Any responsible parent can't leave a child on his own and perfectly entitled to use as many tools as his disposal as possible in order to ensure the child does not get in harm's way.
..... that sprouts this inane nonsense every time issues related to parenthood are discussed?
Paents do not own their children, their children have rights that their parents can't infringe.
To pretend that children should be subject to the same rights and obligations as fully grown adults is unrealistic, irresponsible and frankly fully idiotic.
I will not go to any more lengths to explain why this is so, but posts like this should not go unasnwered, specially when some derided moderators dish the insightful or interesting points so cheaply.
... that implies that the Norwegian Ombusdman is an idiot, has been debunked elsewhere on this thread.
Summarizing, they went after Apple only to set an example for all the other companies to take heed and act responsibly.
In synthesis, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that all music players should be able to play music bought in any store. If companies don't sit dow and sort out the mess, they will find themselves more and more in the crosshairs of regulators and consumer rights' advocates.
You can still use common sense in many situations without requiring a lawyer and can ask other people what their experiences have been in similar situation.
The love for lawyers in the US is reaching epidemic proportions.
Oh? You wanted the complete offer in writing? I'm sorry. You must accept and sign that offer in one week or it will be retracted. We're sorry. We can't make any changes to the language of the offer. That's dictated by the legal department. Would you like to be homeless instead? That's the only offer you're getting.
Maybe you've never been screwed. Maybe you've always been handed a prime piece of pie. The fact is this: companies love to play hardball to screw employees especially when it comes to NDAs, pre-employment agreements, and relocation packages. Homeless? For the enormous majority of people those are not the options. And although I have never been in such desperate situation I would think that nobody would be hired directly from being homeless (a homeless person would have to sort himself out first febore applying for a job, with the help of the government or charities that can provide support).
As far as I am concerned, I would not accept a job in a company that would not put things in writing for me to check at home for a couple of days.
Even in one were in a dire situation that should not mean that you should accept anything that is put in front of you blindly.
The BBC is accountable to the license fee paying public.
Which in the UK is pretty much everybody and his dog.
UK geeks will be watching very carefully that such a high profile program is fair, and if it isn't the BBC will have to brace itself for all the complaints, that if are many, do have repercussions.
All this jumping through loops should not be a consumer concern.
Since the companies are not organizing a competitive market that allows consumers to get what they are paying for, then govrnments have to intervine in order to tell the companies what is acceptable behaviour in a competitive and fair market.
In Mexico panaderias (bakeries) used to sell milk with a catch, you could buy milk only if you bought bread.
This was declared illegal (tied sales are illegal in most countries I have lived in).
What Apple is doing is controlling which portable device you can use by means of tying iPods to iTunes. The "option" of burning a CD and then ripping it is a non option, any person with a modicum of computing literacy knows this.
Lets say that is like if the panaderias allowed the shop downstairs (who are renting space and thus can be arm forced) to sell you milk only if it was deficient in some way.
Slashdot Mirror
Virtualization.
Redundancy.
Problems sorted.
Next!
I will start my website here in the UK and I will request that information from US users.
Wake up people, those "legislators" are selling you snake oil.
Any responsible parent can't leave a child on his own and perfectly entitled to use as many tools as his disposal as possible in order to ensure the child does not get in harm's way.
..... that sprouts this inane nonsense every time issues related to parenthood are discussed?
Paents do not own their children, their children have rights that their parents can't infringe.
To pretend that children should be subject to the same rights and obligations as fully grown adults is unrealistic, irresponsible and frankly fully idiotic.
I will not go to any more lengths to explain why this is so, but posts like this should not go unasnwered, specially when some derided moderators dish the insightful or interesting points so cheaply.
That is what is going to riack the party of both MS and Apple.
And those are the aspects FOSS adovactes should be promoting when engaging to the uneducated masses.
Life is like that, in many ocassions the only thing left is to joke about tragedy.
Do not go into markeeting.
Ever.
People with a modicum of technology awareness make ask you if it is a Windows or Apple PC. Here we know it can be anything really.
Their character, as provided originally to you, has no added value to the game's ecology.
The work and effort one puts in a game adds value to the game itself, and thus makes money to the company that owns the game.
... is not innovation.
It is called lock in.
... that implies that the Norwegian Ombusdman is an idiot, has been debunked elsewhere on this thread.
Summarizing, they went after Apple only to set an example for all the other companies to take heed and act responsibly.
In synthesis, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that all music players should be able to play music bought in any store. If companies don't sit dow and sort out the mess, they will find themselves more and more in the crosshairs of regulators and consumer rights' advocates.
.... with the topic at hand that you should be modded off topic.
I do Sir. Was a nice, stylish, little toy.
You can still use common sense in many situations without requiring a lawyer and can ask other people what their experiences have been in similar situation.
The love for lawyers in the US is reaching epidemic proportions.
Oh? You wanted the complete offer in writing? I'm sorry. You must accept and sign that offer in one week or it will be retracted. We're sorry. We can't make any changes to the language of the offer. That's dictated by the legal department. Would you like to be homeless instead? That's the only offer you're getting.
Maybe you've never been screwed. Maybe you've always been handed a prime piece of pie. The fact is this: companies love to play hardball to screw employees especially when it comes to NDAs, pre-employment agreements, and relocation packages. Homeless? For the enormous majority of people those are not the options. And although I have never been in such desperate situation I would think that nobody would be hired directly from being homeless (a homeless person would have to sort himself out first febore applying for a job, with the help of the government or charities that can provide support).
As far as I am concerned, I would not accept a job in a company that would not put things in writing for me to check at home for a couple of days.
Even in one were in a dire situation that should not mean that you should accept anything that is put in front of you blindly.
I ask to take any offer home to check it during the weekend.
I watch Mexican DVDs (same region as the US) in my UK bought laptop.
I am using Linux of course, but as far as I know, in computers the lock down is controlled by software, not hardware.
But I stand to happily be corrected, just don't tell my laptop...
Unless you think it is wise to make bussiness with companies that break the law as needed.
The BBC is accountable to the license fee paying public.
Which in the UK is pretty much everybody and his dog.
UK geeks will be watching very carefully that such a high profile program is fair, and if it isn't the BBC will have to brace itself for all the complaints, that if are many, do have repercussions.
You can happily download with your Web browser only.
.... to play iTunes music, unless it is an iPod.
Save us all the burning-ripping nonsense.
"You are being succesful, curb your monopolistic instincts"
All this jumping through loops should not be a consumer concern.
Since the companies are not organizing a competitive market that allows consumers to get what they are paying for, then govrnments have to intervine in order to tell the companies what is acceptable behaviour in a competitive and fair market.
In Mexico panaderias (bakeries) used to sell milk with a catch, you could buy milk only if you bought bread.
This was declared illegal (tied sales are illegal in most countries I have lived in).
What Apple is doing is controlling which portable device you can use by means of tying iPods to iTunes. The "option" of burning a CD and then ripping it is a non option, any person with a modicum of computing literacy knows this.
Lets say that is like if the panaderias allowed the shop downstairs (who are renting space and thus can be arm forced) to sell you milk only if it was deficient in some way.
Or European Economic Area, which is several countries outside the EU and the EU, who agree to be bound by economic policies.