...do like me and get both a SonyEricsson P800 and a SE T39m. Then, when you want a PDA/phone, keep your SIM card in the P800 and get a killer Symbian-based PDA (way better than PalmOS, IMO). And if you need to go stealth, drop the SIM card into your tiny, pocket-friendly T39. All your contacts can be synchronized between the two phones via Bluetooth (esp. easy on a Mac).
Unlike Microsoft, Apple is not dominant in its market, and is not in a position to stifle competition on a scale that would require intervention by public authorities.
Ever notice how the Western Yoga-nuts are insanely self-righteous and also look decidedly unhealthy? I don't consider Western Yoga proper flexibility, as most teachers seem to be hippy-dippy posers that haven't got a clue. You're either one of those teachers, or one of their students.
I wasn't very clear in my first post. I think flexibility is paramount, as opposed to "fitness". Many years of Karate practice has made me realize that most runners and other middle-aged people that exercise regularly do not stretch adequately. The conventional wisdom is that a fifteen to thirty minutes of stretches is adequate. It isn't. Also, runners especially do all kinds of wrong stretches and even do those poorly. Proper back/leg flexibility would allow you to crouch with one leg completely extended to your side, and the other tucked under you in a crouch with that foot (toes and heel) flat on the floor.
6+ hours a day? I probably wouldn't have any problems if I only worked 6 hours a day.
How do you get from 6+ to only 6? Are you telling me that you work 10 hours per day, seven days per week? Also, you should be lucky you don't have to draft that shit with a pencil, or then you'd have a legitimate right to claim that your hand hurts. You're just another fucking whiner lashing out at people because you can't deal with your guilt about carrying a nasty fat tire around your waist.
It seems to me that a lot of people complaining about RSI are in crap shape to begin with. Obviously, if you rarely stretch your body and use it in an atheletic capacity, (or if you are an athelete, but you don't properly stretch) it will start catching up to you. In my experience, everyone should stretch as much as one full hour per day, and they should begin with an even more intense regimen to establish good baseline flexibility. It is *amazing* how many aches and pains are due to stiff muscles in your back and legs. For the record, I've never had any RSI, and I've been using computers for an average of 6+ hours a day for twenty years. When I see someone complaining about RSI (which most people in their mid-thirties eventually do in my office), I view them as equivalent to lard-ass, McDonald's eaters that complain about having back pain. Hello?! Do something about your *real* problem (being inflexible (or fat)) before you get some surgery on your hand.
The accountants won't let the vendor realize the revenue until all conditions are removed. You are creating a permanent obstacle to the vendor's revenue recognition in your proposal, and that just won't ever fly for obvious reasons.
At least for now, the strong Euro and weak dollar will ensure that Europeans will be buying a lot of US goods. A requirement such as the one that you propose would amuse me greatly, since the additional state tax+overhead would most likely still leave a significant price gap in favor of buying fungibles from the US. So, the US gets more Euros, sells more goods to Europe and the rest of the world, deprives European businesses of sales, wins the trade war, retaliates against the obnoxious VAT, and gets front row seats when the EU's tenuous sovereignty breaks down in the subsequent downturn in European economies. LOL.
I think it is because many people in America believe that if you cannot pull your weight, you deserve what you get. I cannot totally disagree, as this is a sentiment that derives from our animal nature. As a person who doesn't put much value on the notion of humanity's categorical distinction from other animals, I understand how this sentiment prevails here in America. Life is cruel. Results come at a price. We are all sent out of the womb to swim, tread water, or die trying. These are American values (among others, even some that contradict these), I think.
You and I are saying the same thing, but approaching it from different angles. I have been saying all along that the Matrix is a story that was told (IMO, in a superior way) in the past, many times over. My point all along has been that the fanboys act as if the Matrix is the first instance of that revelation, just because it's the first time that they've experienced it. This would be excusably, really, except that any 20+ year old person that needs the Matrix to challenge the truth of their 'reality' is painfully late in the game.
...but your rhetorical question champions the ignorant by characterizing those in the know as elitists. Let's put it this way: If I unilaterally, spontaneously attacked Matrix fanboys for being dumbshits, then, yes, I'd be an elitist. But, after hearing the umpteenth, longwinded attempt to discern the Matrix's metaphysical message (which inevitably concludes with the most primitive, pre-Platonic revelation, such as "how do we know that perceived reality is real?"), I've fucking had it. Someone has to tell these people how silly they sound, and I'm not too proud to be that guy.
Attention Matrix fanboys: Be forewarned that your lip-flapping attempts to fill in the Matrix's metaphysical gaps will put the thinking world on notice that you slept through life's lessons on basic metaphysics.
The point is that listening to you fanboys talking about the Matrix as if it's some kind of amazing metaphysical revelation is really annoying to a person like me that's actually read Plato's fucking allegory of the cave, which was written 2000+ years ago and is more interesting and concise and comprehensible than the Matrix and has been retold eight hundred million times in the interim. If that makes me elitist, then it also makes you a pus-nuts dumbshit.
There's nothing more pathetic than listening to all these guys that were unable (or unwilling) to sit through more than one (if even that) class on actual philosophy in college, but are now going to bore you to tears trying to extract meaning from the hodge-podge of 'whoa, cool' elements that two jackass movie producers threw together as a vehicle for t&a and some action sequences.
Yes, I'm glad the Matrix is at least more mentally stimulating than, say, the Last Action Hero. But, let's face it, the movie is aimed at a sophomoric audience, so if you go around spouting off about your take on the Matrix (as so many have done here today), anyone that knows anything about actual smart-people stuff is just going to quietly nod and privately think to themselves: "awww, what an adorable little attempt at being intelligent."
The great challenge of antitrust law (since the very beginning) has been proper definition of the subject market. This is something that white-haired, ivory-tower academics and judges have mulled over for centuries now, and you are entitled to your opinion as well. As a matter of fact, I disagree with certain antitrust jurisprudence on this point, but, like all other aspects of the law, the rules are evolving and (hopefully) self-refining.
I take your point, but I also understand why the law treats Apple's behavior differently in this instance than M$.
Yeah, yeah, I know it's a funny joke on Mac whores, but, as a Mac whore myself, I want to let everyone know that Mac whores like me overpay for stuff because we are trying to convey positive reinforcement to Steve, so Steve will keep rocking the boat and pushing this fucking boatload of bozos (i.e., the 'technology industry') forward. Personally, I'm fucking sick of hearing about Bill G's nice house and bank accounts, and Larry Ellison's Samurai fixation. I'll put too much of my money in Steve's pocket just so he keeps lighting fires in Silicon Valley. Can I get a fucking WITNESS?!
I see what you're getting at, but the topic is why Apple is allowed to integrate browser-like features into OS elements and bundled apps, while Microsoft gets slammed by the DOJ for the same thing. The answer, as stated above, is that Microsoft is a dominant in the relevant marketspaces, while Apple is not. The activity of integrating browser features is not illegal per se -- Doing so as a means to stifle competition when you are dominant in the market is illegal.
...I see your point, but I do recall an article (Time mag?) in which the head of Warner Bros. said the delay on including their catalog is purely technical, and that the business and legal terms are already agreed.
...what's cheaper? (a) A dollar per AAC-encoded song, or (b) wilfull infringement of copyrighted materials carrying potential civil and *criminal* penalties. You tell me.
Even if the settlement doesn't preclude all such claims in the future, all Apple would need to do is retain the Universal brand name for its music business. The legal problem arises only when Apple starts selling music under the Apple brand name, not when Apple obtains corporate control of a different brand name that sells music.
Slashdot Mirror
...do like me and get both a SonyEricsson P800 and a SE T39m. Then, when you want a PDA/phone, keep your SIM card in the P800 and get a killer Symbian-based PDA (way better than PalmOS, IMO). And if you need to go stealth, drop the SIM card into your tiny, pocket-friendly T39. All your contacts can be synchronized between the two phones via Bluetooth (esp. easy on a Mac).
Unlike Microsoft, Apple is not dominant in its market, and is not in a position to stifle competition on a scale that would require intervention by public authorities.
Ever notice how the Western Yoga-nuts are insanely self-righteous and also look decidedly unhealthy? I don't consider Western Yoga proper flexibility, as most teachers seem to be hippy-dippy posers that haven't got a clue. You're either one of those teachers, or one of their students.
I wasn't very clear in my first post. I think flexibility is paramount, as opposed to "fitness". Many years of Karate practice has made me realize that most runners and other middle-aged people that exercise regularly do not stretch adequately. The conventional wisdom is that a fifteen to thirty minutes of stretches is adequate. It isn't. Also, runners especially do all kinds of wrong stretches and even do those poorly. Proper back/leg flexibility would allow you to crouch with one leg completely extended to your side, and the other tucked under you in a crouch with that foot (toes and heel) flat on the floor.
6+ hours a day? I probably wouldn't have any problems if I only worked 6 hours a day.
How do you get from 6+ to only 6? Are you telling me that you work 10 hours per day, seven days per week? Also, you should be lucky you don't have to draft that shit with a pencil, or then you'd have a legitimate right to claim that your hand hurts. You're just another fucking whiner lashing out at people because you can't deal with your guilt about carrying a nasty fat tire around your waist.
The best medicine for trolls like you a one (and only one) reasoned response:
If I say that I have worked 6+ hours per day *averaged* over twenty years (including weekends, holidays, etc.), it neither follows that:
(a) I have worked only 6 hours per day; nor
(b) I am a lard ass.
Think about it. Six PLUS. AVERAGE. And less time sitting at your desk means LESS chance of being a fat-ass.
It seems to me that a lot of people complaining about RSI are in crap shape to begin with. Obviously, if you rarely stretch your body and use it in an atheletic capacity, (or if you are an athelete, but you don't properly stretch) it will start catching up to you. In my experience, everyone should stretch as much as one full hour per day, and they should begin with an even more intense regimen to establish good baseline flexibility. It is *amazing* how many aches and pains are due to stiff muscles in your back and legs. For the record, I've never had any RSI, and I've been using computers for an average of 6+ hours a day for twenty years. When I see someone complaining about RSI (which most people in their mid-thirties eventually do in my office), I view them as equivalent to lard-ass, McDonald's eaters that complain about having back pain. Hello?! Do something about your *real* problem (being inflexible (or fat)) before you get some surgery on your hand.
The accountants won't let the vendor realize the revenue until all conditions are removed. You are creating a permanent obstacle to the vendor's revenue recognition in your proposal, and that just won't ever fly for obvious reasons.
At least for now, the strong Euro and weak dollar will ensure that Europeans will be buying a lot of US goods. A requirement such as the one that you propose would amuse me greatly, since the additional state tax+overhead would most likely still leave a significant price gap in favor of buying fungibles from the US. So, the US gets more Euros, sells more goods to Europe and the rest of the world, deprives European businesses of sales, wins the trade war, retaliates against the obnoxious VAT, and gets front row seats when the EU's tenuous sovereignty breaks down in the subsequent downturn in European economies. LOL.
I think it is because many people in America believe that if you cannot pull your weight, you deserve what you get. I cannot totally disagree, as this is a sentiment that derives from our animal nature. As a person who doesn't put much value on the notion of humanity's categorical distinction from other animals, I understand how this sentiment prevails here in America. Life is cruel. Results come at a price. We are all sent out of the womb to swim, tread water, or die trying. These are American values (among others, even some that contradict these), I think.
There are about 30,000 Taliban/AQ goons (most of whom were killed or vaporized a short while back) that would tend to disagree with your statement.
How many "willing participants" in the terror game did the US kill in Afghanistan? I dunno, but the answer is at least "plenty".
What kind of selection does Real have?
I'm curious, even though I think that anyone who supports Real should be drawn and quartered for conspiring to commit crimes against humanity.
All I ever see is people raving about what a huge success iTunes Music Store is (and will continue to be)? What planet are you on?
You and I are saying the same thing, but approaching it from different angles. I have been saying all along that the Matrix is a story that was told (IMO, in a superior way) in the past, many times over. My point all along has been that the fanboys act as if the Matrix is the first instance of that revelation, just because it's the first time that they've experienced it. This would be excusably, really, except that any 20+ year old person that needs the Matrix to challenge the truth of their 'reality' is painfully late in the game.
...but your rhetorical question champions the ignorant by characterizing those in the know as elitists. Let's put it this way: If I unilaterally, spontaneously attacked Matrix fanboys for being dumbshits, then, yes, I'd be an elitist. But, after hearing the umpteenth, longwinded attempt to discern the Matrix's metaphysical message (which inevitably concludes with the most primitive, pre-Platonic revelation, such as "how do we know that perceived reality is real?"), I've fucking had it. Someone has to tell these people how silly they sound, and I'm not too proud to be that guy.
Attention Matrix fanboys: Be forewarned that your lip-flapping attempts to fill in the Matrix's metaphysical gaps will put the thinking world on notice that you slept through life's lessons on basic metaphysics.
The point is that listening to you fanboys talking about the Matrix as if it's some kind of amazing metaphysical revelation is really annoying to a person like me that's actually read Plato's fucking allegory of the cave, which was written 2000+ years ago and is more interesting and concise and comprehensible than the Matrix and has been retold eight hundred million times in the interim. If that makes me elitist, then it also makes you a pus-nuts dumbshit.
There's nothing more pathetic than listening to all these guys that were unable (or unwilling) to sit through more than one (if even that) class on actual philosophy in college, but are now going to bore you to tears trying to extract meaning from the hodge-podge of 'whoa, cool' elements that two jackass movie producers threw together as a vehicle for t&a and some action sequences.
Yes, I'm glad the Matrix is at least more mentally stimulating than, say, the Last Action Hero. But, let's face it, the movie is aimed at a sophomoric audience, so if you go around spouting off about your take on the Matrix (as so many have done here today), anyone that knows anything about actual smart-people stuff is just going to quietly nod and privately think to themselves: "awww, what an adorable little attempt at being intelligent."
The great challenge of antitrust law (since the very beginning) has been proper definition of the subject market. This is something that white-haired, ivory-tower academics and judges have mulled over for centuries now, and you are entitled to your opinion as well. As a matter of fact, I disagree with certain antitrust jurisprudence on this point, but, like all other aspects of the law, the rules are evolving and (hopefully) self-refining.
I take your point, but I also understand why the law treats Apple's behavior differently in this instance than M$.
Yeah, yeah, I know it's a funny joke on Mac whores, but, as a Mac whore myself, I want to let everyone know that Mac whores like me overpay for stuff because we are trying to convey positive reinforcement to Steve, so Steve will keep rocking the boat and pushing this fucking boatload of bozos (i.e., the 'technology industry') forward. Personally, I'm fucking sick of hearing about Bill G's nice house and bank accounts, and Larry Ellison's Samurai fixation. I'll put too much of my money in Steve's pocket just so he keeps lighting fires in Silicon Valley. Can I get a fucking WITNESS?!
I see what you're getting at, but the topic is why Apple is allowed to integrate browser-like features into OS elements and bundled apps, while Microsoft gets slammed by the DOJ for the same thing. The answer, as stated above, is that Microsoft is a dominant in the relevant marketspaces, while Apple is not. The activity of integrating browser features is not illegal per se -- Doing so as a means to stifle competition when you are dominant in the market is illegal.
...I see your point, but I do recall an article (Time mag?) in which the head of Warner Bros. said the delay on including their catalog is purely technical, and that the business and legal terms are already agreed.
...what's cheaper? (a) A dollar per AAC-encoded song, or (b) wilfull infringement of copyrighted materials carrying potential civil and *criminal* penalties. You tell me.
I'm sorry that your wife is a screaming, ungrateful idiot. That must suck.
Yes. I noticed the same problem. I haven't tried to troubleshoot it yet.
Even if the settlement doesn't preclude all such claims in the future, all Apple would need to do is retain the Universal brand name for its music business. The legal problem arises only when Apple starts selling music under the Apple brand name, not when Apple obtains corporate control of a different brand name that sells music.