At the end of Tom Clancy's novel "The Sum Of All Fears" (or, at least in the copy I have), there is a note from the author in which he states that while researching the book, he taught himself how to build a nuclear bomb. He states that he was surprised at the ease of obtaining such information, and especially that he could order it to be sent by overnight delivery directly to his doorstep.
(The book does not provide anything that would be classified although it does describe in detail how critical mass is achieved and how the bombs are triggered and why they are perfectly safe before being detonated, and it also states in several places that the precision required to build a bomb is way out of reach of anyone who doesn't have very specialized, expensive, restricted equipment -- and also clearly describes what happens if the bomb isn't assembled correctly. Nothing to fear from the book's existence).
So, you can distribute not only designs (although probably not in great detail) but also how to build one -- and Clancy at least explains why it's perfectly legal.
It wasn't stolen goods if the store sold it to a customer. As soon as the money is exchanged and the product given to the customer, it's legally the customer's and a violation of the right of first sale to dictate what they then do with it, as long as they aren't copying it.
They didn't copy it, and they legally bought it from a retailer, so no law has been broken. They merely described their opinion of it. That's legal.
Yeah. I agree, and I don't get it either. It's one thing to guess where a user is, another to guess wrong and refuse them business. I'd say the OP should write polite but firm letters telling these companies how much business they lost from refusing to override their mistaken guesses.
The only 'grief' you've elaborated on is being shown ads (which most everyone on slashdot probably blocks or ignores anyway) in French. That hardly seems tangible. Can you elaborate in a comment, please?
Article summary says "Certain sites won't sell me goods or services because they don't do business in Canada."
I'm laughing at you because you think you know better what the situation is, what the road is like, and why I might be driving the way I do. I'm also laughing at you because you still can't get over the fact that breaking the law isn't an excuse to be a dipshit toward other people. I'm also laughing at you because you have made multiple assumptions, all because you have blinders on that lead to "this person is an idiot" and can't rip them off long enough to realize that the world does not revolve around you and that you really need to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you start screaming at them.
Yes. I am laughing at you. I have tried repeatedly to correct your erroneous beliefs and now I can see that you are not going to admit that you are wrong, no matter what. You've admitted, even if you didn't intend to, that you and others are driving illegally and that you believe this is justified, and that alone yanks away any and all sympathy I might have had for you.
Go find someone else to intimidate. As you can tell, I'm not backing down. Leave five minutes earlier next time and calm the hell down or go beat up a stuffed animal if that's what it takes to get rid of your superiority complex against people who haven't done a damn thing wrong.
No, I'm just trying to drive home, and if I need to be in a particular lane I will be in it and I don't give a damn if some idiot is late for his appointment with his mistress, that doesn't give him the right to run me off the road.
I drive at the legal limit, in a legal travel lane, and according to the law.
If you want to prattle on about "human decency", go look at the asshole who thinks he's more important than law-abiding citizens and puts their lives in danger for his selfish greedy purposes.
Again, what do you think extra travel lanes are FOR? In fact, on the road I drive home an additional travel lane is being added. Are we all supposed to then never use that lane? Is it only for lawbreakers?
I don't think so.
Human decency isn't a cloak under which to hide selfish, illegal, and dangerous actions.
Excuse ME? How is it breaking the law to drive at legally allowed speed limits in a legally allowed travel lane? Are you suggesting that we all drive along in the right lane? If the universe bowed down to your will, it'd take me an hour to drive five miles! Did it not occur to YOU that you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PASS if doing so means BREAKING THE LAW, which speeding is? I guess not, and I don't understand why that is so complicated for people like you who put their "right" to break the law above the rights and safety of other people.
And yes, it is whining if you're going to sit here and bitch and complain and get upset when people dare to say "no, I will not do what you want, I am behaving legally, you are not".
Arguing that you should be able to break the law, screw anyone else who might be behaving according to it, and in a way that makes people angry and demonstrably makes the road a more dangerous place to be has already proven somewhat conclusively (at least to me) that you are an idiot. As such, you do not seem like you are fit to author forum comments. Get the hell off Slashdot before the place gets any dumber.
Generally, vehicles used for wheelchair hauling (and/or being driven by wheelchair users directly) are vans, not SUVs. SUVs aren't cut out for that kind of thing, while a van can be fitted with a ramp and the driver's seat removed so that the wheelchair can be loaded and locked into the driver's position without assistance.
Can't do that in an SUV.
I work across the street from a major local hospital, so I see a lot of wheelchair-fitted vehicles. Haven't seen a single one that's an SUV. Mostly vans and minivans. (Once I even saw a VW Vanagon in that role. I gave the guy a thumbs-up as I'm a VW owner/fan).
Where did I mention grammar nazis? Where did anyone else? I was responding to someone who slammed someone just for not putting their name to their post, and no grammar nazi-ing was involved anywhere, just "you suck because you were anonymous".
And why should I have posted that anonymously? You're seeing grammar whining where there is none.
Why not? It makes much more sense to me, is easier, is used worldwide except for 2-3 countries, so it's readily understood nearly everywhere. It's not wank if it makes sense.
I am a Mac user too and I'm typing this on yet another Macbook Pro. But that doesn't change the fact that it's OS X, not an X window environment of any sort (Gnome etc). and so works on different paradigms.
Oh, it's UNIX-based in part. But that doesn't mean it's going to obey Unix conventions, is my point. If you want "real" unix, you're in the wrong place.
So make it bigger vertically. You can resize itunes, you know. And you can click on the right-pointing arrow to make the equalizer show. Good grief, why not just TRY it? Or are you hell-bent on just complaining? Besides, if it's up in the corner while you work, do you really need to stare at the playlist and equalizer all the time?
You can minimize it even more to see just play/pause/skip/back and not the rest, too.
Seriously. Try it. I've already told you a lot. Your turn to try instead of complain about features the software had that you don't seem to want to actually use.
I looked at your link, and I also know that an employer needs to hire the best person for the job. As I said before, they don't have a shortage of applicants. ALL employers use your work history to help them decide whether or not to hire you. If they decide working for company X makes you unfit for the job at hand, then that's their decision. I would think it rarer than people seem to think that just the identity of your employer is the problem.
If they think "you had job X, we don't feel comfortable with that" they'll just move on down the list. Doesn't matter what the criteria are. They'll just move on. They don't even have to tell you why you didn't get the job -- it sucks when companies don't, but legally they don't.
Google is also failing miserably in hiring military vets. That's a big no-no. I expect them to get in serious trouble for that.
Where exactly is there a law that states that you have to preferentially hire them? Google is not the government. If Google doesn't want to hire someone because they're a vet, they're perfectly free to do so. It's not a protected class. Lots of employers at varying times decide they aren't going to hire someone due to something in the applicant's past work history, and it's all perfectly legal as long as they aren't doing it based on some protected class (race is the best-known example, most likely).
Sure, some people might get upset about it, but there's nothing they can do to change it unless they become responsible for hiring at a company with such a practice.
And I don't see Google having problems getting applicants.
I missed the part where MacOS was the same thing as Unix. If you want Unix behavior, use Unix. Some people, apparently including the designers of iTunes, don't want a zillion apps when one will do.
What more do you want? You can put that in the corner of your screen. You can play, pause, forward/back, see what's playing, and not take up your whole screen to do it.
Oh come on. Unless you are riding some total piece of junk the engine is just as reliable as a car engine. Do you see drivers of cars revving (aside from idiot racers) at stoplights?
Seriously, why are people so damn fixated on "chick car" or "boy-racer car"? What does it matter? How exactly is a car declared to be one or the other?
I'm female, and I drive a 2007 VW GTI. Stereotype THAT.
Slashdot Mirror
At the end of Tom Clancy's novel "The Sum Of All Fears" (or, at least in the copy I have), there is a note from the author in which he states that while researching the book, he taught himself how to build a nuclear bomb. He states that he was surprised at the ease of obtaining such information, and especially that he could order it to be sent by overnight delivery directly to his doorstep.
(The book does not provide anything that would be classified although it does describe in detail how critical mass is achieved and how the bombs are triggered and why they are perfectly safe before being detonated, and it also states in several places that the precision required to build a bomb is way out of reach of anyone who doesn't have very specialized, expensive, restricted equipment -- and also clearly describes what happens if the bomb isn't assembled correctly. Nothing to fear from the book's existence).
So, you can distribute not only designs (although probably not in great detail) but also how to build one -- and Clancy at least explains why it's perfectly legal.
It wasn't stolen goods if the store sold it to a customer. As soon as the money is exchanged and the product given to the customer, it's legally the customer's and a violation of the right of first sale to dictate what they then do with it, as long as they aren't copying it.
They didn't copy it, and they legally bought it from a retailer, so no law has been broken. They merely described their opinion of it. That's legal.
Yeah. I agree, and I don't get it either. It's one thing to guess where a user is, another to guess wrong and refuse them business. I'd say the OP should write polite but firm letters telling these companies how much business they lost from refusing to override their mistaken guesses.
Article summary says "Certain sites won't sell me goods or services because they don't do business in Canada."
That's a lot worse than inline ads.
Bla bla bla.
I'm laughing at you because you think you know better what the situation is, what the road is like, and why I might be driving the way I do. I'm also laughing at you because you still can't get over the fact that breaking the law isn't an excuse to be a dipshit toward other people. I'm also laughing at you because you have made multiple assumptions, all because you have blinders on that lead to "this person is an idiot" and can't rip them off long enough to realize that the world does not revolve around you and that you really need to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you start screaming at them.
Yes. I am laughing at you. I have tried repeatedly to correct your erroneous beliefs and now I can see that you are not going to admit that you are wrong, no matter what. You've admitted, even if you didn't intend to, that you and others are driving illegally and that you believe this is justified, and that alone yanks away any and all sympathy I might have had for you.
Go find someone else to intimidate. As you can tell, I'm not backing down. Leave five minutes earlier next time and calm the hell down or go beat up a stuffed animal if that's what it takes to get rid of your superiority complex against people who haven't done a damn thing wrong.
No, I'm just trying to drive home, and if I need to be in a particular lane I will be in it and I don't give a damn if some idiot is late for his appointment with his mistress, that doesn't give him the right to run me off the road.
I drive at the legal limit, in a legal travel lane, and according to the law.
If you want to prattle on about "human decency", go look at the asshole who thinks he's more important than law-abiding citizens and puts their lives in danger for his selfish greedy purposes.
Again, what do you think extra travel lanes are FOR? In fact, on the road I drive home an additional travel lane is being added. Are we all supposed to then never use that lane? Is it only for lawbreakers?
I don't think so.
Human decency isn't a cloak under which to hide selfish, illegal, and dangerous actions.
Excuse ME? How is it breaking the law to drive at legally allowed speed limits in a legally allowed travel lane? Are you suggesting that we all drive along in the right lane? If the universe bowed down to your will, it'd take me an hour to drive five miles! Did it not occur to YOU that you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PASS if doing so means BREAKING THE LAW, which speeding is? I guess not, and I don't understand why that is so complicated for people like you who put their "right" to break the law above the rights and safety of other people.
And yes, it is whining if you're going to sit here and bitch and complain and get upset when people dare to say "no, I will not do what you want, I am behaving legally, you are not".
Arguing that you should be able to break the law, screw anyone else who might be behaving according to it, and in a way that makes people angry and demonstrably makes the road a more dangerous place to be has already proven somewhat conclusively (at least to me) that you are an idiot. As such, you do not seem like you are fit to author forum comments. Get the hell off Slashdot before the place gets any dumber.
I ordered Spore yesterday on Amazon about an hour before seeing this.
I let my mind simmer on the issue overnight.
I just cancelled my order, and included the URL to this story in my reason for cancellation.
We shall see if EA earns enough respect for me to re-place it, but I'm not hopeful.
Generally, vehicles used for wheelchair hauling (and/or being driven by wheelchair users directly) are vans, not SUVs. SUVs aren't cut out for that kind of thing, while a van can be fitted with a ramp and the driver's seat removed so that the wheelchair can be loaded and locked into the driver's position without assistance.
Can't do that in an SUV.
I work across the street from a major local hospital, so I see a lot of wheelchair-fitted vehicles. Haven't seen a single one that's an SUV. Mostly vans and minivans. (Once I even saw a VW Vanagon in that role. I gave the guy a thumbs-up as I'm a VW owner/fan).
Where did I mention grammar nazis? Where did anyone else? I was responding to someone who slammed someone just for not putting their name to their post, and no grammar nazi-ing was involved anywhere, just "you suck because you were anonymous".
And why should I have posted that anonymously? You're seeing grammar whining where there is none.
I don't get what it is about SUVs that turns people into assholes. Maybe with luck Chevy will lose so much money that they will kill the Suburban.
Why not? It makes much more sense to me, is easier, is used worldwide except for 2-3 countries, so it's readily understood nearly everywhere. It's not wank if it makes sense.
Don't have fink, but yep I have. I'm using iterm instead of Terminal. I'm not currently using Fink, but I have in the past.
I am a Mac user too and I'm typing this on yet another Macbook Pro. But that doesn't change the fact that it's OS X, not an X window environment of any sort (Gnome etc). and so works on different paradigms.
Oh, it's UNIX-based in part. But that doesn't mean it's going to obey Unix conventions, is my point. If you want "real" unix, you're in the wrong place.
So make it bigger vertically. You can resize itunes, you know. And you can click on the right-pointing arrow to make the equalizer show. Good grief, why not just TRY it? Or are you hell-bent on just complaining? Besides, if it's up in the corner while you work, do you really need to stare at the playlist and equalizer all the time?
You can minimize it even more to see just play/pause/skip/back and not the rest, too.
Seriously. Try it. I've already told you a lot. Your turn to try instead of complain about features the software had that you don't seem to want to actually use.
I looked at your link, and I also know that an employer needs to hire the best person for the job. As I said before, they don't have a shortage of applicants. ALL employers use your work history to help them decide whether or not to hire you. If they decide working for company X makes you unfit for the job at hand, then that's their decision. I would think it rarer than people seem to think that just the identity of your employer is the problem.
If they think "you had job X, we don't feel comfortable with that" they'll just move on down the list. Doesn't matter what the criteria are. They'll just move on. They don't even have to tell you why you didn't get the job -- it sucks when companies don't, but legally they don't.
In other words, anyone who wants to say something without their name being attached to it is an idiot. I'm sure Deep Throat would love to meet you.
Where exactly is there a law that states that you have to preferentially hire them? Google is not the government. If Google doesn't want to hire someone because they're a vet, they're perfectly free to do so. It's not a protected class. Lots of employers at varying times decide they aren't going to hire someone due to something in the applicant's past work history, and it's all perfectly legal as long as they aren't doing it based on some protected class (race is the best-known example, most likely).
Sure, some people might get upset about it, but there's nothing they can do to change it unless they become responsible for hiring at a company with such a practice.
And I don't see Google having problems getting applicants.
I missed the part where MacOS was the same thing as Unix. If you want Unix behavior, use Unix. Some people, apparently including the designers of iTunes, don't want a zillion apps when one will do.
Why are you swearing and spitting and looking silly instead of using the minimized mode?
iTunes5.png (PNG Image, 478×90 pixels)
What more do you want? You can put that in the corner of your screen. You can play, pause, forward/back, see what's playing, and not take up your whole screen to do it.
You're always supposed to yield when entering a highway. The signs aren't always there because you're supposed to know this from driver training.
Oh come on. Unless you are riding some total piece of junk the engine is just as reliable as a car engine. Do you see drivers of cars revving (aside from idiot racers) at stoplights?
Not exactly.
What if the poster really is female?
Seriously, why are people so damn fixated on "chick car" or "boy-racer car"? What does it matter? How exactly is a car declared to be one or the other?
I'm female, and I drive a 2007 VW GTI. Stereotype THAT.