I don't claim that right, I'm just pointing out the fallacy that you can just "go without it".
Really? You're required by law to purchase internet service or cellphone service or a tablet computer? By whom?
Your life might be less convenient without internet at home or a cellphone, but you don't enjoy a right to convenience, either.
Let's not confuse "I can't" with "I don't want to."
That's equivalent to saying, "you can just live someplace else" if you criticize the U.S.'s policies.
No, it really isn't. A corporation competing against other corporations to provide a product or service in exchange for your money cannot directly compel you--under penalty of law--to purchase its own products.
Since you can just forgo any product that has terrible restrictions on it that we wouldn't put up with from the gov't I assume you don't have a cell phone cable internet and are posting from your local library.
Yes, I can. But I shouldn't have to forgo a product or service provided by a private entity merely because you don't like the terms under which it's provided.
I have a cellphone, cable television, and DSL, provided by private entities because I decided that the value I get is worth the price I pay.
I don't, however, have curbside garbage pickup because I don't believe the value I get for it is worth the price I'd pay vs. taking my garbage to the transfer station.
Just like Apple doesn't have a right to make you purchase an iPad and content from the iTunes Store, you do not have a right to impose your desire for openness on Apple's platform and relationship with its customers.
Untill it becomes so mainstream that you really have a hard time functioning in society without one. How many people do you know who do not own a telephone of some kind?
Since there's more than one manufacturer of telephones and more than one provider of telephone service, what point are you trying to make here?
Not buying it is all well and good, but now it seems nobody can even question the policy?
By all means, question the policy. But don't equate a government (whose powers include passing laws and requiring you to do things) with a corporation (whose powers are not the same).
I honestly can't see why Apple don't give advanced users the ability to do more - badge it as a developer license or whatever, this is obviously not about making things easy for the customer),
You mean like the developer license you can already buy for $99 that allows you to install applications you compile on the device?
Why are the privacy nutcases always so ready to imagine the most terrible wrongs about potential abuse of power by the government, but think it is super okay to give all control to a corporation?
Because you still retain the option of not buying the corporation's product.
Personally, I think it makes it a bit more disgusting that the completely innocent person you are torturing over a frivolous, nonexistent, totally unnecessary, case, happens to be a disabled single mother of a small child whose sole income is Social Security Disability.
[...] even people who are sensitive to this issue have no option but to buy parts that were manufactured by armies of workers on a pittance wage strengthens the point of the GP and the GGGP.
Not all security-related bugs are easily identifiable as such. And even if they were, and then they were marked as such, do you really want the changelog easily greppable by them?
"Dear God, won't somebody please think of the children?"
Hey, I look at it as every dollar spent on the Mars rover is one more dollar not being spent on a new bomber or killer robots or something along those lines.
Do you look at every illegal song/movie download as a lost sale, too?
This is the only way I would be happy to allow tracking.
Unless you can get the content provider to agree to your terms, you'll either have to do without the content or start an escalating game of technological cat-and-mouse.
It's pretty easy when you look at the vote tallies for your county and see that the candidate you voted for is showing zero votes. That makes it obvious that the original count is wrong.
The recount the Slashbots were talking about in the original story is the one Gollum asked for. The missing votes for Rep. Paul were neither germane to the Democratic primary nor anything more than a rounding error.
Uncertainty is when you vote is being counted by black box machines made by a company that employs know felons in key management areas.
The Diebold machines in NH are optical scan machines that count paper ballots. A hand recount of these machine-counted ballots appears to have resulted in highly similar results, well within Sen. Clinton's margin of victory.
Uncertainty is when 56% of the population doesn't even show up to vote, because they do not feel represented by either of the two available choices.
Then those 56% of the people are complacent retards who aren't even trying to improve the process. There can be no uncertainty over ballots not even cast. Nice strawman.
I smell rat. It's my understanding that it is against facebook policy to allow any user to join or search a high school group (network) if they are not attending the school. Did the admin lie about his/her age? Is facebook not really enforcing the published student safety policy?
I smell idiot. It's my understanding that it is recommended that you read the article before posting about it. Are you a moron? Is it really that hard to read the article?
The photos were mailed to the school, you dumbass.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? You're required by law to purchase internet service or cellphone service or a tablet computer? By whom?
Your life might be less convenient without internet at home or a cellphone, but you don't enjoy a right to convenience, either.
Let's not confuse "I can't" with "I don't want to."
No, it really isn't. A corporation competing against other corporations to provide a product or service in exchange for your money cannot directly compel you--under penalty of law--to purchase its own products.
Yes, I can. But I shouldn't have to forgo a product or service provided by a private entity merely because you don't like the terms under which it's provided.
I have a cellphone, cable television, and DSL, provided by private entities because I decided that the value I get is worth the price I pay.
I don't, however, have curbside garbage pickup because I don't believe the value I get for it is worth the price I'd pay vs. taking my garbage to the transfer station.
Just like Apple doesn't have a right to make you purchase an iPad and content from the iTunes Store, you do not have a right to impose your desire for openness on Apple's platform and relationship with its customers.
Since there's more than one manufacturer of telephones and more than one provider of telephone service, what point are you trying to make here?
By all means, question the policy. But don't equate a government (whose powers include passing laws and requiring you to do things) with a corporation (whose powers are not the same).
You mean like the developer license you can already buy for $99 that allows you to install applications you compile on the device?
Because you still retain the option of not buying the corporation's product.
What happened to justice being blind?
And your motherboard?
No option? Really?
Not purchasing a computer at all isn't an option?
Interesting thesis.
Who manufactured the components in the computer you're using to post on Slashdot?
"Dear God, won't somebody please think of the children?"
That's some pretty impressive voodoo.
An excellent point, sir.
Some people will refuse to accept reality no matter how many facts you shove in their faces.
The photos were mailed to the school, you dumbass.