I remember reading recently that the Appendix kick starts beneficial bacterial growth in the digestive track. I just can't remember the details nor the source zine.
Then again, even Swiss German work ethics are going down the drain since we have this overwhelming influx of German and French managers who, incidentally, learnt their 'tricks' from the USA.
Kinda like South Africa with Apartheid huh? I'm beginning to see a pattern of epic failures for countries that think they can do things on par with, and have similar outcomes as their American counter-parts.
Agreed. There's a reason the term "cutting edge" is used to describe cutting edge science, and in cutting edge science, well, if it worked perfectly the first time it probably wasn't very ambitious.
You mean like all those poor astronauts that died the first few times we went to the Moon? Oh.. wait... I guess I was wrong since traveling the Moon wasn't very ambitious and didn't use cutting edge science.
So you don't lock your door? Okay. Probably don't keep guns in the house, either? That would be enforcing a rule with a technological solution, and you don't do that.
If you think I'm misusing words, and it is obvious, maybe you could post your interpretation of those words for all to see? That would be entertaining. But the 'all to see' part is pure fantasy, it's just you and me here, bub. Who else do you think is reading this days old thread?
I get it! You aren't sociopathic, you're narcissistic! It's very close to sociopathic, so you can see why I was confused.
How exactly does your door lock, "technological solution," equate to a real world enforcement of a rule, and which rule?
Breaking and entering? Nope, because I broke your lock, your door, or something else and got in anyway. Trespassing? Nope, because I ignored your "No Trespassing" sign and proceeded anyway. Burglary? Nope again, since I made it passed your sign, and your "technological solution," and you're not home; so I robbed you blind anyway.
I do agree you are living in pure fantasy thinking that a small piece of metal bolted to some wood is enforcing your states B&E or trespassing laws, and, you know, not the different branches of the government that were setup specifically to do that.
I think you are batshit insane for actually thinking that the mere existence of a rule constitutes enforcement of itself, and on that note, I bid you ado.
I suppose this is true if your car was built well before the 1980's when fuel injection and engine control units were mainstreamed. For example, I have a friend who owns an early 00's Nissan Sentra SpecV SE-R which comes from the factory with an encrypted ECU. This prevents him from swapping certain parts and making certain modifications. The DMCA made it illegal for us to reverse-engineer the ECU and crack the DRM so that we may make modifications to his engine.
The officials who passed this into law should be lined up and executed by firing squad. The officials who drafted it should be put to death slowly by torture, with periodic intervals of medical rest and recuperation (Seven style).
Industry and trade associations estimate that counterfeiting and piracy now cost the U.S. economy as much as $250 billion a year and a total of 750,000 American jobs.
I mean, aside from being pulled out of thin air that is?
I also like how they don't add any details, such as Iraq having once owned stolen mint plates from the US Treasury, thus allowing them to literally print their own US money. I'm sure some kids taking apart their toys is somehow MUCH worse than that...
No, YOU don't understand the difference between a freedom and a right. And you don't understand what enforcement is, either. Here's a clue for you: this IS enforcement. The rules say, no cell phones in class. This is a simple, technological way of enforcing the rules, just like a lock on a door enforces the rules of private property. Consider yourself schooled, dumbass.
At least you are posting your ignorance of the meaning of words for all to see. You clearly don't understand the difference of freedoms and rights. You clearly don't understand the difference between having a rule, and enforcing a rule, and the fact that there is no point having a rule if you refuse to enforce it. The lock on your door is aesthetic. If you feel it is a rule, or enforces a rule, or even makes you safer, I don't think there is much hope for you.
What a selfish, idiotic asshole you are. I live in America, thank you very much. If you piss in a reservoir, you'll be arrested. You have the ability to do it, not the freedom to. Same thing with punching people in the face, you will be arrested. Just because you have the ability to do something, does not mean you have the freedom to. I have the ability to murder you and your whole family in your sleep, but I don't have the freedom to do so. And your kids do not have the freedom to use a cellphone in class. After this law passes they won't have the ability either, thankfully. Case closed, the selfish assholes LOSE, the vast majority of decent citizens WIN, and the crowd goes wild!
You just don't want to be held responsible for your actions, that is plain as day. Your political philosophy boils down to the childish refrain of, "yer not the boss of me!" Well, guess what, if you want to live in a society, other people are the boss of you, that's what you agree to by living with others. If you want to be a selfish ass, don't interact with others. No one is forcing you to, go be a hermit. We'll all be much happier if all the sociopathic assholes moved off to form 'libertopia' or whatever idiotic name the libertarians are giving their fantasy country these days.
But you don't want freedom for others, you only want it for yourself, which is why you bastards have never gone off to make your own country: you want to impose your will on others through force. We want to stop you from using force against us. We are for freedom and you desire tyranny, with yourself as tyrant, of course!
This rant proves that you don't understand the difference between "freedom" and "right." Your previous post proves you don't understand that rules need to be enforced to have any meaning. That's all.
Couple of points to make here. First is that laws don't prevent crimes. The consequences of breaking the law, however, may be a deterrent. Second is that because of this, creating new prohibitive laws as a means to the ends of curtailing unwanted/unacceptable behavior is a flawed premise.
How so? It seems to me that this kind of approach isn't perfect (nothing is) but the rules are every bit as effective while being easier to enforce. In the context of cell phones in the class room an excessively prohibitive rule would be easier to enforce because it removes any sort of judgement from the equation. Rather than "is this cell phone really disrupting the class?" it's simply "is there a cell phone?"
Making the rules fair is generally a good thing and I'm in favor of it... But I sympathize with those who need to include enforcing the rules as part of the incidental responsibilities in their job, too.
Rules aren't consequences. I think that's what is confusing the socialists/communists. You treat a law as if it, itself, were the deterrent to the unaccepted behavior. This is completely flawed because laws/rules mean absolutely nothing without proper enforcement and consequences.
The extremely sad part of that is I see how you socialist/communists start the indoctrination of that logic into your children by counting to 3 repeatedly as a course of corrective action to your child's unacceptable behavior. This teaches a child that there are no consequences. Unlike your US counterpart parent; who physically punishes the child when the behavior continues after the 3 count. You may notice that good US parents don't reach 3 when they count because after a few good spankings the child knows there will be consequences, and I think all humans know by early childhood that pain is the best teacher.
You do realize that socialism and communism are economic systems, and democracy is a political system, right? Most democracies in the first world are socialist democracies.
As for freedom, I too have it. So do my children. When your little scrunts interrupt my kid's lessons with texting and chatting in class, they take away my kids freedom to learn. Which is more important than your little bastard's freedom to chat in class. So cry me a river, you selfish twat, you don't have the freedom to piss in the city water supply, you don't have the freedom to walk around punching people in the face, and your little sociopathic brood does not have the freedom to interrupt other people's learning.
The differences between a person raised in a capitalist democracy and a person raised in a socialist/communist democracy are astounding. For example let me offer some rebuttals to the obvious ones:
So cry me a river, you selfish twat, you don't have the freedom to piss in the city water supply,
Actually, disregarding my selfishness, I actually do have the freedom to piss in the city water supply. And contrary to your apparent lack of knowledge of modern water sequestration, most 1st world countrymen do that every single day they piss in a toilet.
you don't have the freedom to walk around punching people in the face,
Wrong again! I have that freedom and you can bet your ass I've exercised it more than once in my lifetime. The difference between you and me is that I although I may punch you in the face, I may also suffer some consequences as a result.
and your little sociopathic brood does not have the freedom to interrupt other people's learning.
Again, you couldn't be more wrong. Children cannot be held to adult standards. That one is easy. Here in the US capitalist democracy, we don't punish everyone else for an individual's failings like you do you in your socialist/communist fakeocracy, we punish the offenders. If the offender doesn't learn, we step-up the consequences until they either do, or prove they cannot conform to the mainstream and are removed (jail, juvenile detention, boarding school, etc.).
You failed to see my point about socialists and communists and the relationship between them and their governments. Without missing a beat, you add strength to my argument. I don't give 2 shits about your kids, even if they are disrupting a class that my kid is also in. I *do* give 2 shits about people like you that think I should be advocating some Gestapo policies as some sort of method of prevention, ESPECIALLY when there are rules in place with consequences for breaking them, that are not being enforced properly.
You are yet another socialist/communist that cannot see the relationship between the redistribution of wealth, and the progression of power grabs by your government leading to a Police State.
Here's an anecdote: I recently read an blurb highlighting a new policy in the UK that will install 20,000 CCTV cameras in people's homes. It claims it will only happen to criminals, so they may be "monitored" for your safety. Let me know how that goes, and when you get the notice in the mail that your house (despite your lack of criminal record) is next up on the list...
Wait until the US and it's socialist/communist collaborators pass the ACTA.
If you think reverse-engineering is your right as a human being; you should be buying your guns and ammo now, and start preparing to use them on our tyrannical government officials should something so fundamentally flawed be passed into law.
Being that they sell mostly higher than radio technology, the name I'd like to see the most would be "Tech Shack." IMHO it fits with their original theme the way I imagine it, with Radio Shack selling mostly radios when it was a young company.
The really sad part for me though is the thought of a company like this going out of business in the times of new international laws being conceived that are intended to criminalize reverse engineering. Without Radio Shack, Axe Man, and ACME, I wouldn't have even been able to take apart the toys/gadgets I wanted to know about, let alone modify them to do things their patent/copyright holders never thought of...
So, again for the record my vote is for "Tech Shack!"
The other side of the coin is that we probably wouldn't need even non-corrupt regulatory bodies if capitalism didn't breed a bunch of greedy egomaniacs. Capitalism and the free market is flawed from the outset because it favors a person over the people. We're not predator/prey. We're a society of varying people who contribute in different ways, not in all monetarily significant ways.
But the difficult part is that capitalism brings out the worst in people -- you see yourself earning more because you were innovative. That's a good thing. But now you see what money can provide, but your innovative streak has run out or perhaps you're tired of being competitive...but you still want the money.
So you start to screw people out of theirs. You give them bad loans to get the bonus associated with them. You give yourself a million dollar bonus because your company went completely bankrupt but not insolvent so you "saved" it -- and you let your employees take the bullet for you.
Capitalism dates back to a less civilized structure. Let's grow up a bit.
For me personally, the problem with I have with non-capitalist economies is that I care about me more than I do about you or society. I shouldn't be forced to care just to participate in society. That very well may be greedy, to care about oneself more than others... I am certainly a me-first'er in life, but then I'm a family and friends second'er, and a community/society last'er. I don't want you to have anything I produce or earn, just because we participate in the same society. Having said that, that doesn't mean that I don't believe we need an unbiased by greed system of checks and balances for people or corporations exceeding incomes of $50M/yr or so...
Amen, these are the same jackasses that say "what do you need a gun for? why do you need a gun that holds so many bullets? Why do you need a semi auto? Why do you think you need to carry a gun?". Because we live in a world with bad people, believing anything else is the naive immature view of a child that grows up believing his or her parents will protect them and then transfers that believe onto the government. When the shit hits the fan the government will be the first to run and hide.
Thank you for telling me what my child needs and where.
Thank you for foisting your ill-behaved little offspring on the rest of the world. If you had taught your children how to operate in a polite society, then society wouldn't be looking at a way to enforce good behaviour.
Your society is an epic failure if it must punish itself rather than, you know, punish the kid supposedly acting up. I fail to see any reason except sheer laziness on the people whose jobs it is to enforce the rules, to adopt a socialist/communist authoritarian police state policy.
He's not saying that your kid doesn't need one. He's saying his kid doesn't need to be distracted by your kid having one. It's called an externality, like pollution and global warming. When your (or your kid's) actions screw things up for everyone else, we are justified in stopping you from imposing your selfish desires on the rest of us. Stop thinking you can do whatever you like without consequences and grow up. And please, if you do have kids, don't teach them to be selfish bastards.
However, I am interested in what possible scenario your child might need a cellphone in class. I somehow managed to get along without one. Hell, even without one, I wasn't allowed to talk to friends during class. Maybe if you are going to teach your kids to be self centered anti-social twats who get to do whatever they like without consequences, you should consider home schooling them.
One of the big problems I have with socialists/communists is that you quickly jump from "someone is breaking the rules" to "lets change the rules to be more prohibitive." That is really why democracy beats them both. You see, in democracy when someone breaks the rules, it generally takes a major case to change the rules to be more restrictive. We tend to first punish the person breaking the rules. We also increase the consequences for people who break the same rule repeatedly. The intended purpose is to create the positive feedback loop of "if I break this rule, I will be punished" as a method of behavior self-correction.
Socialism/communism see bad behavior and make the assumption that people have too much freedom, and that some freedom must be taken away. Epic fail that leads to the police state currently active in most Western European countries. No thanks, not for me and my patriotic America loving American neighbors.
Still, this is a simple solution. Kids don't need cell-phones in class.
Thank you for telling me what my child needs and where. Without people like you, and people like you in the government to create laws, I would certainly never have made it this far in life.
I agree with your statement. I also agree with the parent if it's said this way: "Classes don't need kids with cell phones." IANAT(eacher), but I think it might be reasonable to say cell phones must be off or silent, no vibrate, so to not disturb the class, just the same way the kid shouldn't have a DS or other toy/gadget. Treat the phone as any other potential disturbance.
Between periods, during break, or at lunch, do as you wish. Check your messages from mom, dad, or friends.
Where does it end? "Classes don't need kids with questions. Classes don't need kids with free thought. Classes don't need kids." What ever happened to pink-slips and in/out of school suspensions? What is up with the socialist push in this country? Stopping the enforcement of the rules as justification for more socialist/communist prison state style authority seems extreme to a federalist-republican like myself.
I have a radical idea! Instead of alienating children from their education, perhaps engage them using the current technology of the times!
Imposing your authoritarian control over me or my future kids will only do one thing. It will cause me to re-educate my kids on whatever socialist/communist nonsense you attempt to indoctrinate them with. I envision this causing more disruption to the classroom than a stupid phone and lack of school rules enforcement.
In my day (today) we shun Luddites and like thinkers that believe old/no technology is sufficient. The school, nor any other entity aside from the FCC should have control over cell phone transmissions. Besides, why don't they have a rule for on-premises cell phone usage, then simply enforce it when someone is caught breaking it? In my high-school days I was reprimanded numerous times for breaking numerous rules... seems to have worked for my generation!
The reason is because when a certain kind of misbehavior is common enough, it is often a more effective use of resources to block the offense indiscriminately rather than selectively.
For instance, drunk driving is illegal... But driving with a BAC that doesn't fit the local definition of "drunk driving" can still be dangerous. Hence, for instance, open container laws, and various discretionary or catch-all offenses an officer can use to arrest someone if they think it's necessary. (Though officers are human, too, and so some of them abuse this power... It's an imperfect system.)
Likewise, restrictions on the use and possession of drugs, firearms, fireworks, explosives, and so on. Making it illegal to carry a knife is more effective than just making it illegal to stab somebody - 'cause you don't have to catch somebody in the act, you can just see they've come prepared. I acknowledge that this also compromises one's personal freedoms - to me this is a complicated issue.
The purist in me hates this kind of crap. As a student I would have found it unacceptable for teachers to tell me I couldn't carry something which might be capable of causing a disruption in class. If I'm not disrupting class, it's not an issue, right? But I have a pragmatic side as well, which says the people enforcing the rules have limited resources, and they've got a job to do. Some sacrifices are worthwhile if they produce the intended result.
Couple of points to make here. First is that laws don't prevent crimes. The consequences of breaking the law, however, may be a deterrent. Second is that because of this, creating new prohibitive laws as a means to the ends of curtailing unwanted/unacceptable behavior is a flawed premise.
What I'm advocating is simple and effective. Make the rules fair and reasonable. Enforce them. Impose harsher consequences for repeat offenders. That has worked for literally generations, I fail to see any reason what-so-ever why suddenly it can't work anymore. Especially when the people calling for more authoritarian control in place of this are unwilling to enforce the rules and scale up the consequences for repeat offenders.
You keep stating that Microsoft is a monopoly over and over so frequently I believe it's a repetition tactic. You know, you repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth for you.
The last serious commercial competitor to Microsoft Windows for the desktop PC that I remember before Apple switched to the same x86 platform capable of running Windows, was IBM with OS/2.
So you claim that the last competitor was OS/2, and now that MS has no competitors, it's still not a monopoly? My friend, if there is no competition, that is the definition of monopoly!
I guess it's convenient to ignore my statements while you attempt to cement your argument. There are current competitors to Microsoft Windows, therefore it's not a monopoly. You epic failed to recognize that OS/2 was simply the last venture that was greeted with mild success, but still failed to dethrone the market leader.
BTW, a judge may call anything anything, but I would have to take a guess and say that unless it was a ruling and it was upheld after appeal, it's just an opinion. IANAL.
I bought a 24" white iMac (2006). It worked perfect up until it was 2.5 years old, when I started having video issues with it. It was under Applecare, so I brought it into the local Apple store, and they fixed it on-site (took a couple days, unfortunately).
Similar issues re-occured a few days after getting it back, then after a second repair it happened a third time. The computer DID work each time when I got it back, and the symptoms were different each time... so I can't really blame them. They replace all the major componants in the process too.
However, after 2 repairs and 3 similar faults, they replaced the machine with a brand-new 2009 aluminum iMac - with bigger/better/faster everything. Even the lowest-end machine would have beaten my old one, but they gave me the mid-line one anyways. They even offered this without me pushing. On top, they even gave me a free mini-DVI converter for my second monitor because my old cable was a different plug on the old iMac.
So - although I agree this incdent looks horrid, I would argue that they're certainly not as bad as the majority of corporations these days. I'm certainly a lot more brand-loyal than I was 6 months ago.
MadCow.
I don't find this surprising. One would think that naturally Apple can afford to do things like this because they have their very own tax applied to your original purchase. Your last argument is moot because not many (if any?) other corporations impose their own tax on you for being their customer, thus increasing the price of standard off the shelf parts to the point of ridiculousness.
Imagine if you paid that tax for elite status, the machine breaks down, they are unable to fix it, and like most other companies offer some sort of trade-in rebate on a new machine. In that case you would probably be asking yourself what the purpose of that tax was, if not making the assumption that it was an elite tax. Which is unfortunate in regards to the majority of people who don't fall into the same category as you.
Still, this is a simple solution. Kids don't need cell-phones in class.
Thank you for telling me what my child needs and where. Without people like you, and people like you in the government to create laws, I would certainly never have made it this far in life.
In my day (today) we shun Luddites and like thinkers that believe old/no technology is sufficient. The school, nor any other entity aside from the FCC should have control over cell phone transmissions. Besides, why don't they have a rule for on-premises cell phone usage, then simply enforce it when someone is caught breaking it? In my high-school days I was reprimanded numerous times for breaking numerous rules... seems to have worked for my generation!
Slashdot Mirror
*WOOOOOOSH*
I remember reading recently that the Appendix kick starts beneficial bacterial growth in the digestive track. I just can't remember the details nor the source zine.
Then again, even Swiss German work ethics are going down the drain since we have this overwhelming influx of German and French managers who, incidentally, learnt their 'tricks' from the USA.
Kinda like South Africa with Apartheid huh? I'm beginning to see a pattern of epic failures for countries that think they can do things on par with, and have similar outcomes as their American counter-parts.
Agreed. There's a reason the term "cutting edge" is used to describe cutting edge science, and in cutting edge science, well, if it worked perfectly the first time it probably wasn't very ambitious.
You mean like all those poor astronauts that died the first few times we went to the Moon? Oh.. wait... I guess I was wrong since traveling the Moon wasn't very ambitious and didn't use cutting edge science.
So you don't lock your door? Okay. Probably don't keep guns in the house, either? That would be enforcing a rule with a technological solution, and you don't do that.
If you think I'm misusing words, and it is obvious, maybe you could post your interpretation of those words for all to see? That would be entertaining. But the 'all to see' part is pure fantasy, it's just you and me here, bub. Who else do you think is reading this days old thread?
I get it! You aren't sociopathic, you're narcissistic! It's very close to sociopathic, so you can see why I was confused.
How exactly does your door lock, "technological solution," equate to a real world enforcement of a rule, and which rule?
Breaking and entering? Nope, because I broke your lock, your door, or something else and got in anyway. Trespassing? Nope, because I ignored your "No Trespassing" sign and proceeded anyway. Burglary? Nope again, since I made it passed your sign, and your "technological solution," and you're not home; so I robbed you blind anyway.
I do agree you are living in pure fantasy thinking that a small piece of metal bolted to some wood is enforcing your states B&E or trespassing laws, and, you know, not the different branches of the government that were setup specifically to do that.
I think you are batshit insane for actually thinking that the mere existence of a rule constitutes enforcement of itself, and on that note, I bid you ado.
Modifying a car doesn't run afoul of the DMCA.
I suppose this is true if your car was built well before the 1980's when fuel injection and engine control units were mainstreamed. For example, I have a friend who owns an early 00's Nissan Sentra SpecV SE-R which comes from the factory with an encrypted ECU. This prevents him from swapping certain parts and making certain modifications. The DMCA made it illegal for us to reverse-engineer the ECU and crack the DRM so that we may make modifications to his engine.
The officials who passed this into law should be lined up and executed by firing squad. The officials who drafted it should be put to death slowly by torture, with periodic intervals of medical rest and recuperation (Seven style).
Industry and trade associations estimate that counterfeiting and piracy now cost the U.S. economy as much as $250 billion a year and a total of 750,000 American jobs.
I mean, aside from being pulled out of thin air that is?
I also like how they don't add any details, such as Iraq having once owned stolen mint plates from the US Treasury, thus allowing them to literally print their own US money. I'm sure some kids taking apart their toys is somehow MUCH worse than that...
Cases like this guy being arrested for modding consoles just shows how corporations are really running the show in america
...But corporations are people too!
No, YOU don't understand the difference between a freedom and a right. And you don't understand what enforcement is, either. Here's a clue for you: this IS enforcement. The rules say, no cell phones in class. This is a simple, technological way of enforcing the rules, just like a lock on a door enforces the rules of private property. Consider yourself schooled, dumbass.
At least you are posting your ignorance of the meaning of words for all to see. You clearly don't understand the difference of freedoms and rights. You clearly don't understand the difference between having a rule, and enforcing a rule, and the fact that there is no point having a rule if you refuse to enforce it. The lock on your door is aesthetic. If you feel it is a rule, or enforces a rule, or even makes you safer, I don't think there is much hope for you.
What a selfish, idiotic asshole you are. I live in America, thank you very much. If you piss in a reservoir, you'll be arrested. You have the ability to do it, not the freedom to. Same thing with punching people in the face, you will be arrested. Just because you have the ability to do something, does not mean you have the freedom to. I have the ability to murder you and your whole family in your sleep, but I don't have the freedom to do so. And your kids do not have the freedom to use a cellphone in class. After this law passes they won't have the ability either, thankfully. Case closed, the selfish assholes LOSE, the vast majority of decent citizens WIN, and the crowd goes wild!
You just don't want to be held responsible for your actions, that is plain as day. Your political philosophy boils down to the childish refrain of, "yer not the boss of me!" Well, guess what, if you want to live in a society, other people are the boss of you, that's what you agree to by living with others. If you want to be a selfish ass, don't interact with others. No one is forcing you to, go be a hermit. We'll all be much happier if all the sociopathic assholes moved off to form 'libertopia' or whatever idiotic name the libertarians are giving their fantasy country these days.
But you don't want freedom for others, you only want it for yourself, which is why you bastards have never gone off to make your own country: you want to impose your will on others through force. We want to stop you from using force against us. We are for freedom and you desire tyranny, with yourself as tyrant, of course!
This rant proves that you don't understand the difference between "freedom" and "right." Your previous post proves you don't understand that rules need to be enforced to have any meaning. That's all.
Couple of points to make here. First is that laws don't prevent crimes. The consequences of breaking the law, however, may be a deterrent. Second is that because of this, creating new prohibitive laws as a means to the ends of curtailing unwanted/unacceptable behavior is a flawed premise.
How so? It seems to me that this kind of approach isn't perfect (nothing is) but the rules are every bit as effective while being easier to enforce. In the context of cell phones in the class room an excessively prohibitive rule would be easier to enforce because it removes any sort of judgement from the equation. Rather than "is this cell phone really disrupting the class?" it's simply "is there a cell phone?"
Making the rules fair is generally a good thing and I'm in favor of it... But I sympathize with those who need to include enforcing the rules as part of the incidental responsibilities in their job, too.
Rules aren't consequences. I think that's what is confusing the socialists/communists. You treat a law as if it, itself, were the deterrent to the unaccepted behavior. This is completely flawed because laws/rules mean absolutely nothing without proper enforcement and consequences.
The extremely sad part of that is I see how you socialist/communists start the indoctrination of that logic into your children by counting to 3 repeatedly as a course of corrective action to your child's unacceptable behavior. This teaches a child that there are no consequences. Unlike your US counterpart parent; who physically punishes the child when the behavior continues after the 3 count. You may notice that good US parents don't reach 3 when they count because after a few good spankings the child knows there will be consequences, and I think all humans know by early childhood that pain is the best teacher.
You do realize that socialism and communism are economic systems, and democracy is a political system, right? Most democracies in the first world are socialist democracies.
As for freedom, I too have it. So do my children. When your little scrunts interrupt my kid's lessons with texting and chatting in class, they take away my kids freedom to learn. Which is more important than your little bastard's freedom to chat in class. So cry me a river, you selfish twat, you don't have the freedom to piss in the city water supply, you don't have the freedom to walk around punching people in the face, and your little sociopathic brood does not have the freedom to interrupt other people's learning.
The differences between a person raised in a capitalist democracy and a person raised in a socialist/communist democracy are astounding. For example let me offer some rebuttals to the obvious ones:
So cry me a river, you selfish twat, you don't have the freedom to piss in the city water supply,
Actually, disregarding my selfishness, I actually do have the freedom to piss in the city water supply. And contrary to your apparent lack of knowledge of modern water sequestration, most 1st world countrymen do that every single day they piss in a toilet.
you don't have the freedom to walk around punching people in the face,
Wrong again! I have that freedom and you can bet your ass I've exercised it more than once in my lifetime. The difference between you and me is that I although I may punch you in the face, I may also suffer some consequences as a result.
and your little sociopathic brood does not have the freedom to interrupt other people's learning.
Again, you couldn't be more wrong. Children cannot be held to adult standards. That one is easy. Here in the US capitalist democracy, we don't punish everyone else for an individual's failings like you do you in your socialist/communist fakeocracy, we punish the offenders. If the offender doesn't learn, we step-up the consequences until they either do, or prove they cannot conform to the mainstream and are removed (jail, juvenile detention, boarding school, etc.).
You failed to see my point about socialists and communists and the relationship between them and their governments. Without missing a beat, you add strength to my argument. I don't give 2 shits about your kids, even if they are disrupting a class that my kid is also in. I *do* give 2 shits about people like you that think I should be advocating some Gestapo policies as some sort of method of prevention, ESPECIALLY when there are rules in place with consequences for breaking them, that are not being enforced properly.
You are yet another socialist/communist that cannot see the relationship between the redistribution of wealth, and the progression of power grabs by your government leading to a Police State.
Here's an anecdote: I recently read an blurb highlighting a new policy in the UK that will install 20,000 CCTV cameras in people's homes. It claims it will only happen to criminals, so they may be "monitored" for your safety. Let me know how that goes, and when you get the notice in the mail that your house (despite your lack of criminal record) is next up on the list...
Wait until the US and it's socialist/communist collaborators pass the ACTA.
If you think reverse-engineering is your right as a human being; you should be buying your guns and ammo now, and start preparing to use them on our tyrannical government officials should something so fundamentally flawed be passed into law.
Being that they sell mostly higher than radio technology, the name I'd like to see the most would be "Tech Shack." IMHO it fits with their original theme the way I imagine it, with Radio Shack selling mostly radios when it was a young company.
The really sad part for me though is the thought of a company like this going out of business in the times of new international laws being conceived that are intended to criminalize reverse engineering. Without Radio Shack, Axe Man, and ACME, I wouldn't have even been able to take apart the toys/gadgets I wanted to know about, let alone modify them to do things their patent/copyright holders never thought of...
So, again for the record my vote is for "Tech Shack!"
The other side of the coin is that we probably wouldn't need even non-corrupt regulatory bodies if capitalism didn't breed a bunch of greedy egomaniacs. Capitalism and the free market is flawed from the outset because it favors a person over the people. We're not predator/prey. We're a society of varying people who contribute in different ways, not in all monetarily significant ways.
But the difficult part is that capitalism brings out the worst in people -- you see yourself earning more because you were innovative. That's a good thing. But now you see what money can provide, but your innovative streak has run out or perhaps you're tired of being competitive...but you still want the money.
So you start to screw people out of theirs. You give them bad loans to get the bonus associated with them. You give yourself a million dollar bonus because your company went completely bankrupt but not insolvent so you "saved" it -- and you let your employees take the bullet for you.
Capitalism dates back to a less civilized structure. Let's grow up a bit.
For me personally, the problem with I have with non-capitalist economies is that I care about me more than I do about you or society. I shouldn't be forced to care just to participate in society. That very well may be greedy, to care about oneself more than others... I am certainly a me-first'er in life, but then I'm a family and friends second'er, and a community/society last'er. I don't want you to have anything I produce or earn, just because we participate in the same society. Having said that, that doesn't mean that I don't believe we need an unbiased by greed system of checks and balances for people or corporations exceeding incomes of $50M/yr or so...
Amen, these are the same jackasses that say "what do you need a gun for? why do you need a gun that holds so many bullets? Why do you need a semi auto? Why do you think you need to carry a gun?". Because we live in a world with bad people, believing anything else is the naive immature view of a child that grows up believing his or her parents will protect them and then transfers that believe onto the government. When the shit hits the fan the government will be the first to run and hide.
Agreed.
Thank you for foisting your ill-behaved little offspring on the rest of the world. If you had taught your children how to operate in a polite society, then society wouldn't be looking at a way to enforce good behaviour.
Your society is an epic failure if it must punish itself rather than, you know, punish the kid supposedly acting up. I fail to see any reason except sheer laziness on the people whose jobs it is to enforce the rules, to adopt a socialist/communist authoritarian police state policy.
He's not saying that your kid doesn't need one. He's saying his kid doesn't need to be distracted by your kid having one. It's called an externality, like pollution and global warming. When your (or your kid's) actions screw things up for everyone else, we are justified in stopping you from imposing your selfish desires on the rest of us. Stop thinking you can do whatever you like without consequences and grow up. And please, if you do have kids, don't teach them to be selfish bastards.
However, I am interested in what possible scenario your child might need a cellphone in class. I somehow managed to get along without one. Hell, even without one, I wasn't allowed to talk to friends during class. Maybe if you are going to teach your kids to be self centered anti-social twats who get to do whatever they like without consequences, you should consider home schooling them.
One of the big problems I have with socialists/communists is that you quickly jump from "someone is breaking the rules" to "lets change the rules to be more prohibitive." That is really why democracy beats them both. You see, in democracy when someone breaks the rules, it generally takes a major case to change the rules to be more restrictive. We tend to first punish the person breaking the rules. We also increase the consequences for people who break the same rule repeatedly. The intended purpose is to create the positive feedback loop of "if I break this rule, I will be punished" as a method of behavior self-correction.
Socialism/communism see bad behavior and make the assumption that people have too much freedom, and that some freedom must be taken away. Epic fail that leads to the police state currently active in most Western European countries. No thanks, not for me and my patriotic America loving American neighbors.
Still, this is a simple solution. Kids don't need cell-phones in class.
Thank you for telling me what my child needs and where. Without people like you, and people like you in the government to create laws, I would certainly never have made it this far in life.
I agree with your statement. I also agree with the parent if it's said this way: "Classes don't need kids with cell phones." IANAT(eacher), but I think it might be reasonable to say cell phones must be off or silent, no vibrate, so to not disturb the class, just the same way the kid shouldn't have a DS or other toy/gadget. Treat the phone as any other potential disturbance.
Between periods, during break, or at lunch, do as you wish. Check your messages from mom, dad, or friends.
Where does it end? "Classes don't need kids with questions. Classes don't need kids with free thought. Classes don't need kids." What ever happened to pink-slips and in/out of school suspensions? What is up with the socialist push in this country? Stopping the enforcement of the rules as justification for more socialist/communist prison state style authority seems extreme to a federalist-republican like myself.
I have a radical idea! Instead of alienating children from their education, perhaps engage them using the current technology of the times!
Imposing your authoritarian control over me or my future kids will only do one thing. It will cause me to re-educate my kids on whatever socialist/communist nonsense you attempt to indoctrinate them with. I envision this causing more disruption to the classroom than a stupid phone and lack of school rules enforcement.
In my day (today) we shun Luddites and like thinkers that believe old/no technology is sufficient. The school, nor any other entity aside from the FCC should have control over cell phone transmissions. Besides, why don't they have a rule for on-premises cell phone usage, then simply enforce it when someone is caught breaking it? In my high-school days I was reprimanded numerous times for breaking numerous rules... seems to have worked for my generation!
The reason is because when a certain kind of misbehavior is common enough, it is often a more effective use of resources to block the offense indiscriminately rather than selectively.
For instance, drunk driving is illegal... But driving with a BAC that doesn't fit the local definition of "drunk driving" can still be dangerous. Hence, for instance, open container laws, and various discretionary or catch-all offenses an officer can use to arrest someone if they think it's necessary. (Though officers are human, too, and so some of them abuse this power... It's an imperfect system.)
Likewise, restrictions on the use and possession of drugs, firearms, fireworks, explosives, and so on. Making it illegal to carry a knife is more effective than just making it illegal to stab somebody - 'cause you don't have to catch somebody in the act, you can just see they've come prepared. I acknowledge that this also compromises one's personal freedoms - to me this is a complicated issue.
The purist in me hates this kind of crap. As a student I would have found it unacceptable for teachers to tell me I couldn't carry something which might be capable of causing a disruption in class. If I'm not disrupting class, it's not an issue, right? But I have a pragmatic side as well, which says the people enforcing the rules have limited resources, and they've got a job to do. Some sacrifices are worthwhile if they produce the intended result.
Couple of points to make here. First is that laws don't prevent crimes. The consequences of breaking the law, however, may be a deterrent. Second is that because of this, creating new prohibitive laws as a means to the ends of curtailing unwanted/unacceptable behavior is a flawed premise.
What I'm advocating is simple and effective. Make the rules fair and reasonable. Enforce them. Impose harsher consequences for repeat offenders. That has worked for literally generations, I fail to see any reason what-so-ever why suddenly it can't work anymore. Especially when the people calling for more authoritarian control in place of this are unwilling to enforce the rules and scale up the consequences for repeat offenders.
You keep stating that Microsoft is a monopoly over and over so frequently I believe it's a repetition tactic. You know, you repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth for you.
Ten years ago called, and they're tapping you on the head with the receiver: Judge calls Microsoft a "monopoly"
The last serious commercial competitor to Microsoft Windows for the desktop PC that I remember before Apple switched to the same x86 platform capable of running Windows, was IBM with OS/2.
So you claim that the last competitor was OS/2, and now that MS has no competitors, it's still not a monopoly? My friend, if there is no competition, that is the definition of monopoly!
I guess it's convenient to ignore my statements while you attempt to cement your argument. There are current competitors to Microsoft Windows, therefore it's not a monopoly. You epic failed to recognize that OS/2 was simply the last venture that was greeted with mild success, but still failed to dethrone the market leader.
BTW, a judge may call anything anything, but I would have to take a guess and say that unless it was a ruling and it was upheld after appeal, it's just an opinion. IANAL.
I've had the opposite experience, personally...
I bought a 24" white iMac (2006). It worked perfect up until it was 2.5 years old, when I started having video issues with it. It was under Applecare, so I brought it into the local Apple store, and they fixed it on-site (took a couple days, unfortunately).
Similar issues re-occured a few days after getting it back, then after a second repair it happened a third time. The computer DID work each time when I got it back, and the symptoms were different each time... so I can't really blame them. They replace all the major componants in the process too.
However, after 2 repairs and 3 similar faults, they replaced the machine with a brand-new 2009 aluminum iMac - with bigger/better/faster everything. Even the lowest-end machine would have beaten my old one, but they gave me the mid-line one anyways. They even offered this without me pushing. On top, they even gave me a free mini-DVI converter for my second monitor because my old cable was a different plug on the old iMac.
So - although I agree this incdent looks horrid, I would argue that they're certainly not as bad as the majority of corporations these days. I'm certainly a lot more brand-loyal than I was 6 months ago.
MadCow.
I don't find this surprising. One would think that naturally Apple can afford to do things like this because they have their very own tax applied to your original purchase. Your last argument is moot because not many (if any?) other corporations impose their own tax on you for being their customer, thus increasing the price of standard off the shelf parts to the point of ridiculousness.
Imagine if you paid that tax for elite status, the machine breaks down, they are unable to fix it, and like most other companies offer some sort of trade-in rebate on a new machine. In that case you would probably be asking yourself what the purpose of that tax was, if not making the assumption that it was an elite tax. Which is unfortunate in regards to the majority of people who don't fall into the same category as you.
Whoever modded Flamebait is clearly not only in said minority, but is so delusional as to think that speaking the truth is inflammatory...
Still, this is a simple solution. Kids don't need cell-phones in class.
Thank you for telling me what my child needs and where. Without people like you, and people like you in the government to create laws, I would certainly never have made it this far in life.
In my day (today) we shun Luddites and like thinkers that believe old/no technology is sufficient. The school, nor any other entity aside from the FCC should have control over cell phone transmissions. Besides, why don't they have a rule for on-premises cell phone usage, then simply enforce it when someone is caught breaking it? In my high-school days I was reprimanded numerous times for breaking numerous rules... seems to have worked for my generation!