I had thought that Starter was only going to be for undeveloped markets, but after that post I did a quick google and found this.
I'm going to research this a little more when I have time, but either the "Starter Edition" is actually going to be used in developed countries as an upsell opportunity, or there's a hell of a lot of confusion about this. Right now though, I'm thinking maybe the idea of using it for upsells seems plausible though....
Take a look in the app store for the eReader. I've been using it for years on other platforms (PPC), and recently I got it on the iPod touch. Easy to use with ereader.com and fictionwise.com, but you can add your own files from other sources (like the Baen free library or text files you convert yourself) easily enough as long as they're in the right format (.pdb). YMMV, but I'm a huge fan.
"Buy a Ford-- because if you buy a Toyota it will probably explode and kill your children."
Sure, because Toyota doesn't make a model of Camry that actually is intended to explode. MS is apparantly intentionally making a version of Windows that only runs 3 apps.
There are limits to dishonesty about your competitor's product.
How would it be dishonest? If MS makes a version of Windows that has this restriction, why would their competition be barred from talking about it if they want. Now if MS *didn't* make a version like this and Apple claimed they did, that would be dishonest.
How is it Microsoft's Fault for confusing their customers about a product:
1) They can't buy. 2) They won't ever see. 3) They wouldn't want. 4) Microsoft doesn't want to sell them?
Because they make and sell it. If Coke made "Coke Cyanide", but only marketed it in Central America, would Pepsi be wrong for mentioning it in their North American ad campaign? If MS is somehow embarrassed by one of their products, the answer is to discontinue the product, not to whine that it's no fair when someone mocks them for it.
That's like saying the Macbook Nano with the giant touch wheel is confusing Apple customers even though Apple doesn't actually market or sell it.
This is about a product that does (or will) actually exist, not about something that someone with free time and a copy of PhotoShop imagined. If MS never makes the product, then the whole thing is moot.
Actually, the iPod/iPhone makes a very nice ebook reader. I've been using ereader software on my PocketPCs for years now, and recently picked up an iPod touch. The iPod version of the software is great, and unlike the Kindle (AFAIK), the display is back-lit which I like for reading in bed or outside after dark.
As for the screen size, yes, I only really use it for novels. Technical manuals or anything with a lot of diagrams would be pretty awful on that size screen.
I'd say it's Microsoft's own fault if this were to happen. They don't *have* to have 10 different flavours of Windows, they *want* to have them. If a competitor takes advantage of the confusion generated by this, it's up to Microsoft to properly educate their target customers, or to simplify the selections to be less confusing.
License to carry, hell, Jersey will take your prints for a "Firearms Purchasers" card, used to buy long-guns. I think they take your spleen if you want a carry-permit for a handgun.
So, couldn't you have saved yourself some bother and said "Don't tell that to the extreme anti-gun nuts" then? Being a liberal doesn't equate to being anti-gun, and neither does being a Democrat (as you pointed out yourself above).
Just crying "Liberal!" sets you against a whole wide group of people, many of whom don't necessarily disagree with you (at least on this subject).
Lol, when people cold call me I tell them to go fuck themselves. If it is a woman I tell her she is a malodorous cunt and should die giving birth to the Antichrist and if it is a man I tell him I hope his prostrate is filled with writhing-gnawing worms and the next time he voids it in his wife's mouth they consume all the flesh from her skull.
Funny, I just say I'm not interested and hang up. If I'm feeling really frisky, I find out what company they're with and file a complaint for violating the do-not-call list.
Do you really get a lot of joy out of playing telephone tough-guy with some poor slob making minimum wage in a call-center? His/her job sucks regardless of how you behave, why go out of your way to make it worse for them?
Don't you think the forgery would come to light when the bank started a foreclosure on you for not paying your mortgage? It's not like they'd just say, "Huh, coulda sworn this guy owed us money, must've been mistaken," and walk away...
In fairness to the show's creators, it's not their fault that they're not allowed to show nudity on television but they're allowed to show gore. It'd be pointless for them to film episodes that won't be aired. I don't know them personally, but I'd be willing to bet that, given the choice, they would do nudity as well as gore. Personally I think you're absolutely right overall, it's fairly absurd that they can show brutal violence on TV but not nudity.
Whats even more disturbing is getting your entire world view from wikipedia.
in a response to *my* post. Go to your post, click on "parent" and you will get my post. This implies that you were telling *me* that I get my entire worldview from wikipedia, which I do not.
Next, you're correct, I did say "I find it interesting that rather than try to distance themselves from the groups on the SLPC's list, these folks just scream liberal-conspiracy and claim that the list targets innocent conservative groups. I've got news for you, the conservative movement really doesn't need these kinds of "conservatives"". This was in a direct response to this:
The Southern Poverty Law Center always has to pump up some new boogie man to justify its existence. If none is available at the moment, they look for the nearest Christian group and label it racist, bigoted or a hate group.
These liberal lawyers owe many of the people on its list of hate groups an apology because all that their organizations have done is resist the imposition of anti-Christian regulations and statutes on free people.
This quote was taken from the link in the post I was replying to, *not* wikipedia.
Perhaps if your claiming that is directly from "The Traditional Values Coalition" website, you could provide a link of something to the page with it on it.
No, I said it was a direct response to a quote taken from the other poster's link. If you were actually reading this thread, you'd have had no problem following that link.
As I said before, Your comment shows the lack of accurate information just as much as the parent.
My comment was my commentary on the page that the parent referenced on "The Traditional Values Coalition" website. Are you suggesting that "The Traditional Values Coalition" is not qualified to put forth it's own opinions?
You see, first of all, in order to distance themselves from the other hate groups, they would have to have a closer relationship with them before hand.
The "relationship" is that they have been grouped together by the SLPC. The article on their own website complains about liberals dumping them together, but mainly complains that the SLPC "owe many of the people on its list of hate groups an apology because all that their organizations have done is resist the imposition of anti-Christian regulations and statutes on free people", rather than saying something like, "Please don't lump us in with clansmen, we're not the same".
That doesn't seem to be the case but you worded your reply to indicate that there was a problem with them making remarks about a group the were currently close to by proximity of an attack on their character instead of saying we need to get further away from these groups that we aren't close to in the first place
I didn't say that they were actively working with any of the other groups. In the context of the thread, which again, you don't seem to have read very carefully, they have been grouped together and in their own response they did nothing to refute the notion that they're not a hate group, nor do they say anything to imply that they disapprove of the other groups that they're listed with.
Of course anyone who knows anything about both groups know that is a incorrect statement.
What on earth are you talking about? Reading "The Traditional Values Coalition" website does nothing to make me think that the SLPC assessment is incorrect. The SLPC however does have a great deal of experience in identifying and tracking various hate-groups.
Yep, I'm reading the thread and as I noted, your response relied solely on the Wikipedia entry listed otherwise you would have known that they distanced themselves from those groups. You in essence based your entire reply off of wikipedia and fell into the comment I was making about your parent.
Okay, at this point I don't think you even read the post you responded to, let alone the thread. What part of "The comment you quoted above is a direct response to a page from the "The Traditional Values Coalition" website, not Wikipedia" do you not understand? I never claimed to have read every page on their site, nor do I have any intention of doing so. I was replying to the link that was provided. Wikipedia had nothing to do with it.
Yep, so how does it feel to be corrected by a dumass?
Since it hasn't happened yet, I wouldn't know. The only thing that I've learned is that arguing with a self-proclaimed dumbass is a pointless endeavor.
Are you actually reading this thread? The comment you quoted above is a direct response to a page from the "The Traditional Values Coalition" website, not Wikipedia. The only Wikipedia reference that I used was to an article that contains cites that the SLPC categorizes them as a hate group. This is not open to discussion, the SLPC absolutely does categorize "The Traditional Values Coalition" as a hate group.
About the only thing that makes sense about your post is your name.
Okay, they do in a different page. If they were concerned about it, they probably should have included it in the article that was posted here earlier, but in reading a few of their articles I now understand consistency is not really their concern, other than a consistent theme of attacking everyone who's not so far to the right that they're about to fall off the map. Believe it or not, I'm not planning on reading every article that appears on that site. Most of what I've read is a combination of paranoia and flat out stupidity, and I'm not going to waste any more time on them than is necessary to get an idea of who they are. Follow your religion all you want, but those of us who don't belong to it don't appreciate you attempting to codify your unsubstantiated beliefs into our legal and political systems, and that's clearly a major goal of the Traditional Values Coalition.
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have detailed knowledge of a great many topics, we must often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.
I did not assert that the SLPC is infallible. The SLPC specializes in identifying and tracking hate groups, it is perfectly reasonable to use them as a reference in this instance. You're attempting to use "appeal to authority" in such a broad manner that the only arguments and evidence that can be used are those you have first hand knowledge of, and it's impossible to have an expert level of first hand knowledge on every topic.
This is not the position of the TVC, but the answer is because all government is of violence and theft and is hence anti-Christian. But you don't have to be Christian to realize that.
That's as stupid a comment as saying that all government is loving and benevolent. Firstly, without any government, you have anarchy. Adolescent "Red Dawn" style fantasies aside, chances are you, like most people, would be considerably worse off without it. Secondly, Christians are not an oppressed minority. Their religious views carry too much weight in law and government, not too little. Keep your religion to yourself, practice it as you wish, and nobody will care what you want to believe. But again and again the Christian right attempts to force it's teachings on those of us who consider it just another superstition, and then cry oppression when we call them on it. Keep your religion out of my life, thanks.
Yes, that's exactly what I did. I know nothing about the Southern Poverty Law Center. Couldn't possibly have heard about them anywhere else, and I definitely didn't pick the Wikipedia link because it's a short summary, which seems to be pretty accurate in this case, for the benefit of anyone who just wants a quick overview.
By the way, the groups I listed came from SLPC's website, not Wikipedia, and the quotation that I used came from plnix0's link. So, actually, there's no mention of or reference to Wikipedia in the post you're replying to.
I dunno, still sounds an awful lot like "We're right and you're wrong" to me.
The one thing Mormons (missionaries or your friends) as a whole really want is for the world to listen to what we have to teach, then take that up with God. Personally, I have faith that the things I'm taught are true, so its really up to me whether I'll act on that knowledge.
Of course, everyone wants to be heard. Just keep in mind though that very few people other than other Mormons care what you have to say. Your "truth" is their "delusion". Just as you aren't likely to be swayed by Hindus, or Wiccans or Satanists, nobody else is likely to be swayed by you. And for that very reason, the non-religious don't want your religion in law that affects the rest of us.
A lot of times, people think Mormons (especially our missionaries) are out saying, "We're right; every one else is wrong." That's not really the case. I firmly believe all religious truth comes from one source.
Re-reading this, I think I misunderstood what you meant. Are you saying that, in a way, all religions are right, and that this overall "religious truth" is divinely inspired by the same source, but carried by different belief systems? If so, what is the purpose of multiple religions, and why choose one over another if they're all inspired by the same base "truth"? At that point, why Mormon over Unitarian for instance? How do you account for irreconcilable contradictions between various religions? It seems to me that to choose a particular religion implies that you believe that one to be true, and the others to be flawed at best, or just flat out false.
You know, most people grow out of saying "I know you are but what am I?" as a rebuttal by the time they can type....
Fine though. This is from your link:
The Southern Poverty Law Center always has to pump up some new boogie man to justify its existence. If none is available at the moment, they look for the nearest Christian group and label it racist, bigoted or a hate group.
These liberal lawyers owe many of the people on its list of hate groups an apology because all that their organizations have done is resist the imposition of anti-Christian regulations and statutes on free people.
So let's take a look at a few of the poor innocent folks that the SPLC is so wrongly vilifying. Sample of groups listed on the SPLC site: Westboro Baptist Church (of godhatesfags.com fame, among others) Aryan Nations Youth Action Corps National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Northern Hammerskins (racist skinhead crew)
I find it interesting that rather than try to distance themselves from the groups on the SLPC's list, these folks just scream liberal-conspiracy and claim that the list targets innocent conservative groups. I've got news for you, the conservative movement really doesn't need these kinds of "conservatives".
By the way, why does anyone have to "resist the imposition of anti-Christian regulations and statutes on free people."? If you want to live your life and base your decisions on Christian values, go ahead. That's not what this means though, does it. It means that people who want to force their religion on others get mad when they're told to stop. Freedom to practice your religion does not include the right to make others live by the tenets you follow. It only allows you to follow those tenets yourself.
Homosexual Groups Back Off From "10 Percent" Myth A coalition of leading pro-homosexual activist groups has now admitted in a legal brief that only "2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual."[1] http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=69577 [rr-bb.com]
Wait, did you just seriously, and with a straight face use a link to "Rapture Ready" to support an argument? RR is NOT a trusted source of information for anyone other than those who are expecting that they are going to vanish from the earth to sit with Jesus while the rest of us fight a massive war, apparently for the entertainment of god and his new raptured buddies.
Slashdot Mirror
....what I found on the refrigerator door on my vacation down there last week.
Great, Mary Snowcrashed.....happy now?
I had thought that Starter was only going to be for undeveloped markets, but after that post I did a quick google and found this.
I'm going to research this a little more when I have time, but either the "Starter Edition" is actually going to be used in developed countries as an upsell opportunity, or there's a hell of a lot of confusion about this. Right now though, I'm thinking maybe the idea of using it for upsells seems plausible though....
Take a look in the app store for the eReader. I've been using it for years on other platforms (PPC), and recently I got it on the iPod touch. Easy to use with ereader.com and fictionwise.com, but you can add your own files from other sources (like the Baen free library or text files you convert yourself) easily enough as long as they're in the right format (.pdb).
YMMV, but I'm a huge fan.
Sure, because Toyota doesn't make a model of Camry that actually is intended to explode. MS is apparantly intentionally making a version of Windows that only runs 3 apps.
How would it be dishonest? If MS makes a version of Windows that has this restriction, why would their competition be barred from talking about it if they want. Now if MS *didn't* make a version like this and Apple claimed they did, that would be dishonest.
Because they make and sell it. If Coke made "Coke Cyanide", but only marketed it in Central America, would Pepsi be wrong for mentioning it in their North American ad campaign? If MS is somehow embarrassed by one of their products, the answer is to discontinue the product, not to whine that it's no fair when someone mocks them for it.
This is about a product that does (or will) actually exist, not about something that someone with free time and a copy of PhotoShop imagined. If MS never makes the product, then the whole thing is moot.
Actually, the iPod/iPhone makes a very nice ebook reader. I've been using ereader software on my PocketPCs for years now, and recently picked up an iPod touch. The iPod version of the software is great, and unlike the Kindle (AFAIK), the display is back-lit which I like for reading in bed or outside after dark.
As for the screen size, yes, I only really use it for novels. Technical manuals or anything with a lot of diagrams would be pretty awful on that size screen.
I'd say it's Microsoft's own fault if this were to happen. They don't *have* to have 10 different flavours of Windows, they *want* to have them. If a competitor takes advantage of the confusion generated by this, it's up to Microsoft to properly educate their target customers, or to simplify the selections to be less confusing.
License to carry, hell, Jersey will take your prints for a "Firearms Purchasers" card, used to buy long-guns. I think they take your spleen if you want a carry-permit for a handgun.
So, couldn't you have saved yourself some bother and said "Don't tell that to the extreme anti-gun nuts" then? Being a liberal doesn't equate to being anti-gun, and neither does being a Democrat (as you pointed out yourself above).
Just crying "Liberal!" sets you against a whole wide group of people, many of whom don't necessarily disagree with you (at least on this subject).
Funny, I just say I'm not interested and hang up. If I'm feeling really frisky, I find out what company they're with and file a complaint for violating the do-not-call list.
Do you really get a lot of joy out of playing telephone tough-guy with some poor slob making minimum wage in a call-center? His/her job sucks regardless of how you behave, why go out of your way to make it worse for them?
Don't you think the forgery would come to light when the bank started a foreclosure on you for not paying your mortgage?
It's not like they'd just say, "Huh, coulda sworn this guy owed us money, must've been mistaken," and walk away...
He modded you down in a thread he posted in? Gandalf is indeed a great and powerful wizard!
I admittedly have a terrible memory, but when did they do homosexuality or reproductive rights?
In fairness to the show's creators, it's not their fault that they're not allowed to show nudity on television but they're allowed to show gore. It'd be pointless for them to film episodes that won't be aired.
I don't know them personally, but I'd be willing to bet that, given the choice, they would do nudity as well as gore.
Personally I think you're absolutely right overall, it's fairly absurd that they can show brutal violence on TV but not nudity.
Oh for crying out loud.
You said:
in a response to *my* post. Go to your post, click on "parent" and you will get my post. This implies that you were telling *me* that I get my entire worldview from wikipedia, which I do not.
Next, you're correct, I did say "I find it interesting that rather than try to distance themselves from the groups on the SLPC's list, these folks just scream liberal-conspiracy and claim that the list targets innocent conservative groups. I've got news for you, the conservative movement really doesn't need these kinds of "conservatives"". This was in a direct response to this:
This quote was taken from the link in the post I was replying to, *not* wikipedia.
No, I said it was a direct response to a quote taken from the other poster's link. If you were actually reading this thread, you'd have had no problem following that link.
My comment was my commentary on the page that the parent referenced on "The Traditional Values Coalition" website. Are you suggesting that "The Traditional Values Coalition" is not qualified to put forth it's own opinions?
The "relationship" is that they have been grouped together by the SLPC. The article on their own website complains about liberals dumping them together, but mainly complains that the SLPC "owe many of the people on its list of hate groups an apology because all that their organizations have done is resist the imposition of anti-Christian regulations and statutes on free people", rather than saying something like, "Please don't lump us in with clansmen, we're not the same".
I didn't say that they were actively working with any of the other groups. In the context of the thread, which again, you don't seem to have read very carefully, they have been grouped together and in their own response they did nothing to refute the notion that they're not a hate group, nor do they say anything to imply that they disapprove of the other groups that they're listed with.
What on earth are you talking about? Reading "The Traditional Values Coalition" website does nothing to make me think that the SLPC assessment is incorrect. The SLPC however does have a great deal of experience in identifying and tracking various hate-groups.
Okay, at this point I don't think you even read the post you responded to, let alone the thread. What part of "The comment you quoted above is a direct response to a page from the "The Traditional Values Coalition" website, not Wikipedia" do you not understand? I never claimed to have read every page on their site, nor do I have any intention of doing so. I was replying to the link that was provided. Wikipedia had nothing to do with it.
Since it hasn't happened yet, I wouldn't know. The only thing that I've learned is that arguing with a self-proclaimed dumbass is a pointless endeavor.
Are you actually reading this thread? The comment you quoted above is a direct response to a page from the "The Traditional Values Coalition" website, not Wikipedia.
The only Wikipedia reference that I used was to an article that contains cites that the SLPC categorizes them as a hate group. This is not open to discussion, the SLPC absolutely does categorize "The Traditional Values Coalition" as a hate group.
About the only thing that makes sense about your post is your name.
You said:
You for some reason decided to pronounce that I get my "entire world view" from wikipedia. This was both unwarranted and unfounded.
What?
Yes, I pulled information from his links, why wouldn't I?
Okay, they do in a different page. If they were concerned about it, they probably should have included it in the article that was posted here earlier, but in reading a few of their articles I now understand consistency is not really their concern, other than a consistent theme of attacking everyone who's not so far to the right that they're about to fall off the map. Believe it or not, I'm not planning on reading every article that appears on that site. Most of what I've read is a combination of paranoia and flat out stupidity, and I'm not going to waste any more time on them than is necessary to get an idea of who they are.
Follow your religion all you want, but those of us who don't belong to it don't appreciate you attempting to codify your unsubstantiated beliefs into our legal and political systems, and that's clearly a major goal of the Traditional Values Coalition.
From your own link:
I did not assert that the SLPC is infallible. The SLPC specializes in identifying and tracking hate groups, it is perfectly reasonable to use them as a reference in this instance. You're attempting to use "appeal to authority" in such a broad manner that the only arguments and evidence that can be used are those you have first hand knowledge of, and it's impossible to have an expert level of first hand knowledge on every topic.
That's as stupid a comment as saying that all government is loving and benevolent. Firstly, without any government, you have anarchy. Adolescent "Red Dawn" style fantasies aside, chances are you, like most people, would be considerably worse off without it. Secondly, Christians are not an oppressed minority. Their religious views carry too much weight in law and government, not too little. Keep your religion to yourself, practice it as you wish, and nobody will care what you want to believe. But again and again the Christian right attempts to force it's teachings on those of us who consider it just another superstition, and then cry oppression when we call them on it. Keep your religion out of my life, thanks.
Yes, that's exactly what I did. I know nothing about the Southern Poverty Law Center. Couldn't possibly have heard about them anywhere else, and I definitely didn't pick the Wikipedia link because it's a short summary, which seems to be pretty accurate in this case, for the benefit of anyone who just wants a quick overview.
By the way, the groups I listed came from SLPC's website, not Wikipedia, and the quotation that I used came from plnix0's link. So, actually, there's no mention of or reference to Wikipedia in the post you're replying to.
I dunno, still sounds an awful lot like "We're right and you're wrong" to me.
Of course, everyone wants to be heard. Just keep in mind though that very few people other than other Mormons care what you have to say. Your "truth" is their "delusion". Just as you aren't likely to be swayed by Hindus, or Wiccans or Satanists, nobody else is likely to be swayed by you. And for that very reason, the non-religious don't want your religion in law that affects the rest of us.
Okay, replying to myself....
Re-reading this, I think I misunderstood what you meant. Are you saying that, in a way, all religions are right, and that this overall "religious truth" is divinely inspired by the same source, but carried by different belief systems? If so, what is the purpose of multiple religions, and why choose one over another if they're all inspired by the same base "truth"? At that point, why Mormon over Unitarian for instance? How do you account for irreconcilable contradictions between various religions? It seems to me that to choose a particular religion implies that you believe that one to be true, and the others to be flawed at best, or just flat out false.
You know, most people grow out of saying "I know you are but what am I?" as a rebuttal by the time they can type....
Fine though. This is from your link:
So let's take a look at a few of the poor innocent folks that the SPLC is so wrongly vilifying.
Sample of groups listed on the SPLC site:
Westboro Baptist Church (of godhatesfags.com fame, among others)
Aryan Nations Youth Action Corps
National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
Northern Hammerskins (racist skinhead crew)
I find it interesting that rather than try to distance themselves from the groups on the SLPC's list, these folks just scream liberal-conspiracy and claim that the list targets innocent conservative groups. I've got news for you, the conservative movement really doesn't need these kinds of "conservatives".
By the way, why does anyone have to "resist the imposition of anti-Christian regulations and statutes on free people."? If you want to live your life and base your decisions on Christian values, go ahead. That's not what this means though, does it. It means that people who want to force their religion on others get mad when they're told to stop. Freedom to practice your religion does not include the right to make others live by the tenets you follow. It only allows you to follow those tenets yourself.
Wait, did you just seriously, and with a straight face use a link to "Rapture Ready" to support an argument? RR is NOT a trusted source of information for anyone other than those who are expecting that they are going to vanish from the earth to sit with Jesus while the rest of us fight a massive war, apparently for the entertainment of god and his new raptured buddies.
Oh, but it gets better. That page seems to just draw from a page at traditionalvalues.org, entitled Homosexual Urban Legends, The Series. Now, this charming piece of work is by "The Traditional Values Coalition", which is catagorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.
Might as well post links to Stormfront.org for "the real truth about blacks and jews".