It's so the prosecutors can add an additional charge when they arrest the drug dealer, that's all. Remember, Al Capone was not put away for killing people or shooting up businesses. He was put away, in Alcatraz, for tax evasion...
I live just outside of Detroit and both my wife and I and have relatives in Canada, so we are fairly up on Canadian politics.
While you have multiple parties, when was the last time a PM was not from either the Liberal or Conservative parties? I know Pierre Trudeau, a Liberal, became PM in 1968, but my Canadian political history is a little fuzzy before that...
I would say, as things now stand, Apple doesn't have to as this is not a problem of their invention. I personally believe that Apple has the right to point the finger at Real and tell customers to go there for support.
My personal feeling is that these are some of the last gasps coming out of Real before someone, perhaps Apple, buys them and salavages what little useful technology and talent is actually at that company.
No, I don't think that would work. You are describing exactly the situation I foresee: Apple denied Real, so Real goes ahead and does it anyway? Since when is that a legit business practice? Sure, we can point to numerous instances where similar things have happened - Coleco creating compatibility with the Atari 2600 for the ColecoVision, Compaq creating the first "IBM compatible" clone - but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing for business or, which is the main crux of my argument, for the customer's support.
I would not want to be Apple or Real if this situation ever comes to pass because something will break - and where does the fault lay?
Arguably, since Real isn't licensing FairPlay, I would point the finger at them.
Let's play hypothetical: Apple comes out with iPod mini 2.0 with a 6 GB drive and loads of new touches and features in the firmware. Joe Windows-User has bought more than few albums on Real's store and is interested in upgrading from his old Rio player. He knows his songs from Real are "compatible" with the iPod, so he goes and buys himself a mini 2.0. He goes home, hooks up the iPod and goes to install his songs - and they don't work.
Where does he go for support? Apple never worked with Real to make those songs work, thus Apple won't care. Will Real just sit and point the finger at Apple for "disabling" the iPod, even though Apple may not have purposefully done anything to disable Real's music? Will they change Harmony to work with the new iPod and then allow their users to download new copies of the songs with the new Harmony code in them to make sure they work?
It strikes me that Real has to count on their buyers never upgrading their iPods, or using them with anything other than Real's jukebox app, for this to work with no issues.
As a support professional, I would be telling my boss to stop this before things get too messy. I'm not pro-DRM, and I don't agree with Apple's "hacker" statement or invocation of the DMCA, but I can see some practical issues here that always arise from making a machine do something the vendor didn't intend and I wouldn't want to take the phone calls on the support lines once the fit hits the shan...
The KJV? Puritan New England? You do realize that, by holding John Adams up as an example, you are placing the man who signed the Sedition Act into law on a pedestal, yes? By all means, admire Adams for the revolutionary he was, but don't try to hold him us as Everyman for the 18th or 19th centruy. He was an elitist who couldn't see past his own nose. In his world, illiterate men were scare. John Adams's world, as those who studied the man know, was an extremely small and narrow-minded place.
As for Cooper: I just finished re-reading Cooper for the third time. Natty Bumpo is a character I know well. I also know Harry Potter well. Cooper and Rowling are fairly equivalent in terms of writing skills and, frankly, I know of more than a few kids who have read both Cooper and Rowling and understood both of them. So, no, your argument is baseless.
You have an extremely small mind, sir. I suggest leaving whatever ivory tower you're living in and getting yourself a real education. The world's a wonderful place when you actually experience it.
How fast one can learn? I would say it's the capacity for learning, not the speed at which one does learn. I've met slow learners who more than catch up with their peers by time they reach adulthood. Considering I spent four summers (after eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh grades) in summer school I would argue that I wasn't an extremely fast learner (though it could also be argued that I wasn't be engaged correctly by the teachers), even though I did catch up, and in some cases surpass, my peers from high school.
However, I think you and I agree almost completely here. I definitely don't know how to farm, but if I had been born to my family a century before I would have been raised a farmer. I don't think my grandparents, who will not use a computer, are unintelligent or lazy or lack the ability to learn, they're just of a different time. But my usage of a computer, and their lack of usage, doesn't mean one or the other is more intelligent, which is a point many people around here, and even in this thread, seem to overlook...
Stop posting as AC. There's a reason why the second word is "coward." Stand behind your beliefs if you truly believe them...
Back on-topic:
No, English teachers do not spout this off. I know that fron six years of working in an English department and taking classes. The "academe" believes itself to better than the typical person because of the elitist view that Joe Sixpack cannot possibly understand Jane Austen or James Joyce because, after all, he is merely a common, blue-collar worker. I've taken black studies and women's studies classes and, I will tell you, it is the patronizing bleeding-heart professor who takes it upon themselves to pity the "downtrodden."
I believe those people are full of shit. They want to live their comfortable lives and ignore what they could do to help those "unfortunate souls" that they preach about in class. You need to see the forest for the trees, son.
No, people are not generally stupid (which is something most faculty do think). Again, ignorance does not equate to stupidity. For that matter, neither does laziness. The people you're broadbrushing may indeed be ignorant and/or lazy... but that doesn't mean they're unintelligent. Look up the meaning of the word if I'm confusing you...
People don't hate reading. Harry Potter, romance novels and Tom Clancy books prove that, but they have been trained to believe it is hard work and isn't enjoyable. Any English teacher who cannot explain the social mores and standards of Shakespeare's times can completely screw up the enjoyment of those plays for a lifetime (which is a shame because there is some fun stuff in there). Any parent who censors the books a child's inquisitive nature leads them to does even more damage.
And people like you and the OP of this thread do the most damage of all by blaming non-readers for topic at hand.
Yes, there are those who are handicapped and cannot be taught but, be honest with yourself: had circumstances been different, but genetics the same, and you were born and raised in sub-Sahara Africa, do you really think you would be less intelligent than you are now? Perhaps your intelligence would be used in a different fashion, and you may have even been illiterate, but do you really think you would be stupid?
Hmmmm... how about looking at a real study about US literacy rates? In fact, you might want to look at some actual stats on the illiteracy rate in this country.
To quote the parent of your comment: "These days, literacy rates are massively higher."
Normally, I would be prefacing this comment with something like: "I'm not an English graduate, nor do I play one on TV, but..."
However, I am an English graduate (BA and MA, actually) and you, sir, have found yourself in my crosshairs.
You can't assume that the average adult has a lower level of intelligence. That "obvious" fact of yours is merely an opinion unless you have stats to back up such a statement. Is the average adult ignorant of many things? Certainly. However, one cannot equate ignorance for lack of intelligence. Are you telling me that the coding geeks on/. are less intelligent than you because they choose to watch movies as opposed to reading the books said movies may be based on? Would they be correct in saying that, since I cannot code, I would be less intelligent than they are, even though I do read?
A case in point: My best friend (we've know each other for almost 30 years at this point) never read for leisure when we were growing up. I used to joke that he started Stephen King's The Stand in his freshman year of high school and might finish it by time he retires. He hasn't finished his BA (he's 32) and he's not a white-collar "professional." He runs a carpetry company, plays amateur hockey, enjoys going to sports bars with his main circle of friends and is looking to buy a big pickup truck. Your statements lead me to believe that this is the type of "dumber" person you are pointing your finger at. However, because of the LOTR movies he has read LOTR, The Hobbit and Unfinished Tales.
Why is that?
It's not lack of intelligence that cause people not to read. It's lack of engagement on the part of the publishers and on the part of the readers & fans of "difficult" books to expose the general public to them. In particular, it's people like you.
If we all went around with elitist attitudes like yours, of course the "average" person would be turned off. If reading "difficult" books made people into someone like you, why would they want to do that?
You know, Woody Guthrie died in 1967. Before you start assuming you know if he "sold out" or not, you might want to do a little research. The Internet is a wonderful thing. You should check it out sometime.
The United States has not declared war since World War II. Korea and Vietnam were "UN Police Actions," Kosovo was a NATO operation, and "The Gulf War" was a UN operation. That's why we have a nebulous "War on Terrorism" (Congress can't go and declare war on a noun, can it?) that the administration used as the cover to go in and topple Saddam.
In the end, the invasion of Iraq was directed by the President of the United States with no formal declaration of war. The "Coalition of the Willing" was more like the "Coalition of the Brown-nosers," and holds absolutely no status in the world as an authority. There was no backing by NATO or the UN. Thus, Michael Moore made a good point when he called it an illegimate war.
Iraq was a turning point. It now comes down to a simple case of "If we don't like you, we will get you" instead of working to avoid things like this...
So... ummm.... basically you're saying we agree and that your post isn't really adding anything to the discussion of why Google claims 1000 MB is the mail quota for Gmail, yet Rose was able to go to 102% of his quota for 1023 MB.
What I'm referring to is the popular perception that 1 GB = 1000 MB. The average consumer knows nothing about the extra 24 MB every GB should have. Thus, for Google to state that their 1 GB quota is 1000 MB, they are playing into the public's popular perception of what a GB is. That was the point I was making.
But no one, except for those of us who know better, call a GB a GB any longer. My Maxtor 200 GB drive is actually 189.77 GB. As much as I love my iPod, my 40 GB iPod is actually a 37.21 GB iPod.
The hard drive manufacturers and the computer manufacturers have been doing this for years, and the average consumer has not noticed. Google is just going with the flow by saying 1 GB = 1000 MB.
Well, you're pretty much correct: Spyware is not a virus. A virus may contain spyware, but that's different than saying spyware and viruses are the same thing. I run a help desk that cleans this stuff off users' computers all day long - different traits. Don't go mixing the two up.
Secondly, why are you installing RC2 of the service pack on 40-50 machines? Is that really wise to do when you aren't dealing with the final release? I can understand testing on a few boxes, but 40-50?
No, I'm pretty sure it was 1977. The site says that the main SW site doesn't say when the re-release was. An, by the time of fall 1977, Lucas knew there would be a sequel.
Slashdot Mirror
They have paid their SCO license, right? You know, for any of SCO's rpg text that may have fallen in there somewhere... :)
It's so the prosecutors can add an additional charge when they arrest the drug dealer, that's all. Remember, Al Capone was not put away for killing people or shooting up businesses. He was put away, in Alcatraz, for tax evasion...
I live just outside of Detroit and both my wife and I and have relatives in Canada, so we are fairly up on Canadian politics.
While you have multiple parties, when was the last time a PM was not from either the Liberal or Conservative parties? I know Pierre Trudeau, a Liberal, became PM in 1968, but my Canadian political history is a little fuzzy before that...
So you're voting for Kerry?
My personal feeling is that these are some of the last gasps coming out of Real before someone, perhaps Apple, buys them and salavages what little useful technology and talent is actually at that company.
No, I don't think that would work. You are describing exactly the situation I foresee: Apple denied Real, so Real goes ahead and does it anyway? Since when is that a legit business practice? Sure, we can point to numerous instances where similar things have happened - Coleco creating compatibility with the Atari 2600 for the ColecoVision, Compaq creating the first "IBM compatible" clone - but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing for business or, which is the main crux of my argument, for the customer's support.
Arguably, since Real isn't licensing FairPlay, I would point the finger at them.
Let's play hypothetical: Apple comes out with iPod mini 2.0 with a 6 GB drive and loads of new touches and features in the firmware. Joe Windows-User has bought more than few albums on Real's store and is interested in upgrading from his old Rio player. He knows his songs from Real are "compatible" with the iPod, so he goes and buys himself a mini 2.0. He goes home, hooks up the iPod and goes to install his songs - and they don't work.
Where does he go for support? Apple never worked with Real to make those songs work, thus Apple won't care. Will Real just sit and point the finger at Apple for "disabling" the iPod, even though Apple may not have purposefully done anything to disable Real's music? Will they change Harmony to work with the new iPod and then allow their users to download new copies of the songs with the new Harmony code in them to make sure they work?
It strikes me that Real has to count on their buyers never upgrading their iPods, or using them with anything other than Real's jukebox app, for this to work with no issues.
As a support professional, I would be telling my boss to stop this before things get too messy. I'm not pro-DRM, and I don't agree with Apple's "hacker" statement or invocation of the DMCA, but I can see some practical issues here that always arise from making a machine do something the vendor didn't intend and I wouldn't want to take the phone calls on the support lines once the fit hits the shan...
As for Cooper: I just finished re-reading Cooper for the third time. Natty Bumpo is a character I know well. I also know Harry Potter well. Cooper and Rowling are fairly equivalent in terms of writing skills and, frankly, I know of more than a few kids who have read both Cooper and Rowling and understood both of them. So, no, your argument is baseless.
You have an extremely small mind, sir. I suggest leaving whatever ivory tower you're living in and getting yourself a real education. The world's a wonderful place when you actually experience it.
However, I think you and I agree almost completely here. I definitely don't know how to farm, but if I had been born to my family a century before I would have been raised a farmer. I don't think my grandparents, who will not use a computer, are unintelligent or lazy or lack the ability to learn, they're just of a different time. But my usage of a computer, and their lack of usage, doesn't mean one or the other is more intelligent, which is a point many people around here, and even in this thread, seem to overlook...
There is a reason I didn't go after a doctorate. :p
Back on-topic:
No, English teachers do not spout this off. I know that fron six years of working in an English department and taking classes. The "academe" believes itself to better than the typical person because of the elitist view that Joe Sixpack cannot possibly understand Jane Austen or James Joyce because, after all, he is merely a common, blue-collar worker. I've taken black studies and women's studies classes and, I will tell you, it is the patronizing bleeding-heart professor who takes it upon themselves to pity the "downtrodden."
I believe those people are full of shit. They want to live their comfortable lives and ignore what they could do to help those "unfortunate souls" that they preach about in class. You need to see the forest for the trees, son.
No, people are not generally stupid (which is something most faculty do think). Again, ignorance does not equate to stupidity. For that matter, neither does laziness. The people you're broadbrushing may indeed be ignorant and/or lazy... but that doesn't mean they're unintelligent. Look up the meaning of the word if I'm confusing you...
People don't hate reading. Harry Potter, romance novels and Tom Clancy books prove that, but they have been trained to believe it is hard work and isn't enjoyable. Any English teacher who cannot explain the social mores and standards of Shakespeare's times can completely screw up the enjoyment of those plays for a lifetime (which is a shame because there is some fun stuff in there). Any parent who censors the books a child's inquisitive nature leads them to does even more damage.
And people like you and the OP of this thread do the most damage of all by blaming non-readers for topic at hand.
Yes, there are those who are handicapped and cannot be taught but, be honest with yourself: had circumstances been different, but genetics the same, and you were born and raised in sub-Sahara Africa, do you really think you would be less intelligent than you are now? Perhaps your intelligence would be used in a different fashion, and you may have even been illiterate, but do you really think you would be stupid?
Yup... I caught that myself after I posted. Mistakes do happen. ;)
To quote the parent of your comment: "These days, literacy rates are massively higher."
However, I am an English graduate (BA and MA, actually) and you, sir, have found yourself in my crosshairs.
You can't assume that the average adult has a lower level of intelligence. That "obvious" fact of yours is merely an opinion unless you have stats to back up such a statement. Is the average adult ignorant of many things? Certainly. However, one cannot equate ignorance for lack of intelligence. Are you telling me that the coding geeks on /. are less intelligent than you because they choose to watch movies as opposed to reading the books said movies may be based on? Would they be correct in saying that, since I cannot code, I would be less intelligent than they are, even though I do read?
A case in point: My best friend (we've know each other for almost 30 years at this point) never read for leisure when we were growing up. I used to joke that he started Stephen King's The Stand in his freshman year of high school and might finish it by time he retires. He hasn't finished his BA (he's 32) and he's not a white-collar "professional." He runs a carpetry company, plays amateur hockey, enjoys going to sports bars with his main circle of friends and is looking to buy a big pickup truck. Your statements lead me to believe that this is the type of "dumber" person you are pointing your finger at. However, because of the LOTR movies he has read LOTR, The Hobbit and Unfinished Tales.
Why is that?
It's not lack of intelligence that cause people not to read. It's lack of engagement on the part of the publishers and on the part of the readers & fans of "difficult" books to expose the general public to them. In particular, it's people like you.
If we all went around with elitist attitudes like yours, of course the "average" person would be turned off. If reading "difficult" books made people into someone like you, why would they want to do that?
Nintendo said, at E3, that only GBA games will work. Any of the trade magazine sites can be looked at for that tidbit of info...
That's what I call staying power.
If you truly have "artistic interests" I would think that you would kno who the hell Woody Guthrie was, what he stood for and what his music means.
Considering that you are posting as AC, I have to assume, however, that you are nothing more than a very large bag of wind...
You know, Woody Guthrie died in 1967. Before you start assuming you know if he "sold out" or not, you might want to do a little research. The Internet is a wonderful thing. You should check it out sometime.
In the end, the invasion of Iraq was directed by the President of the United States with no formal declaration of war. The "Coalition of the Willing" was more like the "Coalition of the Brown-nosers," and holds absolutely no status in the world as an authority. There was no backing by NATO or the UN. Thus, Michael Moore made a good point when he called it an illegimate war.
Iraq was a turning point. It now comes down to a simple case of "If we don't like you, we will get you" instead of working to avoid things like this...
No, you're right. Marvin's brain was, literally, the size of a planet and stored elsewhere (not his head).
What I'm referring to is the popular perception that 1 GB = 1000 MB. The average consumer knows nothing about the extra 24 MB every GB should have. Thus, for Google to state that their 1 GB quota is 1000 MB, they are playing into the public's popular perception of what a GB is. That was the point I was making.
The hard drive manufacturers and the computer manufacturers have been doing this for years, and the average consumer has not noticed. Google is just going with the flow by saying 1 GB = 1000 MB.
Secondly, why are you installing RC2 of the service pack on 40-50 machines? Is that really wise to do when you aren't dealing with the final release? I can understand testing on a few boxes, but 40-50?
No, I'm pretty sure it was 1977. The site says that the main SW site doesn't say when the re-release was. An, by the time of fall 1977, Lucas knew there would be a sequel.
I hope you grow some balls and learn how to post under a real handle.