No, I'm arguing with a straight face that the word "pod" is from both a textbook definition and a marketing perspective, a perfect label for "slip-on covers designed to protect electronic products"
Further, the "TightPod" was clearly chosen to play of iPod, unless you ca argue with a straight face that the word "Pod" was just coincidentally included on a protective cover for "portable music players".)
Yeah, because things in the natural world are never enclosed in a protective pod.
So if such a band was indeed formed, and there were three members, the kid in question, another student of VanderHolen's with no KNOWN issues with him, and a student who was never in VanderHolen's class, what happens when the group is brought to the attention of the school.
Mind you the kid in the article was deemed NOT A THREAT by a psychologist.
I can only image what would happen if "My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult" was actually a high-school band in this day and age.
Overreaction on all sides is way too common these days, everyone's lost their bloody minds.
I will agree that the act was disrespectful. Its also disrespectful in my opinion to extend the rules of the school BEYOND the school's grounds. This is something that the police did not see as meriting any action and a psychologist concluded that the kid in question was not any threat. There was no direct threat made to the teacher in question. I image that most people would probably question the kid's parents skill at parenting.
This whole thing is stupid, the kid drew an icon. Next he'll form a band called "Bring me the head of {school principle's name}", he's got a whole semester to while away the time.
A kid with a sharpened pencil is a greater threat.
Ever notice that actual, prosecutable crimes with real world effects (theft, physical assault) are often kept within a school's disciplinary system and often handed minor punishments and BS like this makes everyone go ape-shit?
No, the rules are/were too strict. Let's say I were to attempt hit a teacher, that teacher could NOT lay a single finger on me without risking firing and/or a lawsuit.
THAT is stupid and promotes the sheer unadulterated cowardice that seems to be everywhere. People aren't allowed to, and seeming aren't able to, take care of matters.
In my fathers day there was corporal punishment in schools, and there was alot more respect for teachers.
If anyone EVER strikes at you in any venue in an attempt to cause you harm, you should be legally allowed to (reasonably, no killing them for a slap in the face, no decking a 10 year old for kicking you) counter that without consequence, no matter who they are.
And since you didn't bother to ask, my sister is a teacher at a high school where a student was given, wait for it, a one week suspension for kicking a teacher who just had given them detension. So I'm not talking about 50 years ago I'm afraid.
Um, when I was in school I would have gotten a max of one weeks suspension for actually striking a teacher, how is a whole semester for this even remotely ok?
Firstly, you are an idiot. You may be paying an ISP, but that is only to access the internet.
Wow, defeated your own argument by the end of the second sentence.
Companies like LJ have bandwidth bills that are easily larger than your yearly salary. You don't just put a website on a server and 'magically' connect it to the internet. Companies charge you to use their backbone. And they don't charge cheap.
And this is the end users financial responsibility how exactly? I've already paid for my network access, and to boot my ISP threw in some web hosting as well, for cheap no less. Not my fault if their business plan sucks.
So yes, ad blocking is stealing.
So arrest me or sent me a fucking bill. And buy a dictionary.
Or then again, you are just a cheap fucking bastard who is having problems with denial.
Exactly how does this sort of thing get modded informative?
Bandwidth costs money, money comes from users or ads.
Or idiot VC's who give millions to people with essentially ZERO business plan.
If you don't pay, you get the ads, if you don't get the ads, you're basically stealing their bandwidth.
Bullshit. I've paid my ISP for my access. It isn't your bandwidth, and I can't steal what you're handing out for free anyway. Am I stealing "your bandwidth" if I use Lynx? Mentality like this drives me nuts. I loathe ads, they get blocked. I'll never understand how anyone would expect to earn money by using something that myself and most people I know routinely ignore or block. In any format.
So given your argument, if the RIAA adds language to its license on a CD that you can only use the song data in conjunction with the physical CD, are you legally or morally in the right if you put the CD content on your iPod?
If the network had been destroyed by lightning or some other act of god that would be true. However, this was a deliberate, premeditated attack by another human being- and it would never have happened if he hadn't made the decision to do it. Therefore, it is entirely his fault, not the hospital's.
If the hospital has critical ICU equipment accessable from the public internet, they should be shut down. How would that fall under the new HIPPA regs?
So, by your argument US law would have no bearing on foriegn companies doing business here? Hell it barely has a hold on US comapnaies operating domestically.
If China had a law saying that Google had to turn over anyone searching for info about the Tiananmen Square massacre, and that those people would be shot... Do you honestly think that Google has an obligation to do that!?
No they have no obligation, but then China has no obligation to let Google operate in their country if they don't comply. That just the game.
You are absolutely mad! An unjust rule is not one that should be followed, especially if the rule is in a country different than the company making the choice!
For the definition of unjust rule please see nearly every important legal or political decision in the US in the past 6 years. And if you want to flaunt the law of a country in which you are operating, be my guest. But do not be surprised when then deny you the right to operate there. AND I'm certain that you'll be doing all of that unjust-law-flaunting from the safety of your office here in the US, where there is no chance of you getting punished. Until of course you are sold out by a treaty from your loving government.
There is NO EXCUSE for the behaviour of these companies.
There is NO EXCUSE for MOST of the behavior of MOST companies or governments. Fixed that for you.
Fun word. It's just a bloody recording! Have fun stumbling onto new stuff you like with that format.
Maybe I want to listen to the local college radio station or a real alternative station that isn't clearchannel owned and maybe hear some new local music, eh?
The point shouldn't be to discouage future behavior, that should be a secondary effect of MAKING THINGS RIGHT to the people effected. $7.50 isnt making it right. And it might add up to more than lawyer fees, but it should be a realistic reimbursement to each person, say cost of a system reload, since the point should be to make things right to the people who sustained damages.
What you say is true, but the point is the average person who had to pay to get thier system rebuilt should be adequately copensated since it was Sony BMG's fault.
My system is pretty complex. If I had to pay to get it redone, it might run $300-400. The courts telling me that Sony only owes me $7.50 and a crappy album is going to make me start looking for a gun (figuratively).
Its ABSURD and the main reason I hate class-actions, it short changes the individual claimant.
Every single person in the suit should have just filed a small claims case for cleanup costs and a little more for time and trouble. It would really hurt song BMG more than this stupid settlement.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm arguing with a straight face that the word "pod" is from both a textbook definition and a marketing perspective, a perfect label for "slip-on covers designed to protect electronic products"
Further, the "TightPod" was clearly chosen to play of iPod, unless you ca argue with a straight face that the word "Pod" was just coincidentally included on a protective cover for "portable music players".)
Yeah, because things in the natural world are never enclosed in a protective pod.
Its a creative endeavor?
So if such a band was indeed formed, and there were three members, the kid in question, another student of VanderHolen's with no KNOWN issues with him, and a student who was never in VanderHolen's class, what happens when the group is brought to the attention of the school.
Mind you the kid in the article was deemed NOT A THREAT by a psychologist.
I can only image what would happen if "My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult" was actually a high-school band in this day and age.
Overreaction on all sides is way too common these days, everyone's lost their bloody minds.
The rules are too strict for the wrong entities.
I will agree that the act was disrespectful. Its also disrespectful in my opinion to extend the rules of the school BEYOND the school's grounds. This is something that the police did not see as meriting any action and a psychologist concluded that the kid in question was not any threat. There was no direct threat made to the teacher in question. I image that most people would probably question the kid's parents skill at parenting.
This whole thing is stupid, the kid drew an icon. Next he'll form a band called "Bring me the head of {school principle's name}", he's got a whole semester to while away the time.
A kid with a sharpened pencil is a greater threat.
Ever notice that actual, prosecutable crimes with real world effects (theft, physical assault) are often kept within a school's disciplinary system and often handed minor punishments and BS like this makes everyone go ape-shit?
No, the rules are/were too strict. Let's say I were to attempt hit a teacher, that teacher could NOT lay a single finger on me without risking firing and/or a lawsuit.
THAT is stupid and promotes the sheer unadulterated cowardice that seems to be everywhere. People aren't allowed to, and seeming aren't able to, take care of matters.
In my fathers day there was corporal punishment in schools, and there was alot more respect for teachers.
If anyone EVER strikes at you in any venue in an attempt to cause you harm, you should be legally allowed to (reasonably, no killing them for a slap in the face, no decking a 10 year old for kicking you) counter that without consequence, no matter who they are.
And since you didn't bother to ask, my sister is a teacher at a high school where a student was given, wait for it, a one week suspension for kicking a teacher who just had given them detension. So I'm not talking about 50 years ago I'm afraid.
Good thing it wasn't Florida, VanderMolen could have shot the kid.
Um, when I was in school I would have gotten a max of one weeks suspension for actually striking a teacher, how is a whole semester for this even remotely ok?
This kid should start a band called "Kill Mr. VanderMolen" and use the icon for t-shirt and cd cover art.
And ADULT HUMAN BEINGS need to quit being pansy-assed cowards.
The year I turned over Defender. Hoo-ah.
So what's to stop the game developers from forming another "independant" ratings board and simply using THEM instead?
Parents barely read the box anyway.
...on the move.
So does it come with porters to lug the thing around?
Heh, their choice, but either way I'm not looking at their ads.
Firstly, you are an idiot. You may be paying an ISP, but that is only to access the internet.
Wow, defeated your own argument by the end of the second sentence.
Companies like LJ have bandwidth bills that are easily larger than your yearly salary. You don't just put a website on a server and 'magically' connect it to the internet. Companies charge you to use their backbone. And they don't charge cheap.
And this is the end users financial responsibility how exactly? I've already paid for my network access, and to boot my ISP threw in some web hosting as well, for cheap no less. Not my fault if their business plan sucks.
So yes, ad blocking is stealing.
So arrest me or sent me a fucking bill. And buy a dictionary.
Or then again, you are just a cheap fucking bastard who is having problems with denial.
Exactly how does this sort of thing get modded informative?
Bandwidth costs money, money comes from users or ads.
Or idiot VC's who give millions to people with essentially ZERO business plan.
If you don't pay, you get the ads, if you don't get the ads, you're basically stealing their bandwidth.
Bullshit. I've paid my ISP for my access. It isn't your bandwidth, and I can't steal what you're handing out for free anyway. Am I stealing "your bandwidth" if I use Lynx? Mentality like this drives me nuts. I loathe ads, they get blocked. I'll never understand how anyone would expect to earn money by using something that myself and most people I know routinely ignore or block. In any format.
How would you unroll it?
So given your argument, if the RIAA adds language to its license on a CD that you can only use the song data in conjunction with the physical CD, are you legally or morally in the right if you put the CD content on your iPod?
If the network had been destroyed by lightning or some other act of god that would be true. However, this was a deliberate, premeditated attack by another human being- and it would never have happened if he hadn't made the decision to do it. Therefore, it is entirely his fault, not the hospital's.
If the hospital has critical ICU equipment accessable from the public internet, they should be shut down. How would that fall under the new HIPPA regs?
The only thing that's bullshit here is your post.
So, by your argument US law would have no bearing on foriegn companies doing business here? Hell it barely has a hold on US comapnaies operating domestically.
If China had a law saying that Google had to turn over anyone searching for info about the Tiananmen Square massacre, and that those people would be shot... Do you honestly think that Google has an obligation to do that!?
No they have no obligation, but then China has no obligation to let Google operate in their country if they don't comply. That just the game.
You are absolutely mad! An unjust rule is not one that should be followed, especially if the rule is in a country different than the company making the choice!
For the definition of unjust rule please see nearly every important legal or political decision in the US in the past 6 years. And if you want to flaunt the law of a country in which you are operating, be my guest. But do not be surprised when then deny you the right to operate there. AND I'm certain that you'll be doing all of that unjust-law-flaunting from the safety of your office here in the US, where there is no chance of you getting punished. Until of course you are sold out by a treaty from your loving government.
There is NO EXCUSE for the behaviour of these companies.
There is NO EXCUSE for MOST of the behavior of MOST companies or governments. Fixed that for you.
Well, he does work for Geek Squad....
And when its lost/destroyed? What then?
Podcasts...woop-dee-doo.
Fun word. It's just a bloody recording! Have fun stumbling onto new stuff you like with that format.
Maybe I want to listen to the local college radio station or a real alternative station that isn't clearchannel owned and maybe hear some new local music, eh?
The point shouldn't be to discouage future behavior, that should be a secondary effect of MAKING THINGS RIGHT to the people effected. $7.50 isnt making it right. And it might add up to more than lawyer fees, but it should be a realistic reimbursement to each person, say cost of a system reload, since the point should be to make things right to the people who sustained damages.
What you say is true, but the point is the average person who had to pay to get thier system rebuilt should be adequately copensated since it was Sony BMG's fault.
My system is pretty complex. If I had to pay to get it redone, it might run $300-400. The courts telling me that Sony only owes me $7.50 and a crappy album is going to make me start looking for a gun (figuratively).
Its ABSURD and the main reason I hate class-actions, it short changes the individual claimant.
Every single person in the suit should have just filed a small claims case for cleanup costs and a little more for time and trouble. It would really hurt song BMG more than this stupid settlement.
is a tiny competitor of Microsoft in the Internet browser market
Isn't Opera the biggest name in browsers for mobile devices?
If that is indeed the case, they can say goodbye to their common-carrier status.