So you're okay with censorship, so long as it happens in a medium that you personally happen to think is lame, you're okay with the fact that it's now "supportive" of rape, incest, abuse, etc., to state that you are interested in it or that you wish your support group to be found in searches related to such topics. Got it.
I've got news for you: it's still censorship, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's right or acceptable. For some people, that "fucking hobby" can make a huge difference in their lives. I know several sexual abuse survivors who deal with their issues by discussing them in blogs and forums, and their support structure was torn away when some "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" asshole decided that they were offended by such things and went running to mommy screaming about some imagined slight.
Think before you open your mouth and consider the fact that sneering at other peoples' chosen form of communication just makes you look like an elitist asshole.
And that's that when you need someone to call and offer you a job or at least give you an interview, they don't return your calls. But when you don't want to hear from them, they don't go away?
Tell them you're looking for work and want an interview/offer and they'll stop calling for sure.
Actually, Western Union ate the charges -- along with a nice big fat chargeback fee for using fraudulent funds to wire the money. Banks don't accept liability. You don't accept liability. The seller does -- and WU really needs to clean up its act because it's so easy to scan people using it.
Profoundly dead? Nice try... I think you mean "profoundly deaf".
As a hard-of-hearing person myself I find your reaction to be insulting. Someone expected you to help them with their computer (it seems you may be paid to do support?) and contacted you with the only method she had available to her. And you considered it "pestering". If you have had a prepaid phone for all that time I doubt that you find voice calls to be "pestering" and yet when the message comes from a deaf person, you find it aggravating and annoying?
Get some tact, help her out, and don't be so damn rude. How do you think we (deaf/hard of hearing people) feel when we ask for help with something only to be told "we don't do email, CALL our number". If we wanted to call you, WE WOULD HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
People with disabilities can't help it. Rude and arrogant and holier-than-thou treatment from people like you doesn't help us function in an uncaring society any better.
Insensitive clod. And I don't mean that in the Slashdot "running joke" way.
"Is there a company that can step in with a viable replacement for Photoshop or MS Office? Can OpenOffice or GIMP make the final leap to become a reasonable and reliable alternative to those tools? I don't want something that sort of does everything that Photoshop does, I want a professional tool that does everything, and does it equally well.
The door is open, we're just waiting someone to step through."
Apple stepped through that door years ago. You can run every one of those applications on a Macintosh. Photoshop is there. Office is there. Thousands more apps are there -- many of which run more smoothly, look better, and are cross-compatible with Windows versions (same file format). Plus you get to stop dealing with viruses and random scanners trying to infect your system and you don't have to worry about drive-by downloads infecting your system while surfing the Net. There's even an OpenOffice variant that works on Macs.
Cost? Starting at around $700. Yes, it may be a little higher up front but the aggravation and worry you save is worth it -- plus over time the cost is lower. Why are you posting about your wish to drop Microsoft software altogether, when you could have already done it?
No, seriously... different people have different hobbies! Not everyone wants to sit and read a book (although I enjoy reading myself and have a pretty simple TV/etc. setup since I don't spend all my time in front of the TV) but what's with the snark? The simple fact that you think watching movies/TV is distasteful doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same. I guess people have just GOT to feel superior to others...
Not everyone wants to rip everything. A lot of people just want it all to work as designed and have less cable clutter. I have a cable rat's nest behind my computer even though I've tried to use cable ties to organise the mess, and another rat's nest in the living room behind the TV. Instead of having to have separate cables for everything, I'd rather have unified cables -- although, as someone said in another post, the ability to clamp or screw the HDMI cable to the socket would be nice. I used a cable tie to wrap a bunch of cables together, then created some slack in the HDMI cable so that all the other cables (which are pretty firmly attached -- RCA and component cables hang on tightly) support the HDMI cable. It hasn't fallen out yet.
What's stopping you from running cables from the tuner/receiver/dvr/whatever to your speakers directly? That's what I've done. One HDMI cable for video only plus separate audio cables isn't any different from one DVI/component/whatever cable plus a separate audio cable. You still have to run two cables no matter what.
I have my TiVo Series 3 connected to my TV via HDMI and cables going from the TiVo to one set of inputs on my speakers. My DVD player is connected by component to the TV and by another audio cable to the other audio input on the speakers. The TV is set up so that the volume is always at 0.
Fine; go; be exposed to 2 hours of BS made by people who can't even get their damn premise straight. And have fun paying for your overpriced ticket and overpriced popcorn and paying more than you would just waiting for the freaking DVD.
Any movie that thinks it's OK to ruin the VW Beetle joke and try to foist a fucking CAMARO on us that is some piece of domestic shit and totally destroys the joke, rather than pulling the joke entirely and saying "fine, if we can't use a Beetle, we aren't going to use the name at all" is not good in my book.
Any movie that thinks Beagle 2 was a Mars rover, uses footage of a Saturn 5 rocket in the launch shots when it's really easy to get stock footage of the actual launcher used for the Beagle 2 mission (Russian R-7 derivative, NOT the Delta 2 the trailer showed), and then goes on to show shots of a really badly-done Mars Exploration Rover copy, all in a 30-second trailer...
What the fuck are they SMOKING?
If I see it at all I'll do it by waiting for the cheap DVD. Good going. Insult my VW-loving side AND my space-geek side.
There are plenty of other movies I'd like to see this summer and this one isn't going to get my money.
I do exactly that with Apple Mail. If you include a.gif or a.jpg in an email and you are not on my previous correspondents list or in my address book, you go into the spam folder. I have no reason to expect strangers to be sending me images, after all. Mail's spam filter otherwise does a pretty good job combined with those on gmail and google apps.
But does anyone know how to get Mail to actually mark a message as spam and not just shove it into the spam folder?
I have some familiarity with it but even considering the "church" I'm surprised it's this bad. Still, I would think that if the case gets appealed high enough it'll wind up in a larger venue/jurisdiction, whatever the term is, at some point; and cases in which jail is a possible consequence do result in an attorney provided at no charge to the defendant, so it's not quite the same as a civil case in which one has to pay for one's own lawyer.
This needs to get publicized far more than it is and whoever is behind this needs to be forced to back down via public shaming. Seems to me like some prosecutor thought he/she could make a reputation out of this. (And they're right, if "violating civil rights" is something they want on their record, which I doubt).
I don't get it either. We are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to protest has long been protected. No individual or organization has the right to not be offended. Shouldn't his action have been protected under the First Amendment? I would personally have looked into having my accuser prosecuted for violation of my civil rights.
So you're saying that one should just bend over and ask "How far?" when your privacy is illegally violated? A reporter's job is to print the information he or she receives, if he/she feels it relevant to the story being investigated. If someone leaks confidential information, that's their problem, not the reporter's. If you tell me "the sky is blue" and you work for Sky Corp., it's your job, not mine, to know whether or not it's OK for you to tell me that. And if you then illegally pretend to be me to find out how I found out, you are guilty of an offense and should be prosecuted/sued accordingly.
Don't blame the victim -- and that's what they are: victims of crime.
"I think the reporters are probably looking to cash in while they can."
I disagree. I think they're fairly expecting to be compensated for the embarrassment and offense and dirtiness they must feel for being treated like criminals for just doing their jobs. And I'd certainly expect to be handsomely compensated by a huge corporation that can certainly afford to pay the money when that corporation decided it could just ignore the law and violate my privacy.
Am I a greedy bitch? No, I don't think so. I think that doing something ethically, legally, and morally wrong is, well, wrong. If you do something wrong, you should put it right. HP pretended it had done nothing wrong, then it offered a pittance that told the reporters exactly how little HP thought of them and exactly how HP thought it had done nothing wrong. If you do something wrong and can't step up and say "We screwed up" and do it right (and apologies are worth nothing these days, just like "going into rehab" is a joke now) then you should be forced to make it right.
HP did this to itself and it failed to put it right on its own so now HP has to pay.
Looks to me like this is an example of "someone disagrees with me, therefore they are an idiot". So I guess everyone who doesn't fully agree with you is an idiot, and you are the only smart one?
I can see what the poster was saying and I think the points are valid. Does that make me an idiot too?
News flash: different people have different priorities. Get over it. And yourself.
I tried Camino. It didn't support Extensions. I trashed Camino. Extensions are just too useful to me to stop where the browser devs thought I should stop. If Firefox can become more OS-integrated, I'll be happy, but it doesn't suck for me, so far.
As a defense to the case if the warrant is upheld? No. However, you cannot be convicted solely on the basis of evidence that wasn't legally obtained. It is not legal for police to search the house without probable cause, and the argument here was that the warrant was not obtained based on valid probable cause. In other words, the argument was that the police did not legally obtain said incriminating evidence, so it should not be admissible in court. The police would then have to convict based on other, legally-obtained evidence.
Is the first post automatically scored -1 now or something?
I think it must be. I made a perfectly valid comment about something, and it was first because I happened to load the site just when the story popped up, and I got modded as offtopic... just for being the first to comment.
I don't think that's fair, and I don't moderate someone down just for having commented first. I only moderate down first-post posts if that's all they say, or something else equally silly that is obviously an attempt to post first.
Uh... if it happened before you knew you were being sued, what exactly is the crime here? Not being psychic? I'd like to see them prosecute THAT. There's lots of cases where, say, a car holds vital evidence and the owner of the car, not knowing that, has the car cleaned up. You can't exactly hold someone who didn't know about it responsible for a crime as it's not a crime to clean your car when you didn't know why you shouldn't clean it.
(I hope that makes sense).
Or were you really trying to argue that it's legally actionable to not be able to foretell the future?
The cynic in me says "Why would they care? They'll just outsource a lot of those jobs anyway."
The other side of me says "I hope not" since I'm trying to find helpdesk work in a certain area so I can make a move, for personal reasons, later this year.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're okay with censorship, so long as it happens in a medium that you personally happen to think is lame, you're okay with the fact that it's now "supportive" of rape, incest, abuse, etc., to state that you are interested in it or that you wish your support group to be found in searches related to such topics. Got it.
I've got news for you: it's still censorship, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's right or acceptable. For some people, that "fucking hobby" can make a huge difference in their lives. I know several sexual abuse survivors who deal with their issues by discussing them in blogs and forums, and their support structure was torn away when some "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" asshole decided that they were offended by such things and went running to mommy screaming about some imagined slight.
Think before you open your mouth and consider the fact that sneering at other peoples' chosen form of communication just makes you look like an elitist asshole.
And that's that when you need someone to call and offer you a job or at least give you an interview, they don't return your calls. But when you don't want to hear from them, they don't go away?
Tell them you're looking for work and want an interview/offer and they'll stop calling for sure.
Actually, Western Union ate the charges -- along with a nice big fat chargeback fee for using fraudulent funds to wire the money. Banks don't accept liability. You don't accept liability. The seller does -- and WU really needs to clean up its act because it's so easy to scan people using it.
Profoundly dead? Nice try... I think you mean "profoundly deaf".
As a hard-of-hearing person myself I find your reaction to be insulting. Someone expected you to help them with their computer (it seems you may be paid to do support?) and contacted you with the only method she had available to her. And you considered it "pestering". If you have had a prepaid phone for all that time I doubt that you find voice calls to be "pestering" and yet when the message comes from a deaf person, you find it aggravating and annoying?
Get some tact, help her out, and don't be so damn rude. How do you think we (deaf/hard of hearing people) feel when we ask for help with something only to be told "we don't do email, CALL our number". If we wanted to call you, WE WOULD HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
People with disabilities can't help it. Rude and arrogant and holier-than-thou treatment from people like you doesn't help us function in an uncaring society any better.
Insensitive clod. And I don't mean that in the Slashdot "running joke" way.
"Is there a company that can step in with a viable replacement for Photoshop or MS Office? Can OpenOffice or GIMP make the final leap to become a reasonable and reliable alternative to those tools? I don't want something that sort of does everything that Photoshop does, I want a professional tool that does everything, and does it equally well.
The door is open, we're just waiting someone to step through."
Apple stepped through that door years ago. You can run every one of those applications on a Macintosh. Photoshop is there. Office is there. Thousands more apps are there -- many of which run more smoothly, look better, and are cross-compatible with Windows versions (same file format). Plus you get to stop dealing with viruses and random scanners trying to infect your system and you don't have to worry about drive-by downloads infecting your system while surfing the Net. There's even an OpenOffice variant that works on Macs.
Cost? Starting at around $700. Yes, it may be a little higher up front but the aggravation and worry you save is worth it -- plus over time the cost is lower. Why are you posting about your wish to drop Microsoft software altogether, when you could have already done it?
No, seriously ... different people have different hobbies! Not everyone wants to sit and read a book (although I enjoy reading myself and have a pretty simple TV/etc. setup since I don't spend all my time in front of the TV) but what's with the snark? The simple fact that you think watching movies/TV is distasteful doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same. I guess people have just GOT to feel superior to others...
Not everyone wants to rip everything. A lot of people just want it all to work as designed and have less cable clutter. I have a cable rat's nest behind my computer even though I've tried to use cable ties to organise the mess, and another rat's nest in the living room behind the TV. Instead of having to have separate cables for everything, I'd rather have unified cables -- although, as someone said in another post, the ability to clamp or screw the HDMI cable to the socket would be nice. I used a cable tie to wrap a bunch of cables together, then created some slack in the HDMI cable so that all the other cables (which are pretty firmly attached -- RCA and component cables hang on tightly) support the HDMI cable. It hasn't fallen out yet.
What's stopping you from running cables from the tuner/receiver/dvr/whatever to your speakers directly? That's what I've done. One HDMI cable for video only plus separate audio cables isn't any different from one DVI/component/whatever cable plus a separate audio cable. You still have to run two cables no matter what.
...
I have my TiVo Series 3 connected to my TV via HDMI and cables going from the TiVo to one set of inputs on my speakers. My DVD player is connected by component to the TV and by another audio cable to the other audio input on the speakers. The TV is set up so that the volume is always at 0.
Works fine
Fine; go; be exposed to 2 hours of BS made by people who can't even get their damn premise straight. And have fun paying for your overpriced ticket and overpriced popcorn and paying more than you would just waiting for the freaking DVD.
Any movie that thinks it's OK to ruin the VW Beetle joke and try to foist a fucking CAMARO on us that is some piece of domestic shit and totally destroys the joke, rather than pulling the joke entirely and saying "fine, if we can't use a Beetle, we aren't going to use the name at all" is not good in my book.
...
Any movie that thinks Beagle 2 was a Mars rover, uses footage of a Saturn 5 rocket in the launch shots when it's really easy to get stock footage of the actual launcher used for the Beagle 2 mission (Russian R-7 derivative, NOT the Delta 2 the trailer showed), and then goes on to show shots of a really badly-done Mars Exploration Rover copy, all in a 30-second trailer
What the fuck are they SMOKING?
If I see it at all I'll do it by waiting for the cheap DVD. Good going. Insult my VW-loving side AND my space-geek side.
There are plenty of other movies I'd like to see this summer and this one isn't going to get my money.
Neither did you. Where's "Standford"?
They do, but it's pining for the fjords.
I do exactly that with Apple Mail. If you include a .gif or a .jpg in an email and you are not on my previous correspondents list or in my address book, you go into the spam folder. I have no reason to expect strangers to be sending me images, after all. Mail's spam filter otherwise does a pretty good job combined with those on gmail and google apps.
But does anyone know how to get Mail to actually mark a message as spam and not just shove it into the spam folder?
I'm curious -- got a few examples?
I have some familiarity with it but even considering the "church" I'm surprised it's this bad. Still, I would think that if the case gets appealed high enough it'll wind up in a larger venue/jurisdiction, whatever the term is, at some point; and cases in which jail is a possible consequence do result in an attorney provided at no charge to the defendant, so it's not quite the same as a civil case in which one has to pay for one's own lawyer.
This needs to get publicized far more than it is and whoever is behind this needs to be forced to back down via public shaming. Seems to me like some prosecutor thought he/she could make a reputation out of this. (And they're right, if "violating civil rights" is something they want on their record, which I doubt).
Appeal, appeal, appeal.
I don't get it either. We are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to protest has long been protected. No individual or organization has the right to not be offended. Shouldn't his action have been protected under the First Amendment? I would personally have looked into having my accuser prosecuted for violation of my civil rights.
So you're saying that one should just bend over and ask "How far?" when your privacy is illegally violated? A reporter's job is to print the information he or she receives, if he/she feels it relevant to the story being investigated. If someone leaks confidential information, that's their problem, not the reporter's. If you tell me "the sky is blue" and you work for Sky Corp., it's your job, not mine, to know whether or not it's OK for you to tell me that. And if you then illegally pretend to be me to find out how I found out, you are guilty of an offense and should be prosecuted/sued accordingly.
Don't blame the victim -- and that's what they are: victims of crime.
"I think the reporters are probably looking to cash in while they can."
I disagree. I think they're fairly expecting to be compensated for the embarrassment and offense and dirtiness they must feel for being treated like criminals for just doing their jobs. And I'd certainly expect to be handsomely compensated by a huge corporation that can certainly afford to pay the money when that corporation decided it could just ignore the law and violate my privacy.
Am I a greedy bitch? No, I don't think so. I think that doing something ethically, legally, and morally wrong is, well, wrong. If you do something wrong, you should put it right. HP pretended it had done nothing wrong, then it offered a pittance that told the reporters exactly how little HP thought of them and exactly how HP thought it had done nothing wrong. If you do something wrong and can't step up and say "We screwed up" and do it right (and apologies are worth nothing these days, just like "going into rehab" is a joke now) then you should be forced to make it right.
HP did this to itself and it failed to put it right on its own so now HP has to pay.
Looks to me like this is an example of "someone disagrees with me, therefore they are an idiot". So I guess everyone who doesn't fully agree with you is an idiot, and you are the only smart one?
I can see what the poster was saying and I think the points are valid. Does that make me an idiot too?
News flash: different people have different priorities. Get over it. And yourself.
Check out ShapeShifter and Candybar. They change the theme and icon theme, respectively.
And they aren't illegal, like the GP suggested.
I tried Camino. It didn't support Extensions. I trashed Camino. Extensions are just too useful to me to stop where the browser devs thought I should stop. If Firefox can become more OS-integrated, I'll be happy, but it doesn't suck for me, so far.
As a defense to the case if the warrant is upheld? No. However, you cannot be convicted solely on the basis of evidence that wasn't legally obtained. It is not legal for police to search the house without probable cause, and the argument here was that the warrant was not obtained based on valid probable cause. In other words, the argument was that the police did not legally obtain said incriminating evidence, so it should not be admissible in court. The police would then have to convict based on other, legally-obtained evidence.
I think it must be. I made a perfectly valid comment about something, and it was first because I happened to load the site just when the story popped up, and I got modded as offtopic
I don't think that's fair, and I don't moderate someone down just for having commented first. I only moderate down first-post posts if that's all they say, or something else equally silly that is obviously an attempt to post first.
Uh ... if it happened before you knew you were being sued, what exactly is the crime here? Not being psychic? I'd like to see them prosecute THAT. There's lots of cases where, say, a car holds vital evidence and the owner of the car, not knowing that, has the car cleaned up. You can't exactly hold someone who didn't know about it responsible for a crime as it's not a crime to clean your car when you didn't know why you shouldn't clean it.
(I hope that makes sense).
Or were you really trying to argue that it's legally actionable to not be able to foretell the future?
The cynic in me says "Why would they care? They'll just outsource a lot of those jobs anyway."
The other side of me says "I hope not" since I'm trying to find helpdesk work in a certain area so I can make a move, for personal reasons, later this year.