Seems to me like what you're saying is that now the plebes can afford the stuff you thought was reserved only for the rich. Now, I love my Mac and other Apple products, but I really don't care for the snobbish attitude that some people seem to have about this, or the implied "price-gouging is OK if it keeps the rabble out of my neighborhood"
"I remember a class action lawsuit that sued Mercedes for making a little bought shitty model, on the basis that it cheapened the signaling value of Mercedes cars everywhere."
On what grounds? That a company dare sell to a market that it perceives as a possible source of revenue, when people indicated that they wanted a car from Brand X to be priced at $Y?
What was actionable there? I don't think you can sue for something like that. Now, if the car were unsafe that would be another matter.
... thus contributing to the "this site designed for IE" problem because coders then claim everyone uses IE. Please don't do that. Claim Opera or another alternative browser, if you must.
On top of that, my computer is my computer and no one else's. I can do whatever I wish with my own property, and that includes changing how it displays sites I wish to view, or what software I run on it, or whether or not I install optional components to software, whether through bundled optional addons at install or addons added later.
You may run your Web site however you wish, but you cross a line when you complain about how I use my own property. Who are you, as a webmaster, to dictate what I can and cannot do?
If you ride in on your high horse and start complaining at me because you don't like the fact that I don't click on all your banner ads, maybe you shouldn't use bouncing, flashing, text-covering, sound-blaring crap. D'ya think that JUST MAYBE... there MIGHT be a reason why we don't want that shit?
Now that you mention that, I think they recently changed their policy on when papers are freely available. Good for them; even if the open access movement isn't universally accepted, it's making some journals change their policies.
I admire the Public Library of Science, however, for fully supporting open access (and in fact being founded to promote it). You still pay to publish there, but anyone can read any paper in any of the PLoS journals.
Perhaps they are referring to the occasional exception of "you must pay"? I've seen articles in major journals that are tagged as "free for all to read" even when it is normally the case that articles newer than, say, a year have to be paid for.
I think I've seen it in PNAS and Science, but I haven't kept a running tally. Usually it's articles of massive public interest that have seen wide coverage in the "lay press".
Facebook doesn't care because these people are likely either too addicted to quit or, if some do, there will be plenty of new users to replace them. After all, all the cool people are on there these days... right?
And if these sites removed everything that SOMEONE was offended about, there wouldn't be anything left, hence no users, hence no ads, hence no money.
So, in other words, it's OK to take advantage of people because YOU don't think it's important? Straw men don't remove the fact that we are looking at some very distasteful behavior from those wh should know better. The fact that you sneer at those who protest as somehow being unworthy of protesting doesn't mean that they don't have a very valid point.
Oooooh. Intentionally spelling stores' names with insulting "puns" on their names makes you look SOOO mature and makes other people want to think you know what you're talking about. Oh, please.
If you fire up the game Freespace2 (you can get it for free as Freespace 2 Open), go into a mission, and type "arrrrwalktheplank" you get a galleon complete with cannon.
I did it once in the middle of a huge brawl, and sure enough, the enemy flagship lost interest in the ship I was protecting and started firing on the pirates.
Agreed. And I have hearing loss (birth defect) so I encode at 128. I can hear clipping, but I don't have the fidelity, if that's the right word, to notice compression artifacts as soon as others do. And more than one friend has told me that most of my collection sounds fine to them -- 128 isn't as bad for many people as it's been made out to be. I've got some stuff that sounds awful that I replace/recompress as I catch it, though -- mostly batch imports using settings that didn't work for some songs. Usually things like full orchestral performances and the like.
Have you tried one of those systems that tracks where you look? Perhaps something like that would help you.
Others have suggested mousepads or mice with wrist rests, or trackballs. Also worth a look.
Too bad more browsers don't accomomdate keyboard users well... Firefox, for instance, as good as it is, still skips some form elements when tabbing through forms.
There is an unofficial way to get the eSATA port to work although I'm waiting until the official updates allows it to happen before I do it -- I don't want to lose data. But considering how much History Channel I watch, I hope it's soon because next month I'm getting History Channel HD in my area and I watch a lot of stuff on that channel.
However, the delay isn't CableLabs -- Tivo doesn't need their explicit approval to turn on the port.
That's a nonmoving violation which is handled differently from moving violations. And with those there is no accuser who can be proven to have been driving at the time. With photographing moving cars, it is possible.
"Good start" doesn't equal "issue citation of illegal action without conclusive proof" which is what they are doing. When you try someone you have to have enough evidence to put a case to trial.
These people are being drug into court for something in which the cops claim they think you did something based on evidence which is not really actual evidence that really actually points to a particular individual.
If we really can issue citations against people who own stuff used in crimes, why don't we issue citations against those whose computers spew spam? After all, something they own was used in commission of a crime, so they must be rather likely to be guilty...
And it's not happening. Gee, I wonder if there might be a reason for that.
Maybe, because people with common sense know that these people can't be proven to have knowingly done it?
Because FF is designed to be bare-bones and the user adds whatever they want on their own. It's exactly as designed.
Now if the damn thing would stop opening a tab on its own every time it's updated -- that annoys me that an extension designed to stop unwanted stuff from running on your computer forces something to open that you don't want!
I filed a bug report/complaint. Nice to see this guy has time to shove stuff like this through instead of actually fix his software's rude behavior.
What do I want them to do? Not accuse people without proof. How hard is that?
But instead they'd rather see dollar signs and hope that most people don't know their rights and how to properly challenge baseless unproveable accusations.
Again, no, it isn't reasonable to assume that a car is always being driven by its owner. For one thing, what about family cars? Those are shared. For another, it's way too easy to hand the keys over to a friend. It happens all the time.
On your planet, people never lend things out. On mine, they do.
It would seem that since the actual offender cannot be identified from the photos, it is not reasonable. That would be the whole reason why these aren't allowed in the place the original poster mentioned.
It is not in fact reasonable to automatically assume that the owner of an object is guilty of a crime committed with that object. All you have proof of is that something owned by a particular individual was used in the commission of a crime. You do not have proof that that individual was the guilty party.
You have evidence that would be accepted in a civil case where a preponderance of the evidence is all that is necessary. Not a criminal case where there must not be a reasonable doubt and you have been issued a citation by a police officer or otherwise accused of violation of the law.
All you have to do to get around this is is move the camera and make sure that it has the resolution to photograph the actual suspect, and then you will have enough evidence. But without that crucial piece of evidence, no, you cannot pin the charge on someone. And the post farther up the thread specifically stated that there is no clear image of the suspect.
And read and be educated, and there's lots more out there if you spend a few minutes to research the topic:
Wow, did you miss the point. You yourself admitted that the driver (the guilty party) can't be identified. You can't accuse anyone of doing something illegal and prosecute them unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty. And the accused has a right to face their accuser in court.
So it's trolling now to get pissed off that people are too fucking lazy to get up off their asses and stop whining and stop being about themselves and nothing else?
Yeah, my fucking hell in a fucking handbasket point stands, asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me like what you're saying is that now the plebes can afford the stuff you thought was reserved only for the rich. Now, I love my Mac and other Apple products, but I really don't care for the snobbish attitude that some people seem to have about this, or the implied "price-gouging is OK if it keeps the rabble out of my neighborhood"
"I remember a class action lawsuit that sued Mercedes for making a little bought shitty model, on the basis that it cheapened the signaling value of Mercedes cars everywhere."
On what grounds? That a company dare sell to a market that it perceives as a possible source of revenue, when people indicated that they wanted a car from Brand X to be priced at $Y?
What was actionable there? I don't think you can sue for something like that. Now, if the car were unsafe that would be another matter.
Being asked isn't the problem. Being detained when you say no is.
"Next it's going to be illegal to take toilet breaks during TV ads?"
...
Apparently, yes.
Skipping Commercials Is Stealing According To Turner Ceo - Neowin
... thus contributing to the "this site designed for IE" problem because coders then claim everyone uses IE. Please don't do that. Claim Opera or another alternative browser, if you must.
On top of that, my computer is my computer and no one else's. I can do whatever I wish with my own property, and that includes changing how it displays sites I wish to view, or what software I run on it, or whether or not I install optional components to software, whether through bundled optional addons at install or addons added later.
... there MIGHT be a reason why we don't want that shit?
You may run your Web site however you wish, but you cross a line when you complain about how I use my own property. Who are you, as a webmaster, to dictate what I can and cannot do?
If you ride in on your high horse and start complaining at me because you don't like the fact that I don't click on all your banner ads, maybe you shouldn't use bouncing, flashing, text-covering, sound-blaring crap. D'ya think that JUST MAYBE
You had your chance and you blew it.
Now that you mention that, I think they recently changed their policy on when papers are freely available. Good for them; even if the open access movement isn't universally accepted, it's making some journals change their policies.
I admire the Public Library of Science, however, for fully supporting open access (and in fact being founded to promote it). You still pay to publish there, but anyone can read any paper in any of the PLoS journals.
Perhaps they are referring to the occasional exception of "you must pay"? I've seen articles in major journals that are tagged as "free for all to read" even when it is normally the case that articles newer than, say, a year have to be paid for.
I think I've seen it in PNAS and Science, but I haven't kept a running tally. Usually it's articles of massive public interest that have seen wide coverage in the "lay press".
Facebook doesn't care because these people are likely either too addicted to quit or, if some do, there will be plenty of new users to replace them. After all, all the cool people are on there these days ... right?
And if these sites removed everything that SOMEONE was offended about, there wouldn't be anything left, hence no users, hence no ads, hence no money.
So, in other words, it's OK to take advantage of people because YOU don't think it's important? Straw men don't remove the fact that we are looking at some very distasteful behavior from those wh should know better. The fact that you sneer at those who protest as somehow being unworthy of protesting doesn't mean that they don't have a very valid point.
Oooooh. Intentionally spelling stores' names with insulting "puns" on their names makes you look SOOO mature and makes other people want to think you know what you're talking about. Oh, please.
If you fire up the game Freespace2 (you can get it for free as Freespace 2 Open), go into a mission, and type "arrrrwalktheplank" you get a galleon complete with cannon.
I did it once in the middle of a huge brawl, and sure enough, the enemy flagship lost interest in the ship I was protecting and started firing on the pirates.
Arrrr! Walk the plank!
Saavy?
Agreed. And I have hearing loss (birth defect) so I encode at 128. I can hear clipping, but I don't have the fidelity, if that's the right word, to notice compression artifacts as soon as others do. And more than one friend has told me that most of my collection sounds fine to them -- 128 isn't as bad for many people as it's been made out to be. I've got some stuff that sounds awful that I replace/recompress as I catch it, though -- mostly batch imports using settings that didn't work for some songs. Usually things like full orchestral performances and the like.
Have you tried one of those systems that tracks where you look? Perhaps something like that would help you.
Others have suggested mousepads or mice with wrist rests, or trackballs. Also worth a look.
Too bad more browsers don't accomomdate keyboard users well... Firefox, for instance, as good as it is, still skips some form elements when tabbing through forms.
There is an unofficial way to get the eSATA port to work although I'm waiting until the official updates allows it to happen before I do it -- I don't want to lose data. But considering how much History Channel I watch, I hope it's soon because next month I'm getting History Channel HD in my area and I watch a lot of stuff on that channel.
However, the delay isn't CableLabs -- Tivo doesn't need their explicit approval to turn on the port.
I don't see where a server is being run here.
Are you SERIOUSLY thinking about buying internet access from BEST BUY?! You must be absolutely mental.
And sends a message to them that people don't care that they are reporting your Internet use to the NSA. Good going.
That's a nonmoving violation which is handled differently from moving violations. And with those there is no accuser who can be proven to have been driving at the time. With photographing moving cars, it is possible.
"Good start" doesn't equal "issue citation of illegal action without conclusive proof" which is what they are doing. When you try someone you have to have enough evidence to put a case to trial.
...
These people are being drug into court for something in which the cops claim they think you did something based on evidence which is not really actual evidence that really actually points to a particular individual.
If we really can issue citations against people who own stuff used in crimes, why don't we issue citations against those whose computers spew spam? After all, something they own was used in commission of a crime, so they must be rather likely to be guilty
And it's not happening. Gee, I wonder if there might be a reason for that.
Maybe, because people with common sense know that these people can't be proven to have knowingly done it?
Because FF is designed to be bare-bones and the user adds whatever they want on their own. It's exactly as designed.
Now if the damn thing would stop opening a tab on its own every time it's updated -- that annoys me that an extension designed to stop unwanted stuff from running on your computer forces something to open that you don't want!
I filed a bug report/complaint. Nice to see this guy has time to shove stuff like this through instead of actually fix his software's rude behavior.
What do I want them to do? Not accuse people without proof. How hard is that?
But instead they'd rather see dollar signs and hope that most people don't know their rights and how to properly challenge baseless unproveable accusations.
Again, no, it isn't reasonable to assume that a car is always being driven by its owner. For one thing, what about family cars? Those are shared. For another, it's way too easy to hand the keys over to a friend. It happens all the time.
On your planet, people never lend things out. On mine, they do.
It would seem that since the actual offender cannot be identified from the photos, it is not reasonable. That would be the whole reason why these aren't allowed in the place the original poster mentioned.
7 331.html
It is not in fact reasonable to automatically assume that the owner of an object is guilty of a crime committed with that object. All you have proof of is that something owned by a particular individual was used in the commission of a crime. You do not have proof that that individual was the guilty party.
You have evidence that would be accepted in a civil case where a preponderance of the evidence is all that is necessary. Not a criminal case where there must not be a reasonable doubt and you have been issued a citation by a police officer or otherwise accused of violation of the law.
All you have to do to get around this is is move the camera and make sure that it has the resolution to photograph the actual suspect, and then you will have enough evidence. But without that crucial piece of evidence, no, you cannot pin the charge on someone. And the post farther up the thread specifically stated that there is no clear image of the suspect.
And read and be educated, and there's lots more out there if you spend a few minutes to research the topic:
http://weekendpundit.blogmosis.com/lastweekend/02
http://www.local6.com/news/13686476/detail.html
Wow, did you miss the point. You yourself admitted that the driver (the guilty party) can't be identified. You can't accuse anyone of doing something illegal and prosecute them unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty. And the accused has a right to face their accuser in court.
So it's trolling now to get pissed off that people are too fucking lazy to get up off their asses and stop whining and stop being about themselves and nothing else?
Yeah, my fucking hell in a fucking handbasket point stands, asshole.