That's great and all, but where in the article is that stated? How do you know this? No, how do you KNOW this, not assume or guess or think...but KNOW this? Hmm?
Sorry, but the number of posts on this thread that throw 'facts' out there that simply are NOT in the article...
Yes, but you discredited the original posters need for 30GB discs, and tried to show that there is no need for it.
Then someone else comes along and shows a good use for it.
It does not matter WHO showed a need for it, it still counters your argument, and is completely valid. Remember, the article isn't about providing this tech for 'perseid' only.
Just because you wouldn't use it doesn't mean no one will or should, and definitely doesn't mean no one should feel welcome to provide counter examples to your post.
Argument: They'll sell it to me, but I can't give them what they want for it, so I'll just take it.
That is exactly what you state. So is it suddenly ok to take anything you want that you don't have the means to purchase? What's the difference between your example, and someone 'taking' a $20000 car because they only have $150 in the bank?
Just because you don't have the means to do something does not make it right to then just take whatever you want. It really doesn't.
Article states off. Nowhere is 'standby' mentioned at all.
Granted, that is a possibility, but even then, your phone should NOT be performing activities that cost money without explicitly ensuring that you KNOW what the phone is doing.
How can anyone argue with a straight face that $4800 for a phone that wasn't being used is even remotely reasonably, and worse, the users fault?
Think about that for half a second here. Something is most assuredly wrong here.
I realize I was a bit curt, but given the tone of the post I was responding to whom quite obviously took great joy out of condemning the user that got nailed by this feature...sheesh.
Gotta love the mod system, thing of beauty. At least it doesn't send you bills when you're not using it;)
How the hell is an END USER supposed to jump to the conclusion that OFF doesn't mean OFF. Every other phone I have EVER seen is actually OFF when you turn it OFF.
You're completely off base. This is a seriously major design flaw, of that there is no question.
Sure, not much will happen to the min wage patsy other than maybe lose his job, which he damned well should. But the company he works for is responsible for his actions. Bottom line is a rebate company was found to be throwing out rebate submissions. Fraud would be the state reg. And anyone with enough balls, time, and money to stand up against this (self admitted by you) racket is who is going to prosecute.
How this got modded +5, and why you proceeded to tear a strip off someone else that replied to this post below for absolutely no reason whatsoever...
He's the kind of guy that could steal your wallet and still make you feel good about the whole experience. You know, you're right! I would feel good after kicking Steve Jobs in the nuts!
And then you're only given a 50% chance of not being in the control group.
And that's still only beneficial if you're in the test group for the particular drug or therapy that actually works!
And even if you are that lucky, there's a more than probable chance that your reward for surviving all of that and getting 'cured', will be to be euthanized shortly thereafter.
Yeah, that's kinda exactly what I was getting at...there was no reasonable justification for suggesting that the article he linked to in the firehose should have taken precedent in getting picked for the main page...definitely suspect an ulterior motive there.
Fair use part...ie: It's ok for personal use. It is not ok to distribute it via an electronic retrieval system however.
This actually gets right to the root of the real problem we've been having...RIAA et al have been arguing that ANY copying/storing/ripping etc is illegal, when the law gives us the provision to do whatever the hell we want with them...for our own personal use. Just not distributing them.
This could go a long ways towards clearing things up and giving us back our legal rights.
My god...and in this day and age. People who don't live in cities are all of a sudden second class? All of a sudden aren't part of civilization?
You will note that NOWHERE did I demand, or even suggest, that there is any sort of entitlement for all rural locations to be given free broadband, and yet people keep complaining like that is what is being asked for. It's not.
The government in the US granted monopolies to a number of telcos. These very same telcos, that have a government backed monopoly in their area, are refusing to provide broadband to customers, even those that are willing to pay the overhead to have it installed. If there were any competition allowed at all, then yes, 'so what' would be an appropriate response. HOWEVER, there IS no competition in these areas.
We've been here before. Phones? Electricity? Monopolies were handed out, but those companies were REQUIRED to offer those services to all, not just to the most profitable, in exchange for said monopoly.
In this particular case, the government has given out licenses to skim the barrel.
Of all places, I would expect the/. crowd to get this, and see where the problem lies. Instead, we get arguments that are so completely backwards and wrong for this day and age.
'They chose to live in the country, if they're that stupid, screw em, no broadband for them'
That is so bloody ignorant, elitist, and backwards.
Be ashamed, be very ashamed. If it weren't for those that choose to live outside of urban centers, you would not have the civilization you currently so ignorantly enjoy.
Alas, ignorance is indeed bliss, as is proven repeatedly.
But that's where video games fail...because they ARE video games...you aren't forced to sit and watch scary crap occur, you can DO something about it. I don't know about you, but when I'm playing 'scary' games, I'm LOOKING for those 'creepy' moments as a signal so I can turn the tide. When you're in control, why would you cower in fear as opposed to putting the pain to those that would try to scare you and cause you harm? In video games, there IS nothing scarier than you. (Unless it's a rigged, completely unbeatable game or scenario, and then it's just another movie, except you're annoyed because dammit, it's a game and you're supposed to have choices other than getting slaughtered!)
Movies can set up every little thing about a scary situation, and you have ZERO control.
But in a game, even if they manage to set up everything just right...when it comes right down to it, you're there to kick the ever loving snot out of whatever 'scary' thing might be around the next corner. You KNOW you're going to get your chance to beat that thing, whereas in a movie, you are completely helpless.
Now, I do have a bit of a bias in that I've never been scared by anything in a movie or in a game...startled, yes, but scared? No. I've always had a pretty solid grasp of fiction vs reality.
I'm confused, you don't like the government mandated regulations on providing phone and electricity service as it allows monopoly entrenchment.
But the result being that everyone has phone and electricity, and at a reasonable price.
And the internet providers have been given government backed monopolies, but AREN'T required to provide service to everyone...but this is somehow better?
Can you fill in the blanks please?
These services should either be totally open to competition with no government backed monopolies, or the services should be REQUIRED to be provided to all. One or the other. Anything else is just a license to skim the barrel...which is exactly what we have right now.
Are you really suggesting that the internet in North America is running over 100 year old infrastructure? Like, say, cables...switches...routers...repeaters...um
Riiight. Go smoke some more crack there mmkay.
I'm sorry, but I can't even remotely imagine what it is you think you are thinking when you say something like that. It's just, well, completely insane actually.
Slashdot Mirror
That's great and all, but where in the article is that stated? How do you know this? No, how do you KNOW this, not assume or guess or think...but KNOW this? Hmm?
Sorry, but the number of posts on this thread that throw 'facts' out there that simply are NOT in the article...
Yes, but you discredited the original posters need for 30GB discs, and tried to show that there is no need for it.
Then someone else comes along and shows a good use for it.
It does not matter WHO showed a need for it, it still counters your argument, and is completely valid. Remember, the article isn't about providing this tech for 'perseid' only.
Just because you wouldn't use it doesn't mean no one will or should, and definitely doesn't mean no one should feel welcome to provide counter examples to your post.
Argument: They'll sell it to me, but I can't give them what they want for it, so I'll just take it.
That is exactly what you state. So is it suddenly ok to take anything you want that you don't have the means to purchase? What's the difference between your example, and someone 'taking' a $20000 car because they only have $150 in the bank?
Just because you don't have the means to do something does not make it right to then just take whatever you want. It really doesn't.
Article states off. Nowhere is 'standby' mentioned at all.
Granted, that is a possibility, but even then, your phone should NOT be performing activities that cost money without explicitly ensuring that you KNOW what the phone is doing.
How can anyone argue with a straight face that $4800 for a phone that wasn't being used is even remotely reasonably, and worse, the users fault?
Think about that for half a second here. Something is most assuredly wrong here.
Especially the mods.
;)
I realize I was a bit curt, but given the tone of the post I was responding to whom quite obviously took great joy out of condemning the user that got nailed by this feature...sheesh.
Gotta love the mod system, thing of beauty. At least it doesn't send you bills when you're not using it
It was OFF.
How the hell is an END USER supposed to jump to the conclusion that OFF doesn't mean OFF. Every other phone I have EVER seen is actually OFF when you turn it OFF.
You're completely off base. This is a seriously major design flaw, of that there is no question.
And that's supposed to make it all ok?
Sure, not much will happen to the min wage patsy other than maybe lose his job, which he damned well should. But the company he works for is responsible for his actions. Bottom line is a rebate company was found to be throwing out rebate submissions. Fraud would be the state reg. And anyone with enough balls, time, and money to stand up against this (self admitted by you) racket is who is going to prosecute.
How this got modded +5, and why you proceeded to tear a strip off someone else that replied to this post below for absolutely no reason whatsoever...
C'mon Steve, steal my wallet, I know you want to!
Yes.
;)
And I could tell you what it is, but then I'd have to kill you.
We are going to rule the world after all, ehh.
And then you're only given a 50% chance of not being in the control group.
And that's still only beneficial if you're in the test group for the particular drug or therapy that actually works!
And even if you are that lucky, there's a more than probable chance that your reward for surviving all of that and getting 'cured', will be to be euthanized shortly thereafter.
Odds...they are not good for a lab rat.
Yeah, that's kinda exactly what I was getting at...there was no reasonable justification for suggesting that the article he linked to in the firehose should have taken precedent in getting picked for the main page...definitely suspect an ulterior motive there.
I've got it!
;)
Cell-based storage!!! Best of both worlds!!! Mix of both Row and Column based storage, how can we go wrong!
Just think about it, what could be better than one file for each column in each row?
And they said I couldn't have my cake and eat it too, sheesh
What're you asking for exactly?
It's very common for there to be multiple versions of the same story in the firehose, editors pick the best.
In this case, they picked the one that linked to the actual news release, not to a secondary news source as you suggest they should have.
Fair use part...ie: It's ok for personal use.
It is not ok to distribute it via an electronic retrieval system however.
This actually gets right to the root of the real problem we've been having...RIAA et al have been arguing that ANY copying/storing/ripping etc is illegal, when the law gives us the provision to do whatever the hell we want with them...for our own personal use. Just not distributing them.
This could go a long ways towards clearing things up and giving us back our legal rights.
You've never been forced to pay the tax on the blue book value even when you paid much less for the car? Standard practice.
No, you're right, zero difference between a copyright on an old movie and availability of broadband internet service. Exact same things.
And Song of the South is a service all of a sudden?
Sheesh, are you really going to make me explain the difference?
Um, where's the government backed service monopoly?
In other words, No.
My god...and in this day and age. People who don't live in cities are all of a sudden second class? All of a sudden aren't part of civilization?
/. crowd to get this, and see where the problem lies. Instead, we get arguments that are so completely backwards and wrong for this day and age.
You will note that NOWHERE did I demand, or even suggest, that there is any sort of entitlement for all rural locations to be given free broadband, and yet people keep complaining like that is what is being asked for. It's not.
The government in the US granted monopolies to a number of telcos. These very same telcos, that have a government backed monopoly in their area, are refusing to provide broadband to customers, even those that are willing to pay the overhead to have it installed. If there were any competition allowed at all, then yes, 'so what' would be an appropriate response. HOWEVER, there IS no competition in these areas.
We've been here before. Phones? Electricity? Monopolies were handed out, but those companies were REQUIRED to offer those services to all, not just to the most profitable, in exchange for said monopoly.
In this particular case, the government has given out licenses to skim the barrel.
Of all places, I would expect the
'They chose to live in the country, if they're that stupid, screw em, no broadband for them'
That is so bloody ignorant, elitist, and backwards.
Be ashamed, be very ashamed. If it weren't for those that choose to live outside of urban centers, you would not have the civilization you currently so ignorantly enjoy.
Alas, ignorance is indeed bliss, as is proven repeatedly.
"And still, you have to go there."
What, you mean you'd choose to NOT go there if you could? Why? You're there to kick some alien butt, why on earth would you be scared? Silliness.
But that's where video games fail...because they ARE video games...you aren't forced to sit and watch scary crap occur, you can DO something about it. I don't know about you, but when I'm playing 'scary' games, I'm LOOKING for those 'creepy' moments as a signal so I can turn the tide. When you're in control, why would you cower in fear as opposed to putting the pain to those that would try to scare you and cause you harm? In video games, there IS nothing scarier than you. (Unless it's a rigged, completely unbeatable game or scenario, and then it's just another movie, except you're annoyed because dammit, it's a game and you're supposed to have choices other than getting slaughtered!)
Totally agreed.
Movies can set up every little thing about a scary situation, and you have ZERO control.
But in a game, even if they manage to set up everything just right...when it comes right down to it, you're there to kick the ever loving snot out of whatever 'scary' thing might be around the next corner. You KNOW you're going to get your chance to beat that thing, whereas in a movie, you are completely helpless.
Now, I do have a bit of a bias in that I've never been scared by anything in a movie or in a game...startled, yes, but scared? No. I've always had a pretty solid grasp of fiction vs reality.
How can they possibly enforce monopoly regulations when the monopoly holder refuses to offer the service their monopoly covers?
It should be illegal to hold a government backed monopoly and refuse to provide the service that said monopoly covers.
I'm confused, you don't like the government mandated regulations on providing phone and electricity service as it allows monopoly entrenchment.
But the result being that everyone has phone and electricity, and at a reasonable price.
And the internet providers have been given government backed monopolies, but AREN'T required to provide service to everyone...but this is somehow better?
Can you fill in the blanks please?
These services should either be totally open to competition with no government backed monopolies, or the services should be REQUIRED to be provided to all. One or the other. Anything else is just a license to skim the barrel...which is exactly what we have right now.
Are you really suggesting that the internet in North America is running over 100 year old infrastructure? Like, say, cables...switches...routers...repeaters...um
Riiight. Go smoke some more crack there mmkay.
I'm sorry, but I can't even remotely imagine what it is you think you are thinking when you say something like that. It's just, well, completely insane actually.