Stop listening to the other people who apparently DON'T have eink kindles and have no idea what they are talking about (like the stupid fuck who said it cycles ads). Yes the kindle has an off switch.
No the screen doesn't go blank because epaper almost-never goes blank. It just shows a static image and will continue showing that static image for months w/o burning energy. (Think of an etch-a-sketch. You draw it and then it stays. No battery needed to keep that drawing.) If you fall asleep while reading, the kindle will turn off the G3 or Wifi modem, turn-off the led lighting, and then stop using energy from the battery.
>>> you are being forced to take the adds on something that you payed for in entirety
You sir are a lazy person. Why? Because you couldn't take 2 minutes to visit amazon.com and verify your statement. FACT:
When I bought my kindle last spring, the ones that were "payed for in entirety" were priced about $50 more than the ad-supported kindles. In other words the ad-supported kindles ARE being subsidized by the ads, and the no-ad kindles are much more expensive.
The problem I have with this professor's review of the online course is this: He would find the *exact same problems* in most real-world colleges. The stuff he described like the instructor giving poor real-world examples, straying from the syllabus (or only covering 3/4 of it due to running out of semester), et cetera are the EXACT same problems I encountered at the two universities I attended.
For example I had a professor who routinely "lost his way" when solving some long complicated problem. Another who mumbled into the blackboard and nobody had a clue what he was talking about. Another who routinely showed-up ten minutes late, passed out photocopies of his notes, and then told us to review them. (And on and on and on.) So really what this reviewer observed is not a problem with online professors but a problem with poor-quality professors in the brick-and-mortar system as well.
There have been numerous reports of the Homeland inSecurity demanding customer lists from bulk supply stores/online merchants. Some stores say "no" but some other stores happily hand it over. Then the customers on the list get visits from the DHS officers requesting permission to search those homes.
I wonder why ads bother people so much. Especially on the kindle where the ads are unobtrusive (you only see them on the power-off screensaver). My kindle came with ads disabled, and I got bored with the default images of authors, so I turned the ads on to get $50 refunded to my account.
Sounds like a corporation to me. And if the lawsuit did kill it, well then maybe it deserved to die for having such stupid rules that won't even let the MAN BEING TALKED ABOUT correct his own damn page. It would be akin to wikpedia publishing, "Glenn Beck raped a woman when he was a college student," and Beck tells them that never happened + no such criminal record exists. But instead wikipedia just keeps citing blogs that make the claim.
Would you expect Beck to just say, "Oh well" and do nothing?? Of course not. He would sue for defamation. And if the Wikimedia corporation/foundation died.... then tough shit. Guess they should have thought about that possiblity BEFORE they defamed/insulted a living citizen. (Or in this case: book author.) Another better e-encyclopedia will rise up to replace it. Just as when Atari stopped making videogame consoles in 1983, Nintendo moved in to fill the vacuum in 1985.
>>>nearly forgotten Geek meme? Wikipedia's the place to go. Anything else? Not if your serious about it.
Naturally. When I was in school the rule was: "No encyclopedias". We could use them as starting points but not published references. I assume the schools still have that same rule?
And what happens after the guy dies and his blog is shutdown? Wikipedia will just revert to the incorrect information..... shows how unreliable the place is.
Then you revert the Edits back into the article with a note: "It is a violation of wikirules to remove properly cited material. If you think it should be removed, goto Talk page and justify your case."
Or just sue the Wikipedia Corporation. They had ample opportunity to correct the Defaming statement, but refused to listen to the author being biographied. Therefore the author should have sued them.............. and no I don't think that's taking it too far. Corporations certainly don't hold back from suing their own customers, so why should we individuals hold back?
>>> I don't see any difference between my neighbors having a heated conversation that I can hear inside my house and them sending unencrypted packets into my house.
Agreed. Reminds me of the couple I lived next door to. The guy was constantly yelling at his girlfriend, which made her cry. Then he'd yell "But I love you!" Once they started arguing in the parking lot, so I went to my window to see what was going on. He pointed at my window and said, "What's your problem?" and then came charging up the stairs and pounding on my door.
I guess I was just all supposed to pretend none of this was happening, as if the sounds were not entering my apartment. Just as I'm supposed to pretend I don't see 2 open Wifis broadcasting to my PC. ----- Sorry but I disagree with persons who think that.
>>>I don't know what happens to my letters after I give them to the post office; but I still expect they won't be read by the government without a warrant.
That don't need a warrant. I've had a few of my letters & packages opened and resealed. Once the item leaves your hand it's no longer protected from government spying.
>>>because listening to unencrypted cellphones is illegal.
Not in my state. You only need the consent of one person. That's me and my scanner; I've heard many cellphone, portable, and HAM communications. Besides: Just like TV and radio you are broadcasting "in the open" and therefore have no more expectation of privacy than if you stood on a soapbox and started reading a book aloud.
Well interesting. My Linux laptop doesn't have that. Instead it pops-up a screen preferences window which doesn't fit, which means there's no way to select the "OK" button at the bottom. Which means I'm stuck at 640x400.
>>>>>Or take the easier action and just file a DMCA response that says the files are not copyrighted. The ISP has to restore the files. If they don't, then sue them. >> >>losing the safe harbor benefit with respect to actions by the user is a non-event
First off, how about quoting my WHOLE comment. I said the customer should sue the ISP. Second, I wouldn't call that a "non-event". No company wants to be sued for breach-of-contract, suppression of free speech, abuse of monopoly, and whatever else the customer's lawyer tacks onto the court filing. A man just recently won a lawsuit against his ISP after they tookdown his business website without cause. He was awarded thousands of dollars in damages.
The pre-ad web I remember was pre-1995, and there was little actual content. No wikipedia; no youtube. Mostly just fansites listing Star Trek or seaQuest episode titles, which were of little actual use. I typically spent less than an hour online per day, because there was little worth seeing.
The advent of ads has allowed websites to gather money & use that money to develop content I want to see. Like free online magazines to read, or audiobooks to listen to, or TV shows/movies. None of that existed in the pre-ad internet (pre-1995).
Well the "do not track" really shouldn't be enbled by default, anymore than a DVR should skip over TV ads by default. The courts have already ruled DVR makers may not do auto-ad-skip, because it's the same as stealing copyrighted TV broadcast. Ads can still be skipped but only if initiated by the customer.
Personally I like the ads. They give me free TV, free radio, and free internet. Plus they are easy-to-ignore; most of the time I don't even see them.
>>That implies that without a valid complaint, there would be a cause for action against the service provider. People need to start suing
Yes. You pay taxes to support the courts. Might as well start using them. Or take the easier action and just file a DMCA response that says the files are not copyrighted. The ISP has to restore the files. If they don't, then sue them.
>>>Proving your opponent wrong doesn't mean you win if they don't accept it.
I wasn't trying to change his mind. I was changing the minds of the ~10,000 other forum members who observed this spectacle of a guy claiming vaccines had mercury/RFIDs and then completely failing to prove it, followed by a childish rant/insult. In the view of the onlookers he lost the debate and I won.
Sometimes the best way to "love your neighbor" is not to hand them a check every month, but to tell them to get off their lazy ass and get a job. There's a Jesus parable about teaching men how to become a fisherman, so they can get their own food rather than have to beg others for fish.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop listening to the other people who apparently DON'T have eink kindles and have no idea what they are talking about (like the stupid fuck who said it cycles ads). Yes the kindle has an off switch.
No the screen doesn't go blank because epaper almost-never goes blank. It just shows a static image and will continue showing that static image for months w/o burning energy. (Think of an etch-a-sketch. You draw it and then it stays. No battery needed to keep that drawing.) If you fall asleep while reading, the kindle will turn off the G3 or Wifi modem, turn-off the led lighting, and then stop using energy from the battery.
>>> you are being forced to take the adds on something that you payed for in entirety
You sir are a lazy person. Why? Because you couldn't take 2 minutes to visit amazon.com and verify your statement. FACT:
When I bought my kindle last spring, the ones that were "payed for in entirety" were priced about $50 more than the ad-supported kindles. In other words the ad-supported kindles ARE being subsidized by the ads, and the no-ad kindles are much more expensive.
>>>>>I heard somebody say that they knew somebody that said
>>
>>citation needed
Way to misquote me. You did it with the skill of a FOX News or MSNBC talking head. http://www.bing.com/search?q=FEDERAL+AGENTS+DEMAND+CUSTOMER+LISTS
The problem I have with this professor's review of the online course is this: He would find the *exact same problems* in most real-world colleges. The stuff he described like the instructor giving poor real-world examples, straying from the syllabus (or only covering 3/4 of it due to running out of semester), et cetera are the EXACT same problems I encountered at the two universities I attended.
For example I had a professor who routinely "lost his way" when solving some long complicated problem. Another who mumbled into the blackboard and nobody had a clue what he was talking about. Another who routinely showed-up ten minutes late, passed out photocopies of his notes, and then told us to review them. (And on and on and on.) So really what this reviewer observed is not a problem with online professors but a problem with poor-quality professors in the brick-and-mortar system as well.
There have been numerous reports of the Homeland inSecurity demanding customer lists from bulk supply stores/online merchants. Some stores say "no" but some other stores happily hand it over. Then the customers on the list get visits from the DHS officers requesting permission to search those homes.
>>>bled over into the arm and thumb of the person holding the bottle
Wow. Okay so what motive would the Daily Mail of the fine and prestigious UK have to colorize these photos? Hmmm.
>>>The winner in terms of form factor is the Nook touch, hands down.
Too bad it doesn't come with my favorite magazine Fantasy & Science Fiction. That's only available in print format ($36) or on amazon kindle ($12).
I wonder why ads bother people so much. Especially on the kindle where the ads are unobtrusive (you only see them on the power-off screensaver). My kindle came with ads disabled, and I got bored with the default images of authors, so I turned the ads on to get $50 refunded to my account.
+ 1. I like your answer better than mine.
>>>There's a Wikimedia foundation, a non-profit.
Sounds like a corporation to me. And if the lawsuit did kill it, well then maybe it deserved to die for having such stupid rules that won't even let the MAN BEING TALKED ABOUT correct his own damn page. It would be akin to wikpedia publishing, "Glenn Beck raped a woman when he was a college student," and Beck tells them that never happened + no such criminal record exists. But instead wikipedia just keeps citing blogs that make the claim.
Would you expect Beck to just say, "Oh well" and do nothing?? Of course not. He would sue for defamation. And if the Wikimedia corporation/foundation died.... then tough shit. Guess they should have thought about that possiblity BEFORE they defamed/insulted a living citizen. (Or in this case: book author.) Another better e-encyclopedia will rise up to replace it. Just as when Atari stopped making videogame consoles in 1983, Nintendo moved in to fill the vacuum in 1985.
>>>nearly forgotten Geek meme? Wikipedia's the place to go. Anything else? Not if your serious about it.
Naturally. When I was in school the rule was: "No encyclopedias". We could use them as starting points but not published references. I assume the schools still have that same rule?
And what happens after the guy dies and his blog is shutdown? Wikipedia will just revert to the incorrect information..... shows how unreliable the place is.
Then you revert the Edits back into the article with a note: "It is a violation of wikirules to remove properly cited material. If you think it should be removed, goto Talk page and justify your case."
Or just sue the Wikipedia Corporation. They had ample opportunity to correct the Defaming statement, but refused to listen to the author being biographied. Therefore the author should have sued them.............. and no I don't think that's taking it too far. Corporations certainly don't hold back from suing their own customers, so why should we individuals hold back?
>>> I don't see any difference between my neighbors having a heated conversation that I can hear inside my house and them sending unencrypted packets into my house.
Agreed.
Reminds me of the couple I lived next door to. The guy was constantly yelling at his girlfriend, which made her cry. Then he'd yell "But I love you!" Once they started arguing in the parking lot, so I went to my window to see what was going on. He pointed at my window and said, "What's your problem?" and then came charging up the stairs and pounding on my door.
I guess I was just all supposed to pretend none of this was happening, as if the sounds were not entering my apartment. Just as I'm supposed to pretend I don't see 2 open Wifis broadcasting to my PC. ----- Sorry but I disagree with persons who think that.
>>>I don't know what happens to my letters after I give them to the post office; but I still expect they won't be read by the government without a warrant.
That don't need a warrant. I've had a few of my letters & packages opened and resealed. Once the item leaves your hand it's no longer protected from government spying.
>>>because listening to unencrypted cellphones is illegal.
Not in my state. You only need the consent of one person. That's me and my scanner; I've heard many cellphone, portable, and HAM communications. Besides: Just like TV and radio you are broadcasting "in the open" and therefore have no more expectation of privacy than if you stood on a soapbox and started reading a book aloud.
Well interesting. My Linux laptop doesn't have that. Instead it pops-up a screen preferences window which doesn't fit, which means there's no way to select the "OK" button at the bottom. Which means I'm stuck at 640x400.
>>>>>Or take the easier action and just file a DMCA response that says the files are not copyrighted. The ISP has to restore the files. If they don't, then sue them.
>>
>>losing the safe harbor benefit with respect to actions by the user is a non-event
First off, how about quoting my WHOLE comment. I said the customer should sue the ISP. Second, I wouldn't call that a "non-event". No company wants to be sued for breach-of-contract, suppression of free speech, abuse of monopoly, and whatever else the customer's lawyer tacks onto the court filing. A man just recently won a lawsuit against his ISP after they tookdown his business website without cause. He was awarded thousands of dollars in damages.
The pre-ad web I remember was pre-1995, and there was little actual content. No wikipedia; no youtube. Mostly just fansites listing Star Trek or seaQuest episode titles, which were of little actual use. I typically spent less than an hour online per day, because there was little worth seeing.
The advent of ads has allowed websites to gather money & use that money to develop content I want to see. Like free online magazines to read, or audiobooks to listen to, or TV shows/movies. None of that existed in the pre-ad internet (pre-1995).
Well the "do not track" really shouldn't be enbled by default, anymore than a DVR should skip over TV ads by default. The courts have already ruled DVR makers may not do auto-ad-skip, because it's the same as stealing copyrighted TV broadcast. Ads can still be skipped but only if initiated by the customer.
Personally I like the ads. They give me free TV, free radio, and free internet. Plus they are easy-to-ignore; most of the time I don't even see them.
>>>The IB complaint really tries to paint a picture of some kind of tortious interference, but doesn't actually list that claim.
"C'mon Boss. Can't I just shoot 'em? It will be quicker....."
>>That implies that without a valid complaint, there would be a cause for action against the service provider. People need to start suing
Yes. You pay taxes to support the courts. Might as well start using them.
Or take the easier action and just file a DMCA response that says the files are not copyrighted. The ISP has to restore the files. If they don't, then sue them.
>>>Proving your opponent wrong doesn't mean you win if they don't accept it.
I wasn't trying to change his mind. I was changing the minds of the ~10,000 other forum members who observed this spectacle of a guy claiming vaccines had mercury/RFIDs and then completely failing to prove it, followed by a childish rant/insult. In the view of the onlookers he lost the debate and I won.
Sometimes the best way to "love your neighbor" is not to hand them a check every month, but to tell them to get off their lazy ass and get a job. There's a Jesus parable about teaching men how to become a fisherman, so they can get their own food rather than have to beg others for fish.