to add something that cannot be disabled.
I really think this whole "sex with teenagers is predatory" is nonsense. Sex isn't such a big deal - the more you think it's so important, the more protective and squeamish you'll be.
As far as nature goes, sex can take place as soon as puberty is entered. It's just a function of modern society that has kept increasing the legal age of consent. It's your imagination that makes you think it's "dangerous" or "harmful" - it aint no such thing and aint no big deal either.
It's just a biological function like eating. Our ancestors used to bear children when they were much much younger with no terrible mental scarring. It's just that it was accepted and so was harmless.
I don't see anything wrong with the intent of the question. Maybe he read it and found it too complex. Maybe he didn't understand it at all. Maybe he didn't read it and thought Slashdotters could give the best answer - in any case, no one's forcing you to answer his question.
This is probably a move to protect itself from someone else doing the same. Some time ago, a US based Yoga teacher tried to patent some yogic positions, and there was a furor in India for obvious reasons. It happened again for Basmati rice which is grown in India - someone from another country patented it. I'm guessing the Malaysians are doing this so that the same thing doesn't happen to their foods.
OMG I can't believe it! You're right! This is a bit too blatant to be true, but there it is.
Also in the results: "Why do macs cost so much" etc....what the hell has cost got to do with it now?
Does this mean that Apple can't discriminate between wifi and regular internet connection? Can they be taken to court for not allowing Skype to use regular Internet Server over EDGE? What about Google Voice? Does this sort of legislation ensure that carriers can be treated as "dumb pipes"?
Hoping against hope here...
It reduces billable minutes for AT&T right? Wrong. That's Skype or Truphone. Google Voice still uses ATT minutes, dialing Google who takes it from there. So no, there's no threatened revenue loss. Loss of dignity? Maybe :)
So if you bought an "illegal" (not known at the time though) book from B&N, you could come home one day, find it gone from your table and a cheque for the amount you paid for it lying where the book should have been.
And since you locked the door when you went out, B&N picked the lock with a skeleton key. They just took an "illegal" book out of your house without your permission.
But I guess you're ok with that.