I think it's more that they are voicing the thing that most of us are thinking - that Apple's hype is grossly overrated. Which explains why they have to resort to suing everyone else now.
Not in so many words, but anyone who pre-ordered the Galaxy S3 could keep it, which is what I did. That was the last time you could do it before the subsidy went away. Hopefully this means I won't have to pay to tether now.
The problem is that parent involvement is usually on two polar opposites of the spectrum. Either you have the parents that drop little Johnny off and say "I don't really care, you do all the work in raising my kid," or you have the parents who would love nothing better than to sit with little Susie every day just to see how the teacher is corrupting their little angel. The problem is finding the balance on both sides of this issue. The unions are an issue. Apathetic/psychotic parents are also an issue
Access is an opportunity, not a guarantee. Lots of people arguing seem to believe that a right equals a guarantee, which is much more than the government not being able to ban access.
Exactly. The freedom of press does not guarantee access to a press, no more than the right to bear arms guarantees you access to a gun. It just means that you are allowed, provided you procure the means to do so, to publish something.
No more than congress being able to do the same for access to a printing press. They cannot make it illegal.
However, on the opposite side you also cannot tell congress that it is your constitutional right to have internet or a press. Your only right is that you can publish your opinion via those media, providing you have legal access to them. (ie. you cannot break into a newspaper building and use their press)
So, what. You have a right to run a Gutenberg press, but not to publish a blog?
You have the right to publish a blog, yes, but the ability to get to the internet to publish said blog is not a given, just as publishing a book is a right, but having access to a press to print said book is not a given.
What I don't understand is why it's such a big deal that Microsoft does this. Google's Chrome OS is built from the browser up, it's not like you can remove that. And components from Safari are used for iTunes, etc in Mac OSX. Why don't people go after them about the same issue?
The purpose of all this is so that we, the voters, can know what is going on. How can we vote intelligently when all we are fed is propaganda?
And how do we know what Wikileaks releases is not propaganda to further their own agenda? I am by no means saying that the governments and/or financial institutions are not guilty, but Wikileaks is no less blameless than the ones it is "reporting on." Their methods of obtaining information is no better than those they claim to be informaing against.
The media has never been truthful. Remember Yellow journalism? That had more to do with heads of the media trying to sell more papers than it ever did with being in bed with the government. The media has had a long history of self-serving motives.
I am not saying Assange in particular, but Wikileaks as an organization. Did they disclose the people that are leaking the information to them, such as Manning? How is that any different than a government refusing to release the sources of their information? a lie by omission is still a lie.
I would argue that Assange is not doing this so much for the good of the people, but for the good of his ego.
Next time don't associate with liars and murderers and their cloak-and-dagger bullshit and you won't be so afraid of the truth and the whole truth.
One could argue that Wikileaks does the same thing...In order to obtain the truth from untruthful people, you will ultimately have to tell a few lies yourself. Assange is no better than the people and entities he is outing.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, if you want to support Wal-Mart - but that's another story altogether. Also, it's just TracFone rebranded.
Samsung's panorama feature has been around since at least the Omnia. And it was a function in the Phone app, not a separate app.
One of the keys to Apple's success is the unshakeable conviction that "Nobody wants X--until Apple figures out how to do it right."
Riiiiight...so the antenna snafu was a feature for easily hanging on unwanted calls, right?
I think it's more that they are voicing the thing that most of us are thinking - that Apple's hype is grossly overrated. Which explains why they have to resort to suing everyone else now.
Battery issues? The nook (1st gen at least) had user-replaceable batteries.
Not in so many words, but anyone who pre-ordered the Galaxy S3 could keep it, which is what I did. That was the last time you could do it before the subsidy went away. Hopefully this means I won't have to pay to tether now.
No disassemble!
obligatory Penny Arcade: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/05/25
Because nobody (especially the oh-so-trustworthy phone companies) is snooping on your texts now.
Well, isn't that unforTUNAte?
The problem is that parent involvement is usually on two polar opposites of the spectrum. Either you have the parents that drop little Johnny off and say "I don't really care, you do all the work in raising my kid," or you have the parents who would love nothing better than to sit with little Susie every day just to see how the teacher is corrupting their little angel. The problem is finding the balance on both sides of this issue. The unions are an issue. Apathetic/psychotic parents are also an issue
Do NOT click the 2nd link, people !
Great, now I HAVE to click it! Stupid reverse psychology...
Access is an opportunity, not a guarantee. Lots of people arguing seem to believe that a right equals a guarantee, which is much more than the government not being able to ban access.
Exactly. The freedom of press does not guarantee access to a press, no more than the right to bear arms guarantees you access to a gun. It just means that you are allowed, provided you procure the means to do so, to publish something.
No more than congress being able to do the same for access to a printing press. They cannot make it illegal.
However, on the opposite side you also cannot tell congress that it is your constitutional right to have internet or a press. Your only right is that you can publish your opinion via those media, providing you have legal access to them. (ie. you cannot break into a newspaper building and use their press)
So, what. You have a right to run a Gutenberg press, but not to publish a blog?
You have the right to publish a blog, yes, but the ability to get to the internet to publish said blog is not a given, just as publishing a book is a right, but having access to a press to print said book is not a given.
If the three gorges dam breaks, THEY have a real problem.
FTFY
Sony kind of came out with that...the Playstation Display allows for two people to play fullscreen simultaneously.
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.
I believe the word you are looking for there is confidant...
What I don't understand is why it's such a big deal that Microsoft does this. Google's Chrome OS is built from the browser up, it's not like you can remove that. And components from Safari are used for iTunes, etc in Mac OSX. Why don't people go after them about the same issue?
With regard to your sig...whom is still a used word. Just because people don't bother to learn proper grammar/spelling doesn't make a word irrelevant. "Intensive purposes," however, has never been a quote. "Intents and purposes" is what you are looking for. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_saying_'all_intents_and_purposes'_or_'all_intense_purposes'
Neither are the banks...
The purpose of all this is so that we, the voters, can know what is going on. How can we vote intelligently when all we are fed is propaganda?
And how do we know what Wikileaks releases is not propaganda to further their own agenda? I am by no means saying that the governments and/or financial institutions are not guilty, but Wikileaks is no less blameless than the ones it is "reporting on." Their methods of obtaining information is no better than those they claim to be informaing against.
The media has never been truthful. Remember Yellow journalism? That had more to do with heads of the media trying to sell more papers than it ever did with being in bed with the government. The media has had a long history of self-serving motives.
I am not saying Assange in particular, but Wikileaks as an organization. Did they disclose the people that are leaking the information to them, such as Manning? How is that any different than a government refusing to release the sources of their information? a lie by omission is still a lie.
I would argue that Assange is not doing this so much for the good of the people, but for the good of his ego.
Funny how that's not open to the public. Why don't they practice what they preach, and let everyone see everything about Wikileaks?
Next time don't associate with liars and murderers and their cloak-and-dagger bullshit and you won't be so afraid of the truth and the whole truth.
One could argue that Wikileaks does the same thing...In order to obtain the truth from untruthful people, you will ultimately have to tell a few lies yourself. Assange is no better than the people and entities he is outing.