It *is* generic because I was using the term well before Apple. In fact I was using it in a PC environment. At my job, which is a fairly large government agency, if we wanted to install software on our computers then we were told to "look in the appilcation store" to see if it had been approved. If it was then we could "order" the app and it would either automatically install at boot, install pending license validation, or hold for technician assistance. And often times amoung the more savy folks it would just be called the app store.
I know one place where the value of backups is learned hard and fast: Grad School. I warned my classmates (read: I explained to them how paranoid I was) but everyone scoffed until on of them lost 6 months of thesis work. Never have I seen the phrase "spooked the herd" so convincingly demonstrated. Next thing you knew "saving" your work meant clicking save (to thumbdrive), clicking print, clicking email-to, and copy-to-network. We had two more people "lose work" who were subsequently saved by the process... no one ever had to resort to retyping from the printed document;-)
[quote]And here is an even bigger problem. That cost will be raised for everyone else too. So you got an Android phone because you don't support Apple being an evil company? Too bad. It's $10/mo for Last.fm no matter what.[/quote]
Who says? AFAICT the terms only say they have to charge the same price for subscriptions on the iOS regardless of source. Where does it say in the terms that a service has to charge the same price for apps operating on non-Apple devices?
Damn well straight they are asking for that. If a business attemps to dictates untenable terms (30%) with obvious consequences (cannot competetively operate at a profit) then they are either asking for those consequences or are incompetent. I am not a fan of Apple but I would never accuse them of incompetance. Arrogance yes, but not incompetance.
Seems to me the solution is charge iOS users the same price regardless of subscription source but charge less for Android/Win7/RIM/etc users. Or does the Cult of Steve think they can dictate terms between two non-Apple entities beyond jumping up and down, stamping its feet, and complaining that they are being competed against?
Caveat: we'll ignore the fact that your monthly rate does NOT go down once you have completed your contract.
According to the phone company the phone SUBSIDIZED via that 2 year contract. So, by your logic, and by the current state of things that means you are being DOUBLE taxed. How is that you ask: because the customer is providing $420 of value to the telco via the contract (rad: the telco gets their $420 via the monthly payment during the 2-year contract term). So now I'm taxed on that $420 at time of purchase AND taxed on my monthly contract payments. Because make no mistake, that contract has value and the customer is the one providing that value. Don't believe it? Just ask the phone company to give you a phone for at the discount rate without a contract. I only ask that you video the encounter and post it on YouTube so we can watch as the sales rep dies from laughter.
I mean afterall if we are going to use sketchy logic lets go all the way. And as another poster has already said: we aren't taxed on the full price of a TV when buying it on sale. But by your logic that really is straight up "income to me" so why aren't customers taxed on that full retail price? Yup that's right, it is just as absurd as taxing on the full price of the phone.
[quote]Don't you have a PIN-code on your credit card?? Anyone can find out what your zip code is...[/quote]
If they are targeting *you*, or have your wallet. But if they skimmed the CC number, stole the card, or any other number ways they have just the card or the numbers, then not having the zip is a deterent. It isn't 100% but nothing is 100%. Like computer secruity it is about layers and risk mitigation. As for the PIN, I'd rather not risk an unattended pump having a skimmer placed on it. Oh sure they could put a skimmer and then they'd have my ZIP and that opens me up to some risks. But it is less of a risk than if they have my PIN. The ZIP is a good middle ground between something that is at least harder to to obtain than having to obtain nothing, but doesn't unlock my entire world.
It does however seem like another alternative would be the ability to have multiple PINs for different transaction types. And I mean one specifically for unattended uses like at gas pumps, and another for attended POS transactions, and maybe a third for online transactions. It would be easy enough to even "announce" which PIN to use via a sticker on the terminal. "Use your Gas Station Pin", "Use your Regular PIN", "Use your Online PIN".
Sure some people will try to use the same pin for all, and maybe you let them because it is better than them writing it down. But it gives an option for people who want better security and have the memory to go with it. Again not 100% but it is a mitigation strategy for the CC Co and the merchants.
Of course I'd really rather see us start using RSA-like pins but we're still a few years away from that. Sad since the "cost" of implementing it has no doubt been spent 2-fold on other more useless security mechanisms as well as paying for the fraud that has occured in the intervening years.
Nooooo they simply do not know that she is who she says she is. Look at it from their perspective, someone calls them, feeds them a story, and then tries to gain information that could aide in the commision of identity theft. It is an annoying catch-22 but there you have it. It does eventually get rectified and believe it or not there are ways to deal with it without getting the information, it just means being creative.
Yes and then I can be denied access to my government computer. Not all of us have the luxury of running portable apps without the risk of getting hammered. I like/. but not enough to risk my career over it. And no, smarty pants, reading/. during work hours is not a risk:p
You couldn't be more wrong. Or do you think the FBI doesn't classify and compartmentalize its domestic counter terrorism, gang, corruption, etc efforts? I'm talking both data and methods.
So why does it matter where it is stored, who stores it, blah blah blah.
If all I have purchased from the record companies is a license to the music, then isn't all that matters is that the person accessing the cloud has a license? Doesn't that license entitle me to certain listening rights.
Or to put it another way, isn't MP3Tunes.com responsible for doing nothing else beyond ensuring I have a license for the music they are serving me? Isn't a reasonable method for discerning that fact my ability to upload a copy of that music?
There are two scenarios: either I uploaded a licensed version so now STFU. Or it is an unlicensed version and as such MP3Tunes still isn't facilitating since they aren't the ones that gave me the unlicensed version in the first place and oh yeah BTW I already have an unlicensed copy so the battle is lost. No one else is "getting" that unlicensed version since the only reason they even have access via the cloud is because they already uploaded a licensed version or [drum roll please] they already are in possession of, and uploaded, an unlicensed version.
use it to move the ever increasing wind turbine parts that, a year ago, seemed to be getting too large to move over roads especially as regulations pushed them into less and less accessible areas.
And lets not forget about the OTHER 10k vehicles traveling to the shore just to window shop or look for an item that isn't there so they go to ANOTHER store. Did they factor in the savings from the reduction in wasted trips vs. searching ten stores online, finding what I want, and then having it shipped to me? If they assumed a 1 to 1 replacement ratio for online vs brick-and-mortar purchases then they did it wrong. They must be friends with the RIAA's analysts;-)
You are correct, he should not have been modded Troll. But he is also WRONG. Not wrong about the reality of the world, but morally wrong. Wrong in the way that blaming a rape victim for wearing a mini-skirt is wrong.
As people living in the same society I completely agree that we should all treat each other with respect. But it goes both ways. Plenty of cops treat the people they deal with in a respectful manner. But plenty do not. Even more so, plenty do not do it all the time to everyone equally. I have been friends with cops, hung out with them at the coffee shop or their favorite bars. And I have to tell you listening to some of their stories both amaze me at their foritute and sicken me with their attitude. More than once my response to a story was, "and WTF in our history makes you think I find that 1) funny and 2) even remotely acceptable behavior?" Really and trully they suffer from the same problem we all suffer: a lack of opposing view points tends to reinforce behavior and even normalize it among a given subset.
The problem with the above post is that it places us "mere citizens" in a position of having to "avert our eyes" to those in positions of power and authority. To do otherwise risks retribution not for infactions of actual law but because their inflated egos have been popped by a pion who dares to treat them as an equal.
and if what you are "told to do" is to turn off your legal recording device so they can harrass you then what? You are pathetic with a capital P; just lick the hand that beats you while you are at it.
Deserve? DESERVE?!?! are you friggin kidding me. First while I generally do speak to cops with respect it is because they come at me from a place of respect (like the last bullshit ticket I got which I 100% deserved but the scenario was still bogus and the cop should have warned me and moved on). But, if they start out from a place of bullshit, like pulling me over for no good reason and I KNOW I'm 100% on the legal side, I will and HAVE called a cop a liar to his face
Cop tailgates me in the right lane at 2am for 5 miles with his highbeams on between Cincinatti and Dayon OH. Cruise control is set at one mile below limit. He FINALLY pulls me over:
Cop: I pulled you over because you crossed the white line, Me: That isn't true and you know it, but lets not argue about it... no ticket and not even a field sobriety test which was why he pulled me over I have no doubt.
And this has nothing to do with complying with orders. This has to do with legally recording an interaction with a public official to ensure he does not abuse his authority, even while complying. Or more to the point, to PROVE that you complied, and the abuse still happened. You don't think it happens very often huh? Gee I guess we'll have a hard time knowing without the recordings. Oh wait, we DO have the recordings so we know it DOES happen.
And that legal theory applied in many scenarios and is, IMNSHO, fucking retarded. The blackmail is already illegal. We don't need to make the means by which the blackmail was facilitated illigel. An act btw, that we already admit is NOT actually a crime in and of itself. It is this legal manuvuering that allows the legal system to pile on bullshit charges in an effort to force defendants to plead out because the sum of the charges, all stemming from only the only "real crime" of blackmail (in this example), are so huge that no one would ever risk going to court and losing. However without that single real crime, there would be no crimal charges at all. Disclaimer: No this has never happened to me, I simply believe it is wrong.
Actaully they have both and it just depends. Here in the States, I see more four-legged power-line structures than I do the single point types. But I have seen them. Anyway the point is, the GP clearly doesn't realize there is more than one way to make a structure that is sturdy.
Odd... My very cheap GT220 NVIDIA card does audio over HDMI to my Onkyo receiver with no effort at all; been doing it for 5 months with all drivers versions from then till now. To my knowledge all of the new 2xx series do that. 5.1 for sure, and 7.1 iirc (neither my receiver nor my source are 7.1)
But you are right that it used to be a problem, but not anymore if you buy correctly. It was literally plug and play save the initial guided wizard to set resolution and choosing the audio path (analog or digital).
:) I knew my EE101 wasn't that rusty, but I was too lazy to make sure I wasn't using the wrong terms to describe what my mind knew were the right concepts.
[sigh] yes excuse my colloquial usage and thank you for correcting me. Good thing nothing you have said in any way changes the POINT of what I said which is the SOURCE of the power can LIMIT current flow until such time as the source of the current has established that the connected device is capable of handling it. Much like the USB standard limits current until such time as the hub has established that the device is suitable for the full power.
Can't this be solved by not pushing 100w until the devices negotiate the connections and have established that the input device capable of handling the power?
Slashdot Mirror
It *is* generic because I was using the term well before Apple. In fact I was using it in a PC environment. At my job, which is a fairly large government agency, if we wanted to install software on our computers then we were told to "look in the appilcation store" to see if it had been approved. If it was then we could "order" the app and it would either automatically install at boot, install pending license validation, or hold for technician assistance. And often times amoung the more savy folks it would just be called the app store.
So suck it Apple.
Aren't "labels" the solution to that in gmail?
I know one place where the value of backups is learned hard and fast: Grad School. I warned my classmates (read: I explained to them how paranoid I was) but everyone scoffed until on of them lost 6 months of thesis work. Never have I seen the phrase "spooked the herd" so convincingly demonstrated. Next thing you knew "saving" your work meant clicking save (to thumbdrive), clicking print, clicking email-to, and copy-to-network. We had two more people "lose work" who were subsequently saved by the process ... no one ever had to resort to retyping from the printed document ;-)
[quote]And here is an even bigger problem. That cost will be raised for everyone else too. So you got an Android phone because you don't support Apple being an evil company? Too bad. It's $10/mo for Last.fm no matter what.[/quote]
Who says? AFAICT the terms only say they have to charge the same price for subscriptions on the iOS regardless of source. Where does it say in the terms that a service has to charge the same price for apps operating on non-Apple devices?
Damn well straight they are asking for that. If a business attemps to dictates untenable terms (30%) with obvious consequences (cannot competetively operate at a profit) then they are either asking for those consequences or are incompetent. I am not a fan of Apple but I would never accuse them of incompetance. Arrogance yes, but not incompetance.
They only have to raise the price across the iOS board ... nothing says they have to also raise the price across the market board.
Seems to me the solution is charge iOS users the same price regardless of subscription source but charge less for Android/Win7/RIM/etc users. Or does the Cult of Steve think they can dictate terms between two non-Apple entities beyond jumping up and down, stamping its feet, and complaining that they are being competed against?
Caveat: we'll ignore the fact that your monthly rate does NOT go down once you have completed your contract.
According to the phone company the phone SUBSIDIZED via that 2 year contract. So, by your logic, and by the current state of things that means you are being DOUBLE taxed. How is that you ask: because the customer is providing $420 of value to the telco via the contract (rad: the telco gets their $420 via the monthly payment during the 2-year contract term). So now I'm taxed on that $420 at time of purchase AND taxed on my monthly contract payments. Because make no mistake, that contract has value and the customer is the one providing that value. Don't believe it? Just ask the phone company to give you a phone for at the discount rate without a contract. I only ask that you video the encounter and post it on YouTube so we can watch as the sales rep dies from laughter.
I mean afterall if we are going to use sketchy logic lets go all the way. And as another poster has already said: we aren't taxed on the full price of a TV when buying it on sale. But by your logic that really is straight up "income to me" so why aren't customers taxed on that full retail price? Yup that's right, it is just as absurd as taxing on the full price of the phone.
[quote]Don't you have a PIN-code on your credit card?? Anyone can find out what your zip code is...[/quote]
If they are targeting *you*, or have your wallet. But if they skimmed the CC number, stole the card, or any other number ways they have just the card or the numbers, then not having the zip is a deterent. It isn't 100% but nothing is 100%. Like computer secruity it is about layers and risk mitigation. As for the PIN, I'd rather not risk an unattended pump having a skimmer placed on it. Oh sure they could put a skimmer and then they'd have my ZIP and that opens me up to some risks. But it is less of a risk than if they have my PIN. The ZIP is a good middle ground between something that is at least harder to to obtain than having to obtain nothing, but doesn't unlock my entire world.
It does however seem like another alternative would be the ability to have multiple PINs for different transaction types. And I mean one specifically for unattended uses like at gas pumps, and another for attended POS transactions, and maybe a third for online transactions. It would be easy enough to even "announce" which PIN to use via a sticker on the terminal. "Use your Gas Station Pin", "Use your Regular PIN", "Use your Online PIN".
Sure some people will try to use the same pin for all, and maybe you let them because it is better than them writing it down. But it gives an option for people who want better security and have the memory to go with it. Again not 100% but it is a mitigation strategy for the CC Co and the merchants.
Of course I'd really rather see us start using RSA-like pins but we're still a few years away from that. Sad since the "cost" of implementing it has no doubt been spent 2-fold on other more useless security mechanisms as well as paying for the fraud that has occured in the intervening years.
Nooooo they simply do not know that she is who she says she is. Look at it from their perspective, someone calls them, feeds them a story, and then tries to gain information that could aide in the commision of identity theft. It is an annoying catch-22 but there you have it. It does eventually get rectified and believe it or not there are ways to deal with it without getting the information, it just means being creative.
Yes and then I can be denied access to my government computer. Not all of us have the luxury of running portable apps without the risk of getting hammered. I like /. but not enough to risk my career over it. And no, smarty pants, reading /. during work hours is not a risk :p
And if you don't like that
1) 3 * 1/3 = 1 .9...
2) 1/3 = 0.3.....
3) 3 * 0.3... = 1
4) 3 * 0.3... =
There for 0.9... = 1
You couldn't be more wrong. Or do you think the FBI doesn't classify and compartmentalize its domestic counter terrorism, gang, corruption, etc efforts? I'm talking both data and methods.
OH yes, make no mistake none of that is lost on me. I suppose my point is, make them choke on it >;-)
So why does it matter where it is stored, who stores it, blah blah blah.
If all I have purchased from the record companies is a license to the music, then isn't all that matters is that the person accessing the cloud has a license? Doesn't that license entitle me to certain listening rights.
Or to put it another way, isn't MP3Tunes.com responsible for doing nothing else beyond ensuring I have a license for the music they are serving me? Isn't a reasonable method for discerning that fact my ability to upload a copy of that music?
There are two scenarios: either I uploaded a licensed version so now STFU. Or it is an unlicensed version and as such MP3Tunes still isn't facilitating since they aren't the ones that gave me the unlicensed version in the first place and oh yeah BTW I already have an unlicensed copy so the battle is lost. No one else is "getting" that unlicensed version since the only reason they even have access via the cloud is because they already uploaded a licensed version or [drum roll please] they already are in possession of, and uploaded, an unlicensed version.
use it to move the ever increasing wind turbine parts that, a year ago, seemed to be getting too large to move over roads especially as regulations pushed them into less and less accessible areas.
And lets not forget about the OTHER 10k vehicles traveling to the shore just to window shop or look for an item that isn't there so they go to ANOTHER store. Did they factor in the savings from the reduction in wasted trips vs. searching ten stores online, finding what I want, and then having it shipped to me? If they assumed a 1 to 1 replacement ratio for online vs brick-and-mortar purchases then they did it wrong. They must be friends with the RIAA's analysts ;-)
You are correct, he should not have been modded Troll. But he is also WRONG. Not wrong about the reality of the world, but morally wrong. Wrong in the way that blaming a rape victim for wearing a mini-skirt is wrong.
As people living in the same society I completely agree that we should all treat each other with respect. But it goes both ways. Plenty of cops treat the people they deal with in a respectful manner. But plenty do not. Even more so, plenty do not do it all the time to everyone equally. I have been friends with cops, hung out with them at the coffee shop or their favorite bars. And I have to tell you listening to some of their stories both amaze me at their foritute and sicken me with their attitude. More than once my response to a story was, "and WTF in our history makes you think I find that 1) funny and 2) even remotely acceptable behavior?" Really and trully they suffer from the same problem we all suffer: a lack of opposing view points tends to reinforce behavior and even normalize it among a given subset.
The problem with the above post is that it places us "mere citizens" in a position of having to "avert our eyes" to those in positions of power and authority. To do otherwise risks retribution not for infactions of actual law but because their inflated egos have been popped by a pion who dares to treat them as an equal.
and if what you are "told to do" is to turn off your legal recording device so they can harrass you then what? You are pathetic with a capital P; just lick the hand that beats you while you are at it.
Deserve? DESERVE?!?! are you friggin kidding me. First while I generally do speak to cops with respect it is because they come at me from a place of respect (like the last bullshit ticket I got which I 100% deserved but the scenario was still bogus and the cop should have warned me and moved on). But, if they start out from a place of bullshit, like pulling me over for no good reason and I KNOW I'm 100% on the legal side, I will and HAVE called a cop a liar to his face
Cop tailgates me in the right lane at 2am for 5 miles with his highbeams on between Cincinatti and Dayon OH. Cruise control is set at one mile below limit. He FINALLY pulls me over:
Cop: I pulled you over because you crossed the white line, ... no ticket and not even a field sobriety test which was why he pulled me over I have no doubt.
Me: That isn't true and you know it, but lets not argue about it
And this has nothing to do with complying with orders. This has to do with legally recording an interaction with a public official to ensure he does not abuse his authority, even while complying. Or more to the point, to PROVE that you complied, and the abuse still happened. You don't think it happens very often huh? Gee I guess we'll have a hard time knowing without the recordings. Oh wait, we DO have the recordings so we know it DOES happen.
And that legal theory applied in many scenarios and is, IMNSHO, fucking retarded. The blackmail is already illegal. We don't need to make the means by which the blackmail was facilitated illigel. An act btw, that we already admit is NOT actually a crime in and of itself. It is this legal manuvuering that allows the legal system to pile on bullshit charges in an effort to force defendants to plead out because the sum of the charges, all stemming from only the only "real crime" of blackmail (in this example), are so huge that no one would ever risk going to court and losing. However without that single real crime, there would be no crimal charges at all. Disclaimer: No this has never happened to me, I simply believe it is wrong.
Actaully they have both and it just depends. Here in the States, I see more four-legged power-line structures than I do the single point types. But I have seen them. Anyway the point is, the GP clearly doesn't realize there is more than one way to make a structure that is sturdy.
Odd ... My very cheap GT220 NVIDIA card does audio over HDMI to my Onkyo receiver with no effort at all; been doing it for 5 months with all drivers versions from then till now. To my knowledge all of the new 2xx series do that. 5.1 for sure, and 7.1 iirc (neither my receiver nor my source are 7.1)
But you are right that it used to be a problem, but not anymore if you buy correctly. It was literally plug and play save the initial guided wizard to set resolution and choosing the audio path (analog or digital).
:) I knew my EE101 wasn't that rusty, but I was too lazy to make sure I wasn't using the wrong terms to describe what my mind knew were the right concepts.
[sigh] yes excuse my colloquial usage and thank you for correcting me. Good thing nothing you have said in any way changes the POINT of what I said which is the SOURCE of the power can LIMIT current flow until such time as the source of the current has established that the connected device is capable of handling it. Much like the USB standard limits current until such time as the hub has established that the device is suitable for the full power.
Can't this be solved by not pushing 100w until the devices negotiate the connections and have established that the input device capable of handling the power?